Catholic and Orthodox reunion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy_Carson said:
.
Click to expand...
Why is the modern papacy more necessary today than it was in the age of the Fathers?
Why is our conciliar model with local self-rule out of date?
I can see that the Protestant model of democracy in all things including doctrine is dangerous, because we have seen what has happened to mainline American Protestantism. The feminists and gays organized a well orchestrated political campaign to badger the Episcopalian, Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church to reject the clear teaching of the Bible and accept homosexuality. It is only a matter of time until the Untied Methodists follow them.

However, in our system, no one can change the doctrine. It is also very clear that our Bishops are the guardians of the worship and doctrine of the Church. If someone stood up at one of our conventions and proposed a motion changing the doctrine or moral teachings of the Orthodox Church, he or she would be called out of order by the Metropolitan. Only financial and temporal matters are subject to a majority vote. The faithful do participate in the election of our Bishops, but that is the extent of their influence over spiritual matters

If the Church survived the savage persecution of the Romans and resolved difficult doctrinal matters using the conciliar model, why cannot it continue to do the same? I believe that giving one man all the power is very dangerous. I believe that history has proven me right. All one has to do is look at the papacy of Alexander VI to see that. I asked some time ago if there is any mechanism to remove an incompetent, heretical, corrupt or Pope who is too ill to carry out his duties and received no answer. That must mean that if the College of Cardinals make a mistake and elects the wrong man, there is no way to correct it. If our Holy Synod makes a mistake, the Holy Synod can remove a bad Patriarch, as happened several years ago in Jerusalem. If the Pope needs correction, or makes a bad decision, is there no way to override him? I do not think so. I cannot see how that sort of thing could be good for the Church. In our Church, the Holy Synod can and does override a decision of the Patriarch.

to be in force the Holy Synods of the autocephalous Churches must accept the decision of a Pan-Orthodox council. The faithful make all decisions on matters of finance anYou asked what I understand primacy means. It all depends on the context. I will describe how things are done in the Antiochian Orthodox Church. A Metropolitan has primacy over the Bishops under him, That means that he can tell them what to do, but it also means that he has to meet with them in a local Synod and arrive at major decisions through consensus. It also means that if a parish priest feels that he is being treated unfairly by his Bishop, he can appeal to the Metropolitan. We use the title Archbishop as an honorific title rather than an administrative title. Our Bishop Joseph in Los Angeles, was recently raised to the rank of Archbishop but he is still under the Metropolitan who is the local primate.

CONTINUED
 
CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE

Because the North American jurisdiction of the Eastern Orthodox Patrirchate of Antioch received the right to self-rule, we are semi-independent. We chose our own Bishops here and only have to go to the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate for the election of our Metropolitan. Our Bishops are nominated by the convention of the Archdiocese which consists of the pastors and representatives of the local parishes. The convention nominates three men for each position. A local diocesan Bishop is elected by the Local Synod which is the Metropolitan and the other Bishops of the North American Church of Antioch. The Metropolitan is elected by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate from the list sent to him by the Archdiocesan convention. The name of every priest who meets the requirements are placed on the ballot that is submitted to the convention. These requirements are: he must have been a priest in this Archdiocese for at least 5 years, he must be celibate, and he must have graduated from an Orthodox seminary an obviously he must be fluent in English since we do have priests who were born in the Middle East who serve Arabic speaking parishes.
The Metropolitan, is however subject to the Patriarch, but the Patriarch must abide by the will of the Holy Synod which is made up of the Metropolitans of the Patriarchate. The Holy Synod meets twice a year and can also meet to resolve an emergency that cannot wait until the next meeting of the Holy Synod. The Holy Synod can override a decision of the Patriarch. No one has authority to change the doctrine of the Orthodox Church, or to issue new doctrines that contradict the doctrines already established by the Church. So the Patriarch has primacy over the Church of Antioch, but does not have absolute authority, but must abide by the will of the Holy Synod.

