Orthodox Theology, Liturgy, Etc, discussion of Western Rite....

I know. I beg your forgiveness.

I know. I beg your forgiveness.

Thank you for clarifying, no offense taken. All forgiven.

Dear Mike and SS.

I think the concern for some is that Tud appears to be a Non-Canonical Orthodox (which in itself is no issue to me) with a specific issue/agenda towards the Canonical Orthodox.
That issue “seems” to be: there are very few “Real Orthodox” left.
Some issues with consistency of position.
There is also the issue of him needing privacy here.
It is one thing for those in the C.E.C. or coming out of it needing to be anonymous.
It is something else when one does it in many places while posting in order call others to task.

I do not think any man here would like it if someone was taking pot shots at our wives publically, while hiding to do so.
It is just simply an accountability issue.
We would not like it if our newspaper’s were run this way as people could write whatever they wanted whether true or not and there would be no way to hold them accountable.

This site was originally for those in the C.E.C. and coming out of the C.E.C., as that situation is changing over time, the tensions change with it.

In the past it has been a place for family to air things out, poorly at times, but there has been that sense of family to some degree, even for those that left quite a long time ago.
We have had “those from outside” here in the past, one of the Brazilian Priests if my memory serves me well, however, he did stay on task with us.

Now we are into our journeys a bit differently than in the past, so there are new tensions I to deal with.

Reading several posts by Tud, here as well as in other places, has helped me to define and understand what kept gnawing at me from within.

So:

To Tud, Mike and all:

In reading your Posts Tud, there seems to be an underlying idea in your writings, which we have just experienced in a very negative way.
What we experienced was a hyper spirituality that was portrayed to us as: We were the True Church, we were the Called out Ones, and we were what God was using to bless all the other Churches.

It was said, concerning Rome and Orthodoxy and then all others:
“We do not need them, they need us.”

“We do not need Rome, Rome needs us.”
You could replace Rome with Orthodoxy in the above statement.

It seems in your Posts here and at other places as if you are, to some degree, saying much the same thing.
You do not need Antioch, they need you, if they would just listen to you, they would be ok, so forth and so on.

There are posts where you “seem” to lean towards believing that overall, Orthodoxy Corporately is failing or has failed all together and that there is only small group that still holds to the true Faith.


I think each and every one of us would agree there are troubles no matter where you go.
I recently taught on the issue of light, and what it means that we are to be the light of the world.
I do believe that when humanity drives itself deeper into the darkness, some of that “spiraling down” into the ever deepening darkness has to be laid down at the feet of the Church.
When we do not shine in truth and love, the world is a darker place as we have hidden our light, but that is another post for another time.

I think the issue about your input Tud is that you have not yet “earned” trust, you ‘seem” to have an agenda with Orthodoxy and you “seem” to be inconsistent with your ideas and words. (We all are to some extent)

Your web-site(s) seem to indicate you have issues with Canonical Orthodoxy and agenda’s due to those issues.

Having people here from Orthodoxy should be a great help, both Lay folk as well as Clergy are needed.
We have had, and still do have Roman/Eastern Catholics that post here and this is a good thing as well.

However, I do think those that come here to post should have the needs of these people as “The main Agenda” and that, as it relates to The Church and the healing of the broken.

In other words, if an Orthodox person comes here “that did not journey from the C.E.C.” to Orthodoxy, then that person, whether Lay or Clergy, should only be here with a single agenda, to help those here to better understand the Orthodox Church.
It should be about the presentation of the Church, what she believes and has always believed, as well as explaining why she believes as she does and how these things work out in daily life.

I believe it is God’s desire that all here be healed of their broken hearts and that their journeys towards Him continue.

For “most” (not all) of the people that have been a part of the C.E.C. this has been a journey towards and into the Ancient faith.

Most had never known of Liturgy, Sacraments and a Sacramental way of life prior to coming into the C.E.C.

We truly were a bridge Church, bridging the gap, or void if you prefer, between the sterility of Protestant Ecclesiology (can I even say that?) and coming to see the richness and beauty of the Ancient Church.
Dare I say that the C.E.C. has had a great impact in this area?
Yes, I think I can, there rose up a great movement in our time towards the Ancient Faith.
This happened with Fr. Peter Gilquest and that whole group and it happened in the C.E.C. as well as other groups.
Fr. Peter and his group were different in that they were just looking for the truth and never had the agenda of looking to start another Church.

