OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 16, 2014, 12:18:09 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: One is Holy  (Read 2057 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« on: September 25, 2005, 10:02:21 AM »

I do not wish to stray into the debate about this 'icon' or 'ikon' (both spellings are widely used). However on reading one post I was struck by "....All Holiness Meletios....." Our Lord and Saviour is recorded in scripture as responding to one with, Why do thou calleth me Holy? Only one is Holy, God. And yet we have here a mere man, albeit a bishop of a great see, who takes to himself a tiltle even greater? It is surely a proud and arrogant title and one that as Christians the bishops of The City should drop, surely?
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,892


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2005, 10:53:54 AM »

Yeah, StephenG, sort of like "Vicar of Christ"...  Roll Eyes
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2005, 03:40:56 PM »

I do not wish to stray into the debate about this 'icon' or 'ikon' (both spellings are widely used). However on reading one post I was struck by "....All Holiness Meletios....." Our Lord and Saviour is recorded in scripture as responding to one with, Why do thou calleth me Holy? Only one is Holy, God. And yet we have here a mere man, albeit a bishop of a great see, who takes to himself a tiltle even greater? It is surely a proud and arrogant title and one that as Christians the bishops of The City should drop, surely?

Do you have a problem with saying that the Theotokos is holy since Scripture says only one is Holy?

Anastasios
Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2005, 07:13:08 PM »

I cannot answer for the errors and pride of Roman titles, this you must ask of them.

"And, behold, one came and said unto to him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I  may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God". Gospel according to the Holy Apostle Matthew, Chapter 19, verses 16 - 17. King James Version

The Elder Philotheos (Zervakos) writing on 24 February, 1968 from Paros

.......When our Lord Jesus Christ, who a Perfect, Sinless man and Perfect God, was addressed by a lawyer as 'Good Teacher', He did not accept it, but rather said to the lawyer: Why callest thou me good? there is noe good but one that is God.

He goes on.......

The Patriarch consents to be called 'His All-Holiness'; and while people call God Holy - 'Holy God' - the Patriarch does not condescend to be 'Holy', but even higher than God - 'His All-Holiness'. There is nothing worse.

He continues.....

They both (the Pope and the Patriarch) suffer from Luciferian pride; and pride is the treasury and strongbox of all evils, sins, delusions, and heresies.

Again.....

Christ said, "Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls"

and continues

The Pope and the Patriarch have not accepted lessons from Christ. They have taken lessons from Lucifer. "Learn of me, for I am proud, for I will be like the most High".

The thread I originally was reading, and unrelated, contained a reference which triggered my question and then a recollection of coming across Father Philotheos response. Father Philotheos writing here appeared (in Greek) in Holy Philotheos of Paros, No 13 2005 and later in English elsewhere.

Reading the Gospel, wondering and later Elder Philotheos writing and having long been troubled by the pompous titles of not a few ecclesiastical titles, Orthodox (and Roman) is my reason for the post.

Logged
jlerms
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 826


O sweet Jesus, cleanse my soul.


« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2005, 08:46:15 PM »

Does anyone know where titles like "His All Holiness" came from?       Blessings,  Juliana
Logged
icxn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 251


« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2005, 10:15:16 PM »

Does anyone know where titles like "His All Holiness" came from?       Blessings,  Juliana
Perhaps from the humblemindedness of those who address... "His Holiness"?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2005, 11:36:03 PM »

Does anyone know where titles like "His All Holiness" came from?

During the later years of the empire it was not uncommon to add adjectives like 'most' or 'all' to pre-existing titles, in the case of the Patriarch of Constantinople it was probably done to reassert his role as universal patriarch and distinguish him from other patriarchs that may be refered to as 'His Holiness.'
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2005, 06:22:33 AM »

Anastasios, forgive me, I had not answered your specific question.

I have a new testament open before with the words of Our Lord and Saviour as given above. The God-man never did or said anything without a purpose. Who am I, a mere man, to question His teaching? What I, and any other believer, may do is question whether something is or is not in accord with His teaching, surely?

And are we saying and being complicit in the Oecumenical Throne equating itself with the Blessed Theotokos? The glory of Oecumenical Throne or of any other throne surely lays not in titles but in the preaching of the word of God, and in the pastoral care of believers and in teaching all men (and women) unto the corners of the earth?

greekischristian post suggests that this convention of referring to the Patriarch thus is something of men, and in all humility could easily be set aside as example to all.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2005, 06:24:10 AM by StephenG » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2005, 08:41:48 AM »

I have a new testament open before with the words of Our Lord and Saviour as given above. The God-man never did or said anything without a purpose. Who am I, a mere man, to question His teaching? What I, and any other believer, may do is question whether something is or is not in accord with His teaching, surely?

You may question all you like, but if you say one thing and the Church, whose Authority transcends even that of Scripture, says another, I hope you'll forgive the Christian Faithful that go with the more Authoritative source.

greekischristian post suggests that this convention of referring to the Patriarch thus is something of men, and in all humility could easily be set aside as example to all.

It is a convention of men to describe this great see of Christendom, but then again, all descriptions, even calling God Holy is a convention of Men. Though I submit that a See as Great as Constantinople is certainly worthy of such a title, and even that such a title as 'All-Holiness' is insufficient for its glory. The Title is, of course, Associated with the See, it reflects not the greatness of the man per se, but rather the greatness of his posistion, the posistion of Oecumenical Patriarch, first in Dignity and Authority in all the world. The Holiness of this Great Throne reflects the Holiness of the Church as a whole, to Deny the title of 'His All-Holiness' to the Oecumenical (Universal) Patriarch is to deny the Holiness of the Church, of the Body of Christ, which he, on this earth, represents, it is an attack against the very Holiness of Christ. Perhaps, if instead of trying to attack the Body of Christ you were to submit yourself to it, you could benifit from the patristic and episcopal exegesis of Scripture, which is far more competent (to say nothing of Authoritative) than the protestant pseudo-scholarship you have thus far presented.

Oh, and no, you did not answer Anastasios' question, because if the Theotokos or any of the Saints can be called Holy (as their titles imply), then your exegesis, and hence argument, is undermined.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2005, 09:28:14 AM »

Although I obviously dispute the position of Constantinople and her Chalcedonian Patriarch in Orthodox Christendom, I can at least agree with GiC, that the reasoning underlying StephenG’s objection is based on an exegesis that one would find typical of “protestant pseudo-scholarship.”

Quote
.......When our Lord Jesus Christ, who a Perfect, Sinless man and Perfect God, was addressed by a lawyer as 'Good Teacher', He did not accept it, but rather said to the lawyer: Why callest thou me good? there is noe good but one that is God.

StephenG, if you and Elder Philotheos want to interpret Mark 10:18 in a woodenly literal manner, taking it to its logical conclusion so as to expel any other than God Himself from any appellation of goodness (or holiness), maybe you would like to explain why the very Scriptures from which you quote, themselves testify that certain men are aJplou'ß (Psalm 37:23; 112:5; Prov. 12:2; Mt. 12:35; Lk 19:17; Acts 11:24)? The fact of the matter is Stephen, God is “not good[/holy] by sharing in any other goodness[/holiness], because the good[/holy] by which he is good[/holy], is Himself” (St Augustine, Letter to Macedonius), therefore “If then there are any other things called good[/holy] in Scripture” says Origen - and we may add to this condition, if any other is called good/holy amongst us whether they be Saints or Heirarchs or any other, “all these are so called by an inexact use of the word, since the goodness contained in them is accidental and not essential.” (Origen, On First Principles) Thus, says St Gregory Nazianzen, it is “Comsummate goodness[/holiness], he meant, belongs to God alone, though the word “good” (Theological Orations, On the Son)

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2005, 10:08:24 AM »

First, the Elder died in 1980. Second, I have read your post several times and am still of the opinion given by the Elder. Such titles are, how may one put it, unnecessary and ..........

That a bishop, any bishop should take a title used for the Theotokos is surely not just unnecessary, but at best presumptive?

As for protestant 'psuedo-scholarship', I would not know having no experience or knowledge of either of the elements you refer to, and will leave to others more familiar with one, other or both, if you will allow.

Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2005, 10:54:37 AM »

Quote
I have read your post several times and am still of the opinion given by the Elder. Such titles are, how may one put it unnecessary and ..........

Whether they are necessary or not is not the issue here; you were implying that the attribution of such titles to men was blasphemous, and that the reception of such titles by such men was to no more or less usurp a divine prerogative of God.

Quote
That a bishop, any bishop should take a title used for the Theotokos...

I thought you said that you read over my post several times; how is it that you missed my proof that the scriptures themselves give the titles in question that are attributed to God, to men also?

Quote
...is surely not just unnecessary, but at best presumptive?

Presumptive in the sense of affording a reasonable basis for acquiescence? Surely. Necessary in application according to a derivative sense, whereby one recognizes and acknowledges the heriarch so ascribed as a mediator of God’s goodness/holiness and authority? Indeed.

