OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 20, 2014, 02:57:40 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Antioch not in communion with Constantinople  (Read 1094 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,075


@Wandi_Star
« on: June 22, 2013, 09:52:23 AM »

Why do some people still say the Church of Antioch is in communion with Constantinople when in fact it is in communion with Rome?
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2013, 09:59:57 AM »

Why do some people still say the Church of Antioch is in communion with Constantinople

Because it is.
Quote
when in fact it is in communion with Rome?

Because it's not.
Logged

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

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,070


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2013, 10:02:08 AM »

Quote
The patriarchate of Antioch is claimed by at least five major Eastern Christian churches, three of which- the Melkite, Syriac, and Maronite Catholic churches- are in communion with the Catholic Church and thus recognize each other's claims. The Antiochian Orthodox Church belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church is a member of the Oriental Orthodox Communion.

The five branches are:

    the Antiochian Orthodox Church
    the Syriac Orthodox Church
    the Melkite Greek Catholic Church
    the Syriac Catholic Church
    the Maronite Church

The Roman Catholic Church also claimed the patriarchate and appointed titular Latin rite patriarchs for many centuries until it renounced those claims in 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Antioch
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,459



« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2013, 10:11:04 AM »

Strong first post.

Pumping Iron was shot, in part, in Pretoria, South Africa.

Paulinus sucked lizard eggs. Meletius forever!

I will not email you to debate you. Don't ask.
Logged

Building up my spiritual life one blurry avatar at a time!
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,075


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2013, 10:33:44 AM »

Why do some people still say the Church of Antioch is in communion with Constantinople

Because it is.
Quote
when in fact it is in communion with Rome?

Because it's not.

FYI In 1724, Cyril VI was elected  Patriarch of Antioch and he along with the majority of bishops decided to come into communion with Rome thus founding the Melkite Catholic Church. Cyril then went on to Constantinople to tell Jeramias III , patriarch of Constantinople, about this. Jeramias rejected this and set up a rival bishop thus founding the Antiochan orthodox church of today.

In reality the Church of Antioch IS the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.
The Antiochan orthodox church is much like the orthodox church in Rome. Its just a group of faithful but not the official church of the city which in this is example is the Catholic Church of Rome, not its orthodox counterpart 
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,075


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2013, 10:35:18 AM »

Strong first post.

Pumping Iron was shot, in part, in Pretoria, South Africa.

Paulinus sucked lizard eggs. Meletius forever!

I will not email you to debate you. Don't ask.

Lol I like you already Smiley
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,070


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2013, 10:39:15 AM »

FYI In 1724, Cyril VI was elected  Patriarch of Antioch and he along with the majority of bishops decided to come into communion with Rome thus founding the Melkite Catholic Church. Cyril then went on to Constantinople to tell Jeramias III , patriarch of Constantinople, about this. Jeramias rejected this and set up a rival bishop thus founding the Antiochan orthodox church of today.

That just makes Cyril and his followers schismatics. Since a new Antiochian Patriarch was established, the lineage continued normally.

In case you didn't read the wiki, there's way more than one church of Antioch.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,322



« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2013, 10:42:50 AM »

Quote
The patriarchate of Antioch is claimed by at least five major Eastern Christian churches, three of which- the Melkite, Syriac, and Maronite Catholic churches- are in communion with the Catholic Church and thus recognize each other's claims. The Antiochian Orthodox Church belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church is a member of the Oriental Orthodox Communion.

The five branches are:

    the Antiochian Orthodox Church
    the Syriac Orthodox Church
    the Melkite Greek Catholic Church
    the Syriac Catholic Church
    the Maronite Church

The Roman Catholic Church also claimed the patriarchate and appointed titular Latin rite patriarchs for many centuries until it renounced those claims in 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Antioch
renounced is incorrect.  It just shelved them.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,322



« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2013, 10:51:14 AM »

Why do some people still say the Church of Antioch is in communion with Constantinople

Because it is.
Quote
when in fact it is in communion with Rome?

Because it's not.