The Ecumenical Patriarch has primacy over the whole Orthodox Church, but this primacy is purely honorary as first among equals. He cannot interfere in the internal affairs of any other autocephalous Orthodox Church. All he can do is call and preside himself or through his representative at councils representing all the autocepahlous Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy. There is a limited right of appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch. For example a few years ago the Holy Synod of Jerusalem ousted their Patriarch. He appealed to Constantinople. However, the Ecumenical Patriarch did not make the decision, but called a meeting of the representatives of the autocephalous Churches that heard his arguments and voted to support the decision of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem. There was a schism in Bulgaria and the Ecumenical Patriarch called a meeting of the representatives of the autocephalous Churches that met and resolved the problem.
If there were to be a dispute over doctrine, Say some theologian writes a book that is very controversial and he is accused of heresy, the local Metropolitan and Holy Synod deals with the problem. If he feels unfairly treated, he can appeal to the Patriarch who will appoint an ecclesiastical court to hear the case and make a decision. If it becomes an international controversy, the Ecumenical Patriarch again calls a meeting of the leaders of the autocephalous Churches that considers the matter and makes the decision. However the Holy Synods of the autocephalous Churches of Orthodoxy must approve the decisions of a Pan-Orthodox council for them to go into effect. All ecumenical activities are coordinated through the office of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, the autocepalous Churches are represented on all commissions and representations at ecumenical meetings. Here in America ecumenical relations are done through the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, which approves all ecumenical dialogues and appoints representatives to a dialogue to produce a pan-Orthodox delegation based on the recommendations of the leaders of the various Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States.
Each jurisdiction decides what ecumenical organizaitons to join. For example, the Antiochian Archdiocese withdrew from the National Council of Churches several years ago because it had become too political, but we are members of Christian Churches Together. Orthodox delegates to The National Council of Churches and Christian Churches Together form a caucus together with the Oriental Orthodox to present a united witness to the majority Protestant organizations. Orthodox delegates of the various autocephalous Churches also form a caucus with the Oriental Orthodox at meetings of the World Council of Churches.
If a priest is disciplined by his local Bishop, he can appeal to the Metropolitan. If he feels that the Metropolitan has been unfair to him, he can appeal to the Patriarchate, which will appoint a court to hear the case.

I hope that has answered your question. In summary, no one man has absolute authority at any level of Orthodox organization. Every Priest, Bishop, Metropolitan or Patriarch is bond to follow the will of the local Synod or the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate. Internationally, all autocephalous Churches are represented at Pan-Orthodox meetings. However,d the temporal affairs of the Church. No one can change the doctrine of the Church or issue new doctrine.

Archpriest John W. Morris
 
theistgal said:
Randy, the Eastern Orthodox do not accept the “development of doctrine” and Newman was not EO. It is a bit unfair of you to scold Fr. John for rejecting what is, after all, primarily a Roman Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
I understand that. Is that rational? Newman makes the case for why it is not.

This unwillingness (and I choose that word because of its implications) to accept development hinders the unification of the Church.
 
frjohnmorris said:
H I also believe that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch is not foreign to the region or the result of Byzantine imperialism.
Click to expand...
I must say that I was shocked by the accusation that the Eastern Orthodox represented a “foreign” element. Both Egypt and Syria had been within the Byzantine Empire for hundreds of years - to put it in perspective compare with the life of the US. Before that they had both been under Hellenic control for another several hundred years and the ruling class in each (and that includes the bishops) were thoroughly Greek. Thus it was Greek against Greek, not Greeks vs. Natives.

Dhzeremi all but acknowledges this with the Oriental claim on the (originally) Greek hymn, “O Only Begotten Son”. Having been to Antioch I can also tell from experience about the Hellenization of the region. Not far from the Church of St. Peter, believed by many to be the oldest church in the world, you find a Greek idol carved into the mountainside that predates the Byzantines by several centuries.

These regions were Greek and solidly Byzantine. An argument could be made for imperial interference in church affairs, but such interference had long been the case, though it was a double edged sword. Certainly the OO have no issues accepting the first three councils, all brought about by Imperial interference.
 
