OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 10:04:45 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is the Holy Spirit bound to the Sacraments?  (Read 21129 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #360 on: January 25, 2011, 10:55:38 PM »

You're right
I know.

as St. Peter founded no such office as supreme pontiff
Of course not. Christ did.


nor did he receive it from Christ.
Wrong.

His legitimate successor and his legitimate posterity  still exist in Antioch.
A schismatic cannot be a successor to an Apostle.

In Rome the Vatican killed them, adulterated the Faith and spawned pretenders.  That office stlll exists in the Vatican to this day, but it doesn't reach back to St. Peter's day.
Now you've lost me. Killed who? How can a city-state kill someone or adulterate or spawn anything?

The "spawn" business is a joke on Isa actually.  I've been waiting for someone to catch it.

IF the Catholic Church spawned schismatics then it is also the source of every other sinner in the Church, because evil spawns evil.

What does that say about all of the various schismatic groups of Orthodoxy's spawn?

Like the Vatican?
Isaiah 1:2 Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken. I have brought up children, and exalted them: but they have despised me.
3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel hath not known me, and my people hath not understood.
4 Woe to the sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a wicked seed, ungracious children: they have forsaken the Lord, they have blasphemed the Holy One of Israel, they are gone away backwards.
5 For what shall I strike you any more, you that increase transgression? the whole head is sick, and the whole heart is sad.
6 From the sole of the foot unto the top of the head, there is no soundness therein: wounds and bruises and swelling sores: they are not bound up, nor dressed, nor fomented with oil.
7 Your land is desolate, your cities are burnt with fire: your country strangers devour before your face, and it shall be desolate as when wasted by enemies.
8 And the daughter of Sion shall be left as a covert in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, and as a city that is laid waste.

.and then what does that say about Orthodox Sinners...as spawn of the many and varied Orthodox churches....
Save One, everyone in the Orthodox Church is a sinner.

What goes around comes around if you don't think it through.
Sharing your ecclesiastical organization's experience with the Protestant missions in Latin America?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #361 on: January 25, 2011, 11:24:04 PM »

Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

I guess this damning of another poster is ok with Forum rules?

What do you all think would happen if I damned or cursed an Orthodox poster's comments or his or her application of the faith?

I don't know what religion you belong to actually but as a Catholic I can tell you that to curse someone is a very grave sin with grave consequences for all concerned.

Mary

Obviously I am not judging Wyatt in his person. Your Second Council of Constantinople made it quite clear that we can judge some of the opinions or actions of a person without judging the entirety of the person. Obviously I am not judging him or damning him, but only labeling his application of Scripture as erroneous. Though I am not surprised that you of all people are trying to make more out of it than is real: you seem to do so regularly.
As Mary already pointed out, you hardly have the authority to be handing out anathemas. Tongue

I'm not. It's nothing official. I'm just cursing your mocking of the Holy Catholic 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #362 on: January 26, 2011, 12:27:03 PM »

Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

I guess this damning of another poster is ok with Forum rules?

What do you all think would happen if I damned or cursed an Orthodox poster's comments or his or her application of the faith?

I don't know what religion you belong to actually but as a Catholic I can tell you that to curse someone is a very grave sin with grave consequences for all concerned.

Mary

Obviously I am not judging Wyatt in his person. Your Second Council of Constantinople made it quite clear that we can judge some of the opinions or actions of a person without judging the entirety of the person. Obviously I am not judging him or damning him, but only labeling his application of Scripture as erroneous. Though I am not surprised that you of all people are trying to make more out of it than is real: you seem to do so regularly.
As Mary already pointed out, you hardly have the authority to be handing out anathemas. Tongue

I'm not. It's nothing official. I'm just cursing your mocking of the Holy Catholic Church.
Wyatt is not mocking the Catholic Church. He is Catholic. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #363 on: January 26, 2011, 12:29:02 PM »

Now you've lost me. Killed who? How can a city-state kill someone or adulterate or spawn anything?
Izzy is always so confused on this matter, as he is on almost everythign else. For some reason he thinks a City-State does all kinds of things.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #364 on: January 26, 2011, 02:32:34 PM »

Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

I guess this damning of another poster is ok with Forum rules?

What do you all think would happen if I damned or cursed an Orthodox poster's comments or his or her application of the faith?

I don't know what religion you belong to actually but as a Catholic I can tell you that to curse someone is a very grave sin with grave consequences for all concerned.

Mary

Obviously I am not judging Wyatt in his person. Your Second Council of Constantinople made it quite clear that we can judge some of the opinions or actions of a person without judging the entirety of the person. Obviously I am not judging him or damning him, but only labeling his application of Scripture as erroneous. Though I am not surprised that you of all people are trying to make more out of it than is real: you seem to do so regularly.
As Mary already pointed out, you hardly have the authority to be handing out anathemas. Tongue

I'm not. It's nothing official. I'm just cursing your mocking of the Holy Catholic Church.
How can you be sure that your Church is that Church? How do you know that the RCs, EO, or the ACOE don't have the correct answer?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #365 on: January 26, 2011, 03:46:56 PM »

Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

I guess this damning of another poster is ok with Forum rules?

What do you all think would happen if I damned or cursed an Orthodox poster's comments or his or her application of the faith?

I don't know what religion you belong to actually but as a Catholic I can tell you that to curse someone is a very grave sin with grave consequences for all concerned.

Mary

Obviously I am not judging Wyatt in his person. Your Second Council of Constantinople made it quite clear that we can judge some of the opinions or actions of a person without judging the entirety of the person. Obviously I am not judging him or damning him, but only labeling his application of Scripture as erroneous. Though I am not surprised that you of all people are trying to make more out of it than is real: you seem to do so regularly.
As Mary already pointed out, you hardly have the authority to be handing out anathemas. Tongue

I'm not. It's nothing official. I'm just cursing your mocking of the Holy Catholic Church.
Wyatt is not mocking the Catholic Church. He is Catholic. Smiley

 Roll Eyes

I'm tired of that game.
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 #366 on: January 26, 2011, 03:57:02 PM »

Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

I guess this damning of another poster is ok with Forum rules?

