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

15664Re: one dimensional church

Expand Messages
  • Fr. John McCuen
    Dec 12, 2005
      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
      <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
      > Dear Father John, bless.

      The Lord bless you.

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

      And I trust that you will also excuse me for not agreeing with you;
      including not agreeing that I am in "total confusion."

      > 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.

      Is such a claim opinion, or dogma? Obviously, if it is dogma, it is
      not Orthodox.

      > 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.

      This attempts, it seems, to paint a picture that condemns the ROC-MP
      for not explicitly repudiating the Declaration of Met. SERGEI. The
      document on Church-State relations adopted in 2000 by the MP Sobor
      rejects the policy of the Declaration, albeit without saying
      explicitly that the previous policy was wrong. So the premise in your
      opening sentence is invalid; the policy of the 1927 Declaration is not
      endorsed. The MP's acknowledgment of the historicity of the
      Declaration is not the same as an endorsement.

      > The MP as a structure cannot be the Church, but is a false Church.

      Who has made such a determination in a way consistent with Orthodox
      practice? I would not take issue with this statement on your part if
      you had prefaced it with, "In my opinion" -- but you make it a
      statement of fact.

      > 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.

      When and where did the MP declare Lenin to be a saint? I will grant
      that there may well have been individuals, even groups, who might hold
      such a ridiculous view -- but they do not speak for the Church.

      > Buddhism or communism are not heresies, because they have no
      > relationship to orthodoxy. Sergianism is a heresy, because it is a
      > distorted orthodoxy.

      If this is true, then you must also beleive that the Orthodoxy of the
      Patriarchate of Constantinople has been a distorted one, and therefore
      heretical, since 1453. If this is true, then you must also believe
      that the Orthodoxy of the Church of Russia has been a distorted one
      since the time that Peter I abolished the Patriarchate, and brought
      the Church under the control of the State.

      > Your position is confused and dangerous, because
      > it contributes to the adulteration of orthodoxy, as usually under the
      > false pretext of brotherly love.

      "Brotherly love" is a false pretext? My position is confused and
      dangerous? I think not. I think if one reads the Gospels, it will
      become fairly obvious that "brotherly love" has a much higher
      acceptance than the practices of the Pharisees.

      > 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.

      I am not encouraging anyone to join a sergianist organization.
      Neither did I say that St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, sinned; or
      that he committed "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.

      This is your opinion; you are certainly entitled to think this way, if
      you choose to do so. Our ROCOR bishops do not agree with your
      position; and, as I serve in ROCOR, I will follow their directions.
      If you find that you cannot do so, may God bless and help you on your
      journey. However, which would be a better course of action for each
      of us to follow with respect to each other as we each do our best to
      go the way we believe God is leading us: to pray for God's mercy for
      each other? Or to speak in terms that, under the guise of expressing
      spiritual concern, are actually ones of criticism and condemnation? I
      am not saying that you will do the latter; but that has certainly been
      my experience of this from others who have advanced opinions parallel
      to the ones you have expressed about the ROC-MP -- so you will
      understand if I am a bit apprehensive.

      unworthy Priest John McCuen
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic