OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 01, 2014, 07:08:26 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why is the word Uniate offensive?  (Read 4926 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #90 on: May 30, 2013, 12:50:27 PM »

Every time you commune at a Melkite church, you are swallowing Papal supremacy, infallibilty, filioque, and all the other junk you rant against quite uselessly on internet forums.
In your opinion. But why should I care about your opinion on anything?
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #91 on: May 30, 2013, 12:53:18 PM »

Nice to see that you know how to use the copy and paste function, but I can copy and paste things too, for example the following from Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby (of blessed memory), who said: "In any case, valid or not, Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone." [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, "Ecumenical Reflections"]

As I have said plenty of times I do not accept ANY of the later Roman synods as ecumenical, and - by the way - neither does the Melkite Catholic Patriarch or the Melkite Synod.

So they place themselves in direct opposition to the Anathemas declared by the Church of Rome? What in God's Green Earth is the point of remaining in Communion with Rome?
Anathemas from a fallible Western synod that has no importance in the East. Rome has pretensions to greatness, but it is just a lowly diocese (and grouping of Churches), and that is all. As a Melkite I look to my Patriarch and Holy Synod and to the tradition of the Church founded upon the teachings of the Holy Fathers, and none of the Fathers accepted the idea that Rome had the kinds of powers it has claimed in the past, and so I see no reason to accept them either. I also see no reason to leave my Church just because you think it is in error.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,049


"My god is greater."


« Reply #92 on: May 30, 2013, 12:54:50 PM »

Every time you commune at a Melkite church, you are swallowing Papal supremacy, infallibilty, filioque, and all the other junk you rant against quite uselessly on internet forums.
In your opinion. But why should I care about your opinion on anything?

You're right. You could simply dismiss it as my opinion, and the words of your liturgy and your bishops as someone else's opinion, and  the rulings of Vatican I as another person's opinion, and the law of gravity as yet another person's opinion, in which case there's no need for you to even respond to or acknowledge what I or others say. You can continue to inhabit your private fantasy; meanwhile, the world will continue to turn and Rome will keep dominating the Melkite church.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #93 on: May 30, 2013, 12:55:59 PM »

Every time you commune at a Melkite church, you are swallowing Papal supremacy, infallibilty, filioque, and all the other junk you rant against quite uselessly on internet forums.
In your opinion. But why should I care about your opinion on anything?

You're right. You could simply dismiss it as my opinion, and the words of your liturgy and your bishops as someone else's opinion, and  the rulings of Vatican I as another person's opinion, and the law of gravity as yet another person's opinion, in which case there's no need for you to even respond to or acknowledge what I or others say. You can continue to inhabit your private fantasy; meanwhile, the world will continue to turn and Rome will keep dominating the Melkite church.
And it is simply your opinion. My Patriarch has said that none of the later Western councils are ecumenical, and so I see no reason to put your opinion above his statements to the contrary.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #94 on: May 30, 2013, 12:57:03 PM »

Anathemas from a fallible Western synod that has no importance in the East. Rome has pretensions to greatness, but it is just a lowly diocese (and grouping of Churches), and that is all. As a Melkite I look to my Patriarch and Holy Synod and to the tradition of the Church founded upon the teachings of the Holy Fathers, and none of the Fathers accepted the idea that Rome had the kinds of powers it has claimed in the past, and so I see no reason to accept them either. I also see no reason to leave my Church just because you think it is in error.

Answer me this, do you consider the Church in Rome today to be in heresy?
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,974


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #95 on: May 30, 2013, 12:58:47 PM »

Man, denial is a hell of a drug...

Actually, it's cocaine. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udNHsk57f24
Logged

Still posting.

