OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 15, 2014, 09:09:13 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: When Bishop Hilarion Walked Out  (Read 3690 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« on: December 05, 2011, 10:44:51 AM »

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/12/05/when-hilarion-walked-out/

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,880



« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2011, 11:00:49 AM »

Or was it simply more rebellion at work? This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,577



« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2011, 11:14:58 AM »

It's like Orthodoxy never left the patristic era when people walked out of councils, accused each other of heresy, had major territorial disputes, deposed their primates, and fought hard to ascertain the truth. Had Nestorius or Arius been born in the modern era, their teachings would probably have been branded as legitimate opinions by the more 'enlightened' churches of the modern era which avoid potential conflicts in the name of 'unity,' even to their own detriment.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 11:17:28 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,378



« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2011, 11:51:43 AM »

It's like Orthodoxy never left the patristic era when people walked out of councils, accused each other of heresy, had major territorial disputes, deposed their primates, and fought hard to ascertain the truth. Had Nestorius or Arius been born in the modern era, their teachings would probably have been branded as legitimate opinions by the more 'enlightened' churches of the modern era which avoid potential conflicts in the name of 'unity,' even to their own detriment.

Amen.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 974


« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2011, 12:04:58 PM »

It was not personal pride but politics.  The MP still thinks it can control the churches that were under it in the days of the Russian Empire and in the days of Soviet Empire.
The same thing happened when Bulgaria became free from the Ottoman Empire and the EP refused to see it's control decrease.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2011, 01:19:06 PM »

I think this has been discussed before on OCnet. Let's see if we can use the search function to find out when.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2011, 04:40:57 PM »

I think this has been discussed before on OCnet. Let's see if we can use the search function to find out when.

But not without that great one two by Alveus and Cavaradossi. Both are fantastic if seemingly at odds at first.

I agree with both in spirit and content whole-heartedly.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2011, 07:47:00 PM »

pin
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2011, 07:48:20 PM »

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/12/05/when-hilarion-walked-out/

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

Devin's blog article is based on the misconception that the Estonian Orthodox Church is autocephalous.  It is not.  It is autonomous under Constantinople.

Now the rules of engagement at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue state that the Orthodox shall send two representatives from each autocephalous Church.  The Roman Catholic Church shall send a matching number. .

So, no matter what disputes Moscow has with Constantinople over the Estonian Church, Estonia has no right to participate.

Moscow pointed out that it has 7 autonomous Churches under its wing and if it sent delegates from each, it would outnumber the other Churches at the Meetings.

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy.  He also, as in this instance, speaks out of a lack of knowledge, not knowing the quite significant difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches.

He gets a -5   Smiley
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 07:58:51 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2011, 07:59:05 PM »

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/12/05/when-hilarion-walked-out/

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

Devin's blog article is based on the misconception that the Estonian Orthodox is autocephalous.  It is not.  It is autonomous under Constantinople.

Now the rules of engagement at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue state that the Orthodox shall send two representatives from each autocephalous Church.  The Roman Catholic Church shall send a matching number. .

So, no matter what disputes Moscow has with Constantinople over the Estonian Church, Estonia has no right to participate.

Moscow pointed out that it has 7 autonomous Churches under its wing and if it sent delegates from each, it would outnumber the other Churches at the Meetings.

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy.  He also, as in this instance, speaks out of a lack of knowledge, not knowing the quite significant difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches.

He gets a -5   Smiley
Is there a judge or committee which determines whether the rules have been adhered to or not?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2011, 08:29:21 PM »

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/12/05/when-hilarion-walked-out/

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

Devin's blog article is based on the misconception that the Estonian Orthodox is autocephalous.  It is not.  It is autonomous under Constantinople.

Now the rules of engagement at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue state that the Orthodox shall send two representatives from each autocephalous Church.  The Roman Catholic Church shall send a matching number. .

So, no matter what disputes Moscow has with Constantinople over the Estonian Church, Estonia has no right to participate.

Moscow pointed out that it has 7 autonomous Churches under its wing and if it sent delegates from each, it would outnumber the other Churches at the Meetings.

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy.  He also, as in this instance, speaks out of a lack of knowledge, not knowing the quite significant difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches.

He gets a -5   Smiley
Is there a judge or committee which determines whether the rules have been adhered to or not?

I don't know.  Why are the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches not allowed to send 2 representatives each?   Who ruled to exclude them from the dialogue?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2011, 08:51:53 PM »

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/12/05/when-hilarion-walked-out/

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

Devin's blog article is based on the misconception that the Estonian Orthodox is autocephalous.  It is not.  It is autonomous under Constantinople.

Now the rules of engagement at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue state that the Orthodox shall send two representatives from each autocephalous Church.  The Roman Catholic Church shall send a matching number. .

So, no matter what disputes Moscow has with Constantinople over the Estonian Church, Estonia has no right to participate.

Moscow pointed out that it has 7 autonomous Churches under its wing and if it sent delegates from each, it would outnumber the other Churches at the Meetings.

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy.  He also, as in this instance, speaks out of a lack of knowledge, not knowing the quite significant difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches.

He gets a -5   Smiley
Is there a judge or committee which determines whether the rules have been adhered to or not?

