Vladyka sergiy ageev. Signs of a religious sect in the community of false bishop sergius

Material No. 1. About the sect of father Michael

Alexander: Came by mail from Vladimir Ivanov

SECT OF O. MICHAEL (now "Bishop Sergius")

The main goal of the sect is to make you an obedient puppet. “Jesus answered them: beware lest anyone deceive you, for many will come in my name and will say, 'I am the Christ,' and they will deceive many” (Matthew 24-4.5). A sectarian group has appeared in the Pskov region, headed by the defrocked former priest Mikhail (Ageev) (now "Bishop Sergius"), who now travels throughout Russia and conducts missionary activities, recruiting new members. Persistent signs of the sect in this case were not immediately apparent, since at first everything seemed to be pretty decent.

To make it clear - a little history.

As a priest, Michael was ordained by Bishop Diomid of Anadyr and Chukotka several years ago. Having received a blessing for divine services from Bishop Diomedes, Priest Michael (Ageev) soon began to shy away from conscientious service. Using his gift of suggestion, hiding behind the good name of Bishop Diomedes, and severely scolding Kirill (Gundyaev), he began to recruit people to his village in the Pskov region in order to create a "missionary community." In the sermons of Fr. Mikhail says what everyone has long dreamed of hearing from Orthodox priests, but they are all under Cyril, silent like fish, while Russia is being rapidly and intensively destroyed.

After a while, rumors spread - Priest Michael, simultaneously with spiritual care, persistently persuades his spiritual children to sell houses, apartments and come to him in the village to be saved. Many did not believe this at first, but in vain. During their sermons he says a lot of very correct things , but very skillfully seasoning them with an alarming apocalyptic sauce: "The last times have come - we need to quickly get rid of property and distribute everything." Does this remind you of anything? And we were immediately reminded of the story of the underground Penza inmates who crawled underground to wait for the end of the world in May, which, of course, did not come.

The logical result: the Most Holy Governing Synod under the chairmanship of Bishop Theophilos withdrew the blessing for services given earlier from Priest Michael and threw him out of dignity.

But Fr. Michael - the false bishop Sergius did not show obedience to Bishop Diomedes, who once ordained him a priest and soon declared himself “Bishop Sergius”, but in fact, as you understand, of course, he was a false bishop. His missionary community has now rapidly degenerated into a religious totalitarian sect. For the sake of brevity, we will write simply "Fr. Michael."

WHO STILL WAIT FOR O. MIKHAIL'S VISIT?

After the election of Cyril as a false patriarch, the Orthodox people fled from the churches and began to pray from house to house. By decree No. 3 of October 12 (25), 2008, Bishop Diomedes revived the Holy Governing Synod, but at first, the Synod understands, it is difficult to immediately provide all the communities that were created with Orthodox priests who did not deviate into heresy, although the situation is gradually changing. It is in this environment of Orthodox believers who have emerged from the heresy imposed by the false patriarch Kirill, but where there is still no spiritual nourishment from the Holy Governing Synod and is trying to recruit people to his sect, Fr. Michael. Be careful!

SIGNS OF A RELIGIOUS SECT IN THE COMMUNITY OF FALSE BISHOP SERGIUS

1. The newly converted people who got to his Pskov village call themselves and begin by phone to persistently persuade their relatives who have remained at home, urgently sell their houses (apartments) and come to their village to save themselves. At the same time, in conversations, they only consider themselves to be in the truth, and are in such a zombified state that they are absolutely incapable of thinking realistically and critically. The output product is about. Mikhail is a terrible thing: zombie people, stubbornly recruiting new people into his sect.

2. Father Michael persistently asks from the communities under his spiritual guidance to pay him tithes of all their income.

3. As befits a sect, Father Michael is engaged in religious marketing, that is, spreading his teachings and recruiting new members. To do this, he distributes DVDs with propaganda and advertising films about himself and about his Pskov community, in which, of course, he is filmed. He filmed his sermons before people during his trips around the country with a video camera. Being a philanthropist in the eyes of people is not easy, and it takes some effort. To do this, he distributes (for so) good, and very correct patriotic films, which confuses many. Of course, he does all this not only out of the kindness of his soul.

His DVDs outside, and even inside the films themselves, as well as leaflets contain something like the following: “We ask your help for missionary needs and for the construction of a temple in honor of the Holy Martyr Tryphon. You can send your mites and notes about the health and repose of relatives to the address: 182353 Pskov region Opochetskiy district, P / O Yessenniki, Terekhi village, Petrova A.P. (this is the wife of a false bishop), tel. 8 + 811-38-958-61. Unpretentious, but the easiest way to get money from good-natured people from all over the country.

4. Fr. Michael, arriving in a community, serves the Divine Liturgy barefoot! At the same time, his Divine Liturgy is constantly interrupted for sermons about his "missionary community", money and the tithe from their income due by Orthodox people.

5. In his sermons, Fr. Michael appears in the form of "persecuted" and "incomprehensible" by many, while constantly reminding that, just like him, they used to persecute Jesus Christ from everywhere.

6. Fr. Michael exercises control of consciousness, which is very convenient for him to do, because he himself confesses his spiritual children (in his village) and has complete control over their daily life. Members of the sect of Fr. Michael, having left hundreds, and sometimes thousands of kilometers from home, break out of their usual life and lose their circle of friends. They have a certain daily routine, they are limited in sleep and food, they carry out intense activities that do not leave an opportunity to critically comprehend the sectarian personality of the leader. Ultimately, people sacrifice their time, health, property to the sect (apartments are most often sold). Fr. Michael is not limited to influencing the adepts and persistently seeks to spread the influence further, to family members, close people, acquaintances, periodically calling them at home. Communication with those outside the group (stayed at home) is limited, as well as phone calls from the village, and this is determined only by his blessing and setting in the conversation: to constantly talk about being in happiness and try to recruit new members to him. It is not accepted to send letters of a personal nature from there.

7. In the village, priests are ordained almost instantly, monks and nuns are tonsured, and it is not at all necessary for them to wear monastic attire. Under normal conditions, a person who decides to become a monk should seriously consider this step, whether he is ready for it. The one who has decided to take this step will first be a novice for a long time, then a monk, and only then, when he has already decided that he is ready, he will be tonsured a monk. Formalities with thinking over a solution to nothing about. Michael. People are not kept as novices and novices in his "village-monastery". For a month they will be registered as a monk, and then once - and a monk is ready! The person who came to him, Fr. Michael instantly attaches to himself, tk. the newcomer is quickly given some kind of clergy and, thus, they are firmly tied to Fr. Michael, it does not matter what rank: priest, monk, nun. In this case, about. Michael, the most powerful tools for manipulating this person immediately appear: - "There is no God's blessing for this", "This is your obedience" and "I do not bless you to leave."

8. From the community of unnecessary people (this sometimes happens) Fr. Mikhail kicks out only with a diagnosis of "painful". If someone nevertheless regains his sight and leaves the community of his own free will, then all the others then persistently insist on him that he was crazy.

9. The position of Fr. Michael claims to be infallible, and that this is the highest truth. He receives the "truth" through the "revelations" and "visions" of the Lord and the Most Holy Theotokos, which appear to him.

