OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 01:14:33 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Does the Orthodox Church "change?"  (Read 8655 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #45 on: July 03, 2011, 12:04:37 PM »

I have another question. How does this relate to chiliasm? It seems like it went from "acceptable option" to "damnable heresy."
Orthodoxy hasn't changed but chiliasm has.
I don't understand. You mean Papias, et al. held to a certain form of chiliasm that if believed today would be permissible in Orthodoxy?
Heresy arises when a relative truth is taken as the absolute core of Truth.  Put aside Papias for the moment, but SS. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus had such ideas, and their works are read by the Orthodox to this day.
You mean when one takes a theologoumenon and tries to dogmatize one opinion on it? Who in the pre-Nicaea Church did this with chiliasm? I don't recall.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,518



« Reply #46 on: July 03, 2011, 05:20:15 PM »

I have another question. How does this relate to chiliasm? It seems like it went from "acceptable option" to "damnable heresy."
Orthodoxy hasn't changed but chiliasm has.
I don't understand. You mean Papias, et al. held to a certain form of chiliasm that if believed today would be permissible in Orthodoxy?
Heresy arises when a relative truth is taken as the absolute core of Truth.  Put aside Papias for the moment, but SS. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus had such ideas, and their works are read by the Orthodox to this day.
You mean when one takes a theologoumenon and tries to dogmatize one opinion on it? Who in the pre-Nicaea Church did this with chiliasm? I don't recall.

Who has tried to dogmatize one opinion on it?   The bounds are:  "He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, and his Kingdom shall have no end."   When did Irenaeus or Papias deny this truth?   "Damnable heresy"?  
« Last Edit: July 03, 2011, 05:24:28 PM by FatherHLL » Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #47 on: July 03, 2011, 05:32:03 PM »

I don't think they did, but everyone keeps saying the belief in a 1000 year earthly reign of Christ contradicts that clause in the Creed. I'm a tad confused.
Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #48 on: August 16, 2011, 01:03:23 AM »

I figured it was better to bring this thread back than to start a new one on the same topic.

With reference to the discussion going on now http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38817.msg622157/boardseen.html#new in the Orthodox-RC board regarding the liturgy, it seems obvious that Devin is wrong in saying the True Church of Christ has never changed it's liturgy nor schismed. Any glance at the Old Believer fracas or the calender schism confirms this.

So, if the common rhetoric about the Church not changing is incorrect, then how can Orthodox theology be true? If it's own traditional claims are incorrect, then it is nothing but another man-made group, right?

I know I repeat myself a lot, but the reason I need to belabor this line of questioning is that honestly it is one of the few obstacles remaining before I convert, one of the few things keeping me Protestant (or alternatively, it might be what causes me to conclude Christianity to be false). No Protestant church claims to be unchanging, the very premiss of a Reformation assumes changeability, after all. But I'm beginning to think this is a good thing, perhaps far more realistic than the Orthodox claim.

So, in other words, how can the Church's liturgy be somewhat frequently changed over the centuries and yet Orthodoxy still be the true Church?
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #49 on: August 16, 2011, 01:09:17 AM »

With reference to the discussion going on now http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38817.msg622157/boardseen.html#new in the Orthodox-RC board regarding the liturgy, it seems obvious that Devin is wrong in saying the True Church of Christ has never changed it's liturgy nor schismed. Any glance at the Old Believer fracas or the calender schism confirms this.

I won't address the balance of your points, but I think you misunderstand Devin's argument re schism.

I think Devin would say that the old believer and old calendarist schisms are no different to all prior schisms. In each case, the Church of Christ is not fragmented, but individuals willingly put themselves outside her boundaries.

Basically, the party "in the right" is the Church of Christ, while the other is schismatic. By this logic, it is impossible for the Church of Christ to ever be in schism.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #50 on: August 16, 2011, 01:09:25 AM »

I figured it was better to bring this thread back than to start a new one on the same topic.

With reference to the discussion going on now http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38817.msg622157/boardseen.html#new in the Orthodox-RC board regarding the liturgy, it seems obvious that Devin is wrong in saying the True Church of Christ has never changed it's liturgy nor schismed. Any glance at the Old Believer fracas or the calender schism confirms this.

So, if the common rhetoric about the Church not changing is incorrect, then how can Orthodox theology be true? If it's own traditional claims are incorrect, then it is nothing but another man-made group, right?

I know I repeat myself a lot, but the reason I need to belabor this line of questioning is that honestly it is one of the few obstacles remaining before I convert, one of the few things keeping me Protestant (or alternatively, it might be what causes me to conclude Christianity to be false). No Protestant church claims to be unchanging, the very premiss of a Reformation assumes changeability, after all. But I'm beginning to think this is a good thing, perhaps far more realistic than the Orthodox claim.

