Define "Supremacy"

[GAssisi]

Dear Matthew,

Could your perception of my “deflection” and “maneuvering” really be a reflection of your frustration that the Catholic Church might be correct? A desperate lashing out at a reality that you cannot deny nor control? Hehehe!

I do not deny that there have been voices of concern, especially among the American clergy. But I assure you, the conservative party voicing these concerns do not have the same idea of decentralization as the liberal party has. The liberal party generally seeks to diminish the papal prerogatives, whereas the conservative party is concerned with how collegiality and papacy can work alongside each other.

BTW, your scenario does not pose any problem from my perspective.

God bless,

Greg

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

That statement from Padre Pio (if it was actually stated by him) is as far away in the opposite from the position of the Church (official or otherwise), as the view that the Jews do not need evangelizing. It’s pretty funny that you managed to present the most diametrically opposed views for consideration, yet neither were correct! Truly, I welcome the comic relief you provide!

God bless,

Greg

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Greg,

Wrong again and again. Your deflections and maneuvering is not any reflection of any frustration from me with Latins. I think you cannot deny that your reflections are even beyond your control.

I don’t think that the Latins are correct in much that you have addressed. But I must say you have an answer for everything even though they are often very wrong from my perspective.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Matthew,

Did you not say you can “assure” me that I was wrong? I actually expected a response from you, but I expected proof for your assertion instead of mere claims.

If I have an answer for everything, I do not take credit for it. I give all glory and praise to the Holy Spirit to whom I pray everytime I go on these message boards that He gives me the wisdom to give an effective witness for the faith once for all delivered to the saints to all who may ask for it. He has also given me the grace to study the Catholic faith well since my conversion to Catholicism.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Greg,

Is “HEHE” and much more that you have written also a reflection of the wisdom you receive when you pray to give an effective witness for the faith once for all delivered to the saints to all who may ask for it.

If you took credit for your disposition I think it would be different, for very often your words and writing when addressing a Priest (Father Ambrose) are not consistent with the manner of others who give all glory and praise to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth is not created in our minds it comes out of the heart.

Hear the words of Saint John Chrysostom who knows more then you and is certainly known as the golden mouth. I’m sure you know this as well the Bishop of Rome considers the Orthodox Priesthood to be valid. By the way, you may notice that as an Orthodox Priest Father Ambrose would not deny a child the Eucharist being faithful to the Orthodox tradition that you so clearly don’t understand. If my memory serves me correctly your answer for that went to the bottom of the well of apologetics that you go to and seem to bath in. How can you give an effective witness of the faith when your tradition and faith practices and teaches otherwise? You can always give an answer. I thought I would bring that to your attention as well, I’m sure you’ll have an answer again, for even when proof is given no proof is received.

 

[Orthodoc]

[Fourthly, I’m surprised that living in the United States, you are not aware of the evangelistic efforts of the Catholic Church all over the New World. Are you even remotely aware that all the Latin American countries were at one time completely Catholic? I guess those peoples must have been evangelized by angels. Hehehe! Once again, are you even remotely aware of the Catholic missionary martyrs that planted the seeds of Christianity in North America from coast to coast (including Canada), even before the United States was born? Are you aware that all the Western European nations are in the Western See?

Oh but I am aware of the Evangeliistic efforts of the RCC in North, Central, and South America. It was done at the end of a sword and the butt of a gun!

Thanks to the Roman Catholic Church the entire histories and cultures of many of the central and south American indian tribes have been destroyed forever!

Orthodoc

 

[Orthodoc]

[It was truly painful (because I was laughing so hard it hurt) to read a post containing such grossly erroneous premises, with attendant bluster presuming a valid point was made. First of all, the Pope did not create the boundaries of the sui juris Churches – the Ecumenical Councils and historic ecclesiastical tradition did.]

Greg: Now it is time for me to have a laugh. Can you possibilly tell me which Ecumenical Council (all convened in the first millenium) created the boundaries for sui juris churches all created in the second millenium? The so called sui juris church we are discussing came into existence in 1596! Approximately 700 years after the last Ecumenical Council was convened.

[Thirdly, clerical marriage or celibacy is not an issue of faith, so whether a certain sui juris Church has that discipline or not, believe me (no pun intended), it wouldn’t affect your doctrinal faith.]

It was an article asked for AND GUARANTEED by both the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church at the creation of this sui juris church. No where did it stipulate only within certain countries or boundaries was it effective -

Article 9.—That the marriages of priests remain intact, except for bigamists.

Of course it won’t be the first nor will it be the last agreement the RCC signed and turned their backs on. The Quadripartite Agreement of the 1990’s comes to mind.

