Comparison between Josaphat Kuncevyc and Mark of Ephesus

[PJ]

I was going to call this thread "Another thread on Josaphat Kuncevyc", but then I thought that might keep people from clicking on it so I decided to make the title specific.

Earlier today I got into a discussion of Josaphat Kuncevyc with Phillip Rolfes and Alexander Roman, in which they advanced a comparison between Catholic veneration of St. Josaphat and Orthodox veneration of St. Mark of Ephesus, e.g. "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?" and similar statements.

Then the question came up of how the Orthodox would view this. I could possibly guess, but I don't really want to guess; so the question is, would any of you care to illuminate me concerned how you view that comparison?

P.S. I realize the timing of this question is very poor, and I wouldn't have planned it this way. If you prefer to wait and post an answer after Sunday, I'll of course understand.

 

[Iconodule]

I don't recall any stories of St. Mark having Catholics murdered.

 

[ICXCNIKA]

Do EC deny that Josaphat actually killed Orthodox Christians? Could it be a terrible lie about him? I don't know anything about him.

 

[mike]

I don't recall any stories of St. Mark having Catholics murdered.

Or Churches destroyed...

 

[Deacon Lance]

Do EC deny that Josaphat actually killed Orthodox Christians? Could it be a terrible lie about him? I don't know anything about him.

Yes, of course we do.  And yes we think it is untrue.  Read the Orthodox propaganda against, read the Catholic propaganda for, and try to find the truth in between is the best I can suggest.  

 

[biro]

Do EC deny that Josaphat actually killed Orthodox Christians? Could it be a terrible lie about him? I don't know anything about him.

Sometimes the credibility of claims depends on what side you're on. Read two different books about the Kennedy assassination, or about the life of Abraham Lincoln, and you'll come up with very different pictures. One side will call a person a hero, while the other thinks he is the devil himself.

 

[ICXCNIKA]

I looked him up on Wikipedia and there didn't seem to any evidence presented against him. They did cite that the State did some horrible things but I don't see how he could be blamed for their actions.

 

[MarkosC]

Christ is Risen!

I'm not Orthodox, but my opinion......

The analogy only makes sense if you view the two saints as standard bearers of mutually opposing camps.  I would say the following:

1. "all" sainthood means is that God has revealed that the person is in the dwelling place of the Saints, the bosom of Abraham and numbered among the righteous, as evidenced by the veneration of the people (generally due to miracles) and through the authority of the church (traditionally through the local bishop.  For better or worse, for those in union with Rome, that authority has become a formal process in Rome since the 1500s). 

2. This is not the same as politically lionizing someone for a political or sectarian goal (e.g. there's a big difference between Sainthood and the way, say, Communist Parties lionize their "greats")

3. As a bishop at a council, St. Mark had every right to oppose the decree of the council if he thought it was heterodox.  And since the council's result was ultimately rejected, often vehemently, by the people and the other clergy, it's not as if he was the only voice in the world who was opposed.  So one cannot really lay the blame for "failure" of "reunion" on him.  And as far as judging his work....I kind of doubt a critical edition of his full work exists in Greek, and what exists in English is appallingly small and used for polemical purposes.  I would defer on evaluation of his work, how accurate his evaluation of Latin theology presented at the Council was (and to what degree the Latin theology presented at the Council stands critical Catholic theological scrutiny today) to qualified theologians.  This is usually done by people with doctorates, and often yields odd results for polemics*. 

4. as far as St. Josaphat, I really don't know much about him (and don't wish to really tread there since I'm not Ukrainian).  I would, however, say that the sectarian/political/cultural pressure wielded on the (what one Ukranian catholic historian described as a culturally weaker) Kyivan church from the Polish crown/intelligenstia, the Counter-reformation Latin Church, the Calvinist sectarians (who I'm told were an influential part of the Polish elite at the time), and from the Muscovites was immense.  This yielded fierce divisions in the Kyivan church, which combined with political passions would inevitably result in a very bad religious environment.

Finally, the answer to how should ECs view St. Josaphat.... they should view him however objective history can view him.  (and yes, there is such a thing, or at least approximation, and a good historical research does exist).  In my experience, objective history usually knocks people off of hagiographic pedestals (since hagiography's purpose is different from objective history), presents evidence pro and contra (and often shattering) to whatever paradigm one might be looking for, and often has abundant amounts of weird data that show the reader how differently people of the past think compared to people of today. 



