OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 25, 2014, 04:57:20 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Green Umbrella vs. Cyrillic (Was: I am Godless)  (Read 3260 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« on: September 28, 2012, 03:41:06 PM »

Green Umbrella, aren't you the papist I'm debating over at another forum?
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 03:12:15 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2012, 03:47:32 PM »

Green Umbrella, aren't you the papist I'm debating over at another forum?

I am at another forum. But you do credit things to me I have not stated. Why would you do this?
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2012, 03:50:06 PM »

Green Umbrella, aren't you the papist I'm debating over at another forum?

I am at another forum. But you do credit things to me I have not stated. Why would you do this?

Where did I do that?
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2012, 03:59:28 PM »


Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2012, 04:11:45 PM »

popcorn.gif

I'm running out of popcorn.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2012, 04:25:17 PM »

Green Umbrella, aren't you the papist I'm debating over at another forum?

I am at another forum. But you do credit things to me I have not stated. Why would you do this?

Where did I do that?

Quote
Papist

Papist is a (usually disparaging) term or an anti-Catholic slur, referring to the Roman Catholic Church, its teachings, practices, or adherents. The term was coined during the English Reformation to denote a person whose loyalties were to the Pope, rather than to the Church of England. Over time, however, the term came to mean one who supported Papal authority over all Christians.

This does not describe me at present. It may in the future, or it might not. I am an enquirer. I am researching and asking questions. I have formed no conclusions. But I do say the Council of Florence from what I know right now looks ecumenical.

But that leaves many questions. Can ¨the people¨ reject an ecumenical council? Did the Greeks demand the council not to be considered ecumenical unless ratified by local synods. Is that even necessary? Does that matter? What makes a council legit exactly and what does not?

I do not know. I have no conclusions yet. The entire thing is quite complex it seems. It will take some time to for my conclusion. So I am not a Papist.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 04:26:08 PM by Green_Umbrella » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2012, 04:36:08 PM »

popcorn.gif

I'm running out of popcorn.

Come on over. I've got plenty from my Y2K stores.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2012, 04:41:02 PM »

Quote
But I do say the Council of Florence from what I know right now looks ecumenical.

A council, coerced to its conclusion and rejected by the Church (the faithful) is not ecumenical.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2012, 04:46:04 PM »

popcorn.gif

I'm running out of popcorn.

Come on over. I've got plenty from my Y2K stores.
laugh

Great now you broke the chain of me not responding to you. Thanks.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2012, 04:50:57 PM »

Quote
But I do say the Council of Florence from what I know right now looks ecumenical.

A council, coerced to its conclusion and rejected by the Church (the faithful) is not ecumenical.

Watching Cryillic debate the people on the other forum is like watching architects arguing the building codes to a skyscraper with me being the cement mixer. I have no idea what they are talking about. 

 Grin

I do not know...yet.  Wink
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2012, 04:59:30 PM »

What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.
Logged

Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2012, 05:08:13 PM »

What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.

But you are assuming knowledge I do not have.

e.g. ¨What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times.¨

It has? I do not know that.

e.g. ¨Bishops can be wrong...¨

They can? I do not know that.

I need to research this and it seems quite complex so it will take some time. Allow me to have it please.
Logged
neon_knights
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2012, 05:16:25 PM »

They can? I do not know that.

I seriously hope that you are being sarcastic here.
Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2012, 05:25:47 PM »

They can? I do not know that.

I seriously hope that you are being sarcastic here.

I need to research this and it seems quite complex so it will take some time. Allow me to have it please.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2012, 05:28:04 PM »

What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.

But you are assuming knowledge I do not have.

e.g. ¨What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times.¨

It has? I do not know that.

e.g. ¨Bishops can be wrong...¨

They can? I do not know that.

I need to research this and it seems quite complex so it will take some time. Allow me to have it please.

The council in 1270 was similarly rejected before Florence. Repeating the same error does not validate it.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2012, 05:37:53 PM »

Yes, Green Umbrella, the people have rejected councils which did not reflect the Orthodox faith, and bishops and priests who have been guilty of the same tampering have been deposed. The despised Arius was formerly a presbyter at Alexandria. Nestorius was at one time Patriarch of Constantinople, and similarly the monothelite heretic Honorius was once Pope of Rome. They were all heretical and wrong and as wrong can be.
Logged

Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2012, 05:46:46 PM »

What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.

But you are assuming knowledge I do not have.

e.g. ¨What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times.¨

It has? I do not know that.

e.g. ¨Bishops can be wrong...¨

They can? I do not know that.

I need to research this and it seems quite complex so it will take some time. Allow me to have it please.

The council in 1270 was similarly rejected before Florence. Repeating the same error does not validate it.

Do you have a link with this information? The only thing I can find about a council in 1270 says...

Quote
¨In the Council of 1270, presided over by Bertrand de Malferrat, Archbishop of Arles, the usurpers of ecclesiastical property were severely threatened; unclaimed legacies were allotted to pious uses; the bishops were urged to mutual support; the individual churches were taxed for the support of the papal legate; and ecclesiastics were forbidden to convoke the civil courts against their bishops. Christmas carols were banned.¨
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2012, 05:57:08 PM »

Do a better search of the Second Council of Lyons.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2012, 06:07:26 PM »

Do a better search of the Second Council of Lyons.

Ah ok,

Quote
Second Council of Lyon (1274) attempted reunion with the Eastern churches, approved Franciscan and Dominican orders, a tithe to support crusades, and conclave procedures.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 06:08:01 PM by Green_Umbrella » Logged
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2012, 11:44:21 PM »




Green_Umbrella!  Cry
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2012, 02:00:57 AM »

What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.

The whole Mark of Ephesus ideal vs. the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong), another one of Orthodoxy's grand stands of cognitive dissonance. Its no wonder anyone that tries to become Orthodox and isn't content with "Its all a mysterion! Don't think about anything!" ends up schizo.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 02:03:06 AM by Jason.Wike » Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,046



« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2012, 02:12:27 AM »

What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.

The whole Mark of Ephesus ideal vs. the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong), another one of Orthodoxy's grand stands of cognitive dissonance. Its no wonder anyone that tries to become Orthodox and isn't content with "Its all a mysterion! Don't think about anything!" ends up schizo.

No one has ever told me that my priest or my bishop is "Christ on earth." I wonder if I should ask Father whether he is?
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2012, 03:18:53 AM »

Quote
But I do say the Council of Florence from what I know right now looks ecumenical.

A council, coerced to its conclusion and rejected by the Church (the faithful) is not ecumenical.

Watching Cryillic debate the people on the other forum is like watching architects arguing the building codes to a skyscraper with me being the cement mixer. I have no idea what they are talking about. 

 Grin

I do not know...yet.  Wink

Don't worry, you won't have to see it anymore, the mods banned me. Real debate can't take place over there.

Yes, Green Umbrella, the people have rejected councils which did not reflect the Orthodox faith, and bishops and priests who have been guilty of the same tampering have been deposed.

You can take that from a Copt  Wink
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 03:28:23 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2012, 03:38:26 AM »

[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)

If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.
Logged

Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2012, 08:52:00 AM »


I copy and paste comment here from another forum..

Quote
Originally Posted by Cyrillic View Post
I disagree. I don't think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.

Quote
Originally Posted by Green_Umbrella
Please correct me if I am wrong because I am very much a layman.

The Emporer himself and every representative from the east agreed and signed on the dotted line except one, Mark of Ephesus. If that is not ecumenical what is ecumenical? I do not think ecumenical could exist.

Your side rolled over. Unless you have some new information and that is very possible, that is the way I see it.

And from that point a debate opened. I was learning a lot. I do not see anything to be sad about.
Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #25 on: September 29, 2012, 08:54:58 AM »

Quote
But I do say the Council of Florence from what I know right now looks ecumenical.

A council, coerced to its conclusion and rejected by the Church (the faithful) is not ecumenical.

Watching Cryillic debate the people on the other forum is like watching architects arguing the building codes to a skyscraper with me being the cement mixer. I have no idea what they are talking about. 

 Grin

I do not know...yet.  Wink

Don't worry, you won't have to see it anymore, the mods banned me. Real debate can't take place over there.

Yes, Green Umbrella, the people have rejected councils which did not reflect the Orthodox faith, and bishops and priests who have been guilty of the same tampering have been deposed.

You can take that from a Copt  Wink

That is ok. They banned me too.  Grin ...and some other people.  Shocked It is too bad. I was learning a lot but whatever.   Roll Eyes

They drop the axe pretty quick over there on that forum it seems.
Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,046



« Reply #26 on: September 29, 2012, 12:25:58 PM »

[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)

If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.

In point of fact, the EOs have a saying (attributed, I think, to St. John Chrysostom): "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #27 on: September 29, 2012, 12:56:33 PM »

What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.

