Change the Title of this Discussion Forum!

[Suaiden]

The Title of this Western-Rite Discussion forum says:

"Discussion of Orthodox Christian worship based on the ancient pre-schism Orthodox church of the west."

Yet since I've been here, I've seen massive defenses of the "Liturgy of St Tikhon", which is not a pre-schism rite by any means, references to the bells of the Orthodox West as "post-schism innovation" (which they were not), references by a moderator to the Orthodox text of the Bible known as the Vulgate as "heretical" (which even Fr Seraphim Slobodskoy's "The Law of God" says is a completely Orthodox text of the Scripture), and defenses of post-renaissance statues as "Western Orthodox Tradition".

Maybe we can change the title to "The Discussion of Orthodox Christian Worship based on post-schism Western worship -- and those who disagree"?

Just a thought.

[ozgeorge]

The Title of this Western-Rite Discussion forum says:

"Discussion of Orthodox Christian worship based on the ancient pre-schism Orthodox church of the west."

Yet since I've been here, I've seen massive defenses of the "Liturgy of St Tikhon", which is not a pre-schism rite by any means, references to the bells of the Orthodox West as "post-schism innovation" (which they were not), references by a moderator to the Orthodox text of the Bible known as the Vulgate as "heretical" (which even Fr Seraphim Slobodskoy's "The Law of God" says is a completely Orthodox text of the Scripture), and defenses of post-renaissance statues as "Western Orthodox Tradition".

Maybe we can change the title to "The Discussion of Orthodox Christian Worship based on post-schism Western worship -- and those who disagree"?

Just a thought.

Good point, but I don't think the alternative title you suggest is accurate either.
How about just "The Discussion of Orthodox Christian Worship According to the Western Rite"?

[Suaiden]

Good point, but I don't think the alternative title you suggest is accurate either.
How about just "The Discussion of Orthodox Christian Worship According to the Western Rite"?

How about "Rites", since there is no one Western rite and because I would not lump in those using Orthodox rites with those using rites that are foreign in their genesis to Orthodoxy?

[Αριστοκλής]

Good point, but I don't think the alternative title you suggest is accurate either.
How about just "The Discussion of Orthodox Christian Worship According to the Western Rite"?

It's a point. I don't know about it being a good one just because he's got problems with one thread and/or rite.

[ozgeorge]

How about "Rites", since there is no one Western rite and because I would not lump in those using Orthodox rites with those using rites that are foreign in their genesis to Orthodoxy?

You can save that debate for a thread(s) on that forum. Well, to be honest, you have done so in several different threads already. Just be aware of our forum rules about hijacking threads and dominating the board.

It's a point. I don't know about it being a good one just because he's got problems with one thread and/or rite.

Well, I think it's a good point in that the Western Rite of the Antiochian Church does not use a pre-schism Liturgy, but a modified Anglican one which isn't really "worship based on the ancient pre-schism Orthodox church of the west", so the forum description may not actually be accurate or inclusive enough.

[Suaiden]

It's a point. I don't know about it being a good one just because he's got problems with one thread and/or rite.

Good or not, it is accurate.  The title of this forum is "Discussion of Orthodox Christian worship based on the ancient pre-schism Orthodox church of the west".

However, if the majority of discussions are based upon the two main rites presented on this forum as "the Western rites", then we have a real problem, because those rites are based upon the Tridentine and Anglican Missals.

I myself am a Hispanic Orthodox Christian. I came into Orthodoxy through the Old Calendar Greek Church, and lived in the Russian.  I have been saying and compiling the old Hispanic Orthodox prayers now for about two years.  I am also very familiar with the use of Sarum (a pre-schism Roman Ritual) and many people who use it.  We spiritually live on the teachings and prayers of the undoubted Western saints of the Orthodox West. When they talk of the "Graduale" or the "effeta", we know what they are talking about, because we live it.  My son was baptized according to the ancient pre-schism rite of Spain (without salt ceremony, however-- it is not in the text so we weren't going to include it, and St Idelfonso indicates it is not needed).

Yet I was invited to this forum, and the title sounded like it was totally for me.  And it wasn't. I have had fights, non-stop, since being here.  And what have we fought over? Roman Catholic statues. Assuming that Orthodox books and items are "post-schism heretical" while Anglican liturgies are not.

