Topic: Let's judge each other!

[LBK]

Sorry to spoil the party, folks, but quite a few of the images on this site are not icons at all, but simply religious or devotional paintings, beautiful as they may be. There is a world of difference between the two.

Split from this thread.

[PeterTheAleut]

Sorry to spoil the party, folks, but quite a few of the images on this site are not icons at all, but simply religious or devotional paintings, beautiful as they may be. There is a world of difference between the two.

So, if a painting doesn't meet the canonical standards of Byzantine iconography, it isn't an icon?  How culturally elitist is that!!?

[Michał]

So, if a painting doesn't meet the canonical standards of Byzantine iconography, it isn't an icon?  How culturally elitist is that!!?

That's not the problem. The problem is that - correct me if I'm wrong - most of these painting weren't made by Orthodox, weren't made for Orthodox and have never been used by Orthodox. I guess that they were simply added to the site because they were fitting to particular cultures. But it gives a completely wrong impression of Orthodox missionary work. Adopting culture of a missionarised group in the field of iconography and even chanting isn't how it is done by us. We rather bring our big and small traditions and let the new people make something out of these in connection with their own culture. It's an organic process! Look at Alaskan Orthodoxy. It has many Russian features but still it is unique, Alaskan. That's how it works.

[PeterTheAleut]

So, if a painting doesn't meet the canonical standards of Byzantine iconography, it isn't an icon?  How culturally elitist is that!!?

That's not the problem. The problem is that - correct me if I'm wrong - most of these painting weren't made by Orthodox, weren't made for Orthodox and have never been used by Orthodox. I guess that they were simply added to the site because they were fitting to particular cultures. But it gives a completely wrong impression of Orthodox missionary work. Adopting culture of a missionarised group in the field of iconography and even chanting isn't how it is done by us. We rather bring our big and small traditions and let the new people make something out of these in connection with their own culture. It's an organic process! Look at Alaskan Orthodoxy. It has many Russian features but still it is unique, Alaskan. That's how it works.

Okay, maybe you got a different impression of these pictures than I did.  Seeing what you see, I have to agree with you.  I was just under the impression that some of these photos were of cultures that never received the Orthodox faith in the particularly Eastern form that we inherited and know so well, cultures such as those reached by the Oriental Orthodox, for instance.

[Michał]

. . .cultures such as those reached by the Oriental Orthodox, for instance.

And here comes another problem of this site. There is no distinction made between EO and OO whatsoever. We, EO, share much with OO, but we are not one Church, at least not yet. And the site suggests otherwise. It's nothing more but giving people false information. And putting a vagante group (http://orthodoxmysteries.com/video-french.html) which consciously rejected canonical Orthodoxy (both Eastern and Oriental) under the label "The Orthodox Church of Jesus Christ" is scandalous.

[Michał]

And one more thing.

The OrthodoxMysteries website now has Orthodox icons and chants from 100 cultures!!!

It looks like  choosing quantity over quality. Poorly recorded paschal greetings aren't chants at all. I also have doubts if there is any Orthodox presence among the newly added cultures, or is it like with Cheyenne, Apache, Comanche, Choctaw and Hawaiian:

...the chants used for these sections are Christian hymns form the corresponding tribes, but they are not necessarily Orthodox. They are used here with the icons to show more of a hope for the future (i.e. the embodiment of Orthodoxy in these cultures) rather than a widely manifest reality in the present.

_Seraphim_, you seem to have a totally prescribtive attitude. You present Orthodoxy as you would like it to be (OE, OO and vagantes united; Orthodox Church present among multitude of ethnic groups) and not how it really is. Please, be more descriptive and start presenting the truth, not your dreams.

[PeterTheAleut]

Michal,

Seraphim performs a good work for us by posting such informative material--yes, maybe it's not all strictly Orthodox--and all you can do is criticize him and his attitude?  I think you owe him an apology.

[LBK]

And one more thing.

The OrthodoxMysteries website now has Orthodox icons and chants from 100 cultures!!!