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #96 on: May 30, 2013, 12:59:57 PM »

. . . meanwhile, the world will continue to turn and Rome will keep dominating the Melkite church.
I know Rome will not give up the power it has taken to itself voluntarily. It will require that the Eastern Catholic Churches fight for their own rights. I mean we cannot depend on the Orthodox to give us any help because they are too busy trying to undermine our efforts to return to our ancestral traditions. I used to think that the Orthodox would be great allies in getting Rome to return to the synodal structure of the past, but my views on that have changed, because many Orthodox seem more intent on safeguarding their own little fiefdoms.

I should clarify what I said above, because by "many Orthodox" I am mainly referring to those that I know online. The Orthodox I know in person are quite friendly and supportive.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #97 on: May 30, 2013, 01:00:28 PM »

Now what would I do if the bishop of Rome broke communion with the Melkite Catholic Church? Where would I stand? I have no qualms in saying that I would remain in the Melkite Church.

Exactly, because you are a Melkite and not a Roman nor under Rome. I understand exactly what you are saying. Those that don't are simply choosing not to.
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #98 on: May 30, 2013, 01:03:41 PM »

Anathemas from a fallible Western synod that has no importance in the East. Rome has pretensions to greatness, but it is just a lowly diocese (and grouping of Churches), and that is all. As a Melkite I look to my Patriarch and Holy Synod and to the tradition of the Church founded upon the teachings of the Holy Fathers, and none of the Fathers accepted the idea that Rome had the kinds of powers it has claimed in the past, and so I see no reason to accept them either. I also see no reason to leave my Church just because you think it is in error.

Answer me this, do you consider the Church in Rome today to be in heresy?
No, but that is because I do not believe that the councils it held during the second millennium are ecumenical and therefore nothing that was proposed in those local synods is a dogma. Are many of Rome's theologoumena erroneous? Yeah I think so, but they are just theological opinions and people can be wrong about them without necessarily being heretics.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
primuspilus
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,523


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #99 on: May 30, 2013, 01:04:26 PM »

Apotheoun, I dont get it. If your Churh and Rome disagree on evidently, so many things, how can you commune with them? I dont get it...

Would you have a problem with the Lutherans, or Baptists communing with the Melkites as well?

NOTE: Im asking a serious question, not trying to get into the middle of this fight.

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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #100 on: May 30, 2013, 01:04:57 PM »

Now what would I do if the bishop of Rome broke communion with the Melkite Catholic Church? Where would I stand? I have no qualms in saying that I would remain in the Melkite Church.

Exactly, because you are a Melkite and not a Roman nor under Rome. I understand exactly what you are saying. Those that don't are simply choosing not to.
Thanks. I appreciate your response.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,049


"My god is greater."


« Reply #101 on: May 30, 2013, 01:05:40 PM »

No, but that is because I do not believe that the councils it held during the second millennium are ecumenical and therefore nothing that was proposed in those local synods is a dogma.

So for something to be a heresy, it has to be approved by an ecumenical council. That makes sense.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #102 on: May 30, 2013, 01:07:17 PM »

Apotheoun, I dont get it. If your Churh and Rome disagree on evidently, so many things, how can you commune with them? I dont get it...

Would you have a problem with the Lutherans, or Baptists communing with the Melkites as well?

NOTE: Im asking a serious question, not trying to get into the middle of this fight.

PP
The Churches of the first millennium disagreed about many things, and yet they did not break communion with each other. I hope that the Eastern Catholic Churches - if they truly stand up for themselves - can help to bring about a real reform (or better purification) in the Roman Church, and in the process help Rome to return to a more patristic understanding of the nature of the Church, and of communion. Rome has changed a lot in just the last 40 years (admittedly not all of the changes are good), but I think the days of Roman supremacy are numbered.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #103 on: May 30, 2013, 01:10:24 PM »

Would you have a problem with the Lutherans, or Baptists communing with the Melkites as well?
I could not, nor will I ever, communion with Protestants because they have denied the ministerial priesthood, and the true nature of the holy mysteries. Would I communion with the Eastern Orthodox? Sure, but when I attend Orthodox Churches I do not, because I know that they do not allow it, and so I respect their views on the matter. Nevertheless, it does not prevent me from attending Orthodox services from time to time.