This is not about worship according to the "pre-schism West" at all, and I know, because it's the only form of Western prayer we use in my house. Presenting the forum as such is dishonest. Perhaps there are people who use the pre-schism ritual here. I would guess they are in the minority, based on what I have seen. Perhaps I am welcome here. But my faith is not the standard of the majority of this forum.  And I can accept that, so my call is a call for both inclusion and honesty. Make the title broader, and it becomes more honest.

[ozgeorge]

Yet I was invited to this forum, and the title sounded like it was totally for me.  And it wasn't. I have had fights, non-stop, since being here. 

Suiaden,
We are an online community. We have members here who are Western Rite under the Antiochian Church. You came out swinging at them, so we swung back by challenging your views that they are using "heretical" Liturgies. You are the perpetrator, not the victim. What did you expect on a discussion forum? To be able to present your views unchallenged as though some Divine Oracle were speaking? I thought you'd abandoned the idea of infallibility.

[prodromas]

Suiaden,
We are an online community. We have members here who are Western Rite under the Antiochian Church. You came out swinging at them, so we swung back by challenging your views that they are using "heretical" Liturgies. You are the perpetrator, not the victim. What did you expect on a discussion forum? To be able to present your views unchallenged as though some Divine Oracle were speaking? I thought you'd abandoned the idea of infallibility.

Oh yeah we have never had any Divine Oracles on this forum before trying to preach the evils of ("World" or not) Orthodoxy.

[Suaiden]

Suiaden,
We are an online community. We have members here who are Western Rite under the Antiochian Church. You came out swinging at them, so we swung back by challenging your views that they are using "heretical" Liturgies. You are the perpetrator, not the victim. What did you expect on a discussion forum? To be able to present your views unchallenged as though some Divine Oracle were speaking? I thought you'd abandoned the idea of infallibility.

Some Western riters in the Antiochian Church are Sarum rite.

[Suaiden]

Oh yeah we have never had any Divine Oracles on this forum before trying to preach the evils of ("World" or not) Orthodoxy.

Excuse me? "World or not" Orthodoxy? I am Orthodox.  I don't preach the evils of Orthodoxy at all.

[prodromas]

Excuse me? "World or not" Orthodoxy? I am Orthodox.  I don't preach the evils of Orthodoxy at all.

I'm actually not referring to you.

[Veniamin]

Excuse me? "World or not" Orthodoxy? I am Orthodox.  I don't preach the evils of Orthodoxy at all.

You're vagante, actually.  Or maybe a schismatic.  It becomes really hard to tell among all the splits and anathematizations.

While we're at it, you've been busy preaching the evils of the AWRV, so yes, that would qualify as preaching the evils of Orthodoxy.

[Suaiden]

You're vagante, actually.  Or maybe a schismatic.  It becomes really hard to tell among all the splits and anathematizations.

While we're at it, you've been busy preaching the evils of the AWRV, so yes, that would qualify as preaching the evils of Orthodoxy.

I'm "vagante"? "Schismatic"? I'm not preaching using mixed Roman Catholic and Anglican liturgies, as do *vagantes*. 

And now the speaking against the canonical wrongs of the AWRV is "speaking against Orthodoxy"? I'm more glad than ever I am where I am....

[prodromas]

I'm "vagante"? "Schismatic"? I'm not preaching using mixed Roman Catholic and Anglican liturgies, as do *vagantes*. 

And now the speaking against the canonical wrongs of the AWRV is "speaking against Orthodoxy"? I'm more glad than ever I am where I am....

Suaiden, Do you believe that the Milan synod are the only group that are keeping canonical western tradition in an Orthodox context?

[Suaiden]

Suaiden, Do you believe that the Milan synod are the only group that are keeping canonical western tradition in an Orthodox context?

No.

[ozgeorge]

Some Western riters in the Antiochian Church are Sarum rite.

And what you want to say is that they are OK while those using the Liturgy of St. Tikhon are using an heretical Liturgy. Correct?

[PeterTheAleut]

I'm "vagante"? "Schismatic"? I'm not preaching using mixed Roman Catholic and Anglican liturgies, as do *vagantes*. 

So, you mean to say that the Milan Synod to which you belong is canonical and the AWRV is vagante?  I understand now.

