Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

OrthodoxWiki talk:Administrators

30,706 bytes added, 05:15, February 6, 2013
Deleting and editing By PISTEVO- ORTHODOXY IN AUSTRALIA & AUSTRALASIA: new section
:Hmm... I agree that the content was worthwhile, and I also recognize why Fr. Andrew wants to keep it out of the "encyclopedia." It's not really the intention of OrthodoxSource, but we could move it over there... Or put it on another site. But, like he says... someone needs to moderate it. For my part, I'm not *too* opposed to its being on here. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
 
:I wholeheartedly agree with Kyralessa: I too was baffled to see that the directory pages were gone, and think that deleting them wasn't a very good idea. I personally have submitted ''numerous'' corrections to Orthodoxy in America using their interminable form (duplicate entries, misspellings, non-existent parishes, new parishes and missions, new websites and email addresses, etc.) which have never made it to the database; here, it was only a matter of going to the page and editing it. And for whatever it's worth the OW parish listings that I saw were, on the whole, more accurate than those in OIA (but of course, I did not see them all). I do understand the problem to which Fr Andrew refers above and appreciate how hard it would be to implement a solution, but it's really a shame that this very useful and easily editable resource had to go. If the pages are reinstated here or recreated elsewhere and help is needed to monitor them, I'll be more than glad to help in any way I can. --[[User:Voxstefani|Esteban]] 08:26, September 11, 2008 (UTC)
 
::The plus side of the directories was that they invited folks to join OrthodoxWiki just to fix the inaccurate listings that they had knowledge of. The negative side was that it was a enormous maintenance task to keep them standardized let alone accurate. (I myself liked them just for the links to the local parish websites.) But if we do bring them back, we may need to put a disclaimer, on each one of them, warning that they are only maintained by users and nothing is guaranteed. - [[User:Andrew|Andy]] 16:05, September 11, 2008 (UTC)
 
::If my voice counts, I'd like to speak in favor of returning USA parish directory pages to Orthodox Wiki. Like some other people here, I've been having problems with orthodoxyinamerica. Their claimed response time (three to four weeks) is simply unacceptable, but the worst thing is - some submissions don't even get processed. My parish has recently moved from one city to another, and I've just submitted a listing update to OIA, but I'm not too optimistic about them updating it soon. --[[User:Alexei Kojenov|Alexei Kojenov]] 18:17, October 11, 2008 (UTC)
 
:::Thanks everyone for your feedback. I totally agree that a good pan-Orthodox directory of Churches is needed... I think this might not be the place... but let me see about getting something up soon :-). — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
 
::Actually, have you seen the Parish Directory at [http://scoba.us scoba.us]? It's slightly out of date, and could contain more information, but it's decent and has nice maps. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
== Appeal of Fr. Andrew's Inequitable Treatment ==
::: Nope. Case closed, as per the policy. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 17:21, August 20, 2008 (UTC)
 
::::A warning to the other poster would have been an act of mercy; had Fr. Andrew followed through with his own threat, he would have banned that poster for starting another edit war.
::::The back-and-forth was not a playground thing but a case where I ''called in'' a moderator to forestall that poster’s edit war, confident I could prove my case with third-party documentation to a moderator’s satisfaction. And I did.
::::I disagree with the reasoning here: Orthodox don't believe in priestly infallibility; he acknowledged no rule had been violated; and rules by definition should apply equally. But I'll abide by your decision.
::::I'm not sure when Joseph Suaiden became an admin. This seems to indicate he's merely following me around the board.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 17:28, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
 
::::: 1. As I said in my comments, it was not any one of your remarks, but the preponderance of them together and the clear spirit which they convey, which I regarded as over the line. That I happen to be a priest has nothing to do with it, really. The panel of admins which volunteered to hear your appeal does, though.
 
::::: 2. I did not feel that Fr. Lev violated the disciplinary policy since it was put in place, but you did. (The warning was in response to posts by you ''after'' the policy was put in place. We won't retroactively enforce it.) In any event, whether he gets warned, banned, or whatever else. To put it bluntly: you're not an administrator, so you don't get to decide.
 
::::: 3. Joseph Suaiden is not an admin, but it doesn't surprise me that he's watching this particular page. (Of course, many editors simply watch [[Special:Recentchanges]].) It wouldn't surprise me that any editor does so. His comments on your receiving a warning are about as relevant as yours on Fr. Lev.
 
