Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Apple Vs. DRM? | Main | The Our Father In Aramaic »

February 08, 2007

Comments

Tim J.

I used to work for an archeologist, and I always found it a little disturbing that we couldn't just let things be. Ancient peoples went to great lengths to treat the dead with tremendous dignity and respect, only to have their descendents dug up later and stuck in a museum.

'Taint fittin'.

I know we need to learn things, and all, but I think we could go about it with a bit more decorum. Not everything should be treated as a "specimen" or an artifact.

It's like scientific animal testing. I'm for it if it's really, really necessary, but some of the things that have been done in the name of science just make my blood boil... "Oh, look! When the little baby monkeys have only a mother made of chicken wire with a bottle to feed on, they develop all kinds of behavioral anomalies and neurotic complexes, compared to the group that had mothers made of shag carpeting, which tended to develop only mild hysteria. The control group with the real mothers were much happier and behaved normally... GO FIGURE!". They needed a university study to work that out?

Yeah, pray for these two. Very touching how she has her arm over him.

Realist

The first Romeo and Juliet???

Esau

I used to work for an archeologist, and I always found it a little disturbing that we couldn't just let things be. Ancient peoples went to great lengths to treat the dead with tremendous dignity and respect, only to have their descendents dug up later and stuck in a museum.

Tim J.:

Many times, it becomes necessary that we engage in such discoveries in order to learn about our very ourselves (i.e., humanity).

I believe that various discoveries may not only reveal to us events of our past, but would also provide us significant value in terms of perhaps various errors committed by humanity in its past history as well as the achievements of mankind as well as its downfall.

All in all, it is imperative that we take part in such discovery in order to learn more about ourselves not only for the sake of discovering our past history, but learning from it as well.

For example, several discoveries made through archaeology had helped to shed light on various peoples and events in Scripture.

For example, we could read about people like the Moabites or the Philistines or the Greeks or the Edomites and, then, we could dig up the remains of their cities and know all about them through their their writings and other remnants from their past.

But, I do agree that there should be the utmost respect in the way such things (especially human remains) are treated instead of being callously dismissed as mere specimen.

Tim J.

Oh, I don't have any problem with digging up stuff. Artifacts are COOL, and I hope to paint some soon. It's just where people bodies are concerned that I would like to see some restraint.

My Dad's gravestone was vandalized, once. I didn't appreciate it then, and I don't think I would appreciate it in a hundred years, either.

Esau

CORRIGENDUM:

I believe that various discoveries in archaeology may not only reveal to us events of our past, but would also provide significant value in terms of our learning from perhaps possible errors committed by humanity in its history as well as the achievements in addition to its downfall.

At any rate, I hope you know what I mean.

Esau

My Dad's gravestone was vandalized, once. I didn't appreciate it then, and I don't think I would appreciate it in a hundred years, either.

Tim J.:

If I were in your position, I would perhaps be more irate than you were/are.

Again, as mentioned, I understand you completely and would certainly like such folks who engage in discovery of this type to treat such things with the utmost respect and not behave so callously as if these items were merely objects for a specific scientific purpose.

j hughes dunphy

Dear Jimmy:
Thanks for your poignant picture of how love
surpasses all difficulties, ages and even the grave.
This brings to mind the greatest of the great popes himself, St. Peter who loved His Divine Master with a loved that surpassed also the grave, but this after a most deplorable denial three times. Yet Peter's love for Christ was not to be surpassed by any of the other apostles for Peter's willingness to be crucified like His Divine Master, but only upside down because he was not worthy to be crucified as his Lord and Master. Yes, Peter followed Christ even unto death, the death of the cross!

Moreover St. Peter was the perfect example of all the apostles to teach them how to be orthodox, Roman, and catholic.

