Christian Discussion Thread IV

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

If you would like to celebrate the resurrection of the messiah, that is perfectly fine, but please don't include things like decorating eggs or bunnies into it, please.

None of those things are an inherent part of Easter, that's called commercialization, and commercialization is secular in origin.

[The Archregimancy]

Adding an old post of my own on the whole 'Eoestre' thing:

Easter falls when it does not because of a hypothetical Germanic goddess whose existence is wholly unrecorded outside of one of the Venerable Bede's more obscure 8th century writings (the De Temporum Ratione), and whose existence is unattributed outside of Bede, but because it's inevitably closely associated with the Jewish Passover - the Last Supper being a Passover seder. One of the earliest dating controversies in Christianity was the Quartodecimanian controversy, where the disagreement was between those figures in Rome who wanted to hold Easter on the Sunday closest to Passover, and those eastern Mediterranean churches who wanted to always begin Easter on 14 Nisan - ie, the day before the Jewish Passover on 15 Nisan [Jewish Calendar] - regardless of whether or not it was a Sunday. Since the Jewish calendar is lunisolar, Passover moves across the Julian/Gregorian calendar; which is why Easter also moves. English and German are in fact highly unusual in using a variant of 'Easter' (whatever the existence of Eostre/Ostara, the month of April seems to have been called some variant of 'Eosturmonath' in post-Classical Germanic societies) as their name for the celebrations connected to the resurrection of Jesus. In most other major European languages, the name of the celebration is taken from a word for Passover; this includes Scandinavian countries.

Hence, for example, we have Greek Pascha, French Paques, Welsh Pasg, Russian Paskha, Spanish Pascuas, Latin Pascha, Swedish Pask, Icelandic Paska, and Gaelic Casca (the initial 'P' having transmuted to a 'K' sound in q-celtic languages). This principle even works in many non-Indoeuropean languages, hence Indonesian Paskah, Hebrew Pascha, Basque Bazko, Finnish Pääsiäistä, Hawaiian Pakoa, or Persian Pak. English speakers attempting to draw a direct correlation between Eostre and the original selection of the date of Easter in the Mediterranean are displaying an almost wilfully ignorant level of ethnocentrism.

None of which is to say that there weren't subsequent later influences on local celebrations of these festivals in Northern Europe once Christianity spread outside of its Mediterranean homeland, or that there might not have been useful points of commonality for early missionaries in existing midwinter and spring celebrations - but the dates of both Christmas and Easter had been set long before Christianity had any substantive interaction with Norse paganism. They were not 'stolen' from Norse paganism - unless anyone cares to claim that Norse paganism influenced the timing of Passover.

[Constantinopolis]

English and German are in fact highly unusual in using a variant of 'Easter' (whatever the existence of Eostre/Ostara, the month of April seems to have been called some variant of 'Eosturmonath' in post-Classical Germanic societies) as their name for the celebrations connected to the resurrection of Jesus. In most other major European languages, the name of the celebration is taken from a word for Passover; this includes Scandinavian countries.

Ah, that explains the strange fact I discovered myself a little earlier, namely the weird English and German names for Pascha (which are obvious cognates of each other, but unrelated to the names everyone else uses, including other Germanic languages). Thank you!

By the way, is there any connection between "Eosturmonath" and East/Ost (i.e. the English/German name of the direction from which the sun rises)? In other words, does "Eosturmonath" mean something along the lines of "sunrise month"? Or is that just a coincidence?

[Confederate Ramenia]

English and German are in fact highly unusual in using a variant of 'Easter' (whatever the existence of Eostre/Ostara, the month of April seems to have been called some variant of 'Eosturmonath' in post-Classical Germanic societies) as their name for the celebrations connected to the resurrection of Jesus. In most other major European languages, the name of the celebration is taken from a word for Passover; this includes Scandinavian countries.

Ah, that explains the strange fact I discovered myself a little earlier, namely the weird English and German names for Pascha (which are obvious cognates of each other, but unrelated to the names everyone else uses, including other Germanic languages). Thank you!

