OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 06:24:56 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What is so heretical about "ecumenism"?  (Read 6758 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 09, 2010, 12:58:54 AM »

It was always the unit of organization of the bishop that had the fullness. Back in that time it was the parish, so the parish had the fullness. Now that it is the diocese, it is the diocese that has the fullness. It is simply whatever the basic episcopal unit is, as is supported by his statement that it is "wherever the bishop is". Not "wherever the priest is", but "wherever the bishop is".

Well, yes and no.  By virtue of the ordination & assignment of the priest, the permission to serve (on the antimitsion), and the commemoration of the hierarch in services, wherever the presbyter is, there is the bishop.  In the Communion of the Holy Gifts, all levels (the parish, diocese, eparchy, autocephaly, and world) are complete.

But the priest cannot convey Holy Orders and that faculty is clearly necessary to the fullness of the Church.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,532


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #46 on: June 09, 2010, 02:11:24 AM »

It was always the unit of organization of the bishop that had the fullness. Back in that time it was the parish, so the parish had the fullness. Now that it is the diocese, it is the diocese that has the fullness. It is simply whatever the basic episcopal unit is, as is supported by his statement that it is "wherever the bishop is". Not "wherever the priest is", but "wherever the bishop is".

Well, yes and no.  By virtue of the ordination & assignment of the priest, the permission to serve (on the antimitsion), and the commemoration of the hierarch in services, wherever the presbyter is, there is the bishop.  In the Communion of the Holy Gifts, all levels (the parish, diocese, eparchy, autocephaly, and world) are complete.

But the priest cannot convey Holy Orders and that faculty is clearly necessary to the fullness of the Church.
But would you not say that the function of Holy Orders is to support the celebration of the Eucharist?
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #47 on: June 09, 2010, 01:33:59 PM »

What about ecumenical relations with the Oriental Orthodox? Is that just as bad/heretical or it is actually beneficial?
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,818



« Reply #48 on: June 09, 2010, 01:45:37 PM »

^The Oriental Churches are so much more aligned with us than the Catholics.  The breaks with us in history (Ephesus and Chalcedon) were due more to difficulties with language than with theological problems (I mean how many people can really understand those loaded Greek terms who aren't native Greek speakers?).  But with the Catholics, the difficulties is not borne out of language (though that was a problem too) but because of the many heresies they took up after being repeatedly warned that such practices were innovative and were outside what the church has always believed and maintained.  Thus, I believe that dialogue with the Oriental Churches would yield a much more constructive outcome.




Use of a term deemed derogatory by many Catholics removed from post and replaced with more acceptable alternative  -PtA
« Last Edit: June 09, 2010, 04:04:21 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,524



« Reply #49 on: June 09, 2010, 02:29:39 PM »

^The Oriental Churches are so much more aligned with us than the Catholics.  The breaks with us in history (Ephesus and Chalcedon) were due more to difficulties with language than with theological problems (I mean how many people can really understand those loaded Greek terms who aren't native Greek speakers?).  But with the Catholics, the difficulties is not borne out of language (though that was a problem too) but because of the many heresies they took up after being repeatedly warned that such practices were innovative and were outside what the church has always believed and maintained.  Thus, I believe that dialogue with the Oriental Churches would yield a much more constructive outcome.




Use of a term deemed derogatory by many Catholics removed from post and replaced with more acceptable alternative  -PtA

Agreed but only if folks become less doctrinal on both sides, agree to a common credal formula and lift the anethemas that are in the books (we have had Councils that complemented or expounded on previous ones). Both sides will have to swallow some pride and come up with a compromise that affects the future, while changing the past as little as possible.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2010, 04:07:50 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,818



« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2010, 03:08:38 PM »

^The Oriental Churches are so much more aligned with us than the Papists.  The breaks with us in history (Ephesus and Chalcedon) were due more to difficulties with language than with theological problems (I mean how many people can really understand those loaded Greek terms who aren't native Greek speakers?).  But with the papists, the difficulties is not borne out of language (though that was a problem too) but because of the many heresies they took up after being repeatedly warned that such practices were innovative and were outside what the church has always believed and maintained.  Thus, I believe that dialogue with the Oriental Churches would yield a much more constructive outcome.

Agreed but only if folks become less doctrinal on both sides, agree to a common credal formula and lift the anethemas that are in the books (we have had Councils that complemented or expounded on previous ones). Both sides will have to swallow some pride and come up with a compromise that affects the future, while changing the past as little as possible.

What does it mean to become "less doctrinal"?  Also, the Nicene Creed is fine and compromise is often used as a cloak and dagger term for "dilute the faith."  Your suggested means to unity are not unity at all.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2010, 03:34:24 PM »



There were also some other typically Latin depictions around the place, but all in all I was very impressed and happy to see this Roman Catholic hospital having such Orthodox images present. On the positive side, it seems like a step toward Truth and toward Orthodoxy. One thing at a time. Also, many of their revised positions on some issues better reflect the Orthodox truth.


We consider them Catholic images. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2010, 03:55:38 PM »

What about ecumenical relations with the Oriental Orthodox? Is that just as bad/heretical or it is actually beneficial?

The claim that "both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition" (from the Second Agreed Statement) is just as bad as anything in the Balamand Agreement.

As for the bogus claim that the anti-Chalcedonians rejected Chalcedon on the basis on some semantic misunderstanding, well, I'll let the OO's who post here answer that one.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,818



« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2010, 03:57:40 PM »



As for the bogus claim that the anti-Chalcedonians rejected Chalcedon on the basis on some semantic misunderstanding, well, I'll let the OO's who post here answer that one.

That's not a bogus claim.  It is one I've often read from OO hierarchs.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2010, 04:38:28 PM »

Ecumenism is not heresy, regardless of what some Orthodox jurisdictions try to proclaim.  It is part of the great outpouring and working of the Holy Spirit in our time ("For where sin abounds, grace abounds much more"...). 

There are those who may try and oppose this great work of God to heal the divisions among separated Christians, but they will fail miserably at their aims of keeping Christ little flock separate. 
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,524



« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2010, 04:52:13 PM »

^The Oriental Churches are so much more aligned with us than the Papists.  The breaks with us in history (Ephesus and Chalcedon) were due more to difficulties with language than with theological problems (I mean how many people can really understand those loaded Greek terms who aren't native Greek speakers?).  But with the papists, the difficulties is not borne out of language (though that was a problem too) but because of the many heresies they took up after being repeatedly warned that such practices were innovative and were outside what the church has always believed and maintained.  Thus, I believe that dialogue with the Oriental Churches would yield a much more constructive outcome.

Agreed but only if folks become less doctrinal on both sides, agree to a common credal formula and lift the anethemas that are in the books (we have had Councils that complemented or expounded on previous ones). Both sides will have to swallow some pride and come up with a compromise that affects the future, while changing the past as little as possible.

What does it mean to become "less doctrinal"?  Also, the Nicene Creed is fine and compromise is often used as a cloak and dagger term for "dilute the faith."  Your suggested means to unity are not unity at all.

Oops! We cannot be less doctrinal; I should have used "doctrinaire."