The point I am trying to make is that those posting here from outside the “group” should be aware of why this site is here and thus need to be posting to help the people who read here.

That is after all, the reason for this site.

Mike put this site up as a place for those in the C.E.C. to exchange information and to help each other through a terrible time.

So, in my personal opinion, this is not the place for those with their own personal agendas with Rome, Orthodoxy or anyone else for that matter.

We should all: “Leave the Negative Agenda’s at the Sign in Screen”

Ok, couple of personal house cleaning items and I will be through wasting your time.

1. Tud, somehow there is a misunderstanding. I am not an Orthodox Priest as “in the Orthodox Church. I am however, somewhat studied in Orthodoxy, not well, just somewhat. I have tried to help answer the questions people have concerning Orthodoxy and Rome. I am a Priest in the Communion of Corpus Christi. We are seeking Sacramental recognition with Rome. This has been going on for a long time now and it was, at one time, part of our Focus when we were in the C.E.C.
I am, for the most part, Eastern in my Theology and Western in practice.
As such, of course the Western Rite is of great interest to me.
In actuality, all the Liturgical Rites of the Church are of interest to me.

2. Yes, I do believe that it is ok to help people with their interest in Rome as well as The Orthodox Church. (There, you can spit again-smile)

I do believe that people need to pray asking God for direction as to where they should be in the body rather than “shopping to see what fits best” or “feels best”.

I do not believe that this is a situation where we go out to find the clothes that seem to look the best and fit the best, but rather that if we will pray, in honesty, then God will clothe us according to His will and we will then grow into those clothes and feelings-Love.

I still believe God can direct our lives. (We can go into that discussion on another thread). For the Orthodox, Orthodoxy is the only place to be, For the Romans, Rome is the place to be, and both should feel that way.

No matter how we want to look at it, no matter how we want to justify and rationalize it, we have been fractured, split.
Perhaps it is due to The Church being full of pride and arrogance, and like the Israel of old we have been dispersed and thrown into confusion.
We have, it seems to me, done the same things as Israel and Judah did, and we keep repeating the same mistakes that have been done in the past.
We need to pray for the Unity of the Church as well as work towards that in our own lives.

That is why I feel assured I can speak to people about Rome, as well as Orthodoxy.
I do believe the Schism will be repaired and the Church will be re-united.

I would like to remind us all that there is still more studies to be done and things to learn.
There are those here who still struggle to believe Mary is the Mother of God, Mother of The Church and thus Mother of us all.
There are those here who have a hard time seeing Her as The New Ark,
The Church as the Israel of God, The Sacraments as vital and being truly the Body and Blood of Christ.
There are those here, on the Journey, that have difficulties with understanding what the Church truly is and why the councils are so important.

These studies and others like them are far more important than discussions of whether or not Orthodoxy has a right to have a Western Rite. IMHO.

Coming to believe/understand The Faith that the Church believes should be of upmost importance to us all as the truth of these things will set us free.

Finally, my reason for reading and posting here has been and remains the sharing of information concerning the Communion we all had in common and supporting those who have been hurt by said Communion as they find their way to where God desires them to be. This does include support for those who have stayed as well.

This is the only reason I come here, the only reason I have for posting here.
Just to try and be helpful.

Yes, I am somewhat protective of those here that have been badly hurt, that is just something that God put in my heart years ago.
I used to take what I wanted, life was about me, completely and I did not really care who was hurt.
Since being introduced to Christ Jesus our Lord, my focus has been others, even when doing so poorly.

I am just not as important as I used to think I was-smile.

If I am not being helpful towards people healing, and/or helpful in people’s
Journeys then my time here should come to an end, other than stopping by to see
Friends.
It has never been my intention to cause anyone here greater difficulties or more
Confusion.

Where I have done so, I beg your forgiveness.

May the Lord bless you all.

Rusty+

Thanks Fr. Rusty, some very good observations!

For those of you interested in what happened in Ben Lomond, here is an AOCA perspective:

from AGAIN Magazine VOL. 21 NO. 1 Winter 1999

Remember, a false accusation is also one that you don't know to be true, but you make anyway.