So, in other words, how can the Church's liturgy be somewhat frequently changed over the centuries and yet Orthodoxy still be the true Church?
Here's my take on it. I see some changes in the Orthodox Church, but they are quite minimal when compared to other Churches. Also, the changes I see do not touch the core beliefs of the Orthodox Church.
Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #51 on: August 16, 2011, 01:19:17 AM »

With reference to the discussion going on now http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38817.msg622157/boardseen.html#new in the Orthodox-RC board regarding the liturgy, it seems obvious that Devin is wrong in saying the True Church of Christ has never changed it's liturgy nor schismed. Any glance at the Old Believer fracas or the calender schism confirms this.

I won't address the balance of your points, but I think you misunderstand Devin's argument re schism.

I think Devin would say that the old believer and old calendarist schisms are no different to all prior schisms. In each case, the Church of Christ is not fragmented, but individuals willingly put themselves outside her boundaries.

Basically, the party "in the right" is the Church of Christ, while the other is schismatic. By this logic, it is impossible for the Church of Christ to ever be in schism.
Yeah, looks like you're right.

The argument is a truism, but it doesn't say much useful imo.
Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #52 on: August 16, 2011, 01:21:05 AM »

Here's my take on it. I see some changes in the Orthodox Church, but they are quite minimal when compared to other Churches. Also, the changes I see do not touch the core beliefs of the Orthodox Church.
I could be content with answer, I just don't know if it jibes with the Orthodox Church says about herself as the Lamb's spotless Bride.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #53 on: August 16, 2011, 01:28:29 AM »

Here's my take on it. I see some changes in the Orthodox Church, but they are quite minimal when compared to other Churches. Also, the changes I see do not touch the core beliefs of the Orthodox Church.
I could be content with answer, I just don't know if it jibes with the Orthodox Church says about herself as the Lamb's spotless Bride.

I understand your consternation, but perhaps try to focus on the fact that the Apostles did not leave us an all-extensive manual for how to "do" Church. Surely we are permitted certain liberty in respect of things which do not belong to the deposit of Apostolic faith?

Certainly the Orthodox Church would not be the Church of Christ, his bride and very body, if it were to confess that the Holy Gifts are only a memorial. I don't believe the same would be true were it to add or subtract an hour of prayer from the Divine Liturgy, however.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #54 on: August 16, 2011, 01:28:50 AM »

With reference to the discussion going on now http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38817.msg622157/boardseen.html#new in the Orthodox-RC board regarding the liturgy, it seems obvious that Devin is wrong in saying the True Church of Christ has never changed it's liturgy nor schismed. Any glance at the Old Believer fracas or the calender schism confirms this.

I won't address the balance of your points, but I think you misunderstand Devin's argument re schism.

I think Devin would say that the old believer and old calendarist schisms are no different to all prior schisms. In each case, the Church of Christ is not fragmented, but individuals willingly put themselves outside her boundaries.

Basically, the party "in the right" is the Church of Christ, while the other is schismatic. By this logic, it is impossible for the Church of Christ to ever be in schism.
Yeah, looks like you're right.

The argument is a truism, but it doesn't say much useful imo.

It is certainly a truism. I'm not sure it is not useful, however.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #55 on: August 16, 2011, 01:34:30 AM »

Here's my take on it. I see some changes in the Orthodox Church, but they are quite minimal when compared to other Churches. Also, the changes I see do not touch the core beliefs of the Orthodox Church.
I could be content with answer, I just don't know if it jibes with the Orthodox Church says about herself as the Lamb's spotless Bride.

I understand your consternation, but perhaps try to focus on the fact that the Apostles did not leave us an all-extensive manual for how to "do" Church. Surely we are permitted certain liberty in respect of things which do not belong to the deposit of Apostolic faith?
Hrm, that sounds Protestant to me, "We don't know the specifics, so let's use our reason and freedom for the "things indifferent.""

I thought the way of doing Liturgy is supposed to part of oral Tradition. lex orandi, lex credendi, etc.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #56 on: August 16, 2011, 01:42:08 AM »

Here's my take on it. I see some changes in the Orthodox Church, but they are quite minimal when compared to other Churches. Also, the changes I see do not touch the core beliefs of the Orthodox Church.
I could be content with answer, I just don't know if it jibes with the Orthodox Church says about herself as the Lamb's spotless Bride.

I understand your consternation, but perhaps try to focus on the fact that the Apostles did not leave us an all-extensive manual for how to "do" Church. Surely we are permitted certain liberty in respect of things which do not belong to the deposit of Apostolic faith?
Hrm, that sounds Protestant to me, "We don't know the specifics, so let's use our reason and freedom for the "things indifferent.""

I thought the way of doing Liturgy is supposed to part of oral Tradition. lex orandi, lex credendi, etc.

You are right to be suspicious of anything protestant (I am only half-joking).