By the way, is there any connection between "Eosturmonath" and East/Ost (i.e. the English/German name of the direction from which the sun rises)? In other words, does "Eosturmonath" mean something along the lines of "sunrise month"? Or is that just a coincidence?

I think it was originally a coincidence, but then it started being used intentionally. Like originally they just made a name, then they realised it was really good.

[The Archregimancy]

English and German are in fact highly unusual in using a variant of 'Easter' (whatever the existence of Eostre/Ostara, the month of April seems to have been called some variant of 'Eosturmonath' in post-Classical Germanic societies) as their name for the celebrations connected to the resurrection of Jesus. In most other major European languages, the name of the celebration is taken from a word for Passover; this includes Scandinavian countries.

Ah, that explains the strange fact I discovered myself a little earlier, namely the weird English and German names for Pascha (which are obvious cognates of each other, but unrelated to the names everyone else uses, including other Germanic languages). Thank you!

By the way, is there any connection between "Eosturmonath" and East/Ost (i.e. the English/German name of the direction from which the sun rises)? In other words, does "Eosturmonath" mean something along the lines of "sunrise month"? Or is that just a coincidence?

We're in the grounds of language reconstruction, which is simultaneously a somewhat speculative art, but also better developed than people might think.

In any case, page 43 of Kroonen's 2013 Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic notes the following (some abbreviation; accent marks left out).

*austera- adv. 'east, eastwards' - ON austr adv. Far. eystur adv. Elfd. oster adv. OE east adv. E east OFri. aster adv. OS ostar adv. MDu ooster adv. OHG ostar adv. - Lat. auster m. 'south wind; south'; YAv. usastara- adj. 'eastern.
An adverb created to the PIE word for 'dawn' (see *austron-) with the constrastive *tero-suffix.

*austron- f. 'Easter' - OE eastre f. 'spring goddess', pl. 'Easter', OHG ostara f. 'Easter'. MHG oster(n) f., G Ostern f.pl. - Close to Lith. ausra f. 'dawn'; also cf. Skt. usas- f., OAv. usa, YAv. acc. usanhem, usqm < Arm. ayg; Lat. aurora f.
The Indo-European word for 'dawn' was an s-stem, viz. nom *h2eus-os, gen. *hzus-s-os. Germanic and Baltic replaced this formation with a form in *-reh2-, cf. Skt. usra- f. 'dawn, morning'. Also cf. *austera-.

From which we can see that your deduction is probably largely correct. The etymological sources of the modern English and German 'Easter' are from the proto-Germanic root for 'East' and early Indo-European root for 'dawn', which also may have been applied to some form of spring Goddess if Bede is to be believed - though Bede is the only source for this. Certainly the etymological roots of 'Eosturmonath' would seem to originally be 'east/dawn month'.

Abbreviations:
ON - Old Norse
Far. - Faroese
Elfd. - Elfdalian
OE - Old English
E - English
OFri - Old Frisian
OHG - Old High German
MHG - Middle High German
OHG - Old High German
OS - Old Saxon
MDu - Middle Dutch
Lat. - Latin
Skt. - Sanskrit
PIE - Proto-Indo-European
YAv. - Young Avestan
OAv. - Old Avestan
Arm. - Armenian

* is the standard linguistic symbol identifying a reconstructed word in a reconstructed proto-language; where the symbol is missing, the word is attested via documentary evidence.

[Constantinopolis]

Very interesting! Thank you again! Sometimes I wonder if I haven't missed my calling by going into economics rather than a more history-related or perhaps linguistics-related field... then again, job prospects in those fields are, shall we say, not the best.

Also, I don't care what Google says, I will convince myself that people who speak Elfdalian look like this.

[Busen]

The historical - as opposed to theological - reasons why the Patriarch of Rome rose to prominence are therefore more to do with the city's status as imperial capital rather than any unusually early foundation of Rome's patriarchate.

Yes, but according to some historians jesus may also not be the man for which the Bible is presenting him. So, since this is the Christian disusion thread maybe we should rather focus on what Christians actually believe.

