Where is the Church?

[...]

I mean MTOC stands fast to orthodoxy and eastern rite typikon with extreme strictness whereas the Milan synod allows western rite, mixed marriages, not "very orthodox" ecclesiology, etc..

[Suaidan]

I mean MTOC stands fast to orthodoxy and eastern rite typikon with extreme strictness whereas the Milan synod allows western rite, mixed marriages, not "very orthodox" ecclesiology, etc..

"Et cetera"? This implies that there's a whole list of things "obviously wrong" with the Milan Synod. Let's examine what you are saying here.

1. Milan allows Western Rite. I am not sure what is "better" about strictly using an "Eastern rite typicon". Our parishes have both Orthodox Eastern and Western ritual usages depending on the parish, and I am not sure that it stands to reason that it's better to have one ritual usage. I know Uniates who strictly follow the "Eastern Rite typicon" as well.... as my wife points out, Orthodox Westerners have just the same right to exist as Orthodox Easterners. The fact that you don't know what one is... that's not really my problem. We want your brotherhood. But brotherhood isn't the reason for the Church. Salvation is.

2. Mixed Marriages? As for mixed marriages, I am not sure what to think about your accusation. I've never heard of a mixed marriage in our Church, except for where one party converted to Orthodoxy after the fact of the marriage, so I would need you to cite a personal example you are aware of, FIRSTHAND, not secondhand. I have only seen marriages where both people were members of the Orthodox Church... nor am I a great fan of what I have seen in the MTOC on marriage.

3. Ecclesiology. I'm also not sure what is not "very Orthodox" about our ecclesiology. We lack mounds of definitive statements, to be sure. But perhaps this helps. We are not in communion with world Orthodoxy, and our Bishops have not been since the 60's. We also have made no statements affirming their grace either. We condemn ecumenism and Sergianism.

As we are not the TOC of Greece, nor Russia, but an autonomous Church solely of Western dioceses, it is not our position to judge the state Church of Greece or Russia. That's the job of other TOC's. We have the "easy" task of reaching out to all the schismatics and heretics in the West and bringing them to Orthodoxy. I have better things to do than try to tell Methodios of Boston or whoever it is now that he is a heretic. Shoot, I'm not even Greek so it isn't my business. I have a whole group of people-- my own-- to get shot by telling them they are heretics.

So, as for your reasons: try again. I'm not convinced yet. And don't answer simply with accusations: Why is your Synod Orthodox as opposed to mine? Concrete, please. We are not neophytes in True Orthodoxy. And make sure to use stuff you're sure of... nothing was sadder than hearing there were statues in our Bishop's monastery, going there quietly, and finding it was more made up junk, and not verifiable truth-- coming from our "TOC brethren".

[...]

Is this Arch. John with the western rite vestments in this video? 'cause I've seen him with eastern rite too.

Also, in this VIDEO (found in your blogspot) I think I counted four (in)complete immersions in the Baptismal Font. Is there a reason for this or it happend accidentally? The Orthodox Church follows the tripple immersion tradition.

I'm a little bit confused but I think it's a good chance to explain and present your synod since DavidS' first question is "where is the church."

[Suaidan]

Is this Arch. John with the western rite vestments in this video? 'cause I've seen him with eastern rite too.

YES! It is! And we are proud of that. I've seen him use Western and Eastern vestments in the same Church on the same day. (He baptized a local Russian family's baby according to their tradition, and then, later, after they went home, we did vespers according to the tradition of the parish for 100 years- Western.

Also, in this VIDEO (found in your blogspot) I think I counted four (in)complete immersions in the Baptismal Font. Is there a reason for this or it happend accidentally? The Orthodox Church follows the tripple immersion tradition.

I'm a little bit confused but I think it's a good chance to explain and present your synod since DavidS' first question is "where is the church."

That was my kid btw.

I am a little dumbfounded you brought this up, but I appreciate it. In fact he had done three immersions, and the third (at the Holy Spirit) was incomplete, so he redid it. They were complete immersions, half the baby was already submerged.

No baptism in the history of the Church has four immersions.

Is THAT the verifiable truth you found? Stuff I not only would agree upon, but things that we ourselves put up? I mean, these aren't things I'd use to defend us; these are things I'd use to convince you to join us.

[nyc_xenia]

Is this Arch. John with the western rite vestments in this video? 'cause I've seen him with eastern rite too.

