Is the MP the Mother Church of the ROCOR & others?

[Methodius]

Is the Moscow Patriarchate the Mother Church of ROCOR and the Tikhonite and Josephite Russian Orthodox Catacomb Churches and thus also the Mother Church of all the groups that split from ROCOR such as the OCA, HOCNA, ROAC and ROCiE?

[Justin Kissel]

While I do think she will have a part to play in a reunion council, I do not think that she is the "Mother Church," having been (at least in part) the anti-canonical, anti-Orthodox creation of wordly men who not only were outside the faith, but actually hated the faith and had our faith's demise as a stated goal.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

What is a reunion council?

[Mor Ephrem]

While I do think she will have a part to play in a reunion council, I do not think that she is the "Mother Church," having been (at least in part) the anti-canonical, anti-Orthodox creation of wordly men who not only were outside the faith, but actually hated the faith and had our faith's demise as a stated goal.

I voted yes, because I didn't and don't read "Moscow Patriarchate" to be a post-1917 creation, but the Russian Orthodox Church, which has existed before then, and from which ROCOR came; of course she would be the Mother Church.

Does "Moscow Patriarchate" ordinarily have a different meaning? If so, this will be the first time I'm hearing of it.

P.S. Justin, not to knock you, but I notice you have a habit of doing this. The word you want is "worldly", with two L's, and not "wordly". No offence, of course, but better English never hurt anyone.

[尼古拉前执事]

"Moscow Patriarchate" is generally used to describe the self-proclaimed "church" in Russia (starting with Sergius) that was run by the atheist communists based on the so-called "Living church".

As for a reunion council, traditionally it was held that there were 2 parts of the Russian Orthodox Church that had not fallen into schism or heresy and that these were the Catacomb Church and ROCOR. The Great Russian Council to combine them along with a repenting (of heresies and schism) MP was always envisioned to be the end of the ROC existing is separate entities.

[Justin Kissel]

Mor,

Thanks for pointing that out I guess at this point I can't blame my publik skool edjumakation since I've been recovering from that ordeal for 6 years now

The Moscow Patriarchate, as I understand, replaced the form of government that had been in place in Russia for hundreds of years at the point of it's creation. It'd sort of be like the American courts making a thing called "The Washington Metropolitanate" and then saying everyone was to be under it. It's not that there wasn't Metropolitans or Orthodox in Washington (or centered in Washington) before... but it wasn't this group that was there before. Even many pro-sergianists will admit that the MP was partly a soviet creation (after which the pro-sergianists normally say that the Metropolitans had come to a deal with the soviets but that the soviets didn't hold to their side of the agreement). No matter how you look at it, I don't see that the MP could be seen as having a valid, canonical formation (which is odd since some attack ROCOR for being "of irregular status"! So what does that make the young child of an uncanonical church? ) I was under the impression that the soviets had hoped that the living Church would eventually snuff out the life of Orthodoxy in Russia, but when it became obvious that it just wouldn't get the job down, they tried to take a more direct approach. That approach was not to install leaders and spies into the already existing hierarchal structure (though they did that too), but instead to create an entirely new structure altogether, with exile or death coming to those who resisted.

OOD,

As Nicholas said, I was just talking about the pan-Orthodox synod that's been looked forward to by those in ROCOR since their beginnings. (interesting, St. John of Shanghai seemed to see repentance on all sides as necessary for healing... I wonder if we've all repented yet). As you know, having a canonical foundation isn't the only requirement for being Orthodox. There have been examples in the past where a groups origin or past were hazy or unorthodox--sometimes every downright heretical--but it just seemed good to the holy spirit and the saints to have them enter the Church essentially in the same place (ie. priests, deacons, etc.) that they had in their former church. That's why I said that they definately weren't the mother Church but could still play a part in a council.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Of course the Orthodox pray the heretic communion will have some sort of gathering in which they will return to the Church. But at the same time we realize the Ecumenist Church leaders continue toward some council in which their goals can be affirmed "officially" on a pan-religious level, and that they will not offer such a council until they are sure of their own success.

Until then, they will stridently continue with great toil and sweat, to not only promote a social gospel, but destroy any sense of steadfastness to Orthodoxy. They will say: “Look, society is corrupt, we must protest!”. And more and more a hypocritical sensitivity will prevail in matters of morals and social “justice”, but a boundless tolerance will be promoted and shown in matters of faith. This is so because matters of faith relate to eternal life, something hereafter, intangible, and essentially of no interest to these people who have lost their faith, while moral matters relate to “this city” which, though it may not be “abiding,” the people “who have no Hope” wish to make more “abiding,” in order to find some place better for the futility of their existence. Morality is the mainstay of society. Holiness, however, is a departure from the world and the systems of the world, and for this reason society looks cynically upon it. Holiness denies the world which “lieth in wickedness.” It is something totally different from moral integrity. Moral integrity looks to the present age, but holiness is indifferent to it in this vain age of corruption, and looks to the future age of incorruption.

So let each person who says he is Orthodox prove it so by being in Communion with Christ, and not be swindled and in communion with the corruptions and appearances of Orthodoxy, that is, those masquerading as bearers of the Truth, but are in fact working for the destruction of Christ's flock.

Today, the masses within the Ecumenist Church stand before the small, scorned, and ridiculed Genuine Orthodox Church as Pontius Pilot represented the masses and stood before the bruised and beaten Lord sarcastically saying, "Truth? What is Truth?" Where do you stand?