I meant less rigid, less insistence on having been right in the past. I also think that the Creed as we have it now is fine. If a third iteration is put together, but is essentially the same, both sides can claim victory, with neither side having had to renounce their previous positions (except some of the anathemas, of course). This is a diplomatic solution that saves faces all around without having to change anything.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2010, 06:50:41 PM »

[
Yes. For example, Metropolitan John Zizioulas, in this article, gives a speech to the Pope where he says: "As Your Holiness has aptly put it some years ago, East and West are the two lungs by which the Church breaths; their unity is essential to the healthy life of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."


Nobody has addressed this point made by the Metropolitan of Pergamon.

Howe many of the Orthodox Churches see themselves as unhealthy or defective (as the Pope has termed us officially) because they are not in union with the Catholic Church?  Do we know of Orthodox Churches which see the two-lung theory as an viable expression of our ecclesiology?  Any references to Orthodox scholars would be welcomed.  Has the Metropolitan indicated in what way the unhealthiness from lack of union with Rome is manifested in his Church and in other Orthodox Churches?

Personally, I think we (and perhaps especially the clergy) should be at pains to counter this attitude of the Metropolitan and prevent it taking root among our faithful.  The Orthodox Church lacks nothing by not being in union with Rome.   The Orthodox Church is NOT in any way unhealthy because Rome departed in the 11th century nor because of earlier departures in earlier centuries.  

The question of this thread is "What is so heretical about "ecumenism"?  Well, one answer is the heretical belief that the Church is "unhealthy" because various church bodies have left it over doctrinal disputes.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2010, 07:12:27 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #57 on: June 09, 2010, 07:12:35 PM »

^Well said FR.

I for one do not see "Union" between the RCC and the Orthodox Church as being necessary, imminent, or even possible at this point in time. The Orthodox Church is whole and complete and not lacking in any way. I don't see evidence that any of our theological differences have been overcome. I think that the phrase "union" is also unnecessarily ambiguous. We are not looking for union between two similar and equal units but rather the joining of the RC, which has fallen away along time ago, to the True Church of Christ.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2010, 07:18:06 PM by ICXCNIKA » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #58 on: June 09, 2010, 08:40:57 PM »

It was always the unit of organization of the bishop that had the fullness. Back in that time it was the parish, so the parish had the fullness. Now that it is the diocese, it is the diocese that has the fullness. It is simply whatever the basic episcopal unit is, as is supported by his statement that it is "wherever the bishop is". Not "wherever the priest is", but "wherever the bishop is".

Well, yes and no.  By virtue of the ordination & assignment of the priest, the permission to serve (on the antimitsion), and the commemoration of the hierarch in services, wherever the presbyter is, there is the bishop.  In the Communion of the Holy Gifts, all levels (the parish, diocese, eparchy, autocephaly, and world) are complete.

But the priest cannot convey Holy Orders and that faculty is clearly necessary to the fullness of the Church.
But would you not say that the function of Holy Orders is to support the celebration of the Eucharist?

Not exclusively.
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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #59 on: June 09, 2010, 08:43:23 PM »

What about ecumenical relations with the Oriental Orthodox?

I was just thinking about that and was going to bring it up yesterday, but I forgot to.

This thread so far has almost exclusively focused on ecumenical relations with the Romanists and somewhat with the Protestants, but not at all between EO and OO. However, I think this is a mistake, because I think that those relations are likewise being carried out in a less than ideal fashion that is compromising too much.

Is that just as bad/heretical or it is actually beneficial?

It's both. It's beneficial that we have both realized that the faith that both groups are currently espousing is essentially orthodox. However, unfortunately the Joint Commission has gone too far beyond that core realization.
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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #60 on: June 09, 2010, 08:43:54 PM »

*personally removed a hasty challenge to a moderatorial decision that doesn't belong in the public discussion*
« Last Edit: June 09, 2010, 08:44:35 PM by deusveritasest » 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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #61 on: June 09, 2010, 08:46:21 PM »

The claim that "both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition" (from the Second Agreed Statement) is just as bad as anything in the Balamand Agreement.

Not quite. But certainly close.

As for the bogus claim that the anti-Chalcedonians rejected Chalcedon on the basis on some semantic misunderstanding, well, I'll let the OO's who post here answer that one.

Yeah, it's bogus.
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
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,098



« Reply #62 on: June 09, 2010, 08:58:37 PM »

^Well said FR.

I for one do not see "Union" between the RCC and the Orthodox Church as being necessary, imminent, or even possible at this point in time. The Orthodox Church is whole and complete and not lacking in any way. I don't see evidence that any of our theological differences have been overcome. I think that the phrase "union" is also unnecessarily ambiguous. We are not looking for union between two similar and equal units but rather the joining of the RC, which has fallen away along time ago, to the True Church of Christ.

Agreed.  I also can see no use for continued dialogue with the Roman church.  They know what we believe already, and reject it.  If we (and the Holy Spirit) have not succeeded in getting them to see the light in 1000 years, I doubt that it will happen.  At an individual level, I believe that contact should continue.  But at an official level, Rome has apostatized and should be left alone until she repents.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 09, 2010, 09:01:22 PM »

Nobody has addressed this point made by the Metropolitan of Pergamon.

I think a few people have already commented on it.

Howe many of the Orthodox Churches see themselves as unhealthy or defective (as the Pope has termed us officially) because they are not in union with the Catholic Church?

I don't know about the official positions of particular churches. However, I could say a few things as to my own view in response. First of all, the (Oriental) Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church. The Roman ecclesia is not the Catholic Church. No, I don't think the Catholic Church is unhealthy or defective because of not being in union with Rome. Rather only Rome is unhealthy and defective because of not being in union with the Catholic Church.

Do we know of Orthodox Churches which see the two-lung theory as an viable expression of our ecclesiology?

I believe that Iconodule made the claim that Patriarch Bartholomew has used "two lungs" language.

Personally, I think we (and perhaps especially the clergy) should be at pains to counter this attitude of the Metropolitan and prevent it taking root among our faithful.

Agreed.

The Orthodox Church lacks nothing by not being in union with Rome.   The Orthodox Church is NOT in any way unhealthy because Rome departed in the 11th century nor because of earlier departures in earlier centuries.

I basically agree with the sentiment here, but would rather apply it to the Oriental Orthodox Church and the 5th century.
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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #64 on: June 09, 2010, 09:04:06 PM »

I think that the phrase "union" is also unnecessarily ambiguous. We are not looking for union between two similar and equal units but rather the joining of the RC, which has fallen away along time ago, to the True Church of Christ.

I think if Rome were to convert it could still be understood as essentially a form of union. However, you are right about the ambiguity, and the possible danger of it resulting in the conceiving of two churches coming together to become one, rather than one which is not the Church being grafted into the other which is the Church.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #65 on: June 09, 2010, 10:41:21 PM »

Nobody has addressed this point made by the Metropolitan of Pergamon.

I think a few people have already commented on it.


Perhaps the messages have slipped by me but I have not seen any message agreeing with Metropolitan Zizioulas that their Church is unhealthy because it is not in union with Rome.

If people have written in and agreed with the Metropolitan I think we would like to know what form this unhealthiness takes in their Church.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,954


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #66 on: June 09, 2010, 10:42:39 PM »

^ Would a post from another thread be useful?

I am constantly surprised that "Union" is purported to be imminent or necessary or even possible.

Your surprise lacks imagination.  Union is imminent, in that Christ is imminent; actual theological Union is not.  Union is necessary, but not for us - for them.  Union is possible, if they "come to the knowledge of the Truth" and become Orthodox.

