15460Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Official Historical Position of the Russian Church Abroad
- Nov 2, 2005Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
>Should we bow before a false Church, and thus clearly show to theOne would certainly think that in the 78 years since the time of the
>world that they may consider a false Church as a true one, we would
>betray God and serve the devil.
"Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius, or 62 years since Stalin
allowed the election of a Patriarch of Russia, the Russian Orthodox
Church Outside of Russia would have issued at least **one** official
statement explicitly declaring the Moscow Patriarchate to be a "false Church."
That was certainly **not** the view of Metropolitan Anastassy, who
stated (in 1953, at the Sobor of Bishops):
"They say that Patriarch Alexy sinned more than his predecessor.
Whether he sinned more or less, we cannot deny his ordination. Much
is said of their apostasy. But we must be cautious. We can hardly
make an outright accusation of apostasy. In no place do they affirm
atheism. In their published sermons they attempt to hold to the
Orthodox line. They took and continue to take very strict measures
with regard to the obnovlentsy, and did not tear their ties with
Patriarch Tikhon. The false policy belongs to the church authority
and the responsibility for it falls on its leaders. Only heresy
adopted by the whole Church tarnishes the whole Church. In this case,
the people are not responsible for the behavior of the leaders, and
the Church, as such, remains unblemished."
Vladimir--listen to Metropolitan Anastassy's words again: "the
Church, as such," [he is talking about the Moscow Patriarchate
here--saying that it, notwithstanding the "false policy" of its
leaders] -- "remains unblemished."
And this was all said long after the reestablishment of the
Patriarchy in 1943, and after a large number of hyperbolic paeans by
Patriarch Alexei I addressed to Stalin and well known to Metropolitan
How can a Church which "remains unblemished" be a false Church?
Also, Saint John of Shanghai wrote, in his Ukaz No. 650, to the
Shanghai clergy, dated August 24, 1945, wrote:
"Now, in view of the unquestionable (besspornogo) lawful (zakonnogo)
heading (vozglavlenia) of the Russian Church by His Holiness
Patriarch Alexei, elected by the All-Russian Church Council to
succeed the reposed Patriarch Sergius, and recognized, as was his
predecessor, by all of the autocephalous Churches, it is required, as
in the past, to commemorate the name of the Head of the Russian
Church, replacing the temporarily used expression: "the orthodox episcopate."
"Therefore 1) at litanies, the Great Entrance and after the
consecration of the Gifts TO COMMMEMORATE "OUR MASTER AND FATHER HIS
HOLINESS ALEXEI, PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW AND ALL RUSSIA; 2) at the many
years at the end of the service after "the holy orthodox patriarchs"
to say the same; 3) after His Holiness the Patriarch to commemorate
the other hierarchs, commemorated in the local churches." [Emphasis
in the original Ukaz].
Do you believe that St. John, who was clairvoyant, could not tell the
difference between a "false Church" and a true one?
Why do you, Vladimir, presume to have more discernment regarding the
Moscow Patriarchate than did Metropolitan Anastassy or St. John of
Shanghai and San Francisco?
With love in Christ,
Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>