The Sunday of Orthodoxy and the Moscow Patriarchate

[尼古拉前执事]

THE SUNDAY OF ORTHODOXY AND THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE
by Vladimir Moss

The approach of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, always an important event in the Church"s calendar, is rendered all the more important this year by the planned union of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia under Metropolitan Lavr (ROCOR) with her supposed "mother" inside Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (MP), which lies under many anathemas of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not coincidentally, perhaps, we have recently witnessed a sustained attack on the nature of the anathematisms pronounced on this Sunday on the part of certain supporters of this union. For clearly the supporters of union wish to lull the members of the ROCOR into a false sense of security,into a feeling that the fearsome anathematisms pronounced on this Sunday will not apply to them if they are joined to the MP "“ a feeling which, as I shall now try to show with the help of God, is, tragically, completely unfounded.

The supporters of union characteristically employ one or all of the followingtactics in various combinations, some of which are mutually inconsistent with each other: (1) a redefinition of the meaning and use of the word "anathema" insuch a way as to limit, or radically distort, its significance; (2) a caviling with individual anathematisms so as to prove their invalidity, incompetence, narrowness of jurisdiction or lack of application, their lack of universality in space or time; and (3) a reinterpretation of the current state and status of the MP in such a way as to prove that it does not fall under any of the anathemas in question, even if they were valid. I shall approach each of these tactics in turn.

1. The Meaning and Use of the Word "Anathema".

A common tactic used is to declare that anathemas do not constitute expulsion from the Church in the full sense, but rather warnings about false doctrine.

The falseness of this argument was shown by St. John Maximovich, who, after explaining the use of the words "anathema" in the New Testament, wrote: "In the acts of the Councils and the further course of the New Testament Church, the word "anathema" came to mean complete separation from the Church. "The Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes", "let him be anathema", "let it be anathema", means a complete tearing away from the Church. While in cases of" separation from the communion of the Church" and other epitimia or penances laid on a person, the person remained a member of the Church, even though his participation in her grace-filled life was limited, those given over to anathema were thus completely torn away from her until their repentance. Realizing that she is unable to do anything for their salvation, in view of their stubbornness and hardness of heart, the earthly Church lifts them up to the judgement of God. That judgement is merciful unto repentant sinners, but fearsome for the stubborn enemies of God. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God"? for our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 10.31;12.29)."[1]

Sometimes it is added that only God can expel from the Church, which is clearly false, in that Christ God specifically entrusted His True Church with the power to bind and to loose (Matt. 18.18; John 20.23) "“ that is, to retain people as members of the Church or to expel them from Her (provided, of course, that She exercises this power with justice and discernment). Other variations on this tactic include the theory that anathemas anathematize, not individual men or churches, but teachings of men and churches, which again is clearly false, in that the Apostle Paul"s anathemas (I Cor. 16.22; Gal. 1.8,9) are directed against people, as are many of the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils. Again it is asserted that anathemas anathematize nobody if specific names are not mentioned, which would imply that the Apostle Paul"s anathemas, as well as

many of those of the Ecumenical Councils and those more recent anathemas pronounced on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, are all just a pompous form of game-playing and not to be taken seriously.

No, the matter is extremely serious. And no amount of Jesuitical circumvention of the plain meaning of the word "anathema", and of the obvious significance of the formula: "To all those who teach"?. Anathema", can deny that in all true anathemas, whether with names or without them, somebody is anathematized, that is, cut off from the Church. For the word of anathema is no less than "the word of God, quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit"?" (Heb. 6.12).

1. Cavilling with the Scope of Individual Anthematisms.

If it is accepted that a given anathema does apply to people, and not only to teachings, and that it does in fact separate people from the Church, and

not simply warn them about a possible falling-away, the next tactic usually employed is to attempt to limit the scope of the anathema. This can be done either by mocking the small number of bishops involved, or by asserting that as ynod of bishops, however large, can only anathematize those within its jurisdiction. One variant of this ploy is to assert that one Local Church cannot

anathematize another.