FYI In 1724, Cyril VI was elected  Patriarch of Antioch and he along with the majority of bishops decided to come into communion with Rome thus founding the Melkite Catholic Church. Cyril then went on to Constantinople to tell Jeramias III , patriarch of Constantinople, about this. Jeramias rejected this and set up a rival bishop thus founding the Antiochan orthodox church of today.
Before going into the minutiae, two pertinent facts dispose of your misinformation 1) Cyril "VI" was never canonically elected and enthroned 2) even Old Rome rejected him in 1724.  "Pat." Cyril never went near Constantinople, as he would have been arrested on the spot.

Sylvester was the choice of the previous patriarch of Antioch and the Holy Synod, assembled in Aleppo, the residence of the patriarch at the time.  Word was sent to Constantinople to fetch him and release him back to Antioch-he was a monk at the time on Mt. Athos.

In reality the Church of Antioch IS the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.
You should take a reality test.
The Antiochan orthodox church is much like the orthodox church in Rome. Its just a group of faithful but not the official church of the city which in this is example is the Catholic Church of Rome, not its orthodox counterpart 
This is the canonical bishop of Rome.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,075


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2013, 11:25:01 AM »

At any rate, when the Orthodox Patriarch Anthanasios III (Debbas) died in 1723, Seraphim Tanas was duly elected Patriarch according to custom by the clergy and laity of Damascus and consecrated with the name Cyril VI. He sent his profession of faith to the Pope and considered himself a Catholic but not a Latin. Thus began the Catholic line of Byzantine Patriarchs of Antioch.His consecration and enthronement came as a serious shock to the rest of Orthodoxy. Rightfully so, (from the Orthodox perspective) Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople excommunicated Cyril and his consecrators, and ordained Deacon Sylvestor of Cyprus -- a nephew of the deceased Patriarch -- and dispatched him to Damascus, armed with the necessary "firmans, and charged him with the mission of reclaiming the errant and punishing the new "schismatic's."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

He was elected by the Synod AND the laity. The Patriarch of Constantinople unilaterally excommunicated the duly elected Patriarch and established a new Patriarch in his stead, and sent him to "reclaim and punish" the new "schismatics". The people and clergy spoke, and elected Cyril, but Constantinople didn't like it and intervened, excommunicating the rightful Patriarch and establishing a seperate line in Damascus.

Regardless of whether or not the time was right for Reunion, Constantinople acted on its own against the rightful Patriarch of Antioch, according to the Canons of the Church. The Melkite Synod and laity elected Patriarch Cyril, and Cyril never moved against Constantinople, but merely reunited with Rome. This action was met with excommunication and the creation of a new Patriarchate, against the Canons of the Church.

Oh and btw, the canonical Bishop of Rome looks more like Pope Francis Wink
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 11:27:00 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2013, 11:33:44 AM »

This is the canonical bishop of Rome.

IN not OF.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,541



« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2013, 12:03:28 PM »

The very act of seeking communion with heretics invalidated his claim to his see. How after all, could one mere patriarch overturn the decisions of his own predecessors (among whom was Patriarch Dorotheus of Antioch who in 1443, rejected the "lawless council of Florence" in conjunction with the patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem), of his own holy synod, and of numerous pan-Orthodox synods which came before him? Canonical legitimacy isn't some sort of magic than can never be lost.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,204


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2013, 12:10:05 PM »

Wow. I can think of a particular RCC occassional poster here who would enjoy sharing a beer and a tale or two with the OP. Isa knows of whom I speak!  Wink 
Logged
lovetzatziki
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 430



« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2013, 01:11:32 PM »

There are various Churches of Antioch. There is the Antiochian Orthodox Church that belongs to the Eastern Orthodox communion, the Syriac Orthodox Church that belongs to the Oriental Orthodox communion, the Maronite Church that is based on the community founded by the 4th century Syriac Aramean monk Maroun who is considered a saint, having its first Maronite Patriarch in the 7th century in the person of St John Maron, in communion with Rome(Eastern Catholic) , the Syriac Catholic Church that split from the Syriac Orthodox Church in the 1782 , in communion with Rome, and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church which was split from the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch in 1729 and joined communion with Rome. So which one of this particular Churches were you refering in the OP?
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,075


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2013, 01:31:11 PM »

Quote from: lovetzatziki
link=topic=52059.msg942349#msg942349 date=1371921092
There are various Churches of Antioch. There is the Antiochian Orthodox
Church that belongs to the Eastern Orthodox communion, the Syriac
Orthodox Church that belongs to the Oriental Orthodox communion, the
Maronite Church that is based on the community founded by the 4th
century Syriac Aramean monk Maroun who is considered a saint, having its
 first Maronite Patriarch in the 7th century in the person of St John
Maron, in communion with Rome(Eastern Catholic) , the Syriac Catholic
Church that split from the Syriac Orthodox Church in the 1782 , in
communion with Rome, and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church which was
split from the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch in 1729 and joined
communion with Rome. So which one of this particular Churches were you
refering in the OP?

Yes I'm aware of the other claimants... I was referring to the Melkites
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 22, 2013, 01:50:28 PM »

So accordingly to you Maronite and Syriac Catholic Churches are impostor Churches?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
adampjr
Karamazov
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 89


Penguin


« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2013, 01:57:09 PM »

Why do some people still say the Church of Antioch is in communion with Constantinople

Because it is.
Quote
when in fact it is in communion with Rome?

Because it's not.

FYI In 1724, Cyril VI was elected  Patriarch of Antioch and he along with the majority of bishops decided to come into communion with Rome thus founding the Melkite Catholic Church. Cyril then went on to Constantinople to tell Jeramias III , patriarch of Constantinople, about this. Jeramias rejected this and set up a rival bishop thus founding the Antiochan orthodox church of today.

In reality the Church of Antioch IS the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.
The Antiochan orthodox church is much like the orthodox church in Rome. Its just a group of faithful but not the official church of the city which in this is example is the Catholic Church of Rome, not its orthodox counterpart 


Well the problem is obvious, and it should not be too difficult for you to figure out why people say the Church of Antioch is in communion with Constantinople while you and others affirm that it is in communion with Rome - because the term 'Church of Antioch' is not being used to refer to the same in both cases. It's not that confusing.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,075


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #17 on: June 22, 2013, 02:06:03 PM »

How
 did you get here?Huh

The reason why I refer to the Melkites is because they are the only
Antiochan communion that was in communion with Constantinople. Their
patriarch and bishops chose become catholic and thus Antioch is not in
communion with Constantinople but with Rome...
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 02:08:01 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
adampjr
Karamazov
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 89


Penguin


« Reply #18 on: June 22, 2013, 02:07:11 PM »

[quote author

Nice. I've done this a few times.  Wink
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2013, 02:13:28 PM »

How
 did you get here?Huh

From here:

In reality the Church of Antioch IS the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

You say Maronite and Syriac Catholic Churches are not legitimate Churches of Antioch.

Quote
The Antiochan orthodox church is much like the orthodox church in Rome. Its just a group of faithful but not the official church of the city which in this is example is the Catholic Church of Rome, not its orthodox counterpart

I really doubt any of those 5 or so Churches that claim to be Church of Antioch are present in Antakya. BTW the Orthodox Church of Antioch is bigger than the Melkite Church.

BTW2 why do you keep spreading your propaganda since you must have already noticed you won't convince anyone?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
lovetzatziki
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 430



« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2013, 02:20:37 PM »

"
As a fallout of the Latin occupation of the Levant during the crusades, by the fourteenth century Roman Catholic clergy had engaged the Melkite Orthodox and endeavored to heal the division between the East and West. This was at a time when the Great Schism of 1054 remained largely undefined. By the eighteenth century, many in the Melkite church became identified as pro-Western and who sought reconciliation with Rome. In 1724, Patriarch Athanasius III Dabbas of Antioch died naming as his successor Sylvester, his former deacon. In opposition, the faction favoring union with the Roman Catholic Church elected Seraphim Tanas patriarch of Antioch as Cyril VI. Patr. Jeremias III of Constantinople declared Cyril's election invalid and consecrated Sylvester as Patriarch of Antioch. These events formalized a schism within the Church of Antioch, after which the pro-Rome group became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church/Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch, adopting the term Melkite to identify themselves, whereas the non-Melkites refer to themselves as the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. "

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Melkite
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2013, 02:21:36 PM »

whereas the non-Melkites refer to themselves as the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.

