Thanks, anastasios - in the scope of this board, that's what I meant. The Milan Synod may keep the same beliefs and practices as EOxy, socially they may be a real church (real congregations) and according to Catholic ecclesiology they're apostolic.
don't operate on Catholic terms ('we're a real Orthodox church because the Catholic Church says we're valid - read our list proving our lines of succession' - Mar Harry ecclesiology), do they?
On their own terms they're a contradiction, claiming to be Orthodox but not in the EO communion.
Unless they think they and only they are the Orthodox Church, period. Greek Old Calendarists who think that way are like Russian Old Believers, including the priestless who build churches with iconostases against the wall, who think only they are the Church - they are internally logical and so get my respect, even though I think they're wrong.
But on EOxy's own terms
, they're not EO
The MS may have real churches and Mar Harry may not. But both seem to be using 'what's my line?' sacramentology and ecclesiology - 'getting orders from' some Orthodox source and then breaking away to do their own thing. Not EO, folks.
Are EO converts online so
insecure they can't take a little constructive criticism that is orthodox and even Orthodox?
The same people who dismiss Catholics' belief in an infallible papal office go nuts if one points out the gurus they've adopted for themselves aren't perfect.
That's certainly not the ethos of places like St Vladimir's Seminary in the OCA, which some here may attack as 'modernist', but having been there and worshipped there, and knowing that their late, great Fr Alexander Schmemann once called the attempted ordination of women 'the death of all dialogue', I know that's horsefeathers.
Better a church with a congregation of three humble Eastern European immigrants who eat meat on Fridays and confess it than a stadium full of neurotic, insecure, self-righteous converts.
Yes, I should stop reading my psalter, the Word of God, in numerical order twice every day like those 'heretical' Western churches and obsess over a calendar instead. What a shining witness to the world of what's really important.
(Again, What I believe
is on my blog, dated May 16, for all to read.)
Personally, I think the Julian calendar is a neat accoutrement of Russian religious culture but not a matter of faith. Since the Church of Russia uses this calendar and is an integral part of 'world Orthodoxy', I guess that means I'm right.
Archimandrite Serge (Keleher) says only a tiny percentage of people in Greece show up for church weekly. (Yes, he's been there.) Like all Mediterranean countries, it seems Greeks are both secularized and have a longstanding love/hate relationship with the church and an anticlerical streak. (Familiarity breeding contempt?)
I'm sure the schisms and counterschisms of the Old Calendarists don't recommend the Church as a way of life to the average Greek.
Great points about ahistoricity and mixing and matching rites as vagante
games. Totally true.
From what I remember, St Hilarion's Sarum Mass isn't really preschism, but a medieval Roman Mass translated into English, slightly byzantinized and done in a church with a whimsical mix of Byzantine and Roman trappings. In short, yet another unhistorical trip into fantasy. It's orthodox, to be sure, but historically, it ain't real.
The Sarum Use was a branch of the Roman Rite, not a separate rite. The Council of Trent didn't kill it in England - the 'Reformation' did. But it's true that to restore some order and to ensure orthodoxy, the council and Pope got rid of any missal not in continuous use for 200 years. (The 'R' stopped continuous use of the Sarum.)
I believe the Liturgy of St Peter is real, even though it's on a Milan Synod site, since a real Orthodox priest, Fr John Shaw (ROCOR), vouches for it - I have a link to it on my site's Faith
page. Apparently this hybrid, a Byzantine Liturgy with the Canon of the Roman Mass in it, was an authentic Russian variation some Old Believers kept.
The notion of Harold as 'last Orthodox king of England' (impossible since England never was under the Byzantine emperor!) comes from the book quoted by -Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¥-+-Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦-+-+-Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦-Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦, Orthodox England
, by a ROCOR priest in England who is English and a convert (he never was Catholic or Anglican). I forget his name but a link to his site (same title as his book) is on my Orthodoxy