Postscript: I am looking forward to attending the ordination of an Orthodox friend of mine in July.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 01:17:39 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #104 on: May 30, 2013, 01:12:13 PM »

No, but that is because I do not believe that the councils it held during the second millennium are ecumenical and therefore nothing that was proposed in those local synods is a dogma.

So for something to be a heresy, it has to be approved by an ecumenical council. That makes sense.
It has to be a dogma (and as Fr. Behr wrote there are really only two dogmas - the Trinity, and the Incarnation). Theological opinions on various issues can differ without breaking communion.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 01:20:08 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #105 on: May 30, 2013, 01:19:04 PM »

You are qouting a local council of the Roman Church. You question as to why the Roman Church is breaking with those Churches that don't agree should be sent to the Vatican.


In your opinion. The pope is a wonderful bishop of Rome, and I have no problem with him accept when he overreaches his position, which is quite often. But I think the super-papacy's days are coming to an end.

Quote
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV ,  Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,974


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #106 on: May 30, 2013, 01:24:21 PM »

I used to think that the Orthodox would be great allies in getting Rome to return to the synodal structure of the past, but my views on that have changed, because many Orthodox seem more intent on safeguarding their own little fiefdoms.

I think the Orthodox can be and often are guilty of preferring their "little fiefdoms", but I don't think that explains everything here.  What you describe as the traditional view and practice of the Melkite Church is not how many, if not all, the other Eastern Catholic Churches operate.  And I don't think that can all be blamed on enforced or willful Latinization.  

In India, for example, the Syro-Malankara Church was only recently elevated from a Metropolitan Church to a Major Archbishopric.  It wasn't long after this elevation that the Major Archbishops began calling themselves Catholicoi, usurping the title "Malankara Metropolitan", "Successor to the Throne of St Thomas", etc., all of which are Orthodox titles.  When the Malankara Orthodox Church lodged an official "complaint" with Rome on the matter, the response was that the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches does not recognize the title Catholicos (the office with equivalent powers is Patriarch, and the incumbent does not possess patriarchal authority), and so the Major Archbishop is just a Major Archbishop according to the law the Malankara Catholics recognize as their own, any usage to the contrary being a violation of the law.  Now, there's a complicated history regarding why they did this and why it's so contentious, but they continue to do it, even after receiving the Cardinal's hat (which I'd consider a promotion for someone not a patriarch).  Are they "freedom fighters" waging war against Roman hegemony?  Hardly.  As "Orthodox" as their liturgical life is, they've got plenty of heartily embraced Latinizations.  Are they fully obedient and subservient to Rome?  No, because they know they can get away with certain things and Rome will "have their back" privately, even if they issue something resembling a "public rebuke".  They do their own thing, to be sure, but it is neither "Catholic" nor "Orthodox".  

Perhaps Melkites are more consistent, I don't know.  But I know that the Syro-Malankara "experience" is not unusual among Eastern Catholics.  How could we, as Orthodox, ally ourselves with the Eastern Catholics in getting Rome to return to the synodal structure of the past when it is often the Eastern Catholics themselves who benefit from the current status quo and use it to their advantage when convenient?  You can't have it both ways.      
Logged

Still posting.

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #107 on: May 30, 2013, 01:29:42 PM »

The problem is Apotheoun is mispresenting the opinion of Melchites on popes, primacy, Vatican I, Vatican II etc:
https://melkite.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/CouncilChapter5.pdf

(which I'd consider a promotion for someone not a patriarch)   

Patriarchs also receive. But some refuse.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 01:31:22 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #108 on: May 30, 2013, 01:34:24 PM »

You are qouting a local council of the Roman Church. You question as to why the Roman Church is breaking with those Churches that don't agree should be sent to the Vatican.

Canon 5 of Nicea seems to disagree.