Roman Orthodox, actually.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,199



« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2013, 02:22:58 PM »

For a second I thought I was on CAF.

was in communion with Constantinople.

Just wondering, but do you realize that Orthodoxy is not determined by "communion with Constantinople" like Catholicism's insistence on communion with Rome? IOW, we are in communion with Constantinople because it is Orthodox; we are not Orthodox because we are in communion with Constantinople.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
lovetzatziki
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 430



« Reply #23 on: June 22, 2013, 02:40:37 PM »

How
 did you get here?Huh

From here:

In reality the Church of Antioch IS the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

You say Maronite and Syriac Catholic Churches are not legitimate Churches of Antioch.

Quote
The Antiochan orthodox church is much like the orthodox church in Rome. Its just a group of faithful but not the official church of the city which in this is example is the Catholic Church of Rome, not its orthodox counterpart

I really doubt any of those 5 or so Churches that claim to be Church of Antioch are present in Antakya. BTW the Orthodox Church of Antioch is bigger than the Melkite Church.

BTW2 why do you keep spreading your propaganda since you must have already noticed you won't convince anyone?

I think the Maronite, the Melkite and the Syriac Catholic Churches recognise each other and consider each other to be valid churches.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,075


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2013, 02:56:50 PM »

Quote
You say Maronite and Syriac Catholic Churches are not legitimate
Churches of Antioch.

No you extrapolated that. What you think I insinuate from saying or not saying something doesn't make it so

Quote
I really doubt any of those 5 or so Churches that claim to be Church of
Antioch are present in Antakya. BTW the Orthodox Church of Antioch is
bigger than the Melkite Church.

By this logic, you should be Catholic since there are 1.1 billion of us

Quote
BTW why do you keep spreading your propaganda since you must have
already noticed you won't convince anyone?

I'm here to get a question answered and have a meaningful discussion. Not to spread propaganda
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,075


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #25 on: June 22, 2013, 02:59:13 PM »

Quote from: Nephi
link=topic=52059.msg942378#msg942378 date=1371925378
For a second I thought I was on CAF.

Quote from: Wandile link=topic=52059.msg942366#msg942366
date=1371924363
was in communion with Constantinople.

Just wondering, but do you realize that Orthodoxy is not determined by
"communion with Constantinople" like Catholicism's insistence on
communion with Rome? IOW, we are in communion with Constantinople
because it is Orthodox; we are not Orthodox because we are in communion
with Constantinople.

Yup Smiley
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
lovetzatziki
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 430



« Reply #26 on: June 22, 2013, 03:04:52 PM »

"The relationship between Antioch and Rome was heightened from the seventeenth century onward. In 1625 Latin missionaries entered the Middle East. They came in under the patronage of the French consulates. Eftimios Al Saifi, the Melkite Archbishop of Tyre and Sidon from 1682 to 1723, and his followers favored unity with Rome. Al Saifi, with the help of his followers and the Latin missionaries managed to form a Melkite community. They followed the rule of St Basil who founded eastern monasticism and established the Monastery of the Holy Saviour, which housed many Basilian Salvitorian monks- the largest Melkite community at the time. Other Melkite monks who also favored union with Rome established the Monastery of St John the Baptist. In the eighteenth century, the Melkites were divided. In 1724, The Patriarch of Antioch, Athanasius III, had passed away. He recommended that his former deacon, a 28 year-old Greek monk named Sylvester, succeed him. Some of the clergy and people of Antioch were not pleased with recommendation and elected Al Saifi's nephew, Seraphim Tanas, a Patriarch Kirilos VI.However, the Turks upheld the decision of the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople for Sylvester to be the new Patriarch of Antioch. Kirilos VI, however a Melkite Catholic who studied in Rome, maintained ties with the pope in Rome." http://www.melkite.org.au/images/users/2/Melkite%20WorldWide/History%20of%20the%20Melkite%20Catholic%20Church%20and%20its%20Rites.pdf

