Changes

== Notice Refectory instead of Trapeza==Does anyone really think this page should be named "refectory" instead? <small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([[User talk:FrJohn|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/FrJohn|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

I one of serial vandals: Well, trolls and sockpuppetters of Wikipediamaybe. Basically, But most monastic trapezas I vandalize in 've been to have been decidedly short on the French and a little in Russian sectionchattiness. :) &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] ^{[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]} ^{[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]} ^{[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]} 10:23, August 16, 2006 (CDT) :Yep, but unfortunatelyI still would say they do serve as the main social spots for monasteries, all my open proxies there are blockedwouldn't you? Just maybe not during the actual mealtime. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]] :trapeza is eastern, therefore refectory is western; "I have come heresay potahto, you say poteyto..." ==New discussion on the bottom==Most MediaWiki discussions get added to the bottom (like using the + tab on a talk page). Against your encyclopaedia I have nothing, only forwas going to create an "Add new topic" link to this project page, but my that wouldn't work is thatwell if we want new stuff at the top.Can we change the policy so we add stuff to the bottom? --[[User:RockOfVictory|J. J.]] 11:04, August 16, 2006 (CDT) :I think the reason you gave is enough to change things from how I am your first imagined them. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new vandaltalk]) DONE. It's been changed. --[[User:RockOfVictory|J. J.]] 08:10, August 17, 2006 (CDT)  you could call it archondariki, nai? ==Athanasian Quicumque==On the discussion page of [[Athanasian Creed]] article I am your have added new vandal]] 21material without response. Resumé from other discussion page on same thing: In the year 1644, Gerard Voss, in his "De Tribus Symbolis", gave weighty probability to the opinion that St. Athanasius was not its author. His reasons may be reduced to the two following:11> >firstly, no early writer of authority speaks of it as the work of this doctor; and >secondly, its language and structure point to a Western, rather than to an Alexandrian, May 31origin."  Both points are answered by the hypothesis that St Athanasius wrote them in simple Latin (which he never fully mastered, 2009 and in which he dared no stylistic flourish) when he met the men of Augusta Treverorum (UTCTrier, Trèves)who know no Greek, during his two year exile there. And that it was for that very reason preserved independently of the Greek tradition until very late.  Discussion welcomed at the article's discussion page.