Subscribe by Email
« James has officially entered the “westernorthodox.blogspot.com” fray | Main | Anti-Romanides Sentiments On OrthodoxWiki Will Not Go Unanswered »
westernorthodox.blogspot.com not a dia-blog, but rather a mono-blog
By James Kelley | July 16, 2008
Why is westernorthodox.blogspot.com such a popular spot when it refuses to publish comments which ask the difficult questions? Because it is not a real blog. It is a mono-blog. I can’t think of anything more disingenuous or sad. It’s like a talk-show where all the “callers” are really the producers and their buddies “calling in” from backstage. What on earth does this accomplish? Oh yeah, I forgot. You have a specific agenda that you are pushing. By refusing comments you evince its card-castle fragility.
WORD TO THE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST: DO NOT GO TO WESTERNORTHODOX.BLOGSPOT.COM, AND SPREAD THE WORD TO OTHERS.
My site will publish anything that is not profane, because I have nothing to fear. If someone sends me a foolish comment, I’ll call it by its name, give ample time for anyone on earth to defend it, and only then will I remove it.
If I ever find out that I am wrong about something, I simply change my mind and thank the wiser person who instructed me. Perhaps the WO folks or a zealous supporter would like to some onto my turf and fire off a few rounds. Don’t bother unless you are willing to have a conversation.
Topics: Blog etiquette, General, Intellectual honesty |
July 16th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
As a (sort of) Western Rite person, I apologize for your negative experience. I’m not sure I understand all of the circumstances surrounding it, but I am sure that Orthodox Christians should treat all with the utmost charity. I am deeply sorry that this was not your experience.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
James,
I don’t think I can endorse your call for a boycott of the blog in question. This is mainly for two reasons. First the blog owner is notoriously slow in moderating comments. I have seen perfectly normal comments take more than a week to get confirmed. But even if he doesn’t approve them I don’t operate on the theory that all blogs need to have an open comments policy. I wrote a piece on this subject a while back. It can be read here. http://tinyurl.com/5z3shb
I have been following his blog for a while (it’s slowed down a bit in recent months), but I have never seen it as a forum for sycophants. There has been diverse opinion expressed there before.
Yours in ICXC
John
July 17th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Thank you John and Dionysius, for your comments. Upon further reflection, it is possible that I am wrong about the WO site, and that the webmaster simply did not appreciate my direct, even ascerbic tone. This remains to be seen.
At any rate, I respect anyone who does not follow my advice about avoiding WO. I am a web neophyte, and I was merely going by what I was told about blog etiquette. Obviously there are a range of opinions and, as John pointed out on Ad Orientum, a wide variety of types of blogs.
Still, if I read a blogsite tomorrow which ridicules Orthodox piety, I’m sure I’ll write something similar to what I tried to post to WO. I’m not going to shrug my shoulders about things that are that important, but neither will I, hopefully, cross the line and needlessly offend others.
By the way, John, I read your post and I agree with everthing you said. I don’t see how we disagree, except perhaps my aforementioned impression that all blogs should accept all comments within reason. I think the world is big enough for a wide latitude of belief, but not on “non-negotiables,” like specific, saintly forms of piety. If we hold these up to scorn, we are haters of Christ.
John, you said that there are blogs that are diaries and blogs that are discussions. So far I’m with you. Then you said that you refused a post because it was flagrantly pagan and otherwise unacceptable, because it was full of ad hominem attacks. Maybe I’m mixing it up, I did read it quickly. However, I do not see how our basic principles differ. After all, you will agree that, even though there are “diarysites” and “discussionsites” (my terms), to pretend to be the latter, when you are actually a “diary” would be bad net etiquette, don’t you think? This is my contention with WO, which I hope will be proven wrong. Dissembling about such matters makes us all look bad. Remember Quiz Show? It wasn’t against the law, it wasn’t larceny, but it was a misrepresentation which wrong because it was phony.
WO, if you are out there, be as patient as the others who have posted on my site, and let’s rectify this thing. I’ll remove the boycott post, and we’ll get together on this.
