Question about the Great Schism

[Rawb]

This is an interesting comment. It seems to ignore that the first Churches in the East were modest homes where the communities gathered to celebrate the agape meal and to Eucharistize before the Sunday morning Liturgy. What’s more important, the architectural structure, or the Faith and Unity of the members of the Body of Christ?

This is a prime example of the Scholasticism pervading the philosophy and thought behind Roman Catholicism. Yes, at one time there was not an iconostasis or onion domes or bells. That’s irrelevant to us now - we’re dealing with a different time period. From the Scholastic viewpoint, however, the “unnecessary” elements can be analyzed and removed and the rest remains. That is the thinking (not to malign it, just to state it) that has led to the stark and unadorned contemporary Catholic churches.

Not to slander your churches - for your beliefs they’re fine and work. Just pointing out the difference in the foundational thinking in approaching the faith between our two churches, in that Orthodox don’t even approach the issue this way. This difference in approach has led to a different in thinking that Orthodoxy cannot abide. That’s a roadblock.

But I will say that I give Catholics more credit for stressing what we have in common while Orthodox stress more what we don’t share.

In general this is true, you’re right. However, this is true mainly because we find Catholics constantly saying “we’re not that different”. If both sides were completely blunt about the differences there would be more discussion of common ground. Our actions are an over-compensation for the actions of the West.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

What you seem to not understand is that the Orthodox were the people who fought all those heresies, not the ones who originated them. :doh2:

Uh, no. The heresies arose in the east and those who fought against them always appealed to Rome for their vindication.

In the early church most Christians were in the east, and the intellectual ferment was there.

Most Christians were in the east? You’re really going with that line of reasoning?

And the corollary being that the West was anti-intellectual?

There was a tendency for innovative and imaginative thinkers to arise in the east, and the Orthodox had to deal with them and oppose them. This is the crucible in which the Orthodox churches were tested. The heresies are footnotes in history, and the Orthodox churches are still here.

Orthodoxy survived.

BTW, Pelagianism and Donatism are actually WESTERN heresies, and Arianism was a scourge in the west for far longer than it was in the east. So, by your examples it would seem that you didn’t make the point you were trying to make …

That’s ok, we know what you meant.

Do you guys still refer to Constantine as Saint Constantine?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

This is a prime example of the Scholasticism pervading the philosophy and thought behind Roman Catholicism. Yes, at one time there was not an iconostasis or onion domes or bells. That’s irrelevant to us now - we’re dealing with a different time period. From the Scholastic viewpoint, however, the “unnecessary” elements can be analyzed and removed and the rest remains. That is the thinking (not to malign it, just to state it) that has led to the stark and unadorned contemporary Catholic churches.

So truth, or the Truth of the Faith, is told by a clock?

Whatever happened to “whoever abstains, abstains for the Lord”? Or that because, according to your subjective opinion, a Church is “unadorned”, or less adorned than your tastes allow, means that the people don’t glorify God just as you do?

Not to slander your churches - for your beliefs they’re fine and work. Just pointing out the difference in the foundational thinking in approaching the faith between our two churches, in that Orthodox don’t even approach the issue this way. This difference in approach has led to a different in thinking that Orthodoxy cannot abide. That’s a roadblock.

The difference being that of the Orthodox’s(or your’s) over-emphasis on the material and astheitc appearance of a Church? That may be your opinion, but I can’t buy that the Orthodox Church can be that hung up on something that…earthly.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t think that pointing out the development of sacred art and architecture is an example of scholastic thinking? Scholasticism sought to use the reasoning methodologies of Aristotle and Plato primarily, to explain and explore Christian belief. Artistotle’s metaphysical thinking and epistomology, dialectical reasoning, use of inference, etc. was a way of trying to meditate on the majesty and theological journey toward Godliness. I happen to agree with the general Orthodox principle that some things should just be left a mystery. I also think the problem was that a lot of scholastic thinking became firm de fide dogma that was required of the faithful rather than just remaining pious opinion or a school of thought.

But I think many early fathers used the pagan backgrounds they had to comprehend their new religion of Christianity. Augustine used Manichaean and Neo-Platonic thinking to explain the faith to his flock. Justin Martyr and Tertullian and Origen and all those early folks were former pagans. God made use of the classical educations and philosophies in a didactic way for the faithful I think.

