The Coptic Church

[Αριστοκλής]

I don't see how you could've gotten that from Anastasios' post (which I thank him for).  The three of us believe both EO and OO to be fully Orthodox.  We don't force anyone to accept that position by posting here.  Anyone can hold whatever belief about the Orthodoxy of the OO or EO they want.  We merely insist that all members carry out discussion in an appropriate manner.  

The problem is that no one seems to be able to do that after a certain point (usually at the beginning).    

Interesting response, Phil, seeing as I was quoted Aaaron, not anastasios. Of course, leaving out my lead sentence didn't help.
I eagerly await this summer's "re-build" for the forum

[Linus7]

I wonder why it is that a discussion about the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches can never be had without the thread being interrupted with posts whose intention is only to speak about the Oriental Churches in an unpositive manner?

I believe everyone here can look up previous threads using the "search" feature that discuss these things without jumping into a thread that was started merely to inquire and learn more about the Coptic Church and Her traditions.

It disappoints me that discussions cannot be had without this happening repeatedly. I can understand why some members, (remaining and former) do not regularly participate in this forum, because I know that I would find it frustrating myself if I could not have a discussion about my faith and my church without having to constantly hear it spoken about it in such a way and having to constantly defend myself, my faith an dmy church.  :dissappointed:

In Christ,
Aaron

I would not normally have "interrupted" your thread, but I was reading it and came across the following, posted by rustaveli:

As a personal reflection, although this Church, which is in full communion with the Coptic Church of Egypt, has some local / national traditions, but I was overwhelmed with a sense that anyone familiar with the more Byzantine (or Syriac) traditions would immediately feel right at home, and know that, indeed, this is the True Faith, part of the Universal Church.

As a sidenote of doctrine, the Ethiopian Church uses the word "Tewahedo" (roughly, "oneness") as part of its official name; this word is used to emphasize the Oneness of the Nature of Christ - which, as I understand the Oriental Churches' position to be, was threatened or inadequately expressed by the Council at Chalcedon.

This, however, has nothing to do with the solid belief of the Coptic and Sister Churches that Christ Is fully God and Fully Man, the Mystery beyond human comprehension which the first and commonly-accepted Oecumenical Councils affirmed.

The "Monophysite" label - and, especially, how it has been interpreted in the West, is [I believe] largely a linguistic and political split.

As anyone can see, the statements above are not simply a discussion of the Coptic Church but are statements about its position relative to the universal Church and the Council of Chalcedon.

Since that is the case, and since the sentiments expressed represent what I believe to be falsehood, I responded.

Anastasios: Exactly how I feel. This forum is the "Non-Chalcedonian Discussion" Forum.  It is the opinion and viewpoint of Anastasios, Phil, and Bobby that Non-Chalcedonians are Orthodox and if some people don't like that, they can avoid posting in this folder. If someone asks a question about dogma, anyone can respond pro or con.  But if someone is asking a generic question about Non-Chalcedonian liturgical traditions, then other people don't need to jump in and take one part of the post and run with it. I am sure Rustaveli did not intend to start YET ANOTHER discussion about the Orthodoxy of Non-Chalcedonians.

Keep polemical discussion to threads that are ON TOPIC please.

anastasios

As you can see from what I quoted from rustaveli above, this thread had gone beyond "asking a generic question about Non-Chalcedonian liturgical traditions" and into polemical statements.

I can fully understand why Phil believes Non-Chalcedonians are Orthodox: he is a Non-Chalcedonian.

I do not understand how any Eastern Orthodox familiar with the councils and Fathers could think so, however.

Calling groups "Orthodox" that were condemned by the Fathers of the Church as heretical is a repudiation of what the Fathers believed.

How can one do that and not render himself heterodox and guilty as a principal in the heresy of those he attempts to rehabilitate?

I fully realize that every time I post in the Non-Chalcedonian Forum I inspire hatred for myself not only among Non-Chalcedonians but among those Eastern Orthodox who are all for union with them, who regard Non-Chalcedonians as Orthodox even though they have altered none of their beliefs and still regard all of the councils after Ephesus (431) as invalid or at least not ecumenical.

I realize that it is likely that I will ultimately have to leave this web site over this issue, an issue which I regard as important, since I think that for Eastern Orthodox to claim that Non-Chalcedonians are Orthodox is a betrayal of the Orthodox Catholic faith and is itself heretical.