10. Mimicry for Orthodoxy is used with might and main. At the Divine Liturgy, he commemorates the future Sovereign Emperor, which should not be embarrassing. Pay attention to some of the icons that are in his sect. Here is one of them, a video frame taken from his film "We Are Coming to Christ" (on the right in the frame - it is enlarged for better viewing). O. Mikhail in this film sits on the couch and talks about himself for a long, long time. Behind, to the right of him there is an icon - and it seems like the Savior. But look carefully - there is no halo above your head and why are her eyes so black? And what are these flowers below? I don’t know about you, but this “icon” has caused an incomprehensible state in our country: What is it? There are several more icons in his community, which were “revealed” to him in the missionary community by the Lord himself and the Most Holy Theotokos, but when you look at them you feel in your gut that something is wrong.

11. Fr. Michael is very free to relate to church norms and rules. On the right in the frame from his film “Prophecies and Enlightenment,” he, barefoot, without a cassock and a cross, in an ordinary man's suit, blesses the youth as a priest. The rejected priest Michael, managed to become a bishop, being married, which is unthinkable according to the canons. Who ordained him bishop is now a mystery sealed with seven seals.

12. Fr. Michael instills in the members of his sect the idea that they are the only saved people, and that everyone else is doomed to eternal destruction because they do not stand in the truth, just like they do. Criticism of the community by people from outside is considered to be true proof of the correctness of the position of the sectarians, which further unites the members. He zombified his adherents to the point that they say: "Even in my thoughts I am afraid to think badly of him." The reliability of the suggestion of this new thought is controlled by Father Michael among the sectarians, and by himself, during the acceptance of confessions from members of the sect. Fr. Michael is making attempts to undermine his reputation and sow doubts about the competence of Bishop Diomid of Anadyr and Chukotka and Bishop Theophilus. To do this, he, through his faithful adherents, inspires the rest that Bishops Diomedes and Theophilus have already "gone mad", if they were allowed to say this about him, Fr. Vasily (from the Tula region) and Matrona of Moscow.

Conclusion

Like many preachers, Fr. Mikhail strenuously pedals and intensifies in sermons the topic of satanic globalization (rejection of documents, TIN, cards).

We draw your attention: we also very, very much do not like these attributes of the new world order, and we do not use them, (if possible) but we believe that we must not run like mice underground, but we must fight for the revival of Russia, when the forms of these satanic passports will be nailed to the forehead of their creators.

And what does Fr. Michael? "Give up your documents and come to me to be saved." This causes anxiety and passion.

Bishop Diomed of Anadyr and Chukotka in October 2008 revived the Holy Governing Synod and many Orthodox Christians, feeling the truth in their hearts, emerged from the destructive heresy that the new false patriarch is now imposing on everyone almost openly. But right there, this small flock are trying to plunder and drag into the unknown such preachers as Fr. Michael.

Be careful! Not all that glitters is gold, and not all words can be easily believed in our crafty time.

Former parishioners Fr. Michael, 2008 - 2009

These days 350 years ago, the Great Moscow Cathedral of 1666-1667 (BMS) opened in Moscow, which approved the reforms of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon, condemned the old rite and initiated the split of the Russian Church. This sad event still burdens the historical and, to some extent, modern church life. This cathedral is still in the center of attention of some Old Believer accords today. So, in 2015, his deeds were discussed at the Council of the Russian Ancient Orthodox Church, where they received an appropriate assessment. Read more about this in the document ".". Today, some questions regarding this cathedral are answered by a member of the commission of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church for interaction with the Old Believer parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Believers, Metropolitan of Tulchin and Bratslav Jonathan (Yeletskikh).

reference: Metropolitan Jonathan (Yeletskikh) (Tulchin and Bratslav diocese of the UOC-MP) was born in 1949 in Russia. In 1989, on the recommendation of the former Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine Filaret (Denisenko) (now the Patriarch of the UOC-KP), he was ordained a bishop, since 2014 - a metropolitan, a member of the Synodal Patriarchal Council for Culture (MP), a member of the Commission of the Holy Synod of the ROC for interaction with Old Believer parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church and Old Believers, member of the jury of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Prize in the field of cinema under the Patriarchal Council for Culture, author of a number of liturgical works (Explanatory Guide to the Divine Liturgy (Russian, Ukrainian). Candidate of Theology.

They say that your ancestors were Old Believers, and you yourself were baptized in the Old Believers. Is this true, and could you tell us more about your family?

G.I.Kh.S.B.P.N.

On the line of my grandfather on my mother's side, I come from a clan of Old Believers of the Belkrynitsa Consent in the Bryansk region, the town of Novozybkov. But he was born in the Voronezh region in the family of a serviceman, who later completed his service in Kiev, where I even sang a short time as a boy on the wing of an Old Believer church on Pochainaya Street. But he was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church.

What influence, in your opinion, did the Council of 1666-1667 have on the history of the Russian Church and the history of the country in general?

The Great Moscow Cathedral is an important historical watershed that has defined for centuries two paths of church life in Russia: Moscow-Byzantine and pro-Western liberal. The latter became the forerunner of the long synodal period in the ROC. Under Peter the Great, Russian theology felt the influence of both scholastic Polish Latinism (Metropolitan Stefan Jaworski) and Protestant German rationalism (Metropolitan Feofan Prokopovich). The existence in Russia of the Old Believer opposition, supported by the masses of the common people and the economically strong merchants, to a certain extent became an obstacle to these tendencies in Russia and led to the establishment of unity of faith in the ROC. The remnants of these alien influences in academic theology were overcome in the 19th century.

The Council of the Russian Ancient Orthodox Church in 2015 indicated, for example, some acts of the Great Moscow Council that were unacceptable for the Old Believers, in particular, the Latin teaching about the time of the presentation of the Holy Gifts in the Eucharist contained in the book "Rod" or the teaching about the time of the spiritualization of a baby some time after conception ... How can you comment on similar teachings of the Council of 1666-1667?

The teaching on the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts only by the power of the institutional words of Christ, brought to Moscow by the Latin "Orthodox" from "Lithuania", is not a dogmatic teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church, which philosophizes that this transubstantiation (transubstantiation) is inaccessible to the mind, performed by the Lord God Himself (as pronounced by a priest the institutional words of Christ and upon his invocation of the Holy Spirit "on these Holy Gifts," by the power and action of the Heavenly God the Father). He is wise through the lips of theologians, as in this incomprehensible and terrible Sacrament the entire Holy, Consubstantial, Indivisible and Life-Giving Trinity participates. The teaching about God's animation in the womb of the conceived fruit does not coincide with the teaching on this issue of Origen.

It is known that in the acts of the council there was a call for persecution and bodily resentment. How should these decisions be viewed today?

Threats to use "bodily malice" against the Old Believer brothers do not adorn the book "The Rod", just like some scholastic formulations of the teaching of the Holy Mother of the Church. A short set of dogmatic teachings of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church should be matured in the authoritative canonical Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs to the Anglican hierarchy of the last century for the Old Believers.

What is the attitude within the Russian Orthodox Church to Znamenny chanting, why is it so rare?

The divine service at the present time in the Russian Orthodox Church is enriched by the singing of the sign. There was no ban on its use and does not exist, for historically the banner monody is the root (main) singing of the Russian Orthodox Church. At the same time, in the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church, the practice of singing harmonious liturgical compositions is preserved, due to historical, cultural and psychological factors.