First of all this is true because Peter lived out Christ's Passion and Death and all the morality and doctrine it represents to the letter, thus making him the most orthodox. He established the Church in Rome and from there taught, prayed, and preached in Latin, the tongue of the Romans and the Latin Rite ever since. Lastly, Peter was the most catholic of Catholics, making the Church totally universal by being the most exemplary of missionaries and taking Christ's own message of Catholicity most seriously as he traveled the known world to preach the good news and baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Now, we hear Pope Benedict XVI is living the life of Peter again by restoring the most orthodox, Roman, and Catholic of prayers, the Tridentine Latin Mass, so again the Latin Rite and the Church can be as orthodox, Roman, and Catholic as Peter! And there is report that Pope Benedict XVI may release his "motu proprio" on the most advantageous of feasts, the feast of the Chair of Peter! God Bless!
j hughes dunphy
http://www.theorthodoxromancatholic.com

Esau

Mr. Dunphy:

I take issue with the following:

Moreover St. Peter was the perfect example of all the apostles to teach them how to be orthodox, Roman, and catholic.

St. Peter did not teach folks to be Roman; he taught folks to be Christian (i.e., Catholic).


He established the Church in Rome and from there taught, prayed, and preached in Latin, the tongue of the Romans and the Latin Rite ever since.

As much as I, myself, respect Latin as part of our Catholic heritage, Latin actually did not become the official language of the Catholic Church until the 4th Century. Before then, it was Greek.

the Church can be as orthodox, Roman, and Catholic as Peter!

Peter was not Roman; he was, more precisely, Christian.

Although I would classify myself as Roman Catholic (to indicate acknowledgment of the Authority of the Holy See over the Universal Church); it is not to denote Roman in terms of state, which is what you are suggesting here in these statements about Peter actually being orthodox, Roman, and Catholic.

bill912

The Roman Catholic Church is only one of 23 Churches that make up the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church.

bill912

Shoulda bin "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". (Long day).

Some Day

Actually, it is more like the Latin church is one of 23 churches that make up the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

Esau

Some Day,

Latin Rite; not Latin church.

Latin church might suggest a church in Latin America.

Curious

Jimmy,
After reading this link, I'm not so sure that this is the wonderful romantic story advertised. According to the article, the woman may have been executed afterward to provide the man with company in the afterlife. Instead of a testament to eternal love, this may be a testament of the perversion of human love in pagan cultures.


Sorry to highjack the ongoing thread on Roman Catholic triumphalism.

Esau

Instead of a testament to eternal love, this may be a testament of the perversion of human love in pagan cultures.

Curious has a point.

This may be the actual case in this situation.

It's not uncommon.

Weren't the servants and slaves of the Egyptian Pharoahs purposely killed so that they would be buried with them when they died in order that these may serve him in the afterlife?

Cheryl S.

For that matter, if this was the custom of their people (though we'd agree it was wrong to kill her), she may have been a willing participant (perhaps not eager, but not unwilling, either). We will likely never know, but to assume that all victims who were raised in such a culture were unwilling victims of such practices is likely in error.

Cholo

People kill one another like they kill deer when they are mating. It's the same mind.

ThePol

I agree with Esau and Curious -- it struck me as a bit odd that the media immediately dubbed the two as "lovers". How do we know they weren't brother and sister? I think their burial and the "lover" interpretation says more about our (sex-permeated) culture and less about theirs.

cholo

Hey Esau....talke to Ishi about it....I think that he would agree with you.

Esau

Cheryl S.:

...but to assume that all victims who were raised in such a culture were unwilling victims of such practices is likely in error.

Similarly, to assume that all victims who were raised in such a culture were actually willing victims of such practices can likely be in error as well.

Think about the times when the Catholic Church held such prominence and power back in the Medieval days. Now, just because folks were raised in a culture where they were generally taught to respect the traditions and authority of the Catholic Church (both ecclesial and temporal), didn't actually mean that all folks relished it and yielded to it.

How disgusting that anybody delights in viewing the bones of the dead. To post this image is obscene. Who is the rat that posted it.....912? Esau? Jr. Counselor mk? Images like this illustrate a private SUFFERING. PLEASE REMOVE IT FROM THIS BLOG...PORKCHOP!

Esau

Cholo:

Calling Jimmy Akin 'PORKCHOP' is a great way of demonstrating how mature a person you are as well as the fact that you really do care what the Bible says! Hooray!!!

