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

Re: The difference

Expand Messages
  • Benjamin William Champley Waterhouse
    Fr John Bless! Nope, just that a number of people are saying/implying that the relationship between the MP and the Soviet state was no different eg than that
    Message 1 of 27 , Dec 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Fr John Bless!

      Nope, just that a number of people are saying/implying that the
      relationship between the MP and the Soviet state was no different eg
      than that with Peter the Great, I think it is of a whole different
      kettle of fish.

      Even if it wasn't, two wrongs do not make a right. Sergius did *not*
      save the Church, he tried to betray it. And some of the Heirarchs in
      the MP think Sergius did the right thing....

      KYRH
      In Him
      SB

      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John McCuen"
      <frjohnmcc@c...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Benjamin William Champley
      > Waterhouse" <bwmc_waterhouse@h...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Dear All,
      > >
      > > In my opinion the overriding difference between the Sergianist
      > > heretical relationship the MP had with the Soviet state and all
      the
      > > other compromises Orthodoxy has had with other authorities
      (Petrine,
      > > Ottoman etc) is that the Soviet state was the only one thats
      very core
      > > of philosophy was to destroy absolutely the Church and
      Christianity.
      > >
      >
      > There is a principle in physics which holds that, "A difference
      that
      > makes no difference is no difference."
      >
      > Are you saying that the Soviet state was successful in its goal of
      > destroying the Church and Christianity in Russia? Why highlight
      this
      > difference without discussing its sugnificance?
      >
      > unworthy Priest John McCuen
      >
    • Fr. John McCuen
      ... The Lord bless you. ... In my opinion, the circumstances under Peter (the not-so-Great), which made the Church subservient to the state, set the stage for
      Message 2 of 27 , Dec 6, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Benjamin William Champley
        Waterhouse" <bwmc_waterhouse@h...> wrote:
        >
        > Fr John Bless!
        >

        The Lord bless you.

        > Nope, just that a number of people are saying/implying that the
        > relationship between the MP and the Soviet state was no different eg
        > than that with Peter the Great, I think it is of a whole different
        > kettle of fish.
        >

        In my opinion, the circumstances under Peter (the not-so-Great), which
        made the Church subservient to the state, set the stage for the 1927
        Declaration of Met. SERGEI. (This does not excuse the Declaration; it
        is merely an appreciation of the circumstances under which it might
        have been made.) Where the "kettle of fish" is different, I think, is
        on the part of the state. Where Peter had sought to bring the Church
        "to heel," so that his power to rule would be unchallengeable by the
        Church, the Bolsheviks not only understood the potential for the
        Church to serve as a nucleus of power apart from their own, they had
        the additional goal of the extermination of all religious beliefs,
        which they attempted to accomplish upon seizing power.

        > Even if it wasn't, two wrongs do not make a right. Sergius did *not*
        > save the Church, he tried to betray it. And some of the Heirarchs in
        > the MP think Sergius did the right thing....
        >

        Again, while I cannot help but wish that Met. SERGEI had not issued
        his Declaration, from what I have been able to gather about the man,
        and about the circumstances of the times, I will say that I think he
        was doing what he thought was correct; and so he was not trying to
        betray the Church. He failed, of course; but the failure, by itself,
        does not make him a traitor, which he would have been if his intention
        was to betray the Church. I think it is telling that (if
        Pospielovsky's history is correct) Met. SERGEI was approached in 1926
        with a document similar to the Declaration, which he did not sign;
        but, after a period of isolation/house arrest, he *did* sign the
        document in 1927. The reports of the changes in the position held by
        St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, from 1918 to 1922 (also in
        Pospielovsky) show a movement towards a degree of resignation on the
        part of the Church toward dealings with the Bolshevik state; and so
        the Declaration, to me, without in any way negating the damage that it
        did, takes on a different perspective when viewed in that larger context.

        While some in the MP do believe that the Declaration was necessary to
        "save" the Church, and while some who oppose any dialogue with the MP
        wait for someone in the MP to condemn Met. SERGEI and the Declaration,
        I think the statement made by the 2000 Sobor about church-state
        relations accomplishes the effective renunciation of the policy behind
        the 1927 Declaration, even if it does not say explicitly that the old
        policy was wrong. So, on one level, we must ask ourselves what is
        important; and how much "correction" we will "require" before we are
        willing to say that an objectionable policy of thepast has been set
        aside, and no longer is a barrier to the pursuit of healing the
        divisions in the Russian Church.

        unworthy Priest John McCuen
      • Benjamin William Champley Waterhouse
        Fr John Bless! It would help if I could spell, forgive me! My opinion is that Segianism (from Met Sergei!!)is not the overriding problem, that will sort itself
        Message 3 of 27 , Dec 7, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Fr John Bless!

          It would help if I could spell, forgive me!

          My opinion is that Segianism (from Met Sergei!!)is not the
          overriding problem, that will sort itself out over time.

          It is ecuminism in the MP that I am deeply concerned about. A simple
          question why is the MP still in the WCC, after being forced into it
          originally by the Soviet state for foreign political reasons?

          KYRH
          In Him
          SB

          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John McCuen"
          <frjohnmcc@c...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Benjamin William Champley
          > Waterhouse" <bwmc_waterhouse@h...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Fr John Bless!
          > >
          >
          > The Lord bless you.
          >
          > > Nope, just that a number of people are saying/implying that the
          > > relationship between the MP and the Soviet state was no
          different eg
          > > than that with Peter the Great, I think it is of a whole
          different
          > > kettle of fish.
          > >
          >
          > In my opinion, the circumstances under Peter (the not-so-Great),
          which
          > made the Church subservient to the state, set the stage for the
          1927
          > Declaration of Met. SERGEI. (This does not excuse the
          Declaration; it
          > is merely an appreciation of the circumstances under which it might
          > have been made.) Where the "kettle of fish" is different, I
          think, is
          > on the part of the state. Where Peter had sought to bring the
          Church
          > "to heel," so that his power to rule would be unchallengeable by
          the
          > Church, the Bolsheviks not only understood the potential for the
          > Church to serve as a nucleus of power apart from their own, they
          had
          > the additional goal of the extermination of all religious beliefs,
          > which they attempted to accomplish upon seizing power.
          >
          > > Even if it wasn't, two wrongs do not make a right. Sergius did
          *not*
          > > save the Church, he tried to betray it. And some of the
          Heirarchs in
          > > the MP think Sergius did the right thing....
          > >
          >
          > Again, while I cannot help but wish that Met. SERGEI had not issued
          > his Declaration, from what I have been able to gather about the
          man,
          > and about the circumstances of the times, I will say that I think
          he
          > was doing what he thought was correct; and so he was not trying to
          > betray the Church. He failed, of course; but the failure, by
          itself,
          > does not make him a traitor, which he would have been if his
          intention
          > was to betray the Church. I think it is telling that (if
          > Pospielovsky's history is correct) Met. SERGEI was approached in
          1926
          > with a document similar to the Declaration, which he did not sign;
          > but, after a period of isolation/house arrest, he *did* sign the
          > document in 1927. The reports of the changes in the position held
          by
          > St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, from 1918 to 1922 (also in
          > Pospielovsky) show a movement towards a degree of resignation on
          the
          > part of the Church toward dealings with the Bolshevik state; and so
          > the Declaration, to me, without in any way negating the damage
          that it
          > did, takes on a different perspective when viewed in that larger
          context.
          >
          > While some in the MP do believe that the Declaration was necessary
          to
          > "save" the Church, and while some who oppose any dialogue with the
          MP
          > wait for someone in the MP to condemn Met. SERGEI and the
          Declaration,
          > I think the statement made by the 2000 Sobor about church-state
          > relations accomplishes the effective renunciation of the policy
          behind
          > the 1927 Declaration, even if it does not say explicitly that the
          old
          > policy was wrong. So, on one level, we must ask ourselves what is
          > important; and how much "correction" we will "require" before we
          are
          > willing to say that an objectionable policy of thepast has been set
          > aside, and no longer is a barrier to the pursuit of healing the
          > divisions in the Russian Church.
          >
          > unworthy Priest John McCuen
          >
        • podnoss
          It seems inapt to defend the actions of Met. Sergius & his disciples under the heading salvation : the total identification of this group with a cruelly
          Message 4 of 27 , Dec 8, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            It seems inapt to defend the actions of Met. Sergius & his disciples
            under the heading "salvation": the total identification of this
            group with a cruelly militant atheistic Government was a matter of
            physical survival & not a case of state/church niceties.

