ARE ROCOR DISSENTERS "DONATISTS"?

[pjhatala]

pjhatala

Indeed. If you start now you should learn it in no time.

Please do elaborate. I am interested in what you think is the history of the sufferings of the Orthodox faithful of Russia.

I should also ask if you are familiar with the sufferings of those who attended churches of the Moscow Patriarchate during the Soviet period? This, of course, was the case for the vast majority of people. Do you think attending the "official" church was easy and without consequence for lay people?

[GOCTheophan]

pjhatala

Indeed. If you start now you should learn it in no time.

Please do elaborate. I am interested in what you think is the history of the sufferings of the Orthodox faithful of Russia.

I should also ask if you are familiar with the sufferings of those who attended churches of the Moscow Patriarchate during the Soviet period? This, of course, was the case for the vast majority of people. Do you think attending the "official" church was easy and without consequence for lay people?

We could ask about the difficulties of Roman Catholics or Lutherans under Soviet rule aswell but that would not make them Orthodox. Sergianism is a HERESY and those who attended the offical Churches were often as not subscribers to that HERESY.

Theophan.

[pjhatala]

pjhatala

Please do elaborate. I am interested in what you think is the history of the sufferings of the Orthodox faithful of Russia.

I should also ask if you are familiar with the sufferings of those who attended churches of the Moscow Patriarchate during the Soviet period? This, of course, was the case for the vast majority of people. Do you think attending the "official" church was easy and without consequence for lay people?

We could ask about the difficulties of Roman Catholics or Lutherans under Soviet rule aswell but that would not make them Orthodox. Sergianism is a HERESY and those who attended the offical Churches were often as not subscribers to that HERESY.

Theophan.

And when did THE CHURCH gather in council to declare the vaguely defined concept of Sergianstvo a heresy? You really believe average Russian lay people, or the VAST majority of clergy consciously "subscribed" to Sergianism? GOCTheophan doesn't decide (and neither do I) where grace resides and who is properly Orthodox- the Church does, councils do, and even then definitive statements on grace are rare.

[GOCTheophan]

And when did THE CHURCH gather in council to declare the vaguely defined concept of Sergianstvo a heresy? You really believe average Russian lay people, or the VAST majority of clergy consciously "subscribed" to Sergianism? GOCTheophan doesn't decide (and neither do I) where grace resides and who is properly Orthodox- the Church does, councils do, and even then definitive statements on grace are rare.

Yes I do. I have talked to people who's parent and grandparents were members of the Moscow Patriarchate during Soviet times and have tried to get as best a picture of the situation that I can. Certainly there were those who spoke out or did not accept the revolutionary dictatorship as God given and believe that obediance to Church officals is higher than prayer and fasting even when they demand obediance to evil but the majiority of the MP accepted these two abberations of Sergianism.

The council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1918 ANATHEMIZED Soviet Power and those who would collaborate with it. There is also the Anathema aganist the pan-heresy of Ecumenism of 1983 and the Anathemas hurled at the Soviet Church by the Catacomb Church.

[pjhatala]

And when did THE CHURCH gather in council to declare the vaguely defined concept of Sergianstvo a heresy? You really believe average Russian lay people, or the VAST majority of clergy consciously "subscribed" to Sergianism? GOCTheophan doesn't decide (and neither do I) where grace resides and who is properly Orthodox- the Church does, councils do, and even then definitive statements on grace are rare.

Yes I do. I have talked to people who's parent and grandparents were members of the Moscow Patriarchate during Soviet times and have tried to get as best a picture of the situation that I can. Certainly there were those who spoke out or did not accept the revolutionary dictatorship as God given and believe that obediance to Church officals is higher than prayer and fasting even when they demand obediance to evil but the majiority of the MP accepted these two abberations of Sergianism.

The council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1918 ANATHEMIZED Soviet Power and those who would collaborate with it. There is also the Anathema aganist the pan-heresy of Ecumenism of 1983 and the Anathemas hurled at the Soviet Church by the Catacomb Church.

