You have asked for me not not to continue the discussion in the public group. That is fine, it makes sense that the details of the discussion not be made public, but instead, perhaps later, our reconciliation can. If I have been in error, I will be happy to make my apology as public as I made my first, shocked appeal to have your site removed from the list of links on Orthodox Portland.
However, as you have accused all those who see the slander in the articles, as being "uncomfortable with Legitimate criticism", it only seems proper that I do not let the issue simply drop without any sort of challenge, thereby participating in the sin against the unity that Christ Himself prayed that we would exhibit. The truth is, I have no problem with "legitimate criticism", and I doubt that Athanasius, or most others who see the slander in the articles on your site, do either. What your articles display, however, is less "legitimate criticism", and more akin to petty griping and... yes, slander.
I must first of all mention that I agree with many of the concerns shared by our so-called "traditionalist" brethren, especially when it comes to the "new" calendar itself, to participating in the WCC and other ecumenical activities, and a few other issues. Where I (strongly) disagree with them, is in their assumptions that schism and attacking the Bishops on fallacious or questionable grounds is an appropriate reaction. If a problem can be identified to be on the same level as Iconoclasm, Arianism, Originism, etc. (i.e. something that denies the central Trinitarian and Incarnational nature of our Holy and Orthodox faith), then I will be among the first in line of those separating myself from the heretics... But in the meantime, I have faith in, and fully trust, the promise of our Savior and King Jesus Christ, when He said, "... on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Any problem within the Church will be ironed out, and we have God's own promise on that fact.
I also sympathize with our "traditionalist" brethren when they are attacked by authors (and by extension, the editors) of the Word magazine. The name calling is childish and unChristian. If I come across articles such as these, I will make my objections known to the magazine as well. But, even though I am attending an Antiochian Parish, I have never had a subscription to the magazine myself.
Progressing to the issue in question, I will bring up only one example, and hope that this example will show the illegitimacy of the criticism, and the very mindset of those who are wrongly and viciously attacking those whom God has appointed over us, as our Bishops; the shepherds of our souls. If this does not serve to illumine you to the darkness within the articles in question, then I will no longer bother you about this, nor will I judge you, but let you go your own way, to serve your own master (cf. Romans 14:4).
In the article, "Antiochian Innovation", the author criticizes the Antiochian Diocese for their decision to, "abolish fasting during the post-Paschal period from Bright Week to Ascension", calling this an "innovation", "contrary to Holy Tradition".
We should probably begin with a mutual understanding of what Holy Tradition is, because this accusation makes me wonder if the author of that article really understands what he is really saying. Holy Tradition is that which has been handed down by Christ Himself to the Apostles, through the Bishops, and so on, the essence of which is unchangeable. Holy Tradition does not change, ending up being something unrecognizable to the Apostles. The canons of the Orthodox Church to not create Holy Tradition, but instead clarify the Holy Tradition when that Holy Tradition has been challenged. Yes, this is a major simplification, but it is accurate and complete enough for the discussion at hand.
Regarding this simple understanding of Holy Tradition, the first point I would like to make is that in Holy Scripture, Christ Himself told the Pharisees "Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast" (Matthew 9:15 cf Mark 2:19-20, Luke 5:34-35). What season is it then, when the Church celebrates when the Bridegroom is taken away? It is certainly not Good Friday, the day of His Death, as death truly has no power over our Lord, as is evidenced by His Resurrection and our Pascha. Could it be the Ascension, maybe? This, quite simply shows that not fasting until the Ascension is hardly something that would be wholly foreign to the Apostles.
Admittedly though, this by itself is no reason to change a long and venerable tradition of returning to the Wednesday and Friday fasting after Bright Week. It should be enough, however, to give pause to those who would call such a a change "an innovation contrary to Holy Tradition", and cause them to approach the issue with a bit more charity. Especially, when the fact is that this was really no "innovation" at all, but actually a return to a more ancient practice, which as we see above, reflects the joy inherent in the fact of the Bridegroom's earthly presence before the Great Feast of the Ascension. It should not surprise anyone then that a Church chose to revert to this earlier pious and Traditional practice.
Finally, because this issue did at one time concern me as well, I began by asking a lot of questions, and ended up doing some research on my own. I am familiar with the canons regarding fasting, and to the very best of my fallible memory, I cannot recall any ecumenical canons, or any other declarations, anywhere, that dictate that the Wednesday and Friday fast is required specifically during the 40 days following Great and Holy Pascha, before the Ascension. In no way does the decision by Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Antioch, the lifting the post-Paschal fasting until the Ascension (a logical and traditional time), challenge any "Holy Tradition". Instead, what we have are people who are apparently overly obsessed with their own (t)raditions, and holding those up to replace the true Holy Tradition. In doing so, they appear to me, to come dangerously close to repeating the errors of the Pharisees traditions of men" (cf Mark 7:8), and slandering those whom God has appointed over us as faithful shepherds, and they are, at the very least, sowing strife and divisions, behaving like mere men (cf 1 Corinthians 3:3).
"Legitimate criticism", on the other hand, looks for answers, it does not make sweeping generalizations and unsubstantiated claims of practices being "contrary to Holy Tradition", especially without definite proof that their accusations truly reflect the Holy Tradition, and not a (t)radition that has grown as a pious custom, however widely that custom has been spread.
I want to make sure that you know that I greatly appreciate the vast majority of your site, Orthodox Info. It was among the first sources of information that I was ever directed to, at the very beginning of my inquiry, and I see Orthodox Info as one of the major influences in bringing me into the embrace of Holy Orthodoxy. So please, do not interpret my poor choices of words and awkwardness to indicate dislike of you or your work. It is my true hope that we can work through this, so that we all, and all of our respective websites can embrace one another and exhibit true unity... Not hiding our real and genuine concerns, but also not promoting divisions and distrust.
And finally, I have tried to be as charitable as possible in my email, but I know that I am a great sinner, and am prone to pride and arrogance. I can only beg your forgiveness for when and where I have offended you unnecessarily.