Quote
As regards those who have been denied communion, whether they be members of the clergy or belong to a lay order, by the bishops in each particular province, let the opinion prevail which expressed in the Canon prescribing that those rejected by some are not to be received by others.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 01:34:39 PM by sheenj » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,974


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #109 on: May 30, 2013, 01:42:29 PM »

Patriarchs also receive. But some refuse.

Yeah, I'm aware of that.  My point was simply that, if you're "only" a Major Archbishop, being elevated to Cardinal is a step-up within the Catholic Church.  If you're a Patriarch, it's technically a demotion or at least a lesser honour, even if it gives you a vote in conclave. 
Logged

Still posting.

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #110 on: May 30, 2013, 01:44:28 PM »

Patriarchs also receive. But some refuse.

Yeah, I'm aware of that.  My point was simply that, if you're "only" a Major Archbishop, being elevated to Cardinal is a step-up within the Catholic Church.  If you're a Patriarch, it's technically a demotion or at least a lesser honour, even if it gives you a vote in conclave. 

Isn't that a personal opinion?

BTW AFAIR Cardinals have precedence over Eastern Patriarch in Catholicism.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,974


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #111 on: May 30, 2013, 01:54:27 PM »

Isn't that a personal opinion?

BTW AFAIR Cardinals have precedence over Eastern Patriarch in Catholicism.

Not really, no.  According to their canon law, there is a distinction between Patriarchs and Major Archbishops.  Based on those distinctions, and based on what a Cardinal actually is, I'd argue that it's not just a personal opinion that it is a "demotion" for the former and a "promotion" for the latter.  You might argue that it's my personal interpretation, and that's fine I guess, but the Catholic Church is not beholden to us to define the status of every possible combination of "offices".  It's enough to look at what things are and what they mean for them.

Cardinals are, technically, the clergy of the diocese of Rome.  Nowadays, they're usually all bishops, but among the Cardinals are three ranks: bishops (who were once the suffragans of Rome), priests (pastors of the ancient churches), and deacons (in charge of deaconries).  The Eastern Patriarchs, whether they are Cardinals or not, are equal in rank to Cardinal-Bishops, and thus outrank Cardinal-Priests and Cardinal-Deacons.  But there's no circumstance I'm aware of in which a Cardinal ever outranks an Eastern Patriarch.  Major Archbishops, on the other hand...  Wink 

Logged

Still posting.

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,654


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #112 on: May 30, 2013, 01:55:11 PM »

Too much is made of the pope. He is just a bishop, not a super-bishop (regardless of the pretensions of the Roman Church on the issue), and perhaps the Orthodox should more forcefully remind the Roman Catholic representatives of this fact during their talks with Roman officials in the Joint International Commission on Dialogue.

Pope Benedict is rumored to have observed that the Orthodox have come as far as they can with respect to the Ecumenical dialogue and that the time had come for Rome to get serious about the remaining issues and move the process forward. I'm not sure Pope Francis has this as a priority. I say this because perhaps, just perhaps, the 18th century "raison d'etre" for the existence of the Melkite Catholic Church is no longer relevant.  The inherent contradictions between the expressed positions of the Melkite Catholic Church and the Church of Rome with respect to the nature and role of the Papacy seem similar to the ones held by the Orthodox. Since we Orthodox view communion as the culmination of actual unity, perhaps the Melkite Patriarch and Synod should view it in the same manner.
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,137


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #113 on: May 30, 2013, 02:05:23 PM »

Too much is made of the pope. He is just a bishop, not a super-bishop (regardless of the pretensions of the Roman Church on the issue), and perhaps the Orthodox should more forcefully remind the Roman Catholic representatives of this fact during their talks with Roman officials in the Joint International Commission on Dialogue.

