The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Irenaeus23, Al Masihi, Seavila777, MZbor, Lisa Korovainytsia
5563 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (JimG), 71 guests, and 375 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
Topics34,609
Posts411,057
Members5,563
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 11 of 13 1 2 9 10 11 12 13
Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: Fr Serge Keleher] #251427
09/02/07 06:14 PM
09/02/07 06:14 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 186
United States
Zan Offline
BANNED
Zan  Offline
BANNED
Member

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 186
United States
Originally Posted by Serge Keleher
Let us assume that Zan was not referring to the formal titles of various hierarchs, but rather to the places over which they have or assert jurisdiction. That could make it easier.
Fr. Serge


Indeed Father! Btw thanks Fr. Anthony for clarifying.

Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: Zan] #251432
09/02/07 08:43 PM
09/02/07 08:43 PM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
Meriden, CT
R
Ray Kaliss Offline
Member
Ray Kaliss  Offline
Member
R

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
Meriden, CT
Originally Posted by Zan
Yes but that communion of Churches you refer to now is no longer what it was 1500, 1000, and 500 years ago.


You are right Zan, and I recognize the fact.

The whole thing (East and West) is a mess (not un-functional) but a mess on the human management side.

-ray

Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: KatholikosMercy] #252207
09/11/07 10:32 AM
09/11/07 10:32 AM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107
ca, usa
M
melkiteman Offline
Member
melkiteman  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107
ca, usa
Originally Posted by KatholikosMercy
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy

At this point, what more can be done?


Perfect Love. If that statement that both sides are sincere was true there could be no schism.

More than theological differences, what keeps us apart is the distrust, hurt and lack of humility

Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: Ray Kaliss] #252389
09/12/07 04:15 PM
09/12/07 04:15 PM
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 16
USA
KatholikosMercy Offline
.
KatholikosMercy  Offline
.
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 16
USA
Originally Posted by KatholikosMercy

It always pains and insults me to no end to read such a biased statement as the one above (apparently made with complete lack of honest integrity regarding the actual truth and facts surrounding the schism) toward the Holy Roman Apostolic and Catholic Church. Where is the spirit of Unity desired by Christ?


Quote
Easy now ...

The posted was giving an informative quote. It does not necessarily follow that the poster agreed 100% with its wording. Maybe he does maybe he does not. He posted it so we can know what some portions of the churches of the East are thinking.


Understood, my dismay was directed toward the content and not the poster of it though I would ask why post such divisive content if you don't agree with it?

Quote
Such things are good for open minded debate.


I don't see it as open minded at all, but closed completely to the the forgiving will of Jesus.

Quote
For example - I believe the creed thing is a long term misunderstanding. There was no conspiracy. The trouble here … is semantics. But that will not get straightened out under the shadow of the type of Primacy claimed by Rome.


I see division over the defining of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both the Father and the Son as petty at best. The real issue between East and West as its always been is the question of authority and obedience.

Quote
On the other hand - he is right about the dogma of Infallibility and the Primacy of the Pope - Peter was not a judicial primacy in the early church. It only developed into a judicial Primacy as a necessity when Europe went through the bloody wars of the Reformation … when the Catholic church was fighting for its very survival and Kings were declaring themselves as heads of national churches.


How then to interpret developements beyond mans control? Gods will perhaps? Jesus promised to protect the Church through the gift of the Holy Spirit and I believe He does so in His time, not ours. If necessity mandated the politics of the time perhaps then they will always do so and there is hope for change. I know of no cases that human rebelion has coerced the will of God to its own.

Quote
Can you imaging ?? a 30 year war in which Protestants and Catholics agreed (!!!) that Germany would be the - killing grounds? 30 years! You could be born during the war - grow up - and march off to fight in Germany - and die - your entire life shaped by killing - in the name of God.


Scandals have come and will continue to come. My faith isn't formed by focusing on the ill's of the world but on the Will of our Father.

Quote
England had ripped away from the Pope - King Philip of France was threatening to do the same - Spain had gone overboard with the Inquisition. Judicial Primacy became an absolute must if the RC was to survive.


All influential yes but hardly the root of Christs words that Peter was the rock on which His assembly would be built. This is noteworthy that long before any official declaration or schism for that matter Ante-Nicene Fathers had been writing about the primacy of Peter. It cannot be denied by an affirmation by attrocities and abominations.

Quote
On the horizon was the French Revolution and Napoleon who would declare himself Emperor of the Church and the entire world.

I am a Roman Catholic.