I have no idea whether Fr. Luke is Orthodox or in a canonical Orthodox jurisdiction but, if he is, then my jurisdiction is in communion with it. Our priests concelebrate.

I've observed this psychological process whereby one 1. suspects something, 2. in pride assumes one's perceptions to be of an exceptional character, and 3. then equates the perception with reality, and presents the suspicion as fact. These sins compound until the result is, without intending it, a psychology of one's own infallibility.

I graduated from one university after presenting a controversial senior paper. I remember going back there for some paperwork and someone being surprised to see me after I'd gotten "kicked out". They seemed to have been unaware that you present your senior paper upon graduation. Same thing happened in graduate school, when I took a sabbatical, sponsored by one of my professors, and went and lived and taught abroad for some years. When I came back, I went to work for the university, and was approached by a student who couldn't understand how I had come back after having been forced to flee the country. To this day, I still don't know where that came from. Apparently, some talk got started after I left, and the same process occurred - the suspicion was put out, they assumed their perceptions were pretty good, and the suspicion therefore was conflated with fact. So much so, that she still never believed me. I like the intrigue - it's romantic - something out of a spy novel - "forced to flee the country", so I don't mind so much, but it is kind of silly.

The fathers warn about this. But apparently those warnings have no effect.

I didn't read the rest of Fr. Luke's letter. There's no need. I've already corrected him on this - both the factual error and the sin, and it's clear he thinks if he repeats it frequently enough, it will be taken for truth. So be it. Do to me whatever you would do to my 'uncanonical' brethren, among whom are many good and decent folk. And the ad hominem's continue. Fr. Luke is actually one of the best illustrations of how this works:

"Who are you? So we can dismiss your argument based, not on whether it stands the test of reason, but based on who you are. Wont' tell us who you are? We'll make something up. Either way, we're right, and we can't face you with reason, so we'll hall out every dishonest and dishonorable technique in the book - we don't need no stinking words of Christ or teaching of the fathers. Wait, what were we fighting for again? Oh crap!"

When you have to repudiate the teachings of Christianity on suspicion, false accusation, dishonesty, etc. in order to defend a presumably "Christian" position, you actually create a climate of atheism.

I say my jurisdiction is in communion with his, presuming his to be canonical and Orthodox, but just because something is within the bounds of legal canonicity doesn't make it morally Christian; the test of that is whether or not it follows Christ: Does it bear false witness? Not Christian. Give me the honest heretic over the cheating faithful. Give me the heterodox who wouldn't give false testimony, and I'll call them friends, where the brother who slanders his own receives the kiss of peace, but like Judas, betrays with a kiss.

The Assault on Personality and Campaigns of Slander

You know, we went thru that whole thing of "No, it's not for ad hominem purposes; if you tell me who you are, it won't be to just dismiss what you say based on who you are."

Then that was clearly untrue, because as soon as he thinks he knows who I am, what does he do? You betcha: he's one of those true, old calendar, continuing.... So if that had been true (doesn't phase him, he's still repeating that lie), but if it had been true, he clearly did intend it for ad hominem.

And yet, strangely, bizarrely, he keeps going on even tho I've made no argument. Perhaps he's still wishing to make a point of another web site he doesn't like. Well, keep on about that here? No one else is.

Or is there some specific proposition that's been stated that he's still claiming is not Orthodox. Every such thing has been addressed and, clearly, he wasn't right about that; it was all as Orthodox as baklava.

So what's left? Is it just a general campaign of trying to discredit someone? Seriously? A smear campaign? On a Christian forum? And he talks of damaging the faith and people's journey?

If that's really it - if it's just an ongoing campaign by one or a handful of people to discredit one particular person, it's more like a love affair than anything, except I'm not feeling amorous. Why not take it offline? I've posted by e-mail. Send me all the hatemail you want. Well, I suppose when you're slandering and trying to discredit someone, you need to do it publicly - the whole point is to have an audience.

But honestly, it is astounding to watch. Apparently nothing the scriptures teach has any bearing. It's genuinely amazing.

And the beatings continue.

Is this the Faith?