I don't know.  Why are the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches not allowed to send 2 representatives each?   Who ruled to exclude them from the dialogue?
It might be interesting to see how the Estonian Orthodox Church got invited in the first place, and if there had been any kind of oversight of the invitations.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2011, 12:04:43 AM »

For a small report on Metropolitan Hilarion’s activity at the recent meeting of the Coordinating Committee in Rome in late November please see message 202
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,41387.msg677212.html#msg677212
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,573



« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2011, 12:27:24 AM »

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/12/05/when-hilarion-walked-out/

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?
A lot of pride, but not Met. Hilarion's.  The Phanar told the Estonian bred, born, baptized, ordained, consecrated and speaking Patriarch of Moscow had to recall his Estonian bred, born, baptized, ordained, consecrated and speaking Metropolitan of Tallin and All Estonia, the canonical territory of Moscow. So Moscow said it would have no dealings with the Phanar's non-Estonian speaking Cypriot Greek from Zaire and the hierarchy he represented. 

The invitations to the Greek metropolitan in Estonia dried up when Moscow let it known that the OCA, an autocephalous Church, would be coming to the next meeting after Ravenna.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,573



« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2011, 12:28:24 AM »

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/12/05/when-hilarion-walked-out/

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

Devin's blog article is based on the misconception that the Estonian Orthodox is autocephalous.  It is not.  It is autonomous under Constantinople.

Now the rules of engagement at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue state that the Orthodox shall send two representatives from each autocephalous Church.  The Roman Catholic Church shall send a matching number. .

So, no matter what disputes Moscow has with Constantinople over the Estonian Church, Estonia has no right to participate.

Moscow pointed out that it has 7 autonomous Churches under its wing and if it sent delegates from each, it would outnumber the other Churches at the Meetings.

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy.  He also, as in this instance, speaks out of a lack of knowledge, not knowing the quite significant difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches.

He gets a -5   Smiley
Is there a judge or committee which determines whether the rules have been adhered to or not?

I don't know.  Why are the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches not allowed to send 2 representatives each?   Who ruled to exclude them from the dialogue?
It might be interesting to see how the Estonian Orthodox Church got invited in the first place, and if there had been any kind of oversight of the invitations.
the Phanar was pushing the envelope.
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
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2011, 12:07:42 PM »

I have to agree with those who have pointed out that Estonia is an autonomous church under Constantinople, not an autocephalous church with its own primate. It has no right to sit at the conference as per the previous arrangement of representatives. No one even claims that Estonia is autocephalous. The OCA, though disputed, is recognized by several autocephalous churches as being so. I tend to believe it is myself, but I'm biased. Wink

While it makes me sad that such things are happening, I can't be upset at His Eminence for walking out, since there was an obvious breach in agreement occurring.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2011, 03:04:06 PM »

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/12/05/when-hilarion-walked-out/

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

Devin's blog article is based on the misconception that the Estonian Orthodox is autocephalous.  It is not.  It is autonomous under Constantinople.

Now the rules of engagement at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue state that the Orthodox shall send two representatives from each autocephalous Church.  The Roman Catholic Church shall send a matching number. .

So, no matter what disputes Moscow has with Constantinople over the Estonian Church, Estonia has no right to participate.

Moscow pointed out that it has 7 autonomous Churches under its wing and if it sent delegates from each, it would outnumber the other Churches at the Meetings.

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy.  He also, as in this instance, speaks out of a lack of knowledge, not knowing the quite significant difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches.

He gets a -5   Smiley
Is there a judge or committee which determines whether the rules have been adhered to or not?

I don't know.  Why are the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches not allowed to send 2 representatives each?   Who ruled to exclude them from the dialogue?
Because the EOs representatives would throw a fit and start demanding that Eastern Catholics cease to exist.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,469


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2011, 03:16:14 PM »

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/12/05/when-hilarion-walked-out/

What do you make of Bishop Hilarion’s walk-out at the mere presence of a delegation from a fellow Orthodox Church? Was he justified in taking such an action or is it simple pride at work?

Devin's blog article is based on the misconception that the Estonian Orthodox is autocephalous.  It is not.  It is autonomous under Constantinople.

Now the rules of engagement at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue state that the Orthodox shall send two representatives from each autocephalous Church.  The Roman Catholic Church shall send a matching number. .

So, no matter what disputes Moscow has with Constantinople over the Estonian Church, Estonia has no right to participate.

Moscow pointed out that it has 7 autonomous Churches under its wing and if it sent delegates from each, it would outnumber the other Churches at the Meetings.

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy.  He also, as in this instance, speaks out of a lack of knowledge, not knowing the quite significant difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches.

He gets a -5   Smiley
Is there a judge or committee which determines whether the rules have been adhered to or not?

I don't know.  Why are the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches not allowed to send 2 representatives each?   Who ruled to exclude them from the dialogue?
Because the EOs representatives would throw a fit and start demanding that Eastern Catholics cease to exist.
nevermind.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2011, 03:16:52 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2011, 04:49:16 PM »

I have to agree with those who have pointed out that Estonia is an autonomous church under Constantinople, not an autocephalous church with its own primate. It has no right to sit at the conference as per the previous arrangement of representatives. No one even claims that Estonia is autocephalous. The OCA, though disputed, is recognized by several autocephalous churches as being so. I tend to believe it is myself, but I'm biased. Wink
Does the Greek Orthodox Church recognize the OCA as autocephalous? Doesn't the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople hold theprimacy of honor in the Orthodox Church?
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2011, 04:59:20 PM »

I have to agree with those who have pointed out that Estonia is an autonomous church under Constantinople, not an autocephalous church with its own primate. It has no right to sit at the conference as per the previous arrangement of representatives. No one even claims that Estonia is autocephalous. The OCA, though disputed, is recognized by several autocephalous churches as being so. I tend to believe it is myself, but I'm biased. Wink
Does the Greek Orthodox Church recognize the OCA as autocephalous? Doesn't the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople hold theprimacy of honor in the Orthodox Church?