The whole Mark of Ephesus ideal vs. the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong), another one of Orthodoxy's grand stands of cognitive dissonance. Its no wonder anyone that tries to become Orthodox and isn't content with "Its all a mysterion! Don't think about anything!" ends up schizo.

It's nice to see that you don't actually know anything about Orthodoxy. It makes your hatred of it more forgivable.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #28 on: September 29, 2012, 12:58:33 PM »


I copy and paste comment here from another forum..

Quote
Originally Posted by Cyrillic View Post
I disagree. I don't think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.

Quote
Originally Posted by Green_Umbrella
Please correct me if I am wrong because I am very much a layman.

The Emporer himself and every representative from the east agreed and signed on the dotted line except one, Mark of Ephesus. If that is not ecumenical what is ecumenical? I do not think ecumenical could exist.

Your side rolled over. Unless you have some new information and that is very possible, that is the way I see it.

And from that point a debate opened. I was learning a lot. I do not see anything to be sad about.

Your post on CAF (?) was very definitive ("I don't see how that can be disputed") for someone who hasn't made up their mind.

Look up St. Athanasius. A Catholic as well as Orthodox saint, he was at one point more or less the only bishop who did not subscribe to the semi-Arian creed of Arminium and is seen as a hero for it.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2012, 01:24:15 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


I copy and paste comment here from another forum..

Quote
Originally Posted by Cyrillic View Post
I disagree. I don't think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.

Quote
Originally Posted by Green_Umbrella
Please correct me if I am wrong because I am very much a layman.

The Emporer himself and every representative from the east agreed and signed on the dotted line except one, Mark of Ephesus. If that is not ecumenical what is ecumenical? I do not think ecumenical could exist.

Your side rolled over. Unless you have some new information and that is very possible, that is the way I see it.

And from that point a debate opened. I was learning a lot. I do not see anything to be sad about.

Your post on CAF (?) was very definitive ("I don't see how that can be disputed") for someone who hasn't made up their mind.

Look up St. Athanasius. A Catholic as well as Orthodox saint, he was at one point more or less the only bishop who did not subscribe to the semi-Arian creed of Arminium and is seen as a hero for it.

Yes, and as graceful as our Father generally is, he also seemed rather bitter at times, but then again, I suppose that is what happens when you're exiled five times and folks are trying to kill you Smiley

God bless the legacy of our rightful Saint Athanasius, perhaps the only Patriarch with a Moses the Ethiopian attitude and approach!

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Michael36
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian Episcopate (OCA)
Posts: 50


« Reply #30 on: September 29, 2012, 01:42:42 PM »

[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)

If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.

In point of fact, the EOs have a saying (attributed, I think, to St. John Chrysostom): "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."
Actually the saying is: "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of Priests and the Bishops are the lamp posts"
Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #31 on: September 29, 2012, 03:16:11 PM »


I copy and paste comment here from another forum..

Quote
Originally Posted by Cyrillic View Post
I disagree. I don't think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.

Quote
Originally Posted by Green_Umbrella
Please correct me if I am wrong because I am very much a layman.

The Emporer himself and every representative from the east agreed and signed on the dotted line except one, Mark of Ephesus. If that is not ecumenical what is ecumenical? I do not think ecumenical could exist.

Your side rolled over. Unless you have some new information and that is very possible, that is the way I see it.

And from that point a debate opened. I was learning a lot. I do not see anything to be sad about.

Your post on CAF (?) was very definitive ("I don't see how that can be disputed") for someone who hasn't made up their mind.

Look up St. Athanasius. A Catholic as well as Orthodox saint, he was at one point more or less the only bishop who did not subscribe to the semi-Arian creed of Arminium and is seen as a hero for it.

Well, If you look at my post they all include words like,  ¨I think...¨  ¨I am not sure...¨  ¨Please correct me if I am wrong ..¨  ¨How do you know this and where can I find this information?¨

That is not someone who has their mind made up.

And I still can find no information on where the Greeks demanded the council be ratified by the local synods before it would be accepted by the east. Who says that, where is that written. I have been offered no link to prove that. Is that a historic fact or spin. Show me. Evidence please.

Here is a good example and this is from today after the bans...

Quote
Originally Posted by Cyrillic
No, hypocrisy like that would be docrinal development. Orthodoxy doesn't do that.

Besides, my point was that canon 28 was as valid in 451, 1054 and 1215. The Pope's acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement doesn't change a thing about that.

and the response...

Quote
I realize he can't respond, but I want to highlight an error here. In 451 the Pope rejected Canon 28, and the Council said it would have no force without his assent. Later Popes did accept this rearrangement of the order of Sees, yet Cyrillic does not call this the "hypocrisy of doctrinal development" that "Orthodoxy doesn't do".

If the Patriarchate of Rome can change its position on a Canon, why can't the Patriarch of Moscow? And if a Canon that is rejected now can be approved later, then there is no place to say that the rejection of "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction" now by the Orthodox constitutes an Ecumenical condemnation of the teaching that brands it as heresy.

Unfortunately the Eastern Orthodox position on Councils presented here is unworkable, and contradicts the history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Now is Cyrillic correct here or the other person? I do not know. I have no idea. It is all news to me. Some people here act like everyone is born with this knowledge. It is unfortunate they banned everyone there because I was learning a lot. But they pay for the site and he who pays the piper calls the tune.
 

Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,202


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #32 on: September 29, 2012, 03:27:51 PM »

[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)

If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.

In point of fact, the EOs have a saying (attributed, I think, to St. John Chrysostom): "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."
Actually the saying is: "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of Priests and the Bishops are the lamp posts"

I don't know about the saying, but in his 3rd Homily on Acts St. John says most bishops won't be saved.
Logged
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #33 on: September 29, 2012, 11:14:26 PM »

I don't know anything? Actually it is amazing you guys apparently don't even study your own religion/history.

Priests are icons of Christ. Kings are, as well. The same role that political envoys played in the secular world Priests served for the Kingdom of God. Just as political envoys were treated as if they themselves were actually the King they represented, priests are likewise for Christ. It may be depreciated in Anglo American Orthodoxy but if you actually pick up any books on Orthodoxy from before 1950's its probably in every one of them.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 11:17:54 PM by Jason.Wike » Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,046



« Reply #34 on: September 29, 2012, 11:17:42 PM »

I don't know anything? Actually it is amazing you guys apparently don't even study your own religion/history.

Priests are icons of Christ. Kings are, as well. The same role that political envoys played in the secular world Priests served for the Kingdom of God. Just as political envoys were treated as if they themselves were actually the King they represented, priests are likewise for Christ. It may be depreciated in Anglo American Orthodoxy but if you actually pick up any books on Orthodoxy from before 1950's its in every one of them.


There's some truth to that. Priests are icons of Christ, and although I don't have any proof for it, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to find out that that's also true of kings. That doesn't mean we owe them unconditional obedience and the phrase "Christ on earth" is a bit deceptive in that regard.

Every human being is also an icon of Christ, in a sense. The priests arguably are more so, since they represent Christ liturgically as well as the way we all do. But one doesn't pay the same honor to an icon that one does to God.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #35 on: September 29, 2012, 11:18:26 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I don't know anything? Actually it is amazing you guys apparently don't even study your own religion/history.

Priests are icons of Christ. Kings are, as well. The same role that political envoys played in the secular world Priests served for the Kingdom of God. Just as political envoys were treated as if they themselves were actually the King they represented, priests are likewise for Christ. It may be depreciated in Anglo American Orthodoxy but if you actually pick up any books on Orthodoxy from before 1950's its in every one of them.


Tisk.. Tisk..

It must sure be easy there to throw all those stones from outside looking in, perhaps one day you should come in an actually join us in worship rather then scathing criticism beyond your experience?

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2012, 02:29:24 AM »

[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)

If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.

I didn't say anything about "Vicar of Christ" did I?

The Place of the Bishop in the Orthodox Church.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 02:31:43 AM by Jason.Wike » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #37 on: September 30, 2012, 05:43:56 AM »

Quote
Originally Posted by Cyrillic
No, hypocrisy like that would be docrinal development. Orthodoxy doesn't do that.

Besides, my point was that canon 28 was as valid in 451, 1054 and 1215. The Pope's acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement doesn't change a thing about that.

and the response...

Quote
I realize he can't respond, but I want to highlight an error here. In 451 the Pope rejected Canon 28, and the Council said it would have no force without his assent. Later Popes did accept this rearrangement of the order of Sees, yet Cyrillic does not call this the "hypocrisy of doctrinal development" that "Orthodoxy doesn't do".