The Apostolic tradition includes the general how of the Divine Liturgy, but not prescriptions for every detail. If it were otherwise, our hierarchs would be committing grave sin by communing us by intinction, which we know was not the practice of the early Church.

"Tradition" (a word regrettably poisoned by its associations in modern English) means nothing less than what was received from the Apostles. Not everything we do falls into this category: it could never be so.

As is often pointed out, the Cherubic Hymn was, at one time, an innovation in practice. Is the Cherubic Hymn a "thing indifferent"? I would not be so bold as to say so (keeping in mind that the Spirit of God guides his Church), though it was certainly not received from the Apostles.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 01:47:13 AM by akimori makoto » Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #57 on: August 16, 2011, 03:55:13 AM »

Of course we change.  In, I think the 15th century, we introduced a prayer into the Liturgy which is read secretly by the priest while the choir is singing the Cherubic hymn...

"No one who is bound with the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw nigh or to serve thee, O King of Glory...."
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #58 on: August 16, 2011, 04:00:25 PM »

Of course we change.  In, I think the 15th century, we introduced a prayer into the Liturgy which is read secretly by the priest while the choir is singing the Cherubic hymn...

"No one who is bound with the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw nigh or to serve thee, O King of Glory...."
Catholics like to bring up the question of the change in teaching on birth control and contraception.
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 #59 on: August 16, 2011, 04:21:20 PM »

Of course we change.  In, I think the 15th century, we introduced a prayer into the Liturgy which is read secretly by the priest while the choir is singing the Cherubic hymn...

"No one who is bound with the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw nigh or to serve thee, O King of Glory...."
Catholics like to bring up the question of the change in teaching on birth control and contraception.
That's because Humanae Vitae doesn't have any patristics to support it.
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
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #60 on: August 16, 2011, 05:32:55 PM »

Here's my take on it. I see some changes in the Orthodox Church, but they are quite minimal when compared to other Churches. Also, the changes I see do not touch the core beliefs of the Orthodox Church.
I could be content with answer, I just don't know if it jibes with the Orthodox Church says about herself as the Lamb's spotless Bride.

I understand your consternation, but perhaps try to focus on the fact that the Apostles did not leave us an all-extensive manual for how to "do" Church. Surely we are permitted certain liberty in respect of things which do not belong to the deposit of Apostolic faith?
Hrm, that sounds Protestant to me, "We don't know the specifics, so let's use our reason and freedom for the "things indifferent.""

I thought the way of doing Liturgy is supposed to part of oral Tradition. lex orandi, lex credendi, etc.

You are right to be suspicious of anything protestant (I am only half-joking).

The Apostolic tradition includes the general how of the Divine Liturgy, but not prescriptions for every detail. If it were otherwise, our hierarchs would be committing grave sin by communing us by intinction, which we know was not the practice of the early Church.

"Tradition" (a word regrettably poisoned by its associations in modern English) means nothing less than what was received from the Apostles. Not everything we do falls into this category: it could never be so.

As is often pointed out, the Cherubic Hymn was, at one time, an innovation in practice. Is the Cherubic Hymn a "thing indifferent"? I would not be so bold as to say so (keeping in mind that the Spirit of God guides his Church), though it was certainly not received from the Apostles.
Sorry, I'm not sure how to answer this...

Maybe one could always argue the "general how" doesn't preclude puppets or clown paint or lay people distributing the Host or an implied Epiklesis?
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #61 on: August 17, 2011, 12:38:43 AM »

Here's my take on it. I see some changes in the Orthodox Church, but they are quite minimal when compared to other Churches. Also, the changes I see do not touch the core beliefs of the Orthodox Church.
I could be content with answer, I just don't know if it jibes with the Orthodox Church says about herself as the Lamb's spotless Bride.

I understand your consternation, but perhaps try to focus on the fact that the Apostles did not leave us an all-extensive manual for how to "do" Church. Surely we are permitted certain liberty in respect of things which do not belong to the deposit of Apostolic faith?
Hrm, that sounds Protestant to me, "We don't know the specifics, so let's use our reason and freedom for the "things indifferent.""

I thought the way of doing Liturgy is supposed to part of oral Tradition. lex orandi, lex credendi, etc.

You are right to be suspicious of anything protestant (I am only half-joking).

The Apostolic tradition includes the general how of the Divine Liturgy, but not prescriptions for every detail. If it were otherwise, our hierarchs would be committing grave sin by communing us by intinction, which we know was not the practice of the early Church.

"Tradition" (a word regrettably poisoned by its associations in modern English) means nothing less than what was received from the Apostles. Not everything we do falls into this category: it could never be so.

As is often pointed out, the Cherubic Hymn was, at one time, an innovation in practice. Is the Cherubic Hymn a "thing indifferent"? I would not be so bold as to say so (keeping in mind that the Spirit of God guides his Church), though it was certainly not received from the Apostles.
Sorry, I'm not sure how to answer this...

Maybe one could always argue the "general how" doesn't preclude puppets or clown paint or lay people distributing the Host or an implied Epiklesis?

I wish I had an answer to that. Over in that other thread about the Roman Church's liturgy I posed elijahmaria and Devin some questions regarding this very issue.

At the moment, I take the provisional view that:

1. it is not enough that the bishop permits a particular liturgy to be celebrated in his diocese; and/but
2. it is not necessary for the liturgy to be celebrated exactly as St John Chrysostom would have envisioned it.

As I said, I am not confident to say that the Cherubic Hymn is a "thing indifferent", though it is certainly not required for the Church of Christ to celebrate its eucharist. I do know that not everything the Church does falls under the umbrella of the Apostolic tradition.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #62 on: August 17, 2011, 12:43:20 AM »

Of course we change.  In, I think the 15th century, we introduced a prayer into the Liturgy which is read secretly by the priest while the choir is singing the Cherubic hymn...

"No one who is bound with the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw nigh or to serve thee, O King of Glory...."
Catholics like to bring up the question of the change in teaching on birth control and contraception.

And well they should because the teaching of Pope Paul VI is a major break with Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii and with all the preceding tradition and teaching.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 12:44:44 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #63 on: August 17, 2011, 12:54:24 AM »

Of course we change.  In, I think the 15th century, we introduced a prayer into the Liturgy which is read secretly by the priest while the choir is singing the Cherubic hymn...

"No one who is bound with the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw nigh or to serve thee, O King of Glory...."
Catholics like to bring up the question of the change in teaching on birth control and contraception.
That's because Humanae Vitae doesn't have any patristics to support it.
What about St. Epiphanius (315-403),Bishop of Salamis, who wrote: "There are those who when they have intercourse deliberately prevent having children. They indulge in pleasure not for the sake of offspring but to satisfy their passion. To such an extent has the devil deceived these wretched people that they betray the work of God by perverting it to their own deceits. Moreover, they are so willing to satisfy their carnal desires as to pollute each other with impure seed, by which offspring is not conceived but by their own will evil desires are satisfied. Moreover, if a man should by mistake deposit some of his emitted seed and his wife becomes pregnant, listen to what further crime they descend. They remove the unformed fetus from the womb anytime they please and actually grind the aborted child (infantem) with mortar and pestle. Then to avoid the nausea they use pepper and other spices or ointments." (Adversus Haereses Panarium, PG 41, 339).

Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #64 on: August 17, 2011, 12:55:57 AM »

Of course we change.  In, I think the 15th century, we introduced a prayer into the Liturgy which is read secretly by the priest while the choir is singing the Cherubic hymn...

"No one who is bound with the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw nigh or to serve thee, O King of Glory...."
Catholics like to bring up the question of the change in teaching on birth control and contraception.
And well they should because the teaching of Pope Paul VI is a major break with Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii and with all the preceding tradition and teaching.
However, is it not true, that several Orthodox prelates have said that they agreed with Humanae vitae?
Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #65 on: August 17, 2011, 01:07:26 AM »

Here's my take on it. I see some changes in the Orthodox Church, but they are quite minimal when compared to other Churches. Also, the changes I see do not touch the core beliefs of the Orthodox Church.
I could be content with answer, I just don't know if it jibes with the Orthodox Church says about herself as the Lamb's spotless Bride.

I understand your consternation, but perhaps try to focus on the fact that the Apostles did not leave us an all-extensive manual for how to "do" Church. Surely we are permitted certain liberty in respect of things which do not belong to the deposit of Apostolic faith?
Hrm, that sounds Protestant to me, "We don't know the specifics, so let's use our reason and freedom for the "things indifferent.""

I thought the way of doing Liturgy is supposed to part of oral Tradition. lex orandi, lex credendi, etc.

You are right to be suspicious of anything protestant (I am only half-joking).

The Apostolic tradition includes the general how of the Divine Liturgy, but not prescriptions for every detail. If it were otherwise, our hierarchs would be committing grave sin by communing us by intinction, which we know was not the practice of the early Church.

"Tradition" (a word regrettably poisoned by its associations in modern English) means nothing less than what was received from the Apostles. Not everything we do falls into this category: it could never be so.

As is often pointed out, the Cherubic Hymn was, at one time, an innovation in practice. Is the Cherubic Hymn a "thing indifferent"? I would not be so bold as to say so (keeping in mind that the Spirit of God guides his Church), though it was certainly not received from the Apostles.
Sorry, I'm not sure how to answer this...

Maybe one could always argue the "general how" doesn't preclude puppets or clown paint or lay people distributing the Host or an implied Epiklesis?

I wish I had an answer to that. Over in that other thread about the Roman Church's liturgy I posed elijahmaria and Devin some questions regarding this very issue.