This is a prime example of the Scholasticism pervading the philosophy and thought behind Roman Catholicism. Yes, at one time there was not an iconostasis or onion domes or bells. That’s irrelevant to us now - we’re dealing with a different time period. From the Scholastic viewpoint, however, the “unnecessary” elements can be analyzed and removed and the rest remains. That is the thinking (not to malign it, just to state it) that has led to the stark and unadorned contemporary Catholic churches.

Not to slander your churches - for your beliefs they’re fine and work. Just pointing out the difference in the foundational thinking in approaching the faith between our two churches, in that Orthodox don’t even approach the issue this way. This difference in approach has led to a different in thinking that Orthodoxy cannot abide. That’s a roadblock.

In general this is true, you’re right. However, this is true mainly because we find Catholics constantly saying “we’re not that different”. If both sides were completely blunt about the differences there would be more discussion of common ground. Our actions are an over-compensation for the actions of the West.

 

[Rawb]

I don’t think that pointing out the development of sacred art and architecture is an example of scholastic thinking?

You’re right, it’s not; however pulling apart the ‘necessary’ vs ‘unnecessary’ components of the Liturgy and then saying that it’s fine to do without these things, even when a parish is perfectly capable of having them, because they’re not ‘necessary’ is application of the scholastic type thinking.

I happen to agree with the general Orthodox principle that some things should just be left a mystery. I also think the problem was that a lot of scholastic thinking became firm de fide dogma that was required of the faithful rather than just remaining pious opinion or a school of thought.

You may be right. If it hadn’t been set in stone by Rome perhaps there wouldn’t be so many issues. Things like “transubstantiation” however are just one of many things that keep us apart which neither side will budge on.

So truth, or the Truth of the Faith, is told by a clock?

That’s not what I said.

The difference being that of the Orthodox’s(or your’s) over-emphasis on the material and astheitc appearance of a Church? That may be your opinion, but I can’t buy that the Orthodox Church can be that hung up on something that…earthly.

That’s not what I said either.

Have a nice day! :tiphat:

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

What exactly are you referring to when you talk about " pulling apart the ‘necessary’ vs ‘unnecessary’ components of the Liturgy"?

What “un-necessary components” has the Church done away with?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

That’s not what I said.

Here’s what you said:

Yes, at one time there was not an iconostasis or onion domes or bells. That’s irrelevant to us now - we’re dealing with a different time period.

Explain to me how iconostasis, onion domes, or bells is an article of faith? Or that time periods necessitate whether something is true or false? Or that any such time period is more true than another?

You made the statement. If I missed something or am ignorant help me to understand what you mean.

That’s not what I said either.
Have a nice day! :tiphat:

This is what you said:

Just pointing out the difference in the foundational thinking in approaching the faith between our two churches, in that Orthodox don’t even approach the issue this way. This difference in approach has led to a different in thinking that Orthodoxy cannot abide. That’s a roadblock.

You seem to be saying the the asthetic appearance of a church is a “foundational” and is a “roadblock” to reconciliation.

The statement itself begs the question.

So again, please, help me to understand.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Rawb;7888495]To be blunt, this attitude in Roman Catholicism is a huge barrier as well.

I disagree, recordings, writings, recorded history reveals a strong negative language protesting the Catholic Church from Orthodox fundamentalists, I have read them and heard them, most of the time, their accusations can be summed up as “False”. I don’t find any “attitude” or negative language coming from the Catholic Church towards the Orthodox.

Besides to which attitude do you reference here? I have not seen one displayed from Roman Catholicism that creates a “Huge barrier”.

I’ve said it before, and I shall probably have to say it again. There are issues which divide us. Legitimate issues. Yes, it cannot be denied that pride (on both sides of the fence) has played its role in the division. When the Orthodox say, however, that Rome teaches doctrines and practices things which we do not agree with we actually mean that Rome teaches doctrines and practices things we do not agree with. The first step in any plan of reconciliation has got to be that Roman Catholics listen on this point. They include:

Thus far, I take it you don’t speak for the whole Orthodox community, so I will respectfully take your commentary as your opinion and not based on clear fact and clarity of defined and defended Apostolic doctrine (unchanged) and language from the Catholic Church.

