Another (dumb) ROCOR question

[Protopriest Dionysi]

My point was that, as the MP found it's way back into the fullness of Orthodoxy, they would naturally (in time) be healed of whatever corruptions they had.

So, are you saying that right now the MP are Orthodox, just not in fullness of Orthodoxy? So they are half filled, being filled, or just wandering trying to
find their way back"?

There way back from where? Did they leave Orthodoxy? When how? If not where they always Orthodox? If so, should we not call the the SP (Serginist Patriarchate or Stallinst Patriarchate). If you say they have repented, to who I may ask? To which bishops? The ones they killed that we remember in our services? To the ones that coplied with the Soviet intentions? If they repented should they not have repented to those that have the fullness of the faith?

Yes, you may say, "But they to have service to the new martyrs".

I would then compare it thos Jews that are spoken of in Matt 23, 29-31)
"Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hyprocrites! because you build the tommbs of the phrophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous, and say, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Therefore, ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets"

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

I think there would be allot to learn by the way the minority Orthodoxy received back the Iconoclasts, who had the majority of all bishops, priests, churches, ect. That was similiar in allot of ways.

[Justin Kissel]

I would say that the MP is not without grace, that part of it was corrupted, and part of it remained pure. After the fall of the Soviet Union (and even, to some extent, before its fall), stories started coming out about good, pious, right-believing Russian Orthodox Priests who were, technically speaking, part of the MP.

Juliana,

Heretics were always invited to councils.

First, that's untrue (and you couldn't defend it when pressed, unless you qualified "heretics" and "always" to the point that the terms became meaningless). And yes, I did ask for Fr. Dionysi's blessing, and then edited my post so that I wasn't asking for one. I did this because he is a priest whom we are not in communion with, and I am unsure whether that would be proper to do, so rather than asking for it--since people rarely, if ever, ask for a blessing online anyway--I decided to edit it. I'll be sure to ask my spiritual father about it.

[Justin Kissel]

Forgot one thing, Julianna, if you read the text I mentioned by Justin Popovich, you'll see that St. Justin was not talking about heretics when he mentioned the OCA. In fact, he included them with the Japanese Orthodox and ROCOR in the same breath: ie. he was not, at that time anyway, making a distinction between the groups, or merely "allowing the apostates to attend". He rebuked all the political skullduggary that was going on, but there were no anathemas being thrown out, or condemnations. But I suppose those who have only read his anti-ecumenistic texts might have a hard time getting a balanced view of him; I hope you've read more (if you have Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, the middle of p. 115 would be a good place to start).

[Protopriest Dionysi]

I would say that the MP is not without grace, that part of it was corrupted, and part of it remained pure. After the fall of the Soviet Union (and even, to some extent, before its fall), stories started coming out about good, pious, right-believing Russian Orthodox Priests who were, technically speaking, part of the MP.

"Right believing" who were "technically" in the MP.

The Moscow Patiarchate. Who founded this "group"? Would you say they are the legitimate heirs to the 1917 Church. Do you beleive that that Metopolitan (not patriarch) Sergi usurped power in the CHurch and went beyound his commision, and that the Patriarchal locum tenens himself, Metropolitan Peter (whose deputy was Sergi) by no means approved of the policy of concilliation with atheistic powers?

If so, do you feel that Stallinist creation of a "new Patriarch" is some how, by secular power a new source of grace for the establisment of the CHurch? Does the Apostolic tradition run through the anti-God authorities?

[bogoliubtsy]

So,
I suppose Valentine of Suzdal's days as an MP priest are exempt from scrutiny?

[Justin Kissel]

Priest Dionysi,

I affirm the ecclesiological views of the moderates within ROCOR, and the view of most moderate traditionalists. * I understand that you would disagree with this view, though I don't think that either group is necessarily drastically wrong. Perhaps one group is wholly Orthodox, and one group is semi-Orthodox (as Gregory the Theologian called some of his congregation in Constantinople who would not openly and in a straightforward way affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit). Perhaps I should shut up and not talk about such things since I am new to all of this and probably do more harm than good. With that in mind, rather than trying to explain my own ecclesiological position regarding the MP and ROCOR, perhaps it'd be better if I just linked to an article by my spiritual father (since he is the one I should be looking to for guidance on issues such as this). The article I have in mind is Some Thoughts on Metropolitan Vitaly’s Declaration on the State of the Russian Church by Fr. George Lardas, and having just read back over it again today, I can honestly say that Fr. George articulates with both eloquence and authority that which I could only hope to mumble and ramble about.

In Christ our God,

Justin

• Just a note: by identifying myself with a "moderate" position I do not mean imply anything derogatory about those who are not "moderate"--certainly there have always been both moderates and rigorists in the Church, with neither group necessarily being wrong (even when they oppose each other, as when Saints of both these above-mentioned tendencies/groups clash). Put another way, I fully agree that moderates cannot be automatically dismissed as "fence sitters" just because they're moderate, and rigorists cannot be automatically dismissed as "extremists" just because they're rigorist.