I am not saying that Non-Chalcedonians are not Christians or that they are all going to hell.

That is not what I am saying at all.

But they are not Orthodox, not if one believes what the Fathers and Councils had to say (which, BTW, is part of what being Orthodox requires).

I think the movement to pronounce Non-Chalcedonians Orthodox before they actually become so represents an effort to please men rather than to please God. It is part of the liberal malaise from which we all currently suffer, the mindset that cannot possibly understand how what it regards as "differences in terminology" could be important and why we can't all just "get along."

This is an attitude or mindset that, if allowed to grow, will infect the visible Orthodox Church and rot it from the inside, until only a remnant remains that possesses the Deposit of Faith whole and intact.

May the Lord have mercy and give us the strength to stand firm in that day.

[Anastasios]

Linus,

First of all I doubt anyone hates you except maybe one person who argues with you non-stop.

Second of all, I can see how many Eastern Orthodox regard Oriental Orthodox as Orthodox: because the majority of their hierarchs do and they are being obedient.

Perhaps they are wrong, but that's something you should take up with them (the hierarchs), not being surprised when people see things they way they do.

Yes Rustaveli posted some stuff you found innacurate. But you could have let it slip since you know it would divert the thread. No one is asking you to believe things you don't.  I just want some restraint (on all sides). If Non-Chalcedonians went into a thread on Chalcedon that was simply a question about such historical facts as who was there and when, and diverted it, I'd say something to them.

The fact of the matter is, Linus, that you are generally well liked here and we Administrators all appreciate your voracious posting.  You are a generally friendly and intelligent person and we appreciate your input.  I can't speak for Bobby as he has not expressed to me his full opinions, but Phil and I don't mind your point of view, we just mind how it *appears* to us that whenever Non-Chalcedonians are brought up, you get upset and interject.

Is there an internet forum that is always going to agree with you? No, unless you start your own--but even then you will find yourself conflicted.  For instance, I myself have some real issues with some of the beliefs *I* hold. But I hold them out of a sense of trying to be faithful to tradition, just like you. Part of being faithful to tradition is trusting the judgement of our hierarchs which is hard to do sometimes.

I have said many times that personally I believe Chalcedon needs to be accepted by Non-Chalcedonians with some concessions on our side (lifting of anathemas, etc). We've already discussed that. My point is that I am not an ecumaniac.  If Non-Chalcedonians do not want to go that route, then we can be friendly but there won't be a union. It just won't happen. That may even sound arrogant to them from my point of view. Perhaps Phil will beat me up when I see him this week  Seriously, though, I have to stand by my convictions. So do you. But I restrain myself sometimes.  I would love to jump in to some of the threads I disagree with. But it's ultimately going to alienate people.

Ultimately you will leave if you feel you have to. But we don't want that and we welcome you to stay. We like what you have to say. If it had been feasable (as I mistakenly thought it was) to let members block out boards, you probably would have been happier the last time. But since it isn't maybe you can just make an agreement with your spiritual father that you won't access the Non-C folder.  You wouldn't be shirking your witness as WE ALL KNOW how you feel, my friend

I see you post a lot at Nik's forum. That's great; Nik and OC.net don't see each other as competition because we serve very different purposes.  But would you consider leaving his site because they call your Patriarch a laymen in robes?  I mean, ultimately, you have to pick and choose your battles.  I hope I am not sounding like I am telling you "how things are." I'm not trying to. You are older than me and probably wiser than me. I am merely attempting to express my feelings on the issue to you.

Yours in Christ,

anastasios

[Antonious Nikolas]

We all know your feelings on this matter Linus, and despite your attempts to present yourself as some sort of bloodless martyr and custodian of the Faith, no one here hates you.  I believe that the moderators have made it clear that orthodoxchristianity.net is not an "Eastern Orthodox" forum or an "Oriental Orthodox" forum, but simply and "Orthodox forum" which includes both Church families.  This doesn't derive from "political correctness" or any other modernism, but rather from a belief that we truly do share the same Orthodox Faith.  There are others who post here, both EO and OO, who obviously don't share that belief.  Like you, they believe that one side or the other is not Orthodox.  The difference is that they do not conduct themselves in a petulent or belligerent manner and then complain of "personal attacks" when someone takes the bait and responds in kind.  I'm not attacking you right now, although you may feel that I am, but merely pointing out why you appear to be so "unpopular" among certain people.  It is not because we disagree with you (because we also disagree with others) it is because your posts seem to be smug and self-righteous.  It is not because you take a stand for Holy Orthodoxy (because others do as well), it is because you appear to be presenting yourself as a morally and intellectually superior individual, a paragon of righteousness, while the rest of us are craven liberals seeking to compromise the Faith to please men.