Do you have your own opinion on the canonical status of the Old Believer hierarchies?

The condition for the canonical recognition of the Old Believer hierarchy by the ROC is the only one: it is its entry into the Fullness of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church of Christ (with the preservation of its customs and Orthodox patristic dogma).

Did you like the material?

Comments (55)

Cancel reply

I wonder on what occasion M. Jonathan poses in the photo with two fingers?
It is strange that no one paid attention to the fact that Metropolitan Jonathan himself is from the Old Believers, as well as the more famous Metropolitan Yuvenaly (Poyarkov), who also came from the priestly family of the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy.
It’s just not clear, since Jonathan sang in the Kiev church of the Russian Orthodox Church, why then he was baptized again in the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate?
> The condition for the canonical recognition of the Old Believer hierarchy by the ROC is the only one: it is
> her to the Fullness of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church of Christ (while preserving her customs and the Orthodox
> patristic dogma).
That is, the ROC recognizes the Armenian hierarchy, despite the fact that there is no Eucharistic communion with the Armenians. And he recognizes Catholics. And even the Coptic hierarchy seems to be recognized in the ROC, again without having Eucharistic communion with the Copts. Doesn't interfere. But Old Believers are not recognized.
I think this is a matter of politics. The ROC recognizes those hierarchies that are profitable or have to be reckoned with, based on a combination of factors - political, etc. And the fact that at the same time the ROC does not canonically recognize the Old Believer hierarchy, suggests that the ROC in the modern Old Believers does not see any serious force in terms of a combination of factors, some kind of pole with which it is necessary or beneficial to reckon. Why should the Old Believers be recognized, what in return, who are they? ...
- “That is, the ROC recognizes the Armenian hierarchy, despite the fact that there is no Eucharistic communion with the Armenians. And it recognizes Catholics. And even the Coptic hierarchy seems to be recognized in the ROC, again without having Eucharistic communion with Copts. So the point is not in Eucharistic communion, but in apostolic succession, the presence of which among the recommended ROC and RDC raises great doubts, to say the least. And the recognition of an alternative hierarchy will also call into question the grace of the Church itself, for the Holy Spirit cannot be divided. Either He is with them, or with us, there is no third way.
- And in the case of Catholics and Armenians, the Holy Spirit can be divided, which means ...
- And He's not there. But there is apostolic succession. One unique fact that the priests 150 years later and 250 years later, respectively, accept bishops into communion with the anointing of oil (this cannot be called the world) says a lot. (You will not find such incidents in the history of the Church). The Orthodox cannot have several alternative hierarchies; there is no talk of heretics.
- Alexander, this is not your personal point of view on the hierarchy, but the specific opinion of Metropolitan Jonathan. And he makes it clear that the reality of the church hierarchy, in his opinion, is connected with being in the "Fullness of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church of Christ." This term can be interpreted in completely different ways, but I think that the metropolitan still had in mind the organizational structure - a community, a community of so-called fraternal Orthodox sister churches. It is in this vein that one should understand the opinion of the interviewee.
  Now, whoever concerns your opinion on the apostolic succession and the recognition of the hierarchy, here I agree more with Sergius, since the political component in such matters has always played an important role. If you are interested in church history, you will find a lot of evidence of this. At least the most recent ones. For example, hierarchical positions in the Orthodox Russian Church (now known as Renovationist) in the 40s ceased to be recognized in the Moscow Patriarchate, despite the fact that both (PRTs) and others (ROC) were children and members of a single Greek-Russian synodal church. At the same time, they did not have any divisions in dogmas and rituals. There are many such examples, when no apostolic succession gives grounds for the recognition of the hierarchy, while there is no political will for that.
- Alexander, you read the document signed by Patriarch Kirill and the Pope carefully. There it is clearly testified that the Latins have the Holy Spirit, that they are your brotherly Church, etc. This is an official document, therefore, an official position. You, as a child of the Russian Orthodox Church, must show obedience or break off communication. You do not interrupt communication, therefore, you yourself agree. But then write your messages based on the official faith of your Church ...
- "At the same time, they did not have any divisions in dogmas and rituals."
  Yes, the married episcopate of the Renovationists is, of course, complete agreement in dogmas and rituals)) How can such a "trifle" be compared with editing texts in the middle of the 17th century?))
  The same Renovationist "Metropolitan" Alexander Vvedensky was consecrated bishop while he was married. So, the non-recognition of his apostolic succession is, of course, only for political reasons,))))
  But seriously, maybe our hierarchy is not eager to recognize the hierarchy of the Old Believers, who openly call the ROC "Nikonians", but, objectively speaking, the official explanations for this are purely canonical. I understand that the Old Believers, as Melnikov wrote, have suffered their hierarchy with tears and prayers of generations, but nevertheless, at the very basis of their hierarchy there is a "gap". Well, two bishops are needed, two, not one, for the performance of episcopal ordinations.
- Stop repeating propaganda clichés. Give a rule that says that a bishop, appointed by necessity from one bishop, is ejected or not recognized. In your country, Catholics in their existing dignity are accepted, but with them the Pope always single-handedly ordains bishops. New believers have double standards everywhere. However, I am writing only out of harm :-) Perhaps it is important for the Belokrinitsky to recognize their hierarchy from the ROC (since the commissions are created), but we do not need this. With all due respect to the human qualities of many new believers, for the Old Believers-priests, the overwhelming majority of new believers are unbaptized persons, for they are doused according to the Latin rite.
- What does this have to do with the clichés, everyone has heard about the need for two bishops to carry out episcopal consecration. Otherwise, the same Diomede would quickly create his own church, but not alone. If this is not the case, tell me what exactly is wrong, and do not declare a serious question with a stamp. In order to have a discussion, to sort it out.
  Maybe the bishop, appointed by necessity by one bishop, is not thrown out and is recognized, but, as far as we know, such cases are still considered as an exception, and when an exception forms the basis of the hierarchy, it is still a psychological "gap".
  As for the Catholics, I can't say, but perhaps this is due, again, that initially, their hierarchy was normal, and only after they fell away from Orthodoxy such dubious practices arose. But after all, the Old Believers do not follow heretical Catholic practices that grew out of the lust for power of the Roman bishops who fell away from Orthodoxy?)))
  That is, for the Old Believers-priests, tens of millions of Orthodox Russian people are not even baptized? Even the persecutors of the Old Believers did not assert this in relation to them.
  Was the pouring done arbitrarily or was it the practice of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church in the 17th century, even if it was stricter in Russia and so it was not allowed before the decisions of those councils? If practice, then what are the claims to ordinary people? After all, it is said - "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."
- Sergiy Ageev, are you sure that the marriage of Metropolitan Alexander and a couple of other people suddenly washed away the rank from dozens of other bishops? Modern, much more serious sins of bishops do not wash away, as is known, the dignity.
- Long ago the church would have fallen, in ancient times there were not only married bishops, but also second-weds.
- There is no need for two, three and five bishops. Appoints one, the others as ceremonial assistants. It is the same with the sacrament of Unction. It is written that there are 7 pop-pops, but in life most often one serves.
