Where is the Church?

[...]

Sorry for the B.C, A.C (A,B,C,D,E..)

Take a look at any icon of St Ambrose. His vestments are Western, not Eastern.

Here is an ancient depiction of St. Ambrose (maybe the most ancient of all). Dressed in simple white vestments just like all the bishops of the ancient Church. Of course you know that all these icons and statues of him with westernised vestments are contemporary art. (Not to mention the ancient father St. Patrick dressed as a latin bishop...)

Besides the Greek orthodox folk, having in mind St. Cosma's of Aitolia teachins, that pope of Rome is the enbodyment of antichrist, they cosnider his "tiara" or "triple crown" as the horns of devil ! ! ! They (and I) consider apalling the view of an orthodox bishop wearing such stuff.

Now it's up to you to deside what you like most (not more). Really what rite do you think fits best to orthodoxy? What type of music makes you fill closer to heaven and makes you wanna pray? Which types of clergymen provokes you feelings of respect and piousness? The shaved ones or those who reminds you biblical figures? Which types of temples provokes you feelings of great spirituality and hesychasm?

Could you, please?

In the bottom line the matters of art and rites , are not the main problems when it comes to characterise a church-synod if it is orthodox, but only small indications. A valid apostolic succession as we all know is the main field that someone has to examine in order get in communion with a Church. I will elaborate with this later!

[Suaidan]

Sorry for the B.C, A.C (A,B,C,D,E..)

Here is an ancient depiction of St. Ambrose (maybe the most ancient of all). Dressed in simple white vestments just like all the bishops of the ancient Church. Of course you know that all these icons and statues of him with westernised vestments are contemporary art. (Not to mention the ancient father St. Patrick dressed as a latin bishop...)

It's A.D. By the way, that stands for "Anno Domini". "The Year of the Lord" in Latin.

Thank you for finding such nice icons!

First, St Ambrose is not wearing a "simple white vestment" in that mosaic. He is clearly wearing an alb (which is like a white stikharion) and the chasuble (a phelonion which is not cut out in the front). Underneath he has a stole (similar to an epithralion). These are the basic vestments of Western Orthodox clergy. Ditto for St Maximianus.

As for St Patrick dressed as a Latin Bishop, we must assume the fact that he lived in Rome for a long time had something to do with it.

Besides the Greek orthodox folk, having in mind St. Cosma's of Aitolia teachins, that pope of Rome is the enbodyment of antichrist, they cosnider his "tiara" or "triple crown" as the horns of devil ! ! ! They (and I) consider apalling the view of an orthodox bishop wearing such stuff.

I would feel very appalled if my Archbishop or Metropolitan began wearing a triple-crown tiara of the sort you speak (which didn't come into existence until 1314).

Now it's up to you to deside what you like most (not more). Really what rite do you think fits best to orthodoxy?

The Orthodox one.

What type of music makes you fill closer to heaven and makes you wanna pray?

All genuinely spiritual music makes me "wanna pray". However, some of the utter howling I have occasionally heard in Greek Churches creeps me out. This is not to say I don't like Byzantine music. I love it when it is sung piously. I love all Church chant when it is prayed. I feel very connected to Western chant, especially Hispanic chant. I am sorry you expect my answer to simply be "Byzantine!" or "Russian opera-music" (I like that too by the way) It is not, and never has been.

Which types of clergymen provokes you feelings of respect and piousness? The shaved ones or those who reminds you biblical figures? Which types of temples provokes you feelings of great spirituality and hesychasm?

Preferably.... the dusty ones. Ones who engage in pious work and prayer. However, I should note our Bishops and our clergy usually have beards, and cassocks....

In the bottom line the matters of art and rites , are not the main problems when it comes to characterise a church-synod if it is orthodox, but only small indications. A valid apostolic succession as we all know is the main field that someone has to examine in order get in communion with a Church. I will elaborate with this later!

Well, then, get on to that. This discussion of rites is irritating the daylights out of me, since it seems to be very subjective on your part, ignores the Western Orthodox tradition for some strange version of it, of your own design. Any Orthodox Christian would recognize the Orthodoxy in a genuine Western Orthodox service, even if it was confusing at first. Yet you do not understand Western Orthodoxy. And you pontificate on it like you do.

I am simply in awe. Or is it that you believe that the Romans ALL spoke Greek until Charlemagne took over?

[Suaidan]

In the bottom line the matters of art and rites , are not the main problems when it comes to characterise a church-synod if it is orthodox, but only small indications. A valid apostolic succession as we all know is the main field that someone has to examine in order get in communion with a Church. I will elaborate with this later!

Let us expand further on this topic, since you ask (and we all ask) "where is the Church?"

You say a "valid apostolic succession as we all know is the main field that someone has to examine" to join the Church. St Irenaeus said three things, the rule of faith, the canon of scripture and the Apostolic succession. For who would doubt that the ecumenists have the last two, but not the first?

I think the understanding of many True Orthodox people on the apostolicity of other TOC-Synods is flawed. And what I mean by this is that there is an underlying assumption that all actions undertaken even by perfectly Orthodox Bishops are valid, and if they are not, then they are no longer Orthodox Bishops. I used to play that game well. That's what made this question pop up. It was a straight-up goad, right into our worst qualities, and we just fell right into it.

And we just flat out missed it.

What I have learned over as I grew up, however, is that Orthodox Bishops of Orthodox jurisdictions can have disputes with each other, and the flocks remain generally unaffected. In these cases God shows Himself to be more powerful than the Bishops in question by settling the question through the eventual death of one or another, et cetera. I've also learned that anathemas can be issued and retracted for no good reason within my own lifetime.

In the history of the Milan Synod, I see genuine Orthodox people who became part of the True Orthodox Church because it was where they ultimately belonged. The "indications" you have pointed out, Kallinikos, do not point to our lack of an apostolic succession, but to the contrary, the full awareness of our mission in the West, something which has been missing in True Orthodoxy in America for many years.

[DavidS]

Both the Milan synod and Matthewites are uncanonical.

[Suaidan]

Both the Milan synod and Matthewites are uncanonical.

Thanks for sharing.

[Constantine]

Both the Milan synod and Matthewites are uncanonical

please inlighten us DavidS, who is canonical?

[...]

Both the Milan synod and Matthewites are uncanonical.

Since you had "the answer"... in the first place, then why did you ask us where is the church???