/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>Macedonian schism about to be healed

>Kievan schism about to be healed

Next up: The Antioch-Jerusalem schism, I hope.

Then the schism with the Western Orthodox communion of churches.

>>565353

Can you explain to me how that these were actually schismatics?

Besides the bureaucratic part, they did and believed exactly the same things as any other Orthodox as far as I know.

Wouldn't they just be another Orthodox church?

To me it just looks like a pope issue in which Russia wants to play the big guy.

>>565353

Then the Baptist-Apostolic schism

>>565353

Then, you guys will all recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome and come back into full communion with the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church after nearly 1000 years of being in schism from us. :)

>>565355

>Can you explain to me how that these were actually schismatics?

>Besides the bureaucratic part, they did and believed exactly the same things as any other Orthodox as far as I know.

>Wouldn't they just be another Orthodox church?

The Church has canonical boundaries, you know.

Eucharistic communion is defined by bishops recognizing one another as orthodox. You could believe absolutely everything that the Orthodox believe, and do an Orthodox liturgy, and follow Orthodox spirituality, but if you're not under an Orthodox bishop you're not in the Church, end of story.

Doesn't it work the same in Catholicism (except for the Pope being the most prominent bishop)?

At least I'm sure St Basil is a saint for both of us, and he defined three categories of being "outside the Church":

- parasynagogue: A community that may have the right faith, but they are not under a bishop.

- schismatic church: A community that may have the right faith, but they are under a bishop who is not recognized as orthodox by the canonical Orthodox Catholic Church. The issues are often of a political nature.

- heretic church: A community that does not have the right faith, but rather believes in a distortion of what Christianity is. The issues are dogmatic and one must recant their heresies if they are to join the Church.

There are different ways to re-embrace these categories in the Church: simply making them join a canonical congregation (for parasynagogues), or solving the dispute with their bishop and then recognizing them as canonical (for schismatics), or chrismating them and making them give a confession of faith (for heretics), or even baptizing them if their baptism was invalid (often for archeretics, who have gone so far as to distord the form and intention of baptism).

>>565356

insh'allah

>>565360

nah, we're focusing on the Monophysite schism right now, but we might rejoin the Holy Papist "Church" if you drop the ecumenical status of your councils after the 7th, recognize the council of 879 as ecumenical, and have a bearded pope

>>565366

>drop ecumenical status of councils after 7

Lol no.

>recognize 879 as ecumenical

We were still in communion for a few more centuries even when we didn't recognize it.

>bearded pope

Maybe.

>>565367

>We were still in communion for a few more centuries even when we didn't recognize it.

Current scholarship agrees that Rome did recognize it for centuries, and only dropped its ecumenical status in favor of the council of 869 after the schism.

At the very least, everybody agrees that the "Photian schism" is a myth.

Not that the recognition or lack thereof of the council of 879 is the source of the schism, of course - I was only saying that in jest.

>Lol no.

Bad news - the Melkites (and more recently, the Ukrainian Catholics) openly reject the ecumenicity of the councils after the 7th, seeing them merely as local Western councils. You've gotta do something about it.

Although tbh we're facing a similar issue with the Orientals… They don't want to recognize the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th councils as ecumenical for the same reason we don't want to recognize your 8th to 21st councils as ecumenical - we weren't there, we don't agree with everything in there, and they anathematize some of the things we hold dear.

I wonder how the Monophysite schism will end exactly and what the Orthodox Church will look like afterward, maybe it can be used as a model for how to end the Great Schism.

>>565374

The concept of the "Petrine See" did not only concern Rome, but also Alexandria (founded by Mark, sent by Peter) and Antioch (founded by Peter).

Peter was the first bishop of the Church of Antioch, yes. Although the reason Rome is given a role Antioch doesn't have is not only because of Peter, but also because of his martyrdom there.

>>565371

>current scholarship

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/4_ch05.htm

>Melkites reject

http://www.mliles.com/melkite//councilsecumenical.shtml

>>565385

>first link

Dude, Schaff is not "current scholarship." His "History of the Church" is 100 years old and everybody knows today that it went off incomplete or even false information in many points. It's a good work, but outdated.

