The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
JasonJohn, SmellOfTheSheep, Colana, Mister, NikosLaos
5472 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (rome1453, true faith), 69 guests, and 73 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Portable Icon Screen
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,478
Posts410,402
Members5,472
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SSPX - There story #189195
09/14/04 07:04 PM
09/14/04 07:04 PM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 60
.
C
Catholic_Man Offline OP
Member
Catholic_Man  Offline OP
Member
C
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 60
.
There have been some posting lately on the subject of SSPX. I took some time a while ago to read the position of the SSPX and found an letter which best describes there position. The reason for me posting this letter is not to start a thread on SSPX but just present the facts as seen from the eyes of the SSPX.

It should be noted that I am not for the SSPX but I think in a fairness we should hear from there side of the story not just what is told to us by others.

From the website:
Letter to Friends & Benefactors

Quote

Superior General's
Letter to Friends & Benefactors
#62 June 7, 2002
Feast of the Sacred Heart


Dear Friends and Benefactors,

Catholic Tradition, in its relations with the Vatican, has truly lived through a number of important events over the last two years.

Since Rome first approached us at the end of the year 2000, it seems to us that the time has now come to take stock, and to reply to a number of objections or questions which the whole issue raises. However, we would also like to mention that if we go into these questions, they are not our main pre-occupation. Celebrating the Holy Mysteries, imparting grace in abundance to your souls, being the instrument of numerous and always very touching conversions, is at the heart of our lives, and these are facts which show us to be truly Catholic, whereas all the discussions and disagreements with the Vatican are merely the expression of our will to remain Catholic.

Recently, an important group of seminarians from Bombay joined us. For their seven years at the Seminary, the existence of the Devil was denied and the word "hell" never once fell upon their ears, any more than the words "Sacrifice of the Mass." Their coming over to us brought down on our heads the wrath of the Cardinal of Bombay, of course. In the US, several priests are either joining us or drawing closer. One of them said to me, "I did everything I could not to finish up with you." That is eloquent testimony: after exhausting all of today’s alternatives, from their own diocese through the Indult Mass to the various Ecclesia Dei congregations, these priests and seminarians have come to the conclusion, despite their disinclination and their initial fear of being connected with Traditionalists still being branded as schismatic, that to lead a fully Christian life we are the only way to go.

What confusing times! Good is condemned, evil is all too often blessed. That is the experience of numbers of priests today who simply wish to remain Catholic. What tribulations! Like the two seminarians rebuked by their Rector for being caught red-handed praying the Rosary! But when they were caught attending the Indult Mass, then they were hauled before the Cardinal in person... We would like to hear of at least comparable reprimands being handed out for all kinds of real misbehavior,

Yet while a number of priests draw closer to us, Campos is going back to Rome. We think that the decisive argument for Rome to win them over was the promise of a bishop alongside Bishop Rangel, now gravely ill. They wrote to me that they considered that they could not refuse the Holy Father’s wish to give them a bishop, because "that would be schismatic." By way of a bishop, all they have is a promise: "I shall give you a successor." Of course, nobody dares doubt such a promise, but the whole question turns on the identity of this successor: who will he be? Where will he be chosen from? One may well think that Rome will seek to ensure the future bishop’s faithfulness to Vatican II, because some of the Romans still have reservations as to the "orthodoxy" of Campos’s doctrinal stance. Suspicion reigns in Rome.

Campos had also been promised freedom to operate throughout Brazil, but when local bishops opposed the idea, then the freedom of action of the Administration granted by Rome shrank back to the limits of the diocese of Campos, period.

What will Campos do? While Campos sets out on its hazardous enterprise armed with ambiguous statements, we see something of great interest happening: at the very same moment, several Catholic communities in Brazil of men and women in no way connected with the priests of Campos have contacted the Society of Saint Plus X and wish... to join Tradition! And to send their future seminarians to the Society’s South American seminary. In fact, a significant number of faithful scattered all over the huge area of Brazil are beginning to react, and are asking for our help, not for the help of Campos. What a surprise development! It is as though suddenly Brazil was opening up to the Society’s apostolate. All we need are workers, meaning priests, and more priests...

Meanwhile, having succeeded in drawing Campos away from the Society and, little by little, from its doctrinal positions, Cardinal Castrillón sent us on April 5 of this year a written reply to our letter of June 22, 2001. In it he proposed to re-start the "dialogue." Before saying a word about it, let me recall the previous exchanges:

When Rome began by offering to the Society a juridical structure with official recognition, then, while expressing our readiness to open discussions, we emphasized the need to rebuild trust.