Pope Benedict is rumored to have observed that the Orthodox have come as far as they can with respect to the Ecumenical dialogue and that the time had come for Rome to get serious about the remaining issues and move the process forward. I'm not sure Pope Francis has this as a priority. I say this because perhaps, just perhaps, the 18th century "raison d'etre" for the existence of the Melkite Catholic Church is no longer relevant.  The inherent contradictions between the expressed positions of the Melkite Catholic Church and the Church of Rome with respect to the nature and role of the Papacy seem similar to the ones held by the Orthodox. Since we Orthodox view communion as the culmination of actual unity, perhaps the Melkite Patriarch and Synod should view it in the same manner.

This is only my opinion, but I think things are fine as they are....
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #114 on: May 30, 2013, 02:07:24 PM »

You are qouting a local council of the Roman Church. You question as to why the Roman Church isn't breaking with those Churches that don't agree should be sent to the Vatican.


In your opinion. The pope is a wonderful bishop of Rome, and I have no problem with him accept when he overreaches his position, which is quite often. But I think the super-papacy's days are coming to an end.

Quote
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV ,  Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #115 on: May 30, 2013, 02:08:12 PM »

And we agree on everything?
Apotheoun, I dont get it. If your Churh and Rome disagree on evidently, so many things, how can you commune with them? I dont get it...

Would you have a problem with the Lutherans, or Baptists communing with the Melkites as well?

NOTE: Im asking a serious question, not trying to get into the middle of this fight.

PP
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #116 on: May 30, 2013, 02:42:58 PM »

Not really, no.  According to their canon law, there is a distinction between Patriarchs and Major Archbishops.  Based on those distinctions, and based on what a Cardinal actually is, I'd argue that it's not just a personal opinion that it is a "demotion" for the former and a "promotion" for the latter.  You might argue that it's my personal interpretation, and that's fine I guess, but the Catholic Church is not beholden to us to define the status of every possible combination of "offices".  It's enough to look at what things are and what they mean for them.

Cardinals are, technically, the clergy of the diocese of Rome.  Nowadays, they're usually all bishops, but among the Cardinals are three ranks: bishops (who were once the suffragans of Rome), priests (pastors of the ancient churches), and deacons (in charge of deaconries).  The Eastern Patriarchs, whether they are Cardinals or not, are equal in rank to Cardinal-Bishops, and thus outrank Cardinal-Priests and Cardinal-Deacons.  But there's no circumstance I'm aware of in which a Cardinal ever outranks an Eastern Patriarch.  Major Archbishops, on the other hand...  Wink 

I do not deny the difference between patriarchs and major archbishops.

I deny the fact cardinal is a lower position than a patriarch. From what I've read by some EC poster here (Dc Lance?) cardinals have precedence over patriarchs on liturgy. They also have some prerogatives outside their territories patriarchs do not have. They can also chose popes what patriarch can not.

See, not really a demotion.

I've read about some propositions to make patriarchs who are not cardinal bishops equal in rank as cardinal bishops without making them cardinals but this hasn't been done yet.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,974


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #117 on: May 30, 2013, 03:25:04 PM »

I deny the fact cardinal is a lower position than a patriarch. From what I've read by some EC poster here (Dc Lance?) cardinals have precedence over patriarchs on liturgy. They also have some prerogatives outside their territories patriarchs do not have. They can also chose popes what patriarch can not.

See, not really a demotion.

I've read about some propositions to make patriarchs who are not cardinal bishops equal in rank as cardinal bishops without making them cardinals but this hasn't been done yet.

Regarding liturgical precedence, I'll let Catholics correct me if I'm wrong, they probably know better than either of us, though I got my information from books by Catholic authors, not just people on the internet, however knowledgeable. 