Esau

Cholo:

Can you make sense of this equation:

Calvin Broadus = D'Hippolito = Cholo?

Is there a common denominator?

AnnonyMouse

Actually, what if they were brother and sister?
Would it still be "true love"?
Or mother/son? daughter/father? servant/master?

Do you remember the popular theologian that made the assumption that St. Francis De Sales and St. Jane De Chantal had to have been MORE than just friends (implication of something else) because they were buried by each other?

It shows how sleezy society has become.

I could see me embracing my husband/daughter/2sons like that.

This is very interesting.

Esau

Do you remember the popular theologian that made the assumption that St. Francis De Sales and St. Jane De Chantal had to have been MORE than just friends (implication of something else) because they were buried by each other?

It shows how sleezy society has become.


AnnonyMouse:

I've heard similar calumny against St. Francis and St. Clare.

AnnonyMouse

Esau, I just remember be so infuriated because St. Francis De Sales is my patron saint.
I could be wrong though. Plus, I thought it was a BIG sin to talk about someone/something holy? Or even to imply it?

David B.

I wish someone would make a device that Jimmy could put on the necks of those who are highjacking this thread. They would be shocked whenever they attempted to access this blog.

AnnonyMouse

Esau, if you can stomach it, here it is.
http://www.the-tidings.com/2006/1208/essays.htm

David, pretend they are flys and ignore them.

Mary Kay

It's a neat picture, regardless of the circumstances.

Esau

I was highly offended when I heard such outrageous hearsay about an illicit love affair between St. Francis and St. Clare (when, in fact, there are no concrete historical evidence to even suggest this) being I have the utmost respect for the way they remained true to their calling and devotion to God, in spite of all the tremendous rigors and profound difficulties and suffering they met as they carried their Cross for the glory of Our Lord and the spreading of the Gospel message.


About your question:

Plus, I thought it was a BIG sin to talk about someone/something holy? Or even to imply it?

I don't quite know what you're getting at. I know of Traditional Catholics who perhaps may think this way (and, in fact, I could understand that from their perspective).

I'm not so sure how current Catholics feel (though, given the liberal nature of a nominal Catholic these days who are more apt to question everything, I'm sure they would engage in such notions regardless) as well as non-Catholics, this wouldn't be looked upon as a sin at all.

Monica

It's a very sweet picture, and I do think that they look more like lovers than brother and sister, but one can't know for sure. I do hope they are treated respectfully.

BTW, can't we just ignore cholo?

bill912

Esau, I think what AnnonyMouse was referring to was imputing evil to what is holy, or someone who is holy. Imputing evil to what is holy is blasphemy. Imputing evil to anyone, holy or not, without evidence, is calumny. And bothe *are* big sins.

Esau

Thanks, bill912, for the clarification.
That makes total sense!

I thought it was the 'sacred cow' element (for lack of a better term) that was prevalent in former days (and for good reason, I might add) where it was thought sinful to explore any such thoughts regarding things sacred.


As for the article AnnonyMouse cited, I don't quite find the same implied perversion as I, on the other hand, had observed in a risible article I read suggesting a possible illicit love affair between St. Francis and St. Clare, which is so far from the truth and, once more, not in the slightest supported by any past or even recent historical evidence.

Nutcrazical

Latin church is one of 23 churches that make up the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

Huh?

Twenty-three churches form the Catholic Church? Nobody ever told me that... and I didn't see it in Catholicism for Dummies...

Esau

Latin church is one of 23 churches that make up the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

Huh?

Twenty-three churches form the Catholic Church? Nobody ever told me that... and I didn't see it in Catholicism for Dummies...


See, now that's the potential confusion I was referring to in my post above.

I think, more correctly, the word that should have been used in that post instead of 'church' is 'rite'; which is actually right!

Esau

Clarification (just in case):

When I said ...this wouldn't be looked upon as a sin at all.; what I meant was that it wouldn't be considered a sin, unfortunately, by these concerned parties and NOT that it wasn't actually a sin.

That's why I framed it as follows:

I don't quite know what you're getting at. I know of Traditional Catholics who perhaps may think this way (and, in fact, I could understand that from their perspective).