For indeed, tens of years of oppression, marginalization, threats, condemnations, and veritable persecution because of our remaining attached to the Catholic Church’s Tradition would not vanish all on their own. So we required by way of pre-condition for discussions a concrete gesture on the part of the Roman authorities: the recognition that the Tridentine Rite of Mass was not abrogated, and that the Declaration "excommunicating" any members of the Society was null.

Cardinal Castrillón began by telling us that the Tridentine Rite of Mass was liberated in principle, but not in practice. Later he told us it was liberated neither in principle nor in practice, because any such liberation would be to the detriment of the Novus Ordo. As for the nullification of the "excommunication," that was promised us as soon as there would be an agreement.

Following on this double refusal, further reinforcing the climate of distrust, the Cardinal wrote a letter on May 7, 2001, which I answered by saying that it was setting up a dialogue of the deaf and going nowhere.

To help things forward, I then proposed a different approach to the whole question. In brief, we laid out that our whole disagreement with today’s Rome was being caused by no culpable ill will on our part, but by a terrible crisis shaking the Church for the last 40 years, as clearly signaled by the Second Vatican Council and the post­Conciliar reforms; we mentioned some facts to show the reality and gravity of this crisis.

Now comes the Cardinal in his letter of April 5, one month ago, with a fivefold rebuke. Firstly, we are judging the Pope and the Holy See; secondly, we are stating that the Church has lost the Faith; thirdly, we are denying the Pope’s rights over the Church’s universal liturgy because we are stating that the Novus Ordo Mass is bad; fourthly, we no longer believe in the true concept of Tradition; and fifthly, we are incapable of grasping the continuity of the Church’s past and present, in particular that of Vatican II and the liturgical reform.

Obviously, these points require an answer.

But at the same time this letter clearly illustrates that the dialogue of the deaf is not over: how little this Rome understands our position! We might have been willing to go into these various points had the letter not been accompanied by maneuvers making us recall Archbishop Lefebvre’s words just before the Episcopal consecrations of June, 1988, when he said: "The moment for a free and open collaboration between the Society and Rome has not yet come," words as relevant as ever. The maneuvers were twofold:

On the one hand, the Cardinal stated in his letter that, given the gravity of the matter in hand, he had always abstained from giving public interviews; yet only a few days later in an interview given to the prominent Italian newspaper La Stampa, he declared that the Society was divided into two groups: "a large majority ardently desiring reconciliation with Rome to relieve its conscience (Letter of April 5), and a little group of fanatics wanting nothing to do with Rome." (Yet in his letter, the Cardinal expressed his desire not to divide the Society).

On the other hand, a few days after sending me the April 5 letter in strict privacy (double envelope, "personal," "confidential"), he faxed the same letter to three other members of the Society! There is no need to go looking for what he was up to, the facts speak for themselves; there is a real attempt here to divide us, which tells us clearly what we must do: keep our distance.

In such circumstances, to begin discussions with Rome is not reasonable. It is imprudent, impossible. Truly, these Romans have no idea what we are about.

For us, it is truly scandalous acts, deeds and statements that have forced us to refuse all novelties and to redouble our attachment to the centuries-old teaching and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, our Mother. So here is the answer to the Cardinal’s fivefold rebuke of April 5:

Firstly, we are not setting ourselves up as judges of the Holy See by merely laying out the facts, such as the Pope’s visiting the synagogue or the mosque, kissing the Koran, pouring out libations in the Togo forest, receiving the tilac in India, gestures profoundly upsetting Catholics in their Faith. The same is true of numerous other statements and documents. If to mention such facts is to set oneself up as judge, then one must even slop thinking!

Then as to the liturgical reform of 1969, some Cardinals at the time went so far as to say that "it departed significantly from Catholic theology, both as a whole and in detail" (Ottaviani Intervention). And even recently Cardinal Ratzinger took it upon himself to say that this extension of papal power in the domain of the liturgy gave the impression that the Pope, basically, was omnipotent over the liturgy, especially if he was acting based on a mandate from an Ecumenical Council. The results of this impression were particularly visible after Vatican II. That the liturgy is in fact something given and not a reality to be manipulated at will, had completely disappeared from the consciousness of Western Catholics. Yet Vatican I in 1870 had defined the Pope to be, not an absolute monarch, but the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The legitimacy of his power was bound up above all with his transmitting of the Faith. This fidelity to the deposit of the Faith and to its transmission concerns in a quite special way the liturgy. No authority can "fabricate" a liturgy. The Pope himself is only the humble servant of its homogenous development, its integrity, and the permanence of its identity. ("Spirit of the Liturgy," Ad Solem, 2001, p. 134)

Then as far as the continuity of modern doctrines with the past is concerned, here is what persons "above all suspicion" say concerning religious liberty, key text of Vatican II: "It cannot be denied that a text like Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty says, at least as far as the words go, something quite different from the Syllabus of 1864, in fact just about the opposite of sentences 15, 77 and 79 of the Syllabus" (Fr. Yves Congar, The Crisis in the Church and Archbishop Lefebvre [Cerf, 1976], p. 51).