Brethren, just for the record, yeah you'll find a lot of this kind of thing wherever people believe anything strongly. Religion, politics, war... but it isn't our Faith. Our highest and best selves do not take the lash to our brother and beat him into hamburger. We know where that comes from. And we find it everywhere the passions reign, and people exalt their personal feelings and convictions to the height of the divine. For the record, again, I believe NOTHING so strongly that I need to put anyone to the stake. Inquisitions are not Orthodox. We have no doctrine worth that; rather, all that we believe is meant to save us, for theosis - all doctrine is a means to an end, never an end in itself. When a set of decisions, or a rite, or a doctrine, or a faction gets exalted to the place that the beatings begin, you are witnessing the sale of Orthodoxy to the passions. But take heart; there still lives "the dearest freshness deep down things". When a catechumen in my charge hears slander, he crosses himself, excuses himself if he must, and wanders away, distracted, unable to let it take root in him, and finds himself soon at the feet of a father, or learning the simplest truth from the weakest babe, for departing sin and making the sign of the Cross, invincible adversary of demons, the Spirit leads him. The Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth.

What's in the Bunker?

Brethren, whatever thing is so fearful that it cannot be expressed, but requires a wholesale campaign that attempts to obliterate a reputation, is not something that can be believed. Love is the highest law. If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. If there are whole areas that are off limits to examination, critique, concern - if we cannot look at our weaknesses, without someone initiating defcon3 to squash the dangerous foe, then the thing is not worthy of our belief. But I tell you, that thing may look like Orthodox; it is not. We do not murder our own. Let the clanging continue.

Not Orthodox?

Holy Wow. I just re-read page 6, including the Fr. Rusty post this time.
So, he's not Orthodox, let alone an Orthodox clergyman? I must have taken a left turn, because I thought he was describing, teaching, explaining Orthodoxy, and even claiming that this or that thing is or isn't Orthodox. Since it is absolutely forbidden for a catechumen or a new convert to teach Orthodoxy, or for a laymen to be quickly made a priest, I'd assumed he'd been a priest of Our Faith, and therefore Orthodox for quite some time. We try our best to give the benefit of the doubt, even if we observe pure heresy and vitriol coming out of a priest's mouth; it's the Orthodox way. When I asked to call him by his saint's name, I though he was telling me in good faith so I could obey the Orthodox piety. I'll happily call him Fr. Rusty, then, or whatever he normally uses - no need - but I thought he would have corrected me, if he hadn't been of Our Faith.

Thudding my Head

That seems to explain why we aren't really even talking on the same planet, morally. I was expecting Orthodox behavior and an Orthodox mind, and couldn't figure out why not only was I not getting it, but why his phone hasn't been ringing off the hook with his monastic counselors telling him that he's in danger of pits within pits, if he doesn't turn back from this kind of behavior. It is better to let even heretics have sway than to become one in denouncing them, for all impiety is heresy and all heresy is impiety. Of course, that's not really a Latin position, as I understand it, so of course you can light a few stakes if it's important enough. Different religion, so different way of dealing w. each other.

OK then. You may commence flyovers.

Very well, then; my bad, hit me w. everything you've got. I thought we were of the same Faith. This then, is less of a concern. I'm quite comfortable w. the flamethrower coming at me when I am no grieved for the salvation of my brother. It still grieves me for you, but we have a special way with one another, and a special concern that cannot be described or explained. With people who are in the process of converting, likewise, it is the Orthodox way to guard against presumption, and treat them as much as proper, as one of us.

In the case of heterodox clergy, well fire away. I'm not changing my general approach, and I'll still love you to death while you're dropping bombs, just not as my brother in the Faith, and with some relief that the impossible and inexplicable is now much clearer and the world is not upside down.

My Beloved Antiochian Teachers

Incidentally, this frees me to observe (I had thought you might be an Antiochian priest) that most of the things you objected to as 'not Orthodox' in our early discussions were taught to my fathers by other fathers who were Antiochian clergy. Most of what I wrote about our attitudes toward one another, toward salvation, the passions - pretty much all the basic things - came from them. Not that there's any difference between Antiochian Faith and the Faith among other Orthodox, so pedigrees don't matter (as I've been saying), but since it's their church in which the WRV exists, it is interesting.

By your prayers I will be saved, Roman Catholic or not.

