Western orders after 1968 probably a fake

[Mexican]

I came across this article that questions the validity (according to the Western views) of the Episcopal Consecrations and thus the orders of the Western Church after 1968.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=74&catname=11

What consequences would this have in the East-West relationships. Most of the Orthodox Churches receive Western priests by vesting acknowledging that the ordination rite was performed and that the Holy Ghost affirrms what is infirm.

The article claims that the Western view of the orders has changed and refers to administrative power and does not make any reference to the supernatural nature of the priesthood.

[yBeayf]

These are sedevacantists, and rather wacky ones at that. I think they can be safely ignored when considering east-west relations.

[ChristusDominus]

These are sedevacantists, and rather wacky ones at that. I think they can be safely ignored when considering east-west relations.

SSPX are not sedevacantists.

You confusing them with SSPV; they are sedevacantists


http://www.sspv.net/

[monkvasyl]

"Fake" is a misleading word to use.  According to the article I read, these ordinations are valid, but illicit (illegal).  As they did not have the blessing of the Catholic Church. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31406495/ns/world_news-world_faith/

To quote from this article:  "The church considers the society's ordinations are "valid but illicit." They are valid because Lefebvre was a validly ordained bishop in the Catholic Church, and thus could validly ordain others. But because Lefebvre was suspended in 1976, he had no authority from the pope to consecrate bishops, meaning their consecrations were illicit, or illegal in the church's eyes. Subsequent ordinations the group carries out are similarly considered "valid but illicit.""

These traditionalists (Lefebvre's group) consider anything after Vatican II as not be valid.  Infact, they consider by changing the "Words of Institution" and putting them in the language of the people, the bread and wine are not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  As well as believe as the popes from this point on are anti-popes.

[arimethea]

What consequences would this have in the East-West relationships. Most of the Orthodox Churches receive Western priests by vesting acknowledging that the ordination rite was performed and that the Holy Ghost affirrms what is infirm.

I would say only a few Orthodox Churches receive western priest by vesting. The most common practice now is to confirm, marry (if applicable) and then ordain through the ranks.

[ialmisry]

What consequences would this have in the East-West relationships. Most of the Orthodox Churches receive Western priests by vesting acknowledging that the ordination rite was performed and that the Holy Ghost affirrms what is infirm.

I would say only a few Orthodox Churches receive western priest by vesting. The most common practice now is to confirm, marry (if applicable) and then ordain through the ranks.

And by Western we mean those ordained by the Vatican.  All others (although I'm not sure about "Old Catholic") have been re(ordained).

[ChristusDominus]

What consequences would this have in the East-West relationships. Most of the Orthodox Churches receive Western priests by vesting acknowledging that the ordination rite was performed and that the Holy Ghost affirrms what is infirm.

I would say only a few Orthodox Churches receive western priest by vesting. The most common practice now is to confirm, marry (if applicable) and then ordain through the ranks.

Is that what happened with Peter Gillquist's Church? I heard that was a fiasco!

[ialmisry]

What consequences would this have in the East-West relationships. Most of the Orthodox Churches receive Western priests by vesting acknowledging that the ordination rite was performed and that the Holy Ghost affirrms what is infirm.

I would say only a few Orthodox Churches receive western priest by vesting. The most common practice now is to confirm, marry (if applicable) and then ordain through the ranks.

Is that what happened with Peter Gillquist's Church? I heard that was a fiasco!

You heard wrong.

[ChristusDominus]

What consequences would this have in the East-West relationships. Most of the Orthodox Churches receive Western priests by vesting acknowledging that the ordination rite was performed and that the Holy Ghost affirrms what is infirm.

I would say only a few Orthodox Churches receive western priest by vesting. The most common practice now is to confirm, marry (if applicable) and then ordain through the ranks.

Is that what happened with Peter Gillquist's Church? I heard that was a fiasco!

You heard wrong.

So what's the scoop?

[ialmisry]

What consequences would this have in the East-West relationships. Most of the Orthodox Churches receive Western priests by vesting acknowledging that the ordination rite was performed and that the Holy Ghost affirrms what is infirm.

I would say only a few Orthodox Churches receive western priest by vesting. The most common practice now is to confirm, marry (if applicable) and then ordain through the ranks.