            Theologically speaking this is losing Faith. So what you had was a
            faithless clergy which developed a cultlike hypocritical
            consciousness that considered rites to be the church's only
            important function. In the sociology of Christian religion such a
            narrow interpretation of "salvation" is sectarianism.

            John Walker



            --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John McCuen"
            <frjohnmcc@c...> wrote:
            >
            > In my opinion, >
            > Again, while I cannot help but wish that Met. SERGEI had not issued
            > his Declaration, from what I have been able to gather about the
            man,
            > and about the circumstances of the times, I will say that I think
            he
            > was doing what he thought was correct; and so he was not trying to
            > betray the Church. He failed, of course; but the failure, by
            itself,
            > does not make him a traitor, which he would have been if his
            intention
            > was to betray the Church. I think it is telling that (if
            > Pospielovsky's history is correct) Met. SERGEI was approached in
            1926
            > with a document similar to the Declaration, which he did not sign;
            > but, after a period of isolation/house arrest, he *did* sign the
            > document in 1927.
            > While some in the MP do believe that the Declaration was necessary
            > to
            > "save" the Church,.......






            > and while some who oppose any dialogue with the MP
            > wait for someone in the MP to condemn Met. SERGEI and the
            Declaration,
            > I think the statement made by the 2000 Sobor about church-state
            > relations accomplishes the effective renunciation of the policy
            behind
            > the 1927 Declaration, even if it does not say explicitly that the
            old
            > policy was wrong. So, on one level, we must ask ourselves what is
            > important; and how much "correction" we will "require" before we
            are
            > willing to say that an objectionable policy of thepast has been set
            > aside, and no longer is a barrier to the pursuit of healing the
            > divisions in the Russian Church.
            >
            > unworthy Priest John McCuen
            >
          • Yuliya Obertas
            Does anyone know where I can buy an icon of ó×ÑÔÏÊ å×ÇÅÎÉÊ or I guess St. Eugene in English? Thank you in advance, Yuliya Archives located at
            Message 5 of 27 , Dec 9, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Does anyone know where I can buy an icon of "������ �������" or I guess St.
              Eugene in English?

              Thank you in advance,

              Yuliya





              Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod






              SPONSORED LINKS


              Jewish
              <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Jewish+orthodox&w1=Jewish+orthodox&w2=O
              rthodox&w3=Orthodox+church&w4=Greek+orthodox+church&w5=Sect+of+judaism&c=5&s
              =104&.sig=oMFUMk2JsdliHw1qOcGIxg> orthodox

              Orthodox
              <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Orthodox&w1=Jewish+orthodox&w2=Orthodox
              &w3=Orthodox+church&w4=Greek+orthodox+church&w5=Sect+of+judaism&c=5&s=104&.s
              ig=l-LTjVz2wpDt4WFh-_SuKA>

              Orthodox
              <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Orthodox+church&w1=Jewish+orthodox&w2=O
              rthodox&w3=Orthodox+church&w4=Greek+orthodox+church&w5=Sect+of+judaism&c=5&s
              =104&.sig=_l5sWxs7SGx9bleGIdFUFA> church


              Greek
              <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Greek+orthodox+church&w1=Jewish+orthodo
              x&w2=Orthodox&w3=Orthodox+church&w4=Greek+orthodox+church&w5=Sect+of+judaism
              &c=5&s=104&.sig=lGblDStSqYHeiZatOWOrtA> orthodox church

              Sect
              <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sect+of+judaism&w1=Jewish+orthodox&w2=O
              rthodox&w3=Orthodox+church&w4=Greek+orthodox+church&w5=Sect+of+judaism&c=5&s
              =104&.sig=XvdH46YPdU8uppWYEfPR5w> of judaism





              _____

              YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



              * Visit your group "orthodox-synod
              <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-synod> " on the web.

              * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              <mailto:orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

              * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
              <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



              _____



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • vkozyreff
              Dear KYRH, Sergianism and ecumenism are brothers, children of the same father and always linked with one another. In Christ, Vladimir Kozyreff ... simple ...
              Message 6 of 27 , Dec 9, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear KYRH,

                Sergianism and ecumenism are brothers, children of the same father
                and always linked with one another.