::::: 4. You clearly disagree with how things are run here. You have two options: either work with the administration or stop editing. The apparent (mind you, I don't know the state of your heart) hostility isn't going to get you much of anywhere. I suggest taking a wiki-break or perhaps working on some articles which don't stir up such controversy. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 19:34, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
 
::::::All the quotations from Fr. Lev I reproduce above, from the St. Tikhon Liturgy Talk page -- including those imputing a hidden agenda and assuming bad faith -- occurred '''after''' this policy was instituted ([http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=OrthodoxWiki:Disciplinary_policy&action=history May 29, if I'm reading correctly]). You can verify that [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Talk:Liturgy_of_St._Tikhon_of_Moscow&limit=250&action=history here]. Unless you feel the words I quote above do not violate this policy, and my milder words do, the implementation of this policy was not even-handed.
::::::Miscommunication often comes from divining a "clear spirit" rather than reading someone's words themselves. Anyway, my disagreement was on your particular handling of this situation, and I agreed to abide by the decision here. And I've already moved on. But I do not feel this was equitable implementation. If you were under the impression his words were before the policy was implemented, you were mistaken.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 20:24, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
== The problem moves to the Liturgy of St Gregory page ==
:Nope, Pistevo has ruled the OM/SASB issue is settled in favor of the SASB. Thus, this correct information was posted elsewhere in place of inaccurate information. If there's a problem, it's a refusal to abide by her ruling.
:I am most tired of these polemical attacks on everything I write. --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 17:03, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
 
:: Just for reference, [[User:Pistevo|Pistevo]] is male. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 19:37, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
 
:::What's the emoticon for "I'm so embarrassed"? Like I was I saying above, assumptions.... --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 20:26, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
 
::::If memory serves, :-$ - and for what it's worth, you're the second person on here to assume that...are people trying to tell me something? :P &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 02:03, August 23, 2008 (UTC)
 
:::::It's your gentle Christian manner. :-) A thousand pardons (asked with crimson face). --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 13:54, August 23, 2008 (UTC)
 
== Moderation needed on Liturgy of St Gregory page ==
 
Willibrord has again changed the Liturgy of St Gregory page, this time making the flase claim that the ''Orthodox Missa''l contains the "only" authorized text of the liturgy. The SASB, published a year '''after''' the ''Orthodox Missal'', was published by the Antiochian Archdiocese with a letter from Metropolitan PHILIP referring to it as "authorized" liturgies. The SASB is used by at least some AWRV parishes. To claim that the OM is the "only" authorized text betrays an interest in promoting something other than the facts. This matter is not settled. Neither Pistevo nor a subdeacon's thesis trumps the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese. IS Willibrod claiming that the SASB was not published by the Antiochian Archdioces? Is he claiming that the letter from Metropolitan PHILIP is a forgery, or that the Metropolitan doesn't have the authority to make such an authorization? Is he claiming that the AWRV parishes that use the SASB are using "unauthorized" liturgies in defiance of the Metropolitan? These are not matters of opinion; these are simple, straightforward, matters of fact. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 16:15, August 24, 2008 (UTC)
 
:As noted above, Pistevo (he of the male sex!) has settled the question of OM vs. SASB authorization on the [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Talk:Liturgy_of_St._Tikhon_of_Moscow&action=edit&section=1 Liturgy of St. Tikhon Talk page]. This is a straightforward matter of fact. --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 21:07, August 24, 2008 (UTC)
 
== Guess What Needs Moderating Again? ==
 
Yep, it's the [[Western Rite]] page. The "Old Sarum Rite Missal" PR squad seems intent on raiding the board. Take a look. --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 05:42, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
 
For once we agree. Since I am being falsely accused (what's new) of being part of this 'squad' when I am trying to just keep the article from becoming slanted, I want moderation there as well.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 06:04, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
 
For the record, I'd like to make clear that what Willibrord is doing is at least indirectly in violation of OW policy (Agendas), and I'd like to bring it to your attention.
 
If I kept a public blog where I repeatedly referred to someone's clerical title in quotes (say I didn't like Father Benjamin Johnson and so I wrote a bunch of articles referring to him as "Father" Benjamin Johnson), would I be an objective person to discuss concerning this individual on a Wiki? Probably not. By deleting any reference to the liturgical work of someone who's made a real impact on the acceptability of the Western Rite in Orthodoxy, the Wiki is being done a disservice. Since I've already gotten a warning on it, I may as well speak freely. Am I wrong in assuming that Fr Aidan should be off-limits for Willibrord?
 