If the Patriarchate of Rome can change its position on a Canon, why can't the Patriarch of Moscow? And if a Canon that is rejected now can be approved later, then there is no place to say that the rejection of "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction" now by the Orthodox constitutes an Ecumenical condemnation of the teaching that brands it as heresy.

Unfortunately the Eastern Orthodox position on Councils presented here is unworkable, and contradicts the history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Now is Cyrillic correct here or the other person? I do not know. I have no idea. It is all news to me. Some people here act like everyone is born with this knowledge. It is unfortunate they banned everyone there because I was learning a lot. But they pay for the site and he who pays the piper calls the tune.

I'm not a very impartial judge here, so I'll leave that one for others.
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #38 on: September 30, 2012, 11:19:24 AM »

Quote
Originally Posted by Cyrillic
No, hypocrisy like that would be docrinal development. Orthodoxy doesn't do that.

Besides, my point was that canon 28 was as valid in 451, 1054 and 1215. The Pope's acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement doesn't change a thing about that.

and the response...

Quote
I realize he can't respond, but I want to highlight an error here. In 451 the Pope rejected Canon 28, and the Council said it would have no force without his assent. Later Popes did accept this rearrangement of the order of Sees, yet Cyrillic does not call this the "hypocrisy of doctrinal development" that "Orthodoxy doesn't do".

If the Patriarchate of Rome can change its position on a Canon, why can't the Patriarch of Moscow? And if a Canon that is rejected now can be approved later, then there is no place to say that the rejection of "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction" now by the Orthodox constitutes an Ecumenical condemnation of the teaching that brands it as heresy.

Unfortunately the Eastern Orthodox position on Councils presented here is unworkable, and contradicts the history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Now is Cyrillic correct here or the other person? I do not know. I have no idea. It is all news to me. Some people here act like everyone is born with this knowledge. It is unfortunate they banned everyone there because I was learning a lot. But they pay for the site and he who pays the piper calls the tune.

I'm not a very impartial judge here, so I'll leave that one for others.

Well, Papal infallibility seems a bit much. ¨..the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error..¨ I think I am not buying that. But is it not true that the Byzantine Emperors acted and claimed the same position over the eastern churches as the Popes today claim over the western churches? Was not the Eastern Empires form of government one of Caesaropapism?

The Emperor was head of the Church and claimed infallibility in the east?

 
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #39 on: September 30, 2012, 11:26:24 AM »


Well, Papal infallibility seems a bit much. ¨..the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error..¨ I think I am not buying that.

Good.

But is it not true that the Byzantine Emperors acted and claimed the same position over the eastern churches as the Popes today claim over the western churches? Was not the Eastern Empires form of government one of Caesaropapism?

Well, not exactly. Some emperors tried to introduce heresy but each time they failed. For example the monothelitism of Constans II or the iconoclasm of Leo III and Constantine V etc. etc.

The Emperor was head of the Church and claimed infallibility in the east?

Emperors were never the head of the Church (the only head of the Church is Christ) and they never claimed infallibility.

Perhaps a mod should split this thread to keep things on topic.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 11:42:40 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #40 on: September 30, 2012, 01:06:57 PM »


Well, Papal infallibility seems a bit much. ¨..the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error..¨ I think I am not buying that.

Good.

But is it not true that the Byzantine Emperors acted and claimed the same position over the eastern churches as the Popes today claim over the western churches? Was not the Eastern Empires form of government one of Caesaropapism?

Well, not exactly. Some emperors tried to introduce heresy but each time they failed. For example the monothelitism of Constans II or the iconoclasm of Leo III and Constantine V etc. etc.

The Emperor was head of the Church and claimed infallibility in the east?

Emperors were never the head of the Church (the only head of the Church is Christ) and they never claimed infallibility.

Perhaps a mod should split this thread to keep things on topic.

Well, making a quick search showed up this...

Caesaropapism in the Eastern Church

Caesaropapism's chief example is the authority the Byzantine Emperors had over the Church of Constantinople or Eastern Christian Church from the 330 consecration of Constantinople through the tenth century. The Emperor, whose control was so strong that "Caesaropapism" became interchangeable with "Byzantinism"

Definition: Caesaropapism is the term for a system whereby secular rulers exercised direct control over the church. Where Caesaropapism was established, kings or emperors could appoint clerics and influence church doctrine. The term is most frequently applied to the Byzantine Empire, where emperors were proclaimed to be equal to the apostles in 754, but it has also been used in describing the Russian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, and England after Henry VIII broke from Catholicism and initiated the Anglican church.

You disagree?
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #41 on: September 30, 2012, 01:33:15 PM »

Yes. Equal to the apostles is an honorific only. Sts. Cyril and Methodius were given that title as well. That doesn't mean they were infallible. Of course the emperor had influence, but they couldn't introduce heresy or something.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 01:33:48 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #42 on: September 30, 2012, 02:12:34 PM »

Yes. Equal to the apostles is an honorific only. Sts. Cyril and Methodius were given that title as well. That doesn't mean they were infallible. Of course the emperor had influence, but they couldn't introduce heresy or something.

But that is not what it says. It says, ¨...exercised direct control over the church.¨ and  ¨...the authority the Byzantine Emperors had over the Church.¨

It does not say he held ¨influence¨ over the church. It says he exercised authority and held control over the church. I am thinking the Byzantine Emperor held all the money and all the men with swords and spears. I do not think it takes too much imagination to see the Empoeror making himself the head of the church and infallible in those conditions.

Nope. I can see that happening very easily. What about you?    
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 02:14:15 PM by Green_Umbrella » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #43 on: September 30, 2012, 02:20:42 PM »

But it didn't. When the emperor tried to introduce heresy the people would rather be martyred than follow heresy. St. Maximus the Confessor, for example. Look him up. And since there is no emperor anymore what are you worrying about?
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #44 on: September 30, 2012, 02:21:51 PM »

Yes. Equal to the apostles is an honorific only. Sts. Cyril and Methodius were given that title as well. That doesn't mean they were infallible. Of course the emperor had influence, but they couldn't introduce heresy or something.

Some more searching...

¨The same writer, speaking of the ecclesiastical policy of Manuel Comnenus, gave the general belief of the Byzantine emperors, who consider themselves the infallible judges of matters of God and man. This opinion was supported in the second half of the twelfth century by the clergy. A celebrated Greek canonist...¨

Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 30, 2012, 02:21:59 PM »



William Wallace wants to set this thread FREEEEEEE!
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #46 on: September 30, 2012, 02:23:28 PM »

Yes. Equal to the apostles is an honorific only. Sts. Cyril and Methodius were given that title as well. That doesn't mean they were infallible. Of course the emperor had influence, but they couldn't introduce heresy or something.

Some more searching...

¨The same writer, speaking of the ecclesiastical policy of Manuel Comnenus, gave the general belief of the Byzantine emperors, who consider themselves the infallible judges of matters of God and man. This opinion was supported in the second half of the twelfth century by the clergy. A celebrated Greek canonist...¨



So in the twelfth century they considered Constans II to have been infallible when he wrote his Typos?
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #47 on: September 30, 2012, 02:26:39 PM »

If Green_Umbrella's picture of things is really how things have worked in the East/Orient, why did we reject the Emperor's attempt to replace the Orthodox Bishop of the Church of Egypt, St. Athanasius the Apostolic, with Arian bishops not once but twice? (The Arians were Gregory of Cappadocia and Lucius of Alexandria, neither of which are accepted by us, whether OO or EO.) It cannot be that the Emperor would have such direct control over the church, if the church's response is that his actions are not in keeping with the faith. In other words, it is not by the office alone but by the Orthodoxy of its holder that any emperor is awarded any sort of authority (ex. Julian the Apostate). We are not now nor ever have been beholden to those who would destroy our faith even if they have all the fancy titles in the world. If the clergy supported a bad emperor, then that clergy were wrong, as the emperor was wrong. There is no office on earth that is exempt from the responsibility to preserve Orthodoxy.
Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #48 on: September 30, 2012, 02:29:07 PM »

He's just trolling.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #49 on: September 30, 2012, 02:31:54 PM »



William Wallace wants to set this thread FREEEEEEE!
Hang on got to get my money out to bail this thread out:

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #50 on: September 30, 2012, 02:42:30 PM »

He's just trolling.

Address the persons argument, not the person. Calling me a troll is a cop-out. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it.
Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #51 on: September 30, 2012, 02:44:15 PM »

If Green_Umbrella's picture of things is really how things have worked in the East/Orient, why did we reject the Emperor's attempt to replace the Orthodox Bishop of the Church of Egypt, St. Athanasius the Apostolic, with Arian bishops not once but twice? (The Arians were Gregory of Cappadocia and Lucius of Alexandria, neither of which are accepted by us, whether OO or EO.) It cannot be that the Emperor would have such direct control over the church, if the church's response is that his actions are not in keeping with the faith. In other words, it is not by the office alone but by the Orthodoxy of its holder that any emperor is awarded any sort of authority (ex. Julian the Apostate). We are not now nor ever have been beholden to those who would destroy our faith even if they have all the fancy titles in the world. If the clergy supported a bad emperor, then that clergy were wrong, as the emperor was wrong. There is no office on earth that is exempt from the responsibility to preserve Orthodoxy.