                In Christ,

                Vladimir Kozyreff

                --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Benjamin William Champley
                Waterhouse" <bwmc_waterhouse@h...> wrote:
                >
                > Fr John Bless!
                >
                > It would help if I could spell, forgive me!
                >
                > My opinion is that Segianism (from Met Sergei!!)is not the
                > overriding problem, that will sort itself out over time.
                >
                > It is ecuminism in the MP that I am deeply concerned about. A
                simple
                > question why is the MP still in the WCC, after being forced into it
                > originally by the Soviet state for foreign political reasons?
                >
                > KYRH
                > In Him
                > SB
                >
                > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John McCuen"
                > <frjohnmcc@c...> wrote:
                > >
                > > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Benjamin William Champley
                > > Waterhouse" <bwmc_waterhouse@h...> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Fr John Bless!
                > > >
                > >
                > > The Lord bless you.
                > >
                > > > Nope, just that a number of people are saying/implying that the
                > > > relationship between the MP and the Soviet state was no
                > different eg
                > > > than that with Peter the Great, I think it is of a whole
                > different
                > > > kettle of fish.
                > > >
                > >
                > > In my opinion, the circumstances under Peter (the not-so-Great),
                > which
                > > made the Church subservient to the state, set the stage for the
                > 1927
                > > Declaration of Met. SERGEI. (This does not excuse the
                > Declaration; it
                > > is merely an appreciation of the circumstances under which it
                might
                > > have been made.) Where the "kettle of fish" is different, I
                > think, is
                > > on the part of the state. Where Peter had sought to bring the
                > Church
                > > "to heel," so that his power to rule would be unchallengeable by
                > the
                > > Church, the Bolsheviks not only understood the potential for the
                > > Church to serve as a nucleus of power apart from their own, they
                > had
                > > the additional goal of the extermination of all religious beliefs,
                > > which they attempted to accomplish upon seizing power.
                > >
                > > > Even if it wasn't, two wrongs do not make a right. Sergius did
                > *not*
                > > > save the Church, he tried to betray it. And some of the
                > Heirarchs in
                > > > the MP think Sergius did the right thing....
                > > >
                > >
                > > Again, while I cannot help but wish that Met. SERGEI had not
                issued
                > > his Declaration, from what I have been able to gather about the
                > man,
                > > and about the circumstances of the times, I will say that I think
                > he
                > > was doing what he thought was correct; and so he was not trying to
                > > betray the Church. He failed, of course; but the failure, by
                > itself,
                > > does not make him a traitor, which he would have been if his
                > intention
                > > was to betray the Church. I think it is telling that (if
                > > Pospielovsky's history is correct) Met. SERGEI was approached in
                > 1926
                > > with a document similar to the Declaration, which he did not sign;
                > > but, after a period of isolation/house arrest, he *did* sign the
                > > document in 1927. The reports of the changes in the position
                held
                > by
                > > St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, from 1918 to 1922 (also in
                > > Pospielovsky) show a movement towards a degree of resignation on
                > the
                > > part of the Church toward dealings with the Bolshevik state; and
                so
                > > the Declaration, to me, without in any way negating the damage
                > that it
                > > did, takes on a different perspective when viewed in that larger
                > context.
                > >
                > > While some in the MP do believe that the Declaration was
                necessary
                > to
                > > "save" the Church, and while some who oppose any dialogue with
                the
                > MP
                > > wait for someone in the MP to condemn Met. SERGEI and the
                > Declaration,
                > > I think the statement made by the 2000 Sobor about church-state
                > > relations accomplishes the effective renunciation of the policy
                > behind
                > > the 1927 Declaration, even if it does not say explicitly that the
                > old
                > > policy was wrong. So, on one level, we must ask ourselves what is
                > > important; and how much "correction" we will "require" before we
                > are
                > > willing to say that an objectionable policy of thepast has been
                set
                > > aside, and no longer is a barrier to the pursuit of healing the
                > > divisions in the Russian Church.
                > >
                > > unworthy Priest John McCuen
                > >
                >
              • Fr. John McCuen
                ... It is mind-boggling to think that there are people today who, without having been under the Bolshevik yoke, feel qualified to sit in judgment of those who
                Message 7 of 27 , Dec 9, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "podnoss" <podnoss@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > It seems inapt to defend the actions of Met. Sergius & his disciples
                  > under the heading "salvation": the total identification of this
                  > group with a cruelly militant atheistic Government was a matter of
                  > physical survival & not a case of state/church niceties.
                  >

                  It is mind-boggling to think that there are people today who, without
                  having been under the Bolshevik yoke, feel qualified to sit in
                  judgment of those who had to endure unspeakable tortures. May God
                  have mercy on each of us as we give an account of our lives, and the
                  decisions that we made; and may He bless us, as we have time before we
                  depart this life, to be spared the choices that each Russian Orthodox
                  Christian had to make under the Bolshevik regime.

                  > Theologically speaking this is losing Faith. So what you had was a
                  > faithless clergy which developed a cultlike hypocritical
                  > consciousness that considered rites to be the church's only
                  > important function. In the sociology of Christian religion such a
                  > narrow interpretation of "salvation" is sectarianism.
                  >

                  Mr. Walker: May I suggest, if you have not already done so, that you
                  read the book, "Father Arseny 1983-1973: Priest, Prisoner, SPiritual
                  Father," translated by Vera Bouteneff, published by St. Valdimir's
                  Seminary Press in 2002; and then tell us about the "faithless clergy"
                  in their "cultlike hypocritical consciousness" and the empty rites
                  they performed.

                  unworthy Priest John McCuen
                • Fr. John McCuen
                  ... The Lord bless you. Dear Benjamin, Rather than hash out the issue here, let me direct you to my blog, where I posted a consideration of the question of
                  Message 8 of 27 , Dec 9, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Benjamin William Champley
                    Waterhouse" <bwmc_waterhouse@h...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Fr John Bless!
                    >
                    > It would help if I could spell, forgive me!
                    >
                    > My opinion is that Segianism (from Met Sergei!!)is not the
                    > overriding problem, that will sort itself out over time.
                    >
                    > It is ecuminism in the MP that I am deeply concerned about. A simple
                    > question why is the MP still in the WCC, after being forced into it
                    > originally by the Soviet state for foreign political reasons?
                    >
                    > KYRH
                    > In Him
                    > SB

                    The Lord bless you.

                    Dear Benjamin,

                    Rather than hash out the issue here, let me direct you to my blog,
                    where I posted a consideration of the question of ecumenism.

                    You can comment there, or here, as you prefer.

                    Here is the link: http://eviljuan.blogspot.com/2005/11/on-ecumenism.html

                    Your unworthy servant in Christ,
                    Priest John McCuen
                  • larry most
                    GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST GLORY TO HIM FOREVER Dear Father John, Very well said. I ve read that book and have also read everything by Alexandre Solzenyetsen (poor
                    Message 9 of 27 , Dec 10, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST GLORY TO HIM FOREVER
                      Dear Father John,
                      Very well said. I've read that book and have also read
                      everything by Alexandre Solzenyetsen (poor spelling)
                      and I often wonder, how do we even DARE to judge what
                      the Church and believers had to suffer during the
                      "glorious communist years". I can't imagine.
                      Again thank you for a wonderful post
                      Love in Christ,
                      Sub-deacon Lawrence Most

                      --- "Fr. John McCuen" <frjohnmcc@...> wrote:

                      > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "podnoss"
                      > <podnoss@y...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > It seems inapt to defend the actions of Met.
                      > Sergius & his disciples
                      > > under the heading "salvation": the total
                      > identification of this
                      > > group with a cruelly militant atheistic Government
                      > was a matter of
                      > > physical survival & not a case of state/church
                      > niceties.
                      > >
                      >
                      > It is mind-boggling to think that there are people
                      > today who, without
                      > having been under the Bolshevik yoke, feel qualified
                      > to sit in
                      > judgment of those who had to endure unspeakable
                      > tortures. May God
                      > have mercy on each of us as we give an account of
                      > our lives, and the
                      > decisions that we made; and may He bless us, as we
                      > have time before we
                      > depart this life, to be spared the choices that each
                      > Russian Orthodox
                      > Christian had to make under the Bolshevik regime.
                      >
                      > > Theologically speaking this is losing Faith. So
                      > what you had was a
                      > > faithless clergy which developed a cultlike
                      > hypocritical
                      > > consciousness that considered rites to be the
                      > church's only
                      > > important function. In the sociology of Christian
                      > religion such a
                      > > narrow interpretation of "salvation" is
                      > sectarianism.
                      > >
                      >
                      > Mr. Walker: May I suggest, if you have not already
                      > done so, that you
                      > read the book, "Father Arseny 1983-1973: Priest,
                      > Prisoner, SPiritual
                      > Father," translated by Vera Bouteneff, published by
                      > St. Valdimir's
                      > Seminary Press in 2002; and then tell us about the
                      > "faithless clergy"
                      > in their "cultlike hypocritical consciousness" and
                      > the empty rites
                      > they performed.
                      >
                      > unworthy Priest John McCuen
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail.yahoo.com
                    • Richard
                      ... disciples ... matter of ... without ... May God ... and the ... time before we ... Orthodox ... Father, bless. Your observation above is the very reason
                      Message 10 of 27 , Dec 10, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John McCuen"
                        <frjohnmcc@c...> wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "podnoss"
                        <podnoss@y...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > It seems inapt to defend the actions of Met. Sergius & his
                        disciples
                        > > under the heading "salvation": the total identification of this
                        > > group with a cruelly militant atheistic Government was a
                        matter of
                        > > physical survival & not a case of state/church niceties.
                        > >
                        >
                        > It is mind-boggling to think that there are people today who,
                        without
                        > having been under the Bolshevik yoke, feel qualified to sit in
                        > judgment of those who had to endure unspeakable tortures.
                        May God
                        > have mercy on each of us as we give an account of our lives,
                        and the
                        > decisions that we made; and may He bless us, as we have
                        time before we
                        > depart this life, to be spared the choices that each Russian
                        Orthodox
                        > Christian had to make under the Bolshevik regime.


                        Father, bless.

                        Your observation above is the very reason why we don't see
                        such harsh judgementalism towards the MP within Russia
                        where the local Orthodox population has a greater
                        understanding of the context of what happened in the 20th
                        century. They are aware of the heroism during that time, and the
                        great good exercised over the last fifteen years -- the flowering of
                        parishes, monasteries, schools, orphanages, soup kitchens,
                        prison ministries, etc. In other words, they see the big picture...
                        scratch that... the've *lived* the big picture. If there's anyone who
                        could claim a right to demanding the current Synod of *heretical*
                        bishops to be hanged or whatever, it would be those locals. But
                        there isn't such a movement, even though they are perfectly
                        aware of the KGB accusations and the real KGB influences
                        during the Soviet dark ages. What all this indicates is that
                        perhaps there's a wide chasm between the faithful within
                        Russia and some outside Russia who didn't live under the
                        oppressive conditions.

                        In Christ,
                        Richard.


                        > > Theologically speaking this is losing Faith. So what you had
                        was a
                        > > faithless clergy which developed a cultlike hypocritical
                        > > consciousness that considered rites to be the church's only
                        > > important function. In the sociology of Christian religion such
                        a
                        > > narrow interpretation of "salvation" is sectarianism.
                        > >
                        >
                        > Mr. Walker: May I suggest, if you have not already done so, that
                        you
                        > read the book, "Father Arseny 1983-1973: Priest, Prisoner,
                        SPiritual
                        > Father," translated by Vera Bouteneff, published by St.
                        Valdimir's
                        > Seminary Press in 2002; and then tell us about the "faithless
                        clergy"
                        > in their "cultlike hypocritical consciousness" and the empty
                        rites
                        > they performed.
                        >
                        > unworthy Priest John McCuen
                        >
                      • Carol Surgant
                        Fr. John McCuen wrote: It is mind-boggling to think that there are people today who, without having been under the Bolshevik yoke, feel
                        Message 11 of 27 , Dec 10, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          "Fr. John McCuen" <frjohnmcc@...> wrote:
                          It is mind-boggling to think that there are people
                          today who, without having been under the Bolshevik
                          yoke, feel qualified to sit in judgment of those who
                          had to endure unspeakable tortures.

                          cas: Yes, and I asked someone once, who was very critical of the Church in Russia, if they had been over there recently to see for themselves the situation of the Church. They answered: "I don't need to go over there." Some people have so completely made up their minds on this issue that they refuse to let facts get in the way.

                          A blessed Nativity fast and Feast to all of you,
                          Carol Surgant



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • David Stavro
                          ... Hello Father John McCuen: Your words above are very realistic. Should nomadic arabs replace Bolshevik ; the new phrase would describe the Coptic and
                          Message 12 of 27 , Dec 10, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            >
                            > "Fr. John McCuen" <frjohnmcc@...> wrote:
                            > It is mind-boggling to think that there are people
                            > today who, without having been under the Bolshevik
                            > yoke, feel qualified to sit in judgment of those who

                            > had to endure unspeakable tortures.

                            Hello Father John McCuen:

                            Your words above are very realistic. Should "nomadic
                            arabs" replace "Bolshevik"; the new phrase would
                            describe the Coptic and Assyrian situation perfectly
                            well.

                            This weekend, I was discussing theology with some
                            Copts and it was amazing how we all agreed that we are
                            influenced by some Sunni Islamic features in our
                            modern ways of life. We have been in active contact
                            with them for 1400 years.

                            We miss you Eastern Orthodox and hope you will not
                            forget your Oriental Orthodox brothers in this crucial
                            time.

                            Regards,

                            Stavro.



                            __________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                            http://mail.yahoo.com
                          • podnoss
                            Those who continue to see Metropolitan Sergius as an existential hero who had the courage to reconcile himself to the way things were err in several ways.
                            Message 13 of 27 , Dec 10, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Those who continue to see Metropolitan Sergius as an "existential"
                              hero
                              who had the courage to reconcile himself to the way things were err
                              in
                              several ways. They attribute more volition to Metropolitan Sergius
                              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 Metropolitan
                              Sergius, his disciples and successors were a nomenklatura* put in
                              place
                              by the ideologists & intelligence operatives of the C.P.S.U. This was
                              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, with
                              changing the structure of consciousness; when suffering corrupts then
                              it ceases to have redeeming value. You could argue that Bishops are
                              but
                              a fractional element in Christian religion. But if you say this then
                              I
                              have no need of Bishops.

                              J. Walker


                              *no·men·kla·tu·ra ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nmn-klä-tr, nômyn-klä-
                              trä)
                              noun
                              1.The system of patronage to senior positions in the bureaucracy of
                              the
                              Soviet Union and some other Communist states, controlled by
                              committees
                              at various levels of the Communist Party.

                              2.The stratified, privileged class composed of these appointees.


                              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John McCuen"
                              <frjohnmcc@c...> wrote:

                              > It is mind-boggling to think that there are people today who,
                              without
                              > having been under the Bolshevik yoke, feel qualified to sit in
                              > judgment of those who had to endure unspeakable tortures.
                              > Mr. Walker: May I suggest, if you have not already done so, that
                              you
                              > read the book, "Father Arseny 1983-1973: Priest, Prisoner, SPiritual
                              > Father," and then tell us about the "faithless clergy"
                              > in their "cultlike hypocritical consciousness" and the empty rites
                              > they performed.
                              >
                              > unworthy Priest John McCuen
                              >
                            • Fr. John McCuen
                              ... What an interesting concept. Where is the Sergianism in the EP? Where is the Sergianism in the Serbian Church? Where is the Sergianiam in the
                              Message 14 of 27 , Dec 10, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
                                <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Dear KYRH,
                                >
                                > Sergianism and ecumenism are brothers, children of the same father
                                > and always linked with one another.
                                >
                                > In Christ,
                                >
                                > Vladimir Kozyreff

                                What an interesting concept.

                                Where is the "Sergianism" in the EP?

                                Where is the "Sergianism" in the Serbian Church?

                                Where is the "Sergianiam" in the Antiochian Church?

                                Not that I am agreeing or disagreeing that any or all of these
                                Churches are "ecumenist"; but I believe you have said thia about them.
                                (If I am mistaken, please forgive me.)

                                unworthy Priest John McCuen
                              • vkozyreff
                                Dear Father John, bless. Indeed, the concept is interesting, but is neither new nor mine. Sergianism is the subordination to the power of Antichrist, whatever
                                Message 15 of 27 , Dec 11, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dear Father John, bless.