Cardinals do have certain extra-territorial prerogatives that Patriarchs don't have, but I'm not sure how many Eastern Cardinals avail themselves of those prerogatives anyway.  For instance, I know Cardinals can confirm and hear confessions throughout the world (i.e., they have universal faculties), but when's the last time an Eastern Cardinal did confirmations for a Roman rite community in the Roman rite?  A Roman Church penitent can approach any Catholic priest, Eastern or Western, for confession, as long as that priest has the requisite faculty to hear confessions...no one stops them from going to an Eastern priest, but it's not like Eastern priests are chasing after penitents.  They have a kind of diplomatic status according to certain international conventions, but that's really a secular matter, not ecclesiastical.  The extra-territorial prerogatives are more a Roman Church matter, addressing the status of Cardinals outside the Diocese of Rome, where they properly belong; they don't make sense in an Eastern context.  Neither does a Cardinal's hat, I'd say.   

That Cardinals elect the Pope is a relic of the past, when the clergy of Rome would elect their own Bishop.  From an Eastern perspective, I'd argue that Eastern Catholics, if they're serious about "communion" rather than "subjugation", really ought not vote for the Patriarch of another Church.  But if they deserve a vote for some egalitarian consideration, this could be done by a change to the law, without requiring that they also become Cardinals.  But it is what it is at present.  It doesn't create a lot of problems unless you think about it. 

So I maintain there's a difference between what a Cardinal actually is (in principle, a cleric of the diocese of Rome) and what people think he is (a "senator" or Cabinet minister).  If you consider all that "not really a demotion", so be it, but that's too simplistic, given the history, for me to take seriously.  If the Catholics want to set me straight, though, they are here and so am I.  Smiley   

Logged

Still posting.

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,158



« Reply #118 on: May 30, 2013, 04:30:08 PM »

Hi again. Pardon my slowness, I had a lot of reading to catch up on.

I do not think it is appropriate to commemorate the pope in parish liturgies. Why would I want him commemorated?

Again, irrelevant parts in  boldface.

Interesting ... and rather sad. I mean, participating on this forum can't be very enjoyable for you if you have no interest what people think.

(I guess you could just say that "enjoyable" is another irrelevant part.  laugh)
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,158



« Reply #119 on: May 30, 2013, 04:30:47 PM »

Man, denial is a hell of a drug...

I think most minority positions appear to be the result of denial ... actually I think most minority positions are the result of denial (especially when it's a very small minority); but that doesn't mean there can't be the occasional minority position that is correct.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,158



« Reply #120 on: May 30, 2013, 04:31:27 PM »


In your opinion. The pope is a wonderful bishop of Rome, and I have no problem with him accept when he overreaches his position, which is quite often. But I think the super-papacy's days are coming to an end.

Quote
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV ,  Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv

Nice quote. I notice that it says "anyone ..." not "anyone in communion with Rome ..." .
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,158



« Reply #121 on: May 30, 2013, 04:32:28 PM »

So, according to this text, the Melkite church 1) has bishops appointed by the Pope; 2) is merely "making a lot of noise" with the Zoghby declaration and similar statements; 3) is moving toward even greater subordination to Rome than before. Thanks Apotheoun, you have brilliantly demolished your own claims about the Melkite church being an independent church merely in communion with Rome. And when he says that this is not traditional Melkite practice, it must be asked again, whom do you commemorate first in the anaphora at your regular liturgies?

How did the Melkite church become "trapped in a vortex like that one"? By entering into communion with a church claiming dogmatically to have universal supreme jurisdiction over everyone. If you don't agree with what someone is teaching as dogma, you shouldn't enter into communion with him- it's that simple. Even if the Melkite Catholic church, at its beginning in the 18th century, seemed to have real vestiges of independence, it was bound to slide toward its present subjugation because it already, implicitly, subjugated itself by entering communion with the Papal supremacists. So again, the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" model continues to be untenable and nothing more than a fantasy.

I'll readily grant that it was a hasty full communion agreement. If time somehow rewound back to 1724, I imagine we would take it a bit slower ... maybe try to set up a dialogue commission and sign an "inter-communion" agreement. (Of course, back then the end result of such a "try" would probably be the realization that there were really only 2 choices in the matter.  Embarrassed  Wink )
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,158



« Reply #122 on: May 30, 2013, 04:35:47 PM »

The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church

Dear God, not this same song again. I have the lyrics memorized: Bishop John Elya said blank, so that proves that blank is "the Melkite teaching". Did I get them right?
So you dont believe in the Pope's universal jurisdiction? Seems that my priest's monk friend had it right.