Because this thread is about the Great Schism, what you introduce deals with new invented arguments from Orthodoxy, not the Great Schism.

But I will entertain your list for you, the hidden issue to your list is mainly because Orthodoxy did not council, or were not able to council due to restraints from their secular powers leaving the Pope’s and the World bishops to defend heresy, and heretics by defining, and defending apostolic doctrine in clarifying and defining with clarity to Her enemies, while Orthodoxy remained stagnant in history. Your protests are a Johnny come lately. Now that you chose to evangelize the West, maybe you should sit down and listen, with clarity the defined and defended apostolic doctrines, so that you don’t fall into the same heretical errors as did the protestant reformers. Otherwise you might be protesting something you already believe.

Papal Infallibility = Biblical authority issue from the Orthodox that can be overcome with humility and charity, and clarity of this biblical apostolic doctrine promised by Jesus. This can be cleared up by removing the false notions and false claims from Orthodoxy that the Pope in Peter’s Chair is some type of superhuman.

Papal Universal Jurisdiction = not a problem, when the Orthodox come to the accurate understanding of what Universal Jurisdiction means, and stop jumping to false protestant conclusions.

Immaculate Conception = Authority issue, which defended the apostolic biblical doctrine, that God dwells with the human race, when communism removed God from the people, largely where the Orthodox are populated when the Orthodox church was persecuted. But thank God for that Marian Pope, who proclaimed Christ Crucified in heart of this beast.

The Immaculate Conception freed the Orthodox Church from communism. And yet you protest this divine act of God, so that the Logos became flesh? You should look more into this doctrine why it was defended and defined at the time when it was, just like the defined blessed Trinity doctrine 400 years later after the resurrection, which removed the Orthodox heretics from Her ranks. So did the Immaculate Conception put God back into the hearts of man who removed God from the hearts of man.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;
Original Sin = Authority issue, which clarified and defended the apostolic biblical doctrine of baptism, and the incarnation. This is not a problem, because Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture reveal this defined doctrine.

Scholasticism = This is a trumped up charge from Orthodoxy against Catholicism. This is not a doctrine that is refuted. This is a teaching discipline, this offends the pride of Orthodoxy? I still do not have a clue to why Orthodox protest against a teaching discipline?
You were warned, if you jump to conclusions like this, you may end up like most protestants, rejecting something that is not there, or rejecting something in Catholicism that you already believe but it has not yet been revealed to you, because you remain stagnant in Orthodox.

Substitutionary Atonement = Your true colors are being exposed here; Did you make this up? I have no clue of Catholic doctrine defined as “Substitutionary Atonement”. Again the thread is about the Great Schism, not make up things as we go along. I cant’ help you here. Is “Substitutionary” a word in the dictionary? or did you make this up?

Distinguishing between Mortal and Venial Sin = Deadly sin and sin that is not deadly is biblical. Your protest against the authority of sacred scripture, not the Catholic Church.

The Filioque = Authority issue which defined and defended Jesus divinity and humanity against the Orthodox Arian heresy which defeated this Eastern heresy affecting the West, brought about by your Eastern conquering Emperors, who placed their Arian bishops and churchs to the West. Now that the dust is settled, this biblical revelation of the “Filioque” is not far from being clarified to the Orthodox.

But most importantly and consistently disregarded is the philosophy or attitude present in Orthodoxy which is absent in Catholicism.

Iam sorry your argument of philosophy holds not water here, I thought we were dealing with revealed Truth by our Lord Jesus, practiced and believed in by all the faithful Catholic? If Your philosophy argument means that much to you, take it up with philosophers, not the Christian faithful. Secularism is not my cup of tea.

There’s also the issues present of the rampant liberalism in Roman Catholicism and most Orthodox feel the current Liturgy would have to be re-worked or the Tridentine returned to. Orthodoxy isn’t interested in what Catholicism teaches, but what she believes. The current faith believed by the Roman Catholics is not Orthodox, and thus we do not seek reunion. This is not a lack of humility on our part, but a refusal to abandon the Orthodox Faith, the faith of the apostles.