Is that what happened with Peter Gillquist's Church? I heard that was a fiasco!

You heard wrong.

So what's the scoop?

Nothing.

[ChristusDominus]

What consequences would this have in the East-West relationships. Most of the Orthodox Churches receive Western priests by vesting acknowledging that the ordination rite was performed and that the Holy Ghost affirrms what is infirm.

I would say only a few Orthodox Churches receive western priest by vesting. The most common practice now is to confirm, marry (if applicable) and then ordain through the ranks.

Is that what happened with Peter Gillquist's Church? I heard that was a fiasco!

You heard wrong.

So what's the scoop?

Nothing.

If it were a Catholic fiasco you would have all the details.

[ialmisry]

What consequences would this have in the East-West relationships. Most of the Orthodox Churches receive Western priests by vesting acknowledging that the ordination rite was performed and that the Holy Ghost affirrms what is infirm.

I would say only a few Orthodox Churches receive western priest by vesting. The most common practice now is to confirm, marry (if applicable) and then ordain through the ranks.

Is that what happened with Peter Gillquist's Church? I heard that was a fiasco!

You heard wrong.

So what's the scoop?

Nothing.

If it were a Catholic fiasco you would have all the details.

Not at all, for example on another forum  I made an illusion to the question of the Ustashe in Croatia, a Vatican defender started a whole series of posts about Dushkin up in AK.  Finally I asked him what was the connection, and then he revealed that he took my reference to Croatia as a reference to the pedophile scandal going on there at the time, of which I knew nothing.

And on Byzcath I just became acquainted with the case of Edgardo Mortara.  Talk about a fiasco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara

[Pravoslavbob]

I came across this article that questions the validity (according to the Western views) of the Episcopal Consecrations and thus the orders of the Western Church after 1968.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=74&catname=11

What consequences would this have in the East-West relationships. Most of the Orthodox Churches receive Western priests by vesting acknowledging that the ordination rite was performed and that the Holy Ghost affirrms what is infirm.

The article claims that the Western view of the orders has changed and refers to administrative power and does not make any reference to the supernatural nature of the priesthood.

I am not trying to be confrontational or disparaging, but:  why are you reading this crazy stuff?  What possible spiritual benefit do you think you will derive from it?


On a more general note, why do Orthodox people sometimes get so concerned and wrapped up in alien and erroneous concepts like "validity"?

[ialmisry]

I came across this article that questions the validity (according to the Western views) of the Episcopal Consecrations and thus the orders of the Western Church after 1968.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=74&catname=11

What consequences would this have in the East-West relationships. Most of the Orthodox Churches receive Western priests by vesting acknowledging that the ordination rite was performed and that the Holy Ghost affirrms what is infirm.

The article claims that the Western view of the orders has changed and refers to administrative power and does not make any reference to the supernatural nature of the priesthood.

I am not trying to be confrontational or disparaging, but:  why are you reading this crazy stuff?  What possible spiritual benefit do you think you will derive from it?


On a more general note, why do Orthodox people sometimes get so concerned and wrapped up in alien and erroneous concepts like "validity"?

That's the first question we should ask.

[ChristusDominus]

Not at all, for example on another forum  I made an illusion to the question of the Ustashe in Croatia, a Vatican defender started a whole series of posts about Dushkin up in AK.  Finally I asked him what was the connection, and then he revealed that he took my reference to Croatia as a reference to the pedophile scandal going on there at the time, of which I knew nothing.

And on Byzcath I just became acquainted with the case of Edgardo Mortara.  Talk about a fiasco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara

Yes, the dark side of Catholicism or anything sinister related to the Church is more inticing. I like the way you avoided the question by posting that garbage from Wikipedia. Did you even look at the sources? One source there, happens to be a John Cornwell , author of the book "Hitler's Pope". Wouldn't you think he'd be a bit biased? Just take a look at his work controversial work.

I've made my point.

[ialmisry]

Not at all, for example on another forum  I made an illusion to the question of the Ustashe in Croatia, a Vatican defender started a whole series of posts about Dushkin up in AK.  Finally I asked him what was the connection, and then he revealed that he took my reference to Croatia as a reference to the pedophile scandal going on there at the time, of which I knew nothing.