                                  Indeed, the concept is interesting, but is neither new nor mine.

                                  "Sergianism is the subordination to the power of Antichrist, whatever
                                  the country.

                                  Under the false pretext Christian love, ecumenism endeavours to
                                  destroy the boundaries of the Church, depriving the faithful of the
                                  Holy Mysteries and corrupting their souls.

                                  Sergianism is the lie according to which Divine Truth can be defended
                                  by compromise with evil and upheld with hypocrisy and lies.

                                  Please see below.

                                  In Christ,

                                  Vladimir Kozyreff


                                  "The significance of the Moscow Patriarchate's entrance into the WCC
                                  lies in its demonstration of the fact that even if Sergianism itself
                                  is not to be defined as a heresy, it opened the path to heresy, and
                                  even to "the heresy of heresies", Ecumenism.

                                  For, as Fr. Andrew Kurayev writes: "Sergianism and Ecumenism
                                  intertwined. It was precisely on the instructions of the authorities
                                  that our hierarchy conducted its ecumenical activity, and it was
                                  precisely in the course of their work abroad that clergy who had been
                                  enrolled into the KGB were checked out for loyalty."[11]

                                  In other words, the patriarchate's Sergianism compelled it to accept
                                  Ecumenism. For apostates have no will of their own. Having
                                  surrendered their will into the hands of the Antichrist, they will
                                  say and do anything that is required of them, even the most
                                  abominable blasphemy".

                                  http://uk.geocities.com/guildfordian2002/Polemics/SergianismHeresyEngl
                                  ish.htm


                                  "Another example of "Sergianism" concerns Patriarch Demetrius of
                                  Constantinople who in 1978, without any embarrassment, expressed his
                                  support of Brezhnev's "liberalism" at the time when many dissidents
                                  and believers were languishing in Soviet prisons, concentration camps
                                  and psychiatric hospitals.

                                  When welcoming the visiting Patriarch Pimen of Moscow and All Russia,
                                  Patriarch Demetrius said: "We were particularly pleased to hear from
                                  you that the new Constitution of your great country grants still
                                  greater freedom of conscience and of religion..." About ten years
                                  later the same Patriarch Demetrius, while on a visit to the USSR,
                                  spoke in the same vein, without any recollection of what he had said
                                  in 1978" [184].

                                  "Sergianism" is not only a baseness and a deceit, it is a conscious
                                  refusal to take up the cross of the Lord, a rejection of the
                                  confession of faith and martyrdom upon which the Church of Christ was
                                  built. "Sergianism" is also the state of mind and soul of those who
                                  are prepared to make any concessions and to betray the sacred faith
                                  for the sake of temporal benefits and interests of this world. In a
                                  certain sense ecumenism is merely a component of "Sergianism" as a
                                  general principle and instrument of apostasy.

                                  Universal "Sergianism" in its essence is the subordination to the
                                  power of Antichrist, be it in Russia, Greece, the Vatican, USA, or
                                  any other country. And the objective, consciously or subconsciously
                                  pursued by "Sergianism", is to demoralize Christians, to make them
                                  ready to accept Antichrist".

                                  http://ecumenizm.tripod.com/ECUMENIZM/id9.html

                                  --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John McCuen"
                                  <frjohnmcc@c...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
                                  > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Dear KYRH,
                                  > >
                                  > > Sergianism and ecumenism are brothers, children of the same
                                  father
                                  > > and always linked with one another.
                                  > >
                                  > > In Christ,
                                  > >
                                  > > Vladimir Kozyreff
                                  >
                                  > What an interesting concept.
                                  >
                                  > Where is the "Sergianism" in the EP?
                                  >
                                  > Where is the "Sergianism" in the Serbian Church?
                                  >
                                  > Where is the "Sergianiam" in the Antiochian Church?
                                  >
                                  > Not that I am agreeing or disagreeing that any or all of these
                                  > Churches are "ecumenist"; but I believe you have said thia about
                                  them.
                                  > (If I am mistaken, please forgive me.)
                                  >
                                  > unworthy Priest John McCuen
                                  >
                                • Fr. John McCuen
                                  ... The Lord bless you. OK, having read your post, let me see if I summarize correctly: 1. sergianism = ecumenism 2. sergianism is not so much related to
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Dec 11, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
                                    <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Dear Father John, bless.
                                    >

                                    The Lord bless you.

                                    OK, having read your post, let me see if I summarize correctly:

                                    1. "sergianism" = "ecumenism"
                                    2. "sergianism" is not so much related to the 1927 Declaration of Met.
                                    SERGEI (by which the Orthodox Church was submitted to the atheistic
                                    state in Bolshevik-controlled) Russia, as it is in the ecumenical
                                    submission of the Church to the Antichrist.

                                    Is this what you are saying?

                                    unworthy Priest John McCuen
                                  • Fr. John McCuen
                                    ... 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
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Dec 11, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "podnoss" <podnoss@y...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Those who continue to see Metropolitan Sergius as an "existential"
                                      > hero
                                      > who had the courage to reconcile himself to the way things were err
                                      > in
                                      > several ways. They attribute more volition to Metropolitan Sergius
                                      > 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 Metropolitan
                                      > Sergius, his disciples and successors were a nomenklatura* put in
                                      > place
                                      > by the ideologists & intelligence operatives of the C.P.S.U. This was
                                      > 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, with
                                      > changing the structure of consciousness; when suffering corrupts then
                                      > it ceases to have redeeming value. You could argue that Bishops are
                                      > but
                                      > a fractional element in Christian religion. But if you say this then
                                      > 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-opt
                                      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 not.
                                      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 been
                                      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 Church,
                                      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; and
                                      threatened to resign if it was not signed? These are both saints here!

                                      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 the
                                      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 now.
                                      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
                                    • orthodoxchurch_sg
                                      ... Evlogeite! I am reluctant to say nonsense but what you write - clearly - has no sense. What is known as ecumenism grew out of Protestant denominations
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Dec 11, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
                                        <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Dear KYRH,
                                        >
                                        > Sergianism and ecumenism are brothers, children of the same father
                                        > and always linked with one another.
                                        >
                                        > In Christ,
                                        >
                                        > Vladimir Kozyreff
                                        >
                                        Evlogeite!
                                        I am reluctant to say 'nonsense' but what you write - clearly - has
                                        no sense.
                                        What is known as "ecumenism" grew out of Protestant denominations
                                        trying to share resources in evangelising (and can, in its modern
                                        form, be seen to start in the 1910 Edinburgh conference); what is
                                        known as "Sergianism", in its modern form, grows out of a fear of
                                        facing martyrdom, among Orthodox, under the persecution of atheist
                                        forces, and a mistaken belief that a form of religious appeasement
                                        would be necessary for the Church to survive.
                                        All rather different.
                                        You might argue that one of the corollaries of "Sergianism" is
                                        pressure on the Russian Orthodox Church to engage in ecumenical
                                        activities, primarily membership of the WCC; but that is not what you
                                        wrote.