At the moment, I take the provisional view that:

1. it is not enough that the bishop permits a particular liturgy to be celebrated in his diocese; and/but
2. it is not necessary for the liturgy to be celebrated exactly as St John Chrysostom would have envisioned it.

As I said, I am not confident to say that the Cherubic Hymn is a "thing indifferent", though it is certainly not required for the Church of Christ to celebrate its eucharist. I do know that not everything the Church does falls under the umbrella of the Apostolic tradition.
The only answer I can think of is that the Cherubic Hymn does not contradict anything that went before it whereas clown masses do. They contradict the spirit of reverence for the Eucharist.

On that answer, the Nikonian reforms were wrong headed and "unorganic" but still not outside what was already traditional (the Greek recension of the day). The calender change also was not unprecedented (especially considering the Julian is an adaptation of a pagan invention anyway).

Likewise, the changes from the Liturgy of Saint James made by Saints Basil and John Chrysostom is still in the pail of what's acceptable because they were drawing from the practices around them and not inventing anything new.

Sound right?
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 01:09:18 AM by Volnutt » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #66 on: August 17, 2011, 01:15:34 AM »

Of course we change.  In, I think the 15th century, we introduced a prayer into the Liturgy which is read secretly by the priest while the choir is singing the Cherubic hymn...

"No one who is bound with the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw nigh or to serve thee, O King of Glory...."
Catholics like to bring up the question of the change in teaching on birth control and contraception.
And well they should because the teaching of Pope Paul VI is a major break with Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii and with all the preceding tradition and teaching.
However, is it not true, that several Orthodox prelates have said that they agreed with Humanae vitae?


Patriarch Athenagoras of the Greeks sent a telegram to Pope Paul saying he agreed with him entirely and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing about it in his own Church but allowed his faithful to go on doing whatever they were doing about contraception.   I doubt if anyone even heard of the Patriarch's telegram.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #67 on: August 17, 2011, 01:23:10 AM »

Of course we change.  In, I think the 15th century, we introduced a prayer into the Liturgy which is read secretly by the priest while the choir is singing the Cherubic hymn...

"No one who is bound with the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw nigh or to serve thee, O King of Glory...."
Catholics like to bring up the question of the change in teaching on birth control and contraception.
And well they should because the teaching of Pope Paul VI is a major break with Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii and with all the preceding tradition and teaching.
However, is it not true, that several Orthodox prelates have said that they agreed with Humanae vitae?


Patriarch Athenagoras of the Greeks sent a telegram to Pope Paul saying he agreed with him entirely and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing about it in his own Church but allowed his faithful to go on doing whatever they were doing about contraception.   I doubt if anyone even heard of the Patriarch's telegram.
Informed Catholics knew about it.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #68 on: August 17, 2011, 01:26:40 AM »

Here's my take on it. I see some changes in the Orthodox Church, but they are quite minimal when compared to other Churches. Also, the changes I see do not touch the core beliefs of the Orthodox Church.
I could be content with answer, I just don't know if it jibes with the Orthodox Church says about herself as the Lamb's spotless Bride.

I understand your consternation, but perhaps try to focus on the fact that the Apostles did not leave us an all-extensive manual for how to "do" Church. Surely we are permitted certain liberty in respect of things which do not belong to the deposit of Apostolic faith?
Hrm, that sounds Protestant to me, "We don't know the specifics, so let's use our reason and freedom for the "things indifferent.""

I thought the way of doing Liturgy is supposed to part of oral Tradition. lex orandi, lex credendi, etc.

You are right to be suspicious of anything protestant (I am only half-joking).

The Apostolic tradition includes the general how of the Divine Liturgy, but not prescriptions for every detail. If it were otherwise, our hierarchs would be committing grave sin by communing us by intinction, which we know was not the practice of the early Church.

"Tradition" (a word regrettably poisoned by its associations in modern English) means nothing less than what was received from the Apostles. Not everything we do falls into this category: it could never be so.

As is often pointed out, the Cherubic Hymn was, at one time, an innovation in practice. Is the Cherubic Hymn a "thing indifferent"? I would not be so bold as to say so (keeping in mind that the Spirit of God guides his Church), though it was certainly not received from the Apostles.
Sorry, I'm not sure how to answer this...

Maybe one could always argue the "general how" doesn't preclude puppets or clown paint or lay people distributing the Host or an implied Epiklesis?

I wish I had an answer to that. Over in that other thread about the Roman Church's liturgy I posed elijahmaria and Devin some questions regarding this very issue.

At the moment, I take the provisional view that:

1. it is not enough that the bishop permits a particular liturgy to be celebrated in his diocese; and/but
2. it is not necessary for the liturgy to be celebrated exactly as St John Chrysostom would have envisioned it.