Question one: No. But they see them as canonical, and not schismatics.
Question two: Yes, but not as prime and not as honorable as he thinks.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2011, 05:00:16 PM »

I have to agree with those who have pointed out that Estonia is an autonomous church under Constantinople, not an autocephalous church with its own primate. It has no right to sit at the conference as per the previous arrangement of representatives. No one even claims that Estonia is autocephalous. The OCA, though disputed, is recognized by several autocephalous churches as being so. I tend to believe it is myself, but I'm biased. Wink
Does the Greek Orthodox Church recognize the OCA as autocephalous? Doesn't the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople hold theprimacy of honor in the Orthodox Church?
Question two: Yes, but not as prime and not as honorable as he thinks.
So then, no?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,359


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 09, 2011, 05:04:21 PM »

Quote from: Shanghaiski
Question two: Yes, but not as prime and not as honorable as he thinks.

Oh, boy.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,577



« Reply #22 on: December 09, 2011, 05:38:13 PM »

I have to agree with those who have pointed out that Estonia is an autonomous church under Constantinople, not an autocephalous church with its own primate. It has no right to sit at the conference as per the previous arrangement of representatives. No one even claims that Estonia is autocephalous. The OCA, though disputed, is recognized by several autocephalous churches as being so. I tend to believe it is myself, but I'm biased. Wink
Does the Greek Orthodox Church recognize the OCA as autocephalous? Doesn't the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople hold theprimacy of honor in the Orthodox Church?
It just ain't that sorta primacy. He can't unilaterally decide that the OCA is not an autocephalous body.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2011, 06:50:32 PM »

Does the Greek Orthodox Church recognize the OCA as autocephalous?

No.

Doesn't the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople hold the primacy of honor in the Orthodox Church?

Yes, but what that means is in dispute. To this day, there is no single canonical process for creating an autocephalous church. Constantinople has done it by declaring its own territory autocephalous in the past, and Church Council established the relations between the ancient sees of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Other churches have declared regions autonomous (like Jerusalem with the Church of Sinai) but never autocephalous, like Russia has with the OCA. The Russian argument (and the OCA one, obviously) is that we were the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, and therefore the administrative goings-on within it are not the EP's concern. The EP, however, argues differently.

Being the First Among Equals doesn't equate to being the universal bishop of the Church.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #24 on: December 10, 2011, 02:08:09 PM »

Does the Greek Orthodox Church recognize the OCA as autocephalous?

No.

Doesn't the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople hold the primacy of honor in the Orthodox Church?

Yes, but what that means is in dispute. To this day, there is no single canonical process for creating an autocephalous church. Constantinople has done it by declaring its own territory autocephalous in the past, and Church Council established the relations between the ancient sees of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Other churches have declared regions autonomous (like Jerusalem with the Church of Sinai) but never autocephalous, like Russia has with the OCA. The Russian argument (and the OCA one, obviously) is that we were the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, and therefore the administrative goings-on within it are not the EP's concern. The EP, however, argues differently.

Being the First Among Equals doesn't equate to being the universal bishop of the Church.

So, just to understand the situation of the OCA:
The Greek patriarch (or Church) says the OCA is not autocephalous.
The Moscow patriarch (or Church ) says the OCA is autocephalous?
Or do I have it wrong?
Thanks.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2011, 02:11:16 PM »

we have similar issues in the US...for example when you have more than 10 orthodox churches in a range of 5 square miles...all different "jurisdictions"...none of them close to full.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2011, 02:14:01 PM »

<bites my tongue>
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 02:18:19 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,573



« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2011, 04:05:09 PM »

Does the Greek Orthodox Church recognize the OCA as autocephalous?

No.

Doesn't the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople hold the primacy of honor in the Orthodox Church?

Yes, but what that means is in dispute. To this day, there is no single canonical process for creating an autocephalous church. Constantinople has done it by declaring its own territory autocephalous in the past, and Church Council established the relations between the ancient sees of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Other churches have declared regions autonomous (like Jerusalem with the Church of Sinai) but never autocephalous, like Russia has with the OCA. The Russian argument (and the OCA one, obviously) is that we were the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, and therefore the administrative goings-on within it are not the EP's concern. The EP, however, argues differently.

Being the First Among Equals doesn't equate to being the universal bishop of the Church.

So, just to understand the situation of the OCA:
The Greek patriarch (or Church) says the OCA is not autocephalous.
The Moscow patriarch (or Church ) says the OCA is autocephalous?
Or do I have it wrong?
Thanks.
yes, although technically there is no such thing as "the Greek Patriarch," though de facto that is the EP.  The problem is that the Phanar, which has granted autocephaly in its capacity as a "Mother Church" is insisting that it has done so in its capacity as "primus inter pares," i.e. no other "Mother Church" can do so.  Antioch, however, granted autocephaly to Georgia and later recognized the autocephaly of Abkhazia.  The Phanar granted autocephaly to Poland, although the Mother Church was the Patriachate of Moscow, which autocephaly was later voided, only to be followed by autocephaly granted by Moscow.  Moscow granted autocephaly to Czechoslovakia, although its Mother Church was the (presently) Serbian Patriarchate, the transference I am not entirely clear about, and the Phanar refused to recognize it for 47 years until 1998.

Moscow is not alone in its recognition of the OCA.  A plurality of the Churches recognize it.  Only the (de facto) Greek Church (Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Church of Greece) are adamantly opposed to such recognition.
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
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #28 on: December 11, 2011, 05:12:19 AM »

This is getting very confusing !
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #29 on: December 11, 2011, 07:20:21 AM »

I think the only way to deal with the Roman CAtholc communion is to treat them as a prayer organisation that needs to converted to Orthodoxy.  They are no different than any other group of people that claim they are Christians.  They aren't Orthodox who broke off a few years ago and have maintained the same beliefs and are seeking to re-join the Orthodox Church.  I don't have time for re-unification talks, I do have time for we're interested in joining the Christian Church, the Orthodox Church talks.  Simply put there isn't re-unification, there is merely conversion that has to take place on the roman catholic communion's part.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #30 on: December 11, 2011, 07:48:15 AM »

In an earlier post, Orthodox blogger Timothy Flanders had pointed to the Ravenna document, drawn up in 2007 at another meeting between Catholic and (some) Orthodox representatives.

Unfortunately, Bishop Hilarion, the representative of the Moscow patriarchate, walked out when he saw that a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church was there. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church refused to recognize the Estonian’s autocephaly, which had been sponsored by the Church of Constantinople.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/12/05/when-hilarion-walked-out/

I see that Isa has made a good contribution, complete with map.  Smiley  Good on Devin for allowing it to appear.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,776



« Reply #31 on: December 28, 2011, 10:50:33 AM »

Or was it simply more rebellion at work? This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians.
So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"? And, not in Serbia itself but thousands of miles away in the United States of America, where there is already an autocephalous church.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #32 on: December 28, 2011, 04:51:33 PM »

Or was it simply more rebellion at work? This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians.
So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"? And, not in Serbia itself but thousands of miles away in the United States of America, where there is already an autocephalous church.

May I butt in...?   Vladika Longin used to be my bishop down here in Australia and New Zealand.  A thoroughly excellent bishop.   And from what I hear of the other Serbian bishops in America they are of high quality too.  That in itself could move a person to choose the Serbian Church over the local autocephalous Church.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,577



« Reply #33 on: December 28, 2011, 05:07:20 PM »

Or was it simply more rebellion at work? This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians.
So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"? And, not in Serbia itself but thousands of miles away in the United States of America, where there is already an autocephalous church.
Perhaps the closest parish to his house is Serbian? I certainly can't think of any OCA parishes which aren't over 30 miles away from where I live, and perhaps Alveus is in the same situation. Also, I hear Serbians allow for beer on fast days; although, maybe that's just a rumor put forth by the disgruntled Greeks who (presumably) forgo beer on fast days.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,378



« Reply #34 on: December 28, 2011, 06:05:00 PM »

Or was it simply more rebellion at work? This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians.
So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"? And, not in Serbia itself but thousands of miles away in the United States of America, where there is already an autocephalous church.

Because not all Churches recognized the autocephalousy of the Church in question, while all Churches recognize the Serbian Church.  And then there is the calendar . . .
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #35 on: December 28, 2011, 06:51:35 PM »

Also, I hear Serbians allow for beer on fast days;

And spirits... and spirits!  laugh
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #36 on: December 28, 2011, 07:08:52 PM »

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"?

Scandalous!!    I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades!  But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,359


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 28, 2011, 07:22:16 PM »

Quote from: Irish Hermit
Scandalous!!    I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades!  But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.

As for implying, you just did.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #38 on: December 28, 2011, 07:25:38 PM »

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"?

Scandalous!!    I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades!  But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.
Honestly, Father, I would expect you to be above such petty mudslinging.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #39 on: December 28, 2011, 07:33:44 PM »

Quote from: Irish Hermit
Scandalous!!    I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades!  But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.

As for implying, you just did.  Roll Eyes

I am really upset that the Serbian Church, my mother, is spoken of as an "accoutrement to phyletyism."
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 07:34:48 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #40 on: December 28, 2011, 07:37:39 PM »

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"?

Scandalous!!    I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades!  But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.
Honestly, Father, I would expect you to be above such petty mudslinging.

Sorry to not live up to your expectations.  But message 31 inspired me to make a response to the mudslinging against the Serbian Church.  One must defend one's mother.  In fact I took an oath to do so at my ordination.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 07:47:16 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,378



« Reply #41 on: December 28, 2011, 07:42:22 PM »

Im not all that upset.  I happen to like phyletyism.  What makes one piece of dirt any more holy than another.  A people, on the other hand, remain that people wherever they may be.  If we are going to have different Churches, they may as well be based on ethnicity than what piece of dirt they are on.

Quote from: Irish Hermit
Scandalous!!    I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades!  But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.

As for implying, you just did.  Roll Eyes

I am really upset that the Serbian Church, my mother, is spoken of as an "accoutrement to phyletyism."

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,776



« Reply #42 on: December 28, 2011, 08:22:47 PM »

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"?

Scandalous!!    I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades!  But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.

Dear Father, bless!

I am very sorry that I have upset you, and would have responded to Alveus differently had I realized you might react so. I only meant to point out to Alveus (a member of the Serbian Church) that he may have overstepped a line by saying: "This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians."