- Gleb, the renovationists had many other violations, the marriage of the episcopate in this case is simply the most eloquent fact. After all, this means not just a grave sin, and not the canonicity of ordination. That is, they cannot be considered bishops, although they called themselves that. In addition, they, who were not ordained canonically, in turn ordained many bishops. The same Vvedensky was their chief, and he ordained. Of course, such ordinations were not recognized, even if they were celibate.
  By the way, the Renovationists justified their "innovations" in this way - the Apostle Peter had a mother-in-law, and he became a bishop, which means we can ... Or else: a bishop is a husband of one wife. But how can you compare it? In the great times of the ancient Church, when at the beginning of the 3rd century there were still alive those who knew those who singled out those who knew the apostles, many practices were not yet settled, but as a result, the Church completely established such rules as now. And not only this. Father Mikhail Zheltov, in his lectures on the ancient Liturgy, said that, for example, in the first centuries the Communion was combined with a regular meal, but in the 4th century it is rigidly fixed - one must take Communion on an empty stomach. Some communities celebrated the Eucharist on the water, but if as of the 3rd century it was still allowed, they simply exhorted that it was better on wine, then in the 4th century it was definitely anathema! Likewise, kissing the world at first meant kissing all members of the community on the mouth, then it began to cause problems, and this was limited.
  And if the Church conciliarly established unambiguous canons in relation to bishops, the Renovationists could not arbitrarily violate them.
  "There is no need for two, three and five bishops"
  Then why is everyone talking about the need for two bishops? From somewhere it is approved, it means not just like that. And what then prevented the aforementioned Diomedes from ordaining his bishops, if it is all the same? But he did not dare to do it.
  However, if the universal Orthodoxy, the patriarchs consider this issue, and recognize that the Old Believer hierarchy is founded somehow, then there are no problems.
- "There it is clearly testified that the Latins have the Holy Spirit, that they are your brotherly Church, etc." Andrey, why look for something that is not really there? For those like you who are "afraid of fear, where there is no fear", this document was compiled: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4431333.html
  Answer me one question: has there been a precedent in the history of the Church that a bishop was accepted into communion by a priest, and also when bishops were not found in the Church for a long period of time?
- “There is no need for two, three and five bishops.” Gleb, why did you not recognize the sole appointment of Bishop Michael of Canada?
- "I mean, nevertheless, the organizational structure - a community, a community of so-called fraternal Orthodox sister churches." It's not canonical.
- This ordination was recognized, and you yourself note it by calling him a bishop.
- Clarify the question about the two bishops and the territory.
- To admit, he admitted, but:
  "The Consecrated Cathedral, in St. Dusa, gathered in the reigning city of Moscow, in the Church of the Nativity of Christ, having discussed the case of the sole ordination by Bishop Innocent of Archimandrite Michael as Bishop of Canada, before the final research about him (Sard. 10 and Laod. 12 etc.), did not finds sacred rules justifying such ordination, with the exception of holy church events. "
- Now you are all sitting so modern and reasonable, forgetting one important thing - the Church is out of time ... Alexander and Sergei, you are expressing frank Sergian nonsense. Sergei - the "psychological gap" is not a reason for the recognition or non-recognition of the hierarchy; in this practice, in such conditions, one bishop is permissible, since it is not he (and) who, in fact, manifests the essence of ordination, but the Holy Spirit! The same applies to baptism, here it is already with regard to all participants in general - it is not water that baptizes, but the Holy Spirit! If you gentlemen are ardent supporters of the Russian Orthodox Church, and you are so concerned about these practices of the "canonicity" of the priesthood and transition, listen to the new ravings of some leaders from the top who began to talk about the priesthood as a postman, thereby allowing the postman to make mistakes and sin, and wait for new miracles from them in violation of the dogmas of the church ... in which you seem to understand selectively, most likely from articles from different sites.
  Andrey, I am responding in advance to your offer to Sergei to stop communicating with the Russian Orthodox Church if something does not suit you. I am a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, which has not deviated from what we had before the godless power, in modern terms I am a Nikonian, trying, as far as possible, to dispel the nonsense of Sergianism (of which there are quite a few) in the minds of the people who meet in my life. I am not going to give up the priesthood and the Church, because when pronouncing the words of the Nicene Creed, I recognize only ONE Church, and it cannot be otherwise, I deny both the Church and the Lord by transitions (this is my terrible opinion). But at the same time, internal church troubles, in the form of carrying heresy by some ministers, for example, Cyril, talking about their (not our) brotherhood with Catholics, I have every right to recognize him as a heretic ... not to confess to him and further down the list, but to reject the Orthodox Church. I do not intend to jump on different hierarchies, I consider it apostasy.
- Once I had the opportunity to express myself that, in my opinion, the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy could be recognized as apostolic succession if certain conditions were met (I will not write about this now). And I'm not the only one in the Russian Orthodox Church. But there are also people very respected by me who, sincerely loving the Old Believers, do not think so. If my arguments are mostly "psychological" based on the circumstances of the time, then, it must be admitted, there are canonical arguments. There are several difficult aspects in the creation of BI, but the most important one is a blatant violation of the 1st Apostolic Canon. And the essence of the rule is not that physically one bishop cannot appoint another bishop (this happened, and in fact only one, here Gleb is right). The meaning of this rule is that another bishop is not appointed solely, but by the ASSOCIATED choice of the bishops of the area. This preserves not only catholicity, but also the unity of the Church! This is what Metropolitan Jonathan had in mind: violation of this rule brought BI out of church unity, and there was only one way out of the situation - to return to it.
- This logic, Father, will be correct if the RPSTs decides to join the ROC. And at the moment, while the ROCTs officially considers the ROC to be heresy of the second rank (Council 2007), any dialogues about mutual recognition or non-recognition of hierarchies look at least strange. Subjectively, the Bekhninitskys acted in the absence of an Orthodox Council, therefore it is not correct to apply this logic to them. But if they admit that the ROC did not retreat and does not retreat in anything from the faith, that is, they admit that there were no grounds for secession, then the logic you indicated will be correct, and the ROC will be able to recognize the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy according to the economy, since he recognizes Catholics ...
- Father John, if they do recognize BI, it turns out that it was in vain that the Old Believers converted to the Russian Orthodox Church? If there is grace, why then Unity? I honestly don't understand how there can be two (or three) Russian Orthodox Churches ... Nonsense.
- So that's what we are talking about. If the ROC is right, then the Old Believers are at least schismatics. You can show leniency to schismatics only when they unite with the Church, and not out of political correctness. Therefore, when we started negotiations with the ROC, the issue of the hierarchy of neither ours, nor the ROC was on the agenda at all, for this is a fruitless dispute. It is first necessary to jointly objectively figure out who was right in the 17th century, to what extent and to what extent, then the issue of hierarchy will be resolved by itself. In the meantime, all the proposed forms of relationship are similar to the Catholic Ariano-Nestorian-Monophysite Uniate projects. Believe it as you like, admit only dad as the main one ...