Seraphim Tanas was born in Damascus in 1680 and he was the nephew of Euthymios Saifi, bishop of Sidon. On August 3, 1701 he arrived in Marseille, France and from 1702 to 1710 he studied in the College of the Propaganda in Rome. Returned in Syria he was ordained priest by his uncle and he was distinguished for his sermons. He was appointed "Preacher of the Patriarchate of Antioch" by Patriarch Cyril V Zaim.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_VI_Tanas


However, during the Crusades the Crusaders introduced Latin prelates into the apostolic sees of the East, and the Fourth Crusade saw the sack of the great city of Constantinople and its domination by the Crusaders for fifty-seven years. These developments brought the East-West quarrel home to everyone but there was no declaration of schism. Since there had never been any formal division from East-West Schism these 'converts' of the Latin missionaries simply became a pro-Western, pro-Catholic party within Eastern Orthodoxy. Throughout the 17th century Jesuits, Capuchins and Carmelites established missions with the consent of the local Orthodox bishops in the Ottoman Empire. The Dominicans had been in Iraq since the 14th century.

From 1342, Roman Catholic friars opened missions in the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly in Damascus and their teaching had important influence over the Melkite clergy and people. Yet, in the Melkite tradition it was the Jesuits, founded only in 1534, who were really decisive in the formation of the Catholic party in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. The Jesuits were not friars but something like the highly educated priests of the Patriarchal Chancery, which made them more acceptable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church


« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 03:24:15 PM by lovetzatziki » Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,199



« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2013, 03:11:48 PM »

If there can be three legitimate claimants to a single See in Catholicism, could there be more than one legitimate claimant to the Roman See? If not, why can there be multiple legitimate claimants elsewhere and not Rome?
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2013, 03:26:34 PM »

Picking which side of a schism is the legitimate continuation of the earlier unity is rarely a useful exercise.

From the Orthodox perspective, the fact that the vast majority of the laity and a majority of the Holy Synod remained Orthodox is enough.

Patriarchal elections in the Patriarchate of Antioch in the early Ottoman period were a mess. Patriarchs were generally elected by local lay acclamation and finalized through fundraising bribes for Ottoman approval. In the 16th and 17th century there were a number of schisms because of this, the most famous of them being the one in the 1580's between Michael al-Hamawi and Youakim Daw'. When these things would happen, Rome and the French would usually try to exacerbate things and win one side over, but it only really stuck in 1724.

You can watch a very informative talk by Constantine Panchenko that gives some background to Antioch's relations with Rome in the 16th Century here: http://simpozion2011.bibliotecametropolitana.ro/video-detail-fr.aspx?cid=68&vid=592

If you read Russian, Panchenko's book Ближневосточное Православие под османским владычеством. Первые три столетия (1516–1831) is the absolutely essential reference work for this period. Its table of contents in English can be accessed here: http://indrik.ru/2012/panchenko-k-a-blizhnevostochnoe-pravoslavie-pod-osmanskim-vlady-chestvom-pervye-tri-stoletiya-1516-1831

« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 03:28:03 PM by Samn! » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,322



« Reply #29 on: June 22, 2013, 03:27:45 PM »

Alas! for you, your case cannot withstand the least scrutiny:
At any rate, when the Orthodox Patriarch Anthanasios III (Debbas) died in 1723, Seraphim Tanas was duly elected Patriarch according to custom by the clergy and laity of Damascus and consecrated with the name Cyril VI.
According to the custom the patriarch was duly elected by a Synod of the clergy and laity of the Patriarchate, then consecrated by three bishops of the Synod, and then obtain the berat of the Patriarchate.

"Pat." Cyril never obtained a berat (nor did many of his successors).  Patriarchate Sylvester had his a week after the alleged patriarchal consecration of Cyril. That pretty much settles the matter.

The Robber council had only two bishops (I won't go into the problems with their ecclesiastical bans, connected with the deposition and exile of Seraphim (i.e. "Cyril") Tanas' uncle, the bishop of Sidon), and had to ordain a third, in the rush to ordain Cyril as "patriarch" within a week-Sylvester had already been duly elected Patriarch according to custom by the clergy and laity on the recommendation of the dying Patriarch Athanasius III the month before, and had been sent for to come take over. The delegation from Antioch was waiting in Constantinople for his arrival from Mt. Athos, so time was running out for mechinations in Damascus.  Problem is, the canons require three bishops for a consecration, and bar a consecration while the Patriarchal throne is vacant.

