Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[mardukm]

Not quite what I was getting at. The formula of Hormisdas and the Henotikon were both failures because the former demanded that Chalcedon be accepted uncritically, while the latter marginalized Chalcedon completely, instead only demanding that bishops profess faith in the twelve chapters of Cyril and that they uphold the condemnations of Eutyches and Nestorius. It was only at the Second Council of Constantinople where Orthodox Christology was properly set forth (most importantly the council’s recognition that the two natures are perceptible only in contemplation, and that the formula ‘of two natures’ is orthodox, so long as it is understood that the natures do not mingle or become confused; without these important clarifications, Chalcedon could have possibly been interpreted in a Nestorian manner). This was, at its heart not a matter of trying to reconcile with the miaphysites, but an attempt to define what the Orthodox faith was, because Chalcedon was not sufficiently clear as to what ‘in two natures’ meant.

I disagree with your interpretation, but my explanation will have to wait for another week when I have more time.

The pope was effectively deposed, considering that he was exiled, only being allowed to return to Rome on the condition that he approve of Second Constantinople. It might have been out of concern that such an action would not have been supported by the Romans that no deposition took place. When we see patriarchs being deposed, they are of course within Imperial territory, such that the deposition could be enforced by the state. Because of the Empire’s weak hold over Rome, such an action would have been pointless, because it would have been impossible to enforce.

“Effectively deposed” is meaningless. What we are looking for is a CONCILIAR decree actually deposing or anathemaizing Pope Vigilius by name. Your rationale does not work because Ecumenical Councils traditionally deposed and anathematized on principle, even though their decisions were not enforced LOCALLY. You have not yet answered the question I asked - where is the formal deposition or anathematization of Pope Vigilius by name contained in the Acts of the Fifth Ecum?

It is no mistake, for example, that the miaphysite Churches survived in Egypt, Africa, and the Levant, because the most the civic authorities could do without causing rebellion would be to install their own Chalcedonian bishops. The empire probably did not even have the power to install its own bishop in Rome, much less depose him without the consent of his people.

This is irrelevant since, as noted above, formal depositions by Ecumenical Councils were enacted in the past, though not able to be totally enforced locally - i.e., those deposed hierarchs still had followers. What we are looking for are the formal decrees of deposition and/or anathematization against Pope Vigilius by name. Why are there none?

By your logic, the bishops of the see of Seleucia-Ctesiphon were also impossible to depose, because nobody deposed them once they accepted Nestorianism.

Not necessary. Normally, only a head bishop or lead bishop of the heterodox party is named for deposition/anathematization, and the rest are simply guilty by association. Pope Vigilius was the one head bishop so obviously at odds with the Council. I ask again, where is the record of his formal deposition/anathematization BY NAME, as this was the normal procedure of prior Ecumenical Councils, regardless of the considerations you have put forth (i.e. imperial pressure/support/etc.).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The problem is that you are ignoring the historical context of the formula of Hormisdas. The Eastern bishop bishops who did sign it (and not all did), did so out of their desire to uphold Chalcedon, not out of recognition of the papacy’s outrageous claims.

Why didn’t they object to the “outrageous claims?” That would have been a perfect opportunity for them to do so.

By your logic, the fact that most of the Eastern bishops signed the Henotikon, at the expense of communion with Rome, would suggest that they did not believe communion with Rome to be important, much less that the Roman Pontiff was infallible.

Did the Henotikon make any statements against papal primacy? Here’s the fault with your logic:
(1) The Formula of Hormisdas contains EXPLICIT statements favoring papal claims, and the Eastern bishops signed it nevertheless.
(2) The Henoticon does NOT contain any statements against papal claims, yet you presume to extrapolate such a meaning just because certain Eastern bishops signed it.

Very strange.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Why didn’t they object to the “outrageous claims?” That would have been a perfect opportunity for them to do so.

Did the Henotikon make any statements against papal primacy? Here’s the fault with your logic:
(1) The Formula of Hormisdas contains EXPLICIT statements favoring papal claims, and the Eastern bishops signed it nevertheless.
(2) The Henoticon does NOT contain any statements against papal claims, yet you presume to extrapolate such a meaning just because certain Eastern bishops signed it.

Very strange.

Blessings,
Marduk

That is because Rome refused to be in communion with any bishop who had signed the Henotikon. This is not extrapolation; the bishops obviously knew what the consequences of signing the Henotikon were.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I disagree with your interpretation, but my explanation will have to wait for another week when I have more time.

“Effectively deposed” is meaningless. What we are looking for is a CONCILIAR decree actually deposing or anathemaizing Pope Vigilius by name. Your rationale does not work because Ecumenical Councils traditionally deposed and anathematized on principle, even though their decisions were not enforced LOCALLY. You have not yet answered the question I asked - where is the formal deposition or anathematization of Pope Vigilius by name contained in the Acts of the Fifth Ecum?

This is irrelevant since, as noted above, formal depositions by Ecumenical Councils were enacted in the past, though not able to be totally enforced locally - i.e., those deposed hierarchs still had followers. What we are looking for are the formal decrees of deposition and/or anathematization against Pope Vigilius by name. Why are there none?

Not necessary. Normally, only a head bishop or lead bishop of the heterodox party is named for deposition/anathematization, and the rest are simply guilty by association. Pope Vigilius was the one head bishop so obviously at odds with the Council. I ask again, where is the record of his formal deposition/anathematization BY NAME, as this was the normal procedure of prior Ecumenical Councils, regardless of the considerations you have put forth (i.e. imperial pressure/support/etc.).

Blessings,
Marduk

Where is the anathema against the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia from Ephesus (where some of his teachings were condemned)? This was pope Vigilius’ reasoning for why Theodore of Mopsuestia should not be anathematized by name. The fathers of the council disagreed, declaring anathema on the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia and those who had written in defense of him, which pope Vigilius clearly did. If you want, I can even supply in full two entire passages where pope Vigilius clearly wrote in defense of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the letter of Ibas, which effectively anathematized him (and the seventeen other bishops who signed the First Constitutum). Why they did not move to depose him and his renegade bishops, I do not know for sure, but what history clearly shows is that they signed a document defending the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Letter of Ibas, after which, the council ruled that the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Three Chapters (which included the Letter of Ibas) should be anathematized as well as anybody who dared to defend them. Shortly thereafter, Vigilius and his entourage were sent into exile. After six months, Vigilius sent a letter recanting of all that he had written in defense of the Three Chapters and was subsequently allowed to return to Rome. I think the historical account speaks for itself: he definitely was not in charge of the Church as the formula of Hormisdas so arrogantly claimed about the papacy.

 

[smad0142]

The problem is that you are ignoring the historical context of the formula of Hormisdas. The Eastern bishop bishops who did sign it (and not all did), did so out of their desire to uphold Chalcedon, not out of recognition of the papacy’s outrageous claims. By your logic, the fact that most of the Eastern bishops signed the Henotikon, at the expense of communion with Rome, would suggest that they did not believe communion with Rome to be important, much less that the Roman Pontiff was infallible.

No, the flip-flopping of the Eastern Bishops between the Henotikon and the Formula is only a strong argument against the ecclessial authority of Bishops outside of the authority of the Pontiff. If the Eastern Bishops are willing to do whatever it takes to preserve unity, a la the Henotikon and the Formula, how can they on their own be accepted as arbiters of the Faith, ie when Constantinople would go on to reject Papal Authority and Infallibilty how can be sure that they are right? Whereas there are two flimsy attempts to show the Bishop of Rome contradicting himself, off the top of my head I think it is Pope Liberius and Honorius maybe?, there are rife examples of the other Patriarchs and Eastern Bishops constantly contradicting themselves or comitting heresies. How then could they claim to be the true Church apart from the Bishop of Rome?

 

[mardukm]

That is because Rome refused to be in communion with any bishop who had signed the Henotikon. This is not extrapolation; the bishops obviously knew what the consequences of signing the Henotikon were.

Actually, the Henoticon was signed by the approving bishops before it even came to the Pope’s attention. So they were not signing on an explicit recognition that it would cause them to be out of communion with Rome.

In any case, those who signed the Henoticon knew that the moderate Monophysites who accepted it were using it as a rallying cry AGAINST Chalcedon. So their support of it throws their own orthodoxy into question. Your claim that these bishops supporting the Henoticon is an indication that the Easterns did not generally recognize the papal claims of the time is only as valid as the argument made by some EO that the refusal of the Arians to submit to the Council of Sardica proved that the East did not agree to the papal claims. The situation only demonstrates that the only ones who did not agree to the papal claims in early Church were the heterodox.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, the flip-flopping of the Eastern Bishops between the Henotikon and the Formula is only a strong argument against the ecclessial authority of Bishops outside of the authority of the Pontiff. If the Eastern Bishops are willing to do whatever it takes to preserve unity, a la the Henotikon and the Formula, how can they on their own be accepted as arbiters of the Faith, ie when Constantinople would go on to reject Papal Authority and Infallibilty how can be sure that they are right? Whereas there are two flimsy attempts to show the Bishop of Rome contradicting himself, off the top of my head I think it is Pope Liberius and Honorius maybe?, there are rife examples of the other Patriarchs and Eastern Bishops constantly contradicting themselves or comitting heresies. How then could they claim to be the true Church apart from the Bishop of Rome?

There are plenty of other times when your supreme pontiffs have contradicted each other. What about during the Great Schism when there were three supreme pontiffs? What about Pope John XXII, who in his dispute with the franciscans contradicted his predecessor Nicholas III, a fact which the Franciscans were happy to point out Pope John XXII. What did Pope John do in response? He write a bull, Quia Quorundam, in which he attacked the idea that a matter of morals or faith defined by a pope cannot be changed by a future pope, plainly starting that it is untrue.

 

[YoungCatholic86]

When you hear the word “pope” used for an Orthodox leader, it is synonymous with the term “Patriarch.” He isn’t any more powerful than any of the other patriarchs in the Orthodox Church; he just has a different title. That’s all.

Jesus did not give the keys to the Kingdom to multiple people. He gave it to Peter alone.

 

[mardukm]

Where is the anathema against the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia from Ephesus (where some of his teachings were condemned)? This was pope Vigilius’ reasoning for why Theodore of Mopsuestia should not be anathematized by name.

What are you talking about? Theodore was already dead when Ephesus was convened. It was not the policy of the Church in those earlier days to anathematize people post-mortem. And that was the rationale of Pope Vigilius. The situation is different from that of Pope Vigilius because he was still alive. Your comparison is strange.

The fathers of the council disagreed, declaring anathema on the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia and those who had written in defense of him, which pope Vigilius clearly did. If you want, I can even supply in full two entire passages where pope Vigilius clearly wrote in defense of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the letter of Ibas, which effectively anathematized him (and the seventeen other bishops who signed the First Constitutum).

“Effectively anathematized,” like “effectively deposed” is meaningless. Did they do it or not? A “yes” or “no” will suffice.

Why they did not move to depose him and his renegade bishops, I do not know for sure, but what history clearly shows is that they signed a document defending the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia

Neither Ephesus nor Chalcedon condemned them. That was the extent of the “defense.”

and the Letter of Ibas,

IIRC, the “defense” amounted to little more than saying that it could be interpreted in an orthodox way if seen in the best possible light. Hardly a theological defense.

after which, the council ruled that the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Three Chapters (which included the Letter of Ibas) should be anathematized as well as anybody who dared to defend them.

Did Pope Vigilius actually defend them per se, or was he simply defending the memory and authority of Chalcedon. I gather the Fathers of the Fifth knew the difference and the nuances of the issue more than you – which is why they never anathematized or deposed Pope Vigilius.

Shortly thereafter, Vigilius and his entourage were sent into exile. After six months, Vigilius sent a letter recanting of all that he had written in defense of the Three Chapters and was subsequently allowed to return to Rome.

What “exile” are you talking about? The Pope was forcibly removed from his See and shuttled to Constantinople prior to this, yet no one dared presume that the Pope was not the legitimate bishop of Rome. This so-called “exile” was no indication of a deposition any more than his forcible removal to Constantinople gave such an indication.

I think the historical account speaks for itself: he definitely was not in charge of the Church as the formula of Hormisdas so arrogantly claimed about the papacy.

I think the Formula refers to emergency situations when it is necessary to concede to the primacy. That was the context in which Pope Hormisdas’ gave it, so there was nothing arrogant about it. Any orthodox bishop who was concerned about preserving the authority of Chalcedon against the Eutychians should have followed Pope Hormisdas. Simple as that.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

There are plenty of other times when your supreme pontiffs have contradicted each other.

On Faith or morals?

He write a bull, Quia Quorundam, in which he attacked the idea that a matter of morals or faith defined by a pope cannot be changed by a future pope, plainly starting that it is untrue.

What the bulla was attacking was the Franciscan use of that principle to defend an erroneous position. He was not attacking the principle per se.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Schism_hater]

Jesus did not give the keys to the Kingdom to multiple people. He gave it to Peter alone.

St. Augustine of Hippo seems to disagree with you:

“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.” ’’On Christian Doctrine’’ Book I. Chapter 18.17 ‘’The Keys Given to the Church’’.

“…Peter, the first of the apostles, receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ. For it is not the former alone but the whole Church, that bindeth and looseth sins; nor did the latter alone drink at the fountain of the Lord’s breast, to emit again in preaching, of the Word in the beginning, God with God, and those other sublime truths regarding the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead.” ’’On the Gospel of John’’. Tractate CXXIV.7

"…the keys that were given to the Church, ’’A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists.’’ Chapter 10.45

"How the Church? Why, to her it was said, "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. ’’Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John. Homily X.10

 

[Cavaradossi]

“Effectively anathematized,” like “effectively deposed” is meaningless. Did they do it or not? A “yes” or “no” will suffice.

Yes they did. He was banished, and not allowed to return until he recanted.

The decisions of the council were executed with a violence in keeping with its conduct, though the ardently hoped-for reconciliation of the Monophysites did not follow. Vigilius, together with other opponents of the imperial will, as registered by the subservient court-prelates, seems to have been banished (Hefele, II, 905), together with the faithful bishops and ecclesiastics of his suite, either to Upper Egypt or to an island in the Propontis.
newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

Neither Ephesus nor Chalcedon condemned them. That was the extent of the “defense.”

No, it is not. He in fact argued in his Constitutum that Chalcedon’s exoneration of Ibas was because of his letter, and that therefore, the letter was orthodox in faith.

IIRC, the “defense” amounted to little more than saying that it could be interpreted in an orthodox way if seen in the best possible light. Hardly a theological defense.

Marduk, was it a defense or not? A “yes” or “no” will suffice. I can tell you, the Constitutum is quite a lengthy document, and it draws up quite a detailed defense of the Three Chapters, stating that the decisions of previous councils are not capable of being reformed. He also threatens with anathema any clergyman who would dare anathematize the dead. Why were not the fathers automatically anathematized by the authority of pope Vigilius for their actions, unless he didn’t actually possess that power?

Did Pope Vigilius actually defend them per se, or was he simply defending the memory and authority of Chalcedon. I gather the Fathers of the Fifth knew the difference and the nuances of the issue more than you – which is why they never anathematized or deposed Pope Vigilius.

Yes, that’s why they did not anathematize him, instead preferring to banish him to an island, preventing him from returning to Rome.

What “exile” are you talking about? The Pope was forcibly removed from his See and shuttled to Constantinople prior to this, yet no one dared presume that the Pope was not the legitimate bishop of Rome. This so-called “exile” was no indication of a deposition any more than his forcible removal to Constantinople gave such an indication.

See above.

I think the Formula refers to emergency situations when it is necessary to concede to the primacy. That was the context in which Pope Hormisdas’ gave it, so there was nothing arrogant about it. Any orthodox bishop who was concerned about preserving the authority of Chalcedon against the Eutychians should have followed Pope Hormisdas. Simple as that.