- “Believe as you wish, only admit dad as the main one ...” Faith is the same, the rituals are different, unless, of course, we are talking about faith in rituals. And all the Uniate projects united communities with different faiths, right?
- Father Andrey. You understand the essence of the issue better than others, although not completely. But I will not discuss the issue in more depth on a public resource for obvious reasons.
  Alexander. It is much more difficult to understand the coexistence of parallel Old Believer hierarchies, even if they wish to be called differently :-)
  The issue of recognizing the apostolic succession and the presence in any church community of the action of the Grace of God are different topics. Continuity, for example, can be flawless and a creed heretical.
- Questions about the status of the hierarchy did not arise within the framework of a bilateral theological dialogue, but because of the resumption of pre-revolutionary practice in the ROC, when the sacraments performed in the Old Believer's agreements were not recognized. This caused several unpleasant incidents with perfect baptisms, weddings, etc.
  Before the revolution, there were many cases when such a practice played into the hands of all kinds of swindlers, crooks and marriage swindlers.
- Alexander
  Can there be two Orthodox bishops in one diocese?
  Answer: There is a whole body of rules dedicated to the boundaries of episcopal service, their election, transfer to other dioceses, as well as the ministry of bishops in neighboring territories or in the territories of other church regions. These rules are very strict and mostly prohibitive.
  Unfortunately, today there are few places where they are performed. For example, only in the United States, in the same settlements or states, up to 10-15 jurisdictions of the Eastern rite can be ordained, regardless of any rules on "canonical territories"
- For Fr. Andrei, perhaps, I will say a little more. Take BI. During its existence there, the 1st Apostolic Canon was violated many times, right up to our time. If it were not for the Bolsheviks, the non-district hierarchy, for example, would most likely still exist today. And besides the Old Believers, there is also the world experience of the Orthodox Local Churches. Proceeding from this experience, any Local Church will not allow ignoring this rule, if only from the instinct of self-preservation. The precedent for allowing exclusion will not be understood in the Orthodox world and will be very costly for "economists".
  There is also an ecclesiological theme. When recognizing apostolic succession, it is necessary to adhere to Orthodox ecclesiology. But this, you seem to understand.
- Alexander. There is one faith, but the rituals are different - this is for new believers and fellow believers, and Old Believers differ from new believers in matters of faith, albeit on secondary issues, but nevertheless ...
  Father John. Parallel hierarchies are nothing new. In the ROC itself, during the persecutions from the atheists, there were such. There were those in antiquity. However, from the point of view of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is possible that the Old Believers have parallel hierarchies, but from the point of view of, for example, the Russian Orthodox Church, there is only one ;-) Actually, that's why there are two of them :-)
- Gleb. No matter how the question arises, its message is wrong, if, of course, the RPSTs does not seek technical unity with the ROC. What is the difference whether the ROC sacraments are recognized in the ROC or not? Because of the marriage swindlers? But in the RPST itself, new believers in most cases are baptized altogether, creating the possibility of both repeated and parallel marriages. This is inevitable given the current state of affairs. Does the RPC want the hierarchy to be recognized by the ROC, but is it ready to recognize the bishops and priests of the ROC who have been baptized by the pouring? In my opinion, everything is quite fair - by what court do you judge ... This undoubtedly applies to us. Not on that, just, in my opinion, the emphasis is being placed. The split is either to be overcome or not to be overcome, and half measures will only complicate the situation, confusing everything completely. Indeed, there will be two Churches, and three, and ten in the eyes of the observer. But the Church is one ...
- "There is one faith, but the rituals are different - this is among the new believers and fellow believers, and the Old Believers differ from the new believers in matters of faith, albeit on secondary issues, but nevertheless ..." And what is the difference? I think, if there were any differences, even minor ones, then the Paveletskaya note on the commemoration of the deceased new believers would not be accepted and your Primate would not allow fellow believers to pray in the Intercession Cathedral ...
- Save Christ, Father John for competent explanations.
- And it’s more likely that you would not submit the notes if you were faithful to your Church. Need minor differences in faith? Please. Remember, at least the attitude towards baptism. For Old Believers, immersion during baptism is a matter of principle; for new believers, the form of baptism does not really matter, therefore, they baptize, then by pouring, then by sprinkling. For the New Believers, the form of baptism is just a matter of ritual, for Old Believers it is a matter of the effectiveness and salvation of the sacrament itself. I do not mention the common believers, for they are in canonical unity with the new believers, therefore, although they act differently, nevertheless, they deliberately form one Church with the new believers, that is, they share the responsibility if the new believers are wrong about anything.
- I didn’t submit, God forbid! And when I was there, the new believers gave it with full confidence that it was a temple of the Russian Orthodox Church (and they accepted them with the same confidence) :) So the new believers are not considered heretics in your community (and thank God!)
  And as for baptism: where in our Church is the baptism of the water conciliatory approved? Violations on the ground do take place, I agree, but these violations are being fought.
  http: // site / news / rpc_oblivatelnoe_kreshenie
- In the Ancient Orthodox Church, issues of religion are covered by the Council, and not by the private practice of individuals or parishes. As for the confession of your community, at its Reform Council of 1667, it decided to consider pouring baptism tantamount to immersion, therefore, you have nothing to fight with. The whole struggle is quite imaginary, and the appearance of it is carried out only under persistent pressure from a relatively small conservative group. The reality is fully indicated in official sources: http://p2.patriarchia.ru/2014/09/14/1236210749/2P20140914-PAL_0341-1200.jpg
- Did this council arbitrarily recognized the baptism of water as equivalent? Or was there such a practice in the Greek Church, in other patriarchates, and on the territory of the newly annexed Little Russia?
- Andrey, stop living in the 17th century (the decisions of the said Council have long been irrelevant), as well as observe the sins of other priests and a confession alien to you. By the way, the "councils" of the ancient Orthodox Church in their current state are no different from the sessions of the Synod. I would like to ask you when did the practice of pouring baptism, three fingers and other innovations that subsequently penetrated into the Russian Church began in the Greek Church?
- I think that, if the ROC so wished, they could recognize the legitimacy of the ROC hierarchy, turning a blind eye to a number of rough edges and finding reasons for recognition. How are the reasons for non-recognition now found. All this endless digging in the canons and the mass of controversial points only confirms that the situation is ambiguous and, if desired, you can steer as you like.
  Initially, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that there is no desire. The ruling church does not see in the Old Belief a sufficiently beneficial and interesting side to establish diplomatic and other contacts with it, expressing its benevolence with this recognition. The recognition of the hierarchy will not change anything in practice, no one will suddenly run to communion, re-baptize and chrismation-all-sunshine. But even such a beautiful step towards the Old Believers is not being made. It means it is not necessary.
  I think the days have passed when the Old Believers were the main threat to the ruling church, and the main task of missionaries was to stop the activities of schismatics in time and call the police.
