OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 03:21:09 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: When Bishop Hilarion Walked Out  (Read 3621 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 5,063



« 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)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,691



« 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)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,691



« 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)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,691



« 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: 37,449



« 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: 5,063



« 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: 37,449



« 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: 6,109



« 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: 6,109



« 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: 6,109



« 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: 5,287



« 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

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
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: 5,287



« 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

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
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: 1,555



« 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 0.099 seconds with 44 queries.