Traditional jurisdictions

jckstraw72 · Post by **jckstraw72** » Thu 24 August 2006 12:04 am

from what I understand, ROCOR was meant to be unified with the MP again once it was no longer under Communism. So why is it that there is a problem with reunifying? Is it bc of other stuff that has happened lately? Im not too up on this kind of stuff.

Priest Siluan · Post by **Priest Siluan** » Thu 24 August 2006 8:17 am

"Rossiyskaya" ("Of Russia" or "Russian Territory") is the name like it is well-known ROAC in Russia, "Rossyskaya Pravoslavnaya Tsyerkov" ("Orthodox Church of Russia") was the name of the Pre-Revolucionary Church and this name remained with the Catacomb Church and then it was taken by the Free Russian Orthodox Church (FROC/ROAC), the MP is called "Russkaya" ("Of Russian" or "Russian People")... "Russkaya Pravoslavnaya Tsyerkov" and sadly it was name wich also adopted Church Abroad.

Priest Siluan · Post by **Priest Siluan** » Thu 24 August 2006 8:39 am

jckstraw72 wrote:
from what I understand, ROCOR was meant to be unified with the MP again once it was no longer under Communism. So why is it that there is a problem with reunifying? Is it bc of other stuff that has happened lately? Im not too up on this kind of stuff.

Dear,

The current "Moscow Patriarchate" is not the historical Russian Patriarchate, but rather it was created in 1943 by Sergey Stragorodsky and Stalin. ROCOR (as well as FROC) has been founded on the Ukaz Nº 362 of St Tikhon, which gives indicative what to make in times of persecution and it says when once returned the peace a All Russia Sobor should be called, with all the "parts" of the Russian Church to restore the old Patriarchate.. .

How could ROCOR "unify again" to a "patriarchate" which it do not existed when ROCOR was established? Also in the best in the cases MP would be a part more and as any other one if a All Russian Sobor is called, of course, if first they give up the Ecumenism and Sergianism

jckstraw72 · Post by **jckstraw72** » Thu 24 August 2006 11:25 am

thank you for your help. i know only a tiny bit of the history of all this kind of stuff.

jckstraw72 · Post by **jckstraw72** » Thu 24 August 2006 2:09 pm

ok so i have some questions from this. im assuming youre saying the current MP began in 1943 because that was when the Patriarch began to cooperate with the Communists, while the catacomb Church stood fast in rejecting Communism. My question is, does this really constitute the founding of a "new" and heretical Patriarch in Moscow, or is it just a problematic time in Moscow's history? Although Patriarch Sergey's cooperation with Communism is certainly a problem, is he not still the successor to the historical Moscow Patriarchate? When Nestorius occupied the Patriarchate of Constantinople thats not understood to be the formation of a new and heretical Patriarchate, but rather a problem that the Church had to work out. Same with Arian and Iconoclastic bishops, etc. Please dont view this as an attack on your belief, but does a fall into heresy (if Sergianism can properly be called a heresy) really constitute a "new" Patriarchate, and should it really warrant the existence of several Russian Churches? The Orthodox example seems to be to fix the mess from the inside rather than forming new groups. Thanks muchly.

Priest Siluan · Post by **Priest Siluan** » Thu 24 August 2006 4:52 pm

jckstraw72 wrote:
ok so i have some questions from this. im assuming youre saying the current MP began in 1943 because that was when the Patriarch began to cooperate with the Communists, while the catacomb Church stood fast in rejecting Communism. My question is, does this really constitute the founding of a "new" and heretical Patriarch in Moscow, or is it just a problematic time in Moscow's history? Although Patriarch Sergey's cooperation with Communism is certainly a problem, is he not still the successor to the historical Moscow Patriarchate? When Nestorius occupied the Patriarchate of Constantinople thats not understood to be the formation of a new and heretical Patriarchate, but rather a problem that the Church had to work out. Same with Arian and Iconoclastic bishops, etc. Please dont view this as an attack on your belief, but does a fall into heresy (if Sergianism can properly be called a heresy) really constitute a "new" Patriarchate, and should it really warrant the existence of several Russian Churches? The Orthodox example seems to be to fix the mess from the inside rather than forming new groups. Thanks muchly.

No, the cooperation of Sergey began with the "declaration of 1927". He was not under conditions of doing such a declaration neither after creating a "Patriarchate", since all the legitimate bishops were in prison or in the exile; Sergey was only supported by two or three bishops. If we think that this is legitimate to create a "Patriarchate", then we could say that it had been also legitimate that ROCOR (or anyone of the other parts of the Russian Church) had created other Patriarchate, without violating the norms of the Ukaz Nº 362. The last Patriarchate died with the last Patriarch St Tikhon in 1925, the "Moscow Patriarchate" was an institution created much later, in 1943, which would serve for the Soviet interests and the unification of the Soviet people.

jckstraw72 · Post by **jckstraw72** » Thu 24 August 2006 5:59 pm

Fr. Bless,

Thank you for clearing up my historical inaccuracies. Do you know of any good websites where I could read about what happened in 1943, and where I could read the Ukaz Nº 362?

P.S. Forgive me for not addressing you properly before--I hadn't noticed your user name.

Jesse