It looks like  choosing quantity over quality. Poorly recorded paschal greetings aren't chants at all. I also have doubts if there is any Orthodox presence among the newly added cultures, or is it like with Cheyenne, Apache, Comanche, Choctaw and Hawaiian:

...the chants used for these sections are Christian hymns form the corresponding tribes, but they are not necessarily Orthodox. They are used here with the icons to show more of a hope for the future (i.e. the embodiment of Orthodoxy in these cultures) rather than a widely manifest reality in the present.

_Seraphim_, you seem to have a totally prescribtive attitude. You present Orthodoxy as you would like it to be (OE, OO and vagantes united; Orthodox Church present among multitude of ethnic groups) and not how it really is. Please, be more descriptive and start presenting the truth, not your dreams.

Well said, Michal. Presenting unmistakeably non-Orthodox material on a site dedicated to spreading the word about Orthodoxy (one of the world's biggest secrets) is not at all helping the Orthodox cause, but creating confusion and a false impression about our faith and traditions.

Michal,

Seraphim performs a good work for us by posting such informative material--yes, maybe it's not all strictly Orthodox--and all you can do is criticize him and his attitude?  I think you owe him an apology.

PtA, an apology is not warranted. Seraphim should correct the anomalies in his website. With so many riches that Orthodoxy possesses, why dilute it with material which is not part of it?

[PeterTheAleut]

And one more thing.

The OrthodoxMysteries website now has Orthodox icons and chants from 100 cultures!!!

It looks like  choosing quantity over quality. Poorly recorded paschal greetings aren't chants at all. I also have doubts if there is any Orthodox presence among the newly added cultures, or is it like with Cheyenne, Apache, Comanche, Choctaw and Hawaiian:

...the chants used for these sections are Christian hymns form the corresponding tribes, but they are not necessarily Orthodox. They are used here with the icons to show more of a hope for the future (i.e. the embodiment of Orthodoxy in these cultures) rather than a widely manifest reality in the present.

_Seraphim_, you seem to have a totally prescribtive attitude. You present Orthodoxy as you would like it to be (OE, OO and vagantes united; Orthodox Church present among multitude of ethnic groups) and not how it really is. Please, be more descriptive and start presenting the truth, not your dreams.

Well said, Michal. Presenting unmistakeably non-Orthodox material on a site dedicated to spreading the word about Orthodoxy (one of the world's biggest secrets) is not at all helping the Orthodox cause, but creating confusion and a false impression about our faith and traditions.

Michal,

Seraphim performs a good work for us by posting such informative material--yes, maybe it's not all strictly Orthodox--and all you can do is criticize him and his attitude?  I think you owe him an apology.

PtA, an apology is not warranted. Seraphim should correct the anomalies in his website. With so many riches that Orthodoxy possesses, why dilute it with material which is not part of it?

Did he create the web site, or did he discover it while browsing the Internet?  If Seraphim merely discovered the site, then why complain that he copied material from this site as it is presented, without filtering it through his (or your?) own understanding of the True Faith?  If he created the site himself, I'm sure there's always room for people to disagree with what's on it, that some stuff that's there should not be and that some stuff should be there that isn't.  But to criticize his motives without even asking first what they are is too much of a personal attack, IMO, and totally uncalled-for.

[LBK]

My dear PetertheAleut, you may have to reconsider your little spray, and your opinion of me.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19061.msg281189.html#msg281189

To whit, this is what seraphim wrote as the OP on that thread:

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

After many years of labor, I have completed a major project that I would love to share with this forum.  For the last several years I have been trying to assemble a “Global” collection of Orthodox iconography and hymnography. 

As of now, by the grace of God, my collection includes Orthodox icons and chant from over 70 cultures/languages around the world!  They are now accessible online at this website:

www.orthodoxmysteries.com

(However, before visiting the site, I would first suggest watching the YouTube promo-video)

OrthodoxMysteries YouTube promo

Thank you to the many individuals on this forum who helped contribute iconography and hymnography to the OrthodoxMysteries website.  Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

My next goal for the site is to have links available that give historical information about Orthodoxy in each particular culture.  I believe this will help the site to be more rounded and full by offering both “artistic” content (icons, chant) as well as “intellectual” content (text-based information).  If anyone can help with this please let me know!