Then there is that problem of the excommunication and ecclesiastical bans imposed on those who were engaging in proselytizing for the Vatican, reiterated the previous year...

He sent his profession of faith to the Pope and considered himself a Catholic but not a Latin.
And yet he was consecrated in Latin rites, the subject of "Demandatam coelitus humilitati nostrae."

Your supreme pontiff didn't accept his profession of faith. By the time you had a supreme pontiff accepted it, and issued "Demandatum," Patriarch Sylvester had reigned over Antioch for nearly two decades, berat in hand.

Canon 5 of your Lateran IV:
Quote
Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree with the approval of the holy and ecumenical council, that after the Roman Church, which by the will of God holds over all others pre-eminence of ordinary power as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, that of Constantinople shall hold first place, that of Alexandria second, that of Antioch third, and that of Jerusalem fourth, the dignity proper to each to be observed; so that after their bishops have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the distinguishing mark of the plenitude of the pontifical office, and have taken the oath of fidelity and obedience to him, they may also lawfully bestow the pallium upon their suffragans, receiving from them the canonical profession of faith for themselves, and for the Roman Church the pledge of obedience...

"Patriarch" Cyril had neither berat nor pallium those twenty years.  Patriarch Sylvester, was patriarch in the full sense of the word that entire time.

Thus began the Catholic line of Byzantine Patriarchs of Antioch.
No, the Vatican line of Byzantine Patriarchs of Antioch, heirs (although they won't claim it) of Paulinus and Evagrius.  The Catholic line of Roman Patriarchs of Antioch, heirs of Patriarch St. Meletius, continued in Patriarch Sylvester. It continues in Patriarch John X. Many Years!

His consecration and enthronement came as a serious shock to the rest of Orthodoxy. Rightfully so, (from the Orthodox perspective) Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople excommunicated Cyril and his consecrators, and ordained Deacon Sylvestor of Cyprus -- a nephew of the deceased Patriarch -- and dispatched him to Damascus, armed with the necessary "firmans, and charged him with the mission of reclaiming the errant and punishing the new "schismatic's."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I guess, being a couple decades old, those schismatics weren't actually new.  But then "new", not schismatic, should be put in quotations.

btw, are you quoting something? From what exactly?
 
He was elected by the Synod AND the laity.
Yes, Sylvester was.

The Patriarch of Constantinople unilaterally excommunicated the duly elected Patriarch and established a new Patriarch in his stead
no, he consecrated with the delegation from Antioch their duly elected Patriarch.  And presided over the general synod that excommunicated those who dared to attempt to usurp the throne of Antioch from its duly elected Patriarch.

Even the Latins in Aleppo refused to recognize the usurpers, nor their supreme pontiff back in Old Rome.

and sent him to "reclaim and punish" the "new" "schismatics".

fixed that for you.
The people and clergy spoke, and elected Cyril, but Constantinople didn't like it and intervened, excommunicating the rightful Patriarch and establishing a seperate line in Damascus.
Constantinople had nothing to do with the Robber Synod of Damascus, except to putting a stop to its mechinations.  It consecrated the rightful Patriarch elected by the people and clergy.

The usurpers didn't like it and tried to intervene, convening their robber council at Damascus.

Regardless of whether or not the time was right for Reunion, Constantinople acted on its own against the rightful Patriarch of Antioch, according to the Canons of the Church.

Constantinople acted with the rightful Patriarch of Antioch, according to the Canons of the Church, in contrast to the usurpers, who acted on their own, not even the Vatican backing them.
The Melkite Synod and laity elected Patriarch Cyril, and Cyril never moved against Constantinople, but merely reunited with Rome.
The Melkite Synod and laity elected Patriarch Sylvester, Cyril trying to move against the Patriarchate of Antioch to submit it to the Vatican.
This action was met with excommunication and the creation of a new Patriarchate, against the Canons of the Church.
that is the Vatican's usual modus vivendi.
Oh and btw, the canonical Bishop of Rome looks more like Pope Francis Wink
Yes, His Grace Bishop Siluan does look like him more than the pope emeritus (is that what he is called now?), just with a beard.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 03:30:50 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,322



« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2013, 03:29:43 PM »

This is the canonical bishop of Rome.