Yes, Rome rose to prominence because it is an Imperial city and that is probably the reason why did St. Peter went there and established the Church. This all does not counters the argument that Jesus told Peter that he will build (the Catholic) Church uopn him. Using historical reason some may call this all bullshit especially if some historian is not a Christian.

Alexandria was not founded by Peter so it is not relevant in sense of faith except that it used to be an important city. The Church in Antioch was founded by him personally he left it very quickly to found the one in Rome, also the one that was the most important for Christianity as it was an Imperial city. There he was crucifixed and since this is also his burial it became the most prominent city in Christendom.

[Busen]

Um... what? The Church of Antioch still exists, thank you very much. Click right here to have a look at their website. There are millions of Orthodox Christians belonging to the Patriarchate of Antioch, and until recently they were doing just fine. Today, of course, many of them are among the refugees that have been internally or externally displaced by the Syrian civil war. But our holy Church of Antioch has survived much worse things in the past.

Also, the Antiochian Orthodox have taken a leading role in Orthodox missionary activities in recent decades, so a large fraction of the recent converts to Orthodoxy in North America and Western Europe belong to the Antiochian Patriarchate.
Here is the website of the North American archdiocese: http://www.antiochian.org
And here is the website of the archdiocese of the British isles: http://www.antiochian-orthodox.co.uk

Oh, and Saint Peter was bishop of Antioch first, and only much later traveled to Rome.

But in any case, these were not the only two churches that Saint Peter established or presided over. He was a missionary, as were all the Apostles, and he established numerous smaller churches in all sorts of towns and villages. That's one of the major problems with the Catholic claim that Peter's successors are granted special authority: Which successors? There wasn't just one, and there weren't just two, either. There were dozens, maybe even hundreds.

That would have sense but as far I know the primus inter pares of the Orthodox Church is the Patriarch of the Istanbul, now if they really believe the Patriarch of Antioch is so important why does he not have that title but yet the Patriach of Constantinople has? The answer is simple, the Orthodox Church just does not give enough credit to Peter and mission he was given by Jesus.

My point is that the Patriarchate of Antioch should be indeed important in Christianity, but than it was occupied by Muslims and as such it was not able to serve as the center of Christianity, so the Roman Church was left this possition (and keep in mind by the time of the 7th century there was no schism). And yes, you might be right that might should change after such years but than again why does not the orthodoxes ordaine the Antioch Patriarchs as such center?

But in any case, these were not the only two churches that Saint Peter established or presided over. He was a missionary, as were all the Apostles, and he established numerous smaller churches in all sorts of towns and villages. That's one of the major problems with the Catholic claim that Peter's successors are granted special authority: Which successors? There wasn't just one, and there weren't just two, either. There were dozens, maybe even hundreds.

Yes, but St. Peter made Rome his base from which he decided to operate. there he actually ordained two persons as bishops. Both of them became later popes (that was Linus and Anacletus).

[The Archregimancy]

The historical - as opposed to theological - reasons why the Patriarch of Rome rose to prominence are therefore more to do with the city's status as imperial capital rather than any unusually early foundation of Rome's patriarchate.

Yes, but according to some historians jesus may also not be the man for which the Bible is presenting him. So, since this is the Christian disusion thread maybe we should rather focus on what Christians actually believe.

You seem to be implicitly claiming that Christianity should A) be exempt from critical historical enquiry and that B) critical historical enquiry and Christianity are mutually incompatible.

Neither are the case.

You therefore seem to be dismissing both of my posts - which again you're only selectively quoting - on the basis that the surviving primary historical documentation from the relevant period doesn't necessarily agree with your personal interpretation of Catholic doctrine on the early development of the Papacy in Rome; this is at best unfortunate since it puts you - ironically, much like those who would reject the existence of a historical Jesus - in the category of those who would reject the overwhelming majority of academic scholarship on an issue because it conflicts with your worldview.

Finally, since both Constantinopolis and myself are Christian, we clearly are focusing on something Christians actually believe. It just happens to be something that you don't believe; but then I don't see why agreeing with your beliefs should be the primary determinant of what's appropriate to discuss in this thread.