Peter_J said:
I wish I had something good to say here, but I guess I don’t. After having read, among other things concerning Oriental Christians, a fair number of mardukm (or “Brother mardukm”)'s myriad of posts on the subject over the years, I’ve developed a little habit of sighing and saying nothing. :o
Click to expand...
I was responding to accusation from that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchte of Antioch is an example Byzantine Imerialism. I did not realize that I was responding two two different people First I was responding to Malphono. I thought that he was Syriac Orthodox, but it seems that he is a Maronite. Which is an Eastern Catholic Church in Communion with Rome, chiefly in Lebanon. That is why I was so shocked, because I thought that we had good relations with the Syriac Orthodox Church and then someone I thought was Syriac Orthodox posted some very mean spirited things about our Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. Then a Coptic Orthodox named dzheremi joined the dispute.
It seems rather strange for a Maronite to make an issue of the legitimacy of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, since Rome recognizes three different Patriarchs of Antioch, the Maronite Patriarch of Antioch, the Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, and the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch. But thinking about the history of the Marionite Church which began as a schism from Antioch, during the controversy over Monothelitism and went under Rome during the Crusades, I can understand his point of view. I do not agree with it, but I can understand it.

Archpriest John W. Morris
 
For the life of me I can’t understand what the difference is between an Oriental giving his honest opinion on the Byzantine sees of Antioch and Egypt and a Chalcedonian giving his honest opinion on the non-Chalcedonians and St. Dioscorus. Neither side is going to agree with or like what the other has to say, but somehow one is a terrible threat to unity and an unjust attack, and the other is standing up for his convictions because he “cannot lie”.

Once again the same behavior from a Chalcedonian is excused and justified, but from a non-Chalcedonian, no way. Ho hum; same lousy attitude, different day. When an apology(?) can’t even be given without being full of “but I’m still right; the Orientals are schismatics and their saints are terrible people”, it effectively stops being an apology and keeps being more evidence of why it is good that you’re on my ignore list, Fr. John Morris. :rolleyes:

I know you think you’re right. The Orientals think they’re right, too. Why not just say “Yeah, I overreacted; Sorry about that” and leave it at that?
 
We need the church to guide us into the truth that will set us free, but we also need to determine which church or churches we can rely on to teach the truth accurately. Today, there are many recognized Christian denominations throughout the world and at least two claimants to being the “one, true Church”. Given this situation, we realize one of the following must be true:
  1. Jesus established more than one church
  2. Jesus established one church, but it is an invisible, abstract, “spiritual” church in which all true believers, regardless of denomination, are members. In this church, either:
    (a) Doctrine does not matter, or
    (b) Conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable.
  3. Jesus established one, visible church in which doctrine matters and does not conflict. This church contains the fullness of truth as revealed by God; all others have partial truth, at best.
Which is it?
 
dzheremi said:
For the life of me I can’t understand what the difference is between an Oriental giving his honest opinion on the Byzantine sees of Antioch and Egypt and a Chalcedonian giving his honest opinion on the non-Chalcedonians and St. Dioscorus. Neither side is going to agree with or like what the other has to say, but somehow one is a terrible threat to unity and an unjust attack, and the other is standing up for his convictions because he “cannot lie”.

Once again the same behavior from a Chalcedonian is excused and justified, but from a non-Chalcedonian, no way. Ho hum; same lousy attitude, different day. When an apology(?) can’t even be given without being full of “but I’m still right; the Orientals are schismatics and their saints are terrible people”, it effectively stops being an apology and keeps being more evidence of why it is good that you’re on my ignore list, Fr. John Morris. :rolleyes:

I know you think you’re right. The Orientals think they’re right, too. Why not just say “Yeah, I overreacted; Sorry about that” and leave it at that?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the reason why you feel that most people on this discussion agree with the Eastern Orthodox is because on this particular issue the Roman Catholic Church agrees with the Eastern Orthodox Both accept Chalcedon and condemn Discorus. Especially since a great deal of the controversy was over our acceptance of the Tome of Pope Leo at Chalcedon.
I am sorry that you feel that way, but there are genuine historical disagreements between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox especially over Discorus. I am not sure that we really disagree over doctrine or Christology, but we do disagree over some historical issues. The decision on whether or not those historical disagreements are enough to prevent the restoration of Communion will not be made here, but will be made at a much higher level. I am enough of a professional historian not to take disagreements over the interpretation of history personally.

Archpriest John W. Morris
 
Randy_Carson said:
I understand that. Is that rational? Newman makes the case for why it is not.