Why then was the Second Council of Constantinople called, if everybody submitted to the formula of Hormisdas and it solved everything by the authority of the pope?

 

[Vico]

Cavaradossi,

What was orthodox changed from council to council. Therefore some faithful that were orthodox according to the Nicea were not after Ephesus, and similarly some faithful that were orthodox according to Ephesus were not after Chalcedon, then some faithful that were orthodox according to Chalcedon were not after Constantinople II.

Constantinople II made new anathemas, that apply after their ratification in ~554. So 1) the person and the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia 2) the writings of Theodoret of Cyrrhus and 3) the writings of Ibas of Edessa, became unorthodox from ~554. Justinian I had decided without a council to edict condemnation twice, in 543 and 551, yet he agreed at first to have a conciliar decision and retracted, then Justinian I would not agree to have good western representation at the council. Pope Vigilius ratified this judgement in ~554 implicitly with his Constitutum of 554.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I will stray away from the main topic.
It is a pity that the greatest traditions of Jesus Christ are not together.
It is sometimes petty details that get us astray. Like what happens in the Sepulcher of Christ in Jerusalem where different Churches get into real fights for … nothing…
We should unwind the past mistakes of the Eastern Church and the Roman Catholic church.

Whatever ca be done to join us together is welcome.

 

[mardukm]

Cavaradossi,

What was orthodox changed from council to council. Therefore some faithful that were orthodox according to the Nicea were not after Ephesus, and similarly some faithful that were orthodox according to Ephesus were not after Chalcedon, then some faithful that were orthodox according to Chalcedon were not after Constantinople II.

Constantinople II made new anathemas, that apply after their ratification in ~554. So 1) the person and the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia 2) the writings of Theodoret of Cyrrhus and 3) the writings of Ibas of Edessa, became unorthodox from ~554. Justinian I had decided without a council to edict condemnation twice, in 543 and 551, yet he agreed at first to have a conciliar decision and retracted, then Justinian I would not agree to have good western representation at the council. Pope Vigilius ratified this judgement in ~554 implicitly with his Constitutum of 554.

Great point. Cavaradossi has not taken into account that the bishop of Rome’s confirmation of a Council is necessary for it to be fully authoritative. That answers the question of why the Council did not - and really could not - have deposed or anathematized Pope Vigilius. The head bishop of the Church had not yet confirmed its decisions. There was enough evidence to indicate that Pope Vigilius was wholly orthodox, and the Church would not formally condemn its head bishop on the mere whim of political expedience.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Yes they did. He was banished, and not allowed to return until he recanted.

As stated, the so-called banishment was no more an “effective” deposition than the emperor’s removing him from his See. Why are you consistently avoiding the question? Where is the Council record of a deposition or anathematization of Pope Vigilius by name? What the emperor does to force the matter is not part of the Council’s actions.

No, it is not. He in fact argued in his Constitutum that Chalcedon’s exoneration of Ibas was because of his letter, and that therefore, the letter was orthodox in faith.

You are confusing yourself. We were talking about Theodore of Mopsuestia, not the letter of ibas.

Marduk, was it a defense or not? A “yes” or “no” will suffice. I can tell you, the Constitutum is quite a lengthy document, and it draws up quite a detailed defense of the Three Chapters, stating that the decisions of previous councils are not capable of being reformed.

We’re talking about the letter of Ibas now. Don’t confuse the issue by referring to the Three Chapters as a whole. The issue of the letter of Ibas was purely theological, and Pope Vigilius made no theological analysis or defense of its contents other than to say It might be orthodox taken in the best possible sense. And this purely on the basis that the previous Council had it before them and did not condemn it. That’ is not a theological defense on the merits of its contents.

He also threatens with anathema any clergyman who would dare anathematize the dead. Why were not the fathers automatically anathematized by the authority of pope Vigilius for their actions, unless he didn’t actually possess that power?