[The Archregimancy]

That would have sense but as far I know the primus inter pares of the Orthodox Church is the Patriarch of the Istanbul, now if they really believe the Patriarch of Antioch is so important why does he not have that title but yet the Patriach of Constantinople has? The answer is simple, the Orthodox Church just does not give enough credit to Peter and mission he was given by Jesus.

My point is that the Patriarchate of Antioch should be indeed important in Christianity, but than it was occupied by Muslims and as such it was not able to serve as the center of Christianity, so the Roman Church was left this possition (and keep in mind by the time of the 7th century there was no schism). And yes, you might be right that might should change after such years but than again why does not the orthodoxes ordaine the Antioch Patriarchs as such center?

Because an Ecumenical Council of the entire church said as much in the late 4th century - long before Islam was a gleam in Mohammed's eye.


Canons 2 & 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council (381 AD):

Canon 2

The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

Canon 3

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/ ... canons.htm


Islam had nothing to do with it; nor for that matter, did Petrine supremacy.

The Patriach of Constantinople was left as primus inter pares in Orthodoxy after 1054 for the simple reason that once the schism was in place, the Orthodox retained the senior status of the bishop that the Ecumenical Councils had already declared in 381 AD should 'have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome'.


Really, this is no secret; this is basic Christian history based on the canons of Imperial Ecumenical Councils recognised by Catholic and Orthodox alike.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

-___-

C'mon Lumi, it was super obvious.

i already got her earlier by saying i was a satanist and i was recruiting sex slaves for my master of the underworld.

make a mental note that teasing luminesa is easy fun yo!

it's all in good fun!

[Athartha]

That's not true. Catholics can have Orthodox Communion: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/ ... on-at-them

I'm really not sure that's correct. Because if you look at Cannon 861 (quoted below) you'll find that it clearly states that only Roman Catholics can receive Communion from a Catholic Minister, and a Catholic Minister can only give communion to Catholics. The only exception to this being in times of grave danger and death when they cannot safely or quickly reach a minister of their own church (Cannon 844 §4.) That being said, Catholics can attend Orthodox Services (though it does not fulfil the Sunday obligation), they are not meant to take communion as per cannon law. As for the Orthodox, the Catholic Magisterium has made an exception to the Cannon law to allow them to participate in the Holy Communion; but for those who are not Orthodox or Catholic we simply cannot participate. But it has not made exceptions for Catholics participating in Orthodox communion, except for a few exceptions (such as death and no Catholic priest available)

That is incorrect. The Orthodox wont let anyone take communion in their Church. The Catholics allow both Anglican and Orthodox to take communion.

I know this can't be correct. Because I have been denied Communion in Catholic Churches on two occasions. I was told the priest would offer me a blessing, but I would not be permitted to partake in Communion. In fact, as per the Catholic Church canon law, "Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due regard for parts 2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, part 2. (Cannon 844.1).

I should like to go over this:
I. Catholics may attend any church service, be it Anglican/Episcopalian, Eastern Catholic or Orthodox, straight down to that Non-Denominational Mega-Church. However, it does not fulfil a Catholic's Holy Day and Sunday obligation, only Catholic Mass does. Further, as per Cannon Law, a Catholic is not permitted to partake in the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church except in the case that a Catholic Mass is not available but an Orthodox service is, or in the case of severe illness and/or imminent death and a Catholic Priest is not available but an Orthodox Priest is.
II. Anglicans/Episcopalians are schismatic. While some, primarily the Anglo-Catholics, do believe theologically in the same way or very similar to the Catholic Church, because of their Schism from the church they no longer have a valid apostolic succession, and as the church is not in Communion with the Catholic Church they are not permitted to participate in Eucharist during a Catholic Mass.

[Efraim-Judah]

Yes. Πάσχα (Pascha) is the Greek translation of פסח (Pessach), which is the Hebrew word for Passover. Thus, Easter isn't just related to Passover, it means Passover. Or at least it's supposed to. It's a translation of a translation of the name for Passover.

Several Orthodox hymns for the occasion refer to "...a new and holy Pascha..." Why "new"? Because it's the new Passover. As Passover celebrates liberation from literal slavery, Pascha celebrates liberation from the metaphorical slavery of sin. As Moses led his people from the land of Egypt to the promised land, Christ led His people from the land of death to the land of eternal life.

