Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR
- Thread starter Jeremiah Branch
- Start date
There is no such thing as a "Church of Moscow". It is a disrespectfull, schismatic, apostate slander, also used by globalists and insidious subversives, and it should have no place on an (Orthodox) Christian forum.
Those who use that term also often support the so-called "Orthodox Church of Ukraine" and other apostate "churches", which only shows in whose interest they work.
Тhe Russian Orthodox Church is recognized as canonical, and in liturgical unity, by all the other canonical Orthodox Churches in the world, so if it is illegitimate, then so are they.
Also, the ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate reconciled on 17 May 2007; the ROCOR is now a self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church. So therefore, if the Moscow Patriarchate is not canonical, then neither is the ROCOR.
Without intention of defending Sergius Stragorodsky of a bad memory, episcopal legitimacy is not determined by one's political actions, but by the unbroken apostolic succession, which is not disputed nor in question here, and of which the author of this pamphlet seems to know little about, or deliberately omits.
It seems that this site is maintained by one person only, titled "Subdeacon Nektarios, M.A." and little if anything else.
His sole book is about the Greek Old Calendarists, a schismatic "church" of apostates, divided themselves into factions, whom he calls the "Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece" and considers them the "Orthodox Church", and not apostates. Interesting.
As he says: "All of the material published by the Orthodox Traditionalist Publications does not represent the opinion of any local Orthodox Church or Synod", which means they may very well be heretical.
No reason for a canonical monk, priest, deacon or any honest Orthodox Christian to put up such a statement, so therefore we are dealing with either a subversive, hidden under a veneer of "traditionalism" (it wouldn't be the first time) or, more likely, with an overzealous and not-so-well-versed apostate-minded person, which is the other side of the problematic coin. Because if all canonical churches in existence (including the Mt. Athos) consider the Russian Orthodox Church canonical, how come the opinion of а some subdeacon has a higher priority? Makes one wonder.
The author should consider spending some time in a monastery before writing anything else, to learn some humility, gain some phronema and avoid falling into prelest. "Spiritual knowledge without praxis is the theology of the demons." -St. Maximus the Confessor
Those who use that term also often support the so-called "Orthodox Church of Ukraine" and other apostate "churches", which only shows in whose interest they work.
Тhe Russian Orthodox Church is recognized as canonical, and in liturgical unity, by all the other canonical Orthodox Churches in the world, so if it is illegitimate, then so are they.
Also, the ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate reconciled on 17 May 2007; the ROCOR is now a self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church. So therefore, if the Moscow Patriarchate is not canonical, then neither is the ROCOR.
Without intention of defending Sergius Stragorodsky of a bad memory, episcopal legitimacy is not determined by one's political actions, but by the unbroken apostolic succession, which is not disputed nor in question here, and of which the author of this pamphlet seems to know little about, or deliberately omits.
It seems that this site is maintained by one person only, titled "Subdeacon Nektarios, M.A." and little if anything else.
His sole book is about the Greek Old Calendarists, a schismatic "church" of apostates, divided themselves into factions, whom he calls the "Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece" and considers them the "Orthodox Church", and not apostates. Interesting.
As he says: "All of the material published by the Orthodox Traditionalist Publications does not represent the opinion of any local Orthodox Church or Synod", which means they may very well be heretical.
No reason for a canonical monk, priest, deacon or any honest Orthodox Christian to put up such a statement, so therefore we are dealing with either a subversive, hidden under a veneer of "traditionalism" (it wouldn't be the first time) or, more likely, with an overzealous and not-so-well-versed apostate-minded person, which is the other side of the problematic coin. Because if all canonical churches in existence (including the Mt. Athos) consider the Russian Orthodox Church canonical, how come the opinion of а some subdeacon has a higher priority? Makes one wonder.
The author should consider spending some time in a monastery before writing anything else, to learn some humility, gain some phronema and avoid falling into prelest. "Spiritual knowledge without praxis is the theology of the demons." -St. Maximus the Confessor
Jeremiah Branch
Orthodox Catechumen
Just to clarify the background here: I posted this in the "Orthodox News" section. A moderator moved it here and the moderator gave the name to this thread. I did not name the thread, but was simply posting this article as a matter of public interest and discussion. I myself attend a Russian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarch (not ROCOR, but the Russian Orthodox Church itself). Again, as I am interested in what is happening with the church in the world, I posted this for comment.
Jeremiah Branch
Orthodox Catechumen
I appreciate @Katexon's post precisely because I wanted to understand the truth and fairness of what was being presented. I have read Russia's Catacomb Saints: The Lives of the New Martyrs, and I know a fair amount about the history of the split that resulted from Sergianism and the Soviet pressure on the church, but I am much less knowledgeable about the reconciliation and modern history, other than knowing that the reconciliation did occur. And I was surprised to see the claims set forth in the article and was hoping for some clarification and views from this forum on the claims set forth in the article.
Whoever is running Orthodox Traditionalism is currently involved in a number of new publishing and translation projects. I was not aware of the agenda he may be pushing.
Whoever is running Orthodox Traditionalism is currently involved in a number of new publishing and translation projects. I was not aware of the agenda he may be pushing.
There is a sect of schismatics who rejected ROCOR's reunion with the MP. This sounds like something written by someone in one of those groups.
You can find issues in the church if you go looking that is undoubtedly certain, it is an organisation that is full of fallen humans.
The thing to bear in mind is that ROCOR has canonized the New Martyrs and Confessors, and this was not seen as an impediment to their rejoining the MP. One can infer from this that the MP doesn't have a problem with their status as canonical Saints. So it at least tacitly admits the wrongs perprated by the Jewish Communist regime in Soviet Russia
You can find issues in the church if you go looking that is undoubtedly certain, it is an organisation that is full of fallen humans.
The thing to bear in mind is that ROCOR has canonized the New Martyrs and Confessors, and this was not seen as an impediment to their rejoining the MP. One can infer from this that the MP doesn't have a problem with their status as canonical Saints. So it at least tacitly admits the wrongs perprated by the Jewish Communist regime in Soviet Russia
Please change the title of this thread to Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR.
Does the author think millions of Christians in Russia who have been in ROC over the years didn't get their grace from the sacraments, especially when there is no alternative now that the Catacomb Church (?) is no more and the few ROCOR parishes from the 90s have gone into schism?
Jeremiah Branch
Orthodox Catechumen
Can @Samseau or anther @admin or @moderator handle this? As noted above, although it looks like I am the originator of this thread, I am in fact not.
This is why reading the Lives of the Catacomb Saints is important, there were priests and, if I remember correctly, even a saint who rejoined the MP in order to provide better pastoral care. Fr Dimitry Dudko also had criticisms of the Catacomb Church (and also a lot of respect.) It’s a very even-handed book which deftly treads the royal path.
It’s not a black and white situation, ROCOR were always careful not to declare the MP graceless or without sacraments. A lot of priests doubtless felt they had a duty to provide the sacraments to the people. It would be like declaring Constantinople entirely graceless because of Patriarch Bartholomew
I mean, beyond the fact that that's off topic (hence me moving the discussion here), I bring an official Church document directly contradicting what you're saying and you bring an empty assertion, no citations, no saints or councils or synods quoted. If you have an equivalent document let me know.