*e.g. St. Gregory Palamas, the defender of "Eastern Orthodoxy" against Barlaam the "western scholastic" according to the ridiculous caricature that's been out there for so long, quotes Augustine (without attribution) far more often than his opponent.  [this was in an article in SVS theological quarterly, I can find a citation if one wants]

 

[ICXCNIKA]

Christ is Risen!

I'm not Orthodox, but my opinion......

The analogy only makes sense if you view the two saints as standard bearers of mutually opposing camps.  I would say the following:

1. "all" sainthood means is that God has revealed that the person is in the dwelling place of the Saints, the bosom of Abraham and numbered among the righteous, as evidenced by the veneration of the people (generally due to miracles) and through the authority of the church (traditionally through the local bishop.  For better or worse, for those in union with Rome, that authority has become a formal process in Rome since the 1500s).   

2. This is not the same as politically lionizing someone for a political or sectarian goal (e.g. there's a big difference between Sainthood and the way, say, Communist Parties lionize their "greats")

3. As a bishop at a council, St. Mark had every right to oppose the decree of the council if he thought it was heterodox.   And since the council's result was ultimately rejected, often vehemently, by the people and the other clergy, it's not as if he was the only voice in the world who was opposed.  So one cannot really lay the blame for "failure" of "reunion" on him.   And as far as judging his work....I kind of doubt a critical edition of his full work exists in Greek, and what exists in English is appallingly small and used for polemical purposes.   I would defer on evaluation of his work, how accurate his evaluation of Latin theology presented at the Council was (and to what degree the Latin theology presented at the Council stands critical Catholic theological scrutiny today) to qualified theologians.  This is usually done by people with doctorates, and often yields odd results for polemics*. 

4. as far as St. Josaphat, I really don't know much about him (and don't wish to really tread there since I'm not Ukrainian).  I would, however, say that the sectarian/political/cultural pressure wielded on the (what one Ukranian catholic historian described as a culturally weaker) Kyivan church from the Polish crown/intelligenstia, the Counter-reformation Latin Church, the Calvinist sectarians (who I'm told were an influential part of the Polish elite at the time), and from the Muscovites was immense.  This yielded fierce divisions in the Kyivan church, which combined with political passions would inevitably result in a very bad religious environment.

Finally, the answer to how should ECs view St. Josaphat.... they should view him however objective history can view him.  (and yes, there is such a thing, or at least approximation, and a good historical research does exist).  In my experience, objective history usually knocks people off of hagiographic pedestals (since hagiography's purpose is different from objective history), presents evidence pro and contra (and often shattering) to whatever paradigm one might be looking for, and often has abundant amounts of weird data that show the reader how differently people of the past think compared to people of today.   



*e.g. St. Gregory Palamas, the defender of "Eastern Orthodoxy" against Barlaam the "western scholastic" according to the ridiculous caricature that's been out there for so long, quotes Augustine (without attribution) far more often than his opponent.   [this was in an article in SVS theological quarterly, I can find a citation if one wants]

Excellent post.

 

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen!

I don't recall any stories of St. Mark having Catholics murdered.

Or Churches destroyed...

Nor was St. Mark supported by the state and trying to promote its agenda.

And St. Mark was venerated by his people.  The Poles, not the Belarussians (his people) nor the Ruthenians nor the Ukrainians, promoted the other cult.

 

[mike]

Neither St Mark suffered from convertitis.

 

[PJ]

Thanks for all your responses.

This is a follow-up from the same source:

If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.

 

[J Michael]

Thanks for all your responses.

This is a follow-up from the same source:

If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.

Christ is Risen!!

A.  What was Phillip Rolfes' "original analogy"?  Or did I miss that here somewhere?

B.  From the relatively little I know about either saint, it seems to me that trying to compare them is like comparing apples to oranges and I can only wonder what purpose it serves.  But, remember....I *am* colossally ignorant  ;D!

C.  Are Eastern Catholics forbidden to venerate St. Josaphat?

 

[PJ]

Hi J Michael.

A. You make a good point, and pick a good nit. In the OP I used the word "comparison", but in the last quote I gave, he said "analogy".