The Orthodox Church is Whole and Complete.

Of course.  You had doubts?

Absolutely none of our theological differences have been overcome in decades of so called dialogue.

I honestly believe that 99% of RC theologians do not actually understand how greatly our Churches differ from ecclesiology all the way to phronema.

I also wonder what is the point of holding these talks on a national level when there are already international Catholic-Orthodox consultations already going on.

Maybe we've got better theologians participating locally, that don't get international recognition or "face time."

No Orthodox Church is going to unilaterally join or enter into communion with another ecclesiastical entity.   

B-I-N-G-O.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #67 on: June 09, 2010, 10:44:57 PM »


^ Would a post from another thread be useful?


Could not say at all without seeing what you have in mind.

I now see that what you have in mind is the message below your question. laugh

Another addendum- having read your post and tying it in with what the Metropolitan has said, it seems that he is seen as speaking erroneously?  Would that be the opinion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate generally?

There are some who are questioning whether Metropolitan Zizioulas speaks reliably when he speaks for Orthodoxy.  See message No. 255

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13577.msg289499/topicseen.html#msg289499
« Last Edit: June 09, 2010, 10:54:46 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #68 on: June 09, 2010, 11:05:23 PM »

Nobody has addressed this point made by the Metropolitan of Pergamon.

I think a few people have already commented on it.


Perhaps the messages have slipped by me but I have not seen any message agreeing with Metropolitan Zizioulas that their Church is unhealthy because it is not in union with Rome.

If people have written in and agreed with the Metropolitan I think we would like to know what form this unhealthiness takes in their Church.

"Addressing" does not necessarily mean "agreeing". It often means "disagreeing". A few have already addressed it in the form of disagreeing with it.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #69 on: June 09, 2010, 11:13:09 PM »

Nobody has addressed this point made by the Metropolitan of Pergamon.

I think a few people have already commented on it.


Perhaps the messages have slipped by me but I have not seen any message agreeing with Metropolitan Zizioulas that their Church is unhealthy because it is not in union with Rome.

If people have written in and agreed with the Metropolitan I think we would like to know what form this unhealthiness takes in their Church.

"Addressing" does not necessarily mean "agreeing". It often means "disagreeing". A few have already addressed it in the form of disagreeing with it.

I may well have missed those posts but I am delighted that you have read people disagreeing with the error in such ecclesiology as contained in the words of the Metropolitan addressed to the Pope  (See message 8.)
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #70 on: June 10, 2010, 09:10:57 AM »

Nobody has addressed this point made by the Metropolitan of Pergamon.

I think a few people have already commented on it.


Perhaps the messages have slipped by me but I have not seen any message agreeing with Metropolitan Zizioulas that their Church is unhealthy because it is not in union with Rome.

If people have written in and agreed with the Metropolitan I think we would like to know what form this unhealthiness takes in their Church.

"Addressing" does not necessarily mean "agreeing". It often means "disagreeing". A few have already addressed it in the form of disagreeing with it.

I may well have missed those posts but I am delighted that you have read people disagreeing with the error in such ecclesiology as contained in the words of the Metropolitan addressed to the Pope  (See message 8.)

I was the one who wrote message 8 and I think I made it abundantly clear that I disagreed with these words. Others, such as GreekChef, also took exception to this concept. See messages 12, 14, etc.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2010, 09:11:36 AM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #71 on: June 10, 2010, 09:25:49 AM »


I was the one who wrote message 8 and I think I made it abundantly clear that I disagreed with these words. Others, such as GreekChef, also took exception to this concept. See messages 12, 14, etc.

Thank you for drawing my attention to messages 12 and 14.  It is heartening to see someone from the OCA and also a  Greek matushka state their disagreement with the ecclesiology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,524



« Reply #72 on: June 10, 2010, 11:02:48 AM »

What is interesting (and dismaying) is the intense discussion regarding who said what, rather than a common Christological understanding. Aside from historians, why should we care about the blame game that is being played? Indeed, let us concentrate on what is important. Is it not true that a joint EO-OO Commission has determined a common ground?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,818



« Reply #73 on: June 10, 2010, 11:09:40 AM »

What is interesting (and dismaying) is the intense discussion regarding who said what, rather than a common Christological understanding. Aside from historians, why should we care about the blame game that is being played? Indeed, let us concentrate on what is important. Is it not true that a joint EO-OO Commission has determined a common ground?

Second Chance,

I don't know why you are so consumed with "putting aside" history as if it doesn't matter as I've seen with many of your posts.  You don't just brush it aside and start tabula rasa.  Without understanding and caring about the history that has caused unfortunate division, there is no way you can arrive at confessional unity. History is more than a date; it embraces the reality.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,524



« Reply #74 on: June 10, 2010, 11:36:55 AM »

What is interesting (and dismaying) is the intense discussion regarding who said what, rather than a common Christological understanding. Aside from historians, why should we care about the blame game that is being played? Indeed, let us concentrate on what is important. Is it not true that a joint EO-OO Commission has determined a common ground?

Second Chance,

I don't know why you are so consumed with "putting aside" history as if it doesn't matter as I've seen with many of your posts.  You don't just brush it aside and start tabula rasa.  Without understanding and caring about the history that has caused unfortunate division, there is no way you can arrive at confessional unity. History is more than a date; it embraces the reality.

I am consumed with lessening the impact of history, not putting it aside. I am more interested at solving problems than in continuing ancient arguments. I am more interested in the substantive issue than its history. Does this makes sense?

Regarding the tabula rasa approach, I am not in favor of it; however, my approach may be too subtle to those warring in the historical realm. To be blunt, the starting point is not a blank slate but the Creed as it exists today. I just do not want to be distracted by who said what centuries ago. Informed by history? Yes. Distracted and obstructed by history? No.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #75 on: June 10, 2010, 05:27:22 PM »

^Well said FR.

I for one do not see "Union" between the RCC and the Orthodox Church as being necessary, imminent, or even possible at this point in time. The Orthodox Church is whole and complete and not lacking in any way. I don't see evidence that any of our theological differences have been overcome. I think that the phrase "union" is also unnecessarily ambiguous. We are not looking for union between two similar and equal units but rather the joining of the RC, which has fallen away along time ago, to the True Church of Christ.

Agreed.  I also can see no use for continued dialogue with the Roman church.  They know what we believe already, and reject it.  If we (and the Holy Spirit) have not succeeded in getting them to see the light in 1000 years, I doubt that it will happen.  At an individual level, I believe that contact should continue.  But at an official level, Rome has apostatized and should be left alone until she repents.

When, the past 1,000 years have the Orthodox ever tried to have the Catholic west "see the light"?  I am aware of no historical attempts in the last millennium to either convert or dialogue with RC's to accept the principles of the EO faith (The present day ecumenical movement not withstanding).  For the most part, EO's have lived in a sate of virtual isolation from the West and, until recently there was very little contact, especially on an ecclesiastical level with Western Europeans. 

Isn't there a verse in the Bible which states "How shall they hear without a preacher"?  Where, in the Catholic west anyway was the preachers of EO views to be found (Until the recent ethnic Diaspora's were created)?  It's somewhat unfair to judge the Catholic and Protestant Christians of rejecting the message of Orthodox when there was, until recent times almost no one to preach it to them.