+Glory to God

Now then, who should apologise to whom? 

[PeterTheAleut]

My dear PetertheAleut, you may have to reconsider your little spray, and your opinion of me.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19061.msg281189.html#msg281189

To whit, this is what seraphim wrote as the OP on that thread:

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

After many years of labor, I have completed a major project that I would love to share with this forum.  For the last several years I have been trying to assemble a “Global” collection of Orthodox iconography and hymnography. 

As of now, by the grace of God, my collection includes Orthodox icons and chant from over 70 cultures/languages around the world!  They are now accessible online at this website:

www.orthodoxmysteries.com

(However, before visiting the site, I would first suggest watching the YouTube promo-video)

OrthodoxMysteries YouTube promo

Thank you to the many individuals on this forum who helped contribute iconography and hymnography to the OrthodoxMysteries website.  Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

My next goal for the site is to have links available that give historical information about Orthodoxy in each particular culture.  I believe this will help the site to be more rounded and full by offering both “artistic” content (icons, chant) as well as “intellectual” content (text-based information).  If anyone can help with this please let me know!

+Glory to God

Now then, who should apologise to whom? 

For one, I don't see you criticizing Seraphim's attitude as Michal has done, but you have defended Michal.  Even if Michal did have some knowledge into Seraphim's motives, I still think his decision to judge Seraphim's attitude rather than merely critique his work as you have done is uncalled-for.

For instance, the following:

_Seraphim_, you seem to have a totally prescribtive attitude. You present Orthodoxy as you would like it to be (OE, OO and vagantes united; Orthodox Church present among multitude of ethnic groups) and not how it really is. Please, be more descriptive and start presenting the truth, not your dreams.

If Michal had worded it as follows:

_Seraphim_, you your work seems to have express a totally prescribtive attitude. You It presents Orthodoxy as you would like it to be (OE, OO and vagantes united; Orthodox Church present among multitude of ethnic groups) and not how it really is. I would like to see you be more descriptive and start presenting the truth, not your dreams.

then maybe he could have communicated his critique in a way that doesn't look like so much of an attack on Seraphim's person and attitudes.

[LBK]

Sorry to spoil the party, folks, but quite a few of the images on this site are not icons at all, but simply religious or devotional paintings, beautiful as they may be. There is a world of difference between the two.

So, if a painting doesn't meet the canonical standards of Byzantine iconography, it isn't an icon?  How culturally elitist is that!!?

Oh my, Peter. Do I detect a certain personal animosity towards me in this post of yours, and others directed to me in this hived-off thread? (I'm much too old and ugly to be insulted  ) I do make the effort to post in as dispassionate a way as possible, perhaps you might wish to do so yourself.

Last time I checked, phyletism was a heresy in the Orthodox Church. The canonicity of iconography has nothing to do with cultural elitism, but everything to do with expressing the revelation of God, and fidelity to the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

I might also add that the title of this thread could be seen by many as somewhat provocative. At the very least, a note should be put into the OP stating that it is a split from another thread, as often happens on this forum.

[Veniamin]

I might also add that the title of this thread could be seen by many as somewhat provocative. At the very least, a note should be put into the OP stating that it is a split from another thread, as often happens on this forum.

Before griping at PtA next time, how about giving me a chance to tie up all the loose ends?  I don't have a magic wand that makes everything happen instantaneously.

[PeterTheAleut]

Sorry to spoil the party, folks, but quite a few of the images on this site are not icons at all, but simply religious or devotional paintings, beautiful as they may be. There is a world of difference between the two.

So, if a painting doesn't meet the canonical standards of Byzantine iconography, it isn't an icon?  How culturally elitist is that!!?

