Re: Official Historical Position of the Russian Church Abroad
- Dear Father Alexander, bless.
You quote Metropolitan Anastassy (whom ROCOR clerics on this forum
accuse of sergianism vis à vis Hilter, now) as saying: "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."
Indeed, Vl Anastassy distinguished between the leaders and the
believers. He accused the first ones and supports the second ones. He
says that the mistakes of the leadres are separate from the Church
herself. That is why the leaders (the MP with which you "negotiate")
do not represent the true Church.
Your quote of St John has been discussed previously on this forum. It
appears that he never supported the MP leadership. He said: "One's
attitude to this hierarchy can be the same as to the other
representatives of this regime." Archbishop John, manuscript, Russkiy
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff"
> Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
> >Should we bow before a false Church, and thus clearly show to the
> >world that they may consider a false Church as a true one, we would
> >betray God and serve the devil.
> One would certainly think that in the 78 years since the time of
> "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius, or 62 years since Stalinofficial
> allowed the election of a Patriarch of Russia, the Russian Orthodox
> Church Outside of Russia would have issued at least **one**
> statement explicitly declaring the Moscow Patriarchate to bea "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
> the people are not responsible for the behavior of the leaders, andby
> 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
> Patriarch Alexei I addressed to Stalin and well known toMetropolitan
> 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
> heading (vozglavlenia) of the Russian Church by His Holinessas
> 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,
> in the past, to commemorate the name of the Head of the Russianepiscopate."
> Church, replacing the temporarily used expression: "the orthodox
> "Therefore 1) at litanies, the Great Entrance and after the
> consecration of the Gifts TO COMMMEMORATE "OUR MASTER AND FATHER
> HOLINESS ALEXEI, PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW AND ALL RUSSIA; 2) at the manypatriarchs"
> years at the end of the service after "the holy orthodox
> to say the same; 3) after His Holiness the Patriarch to commemoratethe
> 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
> difference between a "false Church" and a true one?the
> Why do you, Vladimir, presume to have more discernment regarding
> Moscow Patriarchate than did Metropolitan Anastassy or St. John of
> Shanghai and San Francisco?
> With love in Christ,
> Prot. Alexander Lebedeff