Then as to the definition of the Church in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, again Cardinal Ratzinger says, "One cannot, when all is said and done, fully resolve from a logical point of view the difference between subsistit in and est" ("Ecclesiology of the Conciliar Constitution Lumen Gentium," in Documentation Catholique, No. 2223, p. 311).

Then on the concept of tradition in Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, again Cardinal Ratzinger writes:

"Vatican II’s refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted....Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity are to be brought about. The static semper of Vincent of Lerins no longer seems to Vatican II adequate to express the problem." (L.Th.K., Vol. 13, p. 521)

Then on the Council’s key text Gaudium et Spes, Cardinal Ratzinger describes it as a Counter-Syllabus, in other words the opposite of the Catholic Church’s authoritative Syllabus of 1864. The Cardinal writes (Principles of Catholic Theology [Téqui, 1982], p. 426),

"If we seek an over-all analysis of Gaudium et Spes, we could say that it is (linked with the texts on religious liberty and on world religions), a revision of Pius IX’s Syllabus, a sort of Counter-Syllabus... Let us recognize here and now that Gaudium et Spes plays the part of a Counter-Syllabus insofar as it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the modern world as emerging since the French Revolution of 1789."

Thus far Cardinal Ratzinger. For our part, we believe in the homogeneous development of doctrine, as the Church has always taught. But the Catholic Faith, which does not do away with the law of non-contradiction, obliges us also to reject any heterogeneous development of doctrine.

In conclusion, we see how far Cardinal Castrillón has gone wrong... All of us desire the Church’s unity, a unity grounded in the Faith, carried out around Peter confirming his fellow bishops in that Faith, and consummated in the union of Catholics in the Eucharist. To preserve that unity, all of us, to obey our Catholic conscience, have had to avoid driving onto the broad and easy highway proposed by the Conciliar reforms. It is to ease our conscience that we are where we are, and our conscience would be in no way eased if we were to suddenly set out on a path which, precisely in order to stay Catholic, we have refused for 30 years.

In the name of the Faith of our baptism, in the name of our baptismal pledges to which we promised to remain faithful, we say "No" to anything that does not ensure our salvation. Such is our right. Such is our duty. May the Sacred Heart fill you with His burning charity, with an unfailing love for the Church and for its hierarchy however much they are presently making us suffer, with a love for souls, souls to be saved at the price of our uniting with Our Lord’s Sacrifice, the Holy Mass that will make us ever stronger in the Faith and in Our Lord’s love, bringing about reparation and satisfaction. All for Jesus, all for Mary, all for souls.

+ Bernard Fellay
Superior General
I hope this helps others understand the SSPX position.

Re: SSPX - There story #189196
09/14/04 07:44 PM
09/14/04 07:44 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Thousand Oaks, CA
Memo Rodriguez Offline
Member
Memo Rodriguez  Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Thousand Oaks, CA
Hello,

Quote
All of us desire the Church’s unity, a unity grounded in the Faith, carried out around Peter confirming his fellow bishops in that Faith, and consummated in the union of Catholics in the Eucharist.
This person's letter fails to explain why they persecute, threat and act violently against those who, contrary to their schismatic spirit, strive to remain faithful to the Catholic Church and in communion with the Pope of Rome, successor of St. Peter.

It fails to explain how they delude themselves to carry out unity around Peter and his fellow bishops without being in communion with them.

It fails to explain how they want to consumate this unity in the Eucharist when they denounce the Eucharist celebrated by 99.9999999% of the Catholics worldwide.

Bottom line: It just fails.

Shalom,
Memo.

Re: SSPX - There story #189197
09/14/04 09:59 PM
09/14/04 09:59 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
USA
ukrainiancatholic Offline
Member
ukrainiancatholic  Offline
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
USA
Do their bishops claim Apostolic Succesion? The old one probably could but doesn't it stop after schism?

Just wondering.....