I'm not so sure how current Catholics feel (though, given the liberal nature of a nominal Catholic these days who are more apt to question everything, I'm sure they would engage in such notions regardless) as well as non-Catholics, this wouldn't be looked upon as a sin at all.

Dr. Eric

No Esau, there are 23 Churches that compose the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

The number of Rites is even less.

In some cases, the Rite is synonymous with the Church, ie Maronite; sometimes not, ie the Byzantine Rite is used by 14 Churches which are in Communion with the Holy See.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

(How do I do the thing that makes a link in green?)


By the way, I don't think the couple (whomever they are) should be moved.

Maureen

Moving back to archaeology....

People are always "excited" to find anything. Archaeologists don't like to talk about how moved they are by their finds, or how much they care, because it doesn't really sound scientific. But most archaeologists eat, sleep, and breathe the lives and deaths of the people they dig up, and that includes a good deal of concern for how their remains are treated. They may sneer at their colleagues, fight with their families, and demand slave labor from their grad students, but archaeologists truly love their dead bodies.

I will mention a certain archaeology professor who kept a great many bones in an undisclosed location to keep them safe. (Said undisclosed location just "happened" to follow the norms of burial orientation for their particular prehistoric people, and I don't know how he wangled that out of the administration.) He was occasionally pressured to let local Native American activists rebury the bones. He kept pointing out that the activists' ceremonies were All Wrong and against the beliefs of the dead, and that if any reburial was done, he'd have to run things as the only living authority on their ceremonies.

Cold and unhuman they ain't. (Horribly dilatory to publish, yes.)

Eileen R

Weren't the servants and slaves of the Egyptian Pharoahs purposely killed so that they would be buried with them when they died in order that these may serve him in the afterlife?

No. There used to be legends about this, but there's only one *possible* example of human sacrifice in Egypt and that's pre-recorded-history.

Cholo

Hey Esau...I gotta hand it to you, that is extremely FUNNY!!! Hooray!!!

Here's my question Esau: Who own's the bones?

Calvin Broadus

Calvin Broadus = OJ = Fr. George

Esau

The number of Rites is even less.

Dr. Eric:

That's wrong.

I know this not only by an answer provided at a Catholic Answers open forum but also from other Catholic as well as Eastern Rite Catholic websites as well.

Here's an example:
http://motherofgodchurch.org/mog/eastern.htm

jhughesdunphy

Dear Jimmy: Thanks for this great discussion of how St. Peter, the greatest of the Great Popes, truly was the perfect example of what is an orthodox Roman Catholic pope to all succeeding popes and generations! This still stands at the end of the day and the end of the discussion.
Imagine if the Catholic Church could return to this pristine faith and tradition of following Peter in all things orthodox, Roman and Catholic! What unity we would have alone with an all Latin liturgy for as Our Divine Master prayed: "Father, keep in Thy Name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one even as we are." (John 17:11)
For Latin Rite Catholics or, if I dare say all Catholics, could anything be more orthodox, Roman, or Catholic than following Peter's inimitable example for a one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church, built on Peter? All roads lead to Rome, the eternal City! God Bless!
j hughes dunphy
http://www.theorthodoxromancatholic.com

JD

From the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, which governs the 22 non-Latin sui iuris Churches.
(Codex Canonici Ecclesiarum Orientalium)

c. 27
A community of the Christian faithful, which is joined together by a hierarchy according to the norm of law and which is expressly or tacitly recognized as 'sui iuris' by the supreme authority of the Church, is called in this Code a Church 'sui iuris'

c. 28.1 A rite is a liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage, differentiated by the culture and the circumstances of the history of peoples, which is expressed by each Church 'sui iuris' in its own manner of living the faith.

c. 28.2 The rites dealth with in this code, unless it is established otherwise, are those which arose from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean, and Constantinolitan traditions.

bill912

JD is right. I had it explained to me by a Byzantine Catholic priest on the first Catholic Answers Cruise. He celebrated The Divine Liturgy (of St. John Chrysostom) for us one morning. Absolutely beautiful. And could he sing! (Memo to self: Next time have breakfast BEFORE The Divine Liturgy! It *is* longer than we Roman-types are used to).