This is not ¨my picture¨

I do not know. I am trying to find out. I do not have a picture. I am trying to get a picture if you understand what I mean.
Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #52 on: September 30, 2012, 03:02:49 PM »

If Green_Umbrella's picture of things is really how things have worked in the East/Orient, why did we reject the Emperor's attempt to replace the Orthodox Bishop of the Church of Egypt, St. Athanasius the Apostolic, with Arian bishops not once but twice? (The Arians were Gregory of Cappadocia and Lucius of Alexandria, neither of which are accepted by us, whether OO or EO.) It cannot be that the Emperor would have such direct control over the church, if the church's response is that his actions are not in keeping with the faith. In other words, it is not by the office alone but by the Orthodoxy of its holder that any emperor is awarded any sort of authority (ex. Julian the Apostate). We are not now nor ever have been beholden to those who would destroy our faith even if they have all the fancy titles in the world. If the clergy supported a bad emperor, then that clergy were wrong, as the emperor was wrong. There is no office on earth that is exempt from the responsibility to preserve Orthodoxy.

This is not ¨my picture¨

I do not know. I am trying to find out. I do not have a picture. I am trying to get a picture if you understand what I mean.

I will take my questions to secular historians and secular history forums. There is too much emotion invested in the questions and answers here.
Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #53 on: September 30, 2012, 03:05:53 PM »

St. Constantine the Great famously declared himself to be infallible on matters of religion. I'll dig out the reference later. That, however, was certainly one of his more fallible statements.


The list of saints who suffered exile for defying the emperor/ress is a very lengthy one. It would not be so lengthy if we believed the emperors who exiled them were infallible.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 03:07:15 PM by Orthodox11 » Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #54 on: September 30, 2012, 08:48:27 PM »

St. Constantine the Great famously declared himself to be infallible on matters of religion. I'll dig out the reference later. That, however, was certainly one of his more fallible statements.


The list of saints who suffered exile for defying the emperor/ress is a very lengthy one. It would not be so lengthy if we believed the emperors who exiled them were infallible.

I am not saying you believe that now. I am saying the Church at that time believed it. I am watching a show on the history of Christianity and an Orthodox Bishop named Kallistos Ware says...

¨In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth.¨

I agree with his assessment from what I can understand. Eastern Church leadership was appointed by the Emperor. I do not think a person needs a graduates degree in political science to know the Emperor is going to end up ¨Vicar of Christ¨ 

So while the Church in the east is rolling over for the Byzantine Emperor to play ¨Vicar of Christ¨ the Pope has the Holy Roman Emperor barefoot in the snow for 3 days at Tuscany begging for mercy. LOL!!

The split seems to have started when the Bishop of Rome crowned Charlemagne Emperor. Two ¨Vicars of Christ¨ on one earth is one Vicar too many.
So a person gets to pick their  ¨Vicar of Christ¨ The Byzantine Emperors or the Bishops of Rome. What a mess.

A person would think ¨Christians¨ could work this out and the Church united especially as there are no more Emperors. 

Logged
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Miaphysite Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: The Church of Alexandria
Posts: 5,042


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #55 on: September 30, 2012, 08:59:55 PM »

3600th viewer. 300th reply. Wink
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

I am currently not an active poster on the forum. Please forgive any offense I might have caused in the past. Thank you.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #56 on: September 30, 2012, 09:05:10 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


I am not saying you believe that now. I am saying the Church at that time believed it. I am watching a show on the history of Christianity and an Orthodox Bishop named Kallistos Ware says...

¨In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth.¨




That is in part the Solomonic Monarchy's same theological stance in Ethiopia, in fact, it developed around the time of Emperor Justinian who was quite the friend of the Ethiopian Emperor Kaleb.  Legend and some historians assert that Justinian and Kaleb divided the world in half between them out of mutual recognition of each other's universal sovereignty as Christian monarchs.  My personal philosophy as a Rastafari is not to worship HIM Haile Selassie as a god on earth, but as having been a Living Icon of Christ.  The Emperors there were titled (by the Church no less) as King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Lion of Judah, Elect of God, Light of this World (in the temporal sense), King of Zion (i.e. the Ark of the Covenant), King of Israel (i.e. the legendary inferences of Israelite bloodlines in the Ethiopian Church and political history).  All of these are indeed Titles for Christ, when the Ethiopian emperors bore them as their hereditary right, it was in the premise that they were "keeping the Throne of Christ warm until His Second Coming."  At more romantic times, the Ethiopian polity was essentially organized as if it were the Divine Theocracy through the Holy Spirit interacting with the Monarchy just as it did before Christ through King David.  Remember that King David wouldn't even touch his enemy King Saul because he equated it with blasphemy and denying the authority and power of God (see 1 Samuel 24:6-13)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #57 on: September 30, 2012, 09:08:47 PM »

St. Constantine the Great famously declared himself to be infallible on matters of religion. I'll dig out the reference later. That, however, was certainly one of his more fallible statements.


The list of saints who suffered exile for defying the emperor/ress is a very lengthy one. It would not be so lengthy if we believed the emperors who exiled them were infallible.

I am not saying you believe that now. I am saying the Church at that time believed it. I am watching a show on the history of Christianity and an Orthodox Bishop named Kallistos Ware says...

¨In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth.¨

I agree with his assessment from what I can understand. Eastern Church leadership was appointed by the Emperor. I do not think a person needs a graduates degree in political science to know the Emperor is going to end up ¨Vicar of Christ¨ 

So while the Church in the east is rolling over for the Byzantine Emperor to play ¨Vicar of Christ¨ the Pope has the Holy Roman Emperor barefoot in the snow for 3 days at Tuscany begging for mercy. LOL!!

The split seems to have started when the Bishop of Rome crowned Charlemagne Emperor. Two ¨Vicars of Christ¨ on one earth is one Vicar too many.
So a person gets to pick their  ¨Vicar of Christ¨ The Byzantine Emperors or the Bishops of Rome. What a mess.

A person would think ¨Christians¨ could work this out and the Church united especially as there are no more Emperors. 



Green umbrella, you're doing a bad job at portraying yourself as an unbiased inquirer with all of these nonsensical foregone conclusions.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #58 on: September 30, 2012, 09:53:25 PM »

St. Constantine the Great famously declared himself to be infallible on matters of religion. I'll dig out the reference later. That, however, was certainly one of his more fallible statements.


The list of saints who suffered exile for defying the emperor/ress is a very lengthy one. It would not be so lengthy if we believed the emperors who exiled them were infallible.

I am not saying you believe that now. I am saying the Church at that time believed it. I am watching a show on the history of Christianity and an Orthodox Bishop named Kallistos Ware says...

¨In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth.¨

I agree with his assessment from what I can understand. Eastern Church leadership was appointed by the Emperor. I do not think a person needs a graduates degree in political science to know the Emperor is going to end up ¨Vicar of Christ¨ 

So while the Church in the east is rolling over for the Byzantine Emperor to play ¨Vicar of Christ¨ the Pope has the Holy Roman Emperor barefoot in the snow for 3 days at Tuscany begging for mercy. LOL!!

The split seems to have started when the Bishop of Rome crowned Charlemagne Emperor. Two ¨Vicars of Christ¨ on one earth is one Vicar too many.
So a person gets to pick their  ¨Vicar of Christ¨ The Byzantine Emperors or the Bishops of Rome. What a mess.

A person would think ¨Christians¨ could work this out and the Church united especially as there are no more Emperors. 



Green umbrella, you're doing a bad job at portraying yourself as an unbiased inquirer with all of these nonsensical foregone conclusions.

I am not unbiased. I reject the title of ¨Vicar of Christ¨ and infallibility given to any man be he Emperor or Bishop. But because my conclusion are nonsensical and foregone according to you I would be interested in hearing your unbiased sensical ones. Let us hear them.

It does sound like you do have a dog in the fight though William. Am I right?
Logged
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #59 on: September 30, 2012, 11:57:50 PM »

St. Constantine the Great famously declared himself to be infallible on matters of religion. I'll dig out the reference later. That, however, was certainly one of his more fallible statements.


The list of saints who suffered exile for defying the emperor/ress is a very lengthy one. It would not be so lengthy if we believed the emperors who exiled them were infallible.