What do you all think would happen if I damned or cursed an Orthodox poster's comments or his or her application of the faith?

I don't know what religion you belong to actually but as a Catholic I can tell you that to curse someone is a very grave sin with grave consequences for all concerned.

Mary

Obviously I am not judging Wyatt in his person. Your Second Council of Constantinople made it quite clear that we can judge some of the opinions or actions of a person without judging the entirety of the person. Obviously I am not judging him or damning him, but only labeling his application of Scripture as erroneous. Though I am not surprised that you of all people are trying to make more out of it than is real: you seem to do so regularly.
As Mary already pointed out, you hardly have the authority to be handing out anathemas. Tongue

I'm not. It's nothing official. I'm just cursing your mocking of the Holy Catholic Church.
How can you be sure that your Church is that Church? How do you know that the RCs, EO, or the ACOE don't have the correct answer?

I'm not sure. I'm just acting upon what I confidently believe.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #367 on: January 26, 2011, 03:58:13 PM »

Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

I guess this damning of another poster is ok with Forum rules?

What do you all think would happen if I damned or cursed an Orthodox poster's comments or his or her application of the faith?

I don't know what religion you belong to actually but as a Catholic I can tell you that to curse someone is a very grave sin with grave consequences for all concerned.

Mary

Obviously I am not judging Wyatt in his person. Your Second Council of Constantinople made it quite clear that we can judge some of the opinions or actions of a person without judging the entirety of the person. Obviously I am not judging him or damning him, but only labeling his application of Scripture as erroneous. Though I am not surprised that you of all people are trying to make more out of it than is real: you seem to do so regularly.
As Mary already pointed out, you hardly have the authority to be handing out anathemas. Tongue

I'm not. It's nothing official. I'm just cursing your mocking of the Holy Catholic Church.
Wyatt is not mocking the Catholic Church. He is Catholic. Smiley

 Roll Eyes

I'm tired of that game.
Then why did you start it up again?
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #368 on: January 26, 2011, 04:17:09 PM »

Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

I guess this damning of another poster is ok with Forum rules?

What do you all think would happen if I damned or cursed an Orthodox poster's comments or his or her application of the faith?

I don't know what religion you belong to actually but as a Catholic I can tell you that to curse someone is a very grave sin with grave consequences for all concerned.

Mary

Obviously I am not judging Wyatt in his person. Your Second Council of Constantinople made it quite clear that we can judge some of the opinions or actions of a person without judging the entirety of the person. Obviously I am not judging him or damning him, but only labeling his application of Scripture as erroneous. Though I am not surprised that you of all people are trying to make more out of it than is real: you seem to do so regularly.
As Mary already pointed out, you hardly have the authority to be handing out anathemas. Tongue

I'm not. It's nothing official. I'm just cursing your mocking of the Holy Catholic Church.
Wyatt is not mocking the Catholic Church. He is Catholic. Smiley

 Roll Eyes

I'm tired of that game.
Then why did you start it up again?

Huh? How did I do that?
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #369 on: January 26, 2011, 04:39:53 PM »


Huh? How did I do that?

When you said this: "I'm not. It's nothing official. I'm just cursing your mocking of the Holy Catholic Church."

Since you are debating Catholics, it is clear that you were baiting them with this statement.

Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #370 on: January 26, 2011, 04:44:35 PM »


Huh? How did I do that?

When you said this: "I'm not. It's nothing official. I'm just cursing your mocking of the Holy Catholic Church."

Since you are debating Catholics, it is clear that you were baiting them with this statement.



Oh good grief.

No, I wasn't doing that. It's just one of the titles that I use in general to identify the OOC as the Church of Christ, along with "the True Church", "the Church of Christ", "the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", etc.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #371 on: January 26, 2011, 07:06:37 PM »

Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

I guess this damning of another poster is ok with Forum rules?

What do you all think would happen if I damned or cursed an Orthodox poster's comments or his or her application of the faith?

I don't know what religion you belong to actually but as a Catholic I can tell you that to curse someone is a very grave sin with grave consequences for all concerned.

Mary

Obviously I am not judging Wyatt in his person. Your Second Council of Constantinople made it quite clear that we can judge some of the opinions or actions of a person without judging the entirety of the person. Obviously I am not judging him or damning him, but only labeling his application of Scripture as erroneous. Though I am not surprised that you of all people are trying to make more out of it than is real: you seem to do so regularly.
As Mary already pointed out, you hardly have the authority to be handing out anathemas. Tongue

I'm not. It's nothing official. I'm just cursing your mocking of the Holy Catholic Church.
Wyatt is not mocking the Catholic Church. He is Catholic. Smiley
Not if he submits himself to a pontiff as the foundation of the Church, when said pontiffs in succession can't explain how they arrogate the Church's charism to themselves, when according to Scripture and Tradition the lesset cannot bless the better, and the epsicopate is one, transmitted only in the laying on of hands, one office and order diffused through many bishops who each hold it for all. Not one holding it to himself, primates exercising their office as transmitted to theim in their capacity as the minister of their Holy Synods.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 07:09:36 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #372 on: January 26, 2011, 07:15:16 PM »

Now you've lost me. Killed who? How can a city-state kill someone or adulterate or spawn anything?
Izzy is always so confused on this matter, as he is on almost everythign else. For some reason he thinks a City-State does all kinds of things.
City  states can do all sorts of things. Like kidnap children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #373 on: January 26, 2011, 07:31:34 PM »


Huh? How did I do that?

When you said this: "I'm not. It's nothing official. I'm just cursing your mocking of the Holy Catholic Church."

Since you are debating Catholics, it is clear that you were baiting them with this statement.



Oh good grief.

No, I wasn't doing that. It's just one of the titles that I use in general to identify the OOC as the Church of Christ, along with "the True Church", "the Church of Christ", "the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", etc.
Surrrrrrrrrre.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #374 on: January 26, 2011, 07:33:08 PM »

Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

I guess this damning of another poster is ok with Forum rules?