That’s a straw man if I ever saw one. Who said he did? I’ve always affirmed that no bishop can anathematize contrary to the divine or canon laws. The issue of condemning the dead was not a settled issue (and was in fact one of the issues being determined at the Council). It really had no precedence, just as Pope St. Victor had no precedence for excommunicating based on a difference on the date of Easter. You must be confusing my position with the more extreme Absolutist Petrine advocates. Your arguments against them won’t work with the High Petrine positions.

Yes, that’s why they did not anathematize him, instead preferring to banish him to an island, preventing him from returning to Rome.

“Banish” him from where? Rome. They already forcibly took him from his See. Yet he was STILL regarded as the bishop of Rome. The so-called banishment was effectively INeffective as a deposition.

See above.

Yes, you go by implications based on the actions of the emperor. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence from the Council itself that Pope Vigilius was deposed or anathematized. Still waiting.

Why then was the Second Council of Constantinople called, if everybody submitted to the formula of Hormisdas and it solved everything by the authority of the pope?

First of all, did I ever claim that everything is solved by the authority of the Pope alone? As stated, your rationale will not work - they are nothing but straw men from the perspective of the High Petrine view.

Secondly, you seem to be under the strange assumption that the existence of schism deprives the Church of its established authority. I guess the fact that there are sinners deprives God of his authority, too, according to your rationale?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[LegoGE1947]

As stated, the so-called banishment was no more an “effective” deposition than the emperor’s removing him from his See. Why are you consistently avoiding the question? Where is the Council record of a deposition or anathematization of Pope Vigilius by name? What the emperor does to force the matter is not part of the Council’s actions.

You are confusing yourself. We were talking about Theodore of Mopsuestia, not the letter of ibas.

We’re talking about the letter of Ibas now. Don’t confuse the issue by referring to the Three Chapters as a whole. The issue of the letter of Ibas was purely theological, and Pope Vigilius made no theological analysis or defense of its contents other than to say It might be orthodox taken in the best possible sense. And this purely on the basis that the previous Council had it before them and did not condemn it. That’ is not a theological defense on the merits of its contents.

That’s a straw man if I ever saw one. Who said he did? I’ve always affirmed that no bishop can anathematize contrary to the divine or canon laws. The issue of condemning the dead was not a settled issue (and was in fact one of the issues being determined at the Council). It really had no precedence, just as Pope St. Victor had no precedence for excommunicating based on a difference on the date of Easter. You must be confusing my position with the more extreme Absolutist Petrine advocates. Your arguments against them won’t work with the High Petrine positions.

“Banish” him from where? Rome. They already forcibly took him from his See. Yet he was STILL regarded as the bishop of Rome. The so-called banishment was effectively INeffective as a deposition.

Yes, you go by implications based on the actions of the emperor. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence from the Council itself that Pope Vigilius was deposed or anathematized. Still waiting.

First of all, did I ever claim that everything is solved by the authority of the Pope alone? As stated, your rationale will not work - they are nothing but straw men from the perspective of the High Petrine view.

Secondly, you seem to be under the strange assumption that the existence of schism deprives the Church of its established authority. I guess the fact that there are sinners deprives God of his authority, too, according to your rationale?

Blessings,
Marduk

How can people ever see Christ in us when we can’t even see Christ in each other? (Gus Lloyd “Magnetic Christianity”)

 

[mardukm]

How can people ever see Christ in us when we can’t even see Christ in each other? (Gus Lloyd “Magnetic Christianity”)

May I ask what the relevance of this is?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here may shine more light on the current situation.

google.com/url?q=http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/5ecumen1.htm&sa=U&ei=0ShnT8a0IuT40gHIzdGLCA&ved=0CDAQFjAJ&sig2=sbj5jjsQYpXNm6yv7maF3Q&usg=AFQjCNG5eQ4EG12Lf8H84P7X8tDv7F4svQ

 

[LegoGE1947]

May I ask what the relevance of this is?

Blessings,
Marduk

I guess it has no relevance for this post. Sorry. It is just all the bickering and lack of recognizing other Christians as brothers and sisters seems to be a problem in evangelizing the world. I’ve had a problem with this and I need prayer, lots of it!!