Most of your argument here is to opinionated. I can assure you the Roman Catholic Church faith is not stagnant as Orthodoxy. The Roman Catholic Church is one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. She does need nor wear the jacket name Orthodox, because She remains faithful to the revelations of Jesus and the teachings of the Apostles both written and from Sacred Tradition.

We seek reunion with all members of society even the ones in purgatory, which you did not name. Jesus prayed for Peter faith, and to bring back his brothers. This Peter is doing today in the Popes and bishops in communion with the Pope.

Peace be with you

 

[Rawb]

So again, please, help me to understand.

I don’t know that I can. First of all I’m not very good at explaining myself ever, so should probably stop posting on a public forum where people are going to be able to read my words as an example of Orthodoxy, and second I myself didn’t get any of this until I started practicing Orthodoxy.

It’s like a different culture. Until you’ve been in immersed in the culture I’m not sure I’d be able to actually explain it. I may be wrong though, so I’ll give it a try.

It’s not that the domes (we’ll use domes as an example) are necessary in the sense that the Liturgy cannot take place if your church doesn’t have a dome. The domes are necessary in that they express a belief, and so the dome *is *necessary. There cannot be a wide diversity of architectural styles, because there’s not a wide variety of truth, and each Church is a physical embodiment of Truth. It is the same with the presence of icons, the iconostasis, the vestements, the candles, everything.

Now at one point, it is true, these things did not exist. That is irrelevant to us now because in our time period they *do *exist. It is impossible to try and replicate exactly how the Early Church practiced, because God has directed His Church to exist in a certain way in these contemporary times. Ask the Traditional Catholics about “Organic Development.” It’s pretty much what I’m talking about here.

Now that attitude, that philosophy or belief, that one can break apart the separate aspects of the Liturgy, i.e. “This is the dome” “these are the vestements” “this is the altar table” “these are the candles” etc. and re-work them is foreign to Orthodoxy, but prevalent in Catholicism. Orthodoxy doesn’t accept those separations - the sum is greater than the parts and the parts have been directed by God. They may change slowly over time organically within a culture which is why we have the variations in style that we do between the Russians, Serbs, Greeks, and Arabs, but to completely break with what has come immediately before and ‘return’ to something is not acceptable.

Now, this is what the Roman Catholics tried to do with the Novus Ordo - it’s supposed to be a complete revision back to the early liturgies. However, it’s an anachronism, a break with tradition, and too innovative in far too many areas for Orthodox tastes. Naturally for Catholics this is not an issue because your faith allows you to dissect and examine and rearrange. That’s the philosophy upon which your faith is built, a style of scholastic thinking. Ours, however, does not, and we think this philosophy is a dangerous one. This is what Orthodox are referencing when we say the philosophy, attitude, or foundation of our churches are different.

I don’t know that I’ll be posting again for a while - I’ve rather gone against the orders of someone I’m meant to be obeying in getting into these discussions at all. I was supposed to stick to prayers and only very simple explanations. I hope I helped explain.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I will conclude with this:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas

 

[Little_One0307]

I will conclude with this:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas

Mind translating that for me who is beginning to learn Latin lol?

Is it something like, the one thing necessary … in all love? Don’t know what the middle part is.

I am still learning how to do noun declensions. I am still gonna stick with it. I want to read the Vatican documents in Latin :=) And after all it is the language of the Church.

Thanks.

Little One0307

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

There’s also the issues present of the rampant liberalism in Roman Catholicism and most Orthodox feel the current Liturgy would have to be re-worked or the Tridentine returned to. .

This part I give a

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t see that as being scholasticism at all. It’s modernism? Scholasticism seeks to explain and develop reasoning to explain the metaphysical and theological phenomenon, the mysterious, the morality and makes things systematically comprehensible. It can go too far to be sure. But the example you give here with the liturgy hardly sounds like scholasticism. It’s more like modernism or liberalism gone awry. Vatican II’s excessive house-cleaning of the liturgy was not based on scholasticism. St. Thomas Aquinas would be rolling in his grave to see hand-holding during the Our Father, Eucharistic Ministers “blessing” people, songs like Amazing Grace, liturgical dancers in some frontiers, and the informality for sure. And nobody was more the scholastic than T. Aquinas!