For the record, I have two problems with phyletism. First, the accusers at the pan-Orthodox Synod of 1872 had no business accusing anybody of phyletism. Second, the folks who argue against national churches overlook the great commandment--to convert all nations.

There is no question that the Church was a great, if not the major, reason for the emancipation of the Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians from the Ottoman yoke and therefore were a major element of these "resurrected" nations. Looking at Russia herself, it is obvious that the Church rebuilt that nation after two centuries of Tatar barbarism.

Now, it is also a historical fact that no national church is innocent of being part of movements, state-sponsored or not, that try to homogenize the existing ethnic composition or to expand the nascent nation's boundaries at the expand of other nationalities. The reason why the late 19th Century Ottoman plebiscite in Macedonia and Thrace happened was the continued refusal by the Greek Etnarch of all "Rum" Christians to recognize her Bulgarian members as such. Let us not forget the attempt by Serbia to recreate Dushan's Great Serbian Empire by imposing a similar yoke on the Bulgarian residents of Macedonia after WWI, just as the Greeks had done in their portion of Macedonia. And, both the Greek and Serbian clerics were complicit in those efforts at ethnic cleansing. I am sure that somebody else on this forum will dig up something similar that the Bulgarians did to Greeks and Serbians. Have at it. My point is that all of these national churches made such mistakes. It was part of nation building, it was in the past, and it is now time to move past those precedents. In this regard, at least Patriarch Pavle of blessed memory protested forcefully against the atrocities committed by hisfellow Serbians in the most recent unpleasantries. We need other leaders such as the saintly Patriarch Pavle. But, I do not think that we can go forward by blindly criticizing or defending ethnicities.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #43 on: December 28, 2011, 08:25:21 PM »

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"?

Scandalous!!    I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades!  But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.
Honestly, Father, I would expect you to be above such petty mudslinging.

Sorry to not live up to your expectations.  But message 31 inspired me to make a response to the mudslinging against the Serbian Church.  One must defend one's mother.  In fact I took an oath to do so at my ordination.
But defending your church by throwing mud at another? I can think of better ways to defend your mother church. However low you think Second Chance may have descended to disparage your church, you descended to the same level by disparaging his. You ever heard the cliche, "two wrongs don't make a right"?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 08:27:35 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,776



« Reply #44 on: December 28, 2011, 08:30:42 PM »

Im not all that upset.  I happen to like phyletyism.  What makes one piece of dirt any more holy than another.  A people, on the other hand, remain that people wherever they may be.  If we are going to have different Churches, they may as well be based on ethnicity than what piece of dirt they are on.

Believe it or not, I agree with you. I used to be an ardent proponent of "regularizing" the weird situation in North America. No longer. I do not see any progress until Constantinople gives up on the "primus" idea and the novel interpretation of Canon 28. Also, her main opposition comes from Moscow, which looks more and more a part of the Holy Rus (more entanglement with the State). It is getting to be the pot calling the pan black. So, I think that the best thing to do is to see how the laity votes with their feet and wallets.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 08:33:43 PM by Second Chance » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #45 on: December 28, 2011, 08:44:54 PM »

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"?

Scandalous!!    I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades!  But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.
Honestly, Father, I would expect you to be above such petty mudslinging.

Sorry to not live up to your expectations.  But message 31 inspired me to make a response to the mudslinging against the Serbian Church.  One must defend one's mother.  In fact I took an oath to do so at my ordination.
But defending your church by throwing mud at another?

I did not see myself as mud slinging.  I was pointing out the hypocrisy (glasshouses) in message 31 in attacking the Serbian Church.  

I guess we shall have to agree to disagree - was Second Chance mudslinging?  Did Irish Hermit throw mud back?  


Quote

I can think of better ways to defend your mother church.

I was surprised, as I suspect you were, that Second Chance would promote his Church by denigrating the Serbian Church.

Suprised also at the suggestion that Alveus should consider the OCA?  Don't we have a rule stopping us encouraging peple to change Churches?  Or have I misremembered something, and we may do so?



« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 08:47:05 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #46 on: December 28, 2011, 09:02:38 PM »

Second Chance,  I am banging my head on the floor with a nizki poklon if I misread message 31.  Forgive me.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 09:03:46 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #47 on: December 28, 2011, 09:28:42 PM »

Or was it simply more rebellion at work? This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians.
So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"? And, not in Serbia itself but thousands of miles away in the United States of America, where there is already an autocephalous church.

An "autochephalous church" I think not whenever you had Patriarchs meet and start the EA and the document signed by all of the heads of autochephalous churches (oca was represented by Russia) stating that North America should be brought together by the rules of their decree and that it should be an autonomous church.  Chambesy argreement I believe. Google it.  I am going to take the word of the current patriarchs over +Alexi I who "signed' this tomos on his death bed. 
Furthermore ROCOR has JUST as much right to argue the same points as the Metropolia. 
A) before the russian revolution existing parishes were under the Moscow Patriarch
B) 1921 they split into the Synod and MEtropolia, although I think this may have lasted over a number of years.
C) So therefore both the OCA and ROCOR are equally entitled to have the same claim, they all were and are Russian Orthodox parishes.  Rocor made a public, visible and transparent move to align themselves back to the MP.  The Metropolia was formed under the Iron Curtain veiled in secrecy and on +Alexi's death bed.
D) Realising that there were churches created in the Synod and the Metropolia (aka now ROCOR and OCA) post split post revolution, it doesn't matter.  They all were consecrated by Bishops were either made bishops by bishops who come from the MP line. 
It is a moot point about the autochephaly of the OCA really, because if one goes with what the patriarchs said in Chambesy, their autochephaly given in mystery behind the iron curtain of the CCCP is null and void.
If people say the Patriarch of Constantinople and Pope of Rome ending the schism in 1964 didn't really count because all of the Patriarchs didn't ascend to it, then the OCA autochelphaly can be looked at the same way. 
If you read Chambesy and according to a Metropolitan I knew rather well, the goal is for everyone to be autonomous under the EP and all bishops will be given USA/Canadian etc.. city sees, so like Second Chance of Sacramento instead of titular bishops of forgotten Greek cities.  At first they will take care of all parishes in a given region, no matter what jurisdiction and then eventually bishops will be moved around and new regions then dioceses will be set up. 
I'm not the guy that made this up, so don't kill the messenger Smiley
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 09:40:13 PM by username! » Logged

Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,776



« Reply #48 on: December 28, 2011, 09:55:58 PM »

Or was it simply more rebellion at work? This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians.
So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"? And, not in Serbia itself but thousands of miles away in the United States of America, where there is already an autocephalous church.

If you read Chambesy and according to a Metropolitan I knew rather well, the goal is for everyone to be autonomous under the EP and all bishops will be given USA/Canadian etc.. city sees, so like Second Chance of Sacramento instead of titular bishops of forgotten Greek cities.  At first they will take care of all parishes in a given region, no matter what jurisdiction and then eventually bishops will be moved around and new regions then dioceses will be set up. 
I'm not the guy that made this up, so don't kill the messenger Smiley

Sorry to hear that. I will not be a part of that sort of travesty. The OCA can give up its autocephaly only to truly administratively united and truly autocephalous local Churches in North America. The new local churches in Canada, United States of America and Mexico/Latin America should have their own primates and Holy Synods. Not eparchies. Not autonomous quasi-entities under a foreign bishop.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,776



« Reply #49 on: December 28, 2011, 10:08:26 PM »

So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"?

Scandalous!!    I really object to that, as a monk and a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church for 20 years.

I have read assessments of the Orthodox Church of America, on the basis of the reported shenanigans of OCA bishops over the last few decades!  But politeness would not permit me to make mention of these things.
Honestly, Father, I would expect you to be above such petty mudslinging.

Sorry to not live up to your expectations.  But message 31 inspired me to make a response to the mudslinging against the Serbian Church.  One must defend one's mother.  In fact I took an oath to do so at my ordination.
But defending your church by throwing mud at another?

I did not see myself as mud slinging.  I was pointing out the hypocrisy (glasshouses) in message 31 in attacking the Serbian Church.  

I guess we shall have to agree to disagree - was Second Chance mudslinging?  Did Irish Hermit throw mud back?  


Quote

I can think of better ways to defend your mother church.

I was surprised, as I suspect you were, that Second Chance would promote his Church by denigrating the Serbian Church.

Suprised also at the suggestion that Alveus should consider the OCA?  Don't we have a rule stopping us encouraging peple to change Churches?  Or have I misremembered something, and we may do so?





Keeping your mind your post subsequent to this one, may I interject? Not only did I not denigrate the Serbian Church, I also did not suggest that Alveus consider switching to the OCA. For the benefit of readers who may happen to just read this particular posting, Alveus had launched a tirade against phylatism. To point out the inherent contradiction in an American convert to Orthodoxy joining the Serbian Church in his own country (USA) while attacking phyletism, I asked him why he had joined the Serbian Church in the USA, where there is an established autocephalous church. If he had joined the GOA, Ukranians, ROCOR/ROC, Antiochians, Bulgarian or Romanian, I would have also flung back the phrase that he used "national churches as accoutrements to phyletism." Not, mind you, that any of he churches I just mentioned are not fine, canonical Orthodox jurisdictions. I hope this makes it clearer.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 10:11:41 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,776



« Reply #50 on: December 28, 2011, 10:10:28 PM »

Second Chance,  I am banging my head on the floor with a nizki poklon if I misread message 31.  Forgive me.

Dear Father, I can never not forgive you. For you know that I love you as much as I love my spiritual father. Please accept my best wishes for Nativity and a safe, healthy and blessed New Year.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,573



« Reply #51 on: December 29, 2011, 12:18:21 AM »

Or was it simply more rebellion at work? This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians.
So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"? And, not in Serbia itself but thousands of miles away in the United States of America, where there is already an autocephalous church.

An "autochephalous church" I think not whenever you had Patriarchs meet and start the EA and the document signed by all of the heads of autochephalous churches (oca was represented by Russia)
No, Russia did not represent the OCA, and it made quite a point about that.  It cannot, per its own (i.e. Moscow's) statute, represent the OCA.  It can, and does, look after the OCA's interests.

The OCA, consequently, was not bound by Chambesy, and the Phanar didn't want it represented. Things turned out differently, thanks to Arbp. Demetrios (Many Years!)

stating that North America should be brought together by the rules of their decree and that it should be an autonomous church.  Chambesy argreement I believe. Google it.
The Chambesy agreement says no such thing, though the Phanar is trying to put that spin on it:
Quote
The Conference decided to establish an “Episcopal Assembly” in specific regions which are beyond the boundaries of the Autocephalous Churches.
Quote
The Conference decided to establish new Bishops Assemblies in certain regions throughout the world in order to resolve the problem of the Diaspora, namely for the Orthodox faithful that have settled outside the traditional boundaries of the local Orthodox Churches.
http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy
http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/communique
The Decision and Regulations, signed by all the Churches except the OCA, say no such thing.