Oh my, Peter. Do I detect a certain personal animosity towards me in this post of yours, and others directed to me in this hived-off thread? (I'm much too old and ugly to be insulted  ) I do make the effort to post in as dispassionate a way as possible, perhaps you might wish to do so yourself.

Last time I checked, phyletism was a heresy in the Orthodox Church. The canonicity of iconography has nothing to do with cultural elitism, but everything to do with expressing the revelation of God, and fidelity to the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

I might also add that the title of this thread could be seen by many as somewhat provocative. At the very least, a note should be put into the OP stating that it is a split from another thread, as often happens on this forum.

Pot, meet Kettle.

[GabrieltheCelt]

^^Ditto. Only reverse. 

[stashko]

I liked the web page that Seraphim presented alot ,very interesting, now i know a  bit more ,how other orthodox cultures do things....
Keep up the Good Work....

I recorded the different hymns and put them with the Icons and Religious Pictures on my Digital Frame.....

[LBK]

I might also add that the title of this thread could be seen by many as somewhat provocative. At the very least, a note should be put into the OP stating that it is a split from another thread, as often happens on this forum.

Before griping at PtA next time, how about giving me a chance to tie up all the loose ends?  I don't have a magic wand that makes everything happen instantaneously.

My apologies to you, Veniamin. I do realise that you've been thrown in the deep end. However, I stand by my comments directed at PetertheAleut.

[soufliotiki]

I have to take a similar position as LBK and Mikat (sp?) with regards to this site ... when it was first informed yesterday, I went with much enthusiasm to the site only to be confronted by a host of pictures which (although beautiful and truly good photography) gave my soul a huge shock ... I thought - WHAT!? OO and EO BOTH the ONE Orthodox body of Christ?

Hmm ... we are not very obedient to our Hierarchy if we are being so presumptious as to declare EO and OO as ONE BEFORE it has been confirmed and declared under canonical means ... no grace of God exists to support our presumptious internet behaviour ...

[Anastasios]

Veniamin and now the Administrators are aware of LBK's complaint about the thread rename. It will be reviewed.

Fr Anastasios
Administrator

[PeterTheAleut]

I have to take a similar position as LBK and Mikat (sp?) with regards to this site ... when it was first informed yesterday, I went with much enthusiasm to the site only to be confronted by a host of pictures which (although beautiful and truly good photography) gave my soul a huge shock ... I thought - WHAT!? OO and EO BOTH the ONE Orthodox body of Christ?

Hmm ... we are not very obedient to our Hierarchy if we are being so presumptious as to declare EO and OO as ONE BEFORE it has been confirmed and declared under canonical means ... no grace of God exists to support our presumptious internet behaviour ...

But if Seraphim is not presuming to speak for the hierarchy of the Church, how is he being presumptuous in saying with his web site what many Orthodox individually believe?  Would it be any different from me entering into my blog a personal declaration that the EO and OO are one Church?  Most everyone knows that whatever I put into my blog is strictly my opinion or facts filtered through my opinion.  This web site Seraphim is putting together looks like it's purely his work and not intended to receive the official approval of his bishop, so why not let him present his own point of view?

[soufliotiki]

I have to take a similar position as LBK and Mikat (sp?) with regards to this site ... when it was first informed yesterday, I went with much enthusiasm to the site only to be confronted by a host of pictures which (although beautiful and truly good photography) gave my soul a huge shock ... I thought - WHAT!? OO and EO BOTH the ONE Orthodox body of Christ?

Hmm ... we are not very obedient to our Hierarchy if we are being so presumptious as to declare EO and OO as ONE BEFORE it has been confirmed and declared under canonical means ... no grace of God exists to support our presumptious internet behaviour ...

But if Seraphim is not presuming to speak for the hierarchy of the Church, how is he being presumptuous in saying with his web site what many Orthodox individually believe?  Would it be any different from me entering into my blog a personal declaration that the EO and OO are one Church?  Most everyone knows that whatever I put into my blog is strictly my opinion or facts filtered through my opinion.  (FWIW, I don't have a blog yet.)