[Well, enough of the history lesson. Let’s talk about canonical considerations. Are you aware that when Russia was evangelized, it was under the jurisdiction of the Mother Church of Constantinople? And why is that? Is it possibly because it was the Constantinopolitan See that initiated evangelization efforts into Russia? ]

Another good laugh for me! Perhaps you should reread your history books or perhaps a truer version of Russian History. Russia was evangelized by Constantinople at the invitation of St Vladimir who rejected Rome and chose Constantinople!

After leaving Rome and attending Liturgy in the great church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople St Vladimir’s envoys reported back -

The Baptism of Russia: IX-XI Centuries
“We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for surely there is no such splendour or beauty anywhere upon earth. We cannot describe it to you: only this we know, that God dwells there among men, and that their worship surpasses the worship of all other places. For we cannot forget that beauty”. These words, quoted from the twelfth-century Tale of Bygone Years (more commonly referred to in English as the Primary Chronicle), were relayed back to the pagan ruler of Kievan Rus Prince Vladimir around the year 988 by envoys sent to enquire as to the suitability of faiths for the emerging Russian state. The Russian envoys pointed to the central place that beauty occupied in worship, a beauty of holiness that laid the foundation of a thousand-year culture that arose from the adoption of Byzantine Orthodox Christianity by Vladimir, later canonized as a saint by the Church.

Orthodoc

 

[Matthew_P]

1. For the priestly office is indeed discharged on earth, but it ranks amongst heavenly ordinances; and very naturally so: for neither man, nor angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, but the Paraclete Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels. Wherefore the consecrated priest ought to be as pure as if he were standing in the heavens themselves in the midst of those powers. Fearful, indeed, and of most awful import, were the things which were used before the dispensation of grace, as the bells, the pomegranates, the stones on the breastplate and on the ephod, the girdle, the mitre, the long robe, the plate of gold, the holy of holies, the deep silence within.1 But if any one should examine the things which belong to the dispensation of grace, he will find that, small as they are, yet are they fearful and full of awe, and that what was spoken concerning the law is true in this case also, that "what has been made glorious hath no glory in this respect by reason of the glory which excelleth."2 For when thou seest the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar,3 and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood,4 canst thou then think that thou art still amongst men, and standing upon the earth? Art thou not, on the contrary, straightway translated to Heaven, and casting out every carnal thought from the soul, dost thou not with disembodied spirit and pure reason contemplate the things which are in Heaven? Oh! what a marvel! what love of God to man! He who sitteth on high with the Father is at that hour held in the hands of all,5 and gives Himself to those who are willing to embrace and grasp Him. And this all do through the eyes of faith!6 Do these things seem to you fit to be despised, or such as to make it possible for any one to be uplifted against them?

Would you also learn from another miracle the exceeding sanctity of this office? Picture Elijah and the vast multitude standing around him, and the sacrifice laid upon the altar of stones, and all the rest of the people hushed into a deep silence while the prophet alone offers up prayer: then the sudden rush of fire from Heaven upon the sacrifice:-these are marvellous things, charged with terror. Now then pass from this scene to the rites which are celebrated in the present day; they are not only marvellous to behold, but transcendent in terror. There stands the priest, not bringing down fire from Heaven, but the Holy Spirit: and he makes prolonged supplication,7 not that some flame sent down from on high may consume the offerings, but that grace descending on the sacrifice may thereby enlighten the souls of all, and render them more refulgent than silver purified by fire. Who can despise this most awful mystery, unless he is stark mad and senseless? Or do you not know that no human soul could have endured that fire in the sacrifice, but all would have been utterly consumed, had not the assistance of God’s grace been great.

 

[Matthew_P]

1. For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."8 They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, "Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?"9 What authority could be greater than this? "The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son?"10 But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son. For they have been conducted to this dignity as if they were already translated to Heaven, and had transcended human nature, and were released from the passions to which we are liable. Moreover, if a king should bestow this honor upon any of his subjects, authorizing him to cast into prison whom he pleased and to release them again, he becomes an object of envy and respect to all men; but he who has received from God an authority as much greater as heaven is more precious than earth, and souls more precious than bodies, seems to some to have received so small an honor that they are actually able to imagine that one of those who have been entrusted with these things will despise the gift. Away with such madness! For transparent madness it is to despise so great a dignity, without which it is not possible to obtain either our own salvation, or the good things which have been promised to us. For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious?

Here is the complete link if you would like to continue on from the beginning. stmaryofegypt.org/fathers2/NPNF1-09/npnf1-09-05.htm#P266_79483

In Christ,
Matthew Panchisin

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Greg,

St. Gregory The Theologian mentions;

“Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the Subject is not so cheap and low; and I will add, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits.”

It should be clear that from reading the movements in the writings of Saint John Chrysostom that he addressed those of the Holy Orthodox Priesthood in different way than you.

For I truly don’t think that you give all glory and praise to the Holy Spirit when you address Father Ambrose with your HEHE’s and such. So when you say “Truly, I welcome the comic relief you provide!” you make a mockery of his opinion because it is not in agreement with your wrong opinions.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[HagiaSophia]

GAssisi:

Dear Matthew,

Did you not say you can “assure” me that I was wrong? I actually expected a response from you, but I expected proof for your assertion instead of mere claims.

If I have an answer for everything, I do not take credit for it. I give all glory and praise to the Holy Spirit to whom I pray everytime I go on these message boards that He gives me the wisdom to give an effective witness for the faith once for all delivered to the saints to all who may ask for it. He has also given me the grace to study the Catholic faith well since my conversion to Catholicism.

God bless,

Greg

But we all need to remember that many times it isn’t WHAT we do, it’s HOW we do it …or as good old St. Paul reminds us without charity…

Jesus confounded the elders in the Temple, but I suspect He had a “way” about Him.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Orthodoc,

I am not surprised with your response in post #284. It is in character for you to say the Catholic Church evangelized at the butt of a gun with such condescending demeanor while denying that the Russian Orthodox Church also did. May I suggest you use arguments that cannot easily be utilized to expose your inconsistencies? I am just a little bit surprised however that you would use the destruction of the culture/history of Meso-american peoples as an argument against the evangelization of them. It seems you are influenced more by secular arguments rather than religious considerations. Or maybe you are not really concerned with the religious, but merely with what is anti-Catholic? Are you aware that the religions of the Meso-american peoples practiced human sacrifice? Are you aware that there are three (and a half) complete manuscripts that still exist from the Meso-americans. Are you aware that the best source of Meso-american culture available is a concise record of the culture kept by one of the Catholic missionaries of the time? Are you aware that all authorities recognize that Meso-american culture was ALREADY on its death throes (i.e., much of its history already lost to antiquity and the jungle) when the Spanish arrived. And are you aware that many of our missionaries were martyred while DEFENDING the Indians FROM the brutalities of their Spanish conquerors? I doubt you did, or you would not have given such an ignorant criticism of Catholic missionary activity in Meso-america.

As far as ecclesiastical jurisdictional boundaries are concerned, exactly which sui juris Churches are you speaking of whose jurisdictional boundaries were not already present in the first millenium? The jurisdictional boundaries of Catholic sui juris Churches are identical to the boundaries of the traditional Orthodox Churches. Are you saying that the boundaries of the Orthodox Church were not established until 1596? I agree the previous question seems ludicrous, but it is really only a reflection of your own argument.

As far as priestly celibacy is concerned, by your silence I assume you admit you were in error to assume that priestly celibacy is an issue of faith. Now you have changed the issue to once of canonical considerations. But, regarding the married/celibate priests, some things for you to consider: 1) Are you aware that the stipulations were intended to only be temporary? That is indicated in the directive itself. 2) Are you aware that the directive only concerned the sui juris Churches in the North American territories? It did not affect the discipline of sui juris Churches anywhere else. Why? Unlike other areas, North America (the “melting pot”) was peopled by different faiths whose ministers were married. An area like, say, South America was completely Catholic, and there was no danger of scandal or confusion that a married Eastern Catholic priest might be anything but Catholic. In North America, such a danger existed. Thus, it was ONLY a practical consideration, not a statement against the discipline of the Eastern Church. 3) The directive was perfectly canonical - the Pope did not initiate it; it was initiated by a bishop in the North American territory.

I’m glad you had a good laugh about the issue of the evangelization of Russia – though it could not possibly be for the fact I presented, because your post does not in the least refute my statement that Russia was evangelized by CONSTANTINOPLE. I’m glad you don’t take yourself too seriously.

God bless,

Greg

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Orthodoc,

There is one more consideration I would like to add in regards to the priestly celibacy/marriage issue in the North American territories: The temporary condition of the original directive is proven not only by the fact that such a temporary condition is stipulated in the directive itself, but also for the fact that many Eastern Catholic Churches in the North American territories currently have married priests. As the directive originally stipulated, the order for Eastern Catholic Churches to have celibate priests would only be in effect until the general culture of North America could become more informed of the reality of Eastern Catholic discipline, without the danger of scandal. It is not without relevance that the areas in which Eastern Catholic priests are married are those very same areas where there are large populations of Eastern Catholics – because in such areas, the knowledge, by diffusion, by experience of, and by explicit instruction of Latin Catholics and non-Catholic Protestant faiths of the reality of Eastern Catholic discipline is more established.