B. Don't worry, thus far I haven't gotten even half-way to forgetting without you mentioning it again.

C. Well ... I've never heard it claimed that they are.

 

[J Michael]

Hi J Michael.

A. You make a good point, and pick a good nit. In the OP I used the word "comparison", but in the last quote I gave, he said "analogy".

B. Don't worry, thus far I haven't gotten even half-way to forgetting without you mentioning it again.

C. Well ... I've never heard it claimed that they are.

I am proud to be a charter member of the United Universal Most Humble Orthodox-Catholic Association of Nit-Picking Ignoramuses.  World wide, at last count, there are literally tens of millions of us--give or take one or two!  :laugh: :laugh:

As for point "C", I only ask because in your OP there was this: "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?"

 

[PJ]

As for point "C", I only ask because in your OP there was this: "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?"

I'm sure PR was referring to the fact that Orthodox complain about said veneration. I doubt it was ever forbidden within Catholicism.

 

[J Michael]

As for point "C", I only ask because in your OP there was this: "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?"

I'm sure PR was referring to the fact that Orthodox complain about said veneration. I doubt it was ever forbidden within Catholicism.

Yeah, I doubt it, too, but the phrase "not...permitted" that was used seemed a little strong, so I questioned it.

As for Orthodox complaining about said veneration, well, no comment.

 

[PJ]

Thanks for all your responses.

This is a follow-up from the same source:

If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.

I forgot to add, Does anyone disagree with that conditional statement? (I'm addressing this to anyone, even if you don't think the stories about Josaphat were made up.)

 

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen!

Hi J Michael.

A. You make a good point, and pick a good nit. In the OP I used the word "comparison", but in the last quote I gave, he said "analogy".

B. Don't worry, thus far I haven't gotten even half-way to forgetting without you mentioning it again.

C. Well ... I've never heard it claimed that they are.

I am proud to be a charter member of the United Universal Most Humble Orthodox-Catholic Association of Nit-Picking Ignoramuses.  World wide, at last count, there are literally tens of millions of us--give or take one or two!  :laugh: :laugh:

As for point "C", I only ask because in your OP there was this: "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?"

Did St. Mark murder anyone in his defense of Orthodoxy? Force Orthodoxy on anyone?  Conclude with anyone to force anyone into Orthodoxy? Deceive anyone? Did Josaphat preach the Truth?

 

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen!

As for point "C", I only ask because in your OP there was this: "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?"

I'm sure PR was referring to the fact that Orthodox complain about said veneration. I doubt it was ever forbidden within Catholicism.

Indeed, it was foisted on the Ruthenians in submission to the Vatican and in subjugation to the Poles in Galicia by the Poles in colussion with the Vatican.  The Ruthenians refused to have anything to do with his "canonization."

 

[elijahmaria]

Christ is risen!

Hi J Michael.

A. You make a good point, and pick a good nit. In the OP I used the word "comparison", but in the last quote I gave, he said "analogy".

B. Don't worry, thus far I haven't gotten even half-way to forgetting without you mentioning it again.

C. Well ... I've never heard it claimed that they are.

I am proud to be a charter member of the United Universal Most Humble Orthodox-Catholic Association of Nit-Picking Ignoramuses.  World wide, at last count, there are literally tens of millions of us--give or take one or two!  :laugh: :laugh:

As for point "C", I only ask because in your OP there was this: "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?"

Did St. Mark murder anyone in his defense of Orthodoxy? Force Orthodoxy on anyone?  Conclude with anyone to force anyone into Orthodoxy? Deceive anyone? Did Josaphat preach the Truth?

In the time of St. Mark[bishop] was the Anti-unionist agenda promulgated in Greece and north into Slavic lands without rabble rousing that included violence?  Guess you'd have to go examine the historical record...and we know in which circular file that will end up.

 

[mike]

In the time of St. Mark[bishop] was the Anti-unionist agenda promulgated in Greece and north into Slavic lands without rabble rousing that included violence?  Guess you'd have to go examine the historical record...and we know in which circular file that will end up.

Give some proofs if you think otherwise. Well, I don't mean Metropolitan Isidore's case but something more widespread.

 

[biro]

For what it's worth, St. Constantine had his brother killed, and St. Paul killed Christians before his conversion. Both of these people repented and were forgiven. I guess that can't be done again... never mind that the Orthodox turned around and killed Kuncevyc, because when they do it, it's okay.  : See, St. Thomas a Becket is a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches now. Other Christians are good at forgiving each other. Never mind, can't happen here. What was I thinking?

 

[elijahmaria]

For what it's worth, St. Constantine had his brother killed, and St. Paul killed Christians before his conversion. Both of these people repented and were forgiven. I guess that can't be done again... never mind that the Orthodox turned around and killed Kuncevyc, because when they do it, it's okay.  : See, St. Thomas a Becket is a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches now. Other Christians are good at forgiving each other. Never mind, can't happen here. What was I thinking?

It's all right.  God forgives.

M.

 

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen!

Hi J Michael.

A. You make a good point, and pick a good nit. In the OP I used the word "comparison", but in the last quote I gave, he said "analogy".

B. Don't worry, thus far I haven't gotten even half-way to forgetting without you mentioning it again.

C. Well ... I've never heard it claimed that they are.

I am proud to be a charter member of the United Universal Most Humble Orthodox-Catholic Association of Nit-Picking Ignoramuses.  World wide, at last count, there are literally tens of millions of us--give or take one or two!  :laugh: :laugh:

As for point "C", I only ask because in your OP there was this: "If the Orthodox can venerate the likes of St. Mark of Ephasus, why should Eastern Catholics not be permitted to venerate the likes of St. Josaphat?"

Did St. Mark murder anyone in his defense of Orthodoxy? Force Orthodoxy on anyone?  Conclude with anyone to force anyone into Orthodoxy? Deceive anyone? Did Josaphat preach the Truth?

In the time of St. Mark[bishop] was the Anti-unionist agenda promulgated in Greece and north into Slavic lands without rabble rousing that included violence?  Guess you'd have to go examine the historical record...and we know in which circular file that will end up.

Examining the historical record is very fruitful.  You should try it some time.

Here, the biggest Slavic lands in 1439 were those ruled by the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania

who recognized Pope Felix V, not the deposed Pope Eugene at Florence, and hence, although sons of the Vatican, didn't force Florence on the Orthodox.  Hence no need for violence.

Moscow and the other Slavic lands further East deposed the apostate Met. Isidore and elected Met. St. Jonas, enthroned at Moscow and recognized by Ryzan, Rostov, Tver, Novgorod, Lithuania, Poland and what is (anachronastically) labelled "Ukraine" here.  So no need for violence here either.

Hungary, at the Vatican's bidding, had for two centuries been trying to "exterminate the schismatic Vlachs" i.e. the Romanian Orthodox, so here, at the Vatican's provocation, there was violence.  It's called self defense.

Which is what the Orthodox populace in the Empire of the Romans and elsewhere did with the ruling rabble who tried to force Florence on them.

 

[ialmisry]

For what it's worth, St. Constantine had his brother killed, and St. Paul killed Christians before his conversion. Both of these people repented and were forgiven. I guess that can't be done again... never mind that the Orthodox turned around and killed Kuncevyc, because when they do it, it's okay.  : See, St. Thomas a Becket is a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches now. Other Christians are good at forgiving each other. Never mind, can't happen here. What was I thinking?

Your evidence of Kuncevyc' repentance?

 

[elijahmaria]

Which is what the Orthodox populace in the Empire of the Romans and elsewhere did with the ruling rabble who tried to force Florence on them.

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

 

[mike]

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

 

[biro]

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

This I doubt. Sounds like propaganda.

 

[elijahmaria]

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

This I doubt. Sounds like propaganda.

There's not even one shred of evidence for anything like that.  But there is evidence of Orthodox who recanted their lies about the Bishop after he was murdered.

The weight of real documentation is against the Orthodox in this instance.  That's why the myths have to suffice to raise the ire of the newly illumined.

M.

 

[ialmisry]

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

This I doubt. Sounds like propaganda.

There's not even one shred of evidence for anything like that.  But there is evidence of Orthodox who recanted their lies about the Bishop after he was murdered.

Couldn't be.  There were no Orthodox in Poland-Lithuania after 1595.  The King, his courts and the authorities said so.  Of course that leaves the question about all those reprisals the autorities ordered against those non-existent Orthodox in retaliation for the execution of Kuncevyc.  Maybe that has something to do with those "recantations":do you have them?