[Suaiden]

And what you want to say is that they are OK while those using the Liturgy of St. Tikhon are using an heretical Liturgy. Correct?

I would say that they are using a proper service, while those using the Liturgy of St Tikhon are using a liturgy written by heretics.

[Suaiden]

So, you mean to say that the Milan Synod to which you belong is canonical and the AWRV is vagante?  I understand now.

"Modified Tridentine" in Google pulls up vagante groups, people who want the Tridentine rite restored in Roman Catholicism, and Deacon Ben Johnson.

I've only said the truth. Vagante groups are a million times more likely to alter common Roman and Anglican liturgies.  The fact that the AWRV does the same is not my problem.

EDIT: But I do believe my Synod is canonical in the truest sense of the word, or I wouldn't be part of it.

[prodromas]

EDIT: But I do believe my Synod is canonical in the truest sense of the word, or I wouldn't be part of it.

Be that as it may. The fact is that the Evangelical Orthodox Church believed this until they realized that to be canonical one must be in communion with the one Holy Apostolic and Catholic faith and ifn you say you have a "spiritual" communion with them and human issues are the problem then you argue the same line as the protestants who disregard apostolic succession as a valid point. 

[Suaiden]

Be that as it may. The fact is that the Evangelical Orthodox Church believed this until they realized that to be canonical one must be in communion with the one Holy Apostolic and Catholic faith and ifn you say you have a "spiritual" communion with them and human issues are the problem then you argue the same line as the protestants who disregard apostolic succession as a valid point. 

The "Evangelical Orthodox Church" had NO APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. They baptized and ordained *themselves* and all their "bishops" were made ranking priests like Fr Peter Gilquist.  To this day, they still operate like a "jurisdiction within a jurisdiction" and this is still a problem within the Antiochian Church. 

I have said none of the ridiculous things that you say, nor have I ever been taught them. I believe I am in physical and spiritual communion with the Orthodox Church, although not in formal communion with everyone who claims Orthodox.  That you could compare the Greek Old Calendarists and the Milan Synod to the "Evangelical Orthodox Church" is either a massive showing of ignorance or a cheap goad.

EDIT: And the EOC never believed it was "canonical" at all.

[prodromas]

The "Evangelical Orthodox Church" had NO APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. They baptized and ordained *themselves* and all their "bishops" were made ranking priests like Fr Peter Gilquist.  To this day, they still operate like a "jurisdiction within a jurisdiction" and this is still a problem within the Antiochian Church. 

I have said none of the ridiculous things that you say, nor have I ever been taught them. I believe I am in physical and spiritual communion with the Orthodox Church, although not in formal communion with everyone who claims Orthodox.  That you could compare the Greek Old Calendarists and the Milan Synod to the "Evangelical Orthodox Church" is either a massive showing of ignorance or a cheap goad.

EDIT: And the EOC never believed it was "canonical" at all.

*sigh*again you misunderstand what I am trying to say. I was making an analogy with another "Orthodox church" that actually did believe they were just as Orthodox as the other Orthodox jurisdictions of the Eastern Orthodox church and how they didn't believe that "apostolic succession" was that important and how they were picking and choosing the parts of the faith that they liked. As with you how you believe that and I'm quoting you here "I do believe my Synod (Milan Synod) is canonical in the truest sense of the word, or I wouldn't be part of it" now the analogy was that being canonical also requires to be in communion with the other churches of the Eastern Orthodox church and you define this differently then we do.

[Suaiden]

*sigh*again you misunderstand what I am trying to say. I was making an analogy with another "Orthodox church" that actually did believe they were just as Orthodox as the other Orthodox jurisdictions of the Eastern Orthodox church and how they didn't believe that "apostolic succession" was that important and how they were picking and choosing the parts of the faith that they liked. As with you how you believe that and I'm quoting you here "I do believe my Synod (Milan Synod) is canonical in the truest sense of the word, or I wouldn't be part of it" now the analogy was that being canonical also requires to be in communion with the other churches of the Eastern Orthodox church and you define this differently then we do.

Being "canonical" doesn't require communion with *anyone*, if *everyone* is in heresy. Now, I have never gone so far as to say that.  But you are stating a requirement of canonicity under normal circumstances.  Under abnormal circumstances, such as a massive apostasy on the part of many in the hierarchy, such a criterion for canonicity is not only not valid, but precisely dangerous.