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,098



« Reply #76 on: June 11, 2010, 12:07:59 AM »


When, the past 1,000 years have the Orthodox ever tried to have the Catholic west "see the light"?  I am aware of no historical attempts in the last millennium to either convert or dialogue with RC's to accept the principles of the EO faith (The present day ecumenical movement not withstanding).  For the most part, EO's have lived in a sate of virtual isolation from the West and, until recently there was very little contact, especially on an ecclesiastical level with Western Europeans. 

Isn't there a verse in the Bible which states "How shall they hear without a preacher"?  Where, in the Catholic west anyway was the preachers of EO views to be found (Until the recent ethnic Diaspora's were created)?  It's somewhat unfair to judge the Catholic and Protestant Christians of rejecting the message of Orthodox when there was, until recent times almost no one to preach it to them.



When in the past 1000 years?  Maybe if the Latins could have stopped burning, raping and killing long enough to look around them during their many invasions of the East, they could have learned plenty.  As as to Protestants, Phillip Melanchthon was reported to have a Greek Priest with him as he wrote some of his works, leading to the correspondence between Tutlingen and Constantinople.  The Patriarch tried to explain the faith to the Lutherans, they just rejected it.  You probably need to increase your awareness a bit.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #77 on: June 11, 2010, 12:48:19 AM »

What is interesting (and dismaying) is the intense discussion regarding who said what, rather than a common Christological understanding. Aside from historians, why should we care about the blame game that is being played? Indeed, let us concentrate on what is important. Is it not true that a joint EO-OO Commission has determined a common ground?

It is important that we come to a common Christology. And we essentially have. However, it is also highly problematic if one party continues to confess a council that was essentially heretical, as that leaves the Church open and liable to revival of its heresy. The confession of Chalcedon must be expunged before union can happen.
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
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #78 on: June 11, 2010, 08:44:12 AM »

Stolen from Holy Canons Related to the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism

On Praying with Heretics

Canon XLV of the Holy Apostles:

"Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he had permitted them to perform any service as Clergymen, let him be deposed."

Canon LXV Of the Holy Apostles:

"If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."

Canon IX of Laodicia (Also approved by the Ecumenical Synods):

"Concerning the fact that those belonging to the Church must not be allowed to go visiting the cemeteries or the so called martyria of any heretics, for the purpose of prayer or of cure, but, on the contrary, those who do so, if they be among the faithful, shall be excluded from communion for a time until they repent and confess their having made a mistake, when they may be readmitted to communion."

Canon XXXIII of Laodicia:

"One must not join in prayer with heretics or schismatics."

The Extraordinary Joint Conference of the Sacred Community on Mount Athos:

April 9/22, 1980 Full Text

3. Theological dialogue must not in any way be linked with prayer in common, or by joint participation in any liturgical or worship services whatsoever; or in other activities which might create the impression that our Orthodox Church accepts, on the one hand, Roman Catholics as part of the fulness of the Church, or, on the other hand, the Pope as the canonical bishop of Rome. Activities such as these mislead both the fulness of the Orthodox people and the Roman Catholics themselves, fostering among them a mistaken notion as to what Orthodoxy thinks of their teaching.

On the Date for Celebrating Pascha

Canon VII of the Holy Apostles:

If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed.

Canon I of Antioch:

As for all persons who dare to violate the definition of the holy and great Synod convened in Nicaea in the presence of Eusebeia, the consort of the most God-beloved Emperor Constantine, concerning the holy festival of the soterial Pascha, we decree that they be excluded from Communion and be outcasts from the Church if they persist more captiously in objecting to the decisions that have been made as most fitting in regard thereto; and let these things be said with reference to laymen. But if any of the person occupying prominent positions in the Church, such as a Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon, after the adoption of this definition, should dare to insist upon having his own way, to the perversion of the laity, and to the disturbance of the church, and upon celebrating Pascha along with the Jews, the holy Synod has hence judged that person to be an alien to the Church, on the ground that he has not only become guilty of sin by himself, but has also been the cause of corruption and perversion among the multitude. Accordingly, it not only deposes such persons from the liturgy, but also those who dare to commune with them after their deposition. Moreover, those who have been deposed are to be deprived of the external honor too of which the holy Canon and God's priesthood have partaken.

See also the Sigillon of 1583 which anathematized the Gregorian and Papal Calendar.

On Separating from Heretical Hierarchs

From St. Basil's first canon:

Schisms is the name applied to those who on account of ecclesiastical causes and remediable questions have developed a quarrel amongst themselves. Parasynagogues is the name applied to gatherings held by insubordinate presbyters or bishops, and those held by uneducated laities. As, for instance, when one has been arraigned for a misdemeanor held aloof from liturgy and refused to submit to the Canons, but laid claim to the presidency and liturgy for himself, and some other persons departed with him, leaving the catholic Church—that is a parasynagogue.

Apostolic Canon XXXI:

"If any Presbyter, condemning his own bishop, draw people aside and set up another altar, without finding anything wrong with the Bishop in point of piety and righteousness, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is an office-seeker. For he is a tyrant. Let the rest of clergymen be treated likewise, and all those who abet him. But let the laymen be excommunicated. Let these things be done after one, and a second, and a third request of the Bishop."

Interpretation (of Ss. Nikodemos and Agapios):

"Order sustains the coherence of both heavenly things and earthly things, according to St. Gregory the Theologian. So good order ought to be kept everywhere as helping coherence and preserving the established system, and especially among ecclesiastics, who need to know their own standards, and to avoid exceeding the limits and bounds of their own class. But as for Presbyters, and Deacons, and all clergymen they ought to submit to their own Bishop; the Bishops, in turn, to their own Metropolitan; the Metropolitans, to their own Patriarch. On this account the present Apostolical Canon ordains as follows: Any presbyter that scorns his own bishop, and without knowing that the latter is manifestly at fault either in point of piety or in point of righteousness—that is to say, without knowing him to be manifestly either heretical or unjust—proceeds to gather the Christians into a distinct group and to build another church, and should hold services seperately, without the permission and approval of his bishop in so doing, on the ground of his being an office-seeker he is to be deposed; since like a tyrant with violence and tyranny he is trying to wrest away the authority which belongs to his bishop. But also any other clergymen that agree with him in such apostasy must be deposed from office too just as he must; but as for those who are laymen, let them be excommunicated. These things, however, are to be done after the bishop three times gently and blandly urges those who have seperated from him to forgo such a movement, and they obstinately refuse to do so. As for those, however, who seperate from their bishop before a synodical investigation because he himself is preaching some misbelief and heresy publicly, not only are not subject to the above penances, but have a right to claim the honor due to Orthodox Christians according to c. XV of the 1st & 2nd.

Canon XV of the 1st & 2nd:

"The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter's name in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgement against him, creates a schism, the holy Synod has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a schism, and disrupt the union of the Church. But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions."