The weight of real documentation is against the Orthodox in this instance.

 
Then providing some documentation shouldn't be a problem then, now, should it?

That's why the myths have to suffice to raise the ire of the newly illumined.

Michael is on ground zero, and has been illumined for quite some time.  Or was it myths to keep your converts in line that you were referring to?

 

[PJ]

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

This I doubt. Sounds like propaganda.

Indeed, I'm surprised at Michał for posting it.

 

[PJ]

For what it's worth, St. Constantine had his brother killed, and St. Paul killed Christians before his conversion. Both of these people repented and were forgiven. I guess that can't be done again... never mind that the Orthodox turned around and killed Kuncevyc, because when they do it, it's okay.  : See, St. Thomas a Becket is a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches now. Other Christians are good at forgiving each other. Never mind, can't happen here. What was I thinking?

You're very brave, bringing up Catholics and Anglicans in a positive manner on an Orthodox forum.   

 

[ialmisry]

Which is what the Orthodox populace in the Empire of the Romans and elsewhere did with the ruling rabble who tried to force Florence on them.

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Thanks for the compliment (though the word is "select".  I fixed that for you.).

Any evidence for those imaginary "unionists" in the Slav lands that people your "history"?  The devout got rid of the apostoate Met. Isidore and canonically consecrated Met. St. Jonas.  The indifferent, if they existed, went with the existing devout Orthodox and not the non-existent unionists.  In the Empire of the Romans, the ruling rabble had all the force of state, which it exercised with the Vatican's blessing (an old tradition in Old Rome since Pope Hormisdas) to force the apostacy of Florence on the Orthodox.  The apostates went down with the Emperor, and had no following until the Polish-Lithuanian-Swedish Zygmunt Wasa created one.   By force, of course.

 

[ialmisry]

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

Kuncewicz was famous for digging up corpses of the Orthodox people and throwing them for dogs to eat. So much of self-defense.

This I doubt. Sounds like propaganda.

Indeed, I'm surprised at Michał for posting it.

Why?  He is known for telling the truth.

 

[elijahmaria]

%

 

[witega]

Thanks for all your responses.

This is a follow-up from the same source:

If we follow the camp that believes St. Josaphat did not in fact kill Orthodox Christians or burn their Churches (nor was complicit with those who did so), then my original analogy still holds up.

I forgot to add, Does anyone disagree with that conditional statement? (I'm addressing this to anyone, even if you don't think the stories about Josaphat were made up.)

I'm actually not clear on what the 'analogy' is supposed to be. But if the point is that RC's should (and do) have the right to venerate whomever they want from their own faith tradition, I'd agree with that--however, I'm not sure you would want me to agree, since I'm one of those who thinks the idea of corporate reunion between Orthodoxy and modern Rome is a pipe-dream, with the fact that Orthodox revere St. Mark for his resistance to the subversion of the Orthodox faith to Latin innovation while Rome reveres Josaphat for his attempts at subjugating and subverting the Orthodox faith as just one more reason why it's a pipe-dream.

 

[Shanghaiski]

I looked him up on Wikipedia and there didn't seem to any evidence presented against him. They did cite that the State did some horrible things but I don't see how he could be blamed for their actions.

It's always the state's fault. As if the Vatican administration in the state wasn't supportive, even over the objections of the pope. Sometimes it's what is done after the state takes action, or rather what is not done, that is telling, both for the sorry episodes in Orthodox and Roman Catholic history. That is why leaders such as Patriarch Pavle, who actually took a stand against those who would have used the Church for nationalistic ends, stick out. They are all too few.

 

[Shanghaiski]

Which is what the Orthodox populace in the Empire of the Romans and elsewhere did with the ruling rabble who tried to force Florence on them.

Which would work except for the fact that the violence was perpetrated by the anti-unionists against those who were supportive of union.  It was self-defense on the part of the unionists or those who were indifferent.  In the Slav lands the indifferent were bullied into taking an anti-union position. 

Your selective history is about as accurate as that of Fr. John Romanides. 

As is yours, actually. And just as reductionist.

 

[ialmisry]

%

Are you still having trouble with percentage?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38266.msg615884.html#msg615884