TuD, what are you referring to? Who are you addressing here? Please be more specific, and let's stay on topic.

The ongoing personal attacks, most recently by Fr. Rusty. Don't worry, no need for me to address them w. the same care in the future. I was being open, vulnerable, and gentle because I thought he was a priest. Of the Orthodox Faith. Even Angels tread lightly there. But as it's not so, it's simply enough to now, when it's the same attack as usual, not respond or else just give the minimum two word response: ad hominem, straw man, etc. Honestly, I was only giving much elaboration out of hopes of contributing to the salvation of my brother who seemed to be falling into a pretty dire pit. Our way of calling to repentance. No need now. I'm going out for a nice meal, feeling immensely relieved that this is no Orthodox Christian behaving this way.

As is often the case in the course of threads such as these, bringing up these questions are legitimate enough - in a fashion - but not germaine necessarily to this discource.

Very simply I mean that I would welcome and invite a discussion on "the problems of non-Canonical and bodies and jurisdictions of questionable canonicity" or a thread on "The origins and/or how to deal with devisiveness offered by non-Canonical parties." More plainly put, it is a new can of worms!

But I would be most interested in seeing the claims and questions made by either party - without prejudice to their origins - actually answered taking them at face value. When a crazy woman wearing two odd shoes and a cat as a hat asks you the time, sometimes its easiest just to look at your watch and answer the question!

Essentially yes. I don't care if tuD wears a tin-foil mitre, combat boots and nothing else. (Balsy if you do!) I don't care if MIB is infamous for wearing odd socks & wearing white before labor day. (The horror and shame if that is true sir!)

My challenge to both pro and anti-WRO parties is to demonstrate that there is a mechanism in place within Orhtodoxy to officially and authoratatively rule on this matter.

In times past the Patriarchate of Moscow had achieved some success in establishing a mission among the Assyrian Christians of Bagdhad. Their was even a bishop (+JOHN) in the ROCOR that hailed from this community which was given permissions to retain a version of the rites of the Church of the East. Though I have also read at one point it was the practice to use the DL of SJC in Assyrian - more information would be appreciated.

Integrally related to my question on the matter is who can actually decide what rite is right? I have seen a somewhat byzantine apology for "walled off" Orthodox communities that use old ritual or old calendars and practice limited or no communion with the wider Orthodox world... One apologist for the legitimacy of this practice has said that their were canons that provided for this sort of set-up until such time that an ecumenical council could be convened... (Sadly, the archive where this exchange has been locked up..)

So trying to rise above the sometimes damning hurling of invective, and without being merely polemic, I have to ask the various and sundry parties how they imagine in modern Orthodox working praxis and ecclesiology these matters can be actually settled? At this time some of these matters have taken on an near-unresolvable debate that is reminiscent of rabbinical argument. Some seem to just accept that "what is Orthodox will prevail, what is not will die out." I guess their best hope when offering that is that they in fact die in the prevailing wisdom... Or otherwise that God is merciful enough to explain their error to them on the other side! The best I can see offered in some circles is an appeal to the most prolific evidence and/or demand that the merits of an argument be given an agreed upon weight.

By this I mean that pro-WRO folks often present the supposed endorsement of St. Tikhon on their endeavors and feel that the endorsement of a saint tacitly carries a great deal more weight than say, the warnings of +ANTHONY of the GOA (of blessed memory.) Should a day come where +ANTHONY is canonized, I guess it becomes saint against saint.

(Understand that if accepting a notion that the witness of glorified saints is agreed to have special merit in making an appeal, a GREAT BIG new can of worms is opened. There are more than a few glorified saints in Orthodoxy who were excited and enthusiastic supporters of such otherwise today roundly condemed "westernisms" as Thomism, Ignatian Spirituality, the Immaculate Conception, etc. Once you start to look at the saints glorified in the Kievan Baroque period - a la St. Piotr Moghila - things could start to get rather messy!)

Apologies for a post that is too long and met meandering questions with more of the same....

I remain a simple sinner.

Aluminum, actually. The supply of tin foil in the bunker has been in great decline since we buried grandfather in the wall.

