bogoliubtsy wrote:Also, keep in mind that the new martyrs have been glorified- including some of those who did not follow Metropolitan Sergius.
The problem is that Sergianist Communists have been glorified! At least it used to be for ROCOR.
ROCOR - read between the lines
Moderator: Mark Templet
-
bogoliubtsy
- Sr Member
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Wed 16 April 2003 4:53 pm
- Location: Russia
Nicholas wrote:bogoliubtsy wrote:Also, keep in mind that the new martyrs have been glorified- including some of those who did not follow Metropolitan Sergius.
The problem is that Sergianist Communists have been glorified! At least it used to be for ROCOR.
Who are these "Sergianist Communists" who were glorified? Yes, many from the official Church were glorified, because they too died for their faith...but were they "Sergianist Communists"? I thought the whole point of "Sergianism" was survival?!
-
Anastasios
- Sr Member
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Thu 7 November 2002 11:40 pm
- Faith: Eastern Orthodox
- Jurisdiction: GOC-Archbishop Kallinikos
- Location: Raleigh, NC
- Contact:
Membership in the WCC does not in and of itself imply an acceptance of the branch theory because the Toronto statement, the ecclesiological constitution of the WCC, specifically due to Fr Georges Florovsky, states that member churches do not have to view other member churches as equal to them or members/branches of the "Universal Church."
I think the WCC is nearing uselessness but having Orthodox there to witness (which is what happens most of the time) is important. Oftentimes, the Orthodox have a positive role. For instance, it is because of Orthodox that the WCC no longer has ecumenical eucharists where all are invited--because eucharistic unity is the last step of unity.
I am against a lot of ecumenism because it interferes with mission on many levels. However, to suggest that belonging to the WCC itself means heresy is just not accurate.
It's almost four am and I have been writing all day for classes so if this is rambling I apologize.
anastasios
Disclaimer: Many older posts were made before my baptism and thus may not reflect an Orthodox point of view.
Please do not message me with questions about the forum or moderation requests. Jonathan Gress (jgress) will be able to assist you.
Please note that I do not subscribe to "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and believe that only the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is the canonical GOC of Greece. I do believe, however, that we can break down barriers and misunderstandings through prayer and discussion on forums such as this one.
anastasios wrote:Membership in the WCC does not in and of itself imply an acceptance of the branch theory because the Toronto statement, the ecclesiological constitution of the WCC, specifically due to Fr Georges Florovsky, states that member churches do not have to view other member churches as equal to them or members/branches of the "Universal Church."
I think the WCC is nearing uselessness but having Orthodox there to witness (which is what happens most of the time) is important. Oftentimes, the Orthodox have a positive role. For instance, it is because of Orthodox that the WCC no longer has ecumenical eucharists where all are invited--because eucharistic unity is the last step of unity.
I am against a lot of ecumenism because it interferes with mission on many levels. However, to suggest that belonging to the WCC itself means heresy is just not accurate.
It's almost four am and I have been writing all day for classes so if this is rambling I apologize.
anastasios
Anastasios,
I don't think I have read the Toronto statement and I'll go back and reread what membership in the WCC intales. But, the last time I did (about a year ago) I got the impression that one can not be orthodox and be a full memeber.
Nicholas wrote:bogoliubtsy wrote:Also, keep in mind that the new martyrs have been glorified- including some of those who did not follow Metropolitan Sergius.
The problem is that Sergianist Communists have been glorified! At least it used to be for ROCOR.
The issue was glorifying the New Martyrs. Okay, done deal. What some people had issue with is what about the people who were Sergianist & got the chop anyway. In those desperate times when mere survival is not just a daily issue but an hourly one, priests/bishops followed Sergi. I'm sure after they were arrested, they repented, knowing that they had followed a false doctrine. How could they not? The laypeople of those days who went to Sergianist priests wanted contact with God, no matter what, and they had to be very brave to admit that they were Christian in the first place. Them going to Church, possibly to a Sergianist priest, is what probably got them killed. It doesn't change that they died for God.
My great-grandfather was a priest... if he became a Sergianist I do not know. What did happen was that he was inprisoned for a very long time. The last 6 months of that inprisonment they marched him out ever day to stand in line for exectution. At the end of the day, they would march him back. When the released him under house-arrest, he died 2 months later a broken man. If they had executed him, I would consider him a New Martyr either way, if had he been Sergianist or not.
I have heard, time and again, from people who survived the purges, that Sergianism came down to, for the most part, cowardliness.
So, when the MP glorifed the New Martyrs, Sergianism was a non-issue on who should be commemorated & who not.