Is the MP the Mother Church of the ROCOR & others?

[Justin Kissel]

This article may be of some help: Some Thoughts on Metropolitan Vitaly’s Declaration on the State of the Russian Church.

Methodius,

Traditionalist ROCORites cannot take the Frs. Alexander, John and their 24-7 online pro-Moscow priestly arguments seriously as they liek to rewrite history to fit their polemic worldview.

I think this is an unfair assertion. I may or may not agree with Frs. Alexander and John on this subject or that,* but I do not think that they are--in any way whatsoever--rewriting history to fit their worldview. We are not dealing with mathematics here, we are dealing with things very difficult to get a handle on concretely (without the passage of time and the weighing in of saints inspired by God).

Justin

• And if there was a disagreement, they would obviously win, being the priests :mrgreen:

[Julianna]

And if there was a disagreement, they would obviously win, being the priests :mrgreen:

priests aren't always right or winners of arguments. especially the ones you've named

[Justin Kissel]

They are in my life.

I'd rather think I'm right and concede than fight against a priest. It's amazing how great this need to be right and need to be vidicated is in the west. How far we are from the spirit of the desert fathers and Jesus Christ, who answered untruth and lies and mockery with silence and humility (even though they many times could have dazzled their listeners with persuasive word-smithing).

[Seraphim Reeves]

Justin,

I forget the Saint, but he said that if someone accused him of any sin, he'd meet it with meekness and resignation - save for any accusation against the purity of his confession, for without such he would have no hope of salvation, nor does any man.

Seraphim

[Justin Kissel]

Totally agreed Even the desert fathers, right after going on and on and on about not judging your brother or worrying about his thoughts, could say to flee heresy as though you were fleeing for your life.

The question then arises, though, what is my responsibility? To argue with the priest? for how long? to what end? Or should I rather try to make as good an end to it as I can, and regroup for another meeting (when hopefully we can approach the subject again, refreshed and level-headed)? I learnt recently that too much zeal can quickly turn a disagreement into a lost friendship. I can't imagine a situation in which my arguing on and on with a priest would be beneficial. I'm not, of course, saying that everyone should just cave on every doctrinal matter... perhaps I'm just being sensitive since I'm trying to walk a very fine line...

[尼古拉前执事]

Another quote by the controversial priest which would tend to prove that the MP could NOT be the mother church:

"The MP was created, depending on which line you take--either in 1927, when Metropolitan Sergius signed his "Declaration" of loyalty to the Soviet State and usurped the authority of the lawful Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter--or, in 1943, when Stalin permitted the election of Metropolitan Sergius to the Patriarchate.

The ROCOR was founded in 1920, in accordance with a directive of Patriarch Tikhon.

So, if the ROCOR existed before the MP even existed, how can it have "separated itself" from it?

With love in Christ,
Prot. Alexander Lebedeff"

[Mor Ephrem]

Another quote by the controversial priest which would tend to prove that the MP could NOT be the mother church:

"The MP was created, depending on which line you take--either in 1927, when Metropolitan Sergius signed his "Declaration" of loyalty to the Soviet State and usurped the authority of the lawful Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter--or, in 1943, when Stalin permitted the election of Metropolitan Sergius to the Patriarchate.

The ROCOR was founded in 1920, in accordance with a directive of Patriarch Tikhon.

So, if the ROCOR existed before the MP even existed, how can it have "separated itself" from it?

With love in Christ,
Prot. Alexander Lebedeff"

Forgive me if my question was answered in a previous post, but some of them were too long, and my interest in Russian Church history is not as great as you guys, for me to read everything. I'm confused by statements like the above. When were the heads of the Russian Church first called Patriarchs? 1927? 1943? Or earlier than that? Does "Moscow Patriarchate" always and everywhere have a different connotation from "Patriarchate of Moscow"? If the Patriarchs of Moscow have been called such even before the Soviets, how can you speak of the MP as being a creation of the Soviets?