                                        God bless / Fr Daniel
                                      • vkozyreff
                                        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
                                        Message 19 of 27 , 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...>
                                          wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > Those who continue to see Metropolitan Sergius as
                                          an "existential"
                                          > > hero
                                          > > who had the courage to reconcile himself to the way things were
                                          err
                                          > > in
                                          > > several ways. They attribute more volition to Metropolitan
                                          Sergius
                                          > > 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
                                          Metropolitan
                                          > > Sergius, his disciples and successors were a nomenklatura* put in
                                          > > place
                                          > > by the ideologists & intelligence operatives of the C.P.S.U. This
                                          was
                                          > > 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,
                                          with
                                          > > changing the structure of consciousness; when suffering corrupts
                                          then
                                          > > it ceases to have redeeming value. You could argue that Bishops
                                          are
                                          > > but
                                          > > a fractional element in Christian religion. But if you say this
                                          then
                                          > > 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-
                                          opt
                                          > 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
                                          not.
                                          > 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
                                          been
                                          > 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
                                          Church,
                                          > 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;
                                          and
                                          > threatened to resign if it was not signed? These are both saints
                                          here!
                                          >
                                          > 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
                                          the
                                          > 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
                                          now.
                                          > 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
                                          >
                                        • Fr. John McCuen
                                          ... The Lord bless you. ... And I trust that you will also excuse me for not agreeing with you; including not agreeing that I am in total confusion. ... Is
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Dec 12, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- 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
                                          • michael nikitin
                                            Nobody has been brought to trial in free Russia for persecuting their own people. What can the people do when everything is in the hands of those Soviets who
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Dec 12, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Nobody has been brought to trial in "free" Russia for persecuting their own people.

                                              What can the people do when everything is in the hands of those Soviets who were in power before Russia became "free". Those in power do not want this, because many of them would be put on trial.

                                              Bishop Andrei of Novo-Diveevo had a gun to his head, but he did not waver. The more so a bishop should not waver. He has many children to be accountable for before God.

                                              Metr.Sergei whether he was scared for his life or not, did wrong. Many new Russian Martyrs were murdered because of his infamous declaration.

                                              For the MP to agree that Metr.Serge saved himself and not the Church would be tantamount to admitting that the MP is not a Church, but an organization created by the godless authorities. This they will never do.

                                              Michael N


                                              Richard <rchrdmason@...> wrote:
                                              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John McCuen"
                                              <frjohnmcc@c...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "podnoss"
                                              <podnoss@y...> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > It seems inapt to defend the actions of Met. Sergius & his
                                              disciples
                                              > > under the heading "salvation": the total identification of this
                                              > > group with a cruelly militant atheistic Government was a
                                              matter of
                                              > > physical survival & not a case of state/church niceties.
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > It is mind-boggling to think that there are people today who,
                                              without
                                              > having been under the Bolshevik yoke, feel qualified to sit in
                                              > judgment of those who had to endure unspeakable tortures.
                                              May God
                                              > have mercy on each of us as we give an account of our lives,
                                              and the
                                              > decisions that we made; and may He bless us, as we have
                                              time before we
                                              > depart this life, to be spared the choices that each Russian
                                              Orthodox
                                              > Christian had to make under the Bolshevik regime.


                                              Father, bless.

                                              Your observation above is the very reason why we don't see
                                              such harsh judgementalism towards the MP within Russia
                                              where the local Orthodox population has a greater
                                              understanding of the context of what happened in the 20th
                                              century. They are aware of the heroism during that time, and the
                                              great good exercised over the last fifteen years -- the flowering of
                                              parishes, monasteries, schools, orphanages, soup kitchens,
                                              prison ministries, etc. In other words, they see the big picture...
                                              scratch that... the've *lived* the big picture. If there's anyone who
                                              could claim a right to demanding the current Synod of *heretical*
                                              bishops to be hanged or whatever, it would be those locals. But
                                              there isn't such a movement, even though they are perfectly
                                              aware of the KGB accusations and the real KGB influences
                                              during the Soviet dark ages. What all this indicates is that
                                              perhaps there's a wide chasm between the faithful within
                                              Russia and some outside Russia who didn't live under the
                                              oppressive conditions.

                                              In Christ,
                                              Richard.


                                              > > Theologically speaking this is losing Faith. So what you had
                                              was a
                                              > > faithless clergy which developed a cultlike hypocritical
                                              > > consciousness that considered rites to be the church's only
                                              > > important function. In the sociology of Christian religion such
                                              a
                                              > > narrow interpretation of "salvation" is sectarianism.
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > Mr. Walker: May I suggest, if you have not already done so, that
                                              you
                                              > read the book, "Father Arseny 1983-1973: Priest, Prisoner,
                                              SPiritual
                                              > Father," translated by Vera Bouteneff, published by St.
                                              Valdimir's
                                              > Seminary Press in 2002; and then tell us about the "faithless
                                              clergy"
                                              > in their "cultlike hypocritical consciousness" and the empty
                                              rites
                                              > they performed.
                                              >
                                              > unworthy Priest John McCuen
                                              >

                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Yahoo! Shopping
                                              Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • vkozyreff
                                              Dear Father John, bless. Between parentheses, please allow me a linguistic remark: I think that Met S. Stragorodsky should be called either in Slavonic Met
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Dec 12, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Dear Father John, bless.

                                                Between parentheses, please allow me a linguistic remark: I think
                                                that Met S. Stragorodsky should be called either in Slavonic
                                                Met "Sergiy" or in Latin Met. "Sergius", not Met. "Sergey", which is
                                                the modern Russian form of the same name, but is not used in Church
                                                language. A similar case is about Stephen (Stefan in Slavonic, Stepan
                                                in Russian). Please correct me if I am wrong.

                                                You write: "Is such a claim (that the Church is in the apostolic
                                                succession, which implies teaching orthodoxy) opinion, or dogma?
                                                Obviously, if it is dogma, it is not Orthodox".

                                                This is not my opinion, but this is the definition of both orthodoxy
                                                and apostolic succession according to St Ireneaeus or Lyons who
                                                invented and defined those two terms of orthodoxy abd apostolic
                                                succession.

                                                You write: "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".

                                                How can you reject a policy without saying that it was wrong, and
                                                that the declaration was not a Church document, but one that was
                                                dictated under torture, and is thus totally foreign to the Church?

                                                What is metanoya, if not rejecting with a flow of tears and
                                                explicitely the sin that one confesses, taking all measures to
                                                separate oneself completely from that sin, manifesting the greatest
                                                hate to it, and proclaiming that it is totally and ireversibly
                                                repudiated?

                                                How can you say that you reject it if you say that it was a bold
                                                step, that in similar circumstances, it will have to be repeated,
                                                that Met Sergius accepted the heroical podvig of sacrificing his own
                                                purity to save the Church (one more heresy), that the topic may not
                                                be mentioned, that Met Sergius's contribution to the Church was
                                                necessary and essential, that thank to him, the Church was preserved?
                                                Whay is this concept of confession?

                                                You write: "If this is true (that Sergianism is a heresy, because it
                                                is a distorted orthodoxy), then you must also beleive that the
                                                Orthodoxy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been a distorted
                                                one, and therefore heretical, since 1453".

                                                The Ecumenical Patriarchate became indeed very weak physically and
                                                therefore has been very anxious to have good relations with the
                                                powerful, as the Latino-catholics, the protestants, the USSR and the
                                                MP. Its fall into ecumenism is probably not foreign to that weakness.
                                                An example between many is the prohibition issued by the EP to the
                                                ROCOR about criticising the Soviet government (the EP's sergianism),
                                                which the Russian people had allegedly "legitimised".

