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

Re: The difference

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 27 , Dec 7, 2005
      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 2 of 27 , Dec 8, 2005
        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 3 of 27 , Dec 9, 2005
          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 4 of 27 , Dec 9, 2005
            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 5 of 27 , Dec 9, 2005
              --- 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 6 of 27 , Dec 9, 2005
                --- 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 7 of 27 , Dec 10, 2005
                  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 8 of 27 , Dec 10, 2005
                    --- 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 9 of 27 , Dec 10, 2005
                      "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 10 of 27 , Dec 10, 2005
                        >
                        > "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 11 of 27 , Dec 10, 2005
                          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 12 of 27 , Dec 10, 2005
                            --- 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 13 of 27 , Dec 11, 2005
                              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 14 of 27 , Dec 11, 2005
                                --- 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 15 of 27 , Dec 11, 2005
                                  --- 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 16 of 27 , Dec 11, 2005
                                    --- 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 17 of 27 , Dec 12, 2005
                                      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 18 of 27 , Dec 12, 2005
                                        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
                                        <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Dear Father John, bless.
                                        >

                                        The Lord bless you.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                        unworthy Priest John McCuen
                                      • 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 19 of 27 , Dec 12, 2005
                                          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 20 of 27 , Dec 12, 2005
                                            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 21 of 27 , Dec 12, 2005
                                              --- 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 22 of 27 , Dec 13, 2005
                                                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 23 of 27 , Dec 14, 2005
                                                  "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.