This unwillingness (and I choose that word because of its implications) to accept development hinders the unification of the Church.
Click to expand...
What hinders the unification of the Church is not failure to agree on this or that point of doctrine, but the lack of charity that seems to always accompany such discussions.
 
theistgal said:
What hinders the unification of the Church is not failure to agree on this or that point of doctrine, but the lack of charity that seems to always accompany such discussions.
Click to expand...
Silly me. I thought there were real substantive issues that needed to be addressed. 😉
 
Nine_Two said:
I must say that I was shocked by the accusation that the Eastern Orthodox represented a “foreign” element. Both Egypt and Syria had been within the Byzantine Empire for hundreds of years - to put it in perspective compare with the life of the US. Before that they had both been under Hellenic control for another several hundred years and the ruling class in each (and that includes the bishops) were thoroughly Greek. Thus it was Greek against Greek, not Greeks vs. Natives.

Dhzeremi all but acknowledges this with the Oriental claim on the (originally) Greek hymn, “O Only Begotten Son”.
Click to expand...
Woah, woah, woah there. “Dzheremi all but acknowledges” none of the above, at least not in the way you seem to be intending it (perhaps I’m misreading you). What we have here is the conflation of several different issues, all to the detriment of getting an accurate picture of the true complexity of the linguistic and cultural life of the ancient world by reducing everywhere in Byzantium to “Greek” territory just because the elites were Greek (something which nobody would bother trying to deny, but which also doesn’t prove anything).

Take for example, Alexandria. A thoroughly Greek city, right? Greek for centuries…to hear the Greeks tell it, Greek forever. Except that’s not quite the whole picture. As you may or may not know, Alexandria was built atop a preexisting Egyptian settlement known as Rhakotis. This settlement continued to function as the “Egyptian district” or neighborhood of the Hellenic city of Alexandria. Now, the Greeks or Hellenized Egyptians obviously had preeminence in terms of place in society or power, but the Coptic people never faded away or were completely absorbed, even if they were essentially forced by the social circumstances of the day to write in Greek or talk Greek to interact with the elites. By way of example, St. Athanasius the Apostolic was born in Alexandria, and wrote and spoke Greek, in addition to Coptic. We know that St. Athanasius knew Coptic (most likely as a native language) because his teacher, St. Anthony, knew no Greek, so obviously for St. Athanasius to be his disciple, they must have communicated in Coptic. So there is precedent for non-Greeks to not only be in/of the most Greek city of Alexandria, but also to be “Greek” (Hellenized, in so far as they wrote and spoke the language) and not actually be Greeks.

An even better example can be made of St. Shenouda the Archimandrite, also known as St. Shenouda of Atripe or St. Shenouda of the White Monastery. This is not a saint who is known to Eastern Orthodox, as far as I know (in fact, I don’t know that he is venerated or known at all outside of the Coptic and possibly the Tewahedo churches). St. Shenouda is my baptismal saint, and a very interesting case. In him we have a man who was very much classically educated in Greek language and culture, yet all of his surviving letters are in Coptic. Why? Because he is known to have purposely eschewed Greek in favor of Coptic. To quote the introduction to the translation of his Life written by his disciple St. Besa (Wissa): “Before his time, Coptic writing was confined almost entirely to biblical translations from Greek, but Shenoute took the vernacular of his own area, developed it into a rich and flexible idiom, and used it to produce original writings of great vitality and character.” You might then say “Aha! See…Coptic was mainly used to translate Greek; Greek was the language of significance because the major cities were so thoroughly Greek!” I would not disagree with that, but would only add that this reinforces my point that what we are really talking about when we discuss language issues in the ancient world is not ethnic character (e.g., “natives vs. Greeks”) but prestige (Greek) vs. vernacular usage (non-Greek). In sociolinguistic terms, what we see in the case of Alexandria, Antioch, or any of the other great “Greek” cities of the ancient world is a high degree of diglossia (Ferguson 1959), which is the deliberate “split usage” of two or more dialects or languages according to their societal/social function – the “High” activities (religion, public oratory, etc.) get the “High” language (Greek), while the low activities (everything else) get the “Low” language (Coptic). That’s why St. Shenouda was so revolutionary: He purposely employed the “Low” language for “High” purposes, and by doing so gave the Egyptian church its first true defender and exemplar of a specifically Coptic theological expression (St. Shenouda, by the way, was born about 100 years before Chalcedon), though translations of the Bible and the liturgy into Coptic undoubtedly began some time before him (if I recall correctly, the earliest Coptic Bible fragments date back to c.150). We can infer that earlier saints spoke Coptic by what we know of their lives or what was written about them, but this is all by inference. With St. Shenouda, we know he was a Copt. He wouldn’t accept being anything else (and his monks and nuns, who combined numbered 4000, were all Copts), Greek education notwithstanding.

