15663Re: one dimensional church
- Dec 12, 2005Dear 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
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 email@example.com, "Fr. John McCuen"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "podnoss" <podnoss@y...>
> >an "existential"
> > Those who continue to see Metropolitan Sergius as
> > heroerr
> > who had the courage to reconcile himself to the way things were
> > inSergius
> > several ways. They attribute more volition to Metropolitan
> > thanMetropolitan
> > 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 inwas
> > place
> > by the ideologists & intelligence operatives of the C.P.S.U. This
> > awith
> > 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 corruptsthen
> > it ceases to have redeeming value. You could argue that Bishopsare
> > butthen
> > a fractional element in Christian religion. But if you say this
> > Iopt
> > 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.not.
> 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 (atbeen
> 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 weChurch,
> 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.and
> SERGEI? Are you aware that St. Peter urged St. Tikhon to sign it;
> threatened to resign if it was not signed? These are both saintshere!
> 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 camenow.
> 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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>