What do you all think would happen if I damned or cursed an Orthodox poster's comments or his or her application of the faith?

I don't know what religion you belong to actually but as a Catholic I can tell you that to curse someone is a very grave sin with grave consequences for all concerned.

Mary

Obviously I am not judging Wyatt in his person. Your Second Council of Constantinople made it quite clear that we can judge some of the opinions or actions of a person without judging the entirety of the person. Obviously I am not judging him or damning him, but only labeling his application of Scripture as erroneous. Though I am not surprised that you of all people are trying to make more out of it than is real: you seem to do so regularly.
As Mary already pointed out, you hardly have the authority to be handing out anathemas. Tongue

I'm not. It's nothing official. I'm just cursing your mocking of the Holy Catholic Church.
Wyatt is not mocking the Catholic Church. He is Catholic. Smiley
Not if he submits himself to a pontiff as the foundation of the Church, when said pontiffs in succession can't explain how they arrogate the Church's charism to themselves, when according to Scripture and Tradition the lesset cannot bless the better, and the epsicopate is one, transmitted only in the laying on of hands, one office and order diffused through many bishops who each hold it for all. Not one holding it to himself, primates exercising their office as transmitted to theim in their capacity as the minister of their Holy Synods.
First, Wyatt's Catholic. You are not.
Second, the office of Papacy is not given by some one lesser, because ultimately it comes from God who is infinitely above all of us. But, of course, you know this.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #375 on: January 26, 2011, 09:10:01 PM »

Papist, by order of His Holiness John Paul II you are obliged to hear my viewpoint since we share a common faith. If the objections you posted are your sole objection on what I and others here have said on the papacy, then you are not of one mind with your own Church since it has no such problems:

Quote

COMMON CHRISTOLOGICAL DECLARATION
BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST

His Holiness John Paul II, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, give thanks to God who has prompted them to this new brotherly meeting.

Both of them consider this meeting as a basic step on the way towards the full communion to be restored between their Churches. They can indeed, from now on, proclaim together before the world their common faith in the mystery of the Incarnation.

***

As heirs and guardians of the faith received from the Apostles as formulated by our common Fathers in the Nicene Creed, we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father from all eternity who, in the fullness of time, came down from heaven and became man for our salvation. The Word of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit in assuming from the holy Virgin Mary a body animated by a rational soul, with which he was indissolubly united from the moment of his conception.

Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting "one and another", the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single adoration.

Christ therefore is not an " ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour". In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of God" and also as "the Mother of Christ". We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.

This is the unique faith that we profess in the mystery of Christ. The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord's Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.

Whatever our Christological divergences have been, we experience ourselves united today in the confession of the same faith in the Son of God who became man so that we might become children of God by his grace. We wish from now on to witness together to this faith in the One who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, proclaiming it in appropriate ways to our contemporaries, so that the world may believe in the Gospel of salvation.
***

The mystery of the Incarnation which we profess in common is not an abstract and isolated truth. It refers to the Son of God sent to save us. The economy of salvation, which has its origin in the mystery of communion of the Holy Trinity — Father, Son and Holy Spirit —, is brought to its fulfilment through the sharing in this communion, by grace, within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which is the People of God, the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit.

Believers become members of this Body through the sacrament of Baptism, through which, by water and the working of the Holy Spirit, they are born again as new creatures. They are confirmed by the seal of the Holy Spirit who bestows the sacrament of Anointing. Their communion with God and among themselves is brought to full realization by the celebration of the unique offering of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. This communion is restored for the sinful members of the Church when they are reconciled with God and with one another through the sacrament of Forgiveness. The sacrament of Ordination to the ministerial priesthood in the apostolic succession assures the authenticity of the faith, the sacraments and the communion in each local Church.

Living by this faith and these sacraments, it follows as a consequence that the particular Catholic churches and the particular Assyrian churches can recognize each other as sister Churches. To be full and entire, communion presupposes the unanimity concerning the content of the faith, the sacraments and the constitution of the Church. Since this unanimity for which we aim has not yet been attained, we cannot unfortunately celebrate together the Eucharist which is the sign of the ecclesial communion already fully restored.

Nevertheless, the deep spiritual communion in the faith and the mutual trust already existing between our Churches, entitle us from now on to consider witnessing together to the Gospel message and cooperating in particular pastoral situations, including especially the areas of catechesis and the formation of future priests.

In thanking God for having made us rediscover what already unites us in the faith and the sacraments, we pledge ourselves to do everything possible to dispel the obstacles of the past which still prevent the attainment of full communion between our Churches, so that we can better respond to the Lord's call for the unity of his own, a unity which has of course to be expressed visibly. To overcome these obstacles, we now establish a Mixed Committee for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.

Given at Saint Peter's, on 11 November 1994




But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
- 1 Corinthians 13:13



With Love I and others rebuke you Brother on the issue of the office of the papacy.

First, this document is an attempt at ecumenical reconciliation, not dogmatic definition for Cathoics,  and in the points mentioned above, yes we agree.... sorta. If you notice the document is vague, as is the theological language you use. For example, your refusal to say that God sacrificed his blood for our sins demonstrates that your theological language tends towards nestorianism, rejecting the true unity of natures in the Person of Christ. I am not saying that you are a nestorian. I don't know. But what I do know is that language that your church uses is extremely dangerous. You need to understand that the person who is Christ, is God.


Papist, the original manuscripts of the New Testament iven by St.Thaddeus in the City of Edesssa, immediately placed in the Holy Estrangela Script of the City and kept that way up to this day which existed before the Christological controversies- for very ancient manuscripts are in posession of the Church (indeed an autograph once was around before the Mongol invasions and some interesting rumours say it is currently still around) and like much of its literature cannot come to light given the history of the Church which you know about,  say the Messiah sacrificed his blood....NOT God! This was a M-people edit job and the writings of the Roman Catholic Church fathers Jerome, Ambrose, and countless Eastern Orthodox fathers also shows the same reading of the ACOE, meaning somebody was editing the Greek manuscripts from their time onwards. It is impossible for the Immortal to sacrifice his Blood for the Almighty does not have blood. Human beings do. The Son of God, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are Spirits and they donot have blood.