IN not OF.
The Patriarch OF Antioch has been IN Damascus for some time, so Bp. Siluan is in good company.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,322



« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2013, 03:34:20 PM »

How
 did you get here?Huh

The reason why I refer to the Melkites is because they are the only
Antiochan communion that was in communion with Constantinople. Their
patriarch and bishops chose become catholic and thus Antioch is not in
communion with Constantinople but with Rome...
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,322



« Reply #32 on: June 22, 2013, 03:40:46 PM »

How
 did you get here?Huh

From here:

In reality the Church of Antioch IS the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

You say Maronite and Syriac Catholic Churches are not legitimate Churches of Antioch.

Quote
The Antiochan orthodox church is much like the orthodox church in Rome. Its just a group of faithful but not the official church of the city which in this is example is the Catholic Church of Rome, not its orthodox counterpart

I really doubt any of those 5 or so Churches that claim to be Church of Antioch are present in Antakya. BTW the Orthodox Church of Antioch is bigger than the Melkite Church.
Not that size matters.

Only the Church of Antioch is in Antioch. I've been to the Cathedral myself.

BTW2 why do you keep spreading your propaganda since you must have already noticed you won't convince anyone?
the venerable tradition of the Vatican.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,322



« Reply #33 on: June 22, 2013, 03:46:48 PM »

Quote
You say Maronite and Syriac Catholic Churches are not legitimate
Churches of Antioch.

No you extrapolated that. What you think I insinuate from saying or not saying something doesn't make it so
He's just applying your "logic."  If it is just a matter of picking a side, and not who remained in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, then you have to conclude that the Syriacs and the Maronites were on the wrong side if you are betting on the Melkites.
Quote
I really doubt any of those 5 or so Churches that claim to be Church of
Antioch are present in Antakya. BTW the Orthodox Church of Antioch is
bigger than the Melkite Church.

By this logic, you should be Catholic since there are 1.1 billion of us
He, and I, are Catholic.  And quite fine being that little flock the Lord talks about.

As for that horde that the Vatican leads down the broad way and wide gate...

Quote
BTW why do you keep spreading your propaganda since you must have
already noticed you won't convince anyone?
I'm here to get a question answered and have a meaningful discussion. Not to spread propaganda
Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 03:49:18 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 22, 2013, 03:56:22 PM »

I'm here to get a question answered and have a meaningful discussion.

I don't see any meaningful questions from you. Just trolling.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,322



« Reply #35 on: June 22, 2013, 04:02:51 PM »

If there can be three legitimate claimants to a single See in Catholicism, could there be more than one legitimate claimant to the Roman See? If not, why can there be multiple legitimate claimants elsewhere and not Rome?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,199



« Reply #36 on: June 22, 2013, 04:08:25 PM »

If there can be three legitimate claimants to a single See in Catholicism, could there be more than one legitimate claimant to the Roman See? If not, why can there be multiple legitimate claimants elsewhere and not Rome?


Do they consider both popes to have been legitimate or just one and the other an antipope? Genuine question.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,322



« Reply #37 on: June 22, 2013, 04:25:40 PM »

If there can be three legitimate claimants to a single See in Catholicism, could there be more than one legitimate claimant to the Roman See? If not, why can there be multiple legitimate claimants elsewhere and not Rome?


Do they consider both popes to have been legitimate or just one and the other an antipope? Genuine question.
They don't have a consistent answer-their supreme pontiff, for instance, hasn't given a list of his predecessors ex cathedra.  Their Supreme Pontiff Alexander VI took that number, because of the claimant Pope Alexander V of the Pisan line, although their Pope John XXIII of Vatican II took that number in opposition to Pope John XXIII who succeeded Pope Alexander V.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,884


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #38 on: June 22, 2013, 04:47:35 PM »

Why do some people still say the Church of Antioch is in communion with Constantinople when in fact it is in communion with Rome?