As I said, I am not confident to say that the Cherubic Hymn is a "thing indifferent", though it is certainly not required for the Church of Christ to celebrate its eucharist. I do know that not everything the Church does falls under the umbrella of the Apostolic tradition.
The only answer I can think of is that the Cherubic Hymn does not contradict anything that went before it whereas clown masses do. They contradict the spirit of reverence for the Eucharist.

On that answer, the Nikonian reforms were wrong headed and "unorganic" but still not outside what was already traditional (the Greek recension of the day). The calender change also was not unprecedented (especially considering the Julian is an adaptation of a pagan invention anyway).

Likewise, the changes from the Liturgy of Saint James made by Saints Basil and John Chrysostom is still in the pail of what's acceptable because they were drawing from the practices around them and not inventing anything new.

Sound right?
This is the objection that I have to clown Masses. Clowns represent a humorous, joking attitude to life. What is the message that they are trying to get across with a clown Mass, except that everything, including Catholic religious worship, is a big joke.
Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #69 on: August 17, 2011, 01:36:23 AM »

This is the objection that I have to clown Masses. Clowns represent a humorous, joking attitude to life. What is the message that they are trying to get across with a clown Mass, except that everything, including Catholic religious worship, is a big joke.
The rationale I read is that clowns represent outcasts and the bottom of society (the historical post-classical attitude towards entertainers saw them as degenerate criminals). Their topsy-turvy antics illustrate the absurdity of the Cross by the world's standards and proclaims that, "the first shall be last and the last first."
Logged
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #70 on: August 17, 2011, 01:50:20 AM »

Oh there actually are *literal* clown Masses?  Here I was thinking all of this time, that it was merely an expression used for an extreme distaste of the Novus Ordo liturgy. 
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #71 on: August 17, 2011, 01:59:59 AM »

There are. They don't happen often though, thankfully.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #72 on: August 17, 2011, 04:13:25 AM »

Volnutt,

Have we covered this basic question, I haven't re-read the thread.

When did the Church begin?

Not trying to "humiliate" you or draw you out, just try to get at some radical assumptions, so that a discussion can be profitable.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #73 on: August 17, 2011, 05:44:41 AM »

We didn't cover it here, I don't think.

The Church as relationship with/within God begins before time with the internal fellowship of the Trinity. As far as humanity is concerned, it begins with Adam.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #74 on: August 17, 2011, 07:16:07 AM »

We didn't cover it here, I don't think.

The Church as relationship with/within God begins before time with the internal fellowship of the Trinity. As far as humanity is concerned, it begins with Adam.

Ah, that's some good Orthodox phronema.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #75 on: August 17, 2011, 08:07:50 AM »

We didn't cover it here, I don't think.

The Church as relationship with/within God begins before time with the internal fellowship of the Trinity. As far as humanity is concerned, it begins with Adam.

Ah, that's some good Orthodox phronema.
Not something I ever that ever would have occurred to me on my own. I got it from Fr. Thomas Hopko. He's right, though.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #76 on: August 17, 2011, 10:49:56 AM »

We didn't cover it here, I don't think.

The Church as relationship with/within God begins before time with the internal fellowship of the Trinity. As far as humanity is concerned, it begins with Adam.

I would suggest it began with the creation of the first creatures, the noetic beings. The Church is the gathering of creatures in Communion with God. The word in Greek, which St. Paul uses a lot is ekklesia from ekkalein, which means something like called out.

Not a new coinage, but an old Greek word, which generally meant practically an assembly or gathering of persons.

So putting the etymology together with its quotidian playing out, we get something like: the assembly of those who were called out.

So I would suggest such a definition would only apply to those called out by God. I think there is a felicitous aspect of language at work. We were called into being. The Father was not. The Son is begotten. The Holy Spirit proceeds.

FWIW, the word qahal, which certainly got glossed as ekklesia, has a similar etymology and pragmatic upshot.

So this is just to say where I think the Church began and when, if such words can be used.

If we are in agreement here or close enough. Then we have to ask what is the ontological nature of the Church. I think my definition above is broad enough to begin: the Church is the gathering of creatures in Communion with God.

If we can agree this broad definition captures something (I am not sure how finely we need to dice for internets' and sanity's sake) of the ontological nature (I hate that turn of phrase) of the Church, then I think we can move rather forward in a reasonable manner to answering your question.

Let me know what you think.