And on Byzcath I just became acquainted with the case of Edgardo Mortara.  Talk about a fiasco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara

Yes, the dark side of Catholicism or anything sinister related to the Church is more inticing. I like the way you avoided the question by posting that garbage from Wikipedia.

I'd post the thread when the Vatican folk are discussing it, and where I came across it, but that's not allowed.  I told you where it is, you can look it up.
The Wikipedia article was just for those who, like me, had never heard of him.  What avoidance?  I took it as a rhetorical question, but if you demand an answer, no, I don't keep up with all the scandals of your church.

Don't ask questions you don't want answered.

As for garbage, are you for kidnapping children?

Did you even look at the sources? One source there, happens to be a John Cornwell , author of the book "Hitler's Pope". Wouldn't you think he'd be a bit biased? Just take a look at his work controversial work.

Do you look at the rest of them? E.g.

Edgardo Levi-Mortara's Testimony for Beatification of Pius IX - Rome, Italy (ZENIT.org)

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope025501.htm

Yeah, it's biased.   Anti-Catholicism at its finest.

I've made my point.

You assUme much.

[ChristusDominus]

As for garbage, are you for kidnapping children?

What would make you think I am? Are you?

Do you look at the rest of them? E.g.
Edgardo Levi-Mortara's Testimony for Beatification of Pius IX - Rome, Italy (ZENIT.org)
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope025501.htm

Yeah, it's biased.   Anti-Catholicism at its finest

No, that's your task.

You assUme much.

The sentiment is mutual.

Don't ask questions you don't want answered.

Like the one you avoided?

[ChristusDominus]

You heard wrong.

It was a legitimate inquiry. Maybe the Orthodox person that mentioned this to me was misinformed?

[Irish Hermit]

Please have a look at a small messasge by a Catholic Melkite as to why Catholic Orders are invalid long before 1968.

See Message #20

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13357.msg185268.html#msg185268

[Irish Hermit]

With regard to the reception of Roman Catholic converts,
the Orthodox teaching has been summed up in the Patriarchal and Synodical letter of 1875, stating:

“Having considered in synod the matter under discussion, namely, the baptism of
the Latins, that is, whether it can be regarded as valid or not, we saw clearly in
the historical facts and the ecclesiastical enactments of various times, that this
matter bears many pros and cons and has had many advocates and opponents,
which certainly has not escaped Your Excellency. For even before the Schism,
Patriarch Kerularios used to baptize the Latins who converted to Orthodoxy, as it
is stated in the Pittakion which Humbert, the Exarch of Leo IX left on the Table of
St. Sophia against Patriarch Michael, and from an epistle of this Patriarch to Patriarch
Peter of Alexandria and from the fact that this act of Kerularios appears
to have found many imitators as time went on. Indeed the Lateran Synod of 1215
criticized the Orthodox for re-baptizing the Latins, i.e. the converts from the Latin
Church.

After the Schism, however, we have, among the many others, Mark
Eugenikos, who pronounces that we should only anoint the Latins with Myrhon,
and besides, there are synodical decisions, such as that summoned in 1207, and
that summoned in 1484 under Patriarch Symeon in which the other three
Patriarchs were present, on which occasion the well known Acolouthy was
composed, and also another one in 1600 summoned in the Royal city and
another one summoned in Moscow by Patriarch Ioasaph of Moscow in 1667 on
which occasion two other Patriarchs from the East were present, Paisios of
Alexandria and Makarios of Antioch. All these declared that only with Myrhon
(Chrism) should we perfect the converts from the Western Church.

On the other hand we have the Decision taken in Moscow in 1622 by
Philaret Patriarch of Russia and the Horos which was issued under Cyril V, Patriarch of
Constantinople in 1755 and which became accepted by all the then Patriarchs,
which indicates that they [the Latin converts] should be baptized.