I am going to take the word of the current patriarchs over +Alexi I who "signed' this tomos on his death bed.

Should we void the Creed as well, as Pat. St. Meletius, who opened the Second Ecumenical Council, died during it?

The Tomos was signed by +Alexi I, his successor +Pimen, his successor +Alexi II of blessed memory and even his rival Philaret, the deposed metropolitan of Kiev, and the last Russian Archbishop of New York, the Aleutians and Exarch of North and South America +Jonathan, and ratified by the Holy Synod.  None have retracted that I know of.

Negotiations with Pat. Alexi started in 1946, nearly at the beginning of his patriarchate, which caused the split with ROCOR, who would not associate with Moscow.  Talks assumed a regularity throughout the 1960's, full communion was restored and then autocephaly granted.  It didn't start on Pat. Alexi's death bed.

Furthermore ROCOR has JUST as much right to argue the same points as the Metropolia.
Not really.
A) before the russian revolution existing parishes were under the Moscow Patriarch
Not exactly:they were under the Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America, an archdiocese of the Russian Church.
B) 1921 they split into the Synod and MEtropolia, although I think this may have lasted over a number of years.
No.  The Archdiocese continued on as the Metropolia.  The Synod was organized as a Church in exile.  The Archdiocse wasn't in exile.
C) So therefore both the OCA and ROCOR are equally entitled to have the same claim, they all were and are Russian Orthodox parishes.
No.  The OCA had, besides Russian parishes, Antiochian (it took some time for Antioch to wrest them from the Metropolia) and Albanian parishes, to which Romanian ones were added as well.  This, in addition to the native American ones (I don't think ROCOR had any).
The EP took the Polish, Belarussian, Finnish and Estonian parishes.
Later, the Church of Japan remained under the Metropolia until the Tomos (the return of Japan to Moscow's jurisdiction was one of the terms:if the Tomos is no good, the Tokyo returns to Washington).

Rocor made a public, visible and transparent move to align themselves back to the MP.  The Metropolia was formed under the Iron Curtain veiled in secrecy and on +Alexi's death bed.
ROCOR had no choice but to make a visible and transparent move, as there no longer remained an Iron Curtain to hide behind.  The sight of parishes of the Russian Church Outside of Russia inside Russia made things appear incongruous.

D) Realising that there were churches created in the Synod and the Metropolia (aka now ROCOR and OCA) post split post revolution, it doesn't matter.  They all were consecrated by Bishops were either made bishops by bishops who come from the MP line.
who come from the EP line.  Your point?
It is a moot point about the autochephaly of the OCA really, because if one goes with what the patriarchs said in Chambesy, their autochephaly given in mystery behind the iron curtain of the CCCP is null and void.
Since the patriarchs said no such thing in Chambesy, we do not have to even go into the absence of the competency of the Greek Church (who is what we are talking about) to rule on the issue.

You don't think that the autocephaly of Greece, Romania, Serbia, Poland, Bulgaria, Albania Czechoslovakia and even Russia were not given/recognized in mystery behind the Sublime Porte?  Why don't you try to void their autocephaly as well?

If people say the Patriarch of Constantinople and Pope of Rome ending the schism in 1964 didn't really count because all of the Patriarchs didn't ascend to it, then the OCA autochelphaly can be looked at the same way.
Dumb analogy: no one, not even Constantinople, resumed communion with the Pope of Rome with the statements of 1964.  Everyone, including Constantinople, entered into full communion with the OCA with the issuance of the Tomos (objections from Moscow were the only impediment to such full communion), as happened with ROCOR once it signed the Act of Canonical Communion with Moscow.

The one entails entering communion with heretics, the other resuming communion after a schism has been healed. Quite a difference.

If you read Chambesy and according to a Metropolitan I knew rather well, the goal is for everyone to be autonomous under the EP and all bishops will be given USA/Canadian etc.. city sees, so like Second Chance of Sacramento instead of titular bishops of forgotten Greek cities.  At first they will take care of all parishes in a given region, no matter what jurisdiction and then eventually bishops will be moved around and new regions then dioceses will be set up.  
I'm not the guy that made this up, so don't kill the messenger Smiley
Oh, my sources say the same thing. And that is what the Phanar planned.  Things have not gone according to plan, however, and the other Churches never bound themselves to the Phanariot agenda.  Indeed, do read Chambesy, i.e. whatever one signed, and not what the Phanar claims for Chambesy.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 12:24:14 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
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #52 on: December 29, 2011, 07:40:57 PM »

In the end, does it matter to the person at the pew level? 
I know where I donate my money and where I don't.  Not that money makes the world go'round but I won't support people who mismanage money in a church. 
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,573



« Reply #53 on: December 29, 2011, 08:55:39 PM »

In the end, does it matter to the person at the pew level? 
Yes.
I know where I donate my money and where I don't.  Not that money makes the world go'round but I won't support people who mismanage money in a church. 
No one asks you too.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #54 on: January 14, 2012, 10:32:36 AM »

I find it strange that Devin emphasises over and over his desire for good relationships and for unity but he also seems to delight in taking cheap shots at Orthodoxy.