Cheryl S.

Esau:

Never said *ALL* victims were willing - just that to assume *ALL* were unwilling may be in error (I definitely do NOT claim that all were willing!).

There are still many people who resist authority of any kind, whether religious, civil, or parental. Nothing new under the sun, ya know? ;)

Esau

JD, bil912 and Dr. Eric:

Please visit the following site for comprehensive treatment regarding the 20+ Rites in the Catholic Church in an article from the Newman Center entitled "Different Rites of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church":


http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/newman/Pages/fr-catholicrites.html

Excerpt:

Question: Why is there more than one Rite? Do we need 20+ different Rites?

Answer: Our Lord only gave us the essential elements of the Divine Liturgy, the Sacraments, etc.: not specifics on their practice or celebration. The essence of matter, form, and intention (found in every Sacrament) is drawn by the Magisterium from Divine Revelation in Sacred Tradition and Scripture. These essentials are not changeable by the Church. However, when the Apostles of Jesus’ time brought the Gospel to major cities, they inculturated the essentials of the above (Liturgy, fasting, etc.) into the culture of the area. The tradition of a particular area/manner of celebrating a Sacrament is called a "Rite".

The original Rites had three major groupings: the Roman, the Antiochian (in Syria), and the Alexandrain (in Egypt). In the 4th century, under the influence of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom, the Byzantine Rite derived from the Antiochian. These 4 main Rites then created the over 20 Liturgical Rites present today in the one, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church.


God bless you, brothers!

I love these learning opportunities about the Faith!

Esau

Cheryl S.:

Gotcha! ;^)

God bless!

Esau

Eileen R.:

Weren't the servants and slaves of the Egyptian Pharoahs purposely killed so that they would be buried with them when they died in order that these may serve him in the afterlife? (Esau)

No. There used to be legends about this, but there's only one *possible* example of human sacrifice in Egypt and that's pre-recorded-history. (Eileen R.)


This wasn't legend.

In fact, if you watched THC programs as well as read about the pyramids, you would see that there were tombs of servants in the pyramids as well where the servants were buried.

It is thought that the servants were killed so that they might serve Pharaoh in the after-life.

Portraits of servants would be painted on the interior walls to serve their master in his afterlife. Tombs for a pharaoh's servants were constructed around the King's mastaba for the same reason.

Sailorette/Foxfier

Nutcrazical-- that book was horrible. I found multiple errors in about five minutes of reading and I belive it's the only book I've ever thrown away, as opposed to *given* away. (it was five years ago, so I don't even recal the exacts-- other than a phrase saying Madonna the pop star was just as good a catholic as Mother Teresa.....)
I susupect you might be a troll, but oh well.

There is Something that suggests lovers to me, too. I have no idea why.

Esau

Sailorette:

Are you sure you read the book that Nutcrazical mentioned???

Catholicism for Dummies was written by EWTN's popular priests: Fr. Trugilio and Fr. Ken Brighentti. In fact, they both hosted a new series: Catholicism 101 (or something like that) based on that book on ewtn.

Fr. Trugilio hosted Web of Faith as well as Council of Faith: The Documents of Vatican II.

Sailorette/Foxfier

It may have been for idiots-- big ugly orange edition, same as the computer books.
As I said, it was five years ago, and the main impression it left on me was "oh, crud; they're good with computers, but *man* are they flaky with religion."

Sailorette/Foxfier

The Amazon "inside the cover" search for Catholicism for Dummies by John Trigilio and Kenneth Brighenti has no results for the pop-star Madonna, only four results on the black Madonna and one on the czestochowa Madonna.

Ah! It was "Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Catholicism" that was so bad, as best ten minutes of searching can tell. And yes, they do look like they're both from the same company that makes the computer books. (Good books! You need help on a computer, they work!) /promotion

My appologies to Mr. Trigilio and Breighenti.

Esau

Sailorette/Foxfier:

To be fair, I've not read the book myself.

I'm just surprised when you mentioned what you did because these priests come off pretty orthodox on ewtn and demonstrate a pretty good understanding about the Catholic Faith.