I am not saying you believe that now. I am saying the Church at that time believed it. I am watching a show on the history of Christianity and an Orthodox Bishop named Kallistos Ware says...

¨In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth.¨

I agree with his assessment from what I can understand. Eastern Church leadership was appointed by the Emperor. I do not think a person needs a graduates degree in political science to know the Emperor is going to end up ¨Vicar of Christ¨ 

So while the Church in the east is rolling over for the Byzantine Emperor to play ¨Vicar of Christ¨ the Pope has the Holy Roman Emperor barefoot in the snow for 3 days at Tuscany begging for mercy. LOL!!

The split seems to have started when the Bishop of Rome crowned Charlemagne Emperor. Two ¨Vicars of Christ¨ on one earth is one Vicar too many.
So a person gets to pick their  ¨Vicar of Christ¨ The Byzantine Emperors or the Bishops of Rome. What a mess.

A person would think ¨Christians¨ could work this out and the Church united especially as there are no more Emperors. 



Green umbrella, you're doing a bad job at portraying yourself as an unbiased inquirer with all of these nonsensical foregone conclusions.

I am not unbiased. I reject the title of ¨Vicar of Christ¨ and infallibility given to any man be he Emperor or Bishop. But because my conclusion are nonsensical and foregone according to you I would be interested in hearing your unbiased sensical ones. Let us hear them.

It does sound like you do have a dog in the fight though William. Am I right?

Unbiased refers to the fact that you've clearly made up your mind despite claiming the opposite. I don't remember ever claiming the opposite for myself.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #60 on: October 01, 2012, 11:05:01 AM »

St. Constantine the Great famously declared himself to be infallible on matters of religion. I'll dig out the reference later. That, however, was certainly one of his more fallible statements.


The list of saints who suffered exile for defying the emperor/ress is a very lengthy one. It would not be so lengthy if we believed the emperors who exiled them were infallible.

I am not saying you believe that now. I am saying the Church at that time believed it. I am watching a show on the history of Christianity and an Orthodox Bishop named Kallistos Ware says...

¨In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth.¨

I agree with his assessment from what I can understand. Eastern Church leadership was appointed by the Emperor. I do not think a person needs a graduates degree in political science to know the Emperor is going to end up ¨Vicar of Christ¨ 

So while the Church in the east is rolling over for the Byzantine Emperor to play ¨Vicar of Christ¨ the Pope has the Holy Roman Emperor barefoot in the snow for 3 days at Tuscany begging for mercy. LOL!!

The split seems to have started when the Bishop of Rome crowned Charlemagne Emperor. Two ¨Vicars of Christ¨ on one earth is one Vicar too many.
So a person gets to pick their  ¨Vicar of Christ¨ The Byzantine Emperors or the Bishops of Rome. What a mess.

A person would think ¨Christians¨ could work this out and the Church united especially as there are no more Emperors. 



Green umbrella, you're doing a bad job at portraying yourself as an unbiased inquirer with all of these nonsensical foregone conclusions.

I am not unbiased. I reject the title of ¨Vicar of Christ¨ and infallibility given to any man be he Emperor or Bishop. But because my conclusion are nonsensical and foregone according to you I would be interested in hearing your unbiased sensical ones. Let us hear them.

It does sound like you do have a dog in the fight though William. Am I right?

Unbiased refers to the fact that you've clearly made up your mind despite claiming the opposite. I don't remember ever claiming the opposite for myself.

I form my opinions based upon the information available to me. It is a bit rich to hear the Orthodox rant and rave about how they reject the ¨Vicar of Christ¨ and infallibility of the Pope but had no problems with it when it was given to their Emperor. So it seems they do not reject these ideas because of any real principle. But they reject these ideas because ¨their man¨ does not have them. LOL!!  Grin

I think that is called...hypocracy?

Now going back to the Council of Florence, this is from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

¨Scholarios was an imperial judge and lay preacher at the court of the Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaeologus. He was then named a theological consultant to the general Council of Florence (1439) when the Greek Byzantine Church reluctantly consented to a union with the West in order to win military support against the advance of the Ottoman Turks.¨

That is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says, not Green_Umbrella. It is what a lot of other sources say too it seems. So I can listen to all these sources or a few very emotionally invested people on a forum. I think you know who I am thinking has the truth of the matter.

Unless someone has some real, hard, new information to put forward with links for me the matter is concluded. I have no further need to respond to this issue or ad hominem.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #61 on: October 01, 2012, 11:06:49 AM »

The emperor never was declared infallible and you're just trolling.
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,594


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #62 on: October 01, 2012, 11:28:25 AM »

Quote
I form my opinions based upon the information available to me. It is a bit rich to hear the Orthodox rant and rave about how they reject the ¨Vicar of Christ¨ and infallibility of the Pope but had no problems with it when it was given to their Emperor
This might help you out as the title Vicar of Christ had a different meaning for the Byzantine Emperor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_of_Christ#Use_in_Cesaropapism.

Quote
consented to a union with the West
Of course there was a unification. There was a gun to the head of the Byzantines. It was either that or destruction.

Quote
Unless someone has some real, hard, new information to put forward with links for me the matter is concluded
Evidence has been provided, you just reject it. Its very similar to you not believing the sky is blue, then someone showing you a blue sky, and you reject it and still hold to your opinion.

Quote
In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth
I bolded the appropriate thing to remember. Thats political theory, not dogma. This is not a buffet.

PP
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 11:29:46 AM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #63 on: October 01, 2012, 11:36:13 AM »

I form my opinions based upon the information available to me.

Go find more sources.

Quote
It is a bit rich to hear the Orthodox rant and rave about how they reject the ¨Vicar of Christ¨ and infallibility of the Pope but had no problems with it when it was given to their Emperor.

The Church never accepted the idea of imperial infallibility. Never. You find canonised saints from every century of Byzantine rule who openly defied the emperors and empresses, either for theological errors, unjust rule, etc. How could we criticise the theological errors of emperors if we believed them to be infallible. It's nonsense. We don't just reject such a notion now, but it has never been accepted by the Church. Never.

Quote
So it seems they do not reject these ideas because of any real principle. But they reject these ideas because ¨their man¨ does not have them. LOL!!  Grin

LOL OMG so true!  Roll Eyes

Quote
I think that is called...hypocracy?

Were your analysis an accurate one, it would be called hypocrisy.

Quote
Now going back to the Council of Florence, this is from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

¨Scholarios was an imperial judge and lay preacher at the court of the Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaeologus. He was then named a theological consultant to the general Council of Florence (1439) when the Greek Byzantine Church reluctantly consented to a union with the West in order to win military support against the advance of the Ottoman Turks.¨

That is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says, not Green_Umbrella. It is what a lot of other sources say too it seems. So I can listen to all these sources or a few very emotionally invested people on a forum. I think you know who I am thinking has the truth of the matter.

And upon their return, these treacherous bishops were rejected by the Orthodox faithful, and the biggest opponent of the Council, St. Mark of Ephesus, was canonised as a saint of the Church for that very opposition.

Quote
In Byzantine political theory the Emperor is the icon of God on earth, the living image of God. As God rules in heaven so the Emperor rules on earth.¨

Seeing the co-operation between Church and state in the Christian empire - borderless and encompassing a variety of cultures and ethnicities, united by one ruler and one faith - as an icon of the heavenly kingdom does not imply imperial infallibility. We believe the bishop is the icon of Christ in the Liturgy, but would never proceed to suggest that any individual bishop was therefore infallible on that basis.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 11:36:43 AM by Orthodox11 » Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #64 on: October 01, 2012, 11:50:36 AM »

Quote
Of course there was a unification. There was a gun to the head of the Byzantines. It was either that or destruction.

Oh yeah? Explain that to these people.







Your side rolled over.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,611



« Reply #65 on: October 01, 2012, 11:52:46 AM »

I am not unbiased. I reject the title of ¨Vicar of Christ¨ and infallibility given to any man be he Emperor or Bishop. But because my conclusion are nonsensical and foregone according to you I would be interested in hearing your unbiased sensical ones. Let us hear them.

It does sound like you do have a dog in the fight though William. Am I right?

Who writes like this?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #66 on: October 01, 2012, 11:57:43 AM »

For someone who is searching for answers, you sure seem quite hostile to the ones you are being given and those giving them, Green_Umbrella. This is the Orthodox faith whether you like it or not, and whether it seems sensible to you or not.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 11:58:00 AM by dzheremi » Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,594


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #67 on: October 01, 2012, 12:00:32 PM »

Quote
Oh yeah? Explain that to these people
Im not agreeing or disagreeing with what they did. Im simply giving you the reason WHY.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,415


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #68 on: October 01, 2012, 11:06:36 PM »

Is this:

1) An Orthodox Practice today

2) An Orthodox tradition carried out for nearly 1000 years?