Christos Anesti Peter, I dont know Seraphim so this is not a personal comment against him (and I am sure he can defend himself if he does feel as if it was) nor is the comment based on "emotions". A "blog" is exactly that ... it is your own personal identity ... a website that uses the name "Orthodox" no longer belongs to me (intellectually) but belongs to the Orthodox churhc and should represent WHOLY the position of that church in a clear manner ....

EO and OO are NOT the same thing ... Otherwise it really is a fascinating and well done site.

BTW (just a side comment), something just struck me as I hit the save button ... just because "most Orthodox" believe X, Y or Z does not mean that X, Y or Z are divinely "correct" ... that is why we have the hierarchy in the Church. They (in unity) deliberate the "thoughts of the people" and wait for the Holy Spirit to advice them of what the Will of God is ...

[PeterTheAleut]

I have to take a similar position as LBK and Mikat (sp?) with regards to this site ... when it was first informed yesterday, I went with much enthusiasm to the site only to be confronted by a host of pictures which (although beautiful and truly good photography) gave my soul a huge shock ... I thought - WHAT!? OO and EO BOTH the ONE Orthodox body of Christ?

Hmm ... we are not very obedient to our Hierarchy if we are being so presumptious as to declare EO and OO as ONE BEFORE it has been confirmed and declared under canonical means ... no grace of God exists to support our presumptious internet behaviour ...

But if Seraphim is not presuming to speak for the hierarchy of the Church, how is he being presumptuous in saying with his web site what many Orthodox individually believe?  Would it be any different from me entering into my blog a personal declaration that the EO and OO are one Church?  Most everyone knows that whatever I put into my blog is strictly my opinion or facts filtered through my opinion.  (FWIW, I don't have a blog yet.)

Christos Anesti Peter, I dont know Seraphim so this is not a personal comment against him (and I am sure he can defend himself if he does feel as if it was) nor is the comment based on "emotions". A "blog" is exactly that ... it is your own personal identity ... a website that uses the name "Orthodox" no longer belongs to me (intellectually) but belongs to the Orthodox churhc and should represent WHOLY the position of that church in a clear manner ....

Is this an actual legal opinion, or just your own?  I don't think Fr. Anastasios would agree that OrthodoxChristianity.net belongs to the Church (i.e., falls under the jurisdiction of a particular Orthodox bishop) even though it clearly has the name Orthodox Christianity on it.  Most people on this site try to faithfully present the mind of the Church as they understand it, but there's certainly freedom for individual opinion here, too.  Even on the content development side of OC.net, which is not a place for discussion as this forum is, I've seen articles posted from one or more of our OO members.  So I don't buy your opinion that just because a web site bears the name "Orthodox" it belongs to the Church and no longer to the individual who started the site.

EO and OO are NOT the same thing ... Otherwise it really is a fascinating and well done site.

BTW (just a side comment), something just struck me as I hit the save button ... just because "most Orthodox" believe X, Y or Z does not mean that X, Y or Z are divinely "correct" ... that is why we have the hierarchy in the Church. They (in unity) deliberate the "thoughts of the people" and wait for the Holy Spirit to advice them of what the Will of God is ...

Yes, but that's beside the point.

[Salpy]

Are people aware that on OCnet the word Orthodox is used for both OO's and EO's?  I know that is not the position of the website owner's Church.  However, the website uses the word for both.  People need to realize that a website that calls itself Orthodox is not necessarily speaking for a particular Church.

Lighten up, guys.   

[John of the North]

We could all just listen to the chants and be happy....

[soufliotiki]

Peter - I am not interested in fighting ...
Salpy - I am "lightened" up ...

[Michał]

Michal,

Seraphim performs a good work for us by posting such informative material--yes, maybe it's not all strictly Orthodox--and all you can do is criticize him and his attitude?  I think you owe him an apology.