Quote
You need to understand that the person who is Christ, is God.

The Lord God Jesus Christ has a Human Qnuma and a Divine Qnuma in one person. Not two persons, two Qnume.

Kyana= abstract nature
Qnuma= individualization of a Kyana but not containing it's entirety.

In His Divine Qnuma the entirety of the Godhead (The Entire Holy Trinity which cannot be seperated) is contained. Therefore I confess that Christ is God just like the ACOE.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #376 on: January 26, 2011, 11:03:23 PM »

First, Wyatt's Catholic. You are not.

You guys haven't yet realized how pointless the back and forth:

"We're Catholic. You're not."

"No we're Catholic and you're not."

game is?  Roll Eyes
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 #377 on: January 26, 2011, 11:03:52 PM »


Huh? How did I do that?

When you said this: "I'm not. It's nothing official. I'm just cursing your mocking of the Holy Catholic Church."

Since you are debating Catholics, it is clear that you were baiting them with this statement.



Oh good grief.

No, I wasn't doing that. It's just one of the titles that I use in general to identify the OOC as the Church of Christ, along with "the True Church", "the Church of Christ", "the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", etc.
Surrrrrrrrrre.

Why would you suspect me of lying?

I have no history of doing such and I have quite a history of willing to be frank about this sort of thing (probably more than most on this forum), so I don't see how such a suspicion would be at all reasonable in this situation.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 11:05:25 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
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,914


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #378 on: January 26, 2011, 11:17:51 PM »

Apparently someone thinks this is the "Nestorian-Catholic Discussion" forum.

"And that which is in this cup to be the blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.  Amen."
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.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #379 on: January 27, 2011, 12:33:37 AM »

Christ founding the Church upon Saint Peter (if that is even a legitimate interpretation [it certainly wasn't the most common Patristic one]) really has nothing to do with the supposed supremacy and infalliblity of Rome, so far as we can see.
"And he spoke also to them a similitude: Can the blind lead the blind? do they not both fall into the ditch?" -St. Luke 6:39

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
The Gospel of the Lord! Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Praised be the Gospel of the Lord. Cursed be your application of it.

I guess this damning of another poster is ok with Forum rules?

What do you all think would happen if I damned or cursed an Orthodox poster's comments or his or her application of the faith?

I don't know what religion you belong to actually but as a Catholic I can tell you that to curse someone is a very grave sin with grave consequences for all concerned.

Mary

Obviously I am not judging Wyatt in his person. Your Second Council of Constantinople made it quite clear that we can judge some of the opinions or actions of a person without judging the entirety of the person. Obviously I am not judging him or damning him, but only labeling his application of Scripture as erroneous. Though I am not surprised that you of all people are trying to make more out of it than is real: you seem to do so regularly.
As Mary already pointed out, you hardly have the authority to be handing out anathemas. Tongue

I'm not. It's nothing official. I'm just cursing your mocking of the Holy Catholic Church.
Wyatt is not mocking the Catholic Church. He is Catholic. Smiley
Not if he submits himself to a pontiff as the foundation of the Church, when said pontiffs in succession can't explain how they arrogate the Church's charism to themselves, when according to Scripture and Tradition the lesset cannot bless the better, and the epsicopate is one, transmitted only in the laying on of hands, one office and order diffused through many bishops who each hold it for all. Not one holding it to himself, primates exercising their office as transmitted to theim in their capacity as the minister of their Holy Synods.
First, Wyatt's Catholic. You are not.
Not if he denies the unadulterated, Orthodox Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Since I confess that Creed, of course I am Catholic, and not a parochial Latin.
Second, the office of Papacy is not given by some one lesser, because ultimately it comes from God who is infinitely above all of us.
So does baptism, but it has to come from someone who can baptize, ipso facto better, i.e. a baptized Christian, and given to the lesser, i.e. the unbaptized.  That your magisterium denies this simple Truth, that only members of Christ's body can baptize into Christ, with its acceptance of "baptism" of pagans and infidels sheds new light on your problem to explain how your supreme pontiff gets his power.  I think we have uncovered a new angle to your problem.

But, of course, you know this.
Of course I know. That's why I cling to the Catholic Church and won't submit to the Vatican.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 12:34:34 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,977


WWW
« Reply #380 on: January 27, 2011, 02:04:59 AM »

Where were all the Ecumenical Councils held? And whence came most of the bishops at the Ecumenical Councils? And what language were the Ecumenical Councils conducted in? Hint: it is the same language that the Vatican forbids the filioque being recited in: it results in heresy even by Vatican standards.

Is that still true today especially in the 2 Churches in Athens where Greek Catholicism is celebrated, presumably, in Greek?

<whistling>

Still waiting for an answer.   Smiley

</whistling>
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #381 on: January 27, 2011, 04:12:36 AM »

Apparently someone thinks this is the "Nestorian-Catholic Discussion" forum.

"And that which is in this cup to be the blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.  Amen."

Who installed that liturgy in Constantinople  Wink
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #382 on: January 28, 2011, 05:22:12 AM »

I cling to the Catholic Church
Keep proclaiming that. Maybe one day it will become true.

Lord have mercy!
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #383 on: January 28, 2011, 05:27:44 AM »

Apparently someone thinks this is the "Nestorian-Catholic Discussion" forum.

"And that which is in this cup to be the blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.  Amen."

Who installed that liturgy in Constantinople  Wink

Un-Orthodox: "Immortal God who died and gave his blood" like the trisagion hymn of Severus of Antioch who the Eastern Orthodox Church consider a very bad person.

Orthodox: "And that which is in this cup to be the blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.  Amen."

When Nestorius was selecting an Orthodox liturgy for his flock (ie: he selected the Divine Liturgy since Saint John Chrysostom was a friend and colleague of Theodore of Mopsuestia his teacher who was in turn taught by Diodorus of Tarsus, who was of the tradition of the Cappadocian fathers), he chose the one his Antiochene brothers (the pillars of that tradition mentioned) edited in the most Orthodox way possible. The blood of our Lord Jesus in his humanity, who is God, and the humanity and Divinity which are our Saviour, paraphrase. Makes perfect sense as opposed to something like "Immortal crucified for us who gave his blood" something a person like a Severus of Antioch would write and which was accepted as heretical by everybody in Eastern Orthodoxy in happier times...
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #384 on: January 28, 2011, 08:13:52 AM »

I cling to the Catholic Church
Keep proclaiming that. Maybe one day it will become true.

Lord have mercy!

On another thread, someone brought up Aiken's article "Why I am not Eastern Orthodox" from "This Rock."  He says something interesting:
Quote
There was also the incident in which Caiaphas unwittingly prophesies about the death of Christ. John specifically tells us that "he did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation" (John 11:51).

There thus seemed to be some kind of special teaching charism associated with the earthly leader of God’s people in the Old Testament. While the era of new public revelation is now closed, it wasn’t unreasonable that there be a special teaching charism associated with the office of the earthly leader of God’s people in the New Testament age. "It’s a good thing the Catholics are wrong about Peter being the rock," I used to say. "Or they’d have an interesting argument for papal infallibility here."
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

or the Orthodox have an interesting agrument that the Vatican doesn't have this charism, as no pontiff it consecrated to it: the High Priest  was consecrated by anoiting and vesting.  Only then did he take ex officio the presidency of the Sanhedrin.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #385 on: January 28, 2011, 06:48:17 PM »

or the Orthodox have an interesting agrument that the Vatican doesn't have this charism, as no pontiff it consecrated to it: the High Priest  was consecrated by anoiting and vesting.  Only then did he take ex officio the presidency of the Sanhedrin.
It makes perfect sense that the office of Pope is not conferred to Bishops by a Sacrament. Christ ordained all of the Apostles by breathing on them and saying "receive ye the Holy Ghost." However, when Jesus declared St. Peter to be the rock upon which His Church would be built, He did not breathe on St. Peter again to give him another level of Holy Orders. He simply established St. Peter's role in the Church by declaring it.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #386 on: January 28, 2011, 06:48:17 PM »

I cling to the Catholic Church
Keep proclaiming that. Maybe one day it will become true.

Lord have mercy!

On another thread, someone brought up Aiken's article "Why I am not Eastern Orthodox" from "This Rock."  He says something interesting:
Quote
There was also the incident in which Caiaphas unwittingly prophesies about the death of Christ. John specifically tells us that "he did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation" (John 11:51).

There thus seemed to be some kind of special teaching charism associated with the earthly leader of God’s people in the Old Testament. While the era of new public revelation is now closed, it wasn’t unreasonable that there be a special teaching charism associated with the office of the earthly leader of God’s people in the New Testament age. "It’s a good thing the Catholics are wrong about Peter being the rock," I used to say. "Or they’d have an interesting argument for papal infallibility here."
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

or the Orthodox have an interesting agrument that the Vatican doesn't have this charism, as no pontiff it consecrated to it: the High Priest  was consecrated by anoiting and vesting.  Only then did he take ex officio the presidency of the Sanhedrin.

You keep busying yourself with this.  I think it is a most appropriate topic for a man of your talents.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #387 on: January 28, 2011, 08:56:11 PM »

or the Orthodox have an interesting agrument that the Vatican doesn't have this charism, as no pontiff it consecrated to it: the High Priest  was consecrated by anoiting and vesting.  Only then did he take ex officio the presidency of the Sanhedrin.
It makes perfect sense that the office of Pope is not conferred to Bishops by a Sacrament. Christ ordained all of the Apostles by breathing on them and saying "receive ye the Holy Ghost." However, when Jesus declared St. Peter to be the rock upon which His Church would be built, He did not breathe on St. Peter again to give him another level of Holy Orders. He simply established St. Peter's role in the Church by declaring it.
Your chronology is off (a common affliction among the believers in the IC).

Matthew 16:19 καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

δώσω future active indicative

John 20:22 καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐνεφύσησε καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Λάβετε Πνεῦμα ἅγιον·

When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost

Λάβετε Aorist imperative active.

So you have a future promise, even according to the Vatican's promoting of Matthew (the Gospel of St. Peter's first see, Antioch), not a present reality, as in John.  And like you said, Christ doesn't breath on St. Peter twice, just once, like all the other Apostles. What should you learn from that?

But your point is interesting: so St. Peter was supreme pontiff before he was a bishop. that has interesting implications, e.g. Pope Adrian, elected but never consecrated a bishop, who annulled a previous bishop of Rome and supreme pontiff of the Vatican, therefore with implications for the validity of elections thereafter. Rather serious, since election, not the Holy Spirit-according to your contentions, conveys the charism.
Quote
Under the influence of Charles of Anjou, he was elected pope to succeed Innocent V on 12 July 1276 but died at Viterbo on 18 August 1276 without ever having been ordained to the priesthood; he is buried there in the church of S. Francesco. Technically, since Adrian V was never ordained bishop, he never truly became the Bishop of Rome, but traditionally he is counted in the papal succession.

He achieved little during his time as pope; he annulled Pope Gregory X's (1271–76) bull on the holding of papal conclaves, but died before enacting new regulations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_V





Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #388 on: January 28, 2011, 08:57:33 PM »

I cling to the Catholic Church
Keep proclaiming that. Maybe one day it will become true.

Lord have mercy!

On another thread, someone brought up Aiken's article "Why I am not Eastern Orthodox" from "This Rock."  He says something interesting:
Quote
There was also the incident in which Caiaphas unwittingly prophesies about the death of Christ. John specifically tells us that "he did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation" (John 11:51).