Sailorette/Foxfier

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Understanding-Catholicism/dp/0028636392/ref=dp_return_2/103-6119698-6669453?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

Read the reveiws and you might understand my disgust.

Barbara

"The Complete Idiot's Guide..." was written by a complete idiot.

"Dummies..." was written by solidly Catholic priests.

Brian John Schuettler

We really will never know what the story is...for all we know, this could have a woman with her lover discoverd by a jealous husband who then killed them both and left them there for public ridicule. I prefer Jimmy's approach...let the angels of our better nature do the imagining...but still pray for their souls.

Annalucia

Maybe they weren't lovers, but the position they were found in suggests care and affection. I can't imagine that a slave woman killed to accompany a man in the afterlife would have her arm around him like that. And look at how their legs interlock. I don't see that as siblings or just good buddies, somehow.

Esau

Maybe they weren't lovers, but the position they were found in suggests care and affection.


Annalucia:

Just because they were found that way doesn't actually mean they died that way.


For example, though the thought is revolting, it might be possible that people could just have as easily manipulated the final pose of these two by:

1. Forcing the two to embrace the other prior to their deaths

2. After their deaths, somebody could just as easily moved their arms so that the two would actually embrace each other to simulate the pose we find them today


We will never know.

Nevertheless, as had been mentioned, we should have the utmost respect for their human remains.

Dr. Eric

Esau,

You had better tell His Beatitude Lubomyr Cardinal Husar to change the name of his Church then:

http://www.ugcc.org.ua/eng/ugcc_history/definition/

Tell His Beatitude Gregory III as well:

http://www.melkite.org/sa34.htm

Eileen R

Esau:
It is thought that the servants were killed so that they might serve Pharaoh in the after-life.

No it isn't thought so. If you've been watching documentaries that say that, you've been watching nutbar documentaries. The 'servants' buried near the Pharoahs are high-ranking courtiers who were illustrious enough to be buried near their king in the afterlife, but *not* in the same tomb. In their own tomb. The biggest goal of an aristocrat in the civil service, people often related to the pharoah by marriage.

The only place where one finds the kings of Egypt buried with other mummies is in the mummy caches, made after robbers looted the tombs.

The actual servants of the dead person in hte afterlife weren't any of these courtiers, however, but the ushebti figures or shabti figures, which were magically to become live servants hereafter.

Eileen R

And have found the article about the place in Egypt where human sacrifice might have likely occured. In the very first dynasty, long long before the Pyramids and most of recorded history.

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0504/feature7/

SouthCoast

I remember seeing this same "find" several years ago, again published around Valentine's Day. Just out of curiosity, I went to the linked site, and discovered that this particular story was published on March 10, 2007... Anyone see where that white rabbit went!

(Btw, the Egyptians did not sacrifice humans to their dead kings. The Sumerians, however, were another story entirely.)

Esau

Eileen R.:
Thanks for the info. What I mentioned was based on a documentary that was shown some time back in high school in a World Cultures class.


South Coast:

About what you said:
Egyptians did not sacrifice humans to their dead kings.

What was mentioned was the possible notion that servants of Pharaohs were killed so that they could serve the Pharaoh in the after-life.

One of the reasons for this was because of tombs found in pyramids for pharaoh's servants which were constructed around the King's mastaba.

J.R. Stoodley

Esau,

If you are right about rites vs. Churches how come there are many rites (Latin, Ambrosian,Mozarabic, Bragan, etc.) celebrated in one Church while several autocephalous Churches celebrate the same rite (e.g. the Byzantine rite).

I would recommend you read this artical from EWTN on the matter, though according to Wikipedia there is a minor inaccuracy somewhere (I forget what).

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm

Esau

J.R. Stoodley:

Please visit the following site for comprehensive treatment regarding the 20+ Rites in the Catholic Church in an article from the Newman Center entitled "Different Rites of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church":


Linking to "Different Rites of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church":

CATHOLIC RITES


What I am contending is the following from Dr. Eric:

No Esau, there are 23 Churches that compose the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

The number of Rites is even less.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31