I'd say it more that we don't think about it in terms of that question. (Although honestly, I'm having trouble seeing the connection between your question and my post.)

BTW, I should clarify that when I said "not this song again", I'm referring to the fact that on a Catholic forum that I participate on, Bishop John Elya has been quote an enormous number of times (not by Iconodue, naturally) usually with the Bishop John Elya said blank, so that proves that blank is "the Melkite teaching" thing.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,158



« Reply #123 on: May 30, 2013, 05:08:07 PM »

Patriarchs also receive. But some refuse.

Yeah, I'm aware of that.  My point was simply that, if you're "only" a Major Archbishop, being elevated to Cardinal is a step-up within the Catholic Church.  If you're a Patriarch, it's technically a demotion or at least a lesser honour, even if it gives you a vote in conclave. 

Well, for a Major Archbishop or Patriarch to become a Cardinal doesn't mean that he stops being a Major Archbishop or Patriarch. So in that sense it isn't a step down.

But if we want to compare being a Major Archbishop or Patriarch vs. just being a Cardinal, then I'd say that the latter is a huge step down in either case. (There's a reason that we have 21 times as many Cardinals as we do Major Archbishops and Patriarchs.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,049


"My god is greater."


« Reply #124 on: May 30, 2013, 05:14:28 PM »

No, but that is because I do not believe that the councils it held during the second millennium are ecumenical and therefore nothing that was proposed in those local synods is a dogma.

So for something to be a heresy, it has to be approved by an ecumenical council. That makes sense.
It has to be a dogma (and as Fr. Behr wrote there are really only two dogmas - the Trinity, and the Incarnation). Theological opinions on various issues can differ without breaking communion.

Is anyone else noticing what complete nonsense this is?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,654


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #125 on: May 30, 2013, 05:21:41 PM »


In your opinion. The pope is a wonderful bishop of Rome, and I have no problem with him accept when he overreaches his position, which is quite often. But I think the super-papacy's days are coming to an end.

Quote
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV ,  Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv

Nice quote. I notice that it says "anyone ..." not "anyone in communion with Rome ..." .

And that, perhaps one of the most disastrous overreaches in the history of the Catholic church, is the very issue Pope Benedict referred to regarding dialogue with the Orthodox.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #126 on: May 30, 2013, 05:25:00 PM »

But if we want to compare being a Major Archbishop or Patriarch vs. just being a Cardinal, then I'd say that the latter is a huge step down in either case. (There's a reason that we have 21 times as many Cardinals as we do Major Archbishops and Patriarchs.)

What are the pros of being a major archbishop instead of a cardinal?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 05:25:14 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,654


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #127 on: May 30, 2013, 05:27:47 PM »

The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church

Dear God, not this same song again. I have the lyrics memorized: Bishop John Elya said blank, so that proves that blank is "the Melkite teaching". Did I get them right?
So you dont believe in the Pope's universal jurisdiction? Seems that my priest's monk friend had it right.

I'd say it more that we don't think about it in terms of that question. (Although honestly, I'm having trouble seeing the connection between your question and my post.)

BTW, I should clarify that when I said "not this song again", I'm referring to the fact that on a Catholic forum that I participate on, Bishop John Elya has been quote an enormous number of times (not by Iconodue, naturally) usually with the Bishop John Elya said blank, so that proves that blank is "the Melkite teaching" thing.

In fairness to informed 21st century Eastern Catholics, quoting Bishop John Elya on matters of the current positions of the EC' s is akin to quoting former BCC Bishop Nicholas Elko - he who was "fired" as Ruthenian Eparch of Pittsburgh only to be recycled five years later as Latin Rite auxiliary Bishop for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,158



« Reply #128 on: May 30, 2013, 05:44:52 PM »

But if we want to compare being a Major Archbishop or Patriarch vs. just being a Cardinal, then I'd say that the latter is a huge step down in either case. (There's a reason that we have 21 times as many Cardinals as we do Major Archbishops and Patriarchs.)