Comments on the First-Second Synod found in the Life of St. Photios the Great by the eminent Serbian scholar and Saint, Hieromonk Justin (Popovich) of Chelije (From Saint Photios, On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, trans. by Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Studion Publishers, 1983):

Maintaining his meekness, his love for order, and the canons of the Church, St. Photios called a second Council to convene in the Church of the Holy Apostles in the spring of 861* with the approval of Emperor Michael. This assembly later came to be known as the First-Second Council. Many bishops, including the representatives of Pope Nicholas, were in attendance. All confirmed the determinations of the holy Seventh Ecumenical Council, once more condemning the iconoclast heresy, and accepted Photios as the lawful and canonical patriarch. At this Council, seventeen holy canons were promulgated with the purpose of bringing disobedient monks and bishops into harmony with ecclesiastical order and tradition. The disobedient monks were expressly forbidden to desert their lawful bishop under the excuse of the bishop's supposed sinfulness, for such brings disorder and schism to the Church. The holy Council added that only by a conciliar decision could the clergy reject a bishop whom they thought to be sinful. This rule was adopted in direct response to those unreasonably strict monks who had separated themselves from their new Patriarch and his bishops. The holy Council, however, did distinguish between unreasonable rebellion and laudable resistance for the defense of the faith, which it encouraged. In regard to this matter it decreed that should a bishop publicly confess some heresy already condemned by the Holy Fathers and previous councils, one who ceases to commemorate such a bishop even before conciliar condemnation not only is not to be censured, but should be praised as condemning a false bishop. In so doing, moreover, he is not dividing the Church, but struggling for the unity of the Faith (Canon Fifteen).

* The footnote reads: "This Council together with that of 869 are considered the First-Second Council, whose canons are accepted by the Orthodox Church."

On Obedience to the Canons

Canon I of the Second Ecumenical Synod:

"Let not the Symbol of Faith be set aside…but let it remain unchanged: and let every heresy be given over to anathema…"

Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Synod:

"Let no one be permitted to bring forward, or write or compose a different faith besides that defined by the holy Fathers who assembled with the Holy Spirit in the city of Nicaea. And whoever dares to compose a different faith, or present, or offer [one] to those wishing to turn to the knowledge of the truth…let such, if they be bishops or belong to the clergy, be alien-bishops from the episcopate, and clerics from the clergy—and if they be laymen, let them be given over to anathema."

Canon I of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod:

"We have acknowledged it as just to keep the canons of the holy Fathers set forth at each synod till now."

Excerpt from Divine Prayers and Services of the Catholic Orthodox Church of Christ, compiled and arranged by the Late Reverend Seraphim Nassar (Englewood, NJ: Antiochian Archdiocese of N. America, 1979), p. 1031.:

Now since the Church is one, and that oneness consists primarily and universally of perfect agreement in Orthodox doctrines, it necessarily follows that all those who do not conform to those Orthodox doctrines, whether by addition or omission, or by any innovation of their own, thus changing the truth, are outside this one Holy Church, as one may also ascertain from a review of the sixth and seventh canons of the Second Ecumenical Council, and the first canon of St. Basil the Great.

Canon I of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, in Trullo:

"…we decree that the faith handed down to us by the eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, the divinely chosen Apostles, and, further, by the three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed Fathers…who assembled in Nicaea, be preserved inviolate from innovations and changes… Likewise, we also maintain the confession of faith proclaimed by the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers, who assembled in this reigning city under the great Theodosius, our emperor…Likewise, we also seal…the teaching set forth by the two hundred Godbearing Fathers, who assembled the first time in the city of Ephesus under Theodosius, our emperor, the son of Arcadius…

"Likewise, we also confirm in Orthodox manner the confession of faith inscribed by the six hundred and thirty divinelychosen Fathers in the provincial city of Chalcedon under Marcian, our emperor… And further, we also recognize as uttered by the Holy Spirit the pious utterances of the one hundred and sixtyfive Godbearing Fathers, who assembled in this reigning city under Justinian, our emperor of blessed memory, and we teach them to our posterity… And we bind ourselves anew to preserve inviolably…the confession of faith of the Sixth Synod that came together recently under our emperor, Constantine of blessed memory, in this reigning city... Speaking briefly, we enact that the faith of all of the men who have been glorified in the Church of God...be kept steadfastly, and that it abide until the end of the age unshaken, together with their divinely handed down writings and dogmas... If anyone at all does not maintain and accept the aforementioned dogmas of piety, and does not think and preach so, but attempts to go against them: let him be anathema, according to the decree previously enacted by the aforementioned holy and blessed Fathers, and let him be excluded and expelled from the Christian estate as an alien."

Canon I of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod:

"For those who have received the priestly dignity, the inscribed canons and enactments serve as testimonies and directions, which we, gladly receiving, sing together with the divinely inspired David unto the Lord, saying: In the way of Thy testimonies have I found delight, as much as in all riches (Psalm 118:14). Likewise, Thou hast ordained as Thy testimonies... righteousness for ever; give me understanding and I shall live (Psalm 118:138, 144). And if the prophetic voice commands us to preserve the testimonies of God forever, and to live in them, then it is manifest that they abide indestructible and unshakeable. For Moses the Godseer also speaks thus: It is not fitting to add to them, nor is it fitting to take away from them (Deuteronomy 12:32). And the divine Apostle Peter, boasting in them, cries: which things the angels desire to look into (I Peter 1:12). Likewise the Apostle Paul also says: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed [literally, let him be anathema] (Galatians 1:8). Inasmuch as this is true, and attested unto us, rejoicing over this, as one that has found great spoil, we receive the divine canons with delight, and we maintain wholly and unshakably the enactment of these canons set forth by the allpraised Apostles, the holy trumpets of the Spirit, and by the six holy Ecumenical Synods, and those assembled locally to issue such commandments, and by our holy Fathers. For they all, being enlightened by one and the same Spirit, ordained what is beneficial. And whomever they give over to anathema, those we also anathematize; and whomever to expulsion, those we also expel, and whomever to excommunication, those we also excommunicate; and whomever they subject to penances, those we likewise subject."

Eighth Proceeding of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod:

Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio [1960], vol. 3, p. 416). Quoted by Dr. Constantine Cavarnos in Orthodox Tradition and Modernism, p. 37.

"If anyone breaks any ecclesiastical tradition, written or unwritten, let him be anathema"

From the Synodicon of the Holy Spirit:

Note: This is subtitled, "A confession and proclamation of the Orthodox piety of the Christians, in which all the impieties of the heretics are overthrown and the definitions of the Catholic Church of Christ are sustained. Through which the enemies of the Holy Spirit are severed from the Church of Christ." This Synodicon (a decision, statement, or tome either originating from a synod possessing conciliar authority) is attributed to Patriarch Germanos the New (1222-1240).

"To those who scorn the venerable and holy ecumenical Synods, and who despise even more their dogmatic and canonical traditions; and to those who say that all things were not perfectly defined and delivered by the synods, but that they left the greater part mysterious, unclear, and untaught, ANATHEMA."

"To those who hold in contempt the sacred and divine canons of our blessed fathers, which, by sustaining the holy Church of God and adorning the whole Christian Church, guide to divine reverence, ANATHEMA."

"To all things innovated and enacted contrary to the Church tradition, teaching, and institution of the holy and ever-memorable fathers, or to anything henceforth so enacted, ANATHEMA."

The Example of St. Maximus the Confessor

From The Life of Our Holy Father St. Maximus the Confessor:

The life of Saint Maximus is also instructive for us. Saint Maximus, though only a simple monk, resisted and cut off communion with every patriarch, metropolitan, archbishop and bishop in the East because of their having been infected with the heresy of Monothelitism. During the first imprisonment of the Saint, the messengers from the Ecumenical Patriarch asked him,

"To which church do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these churches, together with the provinces in subjection to them, are in unity. Therefore, if you also belong to the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us at once, lest fashioning for yourself some new and strange pathway, you fall into that which you do not even expect!"