"... It is the day of Resurrection, let us be radiant, O peoples! [Passover], the Lord’s [Passover]; for Christ God has brought us from death to life, and from earth to heaven, as we sing the triumphal hymn: Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life! ..."


Indeed, I was hoping it would be some sort of meta-April Fools, where you make people think that something is an April Fools joke when it's actually true.

Alas, no such luck.

Ah, but Passover is stated for the the actual passing-over.

And also Yeshua's blood.

[Aelex]

The consumption of a chocolate bunny on that day along with the variety of other pagan activity that is associated with it, suggests that you worship or respect the feasts of other gods and goddesses, and not the 1 true God.

I dunno about American but here, in France, we just scotch paper fish in people's back and yell "POISSON D'AVRIL!". I guess it's not so much better... :/

[Luminesa]

-___-

C'mon Lumi, it was super obvious.

I know. I was just making sure.

[Benuty]

Well that is great!

Ha!! Got you!! April Fools!!!

Utterly detestable to joke about that.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

I'm really not sure that's correct. Because if you look at Cannon 861 (quoted below) you'll find that it clearly states that only Roman Catholics can receive Communion from a Catholic Minister, and a Catholic Minister can only give communion to Catholics. The only exception to this being in times of grave danger and death when they cannot safely or quickly reach a minister of their own church (Cannon 844 §4.) That being said, Catholics can attend Orthodox Services (though it does not fulfil the Sunday obligation), they are not meant to take communion as per cannon law. As for the Orthodox, the Catholic Magisterium has made an exception to the Cannon law to allow them to participate in the Holy Communion; but for those who are not Orthodox or Catholic we simply cannot participate. But it has not made exceptions for Catholics participating in Orthodox communion, except for a few exceptions (such as death and no Catholic priest available)

I know this can't be correct. Because I have been denied Communion in Catholic Churches on two occasions. I was told the priest would offer me a blessing, but I would not be permitted to partake in Communion. In fact, as per the Catholic Church canon law, "Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due regard for parts 2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, part 2. (Cannon 844.1).

I should like to go over this:
I. Catholics may attend any church service, be it Anglican/Episcopalian, Eastern Catholic or Orthodox, straight down to that Non-Denominational Mega-Church. However, it does not fulfil a Catholic's Holy Day and Sunday obligation, only Catholic Mass does. Further, as per Cannon Law, a Catholic is not permitted to partake in the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church except in the case that a Catholic Mass is not available but an Orthodox service is, or in the case of severe illness and/or imminent death and a Catholic Priest is not available but an Orthodox Priest is.
II. Anglicans/Episcopalians are schismatic. While some, primarily the Anglo-Catholics, do believe theologically in the same way or very similar to the Catholic Church, because of their Schism from the church they no longer have a valid apostolic succession, and as the church is not in Communion with the Catholic Church they are not permitted to participate in Eucharist during a Catholic Mass.

10 years ago, my Vicar (Anglican) went on holiday to France. There were no Anglican churches in the vicinity, so he wrote to the RC bishop and asked permission to take Communion in the RC church. Bishop agreed. Maybe they have changed the rules since then?

I don't bother asking permission. When RC cousins and friends die, I go to their funerals and take Communion. RCs have a Rule against Prods taking Communion, but they can't enforce it. If the pope really were infallible, he would give Prodometers to his priests and priests could detect the Prods and refuse to give them Communion at funerals.

[Angleter]

I should like to go over this:
I. Catholics may attend any church service, be it Anglican/Episcopalian, Eastern Catholic or Orthodox, straight down to that Non-Denominational Mega-Church. However, it does not fulfil a Catholic's Holy Day and Sunday obligation, only Catholic Mass does. Further, as per Cannon Law, a Catholic is not permitted to partake in the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church except in the case that a Catholic Mass is not available but an Orthodox service is, or in the case of severe illness and/or imminent death and a Catholic Priest is not available but an Orthodox Priest is.
II. Anglicans/Episcopalians are schismatic. While some, primarily the Anglo-Catholics, do believe theologically in the same way or very similar to the Catholic Church, because of their Schism from the church they no longer have a valid apostolic succession, and as the church is not in Communion with the Catholic Church they are not permitted to participate in Eucharist during a Catholic Mass.