Is it possible for mistakes to happen when granting authority?

But today,

It is not happening in Orthodoxy, but the RC does it.  I don't see the irony here.  Wasn't alive then, and did not understand the situation, mentality, or where people were at in faith then.

All I know is TODAY the RC church STILL practices this and will not stop, no matter how many pedophiles the Pope moves around.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #69 on: October 03, 2012, 12:57:18 PM »

For someone who is searching for answers, you sure seem quite hostile to the ones you are being given and those giving them, Green_Umbrella. This is the Orthodox faith whether you like it or not, and whether it seems sensible to you or not.

I want links with material. I keep asking for links with information. I have not seen any links in your favor.

Anyways, this comes from Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

¨God's Regents on Earth: A Thousand Years of Byzantine Imperial Seals

For over a thousand years the Byzantine Emperor sat in his palace, ruling over the empire as God’s regent on earth. His was the ultimate authority. The emperor was the font of all law, granter of titles and offices, distributor of largess, master of the Church, commander of the army....¨

God's Regents on Earth seems a lot like the Popes position of ¨Vicar of Christ¨ does it not? I mean c'mon, let us look at reality here.

Also calling me hostile is wrong. I am not hostile at all. And let us not forget this began when I was called an anti catholic slur.

So I am asking again, give me some links supporting your position. I need a little more than you saying ¨This is the Orthodox faith whether you like it or not,¨

I hope you can understand .   

Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #70 on: October 03, 2012, 01:05:15 PM »

I want links with material. I keep asking for links with information. I have not seen any links in your favor.

Anyways, this comes from Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

¨God's Regents on Earth: A Thousand Years of Byzantine Imperial Seals

For over a thousand years the Byzantine Emperor sat in his palace, ruling over the empire as God’s regent on earth. His was the ultimate authority. The emperor was the font of all law, granter of titles and offices, distributor of largess, master of the Church, commander of the army....¨

God's Regents on Earth seems a lot like the Popes position of ¨Vicar of Christ¨ does it not? I mean c'mon, let us look at reality here.

You're telling us to look at reality. You confound political theory with religous dogma. Was the  Ecthesis of Emperor Heraclius considered infallible in 700? In 1200? 1453 perhaps? Is it still considered infallible by the EO? I mean, the  Ecthesis is an ex cathedra pronounciation of Heraclius. You should at least find some proof that it was or is considered infallible by the EO if your theory is to hold water.



Also calling me hostile is wrong. I am not hostile at all. And let us not forget this began when I was called an anti catholic slur.

If you don't want to be called a papist don't act like one.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 01:08:38 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,594


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #71 on: October 03, 2012, 01:07:44 PM »

Green, like I said before. Those titles were political theory, not dogmatic practice. Read what Met. Ware wrote concerning it. Heck, him stating it was political theory was something you cited.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #72 on: October 03, 2012, 01:20:02 PM »

Encyclopædia Britannica, 1985, vol. 2, pp. 718-719, "Caesaropapism":

Political system in which the head of the state is also the head of the church and supreme judge in religious matters. The term is most frequently associated with the late Roman, or Byzantine, Empire. Most modern historians recognize that the legal Byzantine texts speak of interdependence between the imperial and ecclesiastical structures rather than of a unilateral dependence of the latter; historians believe also that there was nothing in the Byzantine understanding of the Christian faith that would recognize the emperor as either doctrinally infallible or invested with priestly powers. Many historical instances of direct imperial pressure on the church ended in failure . . . John Chrysostom and most other authoritative Byzantine theologians denied imperial power over the church.
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #73 on: October 03, 2012, 04:29:51 PM »

I want links with material. I keep asking for links with information. I have not seen any links in your favor.

Anyways, this comes from Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

¨God's Regents on Earth: A Thousand Years of Byzantine Imperial Seals

For over a thousand years the Byzantine Emperor sat in his palace, ruling over the empire as God’s regent on earth. His was the ultimate authority. The emperor was the font of all law, granter of titles and offices, distributor of largess, master of the Church, commander of the army....¨

God's Regents on Earth seems a lot like the Popes position of ¨Vicar of Christ¨ does it not? I mean c'mon, let us look at reality here.

You're telling us to look at reality. You confound political theory with religous dogma. Was the  Ecthesis of Emperor Heraclius considered infallible in 700? In 1200? 1453 perhaps? Is it still considered infallible by the EO? I mean, the  Ecthesis is an ex cathedra pronounciation of Heraclius. You should at least find some proof that it was or is considered infallible by the EO if your theory is to hold water.



Also calling me hostile is wrong. I am not hostile at all. And let us not forget this began when I was called an anti catholic slur.

If you don't want to be called a papist don't act like one.


How about we do not call anyone slurs at all. How would you like a person to say your ¨truth¨ seems to be full of ethnocentric bigotry with more than just a little xenophobia and antiwestern tendencies. This person might also respond to your slur by saying you have some over the top and very one sided anti-catholic rhetoric.

They might also respond to your slur by saying the Orthodox like to mention the 4th crusade and sacking of Constantinople in 1203 but they never hear them mention the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.  In fact they might say it is never mentioned at all. They might tell you it is not a suprise with the facts.

They might even list a few of those facts like...

¨The Massacre of the Latins was a large-scale massacre of the Roman Catholic or "Latin" inhabitants of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, by the Eastern Orthodox population of the city in May 1182.¨

¨..the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at over 60,000 at the time, was wiped out..¨

¨..4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the Turks.¨

¨The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and Latin patients lying in hospital beds were murdered. Houses, churches, and charitable institutions were looted. Latin clergymen received special attention, and Cardinal John, the papal legate, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.¨

So calling people religious slurs is probably not going to lead to any productive exchanges.

Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #74 on: October 03, 2012, 04:33:56 PM »

Green, like I said before. Those titles were political theory, not dogmatic practice. Read what Met. Ware wrote concerning it. Heck, him stating it was political theory was something you cited.

PP

¨The bishops in attendance at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 recognized that nothing could be done in the Church contrary to the emperor's will and command..¨

¨The Second Council of Constantinople is the fifth of the first seven ecumenical councils recognized as such by both West and East. Orthodox, Catholics, and Old Catholics unanimously recognize it.¨

History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453, Volume 2 pg 469

¨The same writer, speaking of the ecclesiastical policy of Manuel Comnenus, gave the general belief of the Byzantine emperors, who consider themselves the infallible judges of matters of God and man. This opinion was supported in the second half of the twelfth century by the clergy.¨

Looks like dogma to me.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #75 on: October 03, 2012, 04:36:52 PM »

Could you start quoting Church documents or some primary sources?
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #76 on: October 03, 2012, 04:38:02 PM »


¨The bishops in attendance at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 recognized that nothing could be done in the Church contrary to the emperor's will and command..¨

¨The Second Council of Constantinople is the fifth of the first seven ecumenical councils recognized as such by both West and East. Orthodox, Catholics, and Old Catholics unanimously recognize it.¨

History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453, Volume 2 pg 469

¨The same writer, speaking of the ecclesiastical policy of Manuel Comnenus, gave the general belief of the Byzantine emperors, who consider themselves the infallible judges of matters of God and man. This opinion was supported in the second half of the twelfth century by the clergy.¨

Looks like dogma to me.

Respond to my post on the Ecthesis and my quote from the Encyclopædia Britannica.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 04:38:13 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #77 on: October 03, 2012, 04:40:46 PM »

How about we do not call anyone slurs at all. How would you like a person to say your ¨truth¨ seems to be full of ethnocentric bigotry with more than just a little xenophobia and antiwestern tendencies. This person might also respond to your slur by saying you have some over the top and very one sided anti-catholic rhetoric.

They might also respond to your slur by saying the Orthodox like to mention the 4th crusade and sacking of Constantinople in 1203 but they never hear them mention the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.  In fact they might say it is never mentioned at all. They might tell you it is not a suprise with the facts.

They might even list a few of those facts like...

¨The Massacre of the Latins was a large-scale massacre of the Roman Catholic or "Latin" inhabitants of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, by the Eastern Orthodox population of the city in May 1182.¨

¨..the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at over 60,000 at the time, was wiped out..¨

¨..4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the Turks.¨

¨The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and Latin patients lying in hospital beds were murdered. Houses, churches, and charitable institutions were looted. Latin clergymen received special attention, and Cardinal John, the papal legate, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.¨



"For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matthew 12:37)

How about we do not call anyone slurs at all. How would you like a person to say your ¨truth¨ seems to be full of ethnocentric bigotry with more than just a little xenophobia and antiwestern tendencies. This person might also respond to your slur by saying you have some over the top and very one sided anti-catholic rhetoric.