To this the righteous man wisely replied, "Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession. However, I wish to know the contents of your confession, on the basis of which all churches, as you say, have entered into communion. If it is not opposed to the truth, then neither will I be separated from it."

The confession which they were proposing to the Saint was not Orthodox, of course, and so he refused to comply with their coercions. Furthermore, they were lying about the See of Rome which, in fact, had remained Orthodox. Some time later, at his last interrogation by the Byzantine authorities, the following dialogue took place:

The Saint said, "They [the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria and all the other heretical bishops of the East] have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the local synod which took place recently in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them?"

"Then you alone will be saved, and all others will perish?" they objected.

To this the Saint replied, "When all the people in Babylon were worshipping the golden idol, the Three Holy Children did not condemn anyone to perdition. They did not concern themselves with the doings of others, but took care only for themselves, lest they should fall away from true piety. In precisely the same way, when Daniel was cast into the lion's den, he did not condemn any of those who, fulfilling the law of Darius, did not wish to pray to God, but he kept in mind his own duty, and desired rather to die than to sin against his conscience by transgressing the Law of God. God forbid that I should condemn anyone or say that I alone am being saved! However, I shall sooner agree to die than to apostatize in any way from the true Faith and thereby suffer torments of conscience."

"But what will you do," inquired the envoys, "when the Romans are united to the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord's day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch. "

The Saint replied, "Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching."

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy. When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome, one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops. During all those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong. (pp. 60-62)

Other quotes from The Life:

Those who first defended and dissmeninated the heresy of the Monothelites were Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria (630-643), and Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople (610-638), and even the Emperor Heraclius himself, who was drawn into this heresy by them. Summoning local synods—Cyrus in Alexandria and Sergius in Constantinople—they confirmed this heresy, distributed their decrees everywhere, and corrupted the entire East. Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, alone opposed this heresy and did not accept the false teaching. Saint Maximus, seeing that the heresy had penetrated even into the royal palace and had corrupted the Emperor himself, began to fear lest he also should be corrupted, following the example of the many... He set out for Rome, preferring to live with Orthodox men who firmly preserved the Faith. (p. 2, 4, emphases mine).

[At the urging of Saint Maximus the] Pope convened his bishops, one hundred and five in number, with Abba Maximus in their midst. This was the Lateran Council (A.D. 649): it reviewed the errors of Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, and also the Emperor's heretical confession. The false teachings were anathematized, and the Pope wrote to the faithful in all places, confirming them in their Orthodoxy, explaining the errors of the heretics and warning them in every way to be on their guard against them. (p. 7)

Then Theodosius began to speak, "The Emperor and the Patriarch wish first of all to find out from you why you withdraw yourself from communion with the Throne of Constantinople."

Saint Maximus replied, "You know the innovations which were introduced twenty-one years ago in Alexandria, when Cyrus, the former Patriarch of that city, made public the ‘Nine Chapters’ which had been approved and confirmed by the Throne of Constantinople. There have also been other alterations and additions—the Ekthesis and the Typos—distorting the definitions of the Synods. These innovations were made by the foremost representatives of the Church of Byzantium, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, and they are known to all the churches. This is the reason why I, your servant, will not enter into communion with the Church of Constantinople. Let these offenses, introduced by the aforementioned men into the Church, be removed; let those who have introduced them be deposed; and then the path to salvation will be cleared of all barriers, and you will walk on the smooth path of the Gospel, cleansed of all heresy! When I see the Church of Constantinople as she was formerly, then I will enter into communion with her without any exhortation on the part of men. But while there are heretical temptations in her, and while heretics are her bishops, no word or deed will convince me ever to enter into communion with her." (19-20, emphases mine)

To this Abba Maximus replied, "To keep silence about a word means to deny it, as the Holy Spirit says through the Prophet, 'There are no tongues nor words in which their voices are not heard' (Ps. 18:3). Therefore, if some word is not said, then it is not a word at all4."

Then Troilus said, "Have whatever faith you please in your heart; nobody forbids you."

Saint Maximus objected: "But complete salvation depends not on the faith of the heart alone, but also upon confessing it, for the Lord said, 'Whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in Heaven' (Matt. 10:33). Also, the divine Apostle teaches: 'For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation' (Rom. 10:10). If, then, God and the divine Prophets and Apostles command that they mystery of faith be confessed in words and with the tongue, and this mystery of faith brings salvation to the whole world, then people must not be forced to keep silence with regard to confession, lest the salvation of people be hindered." (p. 29)

The Example of St. Mark of Ephesus

He addressed the faithful on the day of his repose. This is an excerpt:

Concerning the Patriarch I shall say this, lest it should perhaps occur to him to show me a certain respect at the burial of this my humble body, or to send to my grave any of his hierarchs or clergy or in general any of those in communion with him in order to take part in prayer or to join the priests invited to it from amongst us, thinking that at some time, or perhaps secretly, I had allowed communion with him. And lest my silence give occasion to those who do not know my views well and fully to suspect some kind of conciliation, I hereby state and testify before the many worthy men here present that I do not desire, in any manner and absolutely, and do not accept communion with him or with those who are with him, not in this life nor after my death, just as (I accept) neither the Union nor Latin dogmas, which he and his adherents have accepted, and for the enforcement of which he has occupied this presiding place, with the aim of overturning the true dogmas of the Church. I am absolutely convinced that the farther I stand from him and those like him, the nearer I am to God and all the saints, and to the degree that I separate myself from them am in union with the Truth and with the Holy Fathers, the Theologians of the Church; and I am likewise convinced that those who count themselves with them stand far away from the Truth and from the blessed Teachers of the Church. And for this reason I say: just as in the course of my whole life I was separated from them, so at the time of my departure, yea and after my death, I turn away from intercourse and communion with them and vow and command that none (of them) shall approach either my burial or my grave, and likewise anyone else from our side, with the aim of attempting to join and concelebrate in our Divine services; for this would be to mix what cannot be mixed. But it befits them to be absolutely separated from us until such time as God shall grant correction and peace to His Church. [as quoted in The Orthodox Word, June-July, 1967, pp. 103ff.]
« Last Edit: June 11, 2010, 08:49:55 AM by Nigula Qian Zishi » Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #79 on: June 16, 2010, 04:09:34 PM »

So if our Bishops are indeed in error, how do we deal with it?

We deal with it as the Orthodox faithful have in the past.  They rise up and demand the bishops recant.  If not, then the faithful lead the effort to depose and defrock the bishops and run them out of town (but at least pay for their bus fare).  That is what happened to the bishops who signed the decrees of the Council of Florence and Ferrara.  The laity are not powerless.

Would such bishops have to be re-initiated into to the Church because of their submission to heterodoxy?

Still very curious about this question...
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
colaps
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROC
Posts: 4


Spre marea biruință legionară...


