Western Rite versus Eastern Rite Schism.

finger-pointing-left16.gif

WESTERN RITE versus EASTERN RITE schism:

quote from a FaceBook Group blurb:
""Western Rite(s)" as we know it nowadays, unfortunately incorporates post-schisms innovations, such as organs, pews, post-schism vestments, architectural innovations, 3D imagery etc. A "Western Rite" whose roots do not run deep into the pre-Schism Church cannot share the same Christian Faith with an Eastern Rite whose roots run even to the beginning of our Church, to its establishment by Our Lord Christ Himself. "
and: quote:
"We don’t support the presence of pews, artificial instruments, neo-pagan imagery or any post- Schism innovation in our liturgies and temples. We believe that for any parish to be incorporated into the Life of the Church, it must belong and be consciously joined to the continuity of Orthodoxy since Apostolic Times. "

In such groups pictures are posted of the design of churches, where the bishop has his own throne (unbiblical, and staggeringly vain and pompous) and the church is designed to specifically have icons (a renaming of idols) and worst of all a special room to keep the elements of the eucharist as if it is a new testament version of the old testament "holy of holies" which is to design the church building around the blasphemy of the mass, and the hocus pocus pseudo-biblical rites of Eastern Orthodoxy.
This shows their churches are rife with division, yet again, over issues of "incomplete catechesis". Calling these places temples shows the link to the practice of early heretics and sects who historians and archeologists say converted pagan churches into use as churches.