There were dioceses and even parishes, which, groping their way amid this lack of information, lived a life apart and often did not know whom to follow in order to preserve Orthodoxy.
There will be no peace in the Russian Church, until this Council principle of the a-political nature of the Church and the personal freedom of Her members in relation to non-church affairs is applied in all sincerity to all aspects of human life.Recognition of the principle of bureaucratic despotism led to a situation in which a single Bishop who had taken control of the church chancellery, was able to change the hierarchal composition and spiritual face of a whole Local Church.To abolish the resolution on the elimination from divine worship of prayers for exiled bishops and on the offering up of prayers for civil power.".Metropolitan Peter remained, according to this conception of Metropolitan Sergius's, the sole mystical head of the Church, which was expressed in the offering up of his sacred 2 crack rapidshare german name during the Liturgy and the refusal to admit other Locum Tenentes to power; the "real" head, however, was.To abolish the offering up of the Deputy's name (Metropolitan Sergius had ordered the offering up of his name during the Liturgy after the name of Metropolitan Peter: allegedly in distinction to the Gregorians, who remembered only Metropolitan Peter - .R.).We must build everything on truth.The provisional church body should convene, and not select the Council as the notorious SCA did in 1923.In this argument people sensed clearly the contradiction between church reality and Bishop Dimitri's canonical position - everyone saw that by creating the Synod Metropolitan Sergius had not placed any real cara update manual windows xp sp3 restrictions on his power (if one discounts "self-restriction" in favor of the nkvd!).Metropolitan Sergius carried out the same procedure with the Synod: out of seven dozen Russian arch-hierarchs he chose six bishops with doubtful reputations, but totally obedient to him; and after this he began to speak of a "co-managing" body of authority, using the signatures.We shall now" as an objection to this the idea of a prelate, undoubtedly of great authority for Archbishop Ioanhn (Snychev) as well, the great Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, who wrote this a century earlier: "Yes, there is profit when the altar and the.Although the letter testified to the rebirth of the Council principles of the dignity of the Bishop and the separation of the Church from politics, Bishop Dimitri in his argument repeats Metropolitan Joseph's mistake: the substitution of the idea of personal rule for the idea.Otherwise only new confusion will arise.The main justification in the eyes of Sergius himself was the "bureaucratic" argument expounded by him in his message of 18/31 December, 1927: "The Lord placed upon us the great and extremely responsible duty of steering the ship of our Church at a time when.This helplessness is the root of many troubles in the Russian Church.
His action created a precedent which threatened to upset Metropolitan Sergius's whole plan for refashioning the Church.
And through its handing over of Christ's Church for profanation to "those outside it is a grievous renunciation of salvation, or renunciation of Our Savior Himself.