Let me give you an example. In the 1724, the new Patriarch of Antioch, after an open election, declared himself in union with Rome, and the majority of Bishops joined with Rome. Immediately a few and some monastics appealed for help from Jerusalem, and *Jerusalem* intervened and eventually created a new hierarchy for the Church.  Now, hindsight is a lovely thing, especially 200+ years in the making.  Now can you explain to me how if you were in communion with Antioch at the time, separation would have been the canonical thing to do? 

Now, you can say that this is an extreme example, that this has not occurred. I am aware of that.  My point in such an extreme example is that "shared communion" is the lowest sub-criterion of canonicity-- it requires canonically elected Bishops sharing the Apostolic faith because otherwise without both, the next criterion as you would imply-- shared communion--  is impossible.  You have focused on the first part; the second being more nuanced.

The reasons for the creation of the Greek Old Calendar Church, the Catacomb Church in Russia (and later the Free Church) vary, but they were for explicit reasons of faith, whether justifiable or not.  I am not asking you to determine that based on anything I said. I assume you have, as have I, or you would not bandy around a word like "schismatic".  But from a canonical standpoint, circumstances can make the existence of these Churches justifiable.  Whether you agree they are justified-- not important to me.  What is important is that you don't think that I joined the True Orthodox jurisdictions because I want to be an angry crank. I did so for what I believe are sufficiently legitimate reasons of faith that I opt deliberately not to go to the "local Greek Church" down the street.

Whether the EOC people did that or not I don't know. I don't think so-- I believe they were trying to get recognized, confirmed in their Protestant "conversions" by an official Church. Russia chose not to recognize such conversions. Antioch, by contrast, blessed them. I am not making judgments on the matter.

Just saying you have compared apples with cars in this case.

[prodromas]

Let me give you an example. In the 1724, the new Patriarch of Antioch, after an open election, declared himself in union with Rome, and the majority of Bishops joined with Rome. Immediately a few and some monastics appealed for help from Jerusalem, and *Jerusalem* intervened and eventually created a new hierarchy for the Church.  Now, hindsight is a lovely thing, especially 200+ years in the making.  Now can you explain to me how if you were in communion with Antioch at the time, separation would have been the canonical thing to do? 

Now, you can say that this is an extreme example, that this has not occurred. I am aware of that.  My point in such an extreme example is that "shared communion" is the lowest sub-criterion of canonicity-- it requires canonically elected Bishops sharing the Apostolic faith because otherwise without both, the next criterion as you would imply-- shared communion--  is impossible.  You have focused on the first part; the second being more nuanced.

The reasons for the creation of the Greek Old Calendar Church, the Catacomb Church in Russia (and later the Free Church) vary, but they were for explicit reasons of faith, whether justifiable or not.  I am not asking you to determine that based on anything I said. I assume you have, as have I, or you would not bandy around a word like "schismatic".  But from a canonical standpoint, circumstances can make the existence of these Churches justifiable.  Whether you agree they are justified-- not important to me.  What is important is that you don't think that I joined the True Orthodox jurisdictions because I want to be an angry crank. I did so for what I believe are sufficiently legitimate reasons of faith that I opt deliberately not to go to the "local Greek Church" down the street.

Thank you for that explanation brother. I want to know what part of the the churches that are in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate is warranted to create a new jurisdiction.

[Suaiden]

Thank you for that explanation brother. I want to know what part of the the churches that are in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate is warranted to create a new jurisdiction.

I don't know.

[prodromas]

I don't know.

Then why would you willfully join a church that isn't in communion with them if you believe that the EP has done nothing wrong? I mean that example you brought up before about Antioch and Rome I believe was warranted but what of our situation?

[Suaiden]

Then why would you willfully join a church that isn't in communion with them if you believe that the EP has done nothing wrong? I mean that example you brought up before about Antioch and Rome I believe was warranted but what of our situation?

That is not for "Western Rite discussion", is it?

[prodromas]

That is not for "Western Rite discussion", is it?

Thank you it isn't.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16389.new.html#new

here is a link to start that thread.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy > Western Rite Discussion (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: Change the Title of this Discussion Forum!