Sat. Aug 24th, 2019

True Orthodox Diocese of Western Europe

Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC)

Is this not Sergianism?

6 min read
An answer to Bishop Ambrose who denies the Sergianism of his Synod.

The 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles tells us, “If any Bishop comes into possession of a church by employing secular rulers, let him be deposed from office, and let him be excommunicated. And all those who communicate with him too.” (c. II of the 4th; cc. Ill and V of the 7th; c. XIII of Laodicea.).

I received this forward of emails between our Dr. Vladimir Moss and His Grace Bishop Ambrose (included below).  (I use the title of “bishop” even though he was defrocked for his elder’s illegal ordination to the bishopric without the blessing of the then Synod under Archbishop Auxentios who had previously accepted them from the Heresy of Ecumenism and even though he and his Synod of Resistors were again  defrocked for HERESY by Archbishop Chrysostomos Kiousis and his synod.  I don’t expect the same courtesy from him as shown in his email.)

First of all, yes, I am not the only one with these sources, but no, my article is not a simple translation of the article of anyone else and I list my sources.

He asks how is his Synod Sergianists?  He himself though, says that this new law gives them the opportunity to  not allow anyone to go against their bishop’s wishes “

“ when every priest, monastery and parish gets up and leaves when the bishop applies some measure they do not like”

That is acceptable perhaps if the measure has to do with simple parish regulations.   What if the local bishop or the Synod introduces a heresy (like Cyprianism)?  Then these parishes, monasteries and priests will have to surrender themselves and their properties over.  All of these properties were created by True Orthodox Christians and in many cases, the founders/builders are still alive.  So they will force the priests, parishes and convents to obey them in a heresy or even if they one day decide to go to the World Orthodox?   And this they will do with the help of the government and the police.  Is this not Sergianism?

Is it not Sergianism to not allow anyone except for their Religious Legal Entity to use the term Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C. ΓΟΧ) which has been used by all the True Orthodox of Greece for the last 95 years?  Only their particular Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian from which Bishop Ambrose hails was called “of Resistors” and not G.O.C. as they proclaimed that the State World Orthodox Church of Greece was the “True Church” and they were members of that Church but “resisting” some things that the more “sickly” of that “Church” (a Church according to them composed of both  healthy Orthodox and sick heretical Ecumenists all forming one “Church” both in and out of heresy) were doing. So now, the ones who rejected the title G.O. C. are the sole owners of this title?  They are asking the state to give them the title of True Orthodox and (as Bishop Ambrose happily mentions “In future, only we can use the name of True Orthodox Christians of Greece (the fact that is rattling Filaret”  ) stop all other True Orthodox Christians from using the titles that we have always used and that express us.  And how will they do that?  By order of the state!  Isn’t this Sergianism?

In order to do this, will they drag clergy to the courts even though the Holy Canons  forbid it?   Is this not Sergianism?

They will report any priests who don’t belong to them to the Greek Government.  Is this not Sergianism?

Our True Orthodox Christians were forced to surrender all their church buildings and monasteries to the state church in 1924 and now the G.O.C. bishops of Kallinikos are receiving the power to again take over the properties of True Orthodox Christians and take them with them wherever they go.  They are seeking that clergy that has always called themselves G.O.C. be forced to no longer use that name.  Is this not Sergianism?

Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd wrote: “Those who defend Sergei say that the canons allow separation from a bishop only for heresy judged by a Sobor; it can be replied that the actions of metropolitan Sergei have led to just that state if one has in view such clear destruction of the freedom and dignity of the one Holy, Concilliar, and Apostolic Church… but beyond this there is much that the canons cannot foresee, and can one dispute the fact that it is worse and more dangerous than any heresy when a knife is plunged into the very heart of the Church— her freedom and dignity? Which is worse—- heresy or murder?” (Acts of Metropolitan Sergei, unpublished typescript (1930?) P. 120)

 ——Original Message—–

From: Bishop Ambrose <episkoposamvrosios@gmail.com>

To: vladmoss <vladmoss@aol.com>

Sent: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:26

Subject: Re: 

  Dear Vladimir,

As one of our English-speaking faithful just sent me this article, and asked for a reply, I forward to you what I sent to him. We have just put out a thick booklet in Greek in answer to these accusations; if you wish, I can ask Metropolitan Photios to send it to you; I am sure he has it in electronic form.

  Dear XXXXX,

Our Synod has replied at enormous length to these idiotic accusations (they do not belong to Filaret himself, but to others; he has just picked them up) in Greek, but who has time to translate all into English? The majority of this literature (hundreds of pages containing almost no serious matter) was produced by a professor of law at the University of Thessaloniki, who will produce any opinion he is paid for, including views totally opposed to traditional Orthodox morals. We have plenty of examples….

In short, the Greek state was seeking to correct an anomaly under which any but three religious Groups (New Calendarists, Muslims and Jews) were not recognised as such. Up to now we had no legal recognition as a Church or Synod, but only as individual communities, each registered separately; this created enormous problems of property, jurisdiction, inheritance etc. The new law offered the possibility of normal registration and function. The advantages are of an administrative nature – we do not wish for, and will not receive, any economic advantages from the state. However, we have the prospect of a situation where a bishop is actually responsible for his diocese, and not as at present, when every priest, monastery and parish gets up and leaves when the bishop applies some measure they do not like. It also defends us from the vast crowds of deposed clergymen from the state church and other charlatans who use the name of TOC particularly for performing marriages of immigrants with Greek persons, usually for a significant payment. These people, whose names we do not even know, give us a bad name. In future, only we can use the name of True Orthodox Christians of Greece (the fact that is rattling Filaret, who in his time has passed through so many jurisdictions!) The opposition to our application of this law (which has in fact been adopted by many bodies in Greece, including the Roman Catholics) has another effect, namely that we are clearly a separate religious body from the State Church of Greece, which until now has avoided declaring us schismatics in order to claim that we are merely disobedient children of the State Church, and therefore subject to their decisions and punishments; it is precisely this fact that has been used to persecute us through the courts until recently. An obligatory part the registration under the new law is the specific confession of the faith of the body registered, and I challenge any of our opponents to find fault in the excellent and precise confession that we have there deposed. The matter has been examined in the Synod at length, and has been adopted. It is really puzzling why our opponents are claiming that the registration of a church organisation as a whole is more “Sergianist” than that of registration as separate entities, as exists now – even the monastery where Filaret lives is registered somehow!  Sergianism, as defined in our Synodal Ecclesiological document, is a quite different matter, ie. the subjection of the Church to state authorities with the specific aim of its destruction, and the lies and deceit involved in this process, and further the subjugation of the liberty of the church. No such question arises here.   +A.

1 thought on “Is this not Sergianism?

  1. “Bishop” Ambrose clearly is wilfully blind, when he writes, “Sergianism, as defined in our Synodal Ecclesiological document, is a quite different matter, ie. the subjection of the Church to state authorities with the specific aim of its destruction, and the lies and deceit involved in this process, and further the subjugation of the liberty of the church. No such question arises here.” Because, clearly exactly that is the case because this is the closing of the net to draw into false Orthodoxy (Pseudodoxy) those who are unstable or unschooled in their Orthodoxy, and to drive the remnant off a cliff of being rendered legal outcasts subject to every sort of attack by the State and their useful idiots who beleive themselves to be “True” or “Genuine” Orthodox, but have really fallen away from that pure and holy confession of Genuine Apostolic and Catholic Orthodoxy professed by the Holy Pateras.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © All rights reserved. | Newsphere by AF themes.
Skip to toolbar