Those who assert this are usually thinking of the ROCOR"s anathema against ecumenism and the ecumenists in 1983, which supporters of union with the MP like to think applies only to members of the ROCOR, contrary to its obviously universal scope and wording. Of course, many anathemas are formulated in the first place against heretics living within the jurisdiction of the bishops who pronounce them. But that in no way limits the application of such anathemas to those heretics, and those alone; and still less does it mean that there is a "heresy of universal jurisdiction", as one supporter of the MP has put it.

Concerning this so-called "heresy of universal jurisdiction, I wrote two years ago: "An anathema excludes the person anathematised from the holy mysteries, from membership of the Holy Church. In the first place, of course, that applies to the local Church of which that person is a member. It applies to other Churches only to the extent that the leaders of those other Churches agree

with the original anathema and sign up to it, as it were.Thus the heretic Arius was originally anathematized by the Bishop of Alexandria, which meant that

he was excluded from receiving the sacraments throughout the Church of Alexandria. However, not all the bishops of neighbouring Churches agreed with this anathema, so Arius was able to receive communion in other Local Churches. To this extent the anathema was only of local significance. It required the convening of the First Ecumenical Council before Arius was anathematized universally - and even then, the anathema was not universally received, as the history of the Church in the next fifty years demonstrates.

"It is a different matter when we consider an anathema sub specie aeternitatis, in its mystical, super-terrestrial significance. From that point of view, the anathematization of a heretic begins in the heavens. Thus even before Arius had been "locally" anathematized by St. Alexander of Alexandria, the Lord appeared to his predecessor, St. Peter, with a torn cloak, and in answer to St. Peter's question: "O Creator, who has torn Thy tunic?", replied: "The mindless Arius; he has separated from Me people whom I had obtained with My Blood". [2] So not only Arius, but all those who followed him, had been separated from the Church by the anathema of Her First Bishop, the Lord Jesus Christ, years (or rather, aeons) before even the first "local" anathema had beenuttered. All heresies and heretics are anathematized "from all eternity" by the eternal Lord, for just as every truth is approved by the Truth Himself from all eternity, so is every lie condemned by Him from all eternity, being condemned with the father of lies to the gehenna of fire (Rev. 22.15).

"The task of hierarchs on earth is to discern the decisions of the heavenly Church, and then apply these eternal and heavenly decisions on earth, in space and time. As St. Bede the Venerable (+735) writes: "The keys of the Kingdom designate the actual knowledge and power of discerning who are worthy to be received into the Kingdom, and who should be excluded from it as being unworthy".[3] From this point of view, it matters not a jot whether a heretic is anathematized locally or universally, since he has already been anathematized by

the heavenly Church. Or rather, it matters in this sense: that if the heretic has been anathematized locally, but this anathema is not accepted bythe rest of the Church, then the rest of the Church is under the grave danger of falling under this same anathema. For the local anathema, if it is just, is the reflection of a heavenly anathema; and the anathema of the heavenly Church is universal"?.

"This explains why, when local Churches anathematized a heresy, they never qualified the anathema "? by saying: 'but of course, this applies only to the heretics in our local Church'. On the contrary: history shows that local Churches freely anathematized heretics, not only in their own Churches, but also in others. Thus Nestorius, a heretic of the Church of Constantinople, was first condemned by a local Synod of the Church of Rome under St. Celestine; the Monothelite heretics were first condemned by a local Synod, again, of the Church of Rome; and the Papist heretics were first condemned by a local Synod of the Church of Constantinople.

"Consider what St. Maximus said of the Monothelites: 'In addition to having excommunicated themselves from the Church, they have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the local council which took place recently in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them?'

"Note that the saint says that the heretics have excommunicated themselves; for as the Apostle Paul writes, 'he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself' (Tit. 3.11). But the heretics' self-condemnation and self-exclusion from the Church as a mystical organism [here I borrow a distinction between the Church as a mystical organism and the Church as an external organization from the Catacomb Hieromartyr Bishop Mark of Sergiev Posad

(+1938)] must be followed by their exclusion from the Church as an external organization, lest others be infected with their heresy. Hence the need for councils of bishops to anathematize them, following the rule: 'A heretic after the first and second admonition reject' (Tit. 3.10), and: 'If he refuses to listen to the Church, let him be unto you as a heathen and a publican' (Matt. 18.17). And clearly St. Maximus considered that the anathema of the local Church of Rome had validity throughout the Ecumenical Church.