  I think that today's Old Belief in conditions of sufficient freedom and opportunities, nevertheless, has shown its harmlessness for the ROC and its inability to actively beat an alternative religious center that would actively drag someone somewhere. As noted in his report, it seems at the Rzhev readings A.V. Muravyov, the Old Believers did not use and did not realize their potential that was given to him several decades ago when religious lack of freedom collapsed, and the people from atheism enthusiastically poured into religion. Time is lost, the train is gone, the Old Believers have no serious theological school, no clerks, almost no monasticism and monasteries, no rich philanthropists and just unique strong business executives from the simple - that is, everything that is still customary to boast of when you need to give a picture on the topic "Who are the Old Believers".
  So the ROC, I think, is very calm about the Old Believers as a harmless phenomenon, therefore it does not particularly struggle, but also does not particularly strive to be friends. It's just not interesting.
- "The ruling church does not see in the Old Belief a sufficiently beneficial and interesting side to establish diplomatic and other contacts with it."
  As for the description of the current situation of the Old Believers, I agree, but the assumption that this is why the ROC does not recognize BI is hardly correct. If so, no steps would be taken at all, while the ROC is constantly trying not only to establish contacts, but to do at least something to heal the schism. Take, for example, the speech of the current patriarch, and then Metropolitan Kirill in 2004.
- > meanwhile, on the part of the ROC, there are constant attempts not only to establish contacts, but
  > do something to heal the split.
  For example, what are the attempts? Give examples from the recent past when the ROC would seek contacts with the ROC with a designated purpose.
  > Take, for example, the speech of the current patriarch, and then Metropolitan Kirill in 2004.
  You are referring to an event 12 years ago. For 12 years, much could have changed in the assessment of the Old Believers by the ROC as a real alternative and competitor.
- "The Old Believers do not have any serious theological school, there are no teachers, ..., there are no rich patrons of art (?) and just unique strong business executives from among the simple ...". - so, according to S.A., I am a peasant and parishioners of Vasily and Alexander - big businessmen and ..., Mother Varsunofia with her sisters and Monk John in the nearby desert - no. What's new in theology? ROC scientists have managed to object to the "Pomor Answers"? Can we hold "8 Ecumenical"?
  For commoners who do not study Scripture and Tradition, but watch TV and read who are called Orthodox, such thoughts are common and forgivable. However, Ivan is actually an Old Believer and, it seems, for the reason, trying to continue the missionary efforts of the Nikonians, he makes the same mistakes. It is not 1 Apostolic Canon, but 1 Ecumenical Council that speaks about the council decree of the bishop (this is still not a mistake). And a person who can read will see the hypothesis (the conditions under which it is applied) of this norm of ecclesiastical law: the existence of a regional division of the Church, bishops and metropolitan. I hope it is already quite clear that in the case of the formation of BI, this rule is inapplicable and the reference to the "most important" canonical "aspect" is untenable, as well as other "roughnesses". It would be better to start with the removal of the error with ochsn: they prescribed in the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church adherence to the Tradition, in practice - widespread ignorance. I will give active polemicists the 50th Apostolic Canon "If anyone, a bishop or a presbyter, performs not three immersions of a single secret action, but one immersion given into the death of the Lord: let it be cast out. For the Lord is not rivers: baptize into my death, but: go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. " I will point out one more neglect known to me - a church minister who allowed an accident where people died, that is, according to Gregory of Nyssa, "defiled by murder, as having become unclean, the rule (66th Apostolic) recognized unworthy of priestly grace," continues service.
  Of course, for Alexander and Sergei, when the hierarchy, similarly deviating from the Patristic Tradition, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to "become clothed in Christ." Well, do you need nachets or just look around with a Christian gaze? ... You can be envied - the Sacrament of Baptism is ahead of you - “baptism, if not in three immersions, is not Baptism,” said Basil the Great. And while you and Dimitri are blind, love, as Andrey advises you, following the patriarch of the Catholic brothers, and since the latter have Jews as “older brothers”, then you and your “cousins” too.
  Forgive Christ for the sake of the beggar and wretched servant of God sergius.
- > it means, according to S.A., me - a peasant and parishioners Vasily and Alexander - large entrepreneurs
  > and ..., mother Barsunophia with her sisters and monk John in the nearby desert - no
  If you have listed all the patrons and monks of the modern Old Believers, then thank you for supporting my assumption with real facts. =)
  > The Sacrament of Baptism is ahead of you
  Is it through a crystal ball or a flash of clairvoyance?
  A huge text was written with arrivals, and for what sake? Continuous speculation and fingers in the sky. Why do specific people need diagnoses here?
- Sergius. Brother, if you are a beggar and wretched, then try to read, not write. Have you ever seen this 1st Apostolic Canon? Can you imagine that there is such a science - canon law? And do you understand that when interpreting the canons you need to know languages, sources and much more, and not just be able to read?
  And "Pomeranian Answers" is not an apology for ignorance, but science, and therefore is appreciated by specialists. See, for example, "The Ways of Russian Theology" by Archpriest. G. Florovsky. There was a time when people argued with "Pomeranian Answers", the time has come when they are appreciated and accepted for reasoning. What time do you live in?
- "Give examples from the recent past"
  In essence, this meant the aforementioned speech of Metropolitan Kirill, the current patriarch, 12 years ago at the Bishops' Council. And the point is not even that the consequence was the organization of a commission on Old Believer parishes and interaction with the Old Believers and the Patriarchal Center of the Old Russian liturgical tradition. The very appeal to this topic in the context of the topic of the report, the painfully piercing words with which it was said, say a lot:
  "But already now, in the hope of this historical event (unification with the ROCOR. - SA), we must also think about our other separated brothers, about those who historically descended from the same spiritual root with us, about those with whom We have common ancestors and a common faith, and at one time there was a common prayer. ”The time has come to turn the attention of the conciliar mind of the Church to the most difficult and centuries-old church-wide task - to heal the consequences of the Russian church schism of the 17th century.
  To an even greater extent than in the case of the Church Abroad, the problem of the Old Believers is not exclusively ecclesiastical; it also has other aspects - social, political, and cultural. Church schism dealt a severe blow to national identity. The breaking of the traditional church and everyday foundations and spiritual and moral values divided the once united people not only in the church relation, but also in the social one. The body of the people, which then completely coincided with the body of the church, was inflicted with a wound, the destructive consequences of which persist for centuries. The division of Russian society caused by the church schism was a foreshadowing of further rifts that led to a revolutionary catastrophe.
  Separations that have lasted for centuries are becoming familiar. But even if the old wound at some point almost ceases to disturb, it continues to weaken the body until it is healed. The gathering of the Russian Church cannot be recognized as complete until we unite in mutual forgiveness and fraternal communion in Christ with the primordial branch of Russian Orthodoxy. The spiritual significance of such an event is even difficult to describe; it goes far beyond what is called church politics.
  Such hopes can be called dreamy. After all, the path of rapprochement between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Believers is extremely difficult. He not only does not portend quick success, but also does not promise to be painless. Between us lies a heavy historical burden of the cruel persecution of the Old Believers, between us - the memory of the shed blood, innocent and in vain.