I'll copy down what the conclusions of modern scholars is, after this post.

>second link

That's not an official website.

Go to a Melkite parish and ask for their catechical material, or even better, just ask the priest - they reject the councils after the 7th (but do not anathematize them).

>>565385

A. Siecienski's work is considered the best modern TL;DR of what we know scholarly about the history of the filioque and that of the Papacy in relation to the Eastern churches (in English anyway), so here is what he wrote (I'll add sources as well).

In his book on the filioque:

In 867 Photius summoned a council in Constantinople that anathematized Pope Nicholas and condemned the Franks for their heretical practices, chief among them being the introduction of the filioque.[118] However, imperial politics soon complicated matters as Michael III was murdered by his co-emperor Basil, who decided to consolidate his power by restoring Ignatius as patriarch and reestablishing relations with the pope. Another council was convoked in Constantinople in 869 (called the eight ecumenical council in the West), which annulled the acts of the earlier synod in 867 and sent Photius ("who, like a dangerous wolf, leapt into the sheepfold of Christ . . . and filled the world with a thousand upheavals and disturbances") into exile, where he remained until 873.[119] By that time Ignatius and Photius had reconciled, and Photius was allowed to return to Constantinople as tutor for the emperor's children. It was Ignatius himself who recommended that Photius be named his successor, and upon his death in 877 Photius once again became patriarch.

>notes:

>[118] Although the acts of this council are lost, Cyril Mango claims that Photius's final homily from the council (Homilu 18) is preserved. See Cyril Mango, The Homilies of Photius of Constantinople: English Translation, Introduction, and Commentary (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958), 306-15.

>[119] Among the decisions were Canon 4: "We declare that he [Photius] never was nor is now a bishop nor must those, who were consecrated or given advancement by him to any grace of the priesthood, remain in that state to which they were promoted," and Canon 6: "Photius, after the sentences and condemnations most justly pronounced against him by the most holy pope Nicholas for his criminal usurpation of the church of Constantinople, in addition to his other evil deeds, found some men of wicked and sycophantic character from the squares and streets of the city and proposed and designated them as vicars of the three most holy patriarchal sees of the East. He formed with these a church of evil-doers and a fraudulent council and set in motion accusations and charges entailing deposition against the most blessed pope Nicholas and repeatedly, impudently and boldly issued anathemas against him and all those in communion with him. The records of these things have been seen by us, records which were cobbled together by him with evil intent and lying words, and all of which have been burnt during this very synod." (Norman Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumnical Councils, 169, 171.)

<<<cont.

>>565399

Soon afterward in 879 the emperor called for another council to meet in Constantinople in the hopes that the new pope, John VIII (872-82), would recognize the validity of Photius's claim upon the patriarchate. This council, sometmes called the eight ecumenical in the East, was attended by the papal legates (who had brought with them a gift from the pope - a pallium for Photius) and by over 400 bishops, and who immediately confirmed Photius as rightful patriarch.[120] The acts of the anti-Photian synods of 863 and 869 were "completely rejected and annulled, and not to be included or numbered with the holy councils."[121] In the Horos of the council, the Creed (without the filioque) was read out and a condemnation pronounced against those who "impose on it their own invented phrases and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy and display the audacity to falsify completely the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos [Rule] with illegitimate words, or additions, or substractions."[122]

>notes:

>[120] See Johan A. Meijer, A Successful Reunion Council: A Theological Analysis of the Photian Synod of 879-80 (Thessalonikê: Patriarchikon Hyddrima Paterikôn Meletôn, 1975).

>[121] Francis Dvornik in The Photian Schism, details the complicated historical reasons why, in the West, the acts of this council were forgotten and the acts of the earlier anti-Photian synod became part of the Roman canonical tradition. Chief among them was the importance of Canon 22, "forbidding laymen to interfere with episcopal elections, 'discovered' by the canonists of the Gregorian period." This canon gave the Church of Rome support in their ongoing struggle against lay involvement in ecclesiastical affairs. Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schims, 330.