Really?  What is your purpose here if not to troll?  Obviously the Eastern Orthodox feel that their line is legitimate, the Catholics feel theirs is and the Oriental Orthodox feel theirs is.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,199



« Reply #39 on: June 22, 2013, 04:53:45 PM »

They don't have a consistent answer-their supreme pontiff, for instance, hasn't given a list of his predecessors ex cathedra.  Their Supreme Pontiff Alexander VI took that number, because of the claimant Pope Alexander V of the Pisan line, although their Pope John XXIII of Vatican II took that number in opposition to Pope John XXIII who succeeded Pope Alexander V.

Interesting, I notice Wikipedia says this:
Quote
Antipope Alexander V (1409–1410) (Considered to be an Antipope; however, the next Pope Alexander took the name Alexander VI due to confusion over Alexander V's status at the time.)
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503)

Is this (correctly?) saying that Alexander V wasn't condemned yet as an antipope during Pope Alexander VI's reign despite it being nearly a century later?
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,322



« Reply #40 on: June 22, 2013, 05:19:02 PM »

They don't have a consistent answer-their supreme pontiff, for instance, hasn't given a list of his predecessors ex cathedra.  Their Supreme Pontiff Alexander VI took that number, because of the claimant Pope Alexander V of the Pisan line, although their Pope John XXIII of Vatican II took that number in opposition to Pope John XXIII who succeeded Pope Alexander V.

Interesting, I notice Wikipedia says this:
Quote
Antipope Alexander V (1409–1410) (Considered to be an Antipope; however, the next Pope Alexander took the name Alexander VI due to confusion over Alexander V's status at the time.)
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503)

Is this (correctly?) saying that Alexander V wasn't condemned yet as an antipope during Pope Alexander VI's reign despite it being nearly a century later?
I don't think he was removed from the Annuaria Pontifica until the 20th century.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #41 on: June 22, 2013, 11:13:38 PM »

At any rate, when the Orthodox Patriarch Anthanasios III (Debbas) died in 1723, Seraphim Tanas was duly elected Patriarch according to custom by the clergy and laity of Damascus and consecrated with the name Cyril VI. He sent his profession of faith to the Pope and considered himself a Catholic but not a Latin. Thus began the Catholic line of Byzantine Patriarchs of Antioch.His consecration and enthronement came as a serious shock to the rest of Orthodoxy. Rightfully so, (from the Orthodox perspective) Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople excommunicated Cyril and his consecrators, and ordained Deacon Sylvestor of Cyprus -- a nephew of the deceased Patriarch -- and dispatched him to Damascus, armed with the necessary "firmans, and charged him with the mission of reclaiming the errant and punishing the new "schismatic's."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

He was elected by the Synod AND the laity. The Patriarch of Constantinople unilaterally excommunicated the duly elected Patriarch and established a new Patriarch in his stead, and sent him to "reclaim and punish" the new "schismatics". The people and clergy spoke, and elected Cyril, but Constantinople didn't like it and intervened, excommunicating the rightful Patriarch and establishing a seperate line in Damascus.

Regardless of whether or not the time was right for Reunion, Constantinople acted on its own against the rightful Patriarch of Antioch, according to the Canons of the Church. The Melkite Synod and laity elected Patriarch Cyril, and Cyril never moved against Constantinople, but merely reunited with Rome. This action was met with excommunication and the creation of a new Patriarchate, against the Canons of the Church.

Oh and btw, the canonical Bishop of Rome looks more like Pope Francis Wink

What is your point? And why are you trying to make it?
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: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #42 on: June 22, 2013, 11:15:28 PM »

How
 did you get here?Huh

The reason why I refer to the Melkites is because they are the only
Antiochan communion that was in communion with Constantinople. Their
patriarch and bishops chose become catholic and thus Antioch is not in
communion with Constantinople but with Rome...

You've repeated this lie three times. It must be true now. Way to go.
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: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #43 on: June 22, 2013, 11:17:11 PM »

I'm here to get a question answered and have a meaningful discussion. Not to spread propaganda

Many have come with this ruse before.
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   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 0.159 seconds with 71 queries.