« Reply #80 on: June 22, 2010, 05:10:21 AM »

In order to better understand ecumenism, I am going to write a translation for this article: http://apologeticum.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/reinvierea-babilonului-si-paganismul-contemporan-ecumenismul-miscarea-ecumenica/

The rebirth of Babylon and contemporary paganism: Ecumenism (Ecumenical Movement)


It is believed by a lot of people, even Orthodox, that popeism/catholicism is "a form" of Christianity (as if the Truth can have multiple forms, as if there were multiple true "christs"). This is owed to the propaganda power (political and financial) of the popeists and especially to the fact that the popeism / catholicism is the "easiest" faith around, as it fully suits the decadent mentality of this world, a world eagerly awaiting "dispensations", "indulgences" and the "Purgatory".
But - if we search the God inspired Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, the God inspired teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Church, the God inspired Holy Canons - we see the numerous mismatches between the roman heresy and the true Christian Orthodox Church of Jesus Christ.
These differences reveal popeism as being nothing else but the old paganism dressed in Christian clothes, as it has showed us numerous times.

Thus, we understand why the Vatican is the pan-ecumenist capital, why the High Priest of Rome spreads the "spiritual values" of all pagans and the union with them.


Let us remember the meeting at Assisi in the year 1986, planned by the pope himself. At that prayer meeting, the representatives of 160 "religions" have met in order to pray to the "Lord" for world peace. Among them, there were fire worshippers, snake worshippers, buddhists, muslims, spiritists, hinduists and animists.
Pope John Paul II said: "Now we all pray 'to the God'", even though each one believed, you could say, in a different god, not Christ - our God. Actually, all of them worshipped the same ruler of this fallen world, namely the devil (satan), that has appeared to them in different ways in order to influence them.



But the papal "omnipotence" was seen when John Paul II has received that mass of "religious leaders from around the world" at the Vatican: everyone saluted him as their grand representative (a roman hierarch even gave his ring to be kissed, even if protocol stated that they should shake hands, this being the masonic sign for "sympathy"). The meeting ended with a large spectacle of sounds and light, nothing else but a "liturgy" in honor of fallen mankind and of their long-awaited antichrist, sanctioning the union of all against our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is not our place here to say more about the union between the popes and the "great wizards" of the world. For example, John Paul II has met with all of them: he blessed and has been blessed in turn by them (from the African ones to the priestesses of Shiva). One of his close friends was the Dalai Lama, a "god" himself and representative of all buddhists in the world. And buddhism is a swore enemy of Christianity and has vowed to see its destruction and its erradication from the face of the earth.


In this photo, we see the pope shaking hands with a voodoo chief. Voodoo is a form of African shamanism (witchcraft), which is based on satanic dances which can last even days. While dancing, unclean spirits are called and are asked to demonize the "faithful".
In Haiti, this satanic belief is "united" with the roman "christianity". It is said that Haiti is a country which is 85% catholic and 11% voodoo! But for the pagan pope, this is nothing! As he was visiting Africa, while crazy young maidens were dancing in front of him in order to bring him into a state of "trance", the pope said to the voodoo followers that they will not betray their ancestors if they convert to popeism! And that is so, because popeism is itself a form of idolatry. Those Africans would betray their "ancestral faith" only if they were to truly become Christians.



Just so we don't stretch it, is it enough to say that, in the name of Christ's "peace", the pope (for example John Paul II) will do anything: kiss the earth goddess in a ritual manner, kiss the qu'ran, pray at the Wall of Crying (Jerusalem) and so on.
The papal system encourages all New Age practices, occultism and "mystic" faiths. Thus, "Catholic World" (the official publication of the Vatican) contains a lot of articles that spread the word about New Age. Thousands of priests and nuns practice yoga and other forms of buddhist mysticism. In the entire world, catholic schools allow and use occult and New Age methods (from the publication "A Woman Rides the Beast").

Because of this, we can say that ecumenism is the rebirth of Babylon, namely the "spiritual" one, just as United Europe, United States of America, North American Union (the future federation comprised of the USA, Mexico and Canada), which precede the New World Order (United States of the World), form the "political, economical and social" Babylon. The papal contribution and influence in this antichristic movement is obvious.
Standing in front of the World Council of Churches, the pope said: "From the beginning of my work as bishop of Rome, I have insisted upon the fact that the implication of the catholic church in the ecumenical movement is irreversible" ("The Fresnoe Bee", June 13th, 1984).

Matthew 10:
34. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.


Based on this, Saint Teofilact says:
"Union is not always good, sometimes separation is the right way. "Sword" means the word of faith, which separates us from the love of friends and relatives, if they prevent us from praising God. It does not encourage us to split without a reason, but only when they do not unite with us in faith, or worse, when they prevent us from doing what is righteous.[/size]
« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 05:22:00 AM by colaps » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #81 on: June 22, 2010, 11:07:36 AM »

In order to better understand ecumenism, I am going to write a translation for this article: http://apologeticum.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/reinvierea-babilonului-si-paganismul-contemporan-ecumenismul-miscarea-ecumenica/

The rebirth of Babylon and contemporary paganism: Ecumenism (Ecumenical Movement)


It is believed by a lot of people, even Orthodox, that popeism/catholicism is "a form" of Christianity (as if the Truth can have multiple forms, as if there were multiple true "christs"). This is owed to the propaganda power (political and financial) of the popeists and especially to the fact that the popeism / catholicism is the "easiest" faith around, as it fully suits the decadent mentality of this world, a world eagerly awaiting "dispensations", "indulgences" and the "Purgatory".
But - if we search the God inspired Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, the God inspired teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Church, the God inspired Holy Canons - we see the numerous mismatches between the roman heresy and the true Christian Orthodox Church of Jesus Christ.
These differences reveal popeism as being nothing else but the old paganism dressed in Christian clothes, as it has showed us numerous times.

Thus, we understand why the Vatican is the pan-ecumenist capital, why the High Priest of Rome spreads the "spiritual values" of all pagans and the union with them.


Let us remember the meeting at Assisi in the year 1986, planned by the pope himself. At that prayer meeting, the representatives of 160 "religions" have met in order to pray to the "Lord" for world peace. Among them, there were fire worshippers, snake worshippers, buddhists, muslims, spiritists, hinduists and animists.
Pope John Paul II said: "Now we all pray 'to the God'", even though each one believed, you could say, in a different god, not Christ - our God. Actually, all of them worshipped the same ruler of this fallen world, namely the devil (satan), that has appeared to them in different ways in order to influence them.



But the papal "omnipotence" was seen when John Paul II has received that mass of "religious leaders from around the world" at the Vatican: everyone saluted him as their grand representative (a roman hierarch even gave his ring to be kissed, even if protocol stated that they should shake hands, this being the masonic sign for "sympathy"). The meeting ended with a large spectacle of sounds and light, nothing else but a "liturgy" in honor of fallen mankind and of their long-awaited antichrist, sanctioning the union of all against our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is not our place here to say more about the union between the popes and the "great wizards" of the world. For example, John Paul II has met with all of them: he blessed and has been blessed in turn by them (from the African ones to the priestesses of Shiva). One of his close friends was the Dalai Lama, a "god" himself and representative of all buddhists in the world. And buddhism is a swore enemy of Christianity and has vowed to see its destruction and its erradication from the face of the earth.