Take the following statement: "This is an attitude or mindset that, if allowed to grow, will infect the visible Orthodox Church and rot it from the inside, until only a remnant remains that possesses the Deposit of Faith whole and intact.

May the Lord have mercy and give us the strength to stand firm in that day."

The flowery and dramatic language seems to give the impression that you consider yourself some sort of prophet or modern day St. Athanasius, defending the Faith against the heretics, and that if the Eastern Orthodox Church decided to re-enter into Communion with us under circumstances of which you personally didn't approve, then it would be she who was in error, not you and your "righteous remnant", whoever they may be.  On top of that, you are never willing to identify your jurisdiction.  For all we know, you could already be a part of a group which even now considers itself a "righteous remnant" while all of "world Orthodoxy" has embarked upon ecumenist heresy.  Or, you could be a part of a Church (like the Antiochians) who already admits us freely to the Chalice.  One can only speculate since you choose to maintain an aura of mystery. (At least this is the case when I have asked you this question directly, which I have on several occasions.  If you have revealed it elsewhere, please let me know.)

Please understand that this is not a personal attack.  I actually like you, and enjoy our conversations in the free-for-all section and elsewhere.  But just as you feel compelled to be the "Orthodox police" and jump in to call rustavelli on what you see as his "dangerous ecumenist" tendencies, I find it necessary to challenge your portrayal of yourself as someone being picked on and persecuted simply for taking a stand for the Faith, when that is clearly not the case.

I hope that you will take this in the spirit in which it was written.  There are others here who feel that we Non-Chalcedonians are not Orthodox, and they have said as much in their posts, but they don't draw the kind of flak you do, because their manner is not as brusque or self-righteous.

Peace

[Rustaveli]

My thanks to Arystarcus for the welcome to the forum, and thanks also to Nick for sharing his experiences. The description of the warm welcome extended by the Coptic parish me reminds me very much of my visits to the Ethiopian Church!

With regards to matters doctrinal, I must humbly ask forgiveness if my musings and rambling reflections came across as being some sort of polemical statement or attempt to counter the teachings of the Holy Fathers (including the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Counsel).

I included my own views and reactions relative to the experience of attending the Ethiopian Orthodox Liturgy with the [expressed ... ?, I hope...] intention of offering them merely as just that - personal, and reflections, within the context of a discussion amongst those interested in the traditions of the Oriental or Non-Chalcedonian churches.

If I have caused offense, I repent and ask forgiveness. It was hardly my intention to deny the political context which, of course, influenced the "Non-Chalcedonian" party in the Fifth (and / or subsequent) centuries, nor to belittle the sacrifice of the Confessors and martyrs for the Faith.

"The wind bloweth where it listeth"...

Still, it is true that the "Eastern" and "Oriental" Orthodox are divided;

... perhaps we can learn something from those things which are held in common, and begin to work towards a real form of Ecumenism, in which Eucharistic communion is restored amongst those who, for the first Four centuries since the Incarnation, shared a common bond of Faith, and shed martyrs' blood together from East to West. despite history, and mistakes which so attend unto our human condition in the fallen world, the grace and power of the Holy Trinity will grant that, as Our Lord prayed, "they may be one, as Thou [Abba] and I are one".

Moving on...

How about those interesting local liturgical traditions?

And those interesting Byzantine churches in Nubia, wher Christianity flourished for centuries, until (... and after...) the rise of Islam???

[Rustaveli]

Oops, I meant to put a "Perhaps," prior to "despite centuries"...

Just a prayerful hope.

P.S. -

The "Monachos.Net" website, an excellent resource, has a wealth of Chalcedonian-related materials, featured in their "Current Spotlight: Christological Controversy Study Area" available at:

http://www.monachos.net/

... for those who are interested therin.

See

http://www.numibia.net/nubia/christian.htm

and

http://rumkatkilise.org/nubia.htm

... for Medieval Christian Nubia.