I've been e-mailing with Seraphim three months ago. I wrote him: "Thank you so much for OrthodoxMysteries.com website! It's wonderful.
I've got only two concerns. . ." Now I have the very same opinion, although the number of my concerns grew to three or four.

[Michał]

Mikat (sp?)

It's Michał (pronounced: 'mehow; "me" like in "excuse me" and "how" like in "how are you?"). The last letter is L with a kind of a slash (/) added and it stands for "w" sound.

[HandmaidenofGod]

We could all just listen to the chants and be happy....

That would be far too easy for us to do!   

[Michał]

Are people aware that on OCnet the word Orthodox is used for both OO's and EO's?  I know that is not the position of the website owner's Church.  However, the website uses the word for both.  People need to realize that a website that calls itself Orthodox is not necessarily speaking for a particular Church.

I have nothing against creating EO + OO websites. But I belive that a clear distincition between the two should be made, like, for example, here:

The Orthodox Church comprises ^{(spelling mistake corrected)} of:
 - Eastern Orthodox Churches
 - Oriental Orthodox Churches

(Although still I would change "The Orthodox Church" into "Orthodox Christianity", because in the current form it is adhering the branches theory.)

[Veniamin]

I might also add that the title of this thread could be seen by many as somewhat provocative. At the very least, a note should be put into the OP stating that it is a split from another thread, as often happens on this forum.

Before griping at PtA next time, how about giving me a chance to tie up all the loose ends?  I don't have a magic wand that makes everything happen instantaneously.

My apologies to you, Veniamin. I do realise that you've been thrown in the deep end. However, I stand by my comments directed at PetertheAleut.

Are you not going to apologize to PtA for falsely accusing him of my actions?

[Irish Hermit]

And here comes another problem of this site. There is no distinction made between EO and OO whatsoever. We, EO, share much with OO, but we are not one Church, at least not yet. And the site suggests otherwise.

I have found while browsing the Forum (something I recommend since there is so much accumulated knowledge) that in another thread EkhristosAnesti an Oriental Orthodox briefly spells out in a very charitable way the understanding between EO's and OO's and their mutual relationship.

It is message #88 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7228.msg125708.html#msg125708

[LBK]

Are you not going to apologize to PtA for falsely accusing him of my actions?

PtA is a moderator, and at the time of my posting, I was unaware that you had been just been appointed moderator. So, given PtA's known status, and the belligerence of his posts in reply to mine on this thread, it would be reasonable for anyone to assume that it was he who split this thread off, and gave it its name.

[John of the North]

Are you not going to apologize to PtA for falsely accusing him of my actions?

PtA is a moderator, and at the time of my posting, I was unaware that you had been just been appointed moderator. So, given PtA's known status, and the belligerence of his posts in reply to mine on this thread, it would be reasonable for anyone to assume that it was he who split this thread off, and gave it its name.

Veniamin was the moderator of this sub-forum at the time. Moderators on this forum do not moderate themselves, and all moderatorial actions are decided on by the the mod team as a whole (in most cases).

[GabrieltheCelt]

How 'bout we all chill with a White Russian?


Abide y'all, abide. 

[Heorhij]

Dear ones, I just started as a Mod today instead of Veniamin. Please, give me a bit of time to read all the posts in this thread so that I could make up my mind about whether or not the OC.net rules were violated, or whether or not any person was insulted, etc. I saw some pretty "fired" posts in this thread, but, if you guys went on, I am all for it...

[soufliotiki]

Dear ones, I just started as a Mod today instead of Veniamin. Please, give me a bit of time to read all the posts in this thread so that I could make up my mind about whether or not the OC.net rules were violated, or whether or not any person was insulted, etc. I saw some pretty "fired" posts in this thread, but, if you guys went on, I am all for it...

is it possible to use another font colour? It is hard to read bright green on screen and it discriminates against visually colour blind people? Thank you in advance.

[Heorhij]

^Green on this forum means that a person speaks as a moderator, not as a participant. So I will have to use green when I am speaking as a Mod. But I will certainly use a arker shade of green. Thank you for the remark! --G.