 

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #77 on: August 17, 2011, 11:25:50 AM »

This is the objection that I have to clown Masses. Clowns represent a humorous, joking attitude to life. What is the message that they are trying to get across with a clown Mass, except that everything, including Catholic religious worship, is a big joke.
The rationale I read is that clowns represent outcasts and the bottom of society (the historical post-classical attitude towards entertainers saw them as degenerate criminals). Their topsy-turvy antics illustrate the absurdity of the Cross by the world's standards and proclaims that, "the first shall be last and the last first."
That is a much better rationale than what first came to my mind.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #78 on: August 17, 2011, 11:30:28 AM »

the Church is the gathering of creatures in Communion with God.
I would suspect that this definition would not be acceptable to the Orthodox posters here, since they claim that R. Catholics, Protestants and others in Communion with God are outside of the Church. Unless, it is asserted that only Orthodox are in Communion with God.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #79 on: August 17, 2011, 12:13:32 PM »

the Church is the gathering of creatures in Communion with God.
I would suspect that this definition would not be acceptable to the Orthodox posters here, since they claim that R. Catholics, Protestants and others in Communion with God are outside of the Church. Unless, it is asserted that only Orthodox are in Communion with God.

You are getting too far ahead.

This is why people can't read serious texts anymore much less an internet post. They immediately project whatever criticism which does not lie at hand but might turn up later, rather than accept an idea and see where it leads or address the text where it stands not where they believe it is going to. I am not sure where this going. It is a dialog.

But this ain't surprising to me.

Which is why internetz don't make for good discussions, unless you are going to play internetz, which I do well and am trying to depart from here.

So you can take your omega and keep it. We are barely round alpha.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #80 on: August 17, 2011, 12:46:47 PM »

Orthonorm  Shocked, I think that is the most intelligent post I've seen from you yet.. (# 76)!  And it's not full of comedy!  laugh 
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 12:47:24 PM by AveChriste11 » Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
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 #81 on: August 17, 2011, 12:54:54 PM »

Of course we change.  In, I think the 15th century, we introduced a prayer into the Liturgy which is read secretly by the priest while the choir is singing the Cherubic hymn...

"No one who is bound with the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw nigh or to serve thee, O King of Glory...."
Catholics like to bring up the question of the change in teaching on birth control and contraception.
That's because Humanae Vitae doesn't have any patristics to support it.
What about St. Epiphanius (315-403),Bishop of Salamis, who wrote: "There are those who when they have intercourse deliberately prevent having children. They indulge in pleasure not for the sake of offspring but to satisfy their passion. To such an extent has the devil deceived these wretched people that they betray the work of God by perverting it to their own deceits. Moreover, they are so willing to satisfy their carnal desires as to pollute each other with impure seed, by which offspring is not conceived but by their own will evil desires are satisfied. Moreover, if a man should by mistake deposit some of his emitted seed and his wife becomes pregnant, listen to what further crime they descend. They remove the unformed fetus from the womb anytime they please and actually grind the aborted child (infantem) with mortar and pestle. Then to avoid the nausea they use pepper and other spices or ointments." (Adversus Haereses Panarium, PG 41, 339).
Now square that with HV's stance on the rhythm method.

btw, the usual quote mine has it:
Quote
Epiphanius of Salamis



"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).
vhttp://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 01:01:11 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
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #82 on: August 17, 2011, 01:43:14 PM »

Orthonorm  Shocked, I think that is the most intelligent post I've seen from you yet.. (# 76)!  And it's not full of comedy!  laugh 

Don't get used to it. //:=)
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #83 on: August 17, 2011, 03:01:04 PM »

Of course we change.  In, I think the 15th century, we introduced a prayer into the Liturgy which is read secretly by the priest while the choir is singing the Cherubic hymn...

"No one who is bound with the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw nigh or to serve thee, O King of Glory...."
Catholics like to bring up the question of the change in teaching on birth control and contraception.
That's because Humanae Vitae doesn't have any patristics to support it.
What about St. Epiphanius (315-403),Bishop of Salamis, who wrote: "There are those who when they have intercourse deliberately prevent having children. They indulge in pleasure not for the sake of offspring but to satisfy their passion. To such an extent has the devil deceived these wretched people that they betray the work of God by perverting it to their own deceits. Moreover, they are so willing to satisfy their carnal desires as to pollute each other with impure seed, by which offspring is not conceived but by their own will evil desires are satisfied. Moreover, if a man should by mistake deposit some of his emitted seed and his wife becomes pregnant, listen to what further crime they descend. They remove the unformed fetus from the womb anytime they please and actually grind the aborted child (infantem) with mortar and pestle. Then to avoid the nausea they use pepper and other spices or ointments." (Adversus Haereses Panarium, PG 41, 339).
Now square that with HV's stance on the rhythm method.

btw, the usual quote mine has it:
Quote
Epiphanius of Salamis



"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).
vhttp://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
I haven't heard of any Orthodox prelates condemning the rhythm mehtod. On the contrary, I read that they generally believe it to be a morally acceptable method.
Logged
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #84 on: August 17, 2011, 03:13:42 PM »

No.  She changes to remain the same.

By deffinition if something changes at some point it was not the same.
Logged
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #85 on: August 17, 2011, 03:17:02 PM »

Oh ok, sort of like how the exact idea of the Trinity was not in the early church but they still knew Father, Son, and Spirit were all the One God.

I can dig that. Thanks!