You’re right, it’s not; however pulling apart the ‘necessary’ vs ‘unnecessary’ components of the Liturgy and then saying that it’s fine to do without these things, even when a parish is perfectly capable of having them, because they’re not ‘necessary’ is application of the scholastic type thinking.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

It’s not that the domes (we’ll use domes as an example) are necessary in the sense that the Liturgy cannot take place if your church doesn’t have a dome. The domes are necessary in that they express a belief, and so the dome *is *necessary. There cannot be a wide diversity of architectural styles, because there’s not a wide variety of truth, and each Church is a physical embodiment of Truth. It is the same with the presence of icons, the iconostasis, the vestements, the candles, everything.

Now at one point, it is true, these things did not exist. That is irrelevant to us now because in our time period they *do *exist. It is impossible to try and replicate exactly how the Early Church practiced, because God has directed His Church to exist in a certain way in these contemporary times. Ask the Traditional Catholics about “Organic Development.” It’s pretty much what I’m talking about here.

:clapping:

 

[Esdra]

That is not generally true. Most Lutherans worldwide I believe use catholic, as do Anglicans, Methodists, I think Presbyterians, and probably others as well.

Well, I wasn’t speaking in General, but about Austria…

I haven’t heard “Catholic Church” in the Apostle’s Creed in any other denomination except in the Catholic (or Orthodox; as well as Old Catholic/Utrecht) Church.

And I’ve visited nearly every denomination that exists here in Austria (there are by far less than in the US. I am not counting JWs, LDS and STA and the New Apostolic Church in this case).

So, I’ve visited a United Church (Reformed and Lutheran), Baptist (two different denominations - Although I don’t know their exact difference. They seem to come along with each other pretty well…) , Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, of course [As I am still Roman Catholic officially], Serbian Orthodox *(although I didn’t understand anything there, bescause the mass was in Serbian! ) *and Old Catholic.

in Christ,

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Mind translating that for me who is beginning to learn Latin lol?

Is it something like, the one thing necessary … in all love? Don’t know what the middle part is.

I am still learning how to do noun declensions. I am still gonna stick with it. I want to read the Vatican documents in Latin :=) And after all it is the language of the Church.

Thanks.

Little One0307

Loosely translated: In things of necessity, unity; in things of non-necessity, diversity; in all things charity.

 

[Hesychios]

Uh, no. The heresies arose in the east and those who fought against them always appealed to Rome for their vindication.

Those who fought against heresies were Orthodox, and they appealed to whatever allies they could find, east-west and out of the empire.

Most Christians were in the east? You’re really going with that line of reasoning?

It was in fact true.

The economic engines, the money, tax base, schools and libraries were in the great cities of the eastern Roman empire. It was the center of Christianity.

And the corollary being that the West was anti-intellectual?

No, I would never say that.

If you are referring to the age when there were a lot of heresies rising in Christiainy (the first three or four centuries, basically - the time of Donatism, Arianism, Pelagianism and Montanism ) most of what we think of as ‘west’ were not very well economically developed and still mostly pagan. In a word then, as far as Christianity is concerned, the west was mostly pretty backward at the time. The city of Rome, the city of Milan, and the city of Seville would have been big standouts compared to the rest of the west, all three mostly pagan in those centuries but well developed and intellectually active.

That was eventually to change, and western Christians were to prove themselves also quite capable of giving a great deal of effort at innovating in the Christian religion.

But by then the east had settled down, Orthodoxy had triumphed. Orthodoxy remains stubbornly conservative to this day. So on the one hand we find Roman Catholics accusing us of being the hotbed of ancient hereies while on the other we see Roman Catholics accusing us of being stagnant today. The fact is neither criticism is fair.

Orthodoxy simply strives to remain true to the Faith of the Fathers, neither adding to nor subtracting from what has been given.

Do you guys still refer to Constantine as Saint Constantine?

He is a saint of the church.