There thus seemed to be some kind of special teaching charism associated with the earthly leader of God’s people in the Old Testament. While the era of new public revelation is now closed, it wasn’t unreasonable that there be a special teaching charism associated with the office of the earthly leader of God’s people in the New Testament age. "It’s a good thing the Catholics are wrong about Peter being the rock," I used to say. "Or they’d have an interesting argument for papal infallibility here."
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

or the Orthodox have an interesting agrument that the Vatican doesn't have this charism, as no pontiff it consecrated to it: the High Priest  was consecrated by anoiting and vesting.  Only then did he take ex officio the presidency of the Sanhedrin.

You keep busying yourself with this.  I think it is a most appropriate topic for a man of your talents.
I appreciate encouragement like this from those of your expertise.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #389 on: January 29, 2011, 05:09:45 AM »

or the Orthodox have an interesting agrument that the Vatican doesn't have this charism, as no pontiff it consecrated to it: the High Priest  was consecrated by anoiting and vesting.  Only then did he take ex officio the presidency of the Sanhedrin.
It makes perfect sense that the office of Pope is not conferred to Bishops by a Sacrament. Christ ordained all of the Apostles by breathing on them and saying "receive ye the Holy Ghost." However, when Jesus declared St. Peter to be the rock upon which His Church would be built, He did not breathe on St. Peter again to give him another level of Holy Orders. He simply established St. Peter's role in the Church by declaring it.
Your chronology is off (a common affliction among the believers in the IC).

Matthew 16:19 καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

δώσω future active indicative

John 20:22 καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐνεφύσησε καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Λάβετε Πνεῦμα ἅγιον·

When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost

Λάβετε Aorist imperative active.

So you have a future promise, even according to the Vatican's promoting of Matthew (the Gospel of St. Peter's first see, Antioch), not a present reality, as in John.  And like you said, Christ doesn't breath on St. Peter twice, just once, like all the other Apostles. What should you learn from that?

But your point is interesting: so St. Peter was supreme pontiff before he was a bishop. that has interesting implications, e.g. Pope Adrian, elected but never consecrated a bishop, who annulled a previous bishop of Rome and supreme pontiff of the Vatican, therefore with implications for the validity of elections thereafter. Rather serious, since election, not the Holy Spirit-according to your contentions, conveys the charism.
Quote
Under the influence of Charles of Anjou, he was elected pope to succeed Innocent V on 12 July 1276 but died at Viterbo on 18 August 1276 without ever having been ordained to the priesthood; he is buried there in the church of S. Francesco. Technically, since Adrian V was never ordained bishop, he never truly became the Bishop of Rome, but traditionally he is counted in the papal succession.

He achieved little during his time as pope; he annulled Pope Gregory X's (1271–76) bull on the holding of papal conclaves, but died before enacting new regulations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_V

It shows that the role of Pope in the Church is completely separate and unique from the role of Bishop. It is not handed on in the same way as Holy Orders because the Petrine ministry is completely separate and unique to the role of Bishop. St. Peter was an Apostle and the first Pope. Likewise, Benedict XVI is a Bishop and also the Pope.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #390 on: January 29, 2011, 01:15:29 PM »

or the Orthodox have an interesting agrument that the Vatican doesn't have this charism, as no pontiff it consecrated to it: the High Priest  was consecrated by anoiting and vesting.  Only then did he take ex officio the presidency of the Sanhedrin.
It makes perfect sense that the office of Pope is not conferred to Bishops by a Sacrament. Christ ordained all of the Apostles by breathing on them and saying "receive ye the Holy Ghost." However, when Jesus declared St. Peter to be the rock upon which His Church would be built, He did not breathe on St. Peter again to give him another level of Holy Orders. He simply established St. Peter's role in the Church by declaring it.
Your chronology is off (a common affliction among the believers in the IC).

Matthew 16:19 καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

δώσω future active indicative

John 20:22 καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐνεφύσησε καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Λάβετε Πνεῦμα ἅγιον·

When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost

Λάβετε Aorist imperative active.

So you have a future promise, even according to the Vatican's promoting of Matthew (the Gospel of St. Peter's first see, Antioch), not a present reality, as in John.  And like you said, Christ doesn't breath on St. Peter twice, just once, like all the other Apostles. What should you learn from that?

But your point is interesting: so St. Peter was supreme pontiff before he was a bishop. that has interesting implications, e.g. Pope Adrian, elected but never consecrated a bishop, who annulled a previous bishop of Rome and supreme pontiff of the Vatican, therefore with implications for the validity of elections thereafter. Rather serious, since election, not the Holy Spirit-according to your contentions, conveys the charism.
Quote
Under the influence of Charles of Anjou, he was elected pope to succeed Innocent V on 12 July 1276 but died at Viterbo on 18 August 1276 without ever having been ordained to the priesthood; he is buried there in the church of S. Francesco. Technically, since Adrian V was never ordained bishop, he never truly became the Bishop of Rome, but traditionally he is counted in the papal succession.

He achieved little during his time as pope; he annulled Pope Gregory X's (1271–76) bull on the holding of papal conclaves, but died before enacting new regulations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_V

It shows that the role of Pope in the Church is completely separate and unique from the role of Bishop. It is not handed on in the same way as Holy Orders because the Petrine ministry is completely separate and unique to the role of Bishop. St. Peter was an Apostle and the first Pope. Likewise, Benedict XVI is a Bishop and also the Pope.
If the pontificate is so seperate and unique then it shouldn't presuppose "an episcopal character." And you still haven't explained how it is "handed on," particularly as your cited proof text for the pontificate do not constitute the speech act/words of insitution conferring it, as it speaks in the future, while the proof text you offer for the episcopate is the speech act and words of institution, commanding in the present "receive!"
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,016


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #391 on: January 29, 2011, 02:13:06 PM »

or the Orthodox have an interesting agrument that the Vatican doesn't have this charism, as no pontiff it consecrated to it: the High Priest  was consecrated by anoiting and vesting.  Only then did he take ex officio the presidency of the Sanhedrin.
It makes perfect sense that the office of Pope is not conferred to Bishops by a Sacrament. Christ ordained all of the Apostles by breathing on them and saying "receive ye the Holy Ghost." However, when Jesus declared St. Peter to be the rock upon which His Church would be built, He did not breathe on St. Peter again to give him another level of Holy Orders. He simply established St. Peter's role in the Church by declaring it.
Your chronology is off (a common affliction among the believers in the IC).

Matthew 16:19 καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

δώσω future active indicative

John 20:22 καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐνεφύσησε καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Λάβετε Πνεῦμα ἅγιον·

When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost

Λάβετε Aorist imperative active.

So you have a future promise, even according to the Vatican's promoting of Matthew (the Gospel of St. Peter's first see, Antioch), not a present reality, as in John.  And like you said, Christ doesn't breath on St. Peter twice, just once, like all the other Apostles. What should you learn from that?

But your point is interesting: so St. Peter was supreme pontiff before he was a bishop. that has interesting implications, e.g. Pope Adrian, elected but never consecrated a bishop, who annulled a previous bishop of Rome and supreme pontiff of the Vatican, therefore with implications for the validity of elections thereafter. Rather serious, since election, not the Holy Spirit-according to your contentions, conveys the charism.
Quote
Under the influence of Charles of Anjou, he was elected pope to succeed Innocent V on 12 July 1276 but died at Viterbo on 18 August 1276 without ever having been ordained to the priesthood; he is buried there in the church of S. Francesco. Technically, since Adrian V was never ordained bishop, he never truly became the Bishop of Rome, but traditionally he is counted in the papal succession.

He achieved little during his time as pope; he annulled Pope Gregory X's (1271–76) bull on the holding of papal conclaves, but died before enacting new regulations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_V

It shows that the role of Pope in the Church is completely separate and unique from the role of Bishop. It is not handed on in the same way as Holy Orders because the Petrine ministry is completely separate and unique to the role of Bishop. St. Peter was an Apostle and the first Pope. Likewise, Benedict XVI is a Bishop and also the Pope.
If the pontificate is so seperate and unique then it shouldn't presuppose "an episcopal character." And you still haven't explained how it is "handed on," particularly as your cited proof text for the pontificate do not constitute the speech act/words of insitution conferring it, as it speaks in the future, while the proof text you offer for the episcopate is the speech act and words of institution, commanding in the present "receive!"

Is it not interesting in terms of how recent Popes view themselves and their position? By this I mean the changes in the investiture ceremony and the 'retirement' of the triple tiara. Unless my eyes deceive me, the late Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict appear vested at liturgical ceremonies a form of vestment that is not visibly different than the other bishops presiding with him at the altar. It seems to me that this is at least a tacit acknowledgment of a more traditional understanding of the role of Bishop of Rome - at least on the surface. (I really don't know much about western vestments, so please correct me if my anecdotal observation is in error.)
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #392 on: January 29, 2011, 03:14:28 PM »

If the pontificate is so seperate and unique then it shouldn't presuppose "an episcopal character." And you still haven't explained how it is "handed on," particularly as your cited proof text for the pontificate do not constitute the speech act/words of insitution conferring it, as it speaks in the future, while the proof text you offer for the episcopate is the speech act and words of institution, commanding in the present "receive!"
So you believe that the Holy Spirit can only confer a charism through the Sacraments? You believe the Holy Spirit is subordinate to and a slave to the Church and can only act through Her Sacraments rather than the Church being guided and illuminated by the Holy Spirit?
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #393 on: January 29, 2011, 05:41:20 PM »



"We affirm in this conference that the deliberate practice of contraception between husband and wife is objectively a mortal sin."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/christ/confatal.txt

-oOo-

2396. "Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices."

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Father,

As I've asked other in this thread, do you claim that the Church of Rome teaches that 'all' who commit these sins are fully culpable in their acts? That the bonds of their sins, social teachings of their day, misunderstandings of the truth don't bind their will beyond their own culpability for these acts? Are you honestly saying that this is what the Church of Rome teaches? Seriously?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #394 on: January 29, 2011, 05:55:06 PM »



"We affirm in this conference that the deliberate practice of contraception between husband and wife is objectively a mortal sin."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/christ/confatal.txt

-oOo-

2396. "Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices."

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Father,

As I've asked other in this thread, do you claim that the Church of Rome teaches that 'all' who commit these sins are fully culpable in their acts? That the bonds of their sins, social teachings of their day, misunderstandings of the truth don't bind their will beyond their own culpability for these acts? Are you honestly saying that this is what the Church of Rome teaches? Seriously?
It is clear Fr. Ambrose either A. does not understand the Catholic Church's teaching on venial and mortal sins and how to determine whether any given sin is mortal in individual circumstances, or B. he knows good and well the teaching but prefers, like several others on this forum, to smear our Church.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #395 on: January 29, 2011, 07:01:38 PM »



"We affirm in this conference that the deliberate practice of contraception between husband and wife is objectively a mortal sin."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/christ/confatal.txt

-oOo-

2396. "Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices."

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Father,

As I've asked other in this thread, do you claim that the Church of Rome teaches that 'all' who commit these sins are fully culpable in their acts? That the bonds of their sins, social teachings of their day, misunderstandings of the truth don't bind their will beyond their own culpability for these acts? Are you honestly saying that this is what the Church of Rome teaches? Seriously?
I've heard plenty of the Vatican's spokemen teach so seriously.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #396 on: January 29, 2011, 07:10:57 PM »

If the pontificate is so seperate and unique then it shouldn't presuppose "an episcopal character." And you still haven't explained how it is "handed on," particularly as your cited proof text for the pontificate do not constitute the speech act/words of insitution conferring it, as it speaks in the future, while the proof text you offer for the episcopate is the speech act and words of institution, commanding in the present "receive!"
So you believe that the Holy Spirit can only confer a charism through the Sacraments? You believe the Holy Spirit is subordinate to and a slave to the Church and can only act through Her Sacraments rather than the Church being guided and illuminated by the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Body of Christ, the Church.  The Spirit can blow where it wills, but we can dogmatically state His workings only in the Church acting by Christ's command. If it were not so, we would have to acknoweledge the televangelist who claims Christ has called him and the Spirit has anointed him as much as your supreme pontiff who claims his authority without consecration.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #397 on: January 29, 2011, 07:14:49 PM »

or the Orthodox have an interesting agrument that the Vatican doesn't have this charism, as no pontiff it consecrated to it: the High Priest  was consecrated by anoiting and vesting.  Only then did he take ex officio the presidency of the Sanhedrin.
It makes perfect sense that the office of Pope is not conferred to Bishops by a Sacrament. Christ ordained all of the Apostles by breathing on them and saying "receive ye the Holy Ghost." However, when Jesus declared St. Peter to be the rock upon which His Church would be built, He did not breathe on St. Peter again to give him another level of Holy Orders. He simply established St. Peter's role in the Church by declaring it.
Your chronology is off (a common affliction among the believers in the IC).

