A Statement of Fact ROCOR always had a strict ecclesiology!

[Joseph D]

For the "Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia" to still be considered rationally "Russian," she must pursue some kind of relationship with the Moscow Patriarchate. The project of this relationship ought to be prayerfully undertaken by monks, dignitaries, lay people, and scholars on both sides. Otherwise, "Russian Orthodox Church of America" might be more appropriate, in which case dialog and concilliar union with the OCA ought to be carefully considered every year until that particular union were to transpire -- which might not be such a bad idea considering the number of WASP convert laity and clergy[!] in ROCOR.

Giambattista Vico wrote that delicately tempered people when well versed in the minute details of a thing often become finicky in their thinking and therefore ought not be trusted with the making of important decisions, due to their characteristic aversion to the pursuit of expediency and resolution.

In the end, will matter who had been most vapid, who could prove to be the most white-blooded and book addicted, or who had the strongest nostalgia for the past? Theodora and I have not as yet been blessed with children, but I am, at this time, very uncomfortable with the idea of raising children in the ROCOR amidst all this polemic and convulsion, wars and rumors of wars.

Sincerely,
Joseph

[Грешник]

Joseph,

I am unsure what to think of your assertation of the "Russians need to be a part of the MP". This thought does not make sense. The fact of the matter is this. The Catacomb Church in Russia has always been thought of as the Russian Church, not truly the MP. The existence of the Catacomb Churches pre-dates the MP by many years and so the direct lineage thereof would not truly be the MP.

There are those who will say that the Catacomb Church ceased to exist and is no longer alive and so there must have been a shift of power along the way. This notion can also be proved illogial by the following timeline. It positively shows the existence of the Catacomb Church through the ages and that the idea of the necessity of membership in the MP makes a Russian a part of THE Russian Church to be a falacy of the utmost degree.

Unto thee do I commit my every hope, O Mother of God; keep me under thy protection.

Juvenaly

[John the Russian]

The Catacomb church is the true church of Russia. There is no other church in RUssia. Somehow ROCOR seems to have forgotten what they had always preached.
I too would have reservations about raising a child in ROCOR given their current inclination. Maybe when the devil stops leading them and they come to theri senses I would be able to return.

[Joseph D]

Joseph,

I am unsure what to think of your assertation of the "Russians need to be a part of the MP". This thought does not make sense. The fact of the matter is this.

The Metropolitea of the First Hierarch is in the United States. How "Russian" is that? How many of our ROCOR bishops are American, not Russian, citizens? What is Met. Laurus' citizenship status? Now that ROCOR has a diocese on Russian soil, how many diasporites have planned an imigration to Russia to live as Russians? Over time, the idea of the Church Abroad will gradually begin to seem pretentious and artificial. Whereas, the Church in Russia, where the actual Russians worship, will gain in prestige among the actual Russians to the exclusion of any antagonistic and effectively absentee Synod or congregation based on another continent, in another hemisphere, and under the protection of a rival government.

I do not pretend to have a solution; I simply state that the problem is quite obvious and that the most responsible thing to do is to make the ROCOR a very conspicuous presense in Orthodox affairs here in the US and in Russia as well. And most especially in Russia if the jurisdiction lays any claim to Russian conscience and sympathy. To use Church law to obscure the very purpose of the Church is to obscurantize the Gospel itself.

Obviously this kind of thing is never put to a vote, so our little opinions one way or the other are of marginal importance. What we can do, however, is try to look into the future of the project. Can the ROCOR still witness for Christ if she is to her American countrymen just a backwards "little Russia" curiosity? If so, have we not then buried our talent and hidden our light from the eyes of blind souls?

Sincerely,
Joseph

[bogoliubtsy]

If the MP wants to become part of the true Russian Orthodox Church it can come to the Church and repent of its errors and asked to be accepted in to her bosom.

Well, that's interesting since many of ROCOR's official documents created by the Synod say that working together with the MP will come when the MP is no longer found to be actively collaborating with the Soviet government. For example-

1946, ROCOR Sobor:

The Higher Church Administration in Russia in the person of the current Head of the Russian Church Patriarch Alexey has more than once already addressed the bishopsabroad with an exhortation to enter into canonical submission to thePatriarchate, but, listening to the directions of our pastoral conscience, we do not find it morally possible to acquiesce to these appeals as long as the Higher Church Administration in Russia is found in an unnatural union with the atheistic power and as long as the whole Russian Church is deprived of true freedom, which is inherent in it by its Divine nature."
(Signed by Metropolitan Anastassy and all the Bishops of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and dated April 27/May 10 1946).

Emphasis mine.

Should I start digging up the dozen or so other official documents I've posted here which support this?

[bogoliubtsy]

I'd also like to add that the ROCOR Synod, when speaking of the actions of the MP while under Soviet control has always spoken of them as uncanonical, not graceless or heretical as ROAC, for some reason seems to believe. Some of their actions were uncanonical due to the fact that they didn't follow the prescribed rules laid out by the 1917-1918 Russian council. Uncanonical does not equal graceless. As has been pointed out many times, nearly every Orthodox jurisdiction in America is uncanonical by virtue of their being more than one bishop presiding over the parishes of certain cities. This does not mean that these parishes, for this reason, are illigitimate.

[尼古拉前执事]

If they were not heretical, schismatic or apostates, than breaking communion would be wrong. Do you hold to that belief?

May I suggest some good reading on this?