Also, in this VIDEO (found in your blogspot) I think I counted four (in)complete immersions in the Baptismal Font. Is there a reason for this or it happend accidentally? The Orthodox Church follows the tripple immersion tradition.

I'm a little bit confused but I think it's a good chance to explain and present your synod since DavidS' first question is "where is the church."

First of all, thanks for the "plug-ins".

Second, I'd like to ask you and anyone else who'd like to answer a question:

Do you believe that the grace of the Holy Spirit abides solely within your jurisdiction, if so, why?

[...]

That was my kid btw.
I am a little dumbfounded you brought this up, but I appreciate it.

Since you had uploaded it to you-tube I thought you had no problem.

I've seen him use Western and Eastern vestments in the same Church on the same day.

Ιn any case, Ι would be puzzled to be under the omophorion of a bishop who flips - flops between to totaly different rites. If he has no problem to use the byzantine rite why he persist in western? How sure is he that the western rite he uses is ORTHODOX (used prior to 1054)??? As I read in his website, he wishes to bring in the church the spirit of the christian church of the first centuries. I'm not very sure if he really achieves this...! Saint John Chrysostom lived around 400 B.C and so did St. Ambrosios of Mediolana. They were both in the spirit of the Christian church of the first centuries and their rites and liturgies didn't have big differences.

I can't see the profound reason to be closer to a more latin-catholic rite (which has no connection with the old western rite) and not to the already established byzanine. (this also goes to St. John Maximovits' consecration of Eugraph Kovalevsky)

In fact he had done three immersions, and the third (at the Holy Spirit) was incomplete, so he redid it. They were complete immersions, half the baby was already submerged.

Half the baby?

Is THAT the verifiable truth you found?

Of course not! Just my inquries. Besides I haven't expressed so far what is my oppinion of the Milan Synod!

[Suaidan]

Since you had uploaded it to you-tube I thought you had no problem.

I don't. I just meant I actually saw this baptism.

Ιn any case, Ι would be puzzled to be under the omophorion of a bishop who flips - flops between to totaly different rites.

He doesn't "flip-flop". He only uses the Western rite at the monastery. He uses the Eastern rite on pastoral visits to Eastern parishes.

If he has no problem to use the byzantine rite why he persist in western? How sure is he that the western rite he uses is ORTHODOX (used prior to 1054)??? As I read in his website, he wishes to bring in the church the spirit of the christian church of the first centuries. I'm not very sure if he really achieves this...!

Because the majority of the PEOPLE in this country are WESTERN. The liturgy he uses consistently at his monastery is a pre-schism Roman recension that took 17 years to translate in full from the old Latin texts. We have Eastern parishes, but this is because we live in a country which has a number of immigrants as well; and their Eastern Rite is as Orthodox as the Western one, and vice versa.

Saint John Chrysostom lived around 400 B.C and so did St. Ambrosios of Mediolana.

I must study my Western and Eastern fathers more carefully. I was unaware these Saints came into the world before our Lord.

They were both in the spirit of the Christian church of the first centuries and their rites and liturgies didn't have big differences.

Your choice of our Synod's patron is a perfect one. Here is why.

Take a look at any icon of St Ambrose. His vestments are Western, not Eastern. As for his liturgy, I would suggest you study it before assuming it didn't have "a big difference". St Ambrose, like St John, codified the local use of his area, and it is known as the Ambrosian liturgy, used on great feasts by our First-Hierarch.

Text of the Ambrosian liturgy in Latin:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturg ... iturgy.pdf

The English translation looks best:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturg ... anMass.pdf

I can't see the profound reason to be closer to a more latin-catholic rite (which has no connection with the old western rite) and not to the already establist byzanine. (this also goes to St. John Maximovits' consecration of Eugraph Kovalevsky)

You forgot another saint from around 400 "B.C" -- Pope St Gelasius. The Western Liturgy pre-schism looked like Archbishop John's as yours does St John Chrysostom.

Unlike the work of the French Church, our liturgies are not "reconstructions", and unlike the Antiochians, these are not "fixed" Roman Catholic and Anglican masses. They are only translations of pre-schism texts.

Half the baby?

Yes. Half the baby was in the water. Then the other half was submerged. Imagine a sitting baby like an "L" shape (not totally upright though), made to recline underwater three times.

Of course not! Just my inquries. Besides I haven't expressed so far what is my oppinion of the Milan Synod!

Could you, please?