Peace.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2005, 11:14:45 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
SaintShenouti
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 224


« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2005, 02:15:37 PM »

Remember the days of the early church when there were but bishops and an overseeing archbishop?ÂÂ  Archbishops do indeed have the right to a title of "Holiness" by virtue of continuation of the apostolic tradition.ÂÂ  It's not something a man takes for himself, so we can't blame the blessed Patriarch Bartholomew or Pope Shenouda for being called "Holiness." Besides, I think we all believe our blessed fathers the bishops are God-fearing men.ÂÂ  Maybe it is we, the laymen, that ought to examine ourselves and search our own hearts for such wickedness, myself being chief sinner.ÂÂ  
« Last Edit: September 26, 2005, 02:18:29 PM by SaintShenouti » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2005, 02:21:35 PM »

Although I obviously dispute the position of Constantinople and her Chalcedonian Patriarch in Orthodox Christendom, I can at least agree with GiC, that the reasoning underlying StephenG’s objection is based on an exegesis that one would find typical of “protestant pseudo-scholarship.”

Nor would I expect you too, but I'm sure would accept slightly modified argumnet centering on Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, rather than Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2005, 03:06:06 PM »

To question is too attack, now I think you may be presuming too much. And I have repeatedly read your post and find no scriptural reference or anything resembling one? Am I missing part of your response, dear Sir?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2005, 03:34:12 PM »

To question is too attack, now I think you may be presuming too much. And I have repeatedly read your post and find no scriptural reference or anything resembling one? Am I missing part of your response, dear Sir?

I stated the posistion of the Church, as manifested by the title long given to the Oecumenical Patriarch, I also stated the fact that the Church transcends Scripture, so why should I need to quote a lesser authority when I have already cited a greater authority? I dont believe in Sola Scriptura nor even in the infallibility of Scripture, so I will not limit my arguments to those grounds.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2005, 03:40:43 PM »

The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of The Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew (Saint Chrysostom Press, Missouri, 1992) gives the following interpretation:

The man did not come testing Christ, but desiring to learn and thirsting for eternal life. He approached Christ as if Christ were a mere man. That is why the Lord says, why callest thou Me good? There is none good but One, that is, God.' This means, if you call Me good thinking I am one of the teachers, you speak wrongly, for no man is essentially good; both because we are changeable and easily turned away from good, and because, by comparison with God's goodness, human goodness is counted as wickedness.

±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±

All of this gives me much to digest and to think about. I would gladly bow before the Oecumenical Patriarch if his teaching were wholly in keeping with the mind of the Church. But just as the pious Elder was grief stricken over an ever increasing closeness of the Oecumenical Throne to an unrepentant Rome; so I have great hesitation.

As the Elder wrote:

'When our Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, was on earth, He said to his disciples and His listeners: "Beware of false prophets, which come in the guise of sheep, but inwardly are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits". And, elsewhere, He says, "Beware for many deceivers and false Christs and false prophets shall appear in the world and shall deceive many, even from among the elect."

And we both know that in times past ravening wolves have occupied great sees, even that of The City. Therefore I will listen and proceed with great caution.
Logged
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2005, 03:43:38 PM »

I do not wish to limit, or to appear to limit your 'arguments', merely to understand. That you are irritated I can see, but I am more interested in understanding, if you will forgive me.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2005, 04:34:45 PM »

Well you come in here launching yet another attack against the Oecumenical Throne, and this time from a protestant perspective, what did you expect? If you want an explination, I'll give you one taking a page from St. Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite and state that such a title, infact any title, is only appropriate for man, because it cannot describe God.

God is not holy, nor is he just, nor righteous, nor good, nor merciful, nor benevolent, nor powerful, nor authoritative, nor anything else. To quote St. Dionysius' 'Mystical Theology,'

Quote
It [i.e. The One, or God] has no power, it is not power, nor is it light. It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding since it is neither knowledge nor truth. It is not kingship, It is not wisdom. It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness. Nor is it a spirit, in the sense in which we understand that term. It is not sonship or fatherhood and it is nothing known to us or to any other being. it falls neither within the predicate of nonbeing nor of being. Existing beings do not know it as it actually is and it does not know them as they are. There is no speaking of it, nor name or knowldege of it. Darkness and light, error and truth -- it is none of these. It is beyond assertion and denial. We make assertions and denials of what is next to it, but never of it, for it is both beyond every assertion, being the perfect and unique cause of all things, and, by virtue of its preeminenty simple and absolute nature, free of every limitation, beyond every limitation; it is also beyond every denial.