[Rustaveli]

oh, and I meant "Council", not "Counsel"...

(although some of each, from the Holy Fathers, can be of great benefit...)

[Father Peter]

First of all I doubt anyone hates you except maybe one person who argues with you non-stop.

Since I have happened to pop in to post a PM to someone let me say that I don't hate Linus at all. I have absented myself from OCnet in order to prevent Linus and myself becoming passionate. Although it has helped me no end I see that it hasn't helped Linus. :-( whom I remembered in Church today with sadness not hatred.

I have just deleted the beginnings of a 'smart' answer to his recent posts. I don't want to go there.

I shall keep popping back. I want to reach 1500 posts :-) but it would be too depressing to keep reading the same old same old. I thought that OCnet wasn't like that when I first joined and was really happy to spend hours online but if I annoy Linus, and I'm sure I do, and since he does cause the passions to boil over in me, it's best I just visit for a while.

I'm sorry you've lost Raouf. He's a good man and I've known him online for a long time, people shouldn't feel they have to leave.

God bless you all, see you anon.

[Anastasios]

Peter,

I am glad you do not hate Linus.  As I said to him, he is an asset to our site, I will say to you, so are you.  I enjoy your posting.

We lost Raouf? Did he announce his departure from the site? I don't always get a chance to read all the posts but I thought I would have noticed a public goodbye.

anastasios

[Arystarcus]

We lost Raouf? Did he announce his departure from the site? I don't always get a chance to read all the posts but I thought I would have noticed a public goodbye.

Anastasios,

Yes, Raouf left the forum, he mentioned his leaving in his last post, at the following thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=3410;start=msg45422#msg45422

Here is what he said:

This "subforum" called "Non-Chalcedonian Discussions" in my opinion is a failure since the only thing we ever discuss is a defense of our position on Chalcedon.  I am done here...God bless all of you and may the Lord remember us all in His Kingdom!

Which brings up exactly what I said only a few posts ago, that the Oriental Orthodox on the forum cannot discuss anything pertaining to their Church without having to constantly defend themselves.

I can't say that I blame him, I would get sick of it too...

In Christ,
Aaron

[Linus7]

Antonious Nikolas:
We all know your feelings on this matter Linus, and despite your attempts to present yourself as some sort of bloodless martyr and custodian of the Faith, no one here hates you.

I have not attempted to "present myself" as anything.

I have only argued that Eastern Orthodox should be true to what the Fathers and Councils had to say.

Antonious Nikolas: I believe that the moderators have made it clear that orthodoxchristianity.net is not an "Eastern Orthodox" forum or an "Oriental Orthodox" forum, but simply and "Orthodox forum" which includes both Church families.

I now believe that you are probably right about that.

Such a configuration is a problem for me, as I think it is impossible to maintain such a position without implicating oneself in the errors one has pronounced "Orthodox."

Where the Fathers and Councils have spoken clearly, we ought not contradict them. To do so is to oppose the Holy Spirit.

I don't believe there are "Church families" that include those the Fathers and Councils anathematized for their errors.

Antonious Nikolas: This doesn't derive from "political correctness" or any other modernism, but rather from a belief that we truly do share the same Orthodox Faith.

Maybe.

I see things differently.

It strikes me that those Eastern Orthodox who say the Non-Chalcedonians are Orthodox 1) do not know what they are talking about, or 2) do not think the issues involved are important, or 3) think it is more important to please others and get along with them than to risk appearing hardheaded or uncharitable while maintaining fidelity to the teachings of the Fathers.

Antonious Nikolas: There are others who post here, both EO and OO, who obviously don't share that belief.  Like you, they believe that one side or the other is not Orthodox.

And they are correct.

Both sides cannot be right in this case.

Antonious Nikolas: The difference is that they do not conduct themselves in a petulent or belligerent manner and then complain of "personal attacks" when someone takes the bait and responds in kind.

The viewpoint you express above is unjustified.

Examine my posts. They may be blunt, but I do not engage in the same sorts of attacks that were perpetrated against me.

You have already implied that I am "petulant" and "belligerent." But that's okay. I have been called much worse by Non-Chalcedonians.

BTW, I don't set out bait. In fact, I actually avoid responding to things in this forum unless I feel it is really necessary.

Antonious Nikolas: I'm not attacking you right now, although you may feel that I am, but merely pointing out why you appear to be so "unpopular" among certain people.

Of course not.

You are merely assessing my character and focusing your comments on me and my petulance, belligerance, and apparent martyr complex.

I am used to that on this forum.

Antonious Nikolas: It is not because we disagree with you (because we also disagree with others) it is because your posts seem to be smug and self-righteous.  It is not because you take a stand for Holy Orthodoxy (because others do as well), it is because you appear to be presenting yourself as a morally and intellectually superior individual, a paragon of righteousness, while the rest of us are craven liberals seeking to compromise the Faith to please men.

These comments are illustrative of what it is like to engage in discussion on this forum.

Doctrine very quickly goes by the wayside, as does history.

Instead one must endure the implication that he is "smug and self righteous" or is presenting himself as "a morally and intellectually superior individual, a paragon of righteousness."

Why do I always become the subject of these discussions?

They are not really about me, after all.

Antonious Nikolas: Take the following statement: "This is an attitude or mindset that, if allowed to grow, will infect the visible Orthodox Church and rot it from the inside, until only a remnant remains that possesses the Deposit of Faith whole and intact.

May the Lord have mercy and give us the strength to stand firm in that day."

The flowery and dramatic language seems to give the impression that you consider yourself some sort of prophet or modern day St. Athanasius, defending the Faith against the heretics, and that if the Eastern Orthodox Church decided to re-enter into Communion with us under circumstances of which you personally didn't approve, then it would be she who was in error, not you and your "righteous remnant", whoever they may be.  On top of that, you are never willing to identify your jurisdiction.  For all we know, you could already be a part of a group which even now considers itself a "righteous remnant" while all of "world Orthodoxy" has embarked upon ecumenist heresy.  Or, you could be a part of a Church (like the Antiochians) who already admits us freely to the Chalice.  One can only speculate since you choose to maintain an aura of mystery. (At least this is the case when I have asked you this question directly, which I have on several occasions.  If you have revealed it elsewhere, please let me know.)

I don't consider myself much of anything, but I am responsible to be true to my Lord and to the saints and Fathers and Councils He has inspired.

I have revealed my jurisdiction frequently on this web site.

I did not reveal it when you or whoever it was asked because I did not feel the discussion should be about me.

I am familiar with the history of prior attempts to appease Non-Chalcedonians without requiring them to repent and accept the Orthodox faith. Often there seemed to be legions of compliant Eastern bishops, eager to distort the faith to please the Emperor and/or to achieve a cheap union.

The faith was then preserved by the stalwart few who did not deviate from what the Fathers and Councils taught.

It doesn't really matter how many bishops say the Non-Chalcedonians are Orthodox.

The Fathers and Councils said otherwise.

I know it, and there are others who know it, as well.

Some of them are bishops, too.

Antonious Nikolas: Please understand that this is not a personal attack.

Of course it's not!  

It's all a matter of terminology, isn't it?

Could it be that I have merely misunderstood you?  

Antonious Nikolas: I actually like you, and enjoy our conversations in the free-for-all section and elsewhere.  But just as you feel compelled to be the "Orthodox police" and jump in to call rustavelli on what you see as his "dangerous ecumenist" tendencies, I find it necessary to challenge your portrayal of yourself as someone being picked on and persecuted simply for taking a stand for the Faith, when that is clearly not the case.

Falsehood, not merely "dangerous ecumenist tendencies."

Think what you will of me.

At least you know what I think.

Antonoius Nikolas: I hope that you will take this in the spirit in which it was written.  There are others here who feel that we Non-Chalcedonians are not Orthodox, and they have said as much in their posts, but they don't draw the kind of flak you do, because their manner is not as brusque or self-righteous.

Peace

Really?

There are others?

Aristokles is about it, besides me.

Most of those who do not think the Non-Chalcedonians are Orthodox have moved on.

[Antonious Nikolas]

I hear what you are saying Linus, and of course you are entitled to your point of view, but I have to take issue with your contention that all you have done is called for obedience to the Fathers, and that is what has earned you everyone's ire.  This just isn't so.  Perhaps it is the medium of the internet, but your posts have an air of smugness about them, as if it would sully your tongue to call H.H. Pope Shenouda III by his proper title.  You know how to needle people in a subtle way which you know they will find insulting and get a rise out of them until they explode.  I have seen this happen on many occasions.