Dear Theophan,

Did not St. Tikhon make a number of concessions to the Bolsheviks? It was a difficult time- one we can hardly presume to understand fully. People often act as if Met/Patriarch Sergius was sitting in a penthouse enjoying the fruits of selling out the Church and lying to the world. In fact, he had a difficult life and died poor and alone, always wondering if he was making the right decision.(See A Long Walk to Church by Nathaniel Davis).
In his heart of hearts, he really believed he was doing the right thing and "saving" the Church. Of course, history revealed his error.

The 1983 Anathema is most likely not what you think. It didn't hurl an accusation of heresy to all involved with the WCC- no, nothing like that. Nor did it label as "graceless" the "ecumenists". In the year of its publication Met. Vitaly said:

Code: Select all

"We proclaimed an anathema against ecumenism only for the children of our Church, but by this we very humbly but firmly, gently but decisively, as if invite the local churches to stop and think. This is the role of our most small, humble, half-persecuted, always alert, but true Church. We, de facto, do not serve with either new-calendarists or ecumenists, but if someone of our clergy, by economy, would presume to such a concelebration, this fact alone in no way influences our standing in the truth."

It was meant as a safeguard for the local church. Also, the wording only "anathematizes" those who preach the "branch theory"- not those like Fr. Georges Florovsky who sat on councils at the WCC as representative. Even Fr. Seraphim Rose thought the anti-ecumenists had gone too far stating that "our bishops refuse to 'define' this matter and make everything 'black and white'; and I am sure that, perhaps without exception, our bishops not only refuse to declare them without grace, but positively believe (at least by giving them the benefit of any doubt) that they do have grace."

I know I won't convince you- and know that maybe we're coming from two different traditions and are on two different trajectories.
But, for what it's worth...

[GOCTheophan]

Did not St. Tikhon make a number of concessions to the Bolsheviks? It was a difficult time- one we can hardly presume to understand fully. People often act as if Met/Patriarch Sergius was sitting in a penthouse enjoying the fruits of selling out the Church and lying to the world. In fact, he had a difficult life and died poor and alone, always wondering if he was making the right decision.(See A Long Walk to Church by Nathaniel Davis).
In his heart of hearts, he really believed he was doing the right thing and "saving" the Church. Of course, history revealed his error.

...

I will have to research whether he infact did die poor and alone as you say. However many high ranking MP (and OCA) hierarchs did live off the "fat of the land" so to speak.

St Thikhon did come very close to crossing the line into apostasy. He certainly bent under force of circumstances more than many in the Russian Church at the time thought he should have. However he did not break. As St Theophan of Poltava said about St Thikon we accept the man but not his mistakes.

And may I ask you what was Sergius's error in your opinion? Surely he was correct in what he did? After all according to your Synod the gates of hell prevailed over the Catacomb Church but not over the Soviet one?

One thing is certain the gates of hell have prevailed over the Lavrites because you are KNOWINGLY in FULL Communion with the Antiochians who regard the Monophysites as fully Orthodox clearly and offically. So even if they 1983 Anathema just applies to to ROCOR, ROCOR under Met Lavr has well and truelly fallen under it if it did not do so already by entering into Communion with Kyprianos.

Theophan.

[GOCTheophan]

It was meant as a safeguard for the local church. Also, the wording only "anathematizes" those who preach the "branch theory"- not those like Fr. Georges Florovsky who sat on councils at the WCC as representative. Even Fr. Seraphim Rose thought the anti-ecumenists had gone too far stating that "our bishops refuse to 'define' this matter and make everything 'black and white'; and I am sure that, perhaps without exception, our bishops not only refuse to declare them without grace, but positively believe (at least by giving them the benefit of any doubt) that they do have grace."

.

Pjhatala an Anathema is not a safeguard for a local Church as such. An Anathema is either the cutting off of someone from the Church and presenting them to the direct Judgement of God or it is cursing of someone to eternal damnation. Either way it involves it is a "legal" sentence on heretics placing them outside of the Church of Christ. The Anathema of 1983 also ANATHEMIZES (removes from the Church) those who knowingly have Communion with the Ecumenist heretics.

You must know that many of Fr Seraphim Rose's works have tampered with. The Religion of the Future is a good example where references to the Old Calendarists in Greece and the Catacomb Church in Russia were removed.

The MP was pretty black and white when it came to ROCOR and the Catacomb Church. The EP is black and white when it comes to the True Orthodox in Greece.

Theophan.