A statement that none is holy but God is an attempt to remove the world 'holy' from its standard use and place it above all creation, not so that it is capable for describing God, for this is impossible, but so that it may better attempt to describe that which, while closest and next to God, is still beyond infinitely removed from Him. To refer to the His All-Holiness as 'holy' is a proper usage of the word, a description of that which we can comprehend; to refer to God as 'holy' is an improper usage of the word, but is acceptable as an established convention, provided we understand that this 'holiness' is a 'trans-holiness' that both affirms and denies the holiness of God, while simultaniously neither affirming nor denying it, nor making any assertion nor denial in regard to it. For to assert that God is holy in any knowable sense is to limit God by the extent of the theoretical possibilities of human knowledge, and, thus, deny his divinity.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2005, 06:32:16 PM »

Quote, "Well you come in here.........."

This is the free-for-all forum is it not? And am I equally entitled to raise a matter? And has not the Oecumenical Throne through the introduction of a calendar change, and its' ecumenical activities raised questions among many Orthodox? These include the late Blessed Justin Popovich of Serbia and many others. Educated men, pastors and theologians among them.

I do not attack the Oecumenical Throne but question some things, as do many others on this forum.

However, perhaps I may reflect whether or not being a member if beneficial and whether it would better to withdraw. BUT thank you for taking the time to reply and I will try to comprehend the points you make and follow up some of the references given. For that I am in your debt.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2005, 08:13:43 PM »

This is the free-for-all forum is it not? And am I equally entitled to raise a matter?

You most certainly are, but then I am also free to be somewhat annoyed at yet another attack against the Oecumenical Throne, and though I generally enjoy such debates, I'm not too fond of debates that begin on terms, or with statements, I would regard as protestant.

Quote
And has not the Oecumenical Throne through the introduction of a calendar change, and its' ecumenical activities raised questions among many Orthodox? These include the late Blessed Justin Popovich of Serbia and many others. Educated men, pastors and theologians among them.

Yes, the Oecumenical Throne was responsible for the abandoning of the Pagan Calendar and embracing a more accurate one. Her cordial relations with other Churches has created some disagreement, but most such people showed their true colours by schisming against the Great Church of Christ.

Quote
However, perhaps I may reflect whether or not being a member if beneficial and whether it would better to withdraw. BUT thank you for taking the time to reply and I will try to comprehend the points you make and follow up some of the references given. For that I am in your debt.

You are, of course, free to come or go, though this would seem like too insignificant an issue to be too deeply offend. In any case, I do hope my response was helpful.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2005, 07:30:50 AM »

Quote
And I have repeatedly read your post and find no scriptural reference or anything resembling one? Am I missing part of your response, dear Sir?

Maybe the very part where I refer you to other places within the Scriptures themselves, in which certain men are called good/holy?

Maybe you would like to explain why the very Scriptures from which you quote, themselves testify that certain men are aJplou'ß [greek word employed in Mark 10:18 denoting God’s goodness] (Psalm 37:23; 112:5; Prov. 12:2; Mt. 12:35; Lk 19:17; Acts 11:24)?

You have two valid explanations resolving this apparent inconsistency, both of which are grounded in Patristic data: 1) the one given by me regarding the fact that God’s goodness is absolute and essential to His being, whereas mans goodness is “inexact” by virtue of its being derivative, and 2) the one given by GiC regarding the fact that, on the contrary, it is the goodness ascribed to God which is in fact “inexact” by virtue of His being beyond goodness, which is in itself the standard by which men are measured.

I really don’t think it is reasonable to disregard the testimony of the very Scriptures you attempt to use to support your case + the Patristic interpretation of such Scriptures, simply because of the testimony of one elder Philotheos. But take it as you will, I think I have exhausted my arguments on this issue, there is nothing further for me to say here.

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2005, 10:50:16 AM »

I do not wish to exhaust the patience of others, nor to trouble them - however insignificant I may be, an indeed I am insignificant. My thanks to both of you who have tried to educate me a matter that has troubled me, and my apologies for any hurt I have brought to you and anyone else in the process.

Couple of observations, the calendar of the Church for centures - the calendar of the Church, is not a pagan one but one sanctified by the very all the local churches of the Orthodox Church, including that of the great City for centuries. And it remains the Church calendar for local churches, including the Holy Church of Russia.

And I have always been taught that our faith and practice is based on Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. And there is only one Church, The Orthodox Church, and not as those protestants who uphold the branch theory would have, many.

But already this thread has strayed and I withdraw. Again my humble apologies and my thanks. I will take the posts of EkhristosAnesti and greekischristian and reflect in my own time on them.
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2005, 11:25:48 AM »

Stephen,

I am certainly not offended or hurt by anything you’ve said. Forgive me if I in turn have come across offensively; I certainly never intended to.

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
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 0.109 seconds with 52 queries.