Of course, my pride for the Netherlands must have resulted in me going Orthodox. 1+1=2 right?

My ancestors have been living in the Netherlands since time immemorial, so how did you find out that my (supposed) antiwestern tendencies and ethnocentric bigotry push me towards Orthodoxy? I'm quite curious.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 04:52:27 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,065


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #78 on: October 03, 2012, 04:52:40 PM »

Neither of you have provided any valid sources anyway.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #79 on: October 03, 2012, 05:13:28 PM »

Of course, my pride for the Netherlands must have resulted in me going Orthodox. 1+1=2 right?

My ancestors have been living in the Netherlands since time immemorial, so how did you find out that my (supposed) antiwestern tendencies and ethnocentric bigotry push me towards Orthodoxy? I'm quite curious.

It's really quite simple, Cyrillic. Remember ye not the days of old when the Dutch revolted against their Catholic overlords in Spain? In their hearts the Dutch have always known the pope was the antichrist. They secretly longed for Orthodoxy (let's pretend that Calvinism is not the farthest branch of Christianity from Orthodoxy for a second here) so revolted against the pope. And William III converted to Anglicanism which back in ye olde days was like British Orthodoxy except more murdering of monastics and priests was involved ("reclaiming autocephaly" according to NicholasMyra) and there was more pluralism and Anselmian heresy and stuff. And the father of the fatherland is William of Orange, William comes from Wilhelm, "will protect" and Christ is the great protector of our souls.

It's pretty similar to how my background as a WASP has led me to ethnic bigotry against non-Orthodox peoples.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #80 on: October 03, 2012, 05:27:03 PM »

Of course, my pride for the Netherlands must have resulted in me going Orthodox. 1+1=2 right?

My ancestors have been living in the Netherlands since time immemorial, so how did you find out that my (supposed) antiwestern tendencies and ethnocentric bigotry push me towards Orthodoxy? I'm quite curious.

It's really quite simple, Cyrillic. Remember ye not the days of old when the Dutch revolted against their Catholic overlords in Spain?

Good that you should bring it up. Today's a big, big party in my hometown to celebrate the lifting of the Spanish siege of Leiden in 1574. I faithfully ate my hutspot today to celebrate the retreat of the papists. Those who saved my hometown even had medals on their hats saying "Rather Turkish than Papist in spite of the Mass"   laugh

In their hearts the Dutch have always known the pope was the antichrist. They secretly longed for Orthodoxy (let's pretend that Calvinism is not the farthest branch of Christianity from Orthodoxy for a second here) so revolted against the pope. And William III converted to Anglicanism which back in ye olde days was like British Orthodoxy except more murdering of monastics and priests was involved ("reclaiming autocephaly" according to NicholasMyra) and there was more pluralism and Anselmian heresy and stuff. And the father of the fatherland is William of Orange, William comes from Wilhelm, "will protect" and Christ is the great protector of our souls.

It's pretty similar to how my background as a WASP has led me to ethnic bigotry against non-Orthodox peoples.

 Grin
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 05:31:21 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #81 on: October 03, 2012, 05:35:52 PM »

Could you start quoting Church documents or some primary sources?

I would like to do this, link please.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #82 on: October 03, 2012, 05:37:28 PM »

Could you start quoting Church documents or some primary sources?

I would like to do this, link please.

Are you serious?
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #83 on: October 03, 2012, 05:38:50 PM »

quid est veritas

Logged
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #84 on: October 03, 2012, 05:41:00 PM »

Could you start quoting Church documents or some primary sources?

I would like to do this, link please.

Are you serious?

Well let me see, I do not seem to have any church writings from the 9th century laying around here. Yes I am serious. 
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #85 on: October 03, 2012, 05:41:38 PM »

quid est veritas

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 05:43:28 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #86 on: October 03, 2012, 05:42:49 PM »

Could you start quoting Church documents or some primary sources?

I would like to do this, link please.

Are you serious?

Well let me see, I do not seem to have any church writings from the 9th century laying around here. Yes I am serious. 

Here's a good start.
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Green_Umbrella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 188



« Reply #87 on: October 03, 2012, 05:43:21 PM »

quid est veritas

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

And I agree with that. And I do not go beyond that.
Logged
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #88 on: October 03, 2012, 05:51:07 PM »

Of course, my pride for the Netherlands must have resulted in me going Orthodox. 1+1=2 right?

My ancestors have been living in the Netherlands since time immemorial, so how did you find out that my (supposed) antiwestern tendencies and ethnocentric bigotry push me towards Orthodoxy? I'm quite curious.

It's really quite simple, Cyrillic. Remember ye not the days of old when the Dutch revolted against their Catholic overlords in Spain?

Good that you should bring it up. Today's a big, big party in my hometown to celebrate the lifting of the Spanish siege of Leiden in 1574. I faithfully ate my hutspot today to celebrate the retreat of the papists. Those who saved my hometown even had medals on their hats saying "Rather Turkish than Papist in spite of the Mass"   laugh

Many Orthodox said something similar in the waning days of the Byzantine empire. The Dutch and Orthodox have more in common than I facetiously thought.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #89 on: October 03, 2012, 05:53:28 PM »

Well let me see, I do not seem to have any church writings from the 9th century laying around here. Yes I am serious. 

Try ccel.org and stop quoting some junior high school textbooks.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,815


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #90 on: October 03, 2012, 05:55:47 PM »

Of course, my pride for the Netherlands must have resulted in me going Orthodox. 1+1=2 right?

My ancestors have been living in the Netherlands since time immemorial, so how did you find out that my (supposed) antiwestern tendencies and ethnocentric bigotry push me towards Orthodoxy? I'm quite curious.

It's really quite simple, Cyrillic. Remember ye not the days of old when the Dutch revolted against their Catholic overlords in Spain?

Good that you should bring it up. Today's a big, big party in my hometown to celebrate the lifting of the Spanish siege of Leiden in 1574. I faithfully ate my hutspot today to celebrate the retreat of the papists. Those who saved my hometown even had medals on their hats saying "Rather Turkish than Papist in spite of the Mass"   laugh

Many Orthodox said something similar in the waning days of the Byzantine empire. The Dutch and Orthodox have more in common than I facetiously thought.

Believe me or not, we once had an Eastern Orthodox queen. It starts to look very suspect indeed...
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #91 on: October 03, 2012, 06:07:59 PM »

Of course, my pride for the Netherlands must have resulted in me going Orthodox. 1+1=2 right?

My ancestors have been living in the Netherlands since time immemorial, so how did you find out that my (supposed) antiwestern tendencies and ethnocentric bigotry push me towards Orthodoxy? I'm quite curious.

It's really quite simple, Cyrillic. Remember ye not the days of old when the Dutch revolted against their Catholic overlords in Spain?

Good that you should bring it up. Today's a big, big party in my hometown to celebrate the lifting of the Spanish siege of Leiden in 1574. I faithfully ate my hutspot today to celebrate the retreat of the papists. Those who saved my hometown even had medals on their hats saying "Rather Turkish than Papist in spite of the Mass"   laugh

Many Orthodox said something similar in the waning days of the Byzantine empire. The Dutch and Orthodox have more in common than I facetiously thought.

Believe me or not, we once had an Eastern Orthodox queen. It starts to look very suspect indeed...

And they had an Orthodox wedding! Looks like Green_Umbrella was right after all.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #92 on: October 03, 2012, 07:40:11 PM »

Now going back to the Council of Florence, this is from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

¨Scholarios was an imperial judge and lay preacher at the court of the Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaeologus. He was then named a theological consultant to the general Council of Florence (1439) when the Greek Byzantine Church reluctantly consented to a union with the West in order to win military support against the advance of the Ottoman Turks.¨

That is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says, not Green_Umbrella. It is what a lot of other sources say too it seems.
There are obviously differences of opinion regarding this matter; what is important in the first instance is to gain an appreciation for why this is so, and what aspects of our Orthodox perspective lead Orthodox Christians to a different conclusion about this matter of Florence (and other matters) as opposed to, for example, what Roman Catholics might typically hold.

The first puzzle piece which from your posts it seems to me might be of aid to your understanding the Orthodox perspective on Florence is an appreciation of the Orthodox view of authority more generally; please understand that whether or not you actually end up personally agreeing with the Orthodox point of view is for the purpose of this post less important than providing some pointers to facilitate greater appreciation for *why* we Orthodox think as we do (again, agreeing or disagreeing). I will cover this quickly in just enough partial detail enough that you should be able to see how it applies *in our thinking* to the council of Florence. I will then provide quotes from various Orthodox writers on that council so you will be able to see how this works out in practice.