I'm not laughing *at* you. There is no such centralization. These are questions of economy, and while I can speak for all critics, the heft of the criticism comes from Jeff Goldblum, when the people around him were resurrecting yet another theme park of long extinct hybridizations: "You spent so much time thinking about whether you could, but you never stopped to think about whether you should." [IMG]http://www.inter-stella.de/mediac/400_0/media/jeff_goldblum_07.jpg[/IMG]

Wouldn't take a council at all. A local synod could correct all of the things that give others significant pause w. the WR - there aren't that many - and then demonstrate the beauty and sanctity of a WR in its fullness, giving proof of concept, and you'd be hard put to find a good case against it. This is not hard to do. It's been done in some places. But that way has been judged too hard, yielding an expansive set of concerns about the reasons for it, the implications, and the direction it'll take us in the future. Of course, those concerns exist with just as many ER initiatives that have nothing to do w. WR.

While a council can indeed do many things, I'd be more concerned about the potential harm it could do, since we believe the outcome of a council to be infallible. If it proved fallible, it would be a false council, and the community would fracture into church and non-church. I think there are a large number of very good reasons we aren't having an ecumenical council. That's another big subject, of course.

He's right, that is the Orthodox way. I've seen it done, and been taught it from my youth, and am quite ready for it myself, when that day dawns. It's helpful, I think, to keep in mind that an immense persecution with murders (martyrdoms) and rapes and tortures has been inflicted upon various old calendar groups that have done this - like the True Old Calendar Church of Greece, and that of Romania (by their prayers save me). What was done to them sure makes it look like they're the Christians, and the rest of us aren't. I'd accept that, depsite who that offends. Jesus didn't mince words about these things. And after some 70+ years of saying these people aren't Orthodox, and using the secular government and zealots and special forces and thugs to persecute them, the Churches responsible have more recently come out (when they not only didn't go away but stood firm like angels in their faith, in the power and might of their unquestionable holiness - God make them iron and brick!) and said that indeed they ARE Orthodox, and their piety is an example, and their teaching something we can learn from, and their people welcome and accepted among us as the faithful. This is not a new thing. A vast number of Saints have been persecuted by the Church. St. Nektarios, St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximus the Confessor (confessor because it is we who tortured and maimed him), St. Photius, and the list could fill this page...). And so I am not ashamed to be ashamed, and say they shall be saved, and rise up against me in the Judgment and point the just finger, and my mouth will be stopped and filled with clay, and I will have no defense, only let them pray for me. I ask it of them still.

No one can impugn the holiness of his eminence Archbishop Chrysostomos of Aetna, to whom be veneration as a father of us all. No, I am not in that jurisdiction, and alas I have the new calendar, and am a renovationist; I merely *desire* the fullness of Orthodoxy. So much that has been said, I think, tends to lump everyone together and make blanket statements about their canonicity and their Faith that cannot be made and directly contradict the hierarchs of those making them. Not that that makes them untrue, but it certainly isn't representative of their churches.

This is a painful subject. What I do in this area is fight in my own way, which I can't discuss here. But it is painful. Remember that the Lord promised the Apostasy, the great falling away. And it *is* coming; it cannot be stopped, even if we hurl our lives into it.

I have been in those situations physically - hurling my body, and those I've led, and those I've followed, and those I've persuaded to join us, into the path of the dragon, and have watched us be swallowed up, and still we poured into him, and still he came, until the last of us were incapacitated. And I would do it again, at the right moment, in the right way. What are bodies? Kindling if martyrs, and kindling if bound for the Lake. Either way, what are bodies?

But we have also our minds, and our words, and our other actions. And for now, it is enough to try to hold it back. But it will come. And we will not be prepared, many of us. It will be sudden, shocking, like the tanks rolling into Czechoslovakia or Hungary. It will rush upon us with a fury, and we will do what we do in a moment. And to the woman with child, mercy. Do we still believe it will come? But there have been many Antichrists, many Great Apostasies, and so we don't know which is the last and the final battle. That is the Orthodox way. We ready ourselves again, and then again. Those who are ready. And yet, is my lamp trimmed and full of Oil? I fear otherwise. Who will then show me the way? Thank God for the monks. Our special forces.

