Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

15663Re: one dimensional church

Expand Messages
  • vkozyreff
    Dec 12, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Father John, bless.

      Please excuse me for not agreeing with you. You are in total
      confusion, it seems to me.

      The sins of Met Sergius, Pat Tikhon, Met Peter etc. are not what make
      their organisations cease to be part of the Church. Saints are not
      sinless. St Paul persecuted the Christians.

      Saints are not saints for the sins that they committed, but for the
      way they finally glorified God. A new martyr who gave Chirstians to
      the NKVD is not a martyr for doing so, but for giving his life for
      Christ, whatever his previous sins.

      An organisation that claims that Met Sergius saved the Church is not
      the Church. The Church is in the apostolic succession, which implies
      teaching orthodoxy.

      An organisation that is not under persecution any longer and endorses
      the declaration that was obtained by God fighting authorities from a
      hierarch by torture for the purpose of anihilating the Church is not
      the successor of the tortured hierarch, but the successor of those
      who applied pressure to obtain that declaration. This remains the
      case even if that organisation does not collaborate with God fighting
      authorities any longer.

      If a fomer Nazi would say that exterminating Jews was a bold step
      that saved Germany, but that he does not promote the persecutions of
      the Jews any longer in the present circumstances, he remains a
      criminal that nobody can follow.

      The MP as a structure cannot be the Church, but is a false Church. We
      do not speak here about a personal sin, but about the essence of the
      organisation's teaching. If an organisation, even one that claims
      apostolic succession would teach that Lenin is a saint, that
      organisation could not be the Church, because that teaching, even if
      never declared to be a heresy, would be a heresy.

      Buddhism or communism are not heresies, because they have no
      relationship to orthodoxy. Sergianism is a heresy, because it is a
      distorted orthodoxy. Your position is confused and dangerous, because
      it contributes to the adulteration of orthodoxy, as usually under the
      false pretext of brotherly love.

      Sergianism remains sergianism even if we forgive Met Sergius and have
      compassion for him. We remain sergianist if we fail to dissociate
      ourselves with the declaration that he delivered, in spite of it
      having been allegedly extorted by torture, and thus allegedly not
      even being his.

      It is a mistake for a priest to confuse believers in encouraging them
      to join a sergianist orgnaisation under te false pretext that Pat
      Tikhon too committed the sin of sergianism.

      The MP as a structure, having lost apostolic succession for teaching
      a false orthodoxy and failing to renounce that false teaching after
      the end of persecutions cannot be the Church.

      In Christ,

      Vladimir Kozyreff

      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John McCuen"
      <frjohnmcc@c...> wrote:
      > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "podnoss" <podnoss@y...>
      > >
      > > Those who continue to see Metropolitan Sergius as
      an "existential"
      > > hero
      > > who had the courage to reconcile himself to the way things were
      > > in
      > > several ways. They attribute more volition to Metropolitan
      > > than
      > > history will allow. The melodramatize, even sentimentalize
      > > Metropolitan
      > > Sergius' compromising profession of spiritual solidarity with the
      > > Soviet government. Most of all, they miss the point that
      > > Sergius, his disciples and successors were a nomenklatura* put in
      > > place
      > > by the ideologists & intelligence operatives of the C.P.S.U. This
      > > a
      > > church brought to its knees which the C.P.S.U. was able to co-opt.
      > >
      > > Suffering in Christianity has everything to do with initiation,
      > > changing the structure of consciousness; when suffering corrupts
      > > it ceases to have redeeming value. You could argue that Bishops
      > > but
      > > a fractional element in Christian religion. But if you say this
      > > I
      > > have no need of Bishops.
      > >
      > > J. Walker
      > Is there some sort of invisible ink that makes things appear without
      > them actually being said? I re-read my post (to which this is your
      > reply) and was amazed to find that, in what I had posted, I said
      > nothing about Met. SERGEI (although you had named him in your
      > message). My orginal message says nothing about him being an
      > "existential hero"; nor anything about courage.
      > In fact, in a way, you have said something I was trying to say: The
      > Bolsheviks brought the Church to her knees; and so were able to co-
      > its leadership.
      > Ever had someone put a gun to your head, and threaten to shoot you?
      > Or put a gun to the head of someone you love, and threaten to shoot
      > that person if you do not comply with what they want? Probably
      > Neither have I, apart from being held up on a city street once (at
      > knifepoint).
      > Have you ever read any of Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago?"
      > It's all well and good for us to sit here and say that what Met.
      > SERGEI did was wrong -- and it was wrong. He may very well have
      > a power-hungry self-serving evil man; God will deal with that, so we
      > don't need to do so.
      > Are you aware that St. Peter of Krutitsa brought a document that had
      > been written by Tuchkov, the ChK agent assigned to oversee the
      > to St. Tikhon, which made a declaration similar to that made by Met.
      > SERGEI? Are you aware that St. Peter urged St. Tikhon to sign it;
      > threatened to resign if it was not signed? These are both saints
      > Yet even so, the Church did not cease to be the Church, even if a
      > Bolshevik-anointed nomenklatura was assigned to make the Church the
      > tame servant of the godless state. The Church is not dependent upon
      > the holiness of the persons who constitute the Body of Christ; and
      > lives of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, many of whom came
      > from the same Church over which this nomenklatura presided, testify
      > that Christ was not defeated by the Bolsheviks; nor is He absent
      > Or do you think that they did not pray for the Church in Russia to
      > survive -- and not just the emigre Church (ROCOR) and not just the
      > Catacomb Church?
      > unworthy Priest John McCuen
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic