I have a question about the translation of the text Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr. Michael Pomazansky. Who exactly was it that did the footnotes for this book? And in case there are different answers depending on whether we are talking about the First or Second edition, I am here asking about the Second edition (and to be even more specific, the Third Printing, in 1997, of the Second Edition). Was it Fr. Michael Pomazansky himself who did the footnotes? Was it Fr. Seraphim Rose, who did the bulk of the translation, who put the footnotes in? Or was it someone else? I ask because, while I already knew of Fr. Seraphim's rather moderate position regarding the MP, I was suprised to find certain statements in the translation of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.
In the text, Fr. Michael says: "The unity of the Church is not violated because of temporary divisions of a nondogmatic nature." (p. 235) He then goes on to give various ways in which this could happen: "insufficient or incorrect information," "personal errors of individual hierarchs," "violation of the canons of the Church," and he continues with other possibilities (p. 235). In the footnote at the end of all of this, however, the following is said:
"Two examples from recent church history may serve to illustrate the character of these temporary divisions... In the 20th century Russian Orthodox Church, a church administration was formed in 1927 by Metropolitan Sergius (the Moscow Patriarchate) on the basis of submission to the dictation of the atheist rulers. Parts of the Church in Russia (the Catacomb or True Orthodox Church) and outside (the Russian Church Outside of Russia) refuse up to now to have communion with this administration because of its political domination by Communists; but the bishops of the Church Outside of Russia (about the Catacomb Church it is more difficult to make a general statement) do not deny the grace of the Mysteries of the Moscow Patriarchate and still feel themselves to be one with its clergy and faithful who try not to collaborate with Communist aims. When Communism falls in Russia, these church bodies can once more be in communion or even be joined together, leaving to a future free council all judgments regarding the 'Sergianist' period." (pp. 235-236)
Did Fr. Michael say this about the MP, or did someone else? I'll concede that such feelings were not absent from ROCOR decades ago; e.g., the views regarding the MP expressed at the Third All-Diaspora Council in 1974 sound much like the views that were finally getting somewhat authoritative backing in 1994 and 2003. I don't ask this because the answer might change my opinion as to the MP, or even ROCOR. I rather ask so that I might have a true understanding of how things really were.
First, I want to understand exactly how big the "moderate" position regarding the MP was back in the 1970's and 1980's. I already knew the position held by Fr. Seraphim and some others, but did Fr. Michael hold to the same moderate position as them? And second, I want to understand whether Fr. Michael believed that "When Communism falls in Russia, these church bodies can once more be in communion or even be joined together, leaving to a future free council all judgments regarding the 'Sergianist' period." If Fr. Michael did indeed believe this, it helps shed some light--albeit a confusing one--on ROCOR's claim that they had always believed in something akin to Met. Cyprian's ecclesiology (one of his main beliefs being that there should be no condemnations or final decisions until a Council).