"Administrative matters and moral falls are the business of local Churches and councils. However, heresies of their very nature are of universal significance, having the potential to infect the whole Church. That is why the appearance of a heresy in one local Church is not the business only of that local Church, but of all the local Churches - and every local Church can and must anathematize it.

"Even the anathema of single bishopric or metropolitanate has universal power and validity if it is uttered in the Holy Spirit, in accordance with the eternal Truth. Thus in 1069 the bishops of the metropolitanate of York, in the north of England, solemnly anathematized both the Pope of Rome and his stooge, William the conqueror, the first papist king of England. All the evidence is that they did not know that the Church of Constantinople had already anathematized Rome in 1054. So they were not simply confirming the word of a higher authority. They did not need a higher authority. They were successors of the apostles, with the power to bind and to loose. And they used that power, not for personal gain (on the contrary: they paid for their boldness with their lives), even against the most senior bishop in Christendom"?

"In the same way, in 1983 the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, using the power to bind and to loose given them by the Bishop of bishops, the Lord Jesus Christ, translated onto earth, into space and time, the completely binding and universally applicable decision already arrived at from all eternity by the Council of the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Ecumenism is, was and always will be a heresy, indeed 'the heresy of heresies'; and the ecumenist heretics are, were and always will be outside the Church, the mystical Body of Christ. The decision of the ROCA Sobor in 1983, confirmed with no change to its universal wording in 1998, expelled these already self-condemned and Divinely condemned heretics also from the external organization of the Church - and woe to any man, of whatever Church, who despises that decision, for he will then surely fall under the same anathema"?" [4]

Parallel to the theory that anathemas are not universal in space is the theory that they are not universal in time either, that they have a "sell-by date", after which they need to be "reapplied" by "living" Synods of bishops.

In answer to this we reply in the words of the Lord: "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matt. 22.32), and his true bishops, together with the words of truth and power that they pronounce, live for ever. In any case, are not the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils "reapplied" by "living Synods of bishops" every year on the Sunday of Orthodoxy? And not because these anathemas have somehow "died out" in the course of the previous year (what a blasphemous thought!), but precisely so that the people should not forget their eternal significance and should, by pronouncing them themselves, take care that they should not "fall under their own anathema" by participating in heresy and the communion of heretics.

[1] St. John Maximovich, "The Word "Anathema" and its Meaning", Orthodox Life, vol.27, March-April, 1977, pp. 18-19.

[2] St. Dmitri of Rostov, Lives of the Saints, November 25.

[3] St. Bede, Sermonon the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, P.L. 94, col. 219.

[4] V. Moss, "Re: [paradosis] The Heresy of Universal Jurisdiction", October 12, 2000.

[尼古拉前执事]

1. The MP and the Anathemas.

Let us now turn to some specific anathemas as they apply to the MP:-

a. The anathemas against Sergianism. Metropolitan Philaret of New York (+1985) wrote of the MP: "This false church has been twice anathematised. His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Council anathematised the communists and all their co-workers. This terrible anathema has not been lifted to this day and preserves its power, since it can be lifted only by an All-Russian Church Council, as being the canonically higher Church authority. And a terrible thing happened in 1927, when the leader of the Church, Metropolitan Sergius, by his shameful apostate declaration submitted the Russian Church to the Bolsheviks and declared that he was cooperating with them. In the most exact sense the expression of the prayer before confession was fulfilled: "fallen under his own anathema"! For in 1918 the Church anathematised all the co-workers of communism, and in 1927 she herself entered into the company of these co-workers and began to praise the red God-fighting authorities "“ to praise the red beast of which the Apocalypse speaks. And this is not all. When Metropolitan Sergius published his criminal declaration, the faithful children of the Church immediately separated from the Soviet church, and the Catacomb Church was

created. And she in her turn anathematised the official church for her betrayal of Christ"? We receive clergymen from Moscow not as ones possessing grace, but as ones receiving it by the very act of union. But to recognize the church of the evil-doers as the bearer and repository of grace "“ that we, of course, cannot do. For outside of Orthodoxy there is no grace; and the Soviet church has deprived itself of grace."[1]

Of course, many will say that all this is in the past, since communism has fallen in Russia. But since when does a change of political regime make a heretic Orthodox without his repentance? In any case, there is abundant evidence that if the communist regime has fallen, Sovietism has by no means fallen. When Fr. Dmitri Dudko praises Stalin, do his bishops rebuke him? They do not. When KGB President Putin toasts Stalin and restores the red flag to the armed forces, does the official church protest? Not a murmur"? Russia is going back to the Soviet Union (if it ever really left it), and the MP is going along with that (because it never left it).

b. The anathemas of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and SeventhEcumenical Councils against the Monophysite heresy. In 1990, in Chambesy, Switzerland, the Monophysites agreed to take "a positive attitude" to, although without officially accepting, the last Four Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers who took part in them, and to lift their anathemas against them; while the Orthodox agreed to lift their anathemas against all the Monophysite councils and fathers, including the notorious heresiarchs Dioscurus, Timothy andSeverus. Thus both "families of Churches" (a new phrase unknown to Orthodox ecclesiology) agreed that "all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed bythe grace and power of God."

But this meant that all the six hundred and thirty holy Fathers who uttered these anathemas and condemnations were wrong!

Of course, the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches (with the exception of Jerusalem) have already implicitly rejected the Councils and the Fathers by their communion in prayer and the sacraments with all sorts of heretics, and even pagans, the WCC General Assembly in Canberra in 1991 being perhaps the most extreme example. Nevertheless, it is a further and important stage to say explicitly that the Ecumenical Councils were wrong, that the Monophysites should not have been condemned, thatthey were Orthodox all these centuries although the Holy Fathers and all the saints of the Orthodox Church considered them to be heretics. This is not simply a failure to come up to the standards of the Ecumenical Councils: it is a renunciation of the standards themselves. In essence, the Local Orthodox Churches here placed themselves under the anathemas against Monophysitism from the Fourth Ecumenical Council onwards,and must be considered to be "semi-Monophysites".

c. The anathemas of the Constantinopolitan Council of 1054 and the 1340s against Roman Catholicism. In 1054, the Constantinopolitan Church "lifted" the 1054 anathema, and the MP did not demur, but in 1969 decided to give communion to Catholics in certain circumstances, an act which was defined by the

ROCOR Synod as "heretical".

In 1994 the Moscow Patriarchate and other Local Orthodox churches signed the Balamand agreement with the Catholics, in which the Orthodox and the Catholics were declared to be sister-Churches in the full sense, "two lungs" of the same organism (with the Monophysites as a "third lung"?). The Balamand Agreement, which was signed on the Orthodox side by Moscow, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Romania, Cyprus, Poland and Finland, declared: "Catholics and Orthodox"? are once again discovering each other as sister churches" and "recognizing each other as sister churches". "On each side it is acknowledged that what Christ has entrusted to His Church "“ the profession of the apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, the apostolic succession of bishops, and, above all, the one priesthood celebrating the one Sacrifice of Christ "“ cannot be considered to be the exclusive property of one of our Churches." The

baptism of penitent papists into the Orthodox Church was prohibited: "All rebaptism (sic) is prohibited." The Orthodox Church" recognizes the Catholic

Church in her entirety as a sister Church, and indirectly recognizes also the Oriental Catholic Churches" (the Uniates)."Special attention should be given on both sides to the preparation and education of future priests with regard to the new ecclesiology, (that they may) be informed of the apostolic succession of the other Church and the authenticity of its sacramental life, (so that) the use of history in a polemical manner (may be avoided)".

This was an official acceptance of the "branch theory" of the Church, and therefore also fell under:

d. The Anathema of the ROCOR Synod against Ecumenism.

Some will say that the MP has extracted itself from under this anathema because, in the document on relations with the heterodox accepted at the 2000 Sobor, it was declared that "the Orthodox Church is the true Church of Christ, created by our Lord and Saviour Himself; it is the Church established by, and filled with, the Holy Spirit"?" "The Church of Christ is one and unique"?" "The so-called "branch theory", which affirms the normality and even the providentiality of the existence of Christianity in the form of separate "branches""? is completely unacceptable."