Thus, the baptism of the Westerners, was sometimes regarded as valid, because
it was done in the name of the Holy Trinity and was referred to the proper baptism,
and sometimes as invalid, because of the many irregularities of form with which it was
clothed with the passage of time by the constantly increasing vain study of the
Western Church. Hence, the Most Holy Russian Church, taking its lead from
obvious reasons makes use of the Decisions of the newer Synod of Moscow
under Patriarch Ioasaph of Moscow, discerning that they are contributive to the
benefit of the Church in that place, whereas the Churches in the East consider it
necessary for the benefit of Orthodoxy to follow the Horos which had been issued
under Cyril V.

Since these things happen to be such, it is left to the spiritual
discernment of Your Excellency and of the rest of the Synodical members to
accept or reject the use of economy which another Church has upheld for more
than two centuries without wavering, if, as she writes, this economy implies many
benefits to the Church there and secures her from encroaching dangers.

Whenever, then, the local orthodox Churches might be able to gather together,
then, with God’s help, the desired agreement on this subject will take place, as
with others as well."

(Dragas, G, The manner of reception of Roman Catholic converts into the Orthodox Church, Myriobiblos Library, 1998, http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Dragas_RomanCatholic.html).

[ialmisry]

As for garbage, are you for kidnapping children?

What would make you think I am? Are you?

Your nit picking on a source so you can both wail about the Hitler's pope nonsense and try to evade the issue that the pope of Rome kidnapped a child, using the full force of the powers of state to do so. And in so doing, as the sources point out, discredited the papal states as the backward relic of the dark ages that it was, leading directly, in part, to their abolitionment.

As my OP identifies it as a scandal, it would indicate I am not for state sponsered child knapping (as is well known here, I'm fighting the state of IL on this issue).  Your refusal of calling a spade a spade is what raised the question.

]Do you look at the rest of them? E.g.
Edgardo Levi-Mortara's Testimony for Beatification of Pius IX - Rome, Italy (ZENIT.org)
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope025501.htm

Yeah, it's biased.   Anti-Catholicism at its finest

No, that's your task.

What, because I won't look the other way?  Won't ignore inconvenient truths?

You assUme much.

The sentiment is mutual.

Don't ask questions you don't want answered.

Like the one you avoided?

As I've answered all the questions you asked, and you have yet to answer one on point, I don't know what you are talking about.

[ialmisry]

You heard wrong.

It was a legitimate inquiry. Maybe the Orthodox person that mentioned this to me was misinformed?

Are you refering to Ben Lonmond?
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ben_Lomond_Crisis

You have to give some details of what exactly you are insinuating.

[ChristusDominus]

Your nit picking on a source so you can both wail about the Hitler's pope nonsense and try to evade the issue that the pope of Rome kidnapped a child, using the full force of the powers of state to do so. And in so doing, as the sources point out, discredited the papal states as the backward relic of the dark ages that it was, leading directly, in part, to their abolitionment.

Is the Pot calling the Kettle black? All you did was respond with more Vatican skeletons rather than answering directly. Why don't you read your own responses? Deviating off topic is a speciality of yours. Stick to the issue and don't confound it anymore by digging up irrelevant dirt.

As my OP identifies it as a scandal, it would indicate I am not for state sponsered child knapping (as is well known here, I'm fighting the state of IL on this issue).  Your refusal of calling a spade a spade is what raised the question.

So I share the sins of those certain indiviuals guilty of kidnapping? You seem to insinuate that I am, since I am a RC. I never said my Church was white as snow, is yours? Please feel free to cast the first stone...oh, you already have.
 

What, because I won't look the other way?  Won't ignore inconvenient truths?

Clever tactic, a good way to avoid the original question. Shift the guilt on me? I am still wondering why on earth you would bring this up, and this is relevant to my question?

As I've answered all the questions you asked, and you have yet to answer one on point, I don't know what you are talking about.

Amnesia, how convenient. You didn't answer my question, and it's clear I won't get a straight answer from you. So I'll let it rest.
 One question I do have for you; were you anti-Catholic as a Protestant as well? I have seen this trend in some converts to Orthodoxy.

[ChristusDominus]

You heard wrong.

It was a legitimate inquiry. Maybe the Orthodox person that mentioned this to me was misinformed?

Are you refering to Ben Lonmond?
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ben_Lomond_Crisis

You have to give some details of what exactly you are insinuating.

