It's not about the purity of the representatives...it's about them living the Truth.
By saying purity I meant confessional purity as well as morally. I purposefully did not mention Ecumenism in my post because my aim was to point out that I do not believe it is a good reason to leave a Church because of things like KGB, mafia, corruption etc. Ecumenism is, I believe a seperate issue, but even there if an individual hierarch is proclaiming a heresy it does not mean the whole Church is heretical.
I believe that to make decisions regarding these matters it is important to know Church history as a whole, and not just snippets which may present things only in one way.
Helen,
I agree. The main point about the MP is that they usurped the authority of the Russian Holy Orthodox Church when they killed Patriarch Tikhon and the other bishops that refused to bow to the atheist(satanic) government. They chose to be martyrs for Christ instead of becoming betrayers, like Judas.
The MP is an imposter of the Russian Orthodox Church. Sergei made a deal with the government and betrayed his brothers of Orthodoxy. Kinda like the bishop of Rome betraying the other four bishops of the Holy Orthodoxy Sees.
This is the history. Unfortunately, many people are under the illusion that the MP is the official Holy Orthodox Church of Russia.
That is not so. Patriarch Tikhon blessed the bishops to preserve the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia. He instructed them to do whatever it took. Some hid within Russia and others escaped and established a Synod outside of Russia.
Now ROCOR has gone back to the MP and have been absorbed back into that spiritually sick state.
It definitely is important to understand the HISTORY of the Russian Church because many people are given a false version.
If someone came into your house and kicked you and your family out and established themselves there and called themselves by your family name, go to your job, have dinner with your friends...would it make sense that they would be called the owners of that house and have your name and identity? Or would you consider them robbers and liars and deceiver?
Would it make sense that everyone would accept them as the rightful family of that house?
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)
joasia wrote:I believe that to make decisions regarding these matters it is important to know Church history as a whole, and not just snippets which may present things only in one way.
It definitely is important to understand the HISTORY of the Russian Church ...
Indeed. If you start now you should learn it in no time.
joasia wrote:Helen,
I agree. The main point about the MP is that they usurped the authority of the Russian Holy Orthodox Church when they killed Patriarch Tikhon and the other bishops that refused to bow to the atheist(satanic) government. They chose to be martyrs for Christ instead of becoming betrayers, like Judas.
Dear Joasia,
We can start here. Unless I'm misreading this, you seem to be saying that the Moscow Patriarchate killed Patriarch Tikhon and other bishops. That, of course, is not possibly true. Also, do you put into the category of "betrayers" every bishop who did not go "underground"? It's accepted by most that the catacomb church as a cohesive entity stopped existing sometime around 1940 or 1950.
joasia wrote:That is not so. Patriarch Tikhon blessed the bishops to preserve the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia. He instructed them to do whatever it took. Some hid within Russia and others escaped and established a Synod outside of Russia.
Read the Ukaz again. I don't disagree with the way ROCOR interpreted it, but it does stipulate that it is a temporary situation. This temporary situation was always supposed to end with the fall of communism and the ensuing lack of control the communist regime (because it wouldn't exist!) would have on the Church. Even as late as the time of Met. Vitaly only 3 conditions were required to reestablish communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. 1.) The glorification of the Royal and New Martyrs. 2.)Rejection of ecumenism (done officially in 2000) and 3.)A rejection of Sergianism (also done in 2000). These steps were taken on an official level. Despite what individual bishops may say or do contrary to these decisions, they were still made official. Needless to say, the fact that ROCOR had for decades (well beyond the 1927 declaration or the 'creation' of the MP in the 40s) had 3 criteria that must be met for the re-establishment of communion implies that ROCOR always felt itself to be dealing with a REAL church. ROCOR never called for the MP to be dissolved and a "real" church put in its place, did it? It considered the MP to be a real Church, but one with which it was impossible, because of the current climate, to share communion.