What are the pros of being a major archbishop instead of a cardinal?

A cardinal (generally) isn't the head of church sui iuris.

P.S. On a side note, I wonder if you and others here aren't reading too much into the ECs-are-second-class-citizens talk.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #129 on: May 30, 2013, 05:49:22 PM »

But if we want to compare being a Major Archbishop or Patriarch vs. just being a Cardinal, then I'd say that the latter is a huge step down in either case. (There's a reason that we have 21 times as many Cardinals as we do Major Archbishops and Patriarchs.)

What are the pros of being a major archbishop instead of a cardinal?

A cardinal (generally) isn't the head of church sui iuris.

So what prerogatives being a head of the sui iuris have? Of course but the one people call you "patriarch" even if you are not.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #130 on: May 30, 2013, 06:53:37 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #131 on: May 30, 2013, 06:54:58 PM »

Communion involves distinction and reciprocity; while union tends to involve absorption. I have decided to coin a new term, co-uniate, in order to describe the communion of two sister Churches or groupings of sister Churches.

 laugh

The problem is your term is misleading since ECCs are subject to the Roman Church.
When that happens it is primarily the fault of Eastern Catholics. Quite honestly, we should stand up for ourselves and tell Rome - politely - to mind its own business.

Everyone's business is Rome's business. That's the dogma that your church teaches. Stop pretending you live in the 10th century.
The Melkite Church doesn't teach that. I have never taught that when I have led faith formation classes for our young people.

If you are in communion with Rome, you agree with their dogmas. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and the bishop of Rome happens to be in communion with the same Church.

Is there a secret history of the Melkite Catholic Church I've missed?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #132 on: May 30, 2013, 06:56:07 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.
An inane thing to say as joining the Communist party did not imply apostasy necessarily.
Those were non-apostate Communists martyring faithful Orthodox and Catholics and destroying their churches?
Many communists built churches. If that surprises you.





The Partisans saved a miracle-working icon of the Mother of God from destruction by the Chetniks in Bosnia. Always exceptions.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #133 on: May 30, 2013, 06:57:42 PM »

So why is the word Uniate offensive?  Doesn't it just mean unified with Rome?

Wikipedia has failed me, so I ask here.

Besides its use as a perjorative, it is simply inaccurate.  To be a uniate, in the common definition, one must be leaving the Orthodox Church to unite with the Catholic Church.  Cradle Greek Catholics didn't leave Orthodoxy.  We are what we have been for hundreds of years now. 


How can it be a perjorative if the term was invented by the Roman Catholic Church and is used by the Roman Catholic Church in discussions with the Orthodox.  The term is also used by academic scholars like Prof. John-Paul Himka and others.

My Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic professor self-identified as one as if that were the general term.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #134 on: May 30, 2013, 07:03:51 PM »

My church commemorates the OCA metropolitan and our local bishop, because they have jurisdiction over us; we do not commemorate, say, the Ecumenical Patriarch specifically, except on those special occasions where we commemorate all the orthodox primates; we are in communion with him but he does not have jurisdiction over us.

You shouldn't commemorate the metropolitan either police

Why not?  we commemorate Met. Philip and Bishop Thomas.  Is there some rule against it?

You Antiochians are strange. Not sure, taking into account I do not know how your affair with bishops eventually solved.

The traditional practice is to commemorate the dioceasan bishop and the bishops who are present. Not some patriarchs or metropolitans that preside synods (unless of course it's a primatial Liturgy). Commemorating synod presidents alongside diocesan bishop is a Russian innovation.

And, therefore, the right way.  angel
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  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 0.168 seconds with 72 queries.