  In addition, the achievement of the desired goal, of course, is impossible without mutual movement towards each other. Some people think today that the signs of readiness for dialogue are lacking precisely on the part of the representatives of the Old Believers, that the expected response has not yet received all the calls and steps towards our separated brothers, undertaken by the Russian Orthodox Church during the 20th century - I mean, first of all, the lifting of the oaths for the pre-Nikon ceremonies prepared by the labors of the members of the Local Council of 1917-1918 and the previous pre-council bodies, as well as Metropolitan Sergius, the future Most Holy Patriarch, and the Provisional Patriarchal Synod (1929), and in the final form solemnly proclaimed by the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971.
  However, is it our business to “know the times or seasons that the Father has put in His authority” (Acts 1. 7)? And should we tell others: now it's your turn? Another thing depends on us: honestly and consistently walk our part of the path to God-commanded church unity. Let us recall that until recently, many seemed to be insurmountable that mediastinum that separated the Church Abroad from us. And then the hour of the will of God came, the quiet breath of the Spirit was felt, and the path to rapprochement turned out to be open.
  I am convinced that we have real grounds for hope and for a radical change in relations with the Old Believers. "
  As you can see, this passage contains all the answers to whether the Church wants to heal the wound of schism, and why this process is slow.
- > Time is lost, the train is gone, the Old Believers do not have any serious theological school, there are no teachers, there are almost no monasticism and monasteries, there are no rich patrons of art and just unique strong business executives from the simple
  These shortcomings undoubtedly exist, including due to the massive skating rink of godless repressions. At a time when the patriarch appointed by Stalin was sitting in Chisty Lane and using the services of state aviation, the Old Believers continued to spread rot on farms and sketes and give deadlines, read the story "About the ruin of the Dupchessky sketes", which took place in 1951. And this continued until 1988, while the ROC-MP existed relatively calmly since 1943.
  Even today, the chapels, thank God, have monasteries, where the number of monks is in the hundreds. As for the rest of the Old Believers, in spite of the absence of monasticism, pedagogues and merchants, the main thing remained in it - the Christian community. And especially in the Pomeranian Church, where the community is the basis of the Church's existence. Christian communities were also preserved in the priest's agreements, which cannot be said about the ROC-MP. There are no communities there. There is, at best, a "parish", but in many places there are no parishes, churches are "bishops' yards" (so that there is where to feed).
  So, if there is a community, there is conciliarity, and if there is no community, there is no conciliarity, but there are dumb slaves. And if there are sprouts of communities, as, say, the priest Pavel Adelheim, then they are quickly destroyed.
  I have not spoken about mass sodomy and other phenomena of this century common among the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church. Better without monasteries at all than "blue" monasteries.
- It is even possible that the absence of monasteries is better than the presence of "blue" monasteries - here I agree. But this absence of monasteries in the ROC is still an indicator that there is no monasticism.
  Of course, this is interesting about chapel monasteries with hundreds of monks. But as I understand it, for the state and the ROC, the Old Believers are basically only represented by its largest and strongest wing - the ROC.
  Now for the community.
  > So, if there is a community, there is conciliarity, and if there is no community, there is no conciliarity, but there is
  > mute slaves.
  Let us even omit the latest initiatives of the ROC to squeeze out the laity from the Council and increase the share of the clergy at the Council. This is not interesting. And it is also impossible to talk about the complete absence of communities in the modern ROC, recently there was an interview with Chaplin, it seems he spoke on this topic. I’m not talking about that.
  And what kind of mute slaves are interesting? Whose slaves, whose will these slaves do?
- "golden" is my namesake! I gave an example only for ONE parish of the RPSTs and the closest monks. I cannot speak for the whole Church, we have many more than a hundred communities. By the way, I suppose, the prayer of the monk John, who lives in a dugout in the desert, is more pleasing to God than thousands of "monks" in cells with noubukas, cell phones and other SNILS. And according to Baptism, I agree - why is It? “If you are blind by reason, or lame by unbelief, or dry by many iniquities, and by despair, or weakened by eretic teachings, all the water of baptism creates healthy” - from the teaching of blessed. Cyril about the weakened one.
  Struck by Ivan's review, through which distorting mirror he reads? I explain to the reader an element of the rule of law, and I am verbally accused of ignorance of the concept of law. Should lead the reader, if such is found, the 1st Apostolic Rule "Let two or three bishops supply the bishop" and its development by the Holy Fathers, most fully, in the 4th canon of the 1st Nicene Council: bishops. ... "The essence of the rule according to Balsamon is the approval of the election as bishops and the ordination granted to the first among the bishops of the region - the metropolitan. I crush the grain of the beast, and I myself think, why did Ivan attacked me, "Like a beast attacking the armourer, attacking the runaway ... if you want to lie more than to speak the truth." Apparently, nevertheless, Ivan is a priest of the ROC, and according to the 50th Rule Apostle 99.9% of the clergy of the ROC, incl. and the patriarch, must be cast out of dignity. And then, how dare the “teaching church”, “teaching” to instruct. But most importantly, there was an understanding of the goal of unanimity within the ROC - the outer ritual side of the Orthodox is a lure for adherents of the old faith, and inside the same Latin-Protestant essence. Whoever dares to have a different judgment is verbal bitterness. There is no love in him. In the old days, under torture, I would probably have received a bad communion from Ivan, and then they would have burned it ...
  Kirill! - these are not "flaws". Well, the Nikonian scholars have theologians, but to object to the "Pomorian Answers" that they cannot, for the 4th century, and in the ages of the century, are new-lovers of the task of unleashing. I believe that everything that a Christian needs for salvation by the Holy Fathers has already been said. And the absence of "rich patrons" is an indicator of the spirituality of the wealthy people themselves, but not the Church. In addition, they are, only, following the Scriptures, do not install marble spellings of their names on our churches. Just as there are monks and monasteries not only among the chapels, but the Pomorians have a community, more precisely - the way of life for the Pomor Church. The foundation must be Christ.
- Save you Christ Sergius!
- > There is no love in him. In the old days, under torture, I would probably have received a bad communion from Ivan, and then they would have burned it ...
  Is it like fantasizing in the form of slander - with love or not? They calmly talk to you about the topic, but here you are already proposing to vomit, and you make non-baptismal diagnoses, and even say that someone would have burned you if there were will and circumstances. And they just talk to you.
  > Well, the Nikonian scholars have theologians, but to object to the "Pomeranian answers" that
  > new lovers of the task of unleashing, they cannot be in the 4th century and in the centuries vekom.
  Are they still trying to object and cannot? Or as in the anecdote about the Elusive Joe, who no one catches? I think Kuraev would have easily accepted this challenge if there was interest. But again there is no interest here. Echoes the topic of the article =)
  > I believe that everything that a Christian needs for salvation by the Holy Fathers has already been said.
  Delusion. The Old Believer Metropolitan Andrian (not the Russian Orthodox Church!) Said that modern theologians are needed, because interpretations of past centuries cannot sufficiently cover our realities.
  > In addition, they are, only, following the Scriptures, do not install marble spellings of their names on our churches.
  Of course) there are no temples - and there are no marble spellings either)))