 

[Hesychios]

But in all fairness, you omit the mammoth role of the papacy in fighting heresies…

In all fairness, this discussion is about Grey Pilgrim accusing Orthodox of being heretics.

If they were heretics, they were not Orthodox, the Orthodox (yes, that included bishops of Rome in those days) opposed those heresies.

That is like accusing Roman Catholics of being Cathars and Albigensians, the people who were Cathars and Albigensians were not Roman Catholics, the Roman Catholics opposed them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh please. You could start your seach with Arianism a product of the East on then move to Phototius. Of course you would also do well to go back to the Council of Nicaea in 325. There has always been power stuggles and stubborn men behind the entire schism. Its nonsense to take one side and claim them “all correct” and the other all wrong.

One may perhaps sum up Photius by saying that he was a great man with one blot on his character—his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. But that blot so covers his life that it eclipses everything else and makes him deserve our final judgment as one of the worst enemies the Church of Christ ever had, and the cause of the greatest calamity that ever befell her.

Photius played a large part in the latter years of the schism.

The early history of the controversy must be pieced together from about 35 documents found in various sources. The historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial under the bishop Achillas of Alexandria, when he made the following syllogism: he said, “If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing”.

Several church councils were largely, if not primarily, concerned with the Arian controversy. These include:

Synods of Antioch 264-269, councils rejected the term homoousios
Egyptian Council of Alexandria (318 or 319).
Council of the party of Alexander of Alexandria at Nicomedia (c. 325).
Council of the party of Alexander of Alexandria at Antioch (325).[citation needed]
Nicaea (more than 300 bishops) (325).
Church trial of Eustathius of Antioch at Antioch (c. 330).
Council of Nicomedia (250 bishops) (c. 335).
Church trial of Athanasius of Alexandria at Tyre (335).
Council of Jerusalem (335).
Church trial of Marcellus of Ancyra at Constantinople (336).
Church trial of Athanasius of Alexandria at Antioch (338).[citation needed]
Council of Antioch (Council of the Dedication) (90 bishops) (341).
Another Council of Antioch (341).
Western Council of Rome (342).[citation needed]
Mostly Western Council of Sardica (342 or 343).
Eastern Council of Philippopolis (342 or 343).
Eastern Council of Antioch (344).[citation needed]
Regional Council of Jerusalem.
Mostly Western Council of Mediolanum (345).[citation needed]
Mostly Western Council of Mediolanum (347).[citation needed]
Council of Sirmium (347).[citation needed]
Egyptian Council of Alexandria (c. 351).
Council of Sirmium and church trial of Photinus at Sirmium (351).
Council of Arelate (353).[citation needed][12]
Mostly Western Council of Mediolanum (more than 300 bishops) (355).
Council of Sirmium (357).
Council of Ancyra (358).[citation needed]
Fourth Council of Sirmium (359).[citation needed]
Western Council of Ariminum (about 300 or more than 400 bishops) (359).
Eastern Council of Seleucia (about 160 bishops) (359).
Council of the Homoians at Nike (c. 359).
First Council of Constantinople (360) (360).
Church trial of Eunomius of Cyzicus at Constantinople (c. 360).
Church trial of Eustathius of Sebaste at Gangra.
Council of the Anomoeans in Constantinople (c. 361).
Local council at Constantinople (c. 361).
Council of Antioch (361).[citation needed]
Council of the Anomoeans in Constantinople (c. 363).
Council of the party of Theodosius of Lydia (c. 363 or 364).
Local council at Antioch (c. 381).
Council of Constantinople (381 or 383).
Council of Toledo (Of the churches in Hispania) (589).

There isn’t right or wrongs at this point, theres historic fact. The reason it stands as it is today is the inability of men to put aside petty differences for the common bond of and Greater good.

I cannot also be said it can’t be done, because it is done with the Byzantine Catholic Church when actually studied there is no issues wit the filique but in the misunderstanding of mans minds. And actual interpretation

The issue is the same as always today none of which are good. Papal primacy which is much more complex then 325 and 451 with First amoung equals being immediatly acceptible to the East. This has been dicussed at length also. There are other complex issues.

But the basis of the issue in the Schism is Arianism which started in the East.

God Bless, Gary