(cont’d. below)
 
So of course we have no problem admitting that St. Severus wrote “O Monogenis” in Greek. It is what would be expected, living in a Hellenized city as he did. It is one of many hymns (I’ve read as high as 10% of all hymns of the COC) that are preserved entirely in Greek to this day in the Coptic liturgy of St. Basil. We do not deny the profound influence that Greek language and culture had on Coptic language and culture (what is Coptic, after all, if not the native Egyptian language written in an adapted Greek alphabet?). But of course none of this means that Greeks are Egyptians or Egyptians are Greeks (remember: Egyptian, or more specifically “Coptic”, is not a geographic identifier as much as it is an ethnic identifier; EO have made this point to me themselves by pointing out that in Koine Greek the proper long-form name of the city is “Alexandria in Egypt” – “Alexandria e kat Aigypton”, suggesting that the city was set apart because of its distinctly Greek/not native Egyptian character; I agree, but obviously see it as making the opposite point that they do) . What we have in Alexandria is not just a bastion of Greek culture surrounded by native settlements, but in fact also a kind of “Greek satellite” that, by its long established social and cultural standing, came to overwhelm the preexisting Egyptian settlement upon which it was built. In reality, it is not different than what the Muslim Arabs would later do across the country, e.g., Cairo was build around the preexisting Egyptian settlement of Memphis, which is why the oldest section of the city is the Coptic area, containing the Roman fort of Babylon (the oldest remaining structure in the city; c.6th century BC) and many of the oldest extant Coptic churches in Egypt, such as the Hanging Church (el Moallaqa, 3rd century AD).
 
To Randy Carson: Like your argument concerning your thoughts about the Pope is the head of the Church. I thought I’d add this: What caused Ecumonical Councils in the first place? It seems to me that it was due to the many different doctrines being taught and as I understand it, many different sects claiming the name “Christian” for such different and contradictory doctrines, it became necessary, almost from the start, to say what one meant by one’s “Christian faith.” The Creeds itself grew from the simple, single lines of the Apostolic Church to longer and more detailed professions of faith.Heresy, apostary, theological speculations, widespread illiteacy, all these inspired the Church Fathers to greater doctrinal development and ever cleared expression. When the threat of a heresy was espcially dire, or when the disputed question required the collabration of many greaty minds and hearts, the Church would convene a Council of bishops and thelogins. Now as I understand it the Papal authority as been argued by some is not actualy true as the Pope in union with the bishops pronounces the truth or untruth of what was brought before the Church for clarifacation. At least that is how I have understood it. All one needs to do is read ActsChapter 15, The Council of Jerusalem where Peter stood up and spoke and the whole asembly fell silent and agreed with Peter. I’m not quoting word for word but the jest of it, but it seems to me that if Peter was not the final authority, then the whole assembly would not have stayed silent and Peter would have been over-ruled.
 
dzheremi said:
For the life of me I can’t understand what the difference is between an Oriental giving his honest opinion on the Byzantine sees of Antioch and Egypt and a Chalcedonian giving his honest opinion on the non-Chalcedonians and St. Dioscorus. Neither side is going to agree with or like what the other has to say, but somehow one is a terrible threat to unity and an unjust attack, and the other is standing up for his convictions because he “cannot lie”.