No, I think it was Peter Gilquist's Church? I think some clergy there were ordained without any seminary training, but I don't know much about it, that's why I had mentioned it since you have loads of information. I was not digging up dirt, just wanted to know what had happened. But I'll drop it for now

[The young fogey]

Sedevacantists claiming RC orders have been invalid since 1968 are probably not worth taking seriously.

AFAIK the only churches from whom (and not always) the Orthodox receive priests by vesting (that is, economically, without an ordination ceremony) are Rome, the Oriental communion, the Assyrian Church and possibly splinter churches from the Orthodox communion; ex-Old Catholics (I mean real Old Catholics from the Utrecht communion not vagante fakers) like Anglicans and (other) Protestants are reordained. Although 100 years ago it seems economic reception of Old Catholics was done at least once: the infamous Joseph René Vilatte was a priest of the Russian Church on paper very briefly.

Gillquist and company in the Evangelical Orthodox Church they founded were self-consecrated bishops. When they became Orthodox they were ordained as priests.

[ChristusDominus]

Sedevacantists claiming RC orders have been invalid since 1968 are probably not worth taking seriously.

AFAIK the only churches from whom (and not always) the Orthodox receive priests by vesting (that is, economically, without an ordination ceremony) are Rome, the Oriental communion, the Assyrian Church and possibly splinter churches from the Orthodox communion; ex-Old Catholics (I mean real Old Catholics from the Utrecht communion not vagante fakers) like Anglicans and (other) Protestants are reordained. Although 100 years ago it seems economic reception of Old Catholics was done at least once: the infamous Joseph René Vilatte was a priest of the Russian Church on paper very briefly.

Gillquist and company in the Evangelical Orthodox Church they founded were self-consecrated bishops. When they became Orthodox they were ordained as priests.

Did this provoke an uproar in other jurisdictions?

[The young fogey]

Why would it? They weren't received as clergy but ordained after they converted.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I don't think that ChristusDominus really wants to just learn more about the EOC, Father Peter Guilquest, or Ben Lomond. All he had to do was to go to Wiki or Orthodox Wiki and familiarize himself with the basic facts. I don't think that he is lazy so I am left with the conclusion that he is probably interested more in stirring the pot than anything else. Which is fine, of course, but gives another flavor to his exchange with IelMisry.

[ChristusDominus]

I don't think that ChristusDominus really wants to just learn more about the EOC, Father Peter Guilquest, or Ben Lomond. All he had to do was to go to Wiki or Orthodox Wiki and familiarize himself with the basic facts. I don't think that he is lazy so I am left with the conclusion that he is probably interested more in stirring the pot than anything else. Which is fine, of course, but gives another flavor to his exchange with IelMisry.

I am searching as we speak, this is something I recently heard and that's why I was confounded. I thought everything went fine. He was recieved, ordained, and that was that. I just heard something to the contrary very recently, hence my inquiry. For your information, I heard this at the Orthodox Church I am now attending.

I am attend an Orthodox Church because I am drawn to its ancient ways. I still have a few unanswered questions, but that is why I attend faith classes. I am learning and having doubts made clear. But I am still a RC and I don't appreciate mud slung at the Church of my upbringing. I am sure you would feel the same way.

As for stirring the pot, you wouldn't know anything about that since your Church is not the one having mud slung at constantly. I think you are mistaken if you think I come here to stir the pot or sling mud. All you have to do is read my posts from the past on other threads.

On the contrary, I think you want to stir the pot by making that accusation. Others will read your post and then focus in on me? May God forgive you

[stashko]

What consequences would this have in the East-West relationships. Most of the Orthodox Churches receive Western priests by vesting acknowledging that the ordination rite was performed and that the Holy Ghost affirrms what is infirm.

I would say only a few Orthodox Churches receive western priest by vesting. The most common practice now is to confirm, marry (if applicable) and then ordain through the ranks.

Is that what happened with Peter Gillquist's Church? I heard that was a fiasco!

You heard wrong.

So what's the scoop?

Nothing.

If it were a Catholic fiasco you would have all the details.

