Appeal of the First Heirarch of the ROAC to ROCOR(L)

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

By orders of the Supreme Soviet, the Russian Orthodox Church as an official establishment on Earth was disbanded and ceased to exist; it was driven into the catacombs. He even tried to start the "Living Church", which was recognized by the heretics in Constantinople. When it became known that it would not be that simple, Stalin organized a his new R"O"C that would take orders from him - spying on orther people and countries, quite a useful tool as it turned out.

The problem is essentially that there are many people who became part of Stalins new church, and have come to beleive that this was a creation of God. They have also come to ignore and detest the Catacomb Church, and this is because people equate Earthly power with truth. But as Christ said, the one shall route the many, and the fool shall confound the wise.

And being forced to deal with Stalin's creation, which has no apostolic succession, the ROCOR has fell into the same error of recognizing them as legitimate - ignoring the true Russian Church of the Catacombs. Earthly power has such a corrupting effect on weak men.

But "for this cause, God shall send them a working of delusion that they should believe a lie, so that they all may be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness".

[zlata]

"He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone" John 8:7

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

So then I suppose if the Evangelicals started looking and smelling like the Orthodox, that will be enough to call them so? Perhaps ROCOR would unite with them, if they could just speak Russian on top of it.

If the ROCOR was interesting in truth and not power, they would be identifying themseves with the Catacombniks, who stood fast, died for the faith, but worship in their basements, and not the Soviet sell-outs because they have all the majestic and expensive "churches"

[CGW]

I think another point to be made on the idea of "jurisdictional hoping". Those of us that are converts are also "guilty" of this. I can speak for myself and my fiancee. We went from Protestanrtism on my fiancee's part to Neo-Catholicism, to Traditional catholicism, to Sedevacantism, to Catholic cultism, to the GOARCH, to the Antiochians and now we are where we are, Catechumens in ROAC. We looked into ROCOR so in certain senses you could add that in. Now, does this make me "as bad a Bp. Gregory?" No, for all extents and purposes, I was/am in a worse boat.

I don't think that all of us converts are so guilty; perhaps you are "guilty" of passing judgement on each successive church, but that is not how I converted. In any case, what you and I do, as laymen, lacks the political implications of what clerics do.

My point. I believe that throughout our lives we see the indisputable theologcal errors in many of these groups and we leave ot find what we believe ot be the form of Orthodoxy that we most believe based on sources such as the Council's the Fathers, the Saints etc. Is this an evil thing? For me it was not.

The difficulty is in that word "indisputable". They are disputed, so therefore they are not indisputable. And indeed, it seems to be easy enough to find fault with any group, while denying that there is any fault in another.

On one level, to me this looks utterly protestant. After all, it is the individual believer, in chosing between these various groups, that is the actual determinant of faith. But on another, it looks utterly political. This is what the world sees, and I suspect that in this, the world sees its own. There is something profoundly unedifying in the sight of a bunch of different sects (which is the word the world uses) squabbling over who is the True Church, each complaining loudly about the alleged faults of the others while resolutely denying the faults that others allege about them. Someone reading the gospel about pharisees seeking the best seats in synagogue might very well be repulsed by this spectacle and denounce the whole thing.

[Daniel]

perhaps you are "guilty" of passing judgement on each successive church, but that is not how I converted.

CGW,
I am little confused by your statement. Care to clarify?

[CGW]

perhaps you are "guilty" of passing judgement on each successive church, but that is not how I converted.

I am little confused by your statement. Care to clarify?

The point is that people go to new denominations and jurisdictions for other reasons than that they've passed judgement on the theology of their old church. In Orthodoxy, it would be sufficient to move to a town which had no parish of one's old jurisidiction.

[Daniel]

perhaps you are "guilty" of passing judgement on each successive church, but that is not how I converted.

I am little confused by your statement. Care to clarify?

The point is that people go to new denominations and jurisdictions for other reasons than that they've passed judgement on the theology of their old church. In Orthodoxy, it would be sufficient to move to a town which had no parish of one's old jurisidiction.

That maybe the case for some but deffinately not all.

When I moved to Minneapolis I could have gone to one of the three Ukrainian Churches(under Bart) which is were I was when I live in Florida, but didn't because I could no longer accept being a group whose bishop thought that the Methodist's 'bapstism' was salvific.