Matthew 16:19 καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

δώσω future active indicative

John 20:22 καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐνεφύσησε καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Λάβετε Πνεῦμα ἅγιον·

When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost

Λάβετε Aorist imperative active.

So you have a future promise, even according to the Vatican's promoting of Matthew (the Gospel of St. Peter's first see, Antioch), not a present reality, as in John.  And like you said, Christ doesn't breath on St. Peter twice, just once, like all the other Apostles. What should you learn from that?

But your point is interesting: so St. Peter was supreme pontiff before he was a bishop. that has interesting implications, e.g. Pope Adrian, elected but never consecrated a bishop, who annulled a previous bishop of Rome and supreme pontiff of the Vatican, therefore with implications for the validity of elections thereafter. Rather serious, since election, not the Holy Spirit-according to your contentions, conveys the charism.
Quote
Under the influence of Charles of Anjou, he was elected pope to succeed Innocent V on 12 July 1276 but died at Viterbo on 18 August 1276 without ever having been ordained to the priesthood; he is buried there in the church of S. Francesco. Technically, since Adrian V was never ordained bishop, he never truly became the Bishop of Rome, but traditionally he is counted in the papal succession.

He achieved little during his time as pope; he annulled Pope Gregory X's (1271–76) bull on the holding of papal conclaves, but died before enacting new regulations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_V

It shows that the role of Pope in the Church is completely separate and unique from the role of Bishop. It is not handed on in the same way as Holy Orders because the Petrine ministry is completely separate and unique to the role of Bishop. St. Peter was an Apostle and the first Pope. Likewise, Benedict XVI is a Bishop and also the Pope.
If the pontificate is so seperate and unique then it shouldn't presuppose "an episcopal character." And you still haven't explained how it is "handed on," particularly as your cited proof text for the pontificate do not constitute the speech act/words of insitution conferring it, as it speaks in the future, while the proof text you offer for the episcopate is the speech act and words of institution, commanding in the present "receive!"

Is it not interesting in terms of how recent Popes view themselves and their position? By this I mean the changes in the investiture ceremony and the 'retirement' of the triple tiara. Unless my eyes deceive me, the late Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict appear vested at liturgical ceremonies a form of vestment that is not visibly different than the other bishops presiding with him at the altar. It seems to me that this is at least a tacit acknowledgment of a more traditional understanding of the role of Bishop of Rome - at least on the surface. (I really don't know much about western vestments, so please correct me if my anecdotal observation is in error.)
Yes, they have done away with the whole coronation ceremony, and its crowns. Interesting, the earliest papal coronations we know of started within the century after Pope Leo IX sent cardinal Umberto to Constantinople.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #398 on: January 30, 2011, 12:31:22 AM »


I've heard plenty of the Vatican's spokemen teach so seriously.

Could you give us an example of such teaching? I'm not a Moral Theology major or anything but even a basic overview of its principles would refute your claim. We can recognize that such acts are grave matters and if chosen with clarity by the penitent would be a Mortal Sin. That said, I don't know of anyone who would cast such a judgement without an inquiry into the state of that penitent. Such would be their Father Confessor. So I don't know how you are reaching these crude conclusions?

You mock our teachings by characterizing them in such a naive manner.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #399 on: January 30, 2011, 12:41:23 AM »


I've heard plenty of the Vatican's spokemen teach so seriously.

Could you give us an example of such teaching?
Sure, I've heard Fr. Caroppi say so many a time.

I'm not a Moral Theology major or anything but even a basic overview of its principles would refute your claim. We can recognize that such acts are grave matters and if chosen with clarity by the penitent would be a Mortal Sin. That said, I don't know of anyone who would cast such a judgement without an inquiry into the state of that penitent.

Then you don't get around much.  Hang around CAF, and you'll see it.

Such would be their Father Confessor. So I don't know how you are reaching these crude conclusions?

Just reporting what I see and hear.

You mock our teachings by characterizing them in such a naive manner.
I have no say in how they are presented.

As for the teachings themselves, your magisterium complicates this more than it is, while leaving many to deceive themselves.

Our priest last week (raised in the Vatican, btw, and at its Biblical Institute too) made the distinction that the Vatican manuals of confession cast the priest in the role of the prosecuting attorney, whereas Orthodoxy holds him as counsel for the defense.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #400 on: January 30, 2011, 09:54:37 AM »



"We affirm in this conference that the deliberate practice of contraception between husband and wife is objectively a mortal sin."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/christ/confatal.txt

-oOo-

2396. "Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices."

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Father,

As I've asked other in this thread, do you claim that the Church of Rome teaches that 'all' who commit these sins are fully culpable in their acts? That the bonds of their sins, social teachings of their day, misunderstandings of the truth don't bind their will beyond their own culpability for these acts? Are you honestly saying that this is what the Church of Rome teaches? Seriously?

CCC

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

They are mortal only if the individual knows this. Your not full blamed if you're naive.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,277


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #401 on: January 30, 2011, 01:31:36 PM »

Deus non alligatur sacramentis: God is not bound to His sacraments.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Tags: Petrine Primacy Tome of Leo ecclesiology ialmisry's b.s. 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   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 0.265 seconds with 70 queries.