I won't even discuss Willibrord's "contributions" on the Liturgy of St Tikhon, since others do anyway. --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 20:41, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
 
: What [[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] does on his own weblog is not OW's business, unless he chooses to import its contents or agenda here.
 
: In any event, I'm not sure what the Agenda is (perhaps you can tell us). Is it that all of Fr. Aidan's work is being systematically de-referenced on the wiki? From what I can tell, his publications are worthy of mention and have made a notable enough impact to warrant their inclusion as reference in WR-related material on OW. If that is indeed the Agenda, it needs to be cut out immediately.
 
: And could someone please explain to me why it is that the WR articles always seem to draw such contentiousness? &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 22:04, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
 
::Well, it is one of the few areas of conscious development in contemporary Orthodox liturgics... building from that, it may be easy to see a crossover from Eastern liturgics which (for various reasons, better or worse) have been set in stone and earmarked under 'unchangeable', when Western liturgics is, while liturgics, obviously not set in stone... both mere possibilities, of course - but, at the very least, a definite image problem. &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 14:12, February 17, 2009 (UTC)
 
I submit that is precisely the agenda, and that a review of edits as well as condescending statements (referring to the OSRM as "authorized for use in a room in his sister's house", for example, when Holyrood house, Christminster, St Petroc and their work--all places he for some reason *doesn't mind*-- are apartment chapels) can be submitted as proof. The pattern is obvious when you look at any mention of Father Aidan or the "Old Sarum rite missal".
 
Again, I agree with you on the putting up a private website-- normally. But searching for "Keller" on the blog establishes in this case -- the 'why' to the 'what' of the edits.
 
In my opinion WR stuff is so contentious because since we are supposed to be the small minority of the West people think they are supposed to put on airs. We're so few that we tend to get louder to be heard. That and Sarum is touchy for obvious political reasons, --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 18:05, February 17, 2009 (UTC)
 
:Sigh, I suppose I have to answer this....
 
:'''The allegation of personal spite, which Joseph levels, is rich coming from a man who ran a blog dedicated to attacking me by name.''' People alerted me Joseph addresses me "personally" on his blog's "why" page (mission statement), calls me a "cultist," and warns me to "prepare well. Because we have unfinished business." (If these quotations, which I'm told are located [http://westernritefraud.wordpress.com/about here], are inaccurate, please so state; I will ''gladly'' withdraw them.) Fr. Andrew, I agree that what people do elsewhere is irrelevant, unless they try to import it here. Yet in the last 24 hours we have seen the discussion being diverted away from the objective facts of the article at hand to an attack upon my character and imputing an agenda. (A [[User_talk:Chrisg|"warlike and unChristian"]] agenda, no less!) And a call for my censorship from a man who runs a blog dedicated to, finishing business, with me.
 
:'''As to the substance of the complaint''':
:I specifically refrained from removing the text's reference to the "Old Sarum Rite Missal," [[Talk:Western_Rite#Images_under_.22Congregations.22|stating]], "Since I was [[User_talk:Willibrord#Vandalism|falsely accused]] of 'vandalism' for editing this page, I could see the uproar if I removed it on my own." (More about that below.) The agenda has, in fact, been the reverse: to "source" certain materials as often as possible to make themselves appear more important than they are.
 
:The fact that Holyrood Monastery and St. Petroc's Monastery are small monasteries is immaterial; they are exclusively WR monasteries that celebrate a full cycle of Western Rite services, including WR hours and Mass/Liturgy. At St. Petroc, Sunday services are held at an associated church, not a home chapel. St. Petroc has a number of associated chapels, at least one sister mission (run by Fr. Barry Jeffries), and Fr. Michael celebrates WR liturgy on at least two continents each year. The "Old Sarum Rite Missal" is not being celebrated anywhere within Orthodoxy to my knowledge, not even the Eastern or Western Archdioceses of the Milan Synod. Met. HILARION reportedly allowed its author to pray his translation of Sarum (presumably the hours?) for his private, home prayers, not in public (where he serves a Byzantine church). I'm not sure that is relevant to Western Rite "Congregations"; frankly, bishops allow priests to pray all sorts of things privately. I am even less certain two large pictures (one mislabeled) of that missal, not being celebrated anywhere, are a more appropriate graphic for an article about the WR than a picture of Fr. Alexander Turner (which [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Western_Rite&curid=838&diff=80850&oldid=80847 chrisg deleted in favor of the OSRM]). What's being "sourced" and "de-sourced" there?
 
:The other contentious issue is that Joseph is claiming Hieromonk David (Pierce) of Holyrood Monastery celebrates a Milan Synod version of Sarum (but a different version of Sarum than the OSRM, or St. Petroc Monastery's Sarum -- clear as mud?). His assertion is just that -- an unsourced assertion. But the [http://theyorkforum.yuku.com/sreply/12977/t/Western-Rite-Orthodox-News.html ''source''] I provided, which is still linked in the article, quotes Fr. David writing to the contrary, he celebrates the Mt. Royal usage DL and the "Holyrood/St. Petroc" recension of Sarum. If Joseph has any evidence to the contrary, this would be the place to offer it, and the article would reflect that; but he has dismissed all evidence as [[Talk:Western_Rite#Images_under_.22Congregations.22_2|"anecdotal."]] He then suggested we remove reference to Fr. David/Holyrood Monastery altogether. Here is logic I cannot endorse: removing reference to a functioning WR monastery (that houses two hieromonks) but retaining reference to the private prayers of a Byzantine priest, in the name of improving the section on WR "Congregations."
 
:The thrust of the last two days' edits have been to introduce material that sure seems off-topic, give it a place of prominence not in keeping with reality (e.g., its not being celebrated publicly, or at all), and to contradict sourced statements with unsourced statements, which happen to exalt the Milan Synod, of which Mr. Suaiden is a member (or a Reader).
 
:I hope this closes the hate-Ben-Johnson portion of the week, and the moderators -- having heard the evidence -- will green light sourced statements over unsourced ones. Then I can write about something I enjoy (the WR) not something I do not enjoy writing about (me). And maybe OW can return to its purpose of presenting well-written, factually correct articles, not assaulting its authors.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 21:06, February 17, 2009 (UTC)
 
::Alright, some things that I can see that are able to be resolved.
::If it's not feasibly able to be attended by members of the public (i.e. if it's not advertised), it's not a church, it's private prayer.
::That doesn't stop that usage from being an approved usage.
::Blogs - and, whatever else you do on your own time - are neither here nor there. We're all about the articles. While a side tangent into why a person thinks the way they do is often amusing, it invariably snaps either into bowdlerism or ad hominem.
::If there's a source, the line stays, particularly in an article so desperately requiring sources. That seems a fairly useful rule. Really, as far as hedging goes, counter-sources merely introduce a 'so-and-so claims that (text) (source)'. &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 22:34, February 17, 2009 (UTC)
 
== Responding to this attempt at self-defense ==
 
Fr Benjamin asserts--
 
''"'''The allegation of personal spite, which Joseph levels, is rich coming from a man who ran a blog dedicated to attacking me by name.''' People alerted me Joseph addresses me "personally" on his blog's "why" page (mission statement), calls me a "cultist," and warns me to "prepare well. Because we have unfinished business." (If these quotations, which I'm told are located [http://westernritefraud.wordpress.com/about here], are inaccurate, please so state; I will ''gladly'' withdraw them.) Fr. Andrew, I agree that what people do elsewhere is irrelevant, unless they try to import it here. Yet in the last 24 hours we have seen the discussion being diverted away from the objective facts of the article at hand to an attack upon my character and imputing an agenda. (A [[User_talk:Chrisg|"warlike and unChristian"]] agenda, no less!) And a call for my censorship from a man who runs a blog dedicated to, finishing business, with me."''
 
'''This is mainly non-sequitur'''. We could probably go on all day about our last year or so, but it is largely immaterial. (I shall explain why shortly.) The origin of my site was a direct response to a letter that was sent from Fr Benjamin attacking the mental stability of myself (and my wife, who had nothing to do with him) as well as a number of broad claims. Over time, and getting to know others in the vicariate I felt that calling the whole vicariate a fraud just because of YOUR predilection towards Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism was in fact NOT as common in the AWRV as I had initially thought. Thus, I had taken down the original attacking blog (located at bloggingthefraud.blogspot.com) and created a friendlier site at (westernorthodoxchristian.blogspot.com). I didn't even realize those sites were still up, and so thank you for noticing. I've deleted them.
 
