Where is the schism?
- Dear List,
St Joseph of Petrograd, who was not glorified by the MP wrote:
"Do not judge me so severely, and clearly understand the following:
1. I am not at all a schismatic, and I call not to a schism. but to
the purification of the Church from those who sow real schism and
2. To indicate to another his errors and wrongs is not schism but, to
speak simply, it is putting an unbridled horse back into harness.
3. The refusal to accept sound reproaches and directives is in
reality a schism and a trampling on the truth.
4. In the construction of ecclesiastical life the participants are
not only those at the head, but the whole body of the Church, and a
schismatic is he who assumes to himself rights which exceed his
authority and in the name of the Church presumes to say that which is
not shared by his colleagues.
5. Metropolitan Sergius has shown himself to be such a schismatic,
for he has far exceeded his authority and has rejected and scorned
the voice o many hierarchs, in whose midst the pure truth has been
Is showing leniency to that Sergianist schism, that is to say to the
MP, and claiming that only psychological obstacles separate us from
it (as one of our bishops says), suggesting that we should be part of
it by requesting "autonomy" from it (as does an archbishop of our
Church), is it not a way of going into that schism? Is resisting to
that move really going into schism or avoiding it?
So please, let the response not be again a statement to the effect
that schism is bad. We all agree with that. What we discus here is
where the schism is. It is certainly in the MP. It certainly wants to
spread. Are we ready to resist it and do we do what is right to