God bless,

Greg

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Matthew,

Though I appreciate your reverence for the holy priesthood, and your exhortation that I do the same, it is not your place to criticize my relationship with Father Ambrose as if it was a fact that I am disrespecting him. I have a good fundamentalist Baptist friend, and there isn’t a day when we don’t exchange informal criticisms of each others’ faiths, with attendant rebuttals. We do this, very oftentimes in good-natured, and not sarcastic, laughter. But we both admit that perhaps our words will indeed have some effect on the other.

I have the same attitude with Father Ambrose. There have been several times when Father Ambrose uses smiley or laughing smiley faces to indicate that he feels the particular Catholic belief (or a comment I made) that he is criticizing seems either unbelievable or ludicrous. I don’t feel insulted at all when he does that, because I realize he does not really understand the Catholic position on the issue, and I respond in the hopes of educating him on the matter, without a bit of anger or indignation in my heart. I trust Father, having been a servant of God for so many years, is not immediately victim to emotionalism.

As I mentioned to Father Ambrose, I am a bit of a stoic, and I have no interest in sarcasm. If Father Ambrose perceives I am being intentionally insulting to him, I will apologize to him, once he makes that known. Until then, as I noted, it is not your place to make comments as if I am actually disrespecting Father Ambrose, though I appreciate your exhortations to respect the priesthood, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Greg,

I see, shame on me for noticing how you educate those that you have concluded to be less educated than you.

Thanks for the lesson.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Is the Catholic attitude represented then by the newly canonised Padre Pio:

“The Jews are the enemies of God and therefore of our Holy Religion.”

Does anyone have a reference for these words? Pio, do you know? I see that “katolik” uses these words as his signature line.

Well shoot!!! If Padre Pio really did say that, And I don’t know if he did or not, it’s really pretty tame compared to:

What is your iniquity, O daughter of Jacob, that your chastisement is so severe? You have dishonored the King and the King’s Son, you shameless one, you harlot! ~ St. Ephrem

It has come to pass that the last condition of Israel is worse than the first for, as the Savior’s disciple says (II Peter ii.21-22), it would be better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. For the true Proverb has happened to them: the dog has returned to his vomit, and the sow that had washed has returned to her wallowing in the mire (Proverbs xxvi.11). And from what they afterwards dared to do, it is plain to see that the Jews have swallowed their vomit and turned again to wallow in their ancient mire and relapsed into the errors of Egypt, for the Evil Spirit has again entered into them, and their last state has become worse than their first. ~ St. Cyril of Alexandria

Well should the Jew mourn who, not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition …The Jews have crucified the Son and rejected the Holy Ghost, and their souls are the abode of the devil. ~ St. John Chrysostom

Nor is it sufficient that we call Him Who is in Heaven “Father.” We must add to the name “Our Father.” This name rebukes and condemns the Jews who not only spurned Christ faithlessly, but also cruelly executed Him Who was announced to them by the prophets, and sent first to their nation. No longer may they call God their Father, because the Lord confounds and refutes them, saying: “Your father is the Devil” (John viii.44). O sinful nation, O people weighed down with guilt, breed of evil-doers, lawless children, you have turned your backs on the Lord and have provoked the Holy One of Israel! We Christians at prayer say “Our Father,” since He has begun to be ours, but ceased to be the Father of the Jews who have forsaken Him. There is no way a sinful nation can be His children; on the contrary, that title is bestowed on those to whom remission of sins has been granted and to whom eternal life has been promised. ~ St. Cyprian

How dare Christians have the slightest intercourse with Jews, those most miserable of all men. They are lustful, rapacious, greedy, perfidious bandits – pests of the universe! Indeed, an entire day would not suffice to tell of all their rapine, their avarice, their deception of the poor, their thievery, and their huckstering. Are they not inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil? Jews are impure and impious, and their synagogue is a house of prostitution, a lair of beasts, a place of shame and ridicule, the domicile of the devil, as is also the soul of the Jew. As a matter of fact, Jews worship the devil: their rites are criminal and unchaste; their religion a disease; their synagogue an assembly of crooks, a den of thieves, a cavern of devils, an abyss of perdition! Why are Jews degenerate? Because of their hateful assassination of Christ. This supreme crime lies at the root of their degradation and woes. The rejection and dispersion of the Jews was the work of God, not of emperors. It was done by the wrath of God and because of His absolute abandonment of the Jews. Thus, the Jew will live under the yoke of slavery without end. God hates the Jews, and on Judgment Day He will say to those who sympathize with them., “Depart from Me, for you have had intercourse with My murderers!” Flee, then, from their assemblies, fly from their houses, and, far from venerating the synagogue, hold it in hatred and aversion. ~ St. John Chrysostom

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Well shoot!!! If Padre Pio really did say that, And I don’t know if he did or not, it’s really pretty tame compared to:

It’s just a little surprising to find anti-semitism in the mouth of a 20th century friar canonised by the present Pope

Of course we have no certain reference to these words. Maybe we should ask “katolik” about them since he uses them as his signature line?