                                                You write: "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".

                                                We cannot accept the latino-catholic heresies, arianism, sergianism,
                                                monophysism or ecumenism because of brotherly love. Brotherly love
                                                never allows us to betray the truth and God.

                                                I have discussed this before in a few previous post on this forum.
                                                This is the question of the illusory choice that must be made between
                                                faith and love. Love and purity of faith always come together. One
                                                cannot sacrifice purity of faith for love. Sacrificing the truth for
                                                love is sacrificing both, is contrary to orthodoxy and is the essence
                                                of the heresy of ecumenism.

                                                Your failure to mention those essential orthodox distinguos is what I
                                                call your confusion, which is closer to latino-catholicism,
                                                protestantism and ecumenism that to orthodoxy.

                                                You write: "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."

                                                I think you obviously are. You said that Vl Tikhon and Peter
                                                Krutitsky were ready to the same collaboration as Met Sergius's. You
                                                are blurring the distinctions.

                                                You say, about the proposal that "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" that it is my opinion. You add that "Our ROCOR bishops do
                                                not agree with your position".

                                                The ROCOR bishops that had this opinion had to separate themselves
                                                from ROCOR L.

                                                You write: "Or to speak in terms that, under the guise of expressing
                                                spiritual concern, are actually ones of criticism and condemnation?"

                                                I do not criticise anybody, I state that sergianism and ecumenisms
                                                are heresies, because they contradict orthodoxy. A Christian should
                                                criticise, fight and condemn any attack on orthodoxy. I have no
                                                personal grievance to any of my contradictors in this field. My
                                                feelings to you are very friendly.

                                                Thank you for your patience, which I appreciate very much. I am sure
                                                that you are wrong, but I beg you nevertheless to keep me in your
                                                prayers.

                                                In Christ,

                                                Vladimir Kozyreff


                                                --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John McCuen"
                                                <frjohnmcc@c...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > --- 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
                                                >
                                              • Fr. John McCuen
                                                ... their own people. ... Soviets who were in power before Russia became free . Those in power do not want this, because many of them would be put on trial.
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Dec 12, 2005
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin
                                                  <nikitinmike@y...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Nobody has been brought to trial in "free" Russia for persecuting
                                                  their own people.
                                                  >
                                                  > What can the people do when everything is in the hands of those
                                                  Soviets who were in power before Russia became "free". Those in power
                                                  do not want this, because many of them would be put on trial.
                                                  >
                                                  > Bishop Andrei of Novo-Diveevo had a gun to his head, but he did
                                                  not waver. The more so a bishop should not waver. He has many children
                                                  to be accountable for before God.

                                                  Who is contesting this? And yet, who among us knows with any certainty
                                                  what we might do if/when the gun is put to our own heads? Or, even
                                                  more likely, not to our heads, but to the heads of family or to others
                                                  we love? For it is easier for me to imagine myself saying, "Pull the
                                                  trigger" when the gun is to my head; but much, much harder if the gun
                                                  is to the head of my wife, or one of our children, or one of my
                                                  spiritual children. Therefore, let us not be quick to say what others
                                                  should have done, if we have not faced this test ourselves.

                                                  >
                                                  > Metr.Sergei whether he was scared for his life or not, did wrong.
                                                  Many new Russian Martyrs were murdered because of his infamous
                                                  declaration.
                                                  >

                                                  It may be true that there were those among the New Martyrs of Russia
                                                  who died because of the Declaration. There were many more who died
                                                  simply because they would not renounce their allegiance to our Lord
                                                  and His Church -- and so, in the eyes of the state, made themselves
                                                  "enemies of the state." This was true of thousands who did not follow
                                                  Met. SERGEI; and of thousands who did follow him. It was not the
                                                  Church that martyred them; it was the state -- and the martyrs came
                                                  from both the catacomb churches, and from the "official" church.

                                                  > For the MP to agree that Metr.Serge saved himself and not the
                                                  Church would be tantamount to admitting that the MP is not a Church,
                                                  but an organization created by the godless authorities. This they will
                                                  never do.
                                                  >
                                                  > Michael N
                                                  >

                                                  Nor should they agree to the claim that the MP is not a Church. The
                                                  fact that the hierarchy was approved by the KGB does not mean that the
                                                  Church became graceless, any more than the Church under Peter I of
                                                  Russia, who abolished the patriarchate in order to gain mastery of the
                                                  Church; nor of the Church in Constantinople which, to this day, is
                                                  subject to the control of the secular Muslim state; and where, ofr
                                                  centuries, the office of the Patriarch was for sale to the highest bidder.

                                                  unworthy Priest John McCuen
                                                • vkozyreff
                                                  Dear Father John, bless. You write: It may be true that there were those among the New Martyrs of Russia who died because of the Declaration . Many were send
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Dec 13, 2005
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Dear Father John, bless.

                                                    You write: "It may be true that there were those among the New
                                                    Martyrs of Russia who died because of the Declaration".

                                                    Many were send to their death by Met Sergius, who punished in that
                                                    way thaose who would not follow him.

                                                    You write: "There were many more who died simply because they would
                                                    not renounce their allegiance to our Lord and His Church -- and so,
                                                    in the eyes of the state, made themselves "enemies of the state."

                                                    Met. Sergius declared that not following him was being an enemy of
                                                    the State, the joys of which were his joys.

                                                    You write: "This was true of thousands who did not follow Met.
                                                    SERGEI; and of thousands who did follow him. It was not the Church
                                                    that martyred them; it was the state -- and the martyrs came from
                                                    both the catacomb churches, and from the "official" church".

                                                    Those who followed Met Sergius in his declaration betrayed the Church
                                                    as he did. Their death at the hands of the Bolshevik do not make them
                                                    martyrs of Christ and his Church. Trotsky too was murdered by Stalin.
                                                    That does not make him a martyr.

                                                    Indeed, the Church did not martyr anybody. The MP did, not being then
                                                    Church, but being one of the "organs", as the KGB was.