Yes. The way I tend to think about it is this:

I don't know that St Paul personally had condensed the essence of Christianity into something like the Nicene Creed. The heresies had not yet arisen to make such a clear definition of the faith necessary. But if you were a time traveler and gave St Paul a copy of the Nicene Creed, he would certainly agree with every word. Conversely, he would certainly recognize Arianism or Origenism as heresy, even though it did not yet exist.

Since we're already talking about the iconostasis, I have a related question. How does the idea of the iconostasis relate to the torn Temple veil and the believer being able to "go boldly before the Throne of Grace?"

Someone else might like to take a stab at this, but I view it similarly to the priesthood of all believers.

We believe that all Christians are priests, by virtue of their anointing with Holy Chrism. But we still have a sacramental priesthood, for those who are authorized to perform certain special actions on behalf of the community. In the same way, the entire Church—the entire Universe—is sacred, but we still set aside a portion of the Church specifically for the altar and celebrating the divine services.

We can all go boldly before the Throne of Grace because we have Christ living within us, and we can pray anywhere. And certainly the Iconostasis is not meant to keep us away from God's holiness, because that is one point of the veil—to keep people from getting killed by God's sheer glory. But indeed today God comes into us, and makes us all into the Holy of Holies when we take His Body and Blood.

But in the context of liturgical worship, we still set aside certain spaces as holy. In the earliest times, I imagine this was more of a practical consideration than anything else. The priest had to carry out his duties without tripping over people, so a wall was built to make sure he was free to move about unencumbered. But with time, the Iconostasis has also gained theological meanings, representing Heaven and so forth.

That's not the most satisfactory answer, and I'm sure someone else can explain it better, but that's what makes sense to me.

why this restrictions concerning the alter?why can`t women enter in it?why do we need another "holy of holies" ?
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 #86 on: August 17, 2011, 03:19:45 PM »

No.  She changes to remain the same.

By deffinition if something changes at some point it was not the same.

So we have ceased to be because we (at least I) no longer crawl around and walk and don't use diapers?  Of course, the problem is that with genes what I became now was already programed when I was 1, and younger.

Only the dead don't change in the sense you are claiming (and even they do, as they decompose). And the Church of Christ is not dead.
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 #87 on: August 17, 2011, 03:20:53 PM »

Of course we change.  In, I think the 15th century, we introduced a prayer into the Liturgy which is read secretly by the priest while the choir is singing the Cherubic hymn...

"No one who is bound with the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw nigh or to serve thee, O King of Glory...."
Catholics like to bring up the question of the change in teaching on birth control and contraception.
That's because Humanae Vitae doesn't have any patristics to support it.
What about St. Epiphanius (315-403),Bishop of Salamis, who wrote: "There are those who when they have intercourse deliberately prevent having children. They indulge in pleasure not for the sake of offspring but to satisfy their passion. To such an extent has the devil deceived these wretched people that they betray the work of God by perverting it to their own deceits. Moreover, they are so willing to satisfy their carnal desires as to pollute each other with impure seed, by which offspring is not conceived but by their own will evil desires are satisfied. Moreover, if a man should by mistake deposit some of his emitted seed and his wife becomes pregnant, listen to what further crime they descend. They remove the unformed fetus from the womb anytime they please and actually grind the aborted child (infantem) with mortar and pestle. Then to avoid the nausea they use pepper and other spices or ointments." (Adversus Haereses Panarium, PG 41, 339).
Now square that with HV's stance on the rhythm method.

btw, the usual quote mine has it:
Quote
Epiphanius of Salamis



"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).
vhttp://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
I haven't heard of any Orthodox prelates condemning the rhythm mehtod. On the contrary, I read that they generally believe it to be a morally acceptable method.
Orthodox prelates didn't write HV, so your point was?
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
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #88 on: August 17, 2011, 03:24:21 PM »

No.  She changes to remain the same.

By deffinition if something changes at some point it was not the same.

So we have ceased to be because we (at least I) no longer crawl around and walk and don't use diapers?  Of course, the problem is that with genes what I became now was already programed when I was 1, and younger.

Only the dead don't change in the sense you are claiming (and even they do, as they decompose). And the Church of Christ is not dead.

something that changes at some point is not the same.... it cannot remain the same.... if you change from wearing diapers to underwear you no longer wear diapers.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #89 on: August 17, 2011, 03:50:30 PM »

No.  She changes to remain the same.

By deffinition if something changes at some point it was not the same.

So we have ceased to be because we (at least I) no longer crawl around and walk and don't use diapers?  Of course, the problem is that with genes what I became now was already programed when I was 1, and younger.

Only the dead don't change in the sense you are claiming (and even they do, as they decompose). And the Church of Christ is not dead.
So there is development of doctrine after all?
Logged
Tags: church doctrine 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.177 seconds with 73 queries.