I realized that the desire for Western Orthodox ''tradition'' was cross-jurisdictional, as was residual "Popery and Protestantism" (to call to mind Dr Overbeck).
 
Further, I don't know ChrisG at all.
 
'''That said, however, my direct response to you after you attacked my family in the hope of finding "Western Rite Critic"''' ''pales in comparison to your years-long obsession with Fr Aidan'', going so far as to keep him (albeit temporarily in retrospect) from being taken in by the ROCOR--in 2004. My issues on my websites were a few months old, and I realized my wrong. By contrast you are still very much interested in destroying Father Aidan's work.
 
Further, I was invited to OrthodoxWiki to help on Old Calendarists, and I freely contribute in a number of places. I am curious as to what your contribution/deletion ratio is. Many of your contributions are edit-wars.
 
He then states--
 
'':"The other contentious issue is that Joseph is claiming Hieromonk David (Pierce) of Holyrood Monastery celebrates a Milan Synod version of Sarum (but a different version of Sarum than the OSRM, or St. Petroc Monastery's Sarum -- clear as mud?). His assertion is just that -- an unsourced assertion. But the [http://theyorkforum.yuku.com/sreply/12977/t/Western-Rite-Orthodox-News.html ''source''] I provided, which is still linked in the article, quotes Fr. David writing to the contrary, he celebrates the Mt. Royal usage DL and the "Holyrood/St. Petroc" recension of Sarum. If Joseph has any evidence to the contrary, this would be the place to offer it, and the article would reflect that; but he has dismissed all evidence as [[Talk:Western_Rite#Images_under_.22Congregations.22_2|"anecdotal."]] He then suggested we remove reference to Fr. David/Holyrood Monastery altogether. Here is logic I cannot endorse: removing reference to a functioning WR monastery (that houses two hieromonks) but retaining reference to the private prayers of a Byzantine priest, in the name of improving the section on WR "Congregations."''
 
'''It's not unclear at all.''' Fr Cuthbert-cum-David was and is using the texts of the Medieval Monastic Psalter. Strangely, he has suddenly become interested publicly in the Overbeck recension... so the text of his ordinary may change. Perhaps he lacks one; as the MMP contains much of the Ordinary to begin with. I didn't suggest removing Holyrood at all, but references as to a use of which we are yet uncertain (and based on dialogue on the [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Occidentalis/message/14419 Occidentalis list], it may be "under development"). And Holyrood doesn't "house two hieromonks" I am aware of. You may now claim Fr Augustine (Whitfield) as ROCOR, but he lives in an aged home, not with Fr Cuthbert (or David).
 
Note-- Don't try to cover up an agenda by claiming I have one.
 
P.S. I've already commented on you and Ari Adams working with each other to push a common agenda on this Wiki. What do the other posters have in common with each other, and why are you fighting them too? FrLev, don't know him. But a war you had. Same with ChrisG. Am I responsible for those too? --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 00:12, February 18, 2009 (UTC)
 
Further, Fr Benjamin here makes a totally false claims:
 
'':The fact that Holyrood Monastery and St. Petroc's Monastery are small monasteries is immaterial; they are exclusively WR monasteries that celebrate a full cycle of Western Rite services, including WR hours and Mass/Liturgy. At St. Petroc, Sunday services are held at an associated church, not a home chapel. St. Petroc has a number of associated chapels, at least one sister mission (run by Fr. Barry Jeffries), and Fr. Michael celebrates WR liturgy on at least two continents each year. The "Old Sarum Rite Missal" is not being celebrated anywhere within Orthodoxy to my knowledge, not even the Eastern or Western Archdioceses of the Milan Synod. Met. HILARION reportedly allowed its author to pray his translation of Sarum (presumably the hours?) for his private, home prayers, not in public (where he serves a Byzantine church). I'm not sure that is relevant to Western Rite "Congregations"; frankly, bishops allow priests to pray all sorts of things privately. I am even less certain two large pictures (one mislabeled) of that missal, not being celebrated anywhere, are a more appropriate graphic for an article about the WR than a picture of Fr. Alexander Turner (which [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Western_Rite&curid=838&diff=80850&oldid=80847 chrisg deleted in favor of the OSRM]). What's being "sourced" and "de-sourced" there?''
 