I can see you trying to work thru this, ASimple, and I would try to help if I could. I feel bound, the way I did when Celine asked me for something and I couldn't help. All I can say is that there actually are more pressing things; it is always more pressing what to do with one's own soul. If I've earned any respect of you, think of this as my ultimate advice on it. I've been fighting the fight you describe in one form or another for a while, and it's good to fight it, but not at the expense of the soul, and not if the soul yet needs more basic care; it is only good to fight it if it is necessary, truly necessary for your salvation at this moment. And if you have vast internal resources and stamina and constitution, it will not be enough, and you will need your soul to be a warrior, to be trained in penance, in prayer, in seeking God, in self-judgment. You will need to follow the monks, as much as possible. And still, it will not be enough. None of us is. And honestly (and yes, I know I always take these matters onto a different track), it is not for all of us to fight all battles at all times; the time is coming when those who survive will all have to. I don't know, I tend to think the greatest threat right now is the culture, the dominant culture, and taking that into our religious lives. That will kill us, so that we don't need an Antichrist to do it. But here's the advice of my closest friend, and it has served me well many times, when I have come home from the wars and decided to limit my involvement:

A young man said to her, "I want to throw myself against the dragon. I know it's too much for me, and I'll be devoured, but I don't care. I'll make the meaning of my life a missile, and hope no more than to remove one scale, so the next soldier after me can die trying to pierce the heart, and one after another of us until at last, we bring him down, and there is no evil in the world, and the screams will be silent, and the blood will not cry out from the ground, and babies will not look up with blank stares from lifeless eyes. I give my life to that. Take my body, my soul will live on. God save me." And she answered the young man, "May God have mercy on you, but I fear that even your soul will not survive. You will ruin it by transforming yourself into the shape and conformity of what will kill the enemy, and you fail, and you will remain a lifeless weapon. You may succeed even in ridding the world of evil, but what will be the point, since you will give to it nothing good. Your life is a weapon, it does not heal, or help, or make bright the eyes of the blind, let alone raise the dead." And he asked, "Then what can I do, because I can't bear it. I can't bear this darkness spreading over the earth." And she said, "I can tell you what I do. I will not tell you what to do, but I will tell you what I do, and whatever you decide, I will pray for you, and be your friend, and love you. I start with me. I try to make the good, every day like bread, in me. If I cannot do that, I can do nothing. I fail, and stumble, and then I try again, and sometimes I make good like bread. And then from there, I try to make good among those I love and among each person I can touch. I make it slowly, and small, and good, like bread. It is enough, and we live on it and in it. And out from us, it expands. I try to make the world as I think it should be, the good that I think ought to be there, starting with myself, and then others, I create the Kingdom. And as the city gets broader, there is nowhere in it for the dragon to stand. He cannot enter, and does not trouble us in that way. He is always stalking around us, and he tries to take our young away, but then we turn and fight him, but only just long enough until we can return to the city. I am not always successful. I have losses, but I also have a city to return to, a good world, a bright kingdom, and I get to live there. And that's the meaning of my life. I will not say it's better than the meaning of yours, but it's the path I choose."

And many times, from listening to this conversation in my mind, down through the years, I have bent my sword into a plowshare. Most of the time, I like to think. And I will again, in all these things, if I can. Do you see, ASimpleSinner, beloved of God, what I am trying to say to you?

Mm. Indeed. But thankfully, these are not matters of doctrine, but of piety. It is a tragic sign of this era, in the last 85 years, that we now have novelty, confusion, conflict, in the area of piety. Some doctrine, to be sure, for doctrine and piety are inseparable - error in one will produce poverty in the other, and vice versa. But our current concerns are less exalted than a debate over Arianism, but are questions of whether we will follow our traditions, our Fathers, and the Gospel at all.

Mm. Luckily, a Saint is not necessarily a Father in that sense.

This wins the Oscar for the most cutting allusion to a Spielberg film. Well done!

Dear SS; This is hopefully going to be a short post with only two main points.

1. I think the issues of what Rite is right and who has the right to decide what Rite to use is actually pretty easy.

The Eucharist belongs to the Bishop, Priests are there to act as him, for him, in his absence.
The Church is the Bishops as far as Governance goes unless there is something going on that requires the level of oversight in which a whole Counsel would need to be involved, this would normally be something that can affect the life and peace of the whole Church.