But, wrote Protopriest Michael Ardov, "the "patriarchal liberals" will also not be upset, insofar as the heretics in the cited document are called "heterodox", while the Monophysite communities are called the "Eastern Orthodox Churches". And the "dialogues with the heterodox" will be continued, and it is suggested that the World Council of Churches be not abandoned, but reformed"?"[2] Moreover, immediately after the Council, on August 18, "Patriarch" Alexis prayed together with the Armenian "Patriarch".

The Church does not accept words unless they are accompanied by deeds. Saying that the Church of Christ is only the Orthodox Church, but continuing to remain in the World Council of Churches, which officially declares the opposite, is hypocritical and would never have been accepted by the Holy Fathers, who insisted not only that Orthodoxy be proclaimed but also that the heretics be anathematised.

Until the MP breaks all ecumenical relations with, and anathematises, both the RCs and the Monophysites publicly, as well as the agreements of Chambesy and Balamand and all participants in the World Council of Churches, they remain under the anathemas of the Holy Fathers. It is here that "reapplying" the anathemas by "living" Synods of bishops makes sense and is necessary. Not because the anathemas of the Holy Fathers need reinforcing, but to show that we are in accordance with them, and are members of the same Church, the Church of the living God.

e. The Anathemas against Judaism.

In his famous speech before the rabbis of New York on November 13, 1991, "Patriarch" Alexis, alias KGB agent Drozdov, said: "Dear brothers, shalom to you in the name of the God of love and peace!"? We are all brothers, for we are all children of the Old Testament on Mount Sinai, which, as we Christians believe, was renewed by Christ"? Your law is our law, your prophets are our prophets."

The patriarch confessed that "we are one with the Jews, without renouncing Christianity and not in spite of Christianity, but in the name of and by dint of Christianity, while the Jews are one with us not in spite of Judaism, but in the name of and by dint of true Judaism. We are separated from the Jews because we are not yet completely Christian, while theJ ews are separated from us because they are not yet completely Jews. For the fullness of Christianity embraces both itself and Judaism, while the fullness of Judaism is Christianity"? The Jewish people are near to us in faith. Your law is our law, your prophets are our prophets."

The patriarch called on the Jews to work together to build "the new world order": "by our joint efforts we shall build a new society "“ a democratic, free, open, just society"? where Jews would live with Christians in security and peace, in an atmosphere of friendship, creative brotherhood and the brotherhood of the children of the one God, the Father of all, the God of your fathers and of ours."[3]

So the KGB Patriarch is going to work with the Jews for "the new world order", considering himself a brother of the rabbis whose sacred book, the Talmud, calls Christ a magician, the son of a harlot and a Roman soldier! Has he forgotten that God Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, said that the Jews were not the children of God, but of the devil (John 8.44)?! Does he not remember that the Apostle John said that those who reject the Son do not have the Father either (I John 2.22)?!

Have we not returned to the time, around the beginning of the16th century, when the head of the Russian Church was a secretJ udaizer? Only is it not much worse now, in that this Judaizer does not hide his Judaism, and the church which he heads make no attempt to oppose or depose him?

Let us remind ourselves how the true metropolitans of Moscow and saints of Russia dealt with the Jews: "The polemic began... in the time of Metropolitan Peter (+1326), the founder of the Muscovite ecclesiastical centre.In the life of St. Peter it is mentioned among his other exploits for the good of the Russian Church that he 'overcame the heretic Seit in debate and anathematised him." The hypothesis concerning the Karaite origin of the 'Judaisers' allows us to see in Seit a Karaite preacher.

"... The heresy did not disappear but smouldered under a facade of church life in certain circles of the Orthodox urban population, and the Russian church, under the leadership of her hierarchs, raised herself to an unceasing battle with the false teachings. The landmarks of this battle were: Metropolitan Peter's victory over Seit in debate (between 1312 and 1326), the unmasking and condemnation of the strigolniki in Novgorod in the time of Metropolitan Alexis (1370s), the overcoming of this heresy in the time of Metropolitan Photius (+1431), and of the heresy of the Judaisers - in the time of Archbishop Gennadius of Novgorod (+1505) and St. Joseph of Volotsk (+1515)."[4]

Archbishop Andrew of Rockland (+1978) saw a close link betweent he heresy of the Judaizers and the Russian revolution because both represented he triumph of Jewish ways of thinking. The present-day Moscow Patriarchate, far from cleansing Russia of Judaism, has presented an exhausted Russia on a plate to the international Jewish society that we know of as "the new world order". What a mockery of the exploit of the holy new martyrs and confessors of Russia, and what a lesson for us all!