-uc

p.s. It's sad to see all of these factions, but I guess people are being human :rolleyes:

Re: SSPX - There story #189198
09/14/04 10:17 PM
09/14/04 10:17 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,685
Knoxville, TN
B
byzanTN Offline
Member
byzanTN  Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,685
Knoxville, TN
There are more factions than you think. I attended a Mass 2 years go for an elderly friend who was near death. It was held in her home by a Fr. Wathen - hope I am spelling that right - who belongs to another Trad group. I think that group was some pretend Knights of St. John of Malta group that the real Knights of Malta don't recognize as valid. He wouldn't let anyone there receive communion if they attended Novus Ordo masses. I probably could have, since he was willing to give communion to Byzantines, but I had no desire to. There are plenty of little splinter groups who aren't large enough to get much attention.

Re: SSPX - There story #189199
09/14/04 11:05 PM
09/14/04 11:05 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Kansas/UGCC
Diak Offline
Member
Diak  Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Kansas/UGCC
Catholic Man, we do understand their position. It is schism.

This is more of the same, hollow, tired rhetoric. Anyone who does not exactly toe the line in step with the SSPX is suspect or condemned, especially those who seek union with the Catholic Church.

Quote
Campos had also been promised freedom to operate throughout Brazil, but when local bishops opposed the idea, then the freedom of action of the Administration granted by Rome shrank back to the limits of the diocese of Campos, period.

This is yet another SSPX temper tantrum because the Campos priests regularized their situation with Rome instead of staying aligned with the SSPX.

They can't stand it when priests, in this case an entire traditionalist diocese which was in an irregular situation, opt for communion with the Catholic Church and have to resort to condemnation and slander. God bless Bishop Rifan for his courage and determination. Thousands of faithful and hundreds of priests now back in communion with Rome.

That "desire for church unity" bit is simply not being genuine. Rome recently gave the SSPX another set of offers even more generous than that given to the FSSP originally. The door was slammed in Rome's face, and Bishop Fellay now admits he never intended to agree to anything in the first place.

It is schism, and Bishop Fellay more than anyone owes the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre an explanation why he is the Superior General when the Archbishop demanded none of the bishops be appointed SG.

I can assure you no one except those within the SSPX, and perhaps some vagante groups take any of this banter seriously. It's simply just a broken record now. They are losing ground, and like all schisms will continue to lose ground.

This article is simply dishonest. You don't get to hear Cardinal Ratzinger's praise for those same documents of Vatican II in other regards, only the criticism that fits the SSPX spin doctors.

Ukrainian Catholic, yes the four bishops of the SSPX have valid succession, but by Canon Law and the decree Ecclesia Dei are excommunicated ipso facto.

Re: SSPX - There story #189200
09/15/04 10:33 AM
09/15/04 10:33 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,108
Canada
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Orthodox Catholic  Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,108
Canada
Dear Friends,

As for Fr. Stephen Somerville, it would indeed appear that he has accepted the position of the SSPX with respect to the Pope and the Vatican Council II - I contacted some RC priest friends of mine who live outside Ontario and who know Fr. Somerville were just shocked when they heard he was suspended!

This also reminds me of those "Fatimist" groups who SEEM to be holding up belief in the Fatima message (as they interpret it, of course) as an article of Catholic Faith.

But even if it is approved by the Church, it is NOT an article of faith - correct?

They also maintain that the consecration of Russia was not done validly etc. etc.

Unfortunately, they are the ones who also continue to believe the Orthodox are "schismatics" and decried the return of the Kazan icon back to its rightful owners, the giving of churches for use by the Orthodox in Rome etc.

It seems that there is a fine line that some people walk with respect to traditionalism and that once one goes over it, then that is that . . .

However, perhaps, just perhaps, one is playing with fire when one says, as Rome does, that one may attend an SSPX Mass, and even contribute money at collection time etc.

Isn't that just asking for trouble? My local RC parish had a Charismatic Renewal prayer group that followed Pentecostal patterns of prayer (the denomination, not the event in salvation history wink ).

One of the effects of this is that Catholics belonging to the group soon began "holding hands" with the Pentecostals, and some even joined them, leaving the Church etc.

What say you?

Alex

Re: SSPX - There story #189201
09/15/04 10:37 AM
09/15/04 10:37 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,685
Knoxville, TN
B
byzanTN Offline
Member
byzanTN  Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,685
Knoxville, TN
Quote
What say you? I'm trying to make sense of this.

Alex
Don't try to make sense of it, since it makes no sense. It will make you crazy!

Re: SSPX - There story #189202
09/15/04 11:59 AM
09/15/04 11:59 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Thousand Oaks, CA
Memo Rodriguez Offline
Member
Memo Rodriguez  Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Thousand Oaks, CA
Hi,

Quote

However, perhaps, just perhaps, one is playing with fire when one says, as Rome does, that one may attend an SSPX Mass, and even contribute money at collection time etc.