Lord have mercy
July 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
James,
I think we are clearly on the same page. I don’t usually advocate boycotting a blog even if I think the owner is being cheesy in the way he runs it. My general criteria for advising people to stay away are…
1. It advocates something illegal or sinful.
2. It is overtly heretical and masquerading as Orthodox.
3. It’s a malicious gossip site.
4. It’s run by a New York Yankees fan
Beyond that I will normally limit myself to saying that I think the blog has problems. There are a number of blogs and websites that have really good stuff on them and I would like to link on my blog. But because they also have things on there that are to me objectionable I am obliged to refrain. I will give two examples. Free Republic which is an awesome site for conservative news and opinion on many subjects. But it also has a lot of crazies posting things there that are just way over the top. Those who are not discerning could get in trouble there. Same with the Orthodox Information Center. It is a veritable gold mine for good Orthodox material. But there is a lot of stuff that is by and pro Radical Old Calendarists which is a deal breaker for me. I still peruse the site frequently. But I can not in conscience link it on A/O because of the danger that someone not well versed in Orthodoxy might go there and be scandalized by some of things posted. In neither case do I advocate boycotting. But I don’t recommend either site on my own blog and when I do mention either one in any post I am careful to include a caveat with my reservations should anyone wander over there.
ICXC
John
July 18th, 2008 at 7:09 am
I can witness to the censureship at Western Orthodox.
Several years ago, I did ask hard questions — but ones that I thought probably had plausible answers.
I didn’t get those plausible answers or any answers at all — just assertions that Met Phil approves WO so every detail of it as is is perfect. Also, I got banned — which made feel pretty cool
At the end of the day, if you are looking of a forum for reasonable discussion and inquiry about WO, look elsewhere. Unfortunately, I have yet to find any Western Orthodox willing and able to engage the hard questions at a serious level.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:52 am
This is the same crew who maligned so horribly Fr. Aidan Keller.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Death,
What were the questions that you asked of WO?
Photios
July 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I think that we are getting off topic here with Fr. Keller. However since the point has been brought up I will state that I too have some fairly serious issues with him. I do not presume to judge him. But there are elements in his background which give me serious pause. In fairness though the last I heard he was being reconciled with canonical Orthodoxy via the Church Abroad. I wish him well and will mention him in my prayers tonight.
ICXC
John
July 19th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“This is the same crew who maligned so horribly Fr. Aidan Keller”
There is no “crew” who maligned Fr Aidan Keller. Ben Johnson speaks and acts only for himself (despite the quasi-official aura his blog may have). He is not, nor has he ever been, a member of any parish of the Western Rite Vicariate. Ben Johnson, in fact, is currently the parish priest at an Eastern Rite Antiochian mission church in the midwest.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
He is with the ROCOR. I know him and he seems to be a first rate character. I confess my years of acquaintance with Fr. Aidan have not given rise to serious issues for me or moments of pause (serious or otherwise). I suppose I do not know the man as does John. Perhaps John could elaborate. I would be very appreciative and humbled given my significant annoyance at the hit job WO folks did to him.
Colman
July 20th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Colman,
I am not a fan of gossip (internet or otherwise). Please email me privately and I will be happy to explain my reservations. I may be reached at jec1ny@aol.com .
ICXC
John
July 20th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Photios,
I mainly asked for an explanation as to how Tridentine Anglo-Catholicism is compatible with Orthodoxy.
Indeed, the Antiochian Western Rite comprises either the Tridentine RC Missal with Fortesque’s ceremonial, or one of the Anglo-Catholic Missals with Ritual Notes ceremonial, which was expressly designed to ape the former. And, nobody at WO disputed the fact that their liturgics and spiritual ethos are completely Tridentine.
Rather, the “answer” I got was Trent is Orthodox because the AWRV is in communion with Met Phil. When I questioned the soundness of this “answer,” I got banned.
July 21st, 2008 at 7:27 am
Death,
Are Anglo-Catholic missals Tridentine?
Photios
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
This is my first visit to this blog. Haven’t got a handle on the problem.
Didn’t think Ben J. was a priest.
He is slow and doesn’t seem to respond to even simple non threatening questions I have submitted several times.
Death Bredon- the sidebar has all the documents explaining the hows, whys and wherefor of the Western rites established by the Patriarchs of Moscow and Antioch. ROCOR also has a Western Rite and their new Metropolitan Hilarion is a strong supporter.
I had limited communication with Aidan Keller in years past and appreciated his attempts at bringing the Western Rite to the front of Liturgical Use. His methods may not have been the best and his knowledge of WR history not as correct as he presented it. I had concerns also about what was going on with his community under the the Milan group. Suddenly it was WR no longer and he was gone.
I hope every one just relaxes, take a breath and play nice.
Oh yes, i occassionly attend a WR parish her in So. Calif. It uses the Tikhonian (Anglican) liturgy. I prefer the Latin-Gregorian Liturgy.
Most interesting.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Photios,
The Anglican Missals, especially used with Ritual-Notes ceremonial, were expressly and explicitly created to adopt, as much as possible, the Roman Tridentine/Counter-Reformation liturgical ethos and practices that were contemporary to the Missal’s publication.
What I say is non-controversial. Any history of the English Missals and the Advanced Ritualist Movement of 20th Century Church of England and American Episcopal Church will confirm this.
* * * * *
IMHO, the renewal of Old-Saurm by ROCOR’s WRITE represents the English Christian ethos before the theological ideas of Scholasticism began to be expressed liturgically. And, I have always thought the 1549 Book of Common Prayer (”New Sarum”) would make a decent Cathedral Rite for ROCOR’s Old Sarum, which is probably better suited for religious communites (monasticism and seminaries).
A good short read touching on this matter is Colin Morris’s chapter in the Oxford Illustrate History of Christianity. It is very illuminating regarding the radical change in ethos in the Western liturgy during the high middle ages and the underlying theological reasons therefore.
As see the entry on Christus Rex at
http://anglicancleric.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html
which makes a very important point historical point overlooked by many in Western Orthodoxy.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
At one point, Dcn Ben used his mono-blogging to insinuate Fr Aidan Keller had defrauded a customer of his Publications site.
http://bloggingthefraud.blogspot.com/2008/04/and-now-book-recommendation_13.html
I’ve been covering our Deacon Ben for a good few months now, and he has a few “objective” friends (not just in the AWRV, but in ROCOR) who are gung-ho about the Anglican liturgy but only admit it in private (a couple of names come to mind). *Those folks* will usually come out on the attack and pretend to be disinterested observers telling you you are “mistaken” for thinking outside the party line (there’s “diverse opinion” on that blog, “no place for sycophants”, et cetera, ad nauseam).
Rdr Joseph, an unashamed Old Calendarist and member of the Milan Synod who likes Fr Aidan’s works
August 8th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Ah the danger of the western rite discussion!
I concur, Rdr. Joseph, for the most part. My only real and substantial problems with Fr. Aidan’sworks was his methodology in translation. Such as how he translated the hymns (no rhyme, yikes!), and I would have like a much more ‘Elizabethan’ dialect of English used. The only other problem was how he did vespers. I didn’t think it was as accurate as it should have been. Though, I say that because I’m used to Vespers here at the Abbey. Everything else, when all is said and done, is really a quibble (like repitition of certain offertory verses in the OSR Missal).
James,
Excellent blog! I discovered it via Joseph’s site. It is in my top 10 list, along with Energetic Procession!
Death,
I was one of those who said (on Ely Forum) you should question the Tridentine Rite! That was before I actually looked at some old Sacramentaries, and other books! Theophylact (my alias) apologizes. I disagree, though, vigorously with the 49′ Prayerbook rite. Though, thanks for you excellent comments. Ask interesting questions even if people try to tell you, “It is because we say it is!” without further elaboration of points!
Brother Augustine, cloistered oblate, Abbey of the Holy Name, and also unashamed traditionalist Orthodox Christian (of the Old Calenderist Milan Synod variety).
August 8th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I mean, I said you shouldn’t question the Tridentine Rite.