                                                    In Christ,

                                                    Vladimir Kozyreff

                                                    --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John McCuen"
                                                    <frjohnmcc@c...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin
                                                    > <nikitinmike@y...> wrote:
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Nobody has been brought to trial in "free" Russia for persecuting
                                                    > their own people.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > What can the people do when everything is in the hands of those
                                                    > Soviets who were in power before Russia became "free". Those in
                                                    power
                                                    > do not want this, because many of them would be put on trial.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Bishop Andrei of Novo-Diveevo had a gun to his head, but he did
                                                    > not waver. The more so a bishop should not waver. He has many
                                                    children
                                                    > to be accountable for before God.
                                                    >
                                                    > Who is contesting this? And yet, who among us knows with any
                                                    certainty
                                                    > what we might do if/when the gun is put to our own heads? Or, even
                                                    > more likely, not to our heads, but to the heads of family or to
                                                    others
                                                    > we love? For it is easier for me to imagine myself saying, "Pull
                                                    the
                                                    > trigger" when the gun is to my head; but much, much harder if the
                                                    gun
                                                    > is to the head of my wife, or one of our children, or one of my
                                                    > spiritual children. Therefore, let us not be quick to say what
                                                    others
                                                    > should have done, if we have not faced this test ourselves.
                                                    >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Metr.Sergei whether he was scared for his life or not, did
                                                    wrong.
                                                    > Many new Russian Martyrs were murdered because of his infamous
                                                    > declaration.
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    > It may be true that there were those among the New Martyrs of Russia
                                                    > who died because of the Declaration. There were many more who died
                                                    > simply because they would not renounce their allegiance to our Lord
                                                    > and His Church -- and so, in the eyes of the state, made themselves
                                                    > "enemies of the state." This was true of thousands who did not
                                                    follow
                                                    > Met. SERGEI; and of thousands who did follow him. It was not the
                                                    > Church that martyred them; it was the state -- and the martyrs came
                                                    > from both the catacomb churches, and from the "official" church.
                                                    >
                                                    > > For the MP to agree that Metr.Serge saved himself and not the
                                                    > Church would be tantamount to admitting that the MP is not a Church,
                                                    > but an organization created by the godless authorities. This they
                                                    will
                                                    > never do.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Michael N
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    > Nor should they agree to the claim that the MP is not a Church. The
                                                    > fact that the hierarchy was approved by the KGB does not mean that
                                                    the
                                                    > Church became graceless, any more than the Church under Peter I of
                                                    > Russia, who abolished the patriarchate in order to gain mastery of
                                                    the
                                                    > Church; nor of the Church in Constantinople which, to this day, is
                                                    > subject to the control of the secular Muslim state; and where, ofr
                                                    > centuries, the office of the Patriarch was for sale to the highest
                                                    bidder.
                                                    >
                                                    > unworthy Priest John McCuen
                                                    >
                                                  • michael nikitin
                                                    ... their own people. ... Soviets who were in power before Russia became free . Those in power do not want this, because many of them would be put on trial.
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Dec 14, 2005
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      "Fr. John McCuen" <frjohnmcc@...> wrote:
                                                      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin
                                                      <nikitinmike@y...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > Nobody has been brought to trial in "free" Russia for persecuting
                                                      their own people.
                                                      >
                                                      > What can the people do when everything is in the hands of those
                                                      Soviets who were in power before Russia became "free". Those in power
                                                      do not want this, because many of them would be put on trial.
                                                      >
                                                      > Bishop Andrei of Novo-Diveevo had a gun to his head, but he did
                                                      not waver. The more so a bishop should not waver. He has many children
                                                      to be accountable for before God.

                                                      Who is contesting this? And yet, who among us knows with any certainty
                                                      what we might do if/when the gun is put to our own heads? Or, even
                                                      more likely, not to our heads, but to the heads of family or to others
                                                      we love? For it is easier for me to imagine myself saying, "Pull the
                                                      trigger" when the gun is to my head; but much, much harder if the gun
                                                      is to the head of my wife, or one of our children, or one of my
                                                      spiritual children. Therefore, let us not be quick to say what others
                                                      should have done, if we have not faced this test ourselves.


                                                      ***Michael N: But it is still wrong and whoever does this still sells out the Church because of his weekness to stay alive and not save his children. A bishop has the responsibility to his flock, much as a father has to his children. What Metr.Serge did was tantamount to
                                                      saving his life without consideration for his children
                                                      who did not want to join the anti-Christ. Just because out of weakness we may have done the same does not
                                                      make it right. God forbid if I sold out my children just to have my life spared. It is wrong,but God will judge.

                                                      Our Saintly Martyrs loved God and through him everyone else. By being Martyred they gave the faithful strength in Christ. By signing the declaration, Metr.Serge gave strength to the Godless authorities over his "Church". Noone can deny this.


                                                      >
                                                      > Metr.Sergei whether he was scared for his life or not, did wrong.
                                                      Many new Russian Martyrs were murdered because of his infamous
                                                      declaration.
                                                      >

                                                      It may be true that there were those among the New Martyrs of Russia
                                                      who died because of the Declaration. There were many more who died
                                                      simply because they would not renounce their allegiance to our Lord
                                                      and His Church -- and so, in the eyes of the state, made themselves
                                                      "enemies of the state." This was true of thousands who did not follow
                                                      Met. SERGEI; and of thousands who did follow him. It was not the
                                                      Church that martyred them; it was the state -- and the martyrs came
                                                      from both the catacomb churches, and from the "official" church.


                                                      ***Michael N: That is correct. Those who remained alive by signing the declaration did not follow the Church,but anti-Christ. Those who did not sign and were murdered, their allegiance was to our Lord and His Church.

                                                      There were also those in the villages who knew not what transpired. There are others who might have repented of signing the declaration out of ignorance. God knows who they are. Information for those who lived further away from Moscow travelled slow and was not always dependable.

                                                      There were others who were murdered because the regime mistrusted them. The Soviets murdered many of their own people.


                                                      > For the MP to agree that Metr.Serge saved himself and not the
                                                      Church would be tantamount to admitting that the MP is not a Church,
                                                      but an organization created by the godless authorities. This they will
                                                      never do.
                                                      >
                                                      > Michael N
                                                      >

                                                      Nor should they agree to the claim that the MP is not a Church. The
                                                      fact that the hierarchy was approved by the KGB does not mean that the
                                                      Church became graceless, any more than the Church under Peter I of
                                                      Russia, who abolished the patriarchate in order to gain mastery of the
                                                      Church; nor of the Church in Constantinople which, to this day, is
                                                      subject to the control of the secular Muslim state; and where, ofr
                                                      centuries, the office of the Patriarch was for sale to the highest bidder.

                                                      unworthy Priest John McCuen



                                                      ***Michael N: The MP is not a Church nor part of any Church.
                                                      ROCOR declared the MP hierarch's to be uncanonical and without force in their declaration of 1971. Does this not mean anything? It was not rescinded. We also have Holy Metr.Philaret stating the MP was without grace. B.Averky called it a harlot for praying with everyone (ecumenism). Archimandrite Constantine stated it to be a pseudo-Church created by the Godless authorities. Our new Russian Martyrs died because they refused to sign the declaration and join the MP organization. They refused to join it then, the more we should waite and not join it now.

                                                      Peter I of Russia abolished the Patriarchate, but did not sent the bishops to concentration camps or murder them. He abolish the patriarchate, but he did not murder any of the clergy. He was an Orthodox Monarch. He did not put Godless bishops in the Church.

                                                      The Muslims of Constantinople also did not put Turks dressed as Orthodox bishops in the Church.

                                                      Metr.Serge with Stalin put their own people to be bishops who were Atheists (KGB in cossacks) and created their own pseudo-Church.

                                                      I can understand those who converted and have not lived or have no parents who lived and not experienced what the Soviets were capable of doing to have a position of union. In the early years they desecrated icons, the Holy Eucharist, etc...The bishops were atheists put in power by the KGB. This is hard to comprehend living in a free country like America.

                                                      Those that recognize the MP as being a Church have to come to terms that Metr.Serge is their Saint who saved the Church, who will be glorified by the MP as saint for that reason.

                                                      ROCOR clergy will be afraid to leave as they will be labeled schismatics and the clergy will be defrocked. This of course will mean nothing, just as those who left ROCOR(L)were defrocked.

                                                      If the MP is our "Mother Church" who is in schism, ROCOR or the MP?

                                                      Michael N







                                                      ---------------------------------
                                                      Yahoo! Shopping
                                                      Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

                                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.