To us, who witness the triumph, not only of sergianism and ecumenism, but even of God-hating Judaism in the heart of the formerly holy Russia, the words of the holy Apostle Paul to the Judaizing Christians of his day have never been more relevant:

Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema!

February 12/25,2004.
St. Alexis, Metropolitan of Moscow.

[1] "A Letter from Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) to a Priest of the Church Abroad concerning Father Dimitry Dudko and the Moscow Patriarchate", Vertograd-Inform, N 4, February, 1999, pp. 16-20. A few years earlier, on August 14/27, 1977, Metropolitan Philaret told the present writer: "I advise you always to remain faithful to the anathema of the Catacomb Church against the Moscow Patriarchate."

[2] Ardov, "The "Jubilee Council" has confirmed it: the Moscow Patriarchate has finally fallen away from Orthodoxy" (Report read at the 8th Congress of the clergy, monastics and laity of the Suzdal diocese of the Russian Orthodox [Autonomous] Church, November, 2000).

[3] The Speech of Patriarch Alexis II to the Rabbis of New York on 13 November, 1991 and the Heresy of the Judaizers, TOO "Pallada", Moscow, 1992, pp. 8-10 (in Russian)

[4] Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov', Publication of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1988, p. 25 (in Russian).

[尼古拉前执事]

:bump:

[CorpusChristi]

does anyone have a link too or a copy of the anathemas of past and present that are re-read by Bishops of the Russian Church either MP,ROCOR,Rocie,ROAC-respectively

[Kollyvas]

I was just wondering when the MP was invited to answer these charges before it was anathemized by one of its breakaway dioceses? That is very ultramontane. Moreover, dr. moss' methodology on other threads was shown to be pregnant of monatanism and donatism. And as has been maintained on other threads, fighting heresy with heretical frameworks does not work too well: Blessed Augustine or Origen comes to mind (speaking in kindness).
R

[尼古拉前执事]

does anyone have a link too or a copy of the anathemas of past and present that are re-read by Bishops of the Russian Church either MP,ROCOR,Rocie,ROAC-respectively

Sure, please see where I have bumped them up with some articles on the Sunday of Orthodoxy at http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1910

And Kollyvas, the MP is the break-away institution, being created by the Soviet State, not the ROCOR nor the Catacomb Church.

[Kollyvas]

Evlogeite Pater.
I don't think the MP being called a "breakaway" is accurate. For one, the Higher Ecclesiastical Administration which formed that which later became ROCOR was comprised of Bishops who were broken away from their Russian dioceses and were received according to the 39TH Canon of the 6TH Ecumenical Council by the Patriarchate of Belgrade to autonomously serve the Russian diaspora under Belgrade's omophorion. This was later cemented by the All-Russian Diasporan Council of 1936 which affirmed as much. The plan was eventual absorption of the ROCOR into the Serbian Patriarchate--hence, it essentially was a Serbian diocese. After the Second World War, ROCOR was again displaced and asserted itself as a separated Russian diocese, but never asserted it was THE Russian church. Canonically, the elevation of +Metropolitan Sergius to the Patriarchate holds up, for he is in a direct line from St. Tikhon in that specific administration. Moreover, the Moscow Council of 1948, affirmed by Orthodoxy recognized that succession. Note, many former hierarchs of ROCOR took part here as well as many "Katakombniki/Tikhonites/Josephites." And the decisions of this council were thoroughly Orthodox and binding on the Russian church as a whole, qv the "condemnation of the ecumenical movement." So, no, the MP, canonically speaking anyways, is not "breakaway." But ROCOR is, volens nullens, broken away by the forces of history from the Church of Russia. Dogmatic differences would have to be addressed by an All-Russian council, which must, but has yet to, materialize.
In the LOVE of Christ,
Rostislav