>[122] Trans. George Dragas, "The Eight Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (879/880) and the Condemnation of the Filioque Addition and Doctrine," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 44 (1999): 364.

<<cont.

>>565404

This conciliar condemnation of the interpolation played a large role in later Byzantine polemics and seemed a complete vindication of the position of Photius.[123] Johan A. Meijer, in his study of the council, points out that this condemnation was aimed not so much at Rome itself (since Photius knew that the Roman Church had not approved of the interpolation), but at those Frankish missionaries and theologians who had introduced the teaching among the Bulgarians.[124] Pope John VIII, for his part, gave his qualified assent to the acts chiefly because, like Leo III before him, he resented Aachen's growing influence on ecclesiastical policy, which he believed was his alone to decide.

>notes:

>[123] V. Grumel, "Le Filioque au concil photien de 870-880 et le témoignage de Michel d'Anchialos" Echos d'Orient 29 (1930): 257-64; Martin Jugie, "Origine de la controverse sur l'addition du Filioque au Symbole," Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 28 (1939): 369-85.

>[124] Both the Letter to the Patriarch of Aquileia and the Mystagogia assumed that the opponent was not the See of Rome (given Pope John's recognition of the Council of 879), but rather the Carolingians, who were thought to be both theologically unsound and disobedient to the teachings of their own patriarch.

Next up: what he has to say about the councils of 869 and 879 in his book on the Papacy.

>>565407

Believing himself to have been ill-treated by Nicholas, Photius, who had never denied "the primacy of the See of St. Peter and St. Paul [and] unlike Ignatius had been consistently courteous" in his dalings with Rome,[160] gathered a council (867) to anathematize the pope.. The emperor then forwarded its decisions to the western emperor, Louis II (855-75), promising recognition of his imperial title in exchange for Nicholas's deposition. However by the time the acts of the council reached the West Nicholas was dead and his successor, Hadrian II (867-72), was already on the throne. To complicate matters, back in Constantinoople there was a coup during which Michael III was murdered by his co-emperor Basil I (867-86), who then decided to "expel . . . Photius the usurper,"[161] restore Ignatius to the Patriarchate, and re-establish relations with Rome by means of a new council.

>notes:

>[160] Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church, 159.

>[161] John Skylitzes, Synopsis Historion; Eng. trans: John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byantine History, 132.

<<cont.

>>565409

Hadrian's legates to the council, which mt in Constantinople in 869, began the proceedings by demanding a "new and unheard-of thing" - that the assembled bishops "present a document to give . . . satisfaction" of their communion with the apostolic see.[162] The bishops reluctantly signed, but as the council progressed they complained to Ignatius and the emperor that "the Church of Constantinople [was being] subjected to the power of Rome . . . like a servant to her mistress."[163] Anastasius Bibliothecarius (d. 878) even wrote how the "cunning" Greeks, fearing for their "ancient liberty" attempted to steal the documents containing their signatures, although they were later returned.[164] As compensation for their perceived humiliation, the council affirmed the traditional pentarchical order,[165] with Constantinople given second place despite Nicholas's earlier claims in favor of Alexandria.

>notes:

>[162] Liber Pontificalis: The Lives of the Ninth-Century Popes, trans. Raymond David (Liverpool: Liverpool University, 1995, 279. The text of the Libellus, found in Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Interpretatio Synodi VIII Generalis (PL 129:36-37), is modeled after the one authored by Pope Hormisdas following the Acacian Schism.

>[163] Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Interpretatio Synodi VIII Generalis (PL 129:38)

>[164] Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Interpretatio Synodi VIII Generalis (PL 129:38-39). Henry Chadwick described this "Watergate-like" incident and suggested that the pirates who later stole the Acts during the legates' trip home were actually in the employ of the emperor. Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church, 167.

>[165] Canon 21: "Therefore we declare that no secular powers should treat with disrespect any of those who hold the office of patriarch . . . This applies in the first place to the most holy pope of old Rome, secondly to the patriarch of Constantinople, and then to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem." Tanner.ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1, 182.