I'm not really familiar with Devin Rose. Is he well-known and well-respected?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #55 on: January 14, 2012, 10:34:28 AM »

Quote from: Devin Rose
I seem to hear two different stories of Orthodoxy: some Orthodox highlight its strong harmony and pervasive unity, while others point out the many divisions–whether territorial, jurisdictional, theological, etc.–that exist between the various Churches. A is out of communion with B but in communion with C. But C is in communion with both, but not in communion with D, and so on.

I wonder if Rose is a fan of neo-conservative Catholic writer Dr. Scott Hahn ...

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #56 on: January 14, 2012, 10:37:00 AM »

I think the only way to deal with the Roman CAtholc communion is to treat them as a prayer organisation that needs to converted to Orthodoxy.

Speaking as a member of that "prayer organization" I have to wonder: how does WRO fit in to that?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,378



« Reply #57 on: January 14, 2012, 01:25:50 PM »

I think the only way to deal with the Roman CAtholc communion is to treat them as a prayer organisation that needs to converted to Orthodoxy.

Speaking as a member of that "prayer organization" I have to wonder: how does WRO fit in to that?

That is a very good question, Peter.  While it is common to consider WRO as "half converted", I find myself disagreeing with that point more and more.  I see the Western Rite more as what the Roman Catholic Church would look like if it became Orthodox.  Very little different from now externally, but with the internal things that separate us removed.  I would fully expect that the WRO would be put under the jurisdiction of Rome if there ever was a unification.  And yes, since I am not a believer in "territorial Orthodoxy", I would have no problem with that at all.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2012, 04:04:37 PM »

And yes, since I am not a believer in "territorial Orthodoxy", I would have no problem with that at all.

You mean the Ecumenical Councils?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,378



« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2012, 06:08:48 PM »

And yes, since I am not a believer in "territorial Orthodoxy", I would have no problem with that at all.

You mean the Ecumenical Councils?

When the Church upholds every Canon written in those councils, then come talk to me about it.  As it is now (and probably throughout history), the Canons are really nothing more than words to control the masses while the Bishops do whatever they want.  As I have said previously, if God was really all that worried about some of those things, He would have had one of the Apostles write The Second Book of Leviticus.  Instead, the Holy Apostles, in the First Council of Jerusalem, seemed somewhat disinterested in making up more rules than already existed.  I would think differently if I saw the Canons actually followed by those that call themselves "Canonical".  On the other hand, I was told by a "Canonical" Priest that the Canons (or for that matter, the Councils themselves) have no weight or validity unless "ratified" and put into practice by the Church.  That is what he used to explain the seeming contradictions between certain Canons, and the general disuse of others.  If he was correct (and his words were not the only time that I have heard that line of thinking subsequent to his use of them), then it would seem that "territorial Orthodoxy" has also been rejected by the Church, at least for the last 100 or so years.

However, since the point was brought up, and since I do not recall seeing a discussion about it recently, let's discuss a major point of "territorial" Orthodoxy.  I seems to me, from reading History, that the diocese of the Church were roughly patterned after political subdivisions.  Prior to the American and French Revolutions, people really had no say in who governed them.  Of course, they believed (as indeed the Scriptures teach) that all government was ordained by God.  Well, it seems that if God has recently ordained that people select from among themselves their own rulers (democracy and the like), then it would seem equally pleasing to God that the people select among themselves their Spiritual rulers.  At least it would seem so if it was God pleasing to politicize His Body in the first place.  If that was not His desire, than any discussion of "jurisdiction" is useless and not God pleasing.  I tend to lean this way since Jesus, who's Body we are supposed to be in the first place, told the first twelve "Bishops" that they were NOT to squabble among themselves regarding such matters as the Gentiles do.  The very first indication of separation between Church and State, precisely what did NOT exist at the time the Ecumenical Councils.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Fr Spyridon
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 99


FrSpyridon
« Reply #60 on: April 09, 2012, 08:54:06 AM »

It's like Orthodoxy never left the patristic era when people walked out of councils, accused each other of heresy, had major territorial disputes, deposed their primates, and fought hard to ascertain the truth. Had Nestorius or Arius been born in the modern era, their teachings would probably have been branded as legitimate opinions by the more 'enlightened' churches of the modern era which avoid potential conflicts in the name of 'unity,' even to their own detriment.

There are plenty of people spouting Arianism today: try the Jehovah's Witnesses for one group. However, we do not consider them legitimate. By making such extreme statements to advance your point you create unnecessary ideas which only add to confusion.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,577



« Reply #61 on: April 09, 2012, 10:47:03 AM »

It's like Orthodoxy never left the patristic era when people walked out of councils, accused each other of heresy, had major territorial disputes, deposed their primates, and fought hard to ascertain the truth. Had Nestorius or Arius been born in the modern era, their teachings would probably have been branded as legitimate opinions by the more 'enlightened' churches of the modern era which avoid potential conflicts in the name of 'unity,' even to their own detriment.

There are plenty of people spouting Arianism today: try the Jehovah's Witnesses for one group. However, we do not consider them legitimate. By making such extreme statements to advance your point you create unnecessary ideas which only add to confusion.

That is a different issue all together. The Jehovah's Witnesses are nowhere nearly as clever as Arius was. My point is that a modern day Arius or Nestorius could easily deceive some of the more liberal Christian groups, which have come to value politeness over the truth. Notice that I'm not saying the the Orthodox would be deceived. In never said that we consider the Jehovah's Witnesses to be legitimate: that is something you are simply reading into my post, which is not there.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 10:53:39 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.239 seconds with 88 queries.