Everyone here at this forums is trying to forge unity - if they were not - they would not be here. That takes some hard honesty. The laity (we) did not create the schism - hierarchy did. We are doing our best to sort out what we can. Human management failed. But the divine still unites us.


The point of my post exactly, the comment I denounced was made by hierarchy. It matters not if it was East or West to me. I would call bigotry what it is no matter who I see it come from. What chance of Hope do uniate minded layity have of reunion when such hard heartedness is taught publically. I was hurt by what I can only define as a deliberate subversion of Christs will for unity and as a God loving person feel a responsibility to say so.

Quote
If full unity is reestablished - it will be us - who bring it about. A ground swell from the bottom up. Tolerance and patience are needed… a charity which means the willingness to try and understand our brothers … and to refrain from assuming conspiracy theories and bad intentions. This is not easy. It is trying to break - years (centuries!) of propaganda put out by both sides. It is a work of humility, tolerance, and charity. Not really a work of who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’.


I don't intend to make it about who is wright or wrong. Scripture tells me not to.

Quote
I say this stuff - mostly to remind - myself.

Peace to you and to your holy church.
-ray


Thanks for taking the time to reply.

All the best.

Last edited by KatholikosMercy; 09/12/07 04:22 PM.
Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: melkiteman] #252392
09/12/07 04:18 PM
09/12/07 04:18 PM
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 16
USA
KatholikosMercy Offline
.
KatholikosMercy  Offline
.
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 16
USA
Originally Posted by melkiteman
Originally Posted by KatholikosMercy
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy

At this point, what more can be done?


Perfect Love. If that statement that both sides are sincere was true there could be no schism.

More than theological differences, what keeps us apart is the distrust, hurt and lack of humility


I agree and would add some narcisism as well.

The only cure I know is Love, Mercy and especially Forgiveness.

Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: KatholikosMercy] #252771
09/15/07 10:30 AM
09/15/07 10:30 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
US
J
johnzonaras Offline
Member
johnzonaras  Offline
Member
J

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
US
Katholicos Mercy noted, "I see division over the defining of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both the Father and the Son as petty at best. The real issue between East and West as its always been is the question of authority and obedience."


I am going to respond to Mercy's comments about the issue of "filioque" being petty. Rather then attempt to address the issue myself, I will use the more eloquent comments of Bishop Kallistos Ware from his book _The Orthodox Church_. I post them and find myself in full agreement with Ware's comments. To use some of Mercy's earlier comments, he may find the following comments of Ware divisive as he found the comments of Father Miltiades which I posted earlier. If he does not want to be disturbed, he should not read Bishop Kallistos' comments because they are very strong.

Kallistos writes, "Orthodoxy objected (and still objects) to this addition in the Creed, for two reasons. First, the Ecumenical Councils specifically forbade any changes to be introduced into the Creed; and if an addition has to be made, certainly nothing short of another Ecumenical Council is competent to make it. The Creed is the common possession of the whole Church, and a part of the Church has no right to tamper with it. The west, in arbitrarily altering the Creed with out consulting the east, is guilty...of moral fratricide, of a sin against the unity of the whole Church. In the second place, Orthodox believe filioque to be theologically untrue. They hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and consider it a heresy to say that He proceeds from the SON as well. IT MAY SEEM TO MANY THAT THE POINT AT ISSUE iS SO ABSTRUSE AS TO BE UNIMPORTANT [emphasis mine for Mercy's sake]. But the Orthodox would say that since the doctrine of the Trinity stands at the heart of the Christian faith, a small change in emphasis in Trinitarian theology has consequences in many other fields. Not only does the filioque destroy the balance between the three persons of the Holy Trinity: it leads also to a false understanding of the work of the Spirit in the world, and so encourages a false doctrine of the Church.(pp 59-60)" Ware notes in a footnote that this is the official position of the Church.

It is better to be blunt and not sugarcoat the issue. BTW, that is why I posted Miltiades's comments. If Mercy has problems with the issue, I apologize.

Last edited by johnzonaras; 09/15/07 10:31 AM.
Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: johnzonaras] #252781
09/15/07 11:32 AM
09/15/07 11:32 AM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107
ca, usa
M
melkiteman Offline
Member
melkiteman  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107
ca, usa
Originally Posted by johnzonaras
Katholicos Mercy noted, "I see division over the defining of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both the Father and the Son as petty at best. The real issue between East and West as its always been is the question of authority and obedience."