<<cont.

>>565412

During the council the acts of Photius's earlier synod were publically burned and Photius himself - present at the gathering but maintaing "an unbroken and dignified silence"[166] - was condemned as "a dangerous wold, [who] leapt into the sheepfold of Christ . . . [and] filled the whole world with a thousand upheavals and disturbances."[167] Anathemas were pronounced against those who dared to "compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome . . . as Photius did recently and Dioscorus a long time ago. Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity . . . and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs."[168]

>notes:

>[166] Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 149.

>[167] Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1, 169.

>[168] Ibid., 182. The council then added that in the event an ecumenical synod be held in which "any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect . . . [I]t must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome." Ibid.

<<cont.

>>565417

Like previous conciliar victories, this Roman triumph came with a price - the council's refusal to concede papal jurisdiction over Bulgaria.[169] While the papal legates insisted that the Bulgarians "belong and ought to belong to the holy Roman church . . . to St. Peter prince of Apostles," the Greeks held that since Constantinopolitan priests had been in Bulgaria first, it should be under the patriarch's jurisdiction.[170] The legates asserted that the council should not rule in this case, for "the apostolic see has not chosen you as judges in its own cause, because you are in fact of lower status . . . it alone has the right to be the judge of every church."[171] When the eastern bishops ultimately did rule in favor of Constantinople, the legates strongly objected, although not as strongly as Hadrian when he heard what had happened. Patriarch Ignatius, "whose recognition by Hadrian was conditional on his behavior in Bulgaria" now found himself threatened with excommunication by the very man who helped restore him to his see.

>notes:

>[169] According to the Liber, the debate began when Peter, the Bulgarian embassy, arrived at the council and asked with feigned innocence "to which church must we be subject?" Liber Pontificalis: The Lives of the Ninth-Century Popes, 283.

>[170] Ibid., 283-284.

>[171] Ibid.

<<cont.

>>565414

daipers

>>565419

In the years following the council, Ignatius and Photius achieved a reconciliation and it was Ignatius himself who recommended that Photius be named his successor. In 879 the Emperor called for another council to meet in Constantinople in the hopes that the new pope, John VIII (872-82), might recognize the validity of Photius's claim upon the Patriarchate.[172] John consented, provided Photius gave up jurisdiction of Bulgaria and apologized for his previous conduct toward Pope Nicholas. The papal legates, told upon their arrival that Photius would concede Bulgaria but never apologize, faced a dilemma. Believing themselves bound to make the best deal possible under the circumstances, they allowed the Pope's instructions to the council to be edited, confirmed Photius as rightful patriarch, and moved to have the acts of the anti-Photian synods of 836 and 869 "completely rejected and annulled, and not to be included or numbered with the holy councils."[173]

>notes:

>[172] See Johan A. Meijer, A Successful Reunion Council: A Theological Analysis of the Photian Synod of 879-80 (Thessalonikê: Patriarchikon Hyddrima Paterikôn Meletôn, 1975). Dvornik claimd that among the chief reasons the acts of this council were forgotten, and the anti-Photian synod became part of the Roman canonical tradition, was the prohibition in canon 22 against laymen interfering with episcopal elections. This gave the canonists of the Gregorian period conciliar support in Rome's ongoing struggle against lay involvement in ecclesiastical affairs. Dvornik, The Photian Schims, 330.

>[173] Translated by George Dragas, "The Eight Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (879/880) and the Condemnation of the Filioque Addition and Doctrine," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 44 (1999): 364. In the Horos of the council, the Creed (without the filioque) was read out and a condemnation pronounced against those who "impose on it their own invented phrases . . . illegitimate words, or addtions, or substractions."

<<cont.

