Bogo,
The thing about lists of quotes is that people can normally offer alternative lists with alternative interpretations of history. Since you gave a list of quotes under the heading "ROCOR position towards the MP," and I am one that perhaps has a differing understanding of contemporary Russian history, I think I'll add some quotes as well. I don't say that these quotes all contradict your position: I simply offer them as I think they add a dimension to the discussion that was absent from the quotes you selected.
“With regard to your perplexities concerning Sergianism, I can say that the very same questions in almost the same form were addressed to me from Kazan ten years ago, and then I replied affirmatively to them, because I considered everything that Metropolitan Sergius had done as a mistake which he himself was conscious of and wished to correct. Moreover, among our ordinary flock there were many people who had not investigated what had happened, and it was impossible to demand from them a decisive and active condemnation of the events. Since then much water has flowed under the bridge. The expectations that Metropolitan Sergius would correct himself have not been justified, but there has been enough time for the formerly ignorant members of the Church, enough incentive and enough opportunity to investigate what has happened; and very many have both investigated and understood that Metropolitan Sergius is departing from that Orthodox Church which the Holy Patriarch Tikhon entrusted to us to guard, and consequently there can be no part or lot with him for the Orthodox. The recent events have finally made clear the renovationist nature of Sergianism. We cannot know whether those believers who remain in Sergianism will be saved, because the work of eternal Salvation is a work of the mercy and grace of God. But for those who see and feel the unrighteousness of Sergianism (those are your questions) it would be unforgiveable craftiness to close one’s eyes to this unrighteousness and seek there for the satisfaction of one’s spiritual needs when one’s conscience doubts in the possibility of receiving such satisfaction. Everything which is not of faith is sin…” - Met. Cyril (1937)
"I myself would not have decided to carry out the consecration of the Greek Old Calendarists. But at the same time, in the depths of my soul, I cannot help being delighted at the boldness with which Archbishop Leontius carried out this act to which his conscience called him. We emphasize that we do not recognize Patriarch Alexis, while all the patriarchs recognize him. We talk about communion with these patriarchs, and, in this way, we turn out paradoxically to be in communion with Moscow. A vicious circle is the result. In view of this irrational position, it is especially important for us to stand on a firm canonical foundation, preserving the essence, and not the letter, which can lead to the worship of Satan" - Archbishop Averky, Hierarchical Council of the Russian Church Abroad (Nov. 1962)
"'What is the ‘Soviet church’? Fr. Archimandrite Constantine has said often and insistently that the most terrible thing that the God-fighting authorities have done to Russia is the appearance of the ‘Soviet church’, which the Bolsheviks offered up to the people as the True Church, having driven the real Orthodox Church into the catacombs or the concentration camps. This false church has been twice anathematised. His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Council anathematised the communists and all their co-workers. This terrible anathema has not been lifted to this day and preserves its power, since it can be lifted only by an All-Russian Church Council, as being the canonically higher Church authority. And a terrible thing happened in 1927, when the leader of the Church, Metropolitan Sergius, by his shameful apostate declaration submitted the Russian Church to the Bolsheviks and declared that he was cooperating with them. In the most exact sense the expression of the prayer before confession was fulfilled: ‘fallen under his own anathema’! For in 1918 the Church anathematised all the co-workers of communism, and in 1927 she herself entered into the company of these co-workers and began to praise the red God-fighting authorities – to praise the red beast of which the Apocalypse speaks. And this is not all. When Metropolitan Sergius published his criminal declaration, the faithful children of the Church immediately separated from the Soviet church, and the Catacomb Church was created. And she in her turn anathematised the official church for her betrayal of Christ… We receive clergymen from Moscow not as ones possessing grace, but as ones receiving it by the very act of union. But to recognize the church of the evil-doers as the bearer and repository of grace – that we, of course, cannot do. For outside of Orthodoxy there is no grace; and the Soviet church has deprived itself of grace.” - Met. Philaret, A Letter from Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) to a Priest of the Church Abroad concerning Father Dimitry Dudko and the Moscow Patriarchate (Vertograd-Inform, N 4, February, 1999, pp. 16-20)
And of course, there are more quotes, some of which can be found at Orthodoxinfo and at other such sites. Having been convinced that there is no one ROCOR position, I would not dream of attempting to prove one particular position. This is not to say that I don't hold to a position and merely float around; yet, I think understanding the truth of the situation necessitates going beyond one's own beliefs and accepting that there are and were differing views that could be considered every bit as authoritative by sincere individuals. The "official" ROCOR position has always seemed to be "we have no position, we aren't going to say anything definitive". So we are left with ambiguity.
I believe that it is unpersuasive to argue that quotes like the above one from Met. Philaret are invalid because they are "personal opinions," since every statement on the matter is personal opinion--either the opinion of an individual or the opinion of a group of individuals. Nothing is dogmatic or set in stone here. ROCOR made their bed of ambiguity, and now it would be wholly anacronistic to read back into those ambiguous words the beliefs they now hold firmly. People today within ROCOR sincerely believe that the MP has grace and has always had grace; they will certainly be able to back their position up with quotes and historical examples and whatnot. Yet, while it is understandable if they contend that this is the proper position, it would be totally inaccurate to say that this position is the only tenable position, or was always the official position.