10 years ago, my Vicar (Anglican) went on holiday to France. There were no Anglican churches in the vicinity, so he wrote to the RC bishop and asked permission to take Communion in the RC church. Bishop agreed. Maybe they have changed the rules since then?

Don't think so. It's more likely the bishop ignored (or misinterpreted) the rules.

[The Alexanderians]

Well that is great!

Ha!! Got you!! April Fools!!!

[Coulee Croche]

If the pope really were infallible, he would give Prodometers to his priests and priests could detect the Prods and refuse to give them Communion at funerals.

Couldnt help it

[Athartha]

I should like to go over this:
I. Catholics may attend any church service, be it Anglican/Episcopalian, Eastern Catholic or Orthodox, straight down to that Non-Denominational Mega-Church. However, it does not fulfil a Catholic's Holy Day and Sunday obligation, only Catholic Mass does. Further, as per Cannon Law, a Catholic is not permitted to partake in the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church except in the case that a Catholic Mass is not available but an Orthodox service is, or in the case of severe illness and/or imminent death and a Catholic Priest is not available but an Orthodox Priest is.
II. Anglicans/Episcopalians are schismatic. While some, primarily the Anglo-Catholics, do believe theologically in the same way or very similar to the Catholic Church, because of their Schism from the church they no longer have a valid apostolic succession, and as the church is not in Communion with the Catholic Church they are not permitted to participate in Eucharist during a Catholic Mass.

10 years ago, my Vicar (Anglican) went on holiday to France. There were no Anglican churches in the vicinity, so he wrote to the RC bishop and asked permission to take Communion in the RC church. Bishop agreed. Maybe they have changed the rules since then?

I don't bother asking permission. When RC cousins and friends die, I go to their funerals and take Communion. RCs have a Rule against Prods taking Communion, but they can't enforce it. If the pope really were infallible, he would give Prodometers to his priests and priests could detect the Prods and refuse to give them Communion at funerals.

Canon Law has been updated from time to time, however we are currently under Johanno-Pauline law, or more formally the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This is the last update to cannon law, and only applies to Latin Rite Catholics. Being France (where I attended Seminary, in fact) this was most likely (99% chance) a Latin Rite Church, meaning that at the time that Bishop was bound by the Canon Law. That being said, there is the Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe, the largest diocese of the Church of England, and there is an Archdeaconry of France. As such, there are Anglican Churches in France, but if there were none in the area your Vicar was located, he would have been permitted to participate in Catholic Mass (this is one exception, when there are absolutely no alternatives, we are obligated to allow any Christian participate, though we would prefer them to come to us and be baptised first). With that being said, the Bishop likely allowed him under this exception to the law.

Now, I do find it a bit upsetting that you are not respectful enough to ask the priest for a blessing rather than a participating in the Eucharist. I wouldn't go to your church and disobey rules I was aware of, and I do believe it is usually quite clearly stated in the missal.

[Czechanada]

It seems that I have unintentionally aided the Orthodox Conspiracy by switching exam proctor appointments with a colleague so that he may celebrate Ukrainian Orthodox Easter with his family.

I only hope that this accidental charity gets me a bit of favour in the Third Rome.

[Jute]

Anyone care for those personality tests? Those "Which [X] are you?" Here's a Easter themed one, telling you which Saint you are most like:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/0 ... 9812588151

[The Alexanderians]

Anyone care for those personality tests? Those "Which [X] are you?" Here's a Easter themed one, telling you which Saint you are most like:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/0 ... 9812588151

I'm St. Catherine apparently. Is this a Catholic-centric quiz/test/thingy?

[Constaniana]

Anyone care for those personality tests? Those "Which [X] are you?" Here's a Easter themed one, telling you which Saint you are most like:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/0 ... 9812588151

I got St. Francis.