First, from Ernst Benz, The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its Thought and Life:

====
2. Orthodox and Roman-Catholic Ideas of Dogma.
   "Because dogma has this practical function within the spiritual organism of the Orthodox Church, it has not undergone so much theoretical elaboration as the dogma of Roman Catholicism or Protestantism. The various elements of the Creed have not been defined with precision. Hence there is much greater freedom in the interpretation of the dogma. Even the formulation of a dogma by an ecumenical council is not eo ipso necessarily binding under canon law. To be binding, a dogma must also be accepted by the general consensus of the Church, what the theologians call the "ecumenical conscience."

SOBERNOST
   The Orthodox Church acknowledges the monarchical principle as far as the whole Church is concerned, this concept embracing both the visible Church on earth and the invisible celestial Church. The master, lord and sole head of the Church is Christ. But the monarchical principle does not in practice rule the organization of the visible Church. Here purely democratic principles prevail. No single member of the Church is considered to have a legal position fundamentally superior to that of the other members. Even the clergy, aside from the sacramental powers accorded to them by their consecration, have no special rights that would set them above the laity. The Orthodox Church prizes this "democratic" (sobornost’) principle as one of its oldest traditions. Just as all the apostles were equal in rank and authority, so their successors, the bishops, are all equal.

    It is true that the principle of the so-called monarchical episcopate became established quite early in the primitive Church. That is to say, the bishop was recognized as holding the leading position within the Church. But this did not mean that he alone represented the entire spiritual power of the Church. Not even the bishops as a body constituted the highest authority of the Church. This was vested in the ecumenical consensus or conscience of the Church, which meant the general opinion of clergy and laymen taken together. Even the decision of an ecumenical council acquires validity only if it is accepted by this general consensus of the whole Church. Although the bishop represents the unity of the Christian community and exercises full spiritual powers, he is no autocrat; he and all the clergy subordinate to him are regarded as parts of the entire ecclesia, the living organism of which Christ is the head.

    At the present time the government of the Orthodox churches is markedly synodal in character. Laymen as well as priests may take part in Orthodox synods. Election to ecclesiastical offices also takes place at synods, and the laity participate. This election rule holds true for parish priests as well as for bishops and patriarchs. The constitutions of the various national Orthodox churches differ in the degree to which the state intervenes in ecclesiastical government. Thus the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, which Peter the Great set up, was less an ecclesiastical council than an organ of the state directed by an absolutistic ruler. In the constitution of the Greek Orthodox Church certain rights are accorded to the King of Greece. In general the synodal or council system has gained more importance during the past several centuries. "The tendency for the collaboration of clergy and people in the administration of the Church, which has become characteristic of the Orthodox Church during the past hundred years, cannot be regarded as a product of modern democracy; rather, it represents a revival of the primitive Christian principle that bishops, clergy and people form an indissoluble vital unit" (Heiler).

    Major questions of faith, rites and canon law are theoretically put before an ecumenical council. This is an assemblage of all the Orthodox bishops who decide these questions by majority vote. There have been seven great ecumenical councils: Nicaea in 325, Constantinople in 381, Ephesus in 431, Chalcedon in 451, Constantinople II in 553, Constantinople III in 680 and Nicaea II in 787. No ecumenical councils have taken place since, though many questions of faith, dogma and ritual have arisen since the eighth century which theologians feel urgently require regulation. But the breakup of Eastern Orthodoxy into various old and new types of ecclesiastical patriarchates and independent churches, and the tragic involvement of Orthodoxy in the political disasters of past centuries, have so far diminished hopes for a new ecumenical council. Only recently, fresh efforts have been made to organize such a council.

    The synodal system of the Orthodox Church has undergone many strains in the course of history. Holders of one or another prominent see have sought to dominate the Church. The rivalry among the various Orthodox patriarchates sprang partly from this struggle for hegemony within the Church. When the Orthodox Church became the official Church of the Byzantine Empire, it was only in the nature of things that the Patriarch of Constantinople should find himself in a special role. In terms of the synodal government of the Church this primacy was only an honorary one, but for centuries the patriarchs of Constantinople repeatedly tried to transform their honorary primacy into a legal one and to secure papal privileges for themselves. Their claims, however, were never generally recognized. To this day the patriarch is regarded only as primus inter pares. That is, he is first among the holders of the old and new patriarchates of the East, but he is not head of the entire Orthodox Church with any legal title to primacy."
====

Because some of the above language may be confusing to a beginner, I'll include a simpler quote which should help to clarify. If this isn't clear, let me or others know and we'll try to explain further.

"The method was collegial, not authoritarian; disputes were settled in church councils, whose decisions were not valid unless “received” by the whole community. The Faith was indeed common: what was believed by all people, in all times, in all places. The degree of unity won this way was amazing. Though there was some local liturgical variation, the Church was strikingly uniform in faith and practice across vast distances, and at a time when communication was far from easy. This unity was so consistent that I could attribute it to nothing but the Holy Spirit." -F. Matthews-Green, Facing East

An Orthodox bishop, then, cannot act unilaterally —that very principle is why we reject Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Our hierarchs -even patriarchs -even bishops in councils -lack the authority to proclaim doctrine in the Orthodox church unilaterally. This perspective is not shared with Roman Catholics, but please keep in mind this is the Orthodox p.o.v.

With the Orthodox perspective on authority of hierarchs and councils now in mind, let's look once again at Florence -not to argue "The" point of view which is "True with a capital T" (which only results in endless argument), but with a view to investigate for what it is the perspective which is uniquely Orthodox and which differs from the Roman Catholic perspective because of difference in ecclesiology.

From an Orthodox perspective there was no re-establishment of communion at Lyons or Florence. Historically the representation at Florence was "rigged" by the Byzantine Emperor in a desperate attempt to get help from the Latins against the Muslim invaders who were approaching Constantinople. This can be further seen by looking at the manner in which the proceedings were viewed throughout the Orthodox world:

"The first official repudiation Florence, of April 1443 (Florence ended in 1442), by the three Patriarchs Joachim of Jerusalem, Philotheos of Alexandria, and Dorotheos of Antioch, called the Council "vile." Notice these are mot just "Greeks" (none of them were), and they weren't just monastics and laity." Not that that wouldn't be enough according to Orthodox ecclesiology (cf. St. Mark of Ephesus and Isodore were deputised as representatives of the Pope of Alexandria Egypt])" http://www.ephesus.com/Orthodox/St.Mark-of-Ephesus.txt

Just a few reoresentative quotations should now serve to illustrate Orthodox feeling, ancient and modern, about Florence.

"...the representative character of the Byzantine delegation was only formal -the delegation, in fact, had been selected from among the tiny elite of Constantinople, which by then as moribund city of fewer than 50,000 inhabitants." -Fr. John Meyendorff

"Many of those who signed at Florence revoked their signatures when they reached home. The decrees of the Council were never accepted by more than a minute fraction of the Byzantine clergy and people. The Grand Duke Lucas Notaras, echoing the words of the Emperor’s sister after Lyons, remarked: 'I would rather see the Moslem turban in the midst of the city than the Latin miter.'" -Metropolitan Kallistos Ware

"Negotiations concerning the union between the Greek and Roman churches at Florence in 1439 had, in the eyes of the Russians, deprived Constantinople of its moral authority, and consequently the Russian church became independent of Constantinople in 1448. Then in 1589 Moscow was made a patriarchate by Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II (1572-79, 1580-84, 1587-95), which was confirmed by synods in 1590 and 1593. All these developments were the logical outcome of the shift of power in the Orthodox world..." -Anastasios Kallis

"Submission to the Franco-Latin Papacy was the price that the Roman Emperor of New Rome was required to pay for Franco-Latin help against the Turks. This union was supposed to have been consummated at the union Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438-1442. This Council was condemned by the three Roman Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem at their Council of Jerusalem (1443). These three Roman Patriarchates were within Moslem held territories. Then in 1453 New Rome fell to the Ottoman Turks putting all four Roman Patriarchates within the Moslem world, putting an end to the need for asking for help from the Franco-Latin [Roman Catholic] royalties and nobilities of Western Europe and their Pope. The reality of the matter was that the three Roman Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem had opted to continue their tradition and were re-joined in this work by the Patriarchate of New Rome in 1453 after the Ottoman takeover of the capital of the Roman Empire." -Fr. John Romanidies

"Other blows dealt repeatedly to the Orthodox were the numerous attempts to bring them under the jurisdiction of Rome by means of 'union'. The first such attempt, made in Lyon in the 13th century, was followed the Union of Ferrara-Florence in 1439, on the eve of the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Nothing has remained of these two 'unions.'" -Metropolitan Hilarion

"No union of the Roman Church with us is possible until it renounces its new doctrines, and no communion can be restored with it without a decision of all churches." -Metropolitan Philaret

"The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence






« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 08:08:40 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 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 0.309 seconds with 120 queries.