The Saint Euphrosynos Cafe

I found a 2017 interview in French with Bishop Mark of the ROCOR-MP on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the capitulation to Moscow. The article is in the ecumenism section of the papist diocese of Paris. In the introduction to the interview, Bishop Tikhon (Shekhunov) explicitly frames the union of 2007 as the "reunion" of the two "branches" of the Russian Orthodox Church. Not surprisingly, OrthodoxWiki [sic] describes the event in precisely the same terms:

"The Act of Canonical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate reunited the two branches of the Russian Orthodox Church: the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) and the Moscow Patriarchate."

This sort of spin is interesting in light of ROCOR's anathema of 1983, which of course specifically rejected the branch theory. I was aware of the "two paths" explanation for the union, but "two branches"? Really? It appears that the branch theory is normative in World Orthodoxy.

I will translate the interview when I find time. In the meantime here are the links:

https://dioceseparis.fr/le-patriarcat-d ... -et-l.html
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Act_of_Canonic ... triarchate

There is an affirmed Orthodox understanding of "Branches" by the Catacomb Church, in the Usk-Kut Catacomb council of 1937... It also affirmed the anathema against the Communists, and the Sergianist Church, and forbid receiving communion from the Soviet Church.

It is a very different understanding of "branches", of there being actual legitimate branches of the True Orthodox Church, separated by the turmoil that ravages the Church in this era, which share both apostolic succession into the past, and the unchanged confession of faith. However, it's completely unthinkable for the MP and old ROCOR to be branches of the same True Orthodox Church, since the MP is an apostate organization invented by Stalin.

https://catacombhistory.blogspot.com/20 ... 37_25.html

Krzysztophoros wrote: ↑Fri 15 November 2024 12:04 am

There is an affirmed Orthodox understanding of "Branches" by the Catacomb Church, in the Usk-Kut Catacomb council of 1937... It also affirmed the anathema against the Communists, and the Sergianist Church, and forbid receiving communion from the Soviet Church.

It is a very different understanding of "branches", of there being actual legitimate branches of the True Orthodox Church, separated by the turmoil that ravages the Church in this era, which share both apostolic succession into the past, and the unchanged confession of faith. However, it's completely unthinkable for the MP and old ROCOR to be branches of the same True Orthodox Church, since the MP is an apostate organization invented by Stalin.

https://catacombhistory.blogspot.com/20 ... 37_25.html

this

Krzysztophoros wrote: ↑Fri 15 November 2024 12:04 am

There is an affirmed Orthodox understanding of "Branches" by the Catacomb Church, in the Usk-Kut Catacomb council of 1937... It also affirmed the anathema against the Communists, and the Sergianist Church, and forbid receiving communion from the Soviet Church.

It is a very different understanding of "branches", of there being actual legitimate branches of the True Orthodox Church, separated by the turmoil that ravages the Church in this era, which share both apostolic succession into the past, and the unchanged confession of faith. However, it's completely unthinkable for the MP and old ROCOR to be branches of the same True Orthodox Church, since the MP is an apostate organization invented by Stalin.

https://catacombhistory.blogspot.com/20 ... 37_25.html

Thank you for pointing out that the term branch has a legitimate use within the true Church -- and no legitimate use in relation to the MP (or unfortunately to ROCOR-MP since their false union with Moscow). The true branches were the rightly confessing and suffering remnants in Russia and abroad -- and ROCOR always said so.

I've partially translated the French but have in the meantime figured out that it's a French translation of an interview in Russian from pravoslavie.ru:

https://pravoslavie.ru/102917.html

I doubt that anyone wants to read a translation of a translation. A machine translation of the original will give non-Russian speakers the gist. In a nutshell it's Orwellian doublespeak that consigns ROCOR's historic witness to the memory hole -- paying lip service to the new martyrs while implying that the MP was in communion with those saints despite being complicit in their deaths.