As far as I can tell, any Liturgy-Rite that meets the requirements to sustain the life of the Church can be used at the Bishop’s discretion.
As far as I can tell from my studies so far, and my discussions of these things with Orthodox Priests, Deans and academics, a Bishop is Sovereign over his Diocese unless there is an issue that is affecting the life of the Church.
Concerning the discussion at hand, there was a synod of the Bishops of Antioch and it was there, by those Bishops, in counsel, that the decision was made for the use of the Western Rite.
It was a decision made in Counsel as this is something that can effect the life and peace of the Church overall.
From that point, each Bishop decides how many of these Parrish’s he will have in his diocese.
In Counsel it is decided how those coming in to Orthodoxy with a Parrish are to be brought in to The Church.
There have been adjustments made as time goes on and they see what has proven fruitful and what has not.

At some level I think we have to remember that the Oversight of the Church belongs really belongs to the Bishops and them in counsel on the largest of issues.
This has worked for a couple of thousand years, with many bumps in the road of course, yet it has worked and still does.

I guess I am of the mind that it does not really matter what I “think” concerning these things, but rather what has The Church said, what has it done and where is life.

What I “think” only matters where it relates to obedience.

Of course there have always been times when the Bishop, and or, Bishops have taken a path that was not best for the peace of the Church, there have been times where the Laity have stood up and said things were not right, and brought about change as well.

I do not believe this is such a case.

It times long gone from us, it was not that unusual for Eastern Bishops to use a Western Liturgical Practice, and the opposite is true as well.
The Great Schism changed many things, some of which were reactions, knee jerks, things decided out of pain and suffering, so forth and so on.

Perhaps many of these things are now changing, perhaps, it is God who is involved in all of this.
Suffice it to say I think it is enough to know that a Synod of Canonical Orthodox Bishops have decided the matter for the area of their Jurisdiction.
They have not decided for other Bishops, as they cannot.
By the same token, we cannot decide for them, it is not a matter for us, it is not something we have jurisdiction over.

I do not think Opinions are as important as Obedience, I do think they are best held, within Obedience.


2.One of my issues with this whole line of discussion is that it is a distraction to and for those that are just beginning a possible Journey into Orthodoxy. There are so many other things that need to be discussed, taught, embraced.
Discussions of whether of not the Bishops have a right to provide covering for a specific Rite and all the talk of the events of Ben Lomand just take away focus from the things many of these good people need to be getting their minds and hearts around.

I know some of these things are of great interest to you and some others from an Academic point of view.

However, the Question I have is are these discussions in the best interest of those in need?

Do we need at this time to be other minded?

How well is someone going to do sitting in on an Orthodox Divine Liturgy if they have an aversion to our Mother?
How hard is it for them if they do not have some basic understanding of “Theotokos”?

Icons: Do those coming to the Orthodox Church need to be able to see these for what they are, is this important, or is Ben Lomond where they should spend their efforts at trying to understand?

Ecclesiology: Is this important?
Is this important to discuss with those looking, thinking and those that are going, to better help them understand what they are looking at and why it is so important?

Is this what they need to have their minds filled with, their hearts filled with, or are these other political things more important.

Obedience: What about this subject?
What do we show those looking at The Orthodox Church on this subject?

There are many subjects that could be discussed that bring edification to everyone and could help those find their way in this Journey.

I am not picking on you guy, hopefully you know that.
My concern is for those that are trying to recover from what they have been through and are trying to find their way into the Church.

If you or I were teaching a catechism class would either one of us want someone turning the class to rabbit trails and politics that only confuse the things that people need to learn in said class?

Of course we would not.
I understand this is not a Catechism Class, I understand that this is an open forum, and, I understand your desires as an Academic.
However, I am not sure the timing for discussions of Ben Lomand and whether Western Rite is ok or not is in the best interest of those trying to get back on their Journey.

Are we serving God and His people in these things, or do we at times end up serving our own desires.

Again, Hope I have not offended you at all.
I am not and was not picking on you, or anyone per say.

My concern is for those that had their church stolen out from under them and are trying to find out where they are supposed to live now.

From my heart, really,

Rusty+

<bowing> Thanks. I had stopped myself a while back from writing the illustrated article; I was having too much fun at others' expense, tho, so I didn't do it. But apparently, I didn't forget.