---

“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” -Alexis Khomiakov

 

[Orthodoc]

As the directive originally stipulated, the order for Eastern Catholic Churches to have celibate priests would only be in effect until the general culture of North America could become more informed of the reality of Eastern Catholic discipline, without the danger of scandal.]

And here we are a century later still waiting.

[As far as priestly celibacy is concerned, by your silence I assume you admit you were in error to assume that priestly celibacy is an issue of faith. Now you have changed the issue to once of canonical considerations.]
Whether it is an issue of faith or not is a moot point. I never said it was an issue of faith. IT WAS A REQUESTED GUARANTEE GIVEN TO A NEWLY CREATED SUI JURIS CHURCH. A guarantee that was taken away from them based on geographical territory when it suited the purpose of Rome to do so. And may or may be returned to them at the discretion of Rome contrary to the definition of what ‘sui juris’ means (*) See below

[Are you aware that the directive only concerned the sui juris Churches in the North American territories? It did not affect the discipline of sui juris Churches anywhere else.]

It doesn’t matter that it only affected the sui juris churches in North America. Lets look at the legal definition of sui juris -

lectlaw.com/def2/s196.htm

(*) **SUI JURIS - One who has all the rights to which a freemen is entitled; one who is not under the power of another, as a slave, a minor, and the like. **

Based on the above definition, Rome had no authority to renege on a quarantee made at the creation of a church based on territorial boundaries.

What’s interesting is the following comment made on a Byzantine Catholic site regarding married priests and the term ‘sui juris’. It, of course shows just how little some of these people comprehend of what their relation to the Pope is or what it means to be ‘sui juris’-

Quote:

One sui juris church has no jurisdiction over another sui juris church. That would be like the equivelent of the Byzantine Catholic Church telling the Latin Church that you must start communicating infants because that was the way it was for the first 1500 years. And also that diocese that is presently in Poland was not in Poland 50 years(?) ago. The political geographical boundry of Poland has changed numerous times since World War One. This same diocese was and still is ecclisiasticaly in Ukraine. So depending on what century it is that’s where this diocese is located. Some years it is in Ukraine. Some years in Poland.

======
Taking into the consideration the subject matter being discussed at the time your statement was made which suggested that the Evangelization of Russia was a result of aggressive evangelizing and missionary pursuits of Constantinople. No one disputes the successful missionary work done by the Church of Constantinople but the fact of the matter is was initiated by invitation and the result of the fact that St Vladimir chose the Orthodox expression of faith over the Roman Catholicism before the evangelizing began…

Orthodoc

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

If you examine the evidence I suspect that it will be discovered that neither I nor Orthodoc initiate very much.

You gotta be kiddin!!! If you in particular, didn’t initiate, this thread would have no posts.
Fr Ambrose:

We are responding to the “hackneyed, shopworn, predictable, already-answered–a-thousand-times, and relentlessly anti-Orthodox arguments” which occur on the Forum.

Oh P-L-E-A-S-E !!

You post the same anti Catholic stuff over on at least one other Catholic board, and you get the same reaction over there too.

Quote from this thread and be specific, all the perceived and "relentless anti Orthodox arguments. " I want to see what you’re talking about.
Fr Ambrose:

As I have mentioned, I was invited to this Forum by two Catholics who were unhappy about the misinformation being written against the Orthodox.

Where’s all this misinformation? What thread are you talking about?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

You post the same anti Catholic stuff over on at least one other Catholic board, and you get the same reaction over there too.

I have not posted on that board for months -apart from a few non-controversial contributions to the Saints’ section --which was actually the reason why I first became involved there - I put out a daily e-mail with the Lives of the Celtic Saints.

If anyone is interested then please go to
Celtic & Old English Saints
groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints/
You can simply read the Lives or you can sign up for the daily e-mail.

Another way to sign up is to send a blank e-mail to
celt-saints-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

But I more or less abandoned that previous board when some Catholic people appealed to me to contribute to this Forum where they said Orthodoxy was getting a bad rap.

---

“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” -Alexis Khomiakov