Oh! this is funny,,,HaHaHa

[Ebor]

I don't think that ChristusDominus really wants to just learn more about the EOC, Father Peter Guilquest, or Ben Lomond. All he had to do was to go to Wiki or Orthodox Wiki and familiarize himself with the basic facts. I don't think that he is lazy so I am left with the conclusion that he is probably interested more in stirring the pot than anything else.

The various Wiki don't have a lot of information compared to, for example, Fr. Gilquist's book or other works. Also, searching for information on-line can be tricky if one does not know some particular name/phrase that can weed out irrelevant sites.  ChristusDominus was asking for more information then that, it seems to me. 

[lubeltri]

These traditionalists (Lefebvre's group) consider anything after Vatican II as not be valid.  Infact, they consider by changing the "Words of Institution" and putting them in the language of the people, the bread and wine are not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  As well as believe as the popes from this point on are anti-popes.

No, they are not sedevacantists, and they don't consider the new Mass invalid---just objectively inferior to the classical Roman rite (which they are free to believe). They have issues with some of the language of the Second Vatican Council, chiefly on religious liberty and ecumenism, and they desire some clarifications of their meaning from the Holy See (talks are ongoing with the hope of full canonical regularity). They consider it a valid Council, but see it as a mistake.

There ARE some sedevacantist ex-SSPX priests---they were expelled by Marcel Lefebvre 25 years ago when they railed against Lefebvre's requirement that all SSPX priests celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Missal of John XXIII (who called Vatican II and whom sedevacantist consider a false pope). 

[lubeltri]

I am attend an Orthodox Church because I am drawn to its ancient ways. I still have a few unanswered questions, but that is why I attend faith classes.

If you are really interested in becoming Orthodox, get off the EO online boards. They will ruin it for you.

[lubeltri]

For a powerful refutation of the sedevacantist nutter Cekada's screed linked to above, check out the late, great card-carrying traditionalist Michael Davies' The Order of Melchisedech: A Defence of the Catholic Priesthood

http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/melchisedech.htm

[ChristusDominus]

I don't think that ChristusDominus really wants to just learn more about the EOC, Father Peter Guilquest, or Ben Lomond. All he had to do was to go to Wiki or Orthodox Wiki and familiarize himself with the basic facts. I don't think that he is lazy so I am left with the conclusion that he is probably interested more in stirring the pot than anything else.

The various Wiki don't have a lot of information compared to, for example, Fr. Gilquist's book or other works. Also, searching for information on-line can be tricky if one does not know some particular name/phrase that can weed out irrelevant sites.  ChristusDominus was asking for more information then that, it seems to me. 

You are correct, I was til someone started mixing apples with oranges.

[ChristusDominus]

I am attend an Orthodox Church because I am drawn to its ancient ways. I still have a few unanswered questions, but that is why I attend faith classes.

If you are really interested in becoming Orthodox, get off the EO online boards. They will ruin it for you.

That's a possibilty.

[ChristusDominus]

I don't think that ChristusDominus really wants to just learn more about the EOC, Father Peter Guilquest, or Ben Lomond. All he had to do was to go to Wiki or Orthodox Wiki and familiarize himself with the basic facts. I don't think that he is lazy so I am left with the conclusion that he is probably interested more in stirring the pot than anything else.

The various Wiki don't have a lot of information compared to, for example, Fr. Gilquist's book or other works. Also, searching for information on-line can be tricky if one does not know some particular name/phrase that can weed out irrelevant sites.  ChristusDominus was asking for more information then that, it seems to me. 

Wikie's info is very limited and the sources seem dubious most of the time.

[deusveritasest]

On a more general note, why do Orthodox people sometimes get so concerned and wrapped up in alien and erroneous concepts like "validity"?

You do not recognize that there are certain fundamental forms of the Mysteries that Christ instructed us in and that the Church should (or perhaps even must) uphold for the proper operation of the Holy Spirit?

[ialmisry]

On a more general note, why do Orthodox people sometimes get so concerned and wrapped up in alien and erroneous concepts like "validity"?

You do not recognize that there are certain fundamental forms of the Mysteries that Christ instructed us in and that the Church should (or perhaps even must) uphold for the proper operation of the Holy Spirit?

Outside the Church, it is not our problem.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Western orders after 1968 probably a fake