Moderator: Mark Templet
God may bless you!
Dear Jesse:
I think that these links could help in this respect:
http://romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20BATTLE%20 ... CHURCH.htm
http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/synod ... .html.html
http://www.monasterypress.com/catacomb.html
http://www.monasterypress.com/personal.html
http://www.monasterypress.com/priest.html
With love in Christ
Priest Siluan
Ukase No. 362
The Resolutions of His Holiness the Patriarch [Tikhon], of the Sacred Synod and Higher Ecclesiastical Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 20/7 November 1920
With the blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch [Tikhon], the Sacred Synod and the Higher Ecclesiastical Council united together, have deliberated concerning the necessity, supplementary to the instructions already given in the encyclical letter of His Holiness the Patriarch in case of the cessation of the activity of the diocesan councils, of giving to the diocesan bishops just such instructions in the event of the severance of relations between the diocese and the Higher Church Administration, or the cessation of the activity of the latter and, on the basis of past decisions, we have resolved:
By an encyclical letter in the name of His Holiness to give the following instructions to the diocesan bishops for their guidance in necessary cases:
1) In the event that the Holy Synod and the Higher Ecclesiastical Council for any reason whatever terminate their ecclesiastical administrative activity, the diocesan bishop, for instructions in directing his ministry and for the resolution of cases in accordance with rules which go back to the Higher Church Administration, turns directly to His Holiness the Patriarch or to that person or institution indicated by His Holiness the Patriarch.
2) In the event a diocese, in consequence of the movement of the war front, changes of state borders, etc., finds itself completely out of contact with the Higher Church Administration, or if the Higher Church Administration itself, headed by His Holiness the Patriarch, for any reason whatsoever ceases its activity, the diocesan bishop immediately enters into relations with the bishops of neighboring dioceses for the purpose of organizing a higher instance of ecclesiastical authority for several dioceses in similar conditions (in the form either of a temporary Higher Church government or a Metropolitan district, or anything else).
3) Care for the organization of a Higher Church Authority as the objective of an entire group of dioceses which find themselves in the position indicated in paragraph 2, is the indispensable obligation of the senior bishop of such a group.
4) In the case of the impossibility of establishing relations with bishops of neighboring dioceses, and until the organization of a higher instance of ecclesiastical authority, the diocesan bishop takes upon himself all the fullness of authority granted him by the canons of the Church, taking all measures for the ordering of Church life and, if it appear necessary, for the organization of the diocesan administration, in conformity with the conditions which have arisen, deciding all cases granted by the canons to episcopal authority, with the cooperation of existing organs of diocesan administration (the diocesan assembly, the diocesan council, et al, or those that are newly organized); in case of the impossibility of constituting the above indicated institutions, he is under his own recognizance.
5) In case the state of affairs indicated in paragraphs 2 and 4 takes on a protracted or even a permanent character, in particular with the impossibility for the bishop to benefit from the cooperation of the organs of the diocesan administration, by the most expedient means (in the sense of the establishment of ecclesiastical order) it is left to him to divide the diocese into several local dioceses, for which the diocesan bishop:
a) grants his right reverend vicar bishops, who now, in accordance with the Instruction, enjoy the rights of semi-independent bishops, all the rights of diocesan bishops, with the organization by them of administration in conformity to local conditions and resources;
b) institutes, by conciliar decision with the rest of the bishops of the diocese, as far as possible in all major cities of his own diocese, new episcopal Sees with the rights of semi-independent or independent bishops.
6) A diocese divided in the manner specified in paragraph 5 forms an ecclesiastical district headed by the bishop of the principle diocesan city, which commences the administration of local ecclesiastical affairs in accordance with the canons.
7) If, in the situation indicated in paragraphs 2 and 4, there is found a diocese lacking a bishop, then the Diocesan Council or, in its absence, the clergy and laity, turns to the diocesan bishop of the diocese nearest or most accessible to regards convenience or relations, and the aforesaid bishop either dispatches his vicar bishop to administer the widowed (i.e. vacant) diocese or undertakes its administration himself, acting in the cases indicated in paragraph 5 and in relation to that diocese in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6, under which, given the corresponding facts, the widowed diocese can be organized into a special ecclesiastical district.
8) If for whatever reason an invitation from a widowed diocese is not forthcoming, the diocesan bishop indicated in paragraph 7 undertakes the care of its affairs on his own initiative.
9) In case of the extreme disorganization of ecclesiastical life, when certain persons and parishes cease to recognize the authority of the diocesan bishop, the latter, finding himself in the position indicated in paragraphs 2 and 6, does not relinquish his episcopal powers, but forms deaneries and a diocese; he permits, where necessary, that the divine services be celebrated even in private homes and other places suited therefore, and severs ecclesiastical communion with the disobedient.
10) All measures taken in places in accordances with the present instruction, afterwards, in the event of the restoration of the central ecclesiastical authority, must be subject to the confirmation of the latter.
Bless Father,
Thank you very much for the sources. I am still reading through them, but I have found what happened in 1943. You have said that the "Moscow Patriarchate" was founded in 1943, but obvioulsy there were prior Patriarchs of Moscow, such as St. Tikhon. Do you consider the Patriarchate of St. Tikhon to be extinct, with the present Moscow Patriarchate as a fake? Is there no legitimate successor to Patriarch Sergius?
Also, I was wondering how these events in Russia affect your view of other jurisdictions, such as the OCA, Antiochian, Greek, etc etc if at all.
Lastly, if I recall correctly, ROCOR is currently in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem. When and why was communion broken with the other Orthodox Churches (whichever side it was initiated by)? Once again, thank you very much.
Jesse
jckstraw72 wrote:Bless Father,
Thank you very much for the sources. I am still reading through them, but I have found what happened in 1943. You have said that the "Moscow Patriarchate" was founded in 1943, but obvioulsy there were prior Patriarchs of Moscow, such as St. Tikhon. Do you consider the Patriarchate of St. Tikhon to be extinct, with the present Moscow Patriarchate as a fake? Is there no legitimate successor to Patriarch Sergius?
God may bless you!
Yes, The MP is not the Historical Patriarchate of Russia, Sergey was not under conditions to continue this Historical an Legitime Patriarchate, then he had to create a new one. Sergey didn't obey to the legitimate Locum Tenens Metropolitan Peter, then the whole activities of Sergey were illegitimate, it is not my own point of view but that of the whole True Russian Orthodox Church, that is to say Catacomb Church, historical ROCOR (not the "new" ROCOR) and FROC, and it is also the point of view of other True Orthodox Church like that of Greece etc.
See this letter of Met. Vitaly
http://www.monasterypress.com/priest.html
And these others of the old ROCOR
http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/epistles/
jckstraw72 wrote:Also, I was wondering how these events in Russia affect your view of other jurisdictions, such as the OCA, Antiochian, Greek, etc etc if at all.
Well they recognize the MP like legitimate, another question is the Ecumenism, Modernism etc
jckstraw72 wrote:Lastly, if I recall correctly, ROCOR is currently in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem. When and why was communion broken with the other Orthodox Churches (whichever side it was initiated by)? Once again, thank you very much.
well it is a relative point, ROCOR has not been in communion with the "World Orthodoxy" in time of Met. Philaret and good part of the time of Met Vitaly, the reason was the ecumenism.
On the other hand the Serbian Patriarch two or three years ago told the Patriarch Alexis II that they were not in communion with ROCOR, this demonstrates that this return to the communion is quite recent, also the current Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem doesn't allow to concelebrate ROCOR clergy with them until ROCOR doesn't unite the MP, this hardly happened one month ago.