>>565414

diapers

>>565424

Photius was glad to help restore the peace, permitting Pope John's letters to be read out without omitting (as had been done in 787) passages that based papal power on Christ's commission to "Peter, Prince of Apostles . . . whom the Lord placed at the head of all the chuches."[174] John's letter to the emperor was a powerful statement on behalf of papal prerogatives, claiming that "whoever refuses to accept . . . our decrees or those of the Holy Roman Church . . . declares war, not on us, but on the Holy Apostle Peter, or rather on Christ, Son of God, who so honored and glorified His Apostle as to give him the power to bind and loose."[175] Yet Photius gave John's claims a conciliar hearing, including the pope's affirmation that the Bishop of Rome possessed, on his own, the authority to reinstate him.[176]

>notes:

>[174] Pope John VIII, Epistola 207 (MGH VII, 166-76). Also cited by the pope was Jeremiah 1:10: "See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant."

>[175] Ibid.

>[176] According to Pope John, Photius's reinstatement was accomplished "not by our own authority, even though we have the power to do it." Ibid.

<<cont.

>>565429

John VIII was initially unhappy that all of his conditions were not met, and yet he gave his grudging assent to his legates' decision knowing that if he wanted Bulgaria "he would have to pay for it in the coin of compromise."[177] Photius was recognized as "Ecumenical Patriarch," although Anastasius Bibiliothecarius explained to the pope was this really meant - not in the sense that he ruled over the whole world but only that he ruled over a certain [i.e., the imperial] part.[178] To reconcile the East's pentarchical view of the church with the growing sense of Roman primacy, Anastasius used the image of the Body of Christ: "Just as Christ has placed in His body, that is to say, the Church, a numbr of patriarchs equal to the number of senses in the human body, the well-being of the Church will not suffer as long as these sees are of the same will, just as the body will function properly as long as the five senses remain intact and healthy. And because the See of Rome has precedence, it can well be compared to the sense of sight, which is certainly the first of the senses of the body, since it is the most vigilant and since it remains, more than any of the other senses, in communion with the whole body."[179}

>notes:

>[177] Simeonova, Diplomacy of the Letter and the Cross, 313.

>[178] Anastasius Bibiliothecarius, Interpretatio Synodi VII Generalis (PL 129:197).

>[179] Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Interpretatio Synodi VIII Generalis (PL 129:16); Eng. trans: Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, 97.

<<cont.

Welcome back lads

>>565432

To the outside observer, it is extraordinary how the memory of Photius in both East and West so completely diverges from an objective examination of the historical record. Later Catholic polemicists decried the ambition and presumption that led Photius to destroy the unity of Christ's Church,[180] while the Orthodox hailed him as "he who broke the torns of Roman prie." Yet in speaking of Photius in these terms both sides committed the same fundamental error - caricaturing Photius as an anti-Roman zealot who spent his life fighting against the papacy. In fact, Photius nowhere denied the Roman primacy[181] or Rome's petrine foundation,[182] although he was clear that meddling in the internal affairs of his patriarchate was not included among the pope's powers. "Even when he condemned Pope Nicholas, Photius was attacking only the person of the Pope and not the institution of the papacy as such."[183] In his writings against the filioque,[184] Photius's target was never Rome, but rather those Frankish theologians who upheld the teaching in violation of Pope Leo III's earlier prohibitions.[185] The council of 879 was enough to satisfy Photius that John Pope VIII ("my John") did not approve of the addition, which meant that Rome itself remained orthodox. Concerning those disciplinary matters he had criticized in his earlier encyclical, Photius simply decided that "Rome [should] observe its own customs, and we ours."[186] As for later rumors that he died an excommunicate, Francis Dvornik long ago debunked the myth of a "second Photian Schism" and argued rather conclusively that Photius remained on relatively good terms with the Roman Church.[187] This is hardly the resume of an anti-Roman zealot or the "Father of Schism."

>notes:

>[180] Typical of this tendency is Adrian Fortescue's article on Photius in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia: "But he [Photius] had identified himself so completely with that strong anti-Roman party in the East which he mainly had formed, and, doubtless, he had formed so great a hatred of Rome, that now he carried on the old quarrel with as much bitterness as ever and more influence . . . His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty . . . At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction . . . He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible."

>[181] Dvornik showed long ago that it is "very unlikely, indeed impossible" that the tract often ascribed to Photius, Against Those Who Say Rome is the First See, was composed in the ninth century. See Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew, 247.

>[182] Photius continued the patristic tradition of praising Peter as "the chief of the apostolic choir" on whom "reposes the foundations of the faith," and to whom Christ "entrusted the Keys to the Kingdom as a reward for his right confession." See John Meyendorff, "St. Peter in Byzantine Theology," The Primacy of Peter, 72. Like many of the fathers Photius interpreted Matthew 16:18 in various ways, writing that Peter "has been established as the rock of the Church" but also praising his confession, which "laid the foundation of the Church." Ibid.

>[183] Dvornik, "The Patriarch Photius: Father of Schism or Patron of Reunion," 30.

>[184] For Photius's authorship of the Mystagogia see Kolbaba, Inventing Latin Heretics, 87-92. Kolbaba's "educated guess" is that Photius was the source for parts of the work, but that "he did not compile the Mystagogia as we have it."

>[185] In fact, the Mystagogia references the teachings of several popes - Leo, Vigilius, Agatho, Gregory, Zacharias, and Leo III - to support the Eastern teaching on the procession.

>[186] Quoted in John Meyendorff, "The Meaning of Tradition," in Living Tradition (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1978), 24.

>[187] Dvornik, The Photian Schism, 202-36.

<<almost done

>>565439

One result of the so-called Photian Schism was the Constantinopolitans' heightened sensitivity about their church's lack of apostolic pedigree, a fact Nicholas had exploited in his polemic against them. Although their chief argument for Constantinople's status within the Church remained the principle of accomodation, by the ninth century "the thesis of Byzantium's apostolic character, . . . derived from Andrew," was becoming more a part of the Byzantine consciousness.[188] At the synod of 861 Ignatius had claimed to be "in possession of the throne of the apostle John[189] and of Andrew, who was the first to be called apostle."[190] Yet for years following the schism Constantinople's apostolicity was not cited by the Byzantines as a weapon against papal pretensions, and would not be used as such until the thirteenth century. In fact, it appears the opposite was true - written shortly after the schism (c. 880), the Laudatio dealing with the deeds of the apostle Andrew waved eloquently about the unity between Peter and his brother, joined together as they werre "not only by nature . . . but also by their choice of vocation and by their fraternal thoughts."[191] The idea permeating the whole work, that "Peter was the apostle of the whole West, Andrew of the whole East," allowed the author to emphasize the concord that existed in between Rome and Constantinople, where the successors of the two brothers ruled in similar harmony.[192] The fraternal embrace of Peter and Andrew was originally meant to serve as a powerful sign of Church unity, but by the end of the ninth century that unity was already imperiled.

>notes:

>[188] Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew, 157. Stories of Andrew's activities in Byzantium had circulated for centuries in both the East and the West, and "from the sevnth century onward . . . the apostolic character of the see of Constantinople was . . . accepted as fact." Ibid., 223.

>[189] The idea that the apostle John was related to Constantinople's apostolic pedigree is addressed in Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew, 239-44. "The Basis for this claim lay in the transfer of jurisdiction over Asia Minor from the bishops of Ephesus to those of Constantinople." Ibid., 244.

>[190] Ibid., 239.

>[191] Ibid., 232.

>[192] Ibid.

<<the end

TL;DR

"Photian Schism" is a meme

>>565435

God I wish that where me

>>565394

(((Current Scholarship)))

>>565451

Don't you have Melkike feet to kiss?

>>565463

u mad bro

http://orthochristian.com/108827.html

false alarm, boys

>>565499

Mad about what ? That orthodoxy is a political shitfest rather than a "Church" ? Yeah super mad about that. Thank Erdogan for that, I wouldn't know what we'd to without him … well except for being member of the actual Body of Christ, not caring about worldly matters so much and focusing on God. I know orthos can't understand that too well, but maybe one day.

>>566316

>I know orthos can't understand that too well, but maybe one day.

why are you so prideful? you are an eastern catholic. definition of larper

>>566316

see >>565839