I am going to respond to Mercy's comments about the issue of "filioque" being petty. ... I will use the more eloquent comments of Bishop Kallistos Ware from his book _The Orthodox Church_.
Kallistos writes, "Orthodoxy objected (and still objects) to this addition in the Creed, for two reasons. First, the Ecumenical Councils specifically forbade any changes to be introduced into the Creed;
Not true. It forbade any changes that were heretical. It has yet to be shown that the filioque is heretical. Many Eastern bishops and theologians admitted to the filioque well before the schism.
Theodore Qurra
Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople at the 7th Ecumenical council itself.
Pope St Leo who is lauded as one of the greatest teachers of Orthodoxy following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition in "Quam laudabiliter" proclaimed the filioque well before the council of Chalcedon
John of Damascus
Maximus the Confessor
Epiphanius
Cyril of Alexandria

Quote
and if an addition has to be made, certainly nothing short of another Ecumenical Council is competent to make it.
WHY?
Quote
The Creed is the common possession of the whole Church, and a part of the Church has no right to tamper with it.
The west was not tampering but clarifying the Latin(its own language). It would be wrong to add the filioque to the Greek because the Greek word for "proceed" means "as from a source" but the Latin doesn't.
Quote
The west, in arbitrarily
It wasn't arbitrary. There were three heresies denying the equality of the Father Son and Spirit. The filioque was added to make it clearer that they are equal.
Quote
altering the Creed with out consulting the east,

This is the real problem . The East feels slighted. We apologize. Kiss and make up!
This was a western matter The west was not suggesting that the East needed to change the Greek.
Quote
is guilty...of moral fratricide, of a sin against the unity of the whole Church.
Unity? In the eyes of the West, The East broke with the West.

Quote
In the second place, Orthodox believe filioque to be theologically untrue. They hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and consider it a heresy to say that He proceeds from the SON as well.
What is the heresy?
The West believes in the monarchy of the Father,one source, one spiration, the equality of the Father, the Son and the Spirit. Do you not?

Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: melkiteman] #252791
09/15/07 01:15 PM
09/15/07 01:15 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 21
Pittsburgh
N
Nestor Offline
Junior Member
Nestor  Offline
Junior Member
N

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 21
Pittsburgh
Originally Posted by melkiteman


Not true. It forbade any changes that were heretical. It has yet to be shown that the filioque is heretical. Many Eastern bishops and theologians admitted to the filioque well before the schism.
Theodore Qurra
Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople at the 7th Ecumenical council itself.
Pope St Leo who is lauded as one of the greatest teachers of Orthodoxy following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition in "Quam laudabiliter" proclaimed the filioque well before the council of Chalcedon
John of Damascus
Maximus the Confessor
Epiphanius
Cyril of Alexandria


Perhaps you can provide a source for your opinion here?

My read of the Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council seems to contradict this interpretation.

Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: melkiteman] #252793
09/15/07 01:37 PM
09/15/07 01:37 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
US
J
johnzonaras Offline
Member
johnzonaras  Offline
Member
J

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
US
Melkiteman, you apparently challenge Ware's view of filioque. I don't, but for the record, he does note in footnote on the passage, he notes, "I have given here the standard Orthodox of filioque; it should be noted, however, that certain Orthodox theologians consider the filioque merely an unauthorized addition to the Creed, not necessarily heretical in itself." I prefer following the party line, whereas you choose to follow your own. I suggest you read up on Pope Leo III. I wonder why the late Bishop of Rome [jpii] chose to remove the filioque from the Creed while reciting it in common with various Orthodox clergy who visted his see. BTW, that is a rhetorical question.

Let me remind you that the Roman got stuck with flioque because of Charlemagne and his court. I will rely on Ware again because my copy of Dvornik's book is down at the university in my office, Ware notes, "Rome with typical conservatism, continued to use the Creed without the filioque until the start of the eleventh century. In 808 Pope Leo III wrote in a letter to Charlemagne that, although he himself considered filioque to be doctrinally sound, yet he considered it a mistake to tamper with the wording of the Creed. Leo deliberately had the Creed, WITHOUT THE FILIOQUE [emphasis mine], inscribed on silver plaques and set up in Saint Peter's."

You have did not address the issue as to whether it was right to tamper with the Creed without an ecumenical council being called to do so.