Once again the same behavior from a Chalcedonian is excused and justified, but from a non-Chalcedonian, no way. Ho hum; same lousy attitude, different day. When an apology(?) can’t even be given without being full of “but I’m still right; the Orientals are schismatics and their saints are terrible people”, it effectively stops being an apology and keeps being more evidence of why it is good that you’re on my ignore list, Fr. John Morris. :rolleyes:

I know you think you’re right. The Orientals think they’re right, too. Why not just say “Yeah, I overreacted; Sorry about that” and leave it at that?
Click to expand...
Sigh. 😦

(Or maybe I should be using this as an opportunity to say “See! You need the Pope at the top of the triangle to settle disputes!” or some other stereotypical Catholic statement. :D)
 
We have the Pope, Peter J. He agrees with us.

It’s not really about Antioch. It’s not really about Alexandria. It’s about competing historical narratives. I have mine, they have theirs, but I do not pretend as though they shouldn’t dare to say what they believe is true, or that saying what they believe is true is some kind of terrible affront (and not exactly what we would expect them to say, knowing that they do not agree with us) that excuses if I were to subsequently tell them to shut up because they hurt my feelings (which is the constant message we get in one form or another from Byzantine supremacists on this board, essentially: “Yeah, it’s nice that you have your little church and its adorable traditions, and of course we wouldn’t want to mess with those, but here’s the REAL history, and if you disagree you are damaging prospects at unity!” Reminds me of the so-called ‘unity’ between Copts and Muslims in Egypt that lasts only until a Copt dare mention the reality of discrimination against Christians, at which point they become guilty of “inciting sectarian tensions” or “threatening national unity” or some such garbage; recognizing the reality doesn’t incite anything…not recognizing the other’s right to tell his viewpoint does, as it builds resentment.).

I will end my participation in this particular conversation by reaffirming that it is better that we have honest disunity than false unity, be it with Rome or Constantinople. And, in correlation with this general principle, any unity that involves swallowing the Constantinopolitan versions of history that have been presented here is not true unity at all, as it involves abandoning the truth: The truth of the holiness of St. Severus and his rightful place as Patriarch of Antioch long before Jacob Baradaeus was even ordained; the truth about our teacher St. Dioscorus who rightly stood up to Leo the not-universally-thought-of-as-great of Rome; and any number of other truths that the Chalcedonians do not agree are truths at all.

This is the reality of where we are. Deal with it. The OO have been dealing with it for about 1600 years now, and as we can see from these exchanges, very little has changed when you get right down to it.
 
theistgal said:
What hinders the unification of the Church is not failure to agree on this or that point of doctrine, but the lack of charity that seems to always accompany such discussions.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you study the history of church unions among Protestants agreeing on doctrine is the easy part. Deciding who is going to give up their power and authority is the difficult part of church union. Either that, or people who want continue to fight battles that should have ended long ago.
I am not sure that there are really serious doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, but we disagree on who was a Saint and who was a schismatic or heretic. I remember one time that I let the Copts serve the Divine Liturgy in my Church on Saturday morning. During their Liturgy they commemorated men as Saints that were condemned as heretics or schismatics in the texts chanted during my Eastern Orthodox Vespers service that evening because that particular Sunday was one of several times a year that Eastern Orthodox commemorate the Ecumenical Councils. Some how the leaders of both sides will have to find a way to resolve this difference.

Archpriest John W. Morris
 
The issue is settled. The Byzantine patriarchates are not accepted (and likewise the non-Chalcedonian patriarchates are not accepted by the Byzantines) or else we’d already be communing in them, openly and under normal circumstances.

But yes, that would be rather silly of you. 😛
 
Randy_Carson said:
dzheremi-

Do you hear what you’ve just said?

You’re right…there aren’t many Orthodox living in English-speaking countries.

You’ve just confirmed my ORIGINAL point which was simply that the Orthodox have NOT fulfilled the Great Commission to “make disciples of all nations” and this suggests that they are NOT the true Church despite their claims.

I think we’ve come full circle.
Click to expand...
I meant to respond to ^^ this earlier, but didn’t.

I think you’re being a little bit myopic. Catholics, before the 20th century, engaged in quite a lot of proselytizing – for example, in the kingdom of Poland in 1595.

So when you say criticize the Orthodox because “there aren’t many Orthodox living in English-speaking countries” the question that comes to mind is, Would you prefer it if they had “stolen” a large portion of our members (rather than just engaging in proper evangelization as they have been doing)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top