Aristokles, Tom S, and the others who feel that we aren't Orthodox never draw the kind of fire you do.  Why do you think that is?  You wonder why it always becomes personal when you are involved?  Because you make it personal by your attitude.  I must admit that lately you have been somewhat more careful in choosing your words, but your posts continue to sound disdainful and scornful of others.

This, along with the flowery admonitions, give the impression that you feel you are a modern day Maximus the Confessor standing firmly against the heretical hordes of political correctness.  Take for example your assessment of your fellow Eastern Orthodox:

"It strikes me that those Eastern Orthodox who say the Non-Chalcedonians are Orthodox 1) do not know what they are talking about, or 2) do not think the issues involved are important, or 3) think it is more important to please others and get along with them than to risk appearing hardheaded or uncharitable while maintaining fidelity to the teachings of the Fathers."

Isn't it possible that they reached a different conclusion than yours through prayer and fasting and research?  You say that there are bishops who feel the same way you do, but there are also bishops and theologians who do not.  It seems arrogant to dismiss them so summarily.

Also, you seem to feel the need to jump in and correct anyone you disagree with whether the thread is a "debate" or not.  I myself have contemplated leaving this forum several times because of it.  It seems that the Non-Chalcedonian forum can only be a debate forum (largely because of your input), and that is sad.  As others have said, we can't discuss anything without constantly having to defend ourselves.  Of course that will make people feel edgy and defensive.  I have to agree with Raouf that so far the forum has failed to produce anything except debate, however productive that debate may sometimes have been.  This thread is evidence of that.

I'm not saying we all have to "get along" and be "politically correct" but there are other things to discuss besides Chalcedon.  There is much much more to our Churches than our rejection of that synod.

BTW, since you have revealed it several time elsewhere, and since this discussion obviously has become about you once again, would you mind telling me your jurisdiction?  Thanks.

[Father Peter]

I would also like to know if one would encounter the same amount of Scripture readings as I had when woshipping at the Coptic Liturgy if say, one worshipped at an Ethiopian Church, an Armenian Church, or a Syriac Church or a Malankara Church. Anyone happen to know?

In the British Orthodox Church, which united with the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate 10 years ago we use a different liturgy, that of St James, but the same Coptic services for everything else.

We also have a gospel reading for Matins and then the Pauline, Catholic, Praxis and Gospel in the Liturgy.

It was one of the things that also impressed me about the Coptic Orthodox, as compared with my Evangelical upbringing, where we would have only one passage of the Bible and yet looked down on churches such as the Coptic Orthodox as having no committment to the Scriptures.

Pope Shenouda's writings, especially the spiritual ones, are chock full of Scripture. They are a bit like reading something written by an older generation of evangelicals who really knew their Bibles. And Pope Shenouda does know his Bible. Every Wednesday he holds a Bible study in his cathedral and 8,000 people of all ages pack the place to hear him. I was there last year, blessed to be right in the middle of the front row, and it was both exciting and moving.

[Mor Ephrem]

In the Syrian rite Liturgy, there are quite a few readings.  Before the beginning of the Liturgy, there are readings from the Old Testament.  Usually I think somewhere around three are appointed, but for pastoral necessity they can be reduced, and I've seen two taken often enough.  During the Liturgy proper, there is a reading from the Acts or the Catholic Epistles, a reading from the Pauline Epistles, and the Gospel.  At Vespers and Matins on Sundays and major feasts, there are readings from the Gospel.  On certain important feasts, in addition to the Liturgy, there is a special service for the day (usually incorporated into the Liturgy at some point): this has its own appointed readings.  

It is my perception that the Syrian rite uses more Scriptural readings than the rites of the Western Churches, RC and EO.  I don't know how it compares to other liturgical traditions.

[Rustaveli]

A confession for "Linus7":

Yes, it was the beards and the incense which led me astray with regards to the aftermath of the Fourth Oecumenical Council.

... I once attended a Z.Z. Top concert [with Stevie Nicks opening, Aimeen...] and thought that it was the True Fourth (... I mean, Eighth...) Oecumenical Council ... !!!

... "now tell me that ain't in-se-currr..."

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Oriental Orthodox Discussion (Moderator: Salpy) > Topic: The Coptic Church