1. Holyrood is not a monastery proper: it's a hermitage. Further, it is not listed on the ROCOR official directory. http://directory.stinnocentpress.com/wujood.cgi
 
2. The fact that Fr Michael travels about and liturgizes means nothing.
 
3. According to Fr Aidan's [http://sarisburium.blogspot.com/2008/10/good-news-for-sarum-use-of-roman-rite.html press release] (which I assume was blessed by his Metropolitan) I assume he has the same liturgical rights as Fr Michael. Further, it states very clearly what Fr Aidan can do.
 
4. Fr Michael does in fact utilize a house chapel. It's [http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/images/aa-StPetrocChapel.jpg right here.] It appears to be a walk-in closet.
 
5. You seem to misunderstand the value of the OSRM to the wiki. It has historical value as a translation of a text most closely that of a pre-schism Western usage in English. It's not because of its use. It's because of its uniqueness in modern Orthodox history; and this is why it repeatedly sells for five times over its price on ebay, even though many texts in [http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Liturgics.html Fr Aidan's work are available online free].
 
6. Finally, I have nothing against having a picture of Fr Alexander Turner. I think it should replace the fon-du-lac circus. --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 01:15, February 18, 2009 (UTC)
 
:First, Joseph, I can't see a single change to the article advocated in this enormous response. Probably related to (or caused by):
:Second, and this goes for both Willibrord and Joseph, this is for talking to ADMINISTRATORS, not each other. Talking to each other is what User_talk: pages are for - if you really need an (unauthorised) outlet, go for those pages.
Third (both again), do not ascribe motive or personally attack others. Again, User_talk: pages, blogs or gossip columns, '''not''' OW.
Fourth, Joseph, the only exception that I can see to the first point is possibly the OSRM, which is for a new article.
Fifth (both), since you BOTH appealed for arbitration, a ruling has been given. If you don't like it, appeal. &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 02:42, February 18, 2009 (UTC)
 
 
:: '''Note:''' Both of the interlocutor complainants have now been issued warnings (2nd in both cases). I do hope that this matter can be settled down before someone gets banned. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 12:34, February 18, 2009 (UTC)
 
== Template:Saints20 needs cleanup ==
 
[[Template:Saints20]] is in dire need of cleanup. There's a lot of information there, and it's not laid out well. The headings are inconsistent, but I can go ahead and fix that now. Some of the information ''looks'' incorrect (See the "Nineties" section, first listing), but I'm only a recent convert, and not very knowledgeable about such things... [[User:Paharwell|Phil Harwell (paharwell)]] 07:58, December 11, 2012 (HST)
 
: I have cleaned up the headings, having to move around some content as a result. [[User:Paharwell|Phil Harwell (paharwell)]] 08:58, December 11, 2012 (HST)
 
== Deleting and editing By PISTEVO- ORTHODOXY IN AUSTRALIA & AUSTRALASIA ==
 
An official warning by Pistevo for stating facts is not warranted. I am an orthodox Priest and it seems that PISTEVO has personal agendas in promoting 'official churches' and disregarding other orthodox churches who follow the Julian Calender and have an official synod recognised by the government. As you will see in the following link http://orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodoxy_in_Australasia one can see clearly who is official or not. From the moment that the Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Australia & Oceania is under the title of irregular status- and its description states they are under the omorphorion of Arb Serafeim- why has Pistevo purposley taken away the (OC) AND PUT SERAPHEIMITE?? tHIS HOLY SYNOD IN gREECE FOLLOWS THE old calender. From the moment that the descrption says they are under Serapheim- the OC should not be taken away. Why not put CYPRIANISM next to the Synod in Resistance, which you find straight after. All my contribution have constantly been attacked by PISTEVO as he is only wanting to promote the official Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia. These pages are not here to promote but are they not here to state facts as an encyclopedia?? Before deleting the pages Greek Orthodox Churches in NSW http://orthodoxwiki.org/Greek_Orthodox_Churches_in_New_South_Wales, parishes of the Metropolis were also listed with clear clarification that they were not part of the Archdiocese of Australia but under the omorforion of the OC church of Greece (Serapheim). Why once again did Pistevo immediatley TOTALLY DELETE IT? Again this is supposed to be an enyclopedia-and these churches (regardless if they are in communion with 'official churches or not ARE STILL ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN THAT AREA. I cannot see what the problem was if they stated thaey are part of an old calender synod independent from the official church. It seems there are clearly other motives behind the constant harrasment by Pistevo, and this is unjust and not right.
121
edits

Navigation menu