In this photo, we see the pope shaking hands with a voodoo chief. Voodoo is a form of African shamanism (witchcraft), which is based on satanic dances which can last even days. While dancing, unclean spirits are called and are asked to demonize the "faithful".
In Haiti, this satanic belief is "united" with the roman "christianity". It is said that Haiti is a country which is 85% catholic and 11% voodoo! But for the pagan pope, this is nothing! As he was visiting Africa, while crazy young maidens were dancing in front of him in order to bring him into a state of "trance", the pope said to the voodoo followers that they will not betray their ancestors if they convert to popeism! And that is so, because popeism is itself a form of idolatry. Those Africans would betray their "ancestral faith" only if they were to truly become Christians.



Just so we don't stretch it, is it enough to say that, in the name of Christ's "peace", the pope (for example John Paul II) will do anything: kiss the earth goddess in a ritual manner, kiss the qu'ran, pray at the Wall of Crying (Jerusalem) and so on.
The papal system encourages all New Age practices, occultism and "mystic" faiths. Thus, "Catholic World" (the official publication of the Vatican) contains a lot of articles that spread the word about New Age. Thousands of priests and nuns practice yoga and other forms of buddhist mysticism. In the entire world, catholic schools allow and use occult and New Age methods (from the publication "A Woman Rides the Beast").

Because of this, we can say that ecumenism is the rebirth of Babylon, namely the "spiritual" one, just as United Europe, United States of America, North American Union (the future federation comprised of the USA, Mexico and Canada), which precede the New World Order (United States of the World), form the "political, economical and social" Babylon. The papal contribution and influence in this antichristic movement is obvious.
Standing in front of the World Council of Churches, the pope said: "From the beginning of my work as bishop of Rome, I have insisted upon the fact that the implication of the catholic church in the ecumenical movement is irreversible" ("The Fresnoe Bee", June 13th, 1984).

Matthew 10:
34. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.


Based on this, Saint Teofilact says:
"Union is not always good, sometimes separation is the right way. "Sword" means the word of faith, which separates us from the love of friends and relatives, if they prevent us from praising God. It does not encourage us to split without a reason, but only when they do not unite with us in faith, or worse, when they prevent us from doing what is righteous.[/size]

Goodness! I had no idea that I was a pagan.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
franthonyc
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA Metropolis of Detroit
Posts: 84


WWW
« Reply #82 on: June 22, 2010, 12:14:18 PM »

Wow, did we ever screw up!

Latin translation, please.

Nostra culpa magna?
Logged

Τῷ μεγάλῳ χρίεται μύρῳ καὶ χειρονεῖται βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, πάντων δηλαδὴ τῶν χριστιανῶν...οὐδὲν οὖν ἔνι καλὸν, υἱέ μου, ἵνα λέγῃς, ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν ἔχομεν, οὐχὶ βασιλέα, οὐκ ἔνι δυνατὸν εἰς τοὺς χριστιανοὺς, ἔκκλησίαν ἔχειν καὶ βασιλέα οὐκ ἔχειν. – EP Anthony to Basil of Moscow c. 1395
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #83 on: June 22, 2010, 12:43:37 PM »

^Well said FR.

I for one do not see "Union" between the RCC and the Orthodox Church as being necessary, imminent, or even possible at this point in time. The Orthodox Church is whole and complete and not lacking in any way. I don't see evidence that any of our theological differences have been overcome. I think that the phrase "union" is also unnecessarily ambiguous. We are not looking for union between two similar and equal units but rather the joining of the RC, which has fallen away along time ago, to the True Church of Christ.

Agreed.  I also can see no use for continued dialogue with the Roman church.  They know what we believe already, and reject it.  If we (and the Holy Spirit) have not succeeded in getting them to see the light in 1000 years, I doubt that it will happen.  At an individual level, I believe that contact should continue.  But at an official level, Rome has apostatized and should be left alone until she repents.

When, the past 1,000 years have the Orthodox ever tried to have the Catholic west "see the light"?  I am aware of no historical attempts in the last millennium to either convert or dialogue with RC's to accept the principles of the EO faith (The present day ecumenical movement not withstanding).  For the most part, EO's have lived in a sate of virtual isolation from the West and, until recently there was very little contact, especially on an ecclesiastical level with Western Europeans. 

Isn't there a verse in the Bible which states "How shall they hear without a preacher"?  Where, in the Catholic west anyway was the preachers of EO views to be found (Until the recent ethnic Diaspora's were created)?  It's somewhat unfair to judge the Catholic and Protestant Christians of rejecting the message of Orthodox when there was, until recent times almost no one to preach it to them.



Off the top of my head:
There was an attempt at a reunion council in 1093. There were various moments of dialogue, cooperation and confrontation during the Crusades. A schism at Antioch in 1100, but Greek clergy accepting a Latin patriarch in Jerusalem as an Orthodox bishop in 1099, and until the Latins started making things difficult. The attempt at Lyons in 1274 (if my date's right), but that was not much of a dialogue, but a dictation from the pope, which the Orthodox had to accept without question. (For more information on these events, read Aristedis Papadapoulos' fine book "The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy") Then, there were the Palamite councils where attempts were made to articulate positions. Then the council of Ferrara-Florence in the 1430s. During the Ottoman period there was something of a lull in discussions with the Roman Catholics, but there was a vigorous discussion with the Lutherans under Patriarch Jeremias II, and with the Calvinists under Patriarch Cyril Loukaris, both of blessed memory. There was the Confession of Dositheus and the Council of Iassi. There were the studies on Latin baptism under Patriarch Cyril V, but the Church was at this time under pressure from within and without--it was the era of unionism. Then came the Melkite Schism in Antioch. In the 19th century, the Eastern Patriarchs sent two very important letters to the pope, one on papal infallibility and the other in response to Pope Leo XIII's overtures in 1893. Both outlined the Orthodox position and were informative to the papacy. (I forgot, in the 16th century, there was a council that sent a letter to the pope on the Orthodox view of the calendar change.) All these episodes can be seen as attempts by the Orthodox to enlighten Roman Catholic and Protestant leaders. Besides them are the missionary labors in the Russian Empire, and also the work amongst the Non-Jurors of the 17th and 18th centuries, and the handful of conversions that came with it. There was even at least one Orthodoxy family in pre-revolutionary colonial America, the offspring of the English converts. So, I hardly think that anyone can rightly accuse the Orthodox of having been lazy or remiss in trying to articulate the Orthodox faith in response to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and attempt to enlighten them. All this was done in the face of Catholic and Protestant opposition and prosyletism, as well as pressure from hostile, non-Christian overlords.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #84 on: June 22, 2010, 01:56:09 PM »

Goodness! I had no idea that I was a pagan.  Roll Eyes
The post blew my mind.  We have personal opinion, stock photographs, and then a citation of Dave Hunt (whose knowledge of Catholicism is on par with Jack Chick and the web-master of jesus-is-savior).  Then there is the blog, with its noteworthy sections about the evils of biometrics/RFIDs, vaccinations, and masons.  laugh  Far too much laughing today, first France losing, and now this.  My stomach hurts.   Sad Tongue
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #85 on: June 22, 2010, 02:04:25 PM »

Quote
Goodness! I had no idea that I was a pagan.  


Don't worry about it. Consider it an honour: most of the evangelicals I know are convinced that Eastern Orthodoxy is nothing but a form of paganism!
« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 02:04:50 PM by Rosehip » Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Tags: ecumenism 
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.182 seconds with 68 queries.