Last edited by johnzonaras; 09/15/07 01:51 PM.
Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: Nestor] #252803
09/15/07 03:51 PM
09/15/07 03:51 PM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107
ca, usa
M
melkiteman Offline
Member
melkiteman  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107
ca, usa
Originally Posted by Nestor
Perhaps you can provide a source for your opinion here? My read of the Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council seems to contradict this interpretation.
My source is the canons. Show me I am wrong. You said your read of canon VII seems to contradict this interpretation. Does it contradict or not? Or does it just seem to contradict. Three persons seems to contradict one God too. So what is your version of canon VII?

OK let's assume to start with that it gave no provision for any change at all, right? It certainly didn't say except by ecumenical council. Ware just threw that in as an opinion.

God from God was dropped after Nicea. [BTW the West still uses God from God. Where is the gripe about that?] Many things were added. So it couldn't have meant no additions and no deletions. OK so succeeding councils changed the Creed. Therefore it couldn't have meant no change at all.

As mentioned Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople at the 7th Ecumenical council itself affirmed the filioque!! It is part of the acts of the council!
The other people mentioned [Theodore Qurra,Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople, Pope St Leo,John of Damascus,Maximus the Confessor,Epiphanius,Cyril of Alexandria ]affirmed it so it is not a novelty. And certainly not believed only in the West.




Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: johnzonaras] #252811
09/15/07 04:30 PM
09/15/07 04:30 PM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107
ca, usa
M
melkiteman Offline
Member
melkiteman  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107
ca, usa
Originally Posted by johnzonaras
Melkiteman, you apparently challenge Ware's view of filioque.

Yes and no. I disagree that the filioque was against the canons and that it is heretical. I think he shows a misunderstanding of the filioque. The filioque doesn't challenge the monarchy of the father and I believe since that book he has acknowledged that.
Quote
I prefer following the party line, whereas you choose to follow your own.
What is the party line? As I have shown even before the schism there were many Eastern hierarchs who believed in the filioque! Are they heretical? Recently St. Augustine was declared a Greek Orthodox saint! Did they canonize a heretic?

Besides, the filioque has never been condemned by an ecumenical council! Therefore it isn't heretical.

Quote
I suggest you read up on Pope Leo III.
Why? Is he missing?
Quote
I wonder why the late Bishop of Rome [JPII] chose to remove the filioque from the Creed while reciting it in common with various Orthodox clergy who visited his see.

Not a problem. It has been the policy now for quite some time that The East doesn't need to add the filioque. It would be wrong to add it to the Greek as I mentioned earlier. So The late Pope JPII didn't use it when with the East! Simple!
Quote
BTW, that is a rhetorical question.
Sorry I couldn't resist.

Quote
Let me remind you that the Roman got stuck with filioque because of Charlemagne and his court.
Yes, Charlemagne was looking for fight, it is true.

Quote
In 808 Pope Leo III wrote in a letter to Charlemagne that, although he himself considered filioque to be doctrinally sound,
I guess you are helping me. Thanks for the passage.
Quote
Leo deliberately had the Creed, WITHOUT THE FILIOQUE [emphasis mine], inscribed on silver plaques and set up in Saint Peter's."

Right! So what? At that time the West could take it or leave it. We don't have to have it any more but, for the history of it, it won't be removed in the West. Now that it has been added , to remove it in the West would change the meaning. It would deny the Son's part in the Spiration. Before it was added it was wrongly interpreted by the heretics.
Quote

You have did not address the issue as to whether it was right to tamper with the Creed without an ecumenical council being called to do so.
I did a few minutes ago.

There is plenty of material available on the state of the dialogue about the filioque.

Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: melkiteman] #252825
09/15/07 05:39 PM
09/15/07 05:39 PM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
Meriden, CT
R
Ray Kaliss Offline
Member
Ray Kaliss  Offline
Member
R

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
Meriden, CT
Dear melkiteman ...

I take back every nasty thing I ever said about you (welll... I only said one time that I thought you lacked charity). I was wrong.

This line here ...

(Someone else said)> I suggest you read up on Pope Leo III.

(melkiteman responds)> Why? Is he missing?

cracked me up no end ! smile A laugh I needed.


Peace to you.
-ray

Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: Ray Kaliss] #252948
09/16/07 10:40 AM
09/16/07 10:40 AM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107
ca, usa
M
melkiteman Offline
Member
melkiteman  Offline
Member
M

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107
ca, usa
Originally Posted by Ray Kaliss
Dear melkiteman ...

I take back every nasty thing I ever said about you (welll... I only said one time that I thought you lacked charity). I was wrong.

This line here ...

(Someone else said)> I suggest you read up on Pope Leo III.

(melkiteman responds)> Why? Is he missing?

cracked me up no end ! smile A laugh I needed.


Peace to you.
-ray
Ray,
Yes, that was meant as a levity.
But I do sometimes become uncharitable. Do send me a PM if I do get out of hand.

But you never told me if you found Leo! I'm still looking. I'm not giving up.

Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: melkiteman] #253559
09/21/07 10:45 AM
09/21/07 10:45 AM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 13
USA
7
7968 Offline
BANNED
7968  Offline
BANNED
Junior Member
7

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 13
USA
Forgetting the very real doctrinal consequences of affirming the benefit of the non-biblical and non-Catholic "Filioque" there remains another critical issue for the Catholic and Orthodox East.

This once again represents Romes unilateral and non-conciliar approach. Again she mis-applies and mis-appropiates her episcopal prerogatives and attempts to elevate herself above the authority of true Ecumenical Councils.

The venerable and learned Alcuin a noted Churchman writing to the brethern at Lyons during this very controversey says the following which is one of the most instructive and "Catholic" pieces of advice I've seen written by a Latin cleric.

"Beloved brethern, look well to the sects of the Spanish error; follow in the faith, the steps of the holy Fathers, and remain attached to the holy Church Universal in a most holy unity. It has been written, Do not overstep the limits laid down by the Fathers; insert nothing new in the creed of the Catholic faith, and in religious functions be not pleased with traditions unknown in ancient times." Alcuin 804 a.d.

She had no right and still has no right for any reason to tamper with that which the ancient fathers affirmed. Theologize to your hearts content but there remains no good reason to tamper with something so firmly entrenched in Catholic Tradition. Just as you would not change the words of sacred scripture to better clarify Catholic understanding neither should any individual Bishop or even a regional collection of Bishops have the authority to revise a true Ecumenical council.

If there truly is a need to better clarify Catholic understanding then let it happen in a true Ecumenical setting and not the transitory whims of erring Spanish Bishops.

Re: Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church [Re: 7968] #253563
09/21/07 11:23 AM
09/21/07 11:23 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
somewhere betwixt the Alpha an...
ebed melech Offline
Member
ebed melech  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
somewhere betwixt the Alpha an...
Originally Posted by 7968
Forgetting the very real doctrinal consequences of affirming the benefit of the non-biblical and non-Catholic "Filioque"...


Which are...?

Quote
This once again represents Romes unilateral and non-conciliar approach. Again she mis-applies and mis-appropiates her episcopal prerogatives and attempts to elevate herself above the authority of true Ecumenical Councils.


Another perspective is that Rome sees herself as a guardian of orthodoxy as expressed by the true Ecumenical Councils. Rome decided (at the request of some of the Churches in the West) to insert the filioque in response to a pastoral need due to the residual semi-Arianism that was still infecting many parts of the West. It's original intent was hardly a power play - it was pastoral.

And I say this as one who would favor its removal from the recitation of the Creed in the Latin Church.

Quote
The venerable and learned Alcuin a noted Churchman writing to the brethern at Lyons during this very controversey says the following which is one of the most instructive and "Catholic" pieces of advice I've seen written by a Latin cleric.

"Beloved brethern, look well to the sects of the Spanish error; follow in the faith, the steps of the holy Fathers, and remain attached to the holy Church Universal in a most holy unity. It has been written, Do not overstep the limits laid down by the Fathers; insert nothing new in the creed of the Catholic faith, and in religious functions be not pleased with traditions unknown in ancient times." Alcuin 804 a.d.


Interesting quote. Can you cite the source? I may want to use it.

Quote
She had no right and still has no right for any reason to tamper with that which the ancient fathers affirmed. Theologize to your hearts content but there remains no good reason to tamper with something so firmly entrenched in Catholic Tradition. Just as you would not change the words of sacred scripture to better clarify Catholic understanding neither should any individual Bishop or even a regional collection of Bishops have the authority to revise a true Ecumenical council.

If there truly is a need to better clarify Catholic understanding then let it happen in a true Ecumenical setting and not the transitory whims of erring Spanish Bishops.


I think your hyperbolic drive may be overloading here, 7968. There was nothing whimsical about any of this. I'm not excusing anything, but let's not make it out to be something it was not.

God bless,

Gordo

Page 11 of 13 1 2 9 10 11 12 13

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 7.6.2
(Release build 20180918)
Page Time: 0.028s Queries: 15 (0.012s) Memory: 2.0921 MB (Peak: 2.3262 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-12-12 15:00:05 UTC