Isn't that just asking for trouble?
Sure it is. In the Archdiocese of Guadalajara, Cardinal Juan issued a canonical penalty for those who contributed in any way (time, treasure or talent) to the SSPX.

Now I am not sure if it was interdict or full-blown excommunication, but support for the SSPX was reduced almost overnight almost to zero.

There are still places where the voice of the Church is quite effective.

Shalom,
Memo.

Re: SSPX - There story #189203
09/15/04 12:04 PM
09/15/04 12:04 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,108
Canada
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Orthodox Catholic  Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,108
Canada
Dear Memo,

Good for him!

Perhaps you could speak to him about possibly seeking transfer to Toronto? wink

We are very multicultural up here!

Alex

Re: SSPX - There story #189204
09/15/04 01:21 PM
09/15/04 01:21 PM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
San Buenaventura, California
Jakub. Offline
Member
Jakub.  Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
San Buenaventura, California
It bewilders me when Pope John Paul II tells the Eastern Church to recover their roots, but the Latin Rite abandons theirs, like most Eastern Rite's worry about Latinizations, the West have been Protestantized and seem to have no clue, for the Latin Liturgy was never abandoned, read this ;

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0540.html

I was blessed when I encountered my detour, it filled a vast empty space which has been filled with much warmth,love and spirituality which I acknowledge everyday.

james

Re: SSPX - There story #189205
09/15/04 03:34 PM
09/15/04 03:34 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,252
New Mexico USA
paromer Offline
Member
paromer  Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,252
New Mexico USA
Dear james,

Thanks for the link! I admire Fr. Fessio for his work with Ignatius Press. I will print and read his article.

So much of the renewal of the Latin Liturgy since V2 seem like it came out of a black hole. I look forward to reading Fr. Fessio's work.

Regards,

Paul

Re: SSPX - There story #189206
09/15/04 03:55 PM
09/15/04 03:55 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,075
Raleigh, NC
A
anastasios Offline
Member
anastasios  Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,075
Raleigh, NC
If I were Roman Catholic, I would definitely support the SSPX. The "schismatics" are the ones who are adulterating the Catholic Faith.

anastasios

Re: SSPX - There story #189207
09/15/04 04:12 PM
09/15/04 04:12 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,685
Knoxville, TN
B
byzanTN Offline
Member
byzanTN  Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,685
Knoxville, TN
Quote
Originally posted by anastasios:
If I were Roman Catholic, I would definitely support the SSPX. The "schismatics" are the ones who are adulterating the Catholic Faith.

anastasios
Well if the Vatican II liturgists/reformers ever decide to become Byzantines, I am going Orthodox. biggrin

Re: SSPX - There story #189208
09/15/04 05:45 PM
09/15/04 05:45 PM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
Pittsburgh, PA
R
rcguest Offline
Bill from Pgh
rcguest  Offline
Bill from Pgh
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
Pittsburgh, PA
When I am at my post Vatican II Roman rite Mass, and the priest, FACING ME, says, "On the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: 'Take this all of you, and eat it. This is my body which will be given up for you'.", I am moved, truly moved. I am about to partake humbly, and God knows, undeservedly, in the holy mystery of eternal salvation. I am about to receive my savior Jesus Christ.

How man has decided HE wishes to receive this gift of gifts is his decision. If you are worshipping as Eastern, Western, Traditionalist,Post Conciliar,New Calendar,Old Calendar,or whatever type of catholic orthodox Christian is of no consequence. God does not look on either as being better or ahead of the other. It is the Truth of the Eucharist that matters, nothing else.

John Paul II and the Roman Church are not renegade or schismatic. On the contrary, Rome, even with all its wounds and scars, is THE brightest light in the Christian world today.

I am sorry if I have offended, but I can't sit back silently while my church is being accosted.


Bill

Re: SSPX - There story #189209
09/15/04 05:57 PM
09/15/04 05:57 PM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
San Buenaventura, California
Jakub. Offline
Member
Jakub.  Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
San Buenaventura, California
Bill,

I don't believe that anyone is attacking your choice of Liturgy or how it is celebrated, however, my current Cardinal has limited my choice, the Tridentine Liturgy to once a month which is unacceptable to me.

james

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2018. All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1.1
(Release build 20180111)
Page Time: 0.017s Queries: 14 (0.003s) Memory: 2.0614 MB (Peak: 2.2757 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-02-19 10:00:04 UTC