Material No. 1. About the sect of father Michael

Alexander: Came by mail from Vladimir Ivanov

SECT OF O. MICHAEL (now "Bishop Sergius")

To make it clear - a little history.

The logical result: the Most Holy Governing Synod under the chairmanship of Bishop Theophilos withdrew the blessing for services given earlier from Priest Michael and threw him out of dignity.

WHO STILL WAIT FOR O. MIKHAIL'S VISIT?

Conclusion

Like many preachers, Fr. Mikhail strenuously pedals and intensifies in sermons the topic of satanic globalization (rejection of documents, TIN, cards).

And what does Fr. Michael? "Give up your documents and come to me to be saved." This causes anxiety and passion.

Be careful! Not all that glitters is gold, and not all words can be easily believed in our crafty time.

Former parishioners Fr. Michael, 2008 - 2009

Comments on the forum where this material is located:

O. Anthony: If Theophilus can be a bishop, why can't Michael? I wonder why the comrades-in-arms leave ow. Diomede. And about. Abel and Fr. Vasily spoke a lot in support of Dzyuban, why now they have become sectarians for the Diomedians? The Michael sect is very reminiscent of the Holy Synod. It hurts from all this and anxious in my soul.

sinner: Bishop Theophilus was ordained by the current bishop. And Michael ordained himself. There is a difference.

Paradoxes Friend: Who appointed Diomede as the current bishop? He appointed himself, because the MP, according to him, was heretical, graceless, i.e. those who ordained him in the MP are also heretics and without grace, name-fighters, Tsareborists, globalists, etc. ... Was a "bishop" ordained from "non-bishops"? Weird...

The difference between the Union of Right Forces and that sect, if there is, is very small. And this difference goes along the line of recruiting adherents - they pull out prey from each other.

Material No. 2. About the participant with the nickname (Sergiy Svayshennik)
and about other schismatics

Vladimir Urusov, 18-10-2012 19:06

Dear brothers and sisters, I am raising a difficult topic about our brothers and sisters who have gone into schism. I say this not with condemnation, but with much regret and sadness, but it is necessary to know and it is necessary to dissociate oneself from the spiritually lost and taken captive by the spirits of evil in heaven and to show the danger of communicating with them. It was not the Church that threw them out, but they themselves voluntarily left, left our Holy Church of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, went nowhere into self-proclaimed organizations, which also eventually split up and anathematize each other. It is clear that this is the work of the enemy of the human race - the first schismatic, who dreamed of placing his throne above the throne of God, the stallion, who was formerly a bright angel. So the schismatics are continuing his work, fighting against the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, and " to whom the Church is not a mother, to whom God is not a Father".

The Monk Seraphim of Sarov, this example of love and kindness, said: " do not make friends with heretics and schismatics ...“As you can see, the saint puts schismatics alongside heretics, and although schismatics often arise from irreconcilable fighters against heresy and ecumenism, this is the other side of the same coin.

The history of schisms and various schismatic movements are covered on the website www.anti-raskol.ru, in a wonderful article priest Daniel SysoevCatacomb Rift (in the Narrow Path community) and some idea of modern schismatics can be given by a quotation from an article by one extreme zealot beyond reason (although of course it is difficult to determine where the edge of this hellish abyss of opposition to the Holy Church is): "Bishop Diomedes, together with the brethren, created the" Synod of Stadnik ", which they called the Holy Governing Synod. Abbot Elijah went to the catacomb synod of the RTOC (the so-called Russian True Orthodox Church), some zealots went to other new synods in Russia, of which there are already more twenty (ROCOR - non-aligned; ROAC - the so-called Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church; many different synods, each of which also calls itself catacomb, consisting of one, two or three bishops, small communities of believers and many priests who accepted ordination (? ), finding themselves on the way of the traveling catacomb bishop (?); Synods of Greek Old Calendarists - Zealots - “Matthews”, “Cyprianists”, “Chrysostones”; many, alas, leave the Russian Church for the Old Believers, etc.).

All these "synods" do not have prayer and Eucharistic communion with each other, they deny each other, and some of them anathematize each other, continue to constantly split up and "produce" new "synods". The representatives of these "synods" are united by a common attitude towards the sentencing of the ROC-MP: "The ROC-MP is in heresy", "after 1917/1927. The ROC has fallen ”,“ The ROC MP is without grace ”,“ The ROC MP is not a Church, but an organization. There is grace in her, but not for salvation. "

Let's leave the insane words of the schismatics darkened by the spirits of the spirits of heavenly anger by the schismatics themselves, but we are interested in those schismatics who spread the prayer rule of Mother Antonia, distorting it (the distortions are highlighted in the articles "The Real Prayer Rule of M. Antonia" and "In Defense of the Prayers of Mother Antonia." The bright name of Matushka Anthony for her alleged involvement with this pious and faithful to the end of the life of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, who called all her spiritual children to be faithful to the Holy Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Our community has a member with the nickname ( Sergiy Svayshennik [email protected] mail.ru). Here's what I managed to find out about him. This is a former priest. In his film, where he himself is filmed, it is clear that on his chest he has a panagia (the image of the Mother of God), which can only be worn by bishops, i.e. he himself elevated himself to the rank of "bishop", which is confirmed by the article about him (here is a link to material No. 1 in this article, cited above About the sect of father Michael).

Let us cite this article minus the blasphemy (I apologize, if not all the blasphemy I will note - I am definitely interested in this article only as a testimony of a false bishop and all their thoughts about the Church and Orthodoxy are rejected by me as spiritual impurity). Unfortunately, I didn't find anything about him anywhere in the internet, I found only on the heretical schismatic site of the Diomedians, for lack of anything better I had to use this muddy schismatic source.) ...

He (Sergiy Svayshennik) preaches on the logoslovo.ru website; under the nickname Priest Sergius and (my opinion) under the nickname Sergey Valentinovich. And, moreover, let's pay attention to how he and other schismatics act - they do not speak openly: "we left the ROC-MP", they call themselves priests and many think that they are priests of the ROC-MP, they hide their dislike for the ROC-MP and its clergy, even sometimes They quote the Holy Patriarch and the priests of the ROC-MP with cautious approval to show that they are "their own" and only upon careful study of their articles do you see that they are schismatics and have left the ROC-MP.

At the end of his film there is such a picture with the address indicated in the article (182353 Pskov region, Opochetsky district, P / O Yessenniki, village Terekhi, Petrova A.P.) and a request in English to send money via it.

When my friend sent a letter asking: "Who is this priest?" not immediately, but the answer came: ".. Father-Father Sergius. The temple is being built in the Pskov region. You can call the father on the phone .." ..

This is how Mikhail changed his name to Sergius. And now he continues his business of luring money and apartments from simple-minded people whom he intimidates with the Antichrist, the end of the world and other attributes of brainwashing.

Brothers and sisters, be careful!

In the meantime, it is necessary to warn all the Orthodox - this man is not a priest, he - alas - a schismatic and did not know Matushka Anthony.

Why do they go into schism? It is difficult to say - perhaps they cross a certain line in their souls, which cannot be crossed, they put their opinion above the teachings of the Church, there may also be an insult to a former priest who was defrocked and then instead of resigning himself, he leaves and creates his own "church" according to his own invention, or adjoins some schismatic jurisdiction, it happens that he appoints himself a bishop and creates canonical limitlessness. This is already a manifestation of demonic pride, God forgive us and deliver us from this defilement.

What are the distinctive properties and characteristics of schismatics?

1. Schismatics can easily judge the bishop of the Holy ROC MP. They spread the teaching that fragments of the Holy Russian Orthodox Church remained (ROC MP, TOC, RosOC, Diomid group and others) and all these fragments are blessed (and some consider our Holy ROC MP without grace - what madness!). Those. some schismatic decided to create his own "church" - and this is also a splinter and he is "blessed."

In fact, only they are fragments - the schismatics and their pseudo-churches, and the Church is One - the Holy ROC MP and those who are in canonical communion with her.

2. Schismatics spread apocalyptic psychosis.

3. It happens that they pass themselves off as Orthodox (mimic them) and sow tares of schismatic and heretical teachings, alternating them with quotes from patristic books and stories about the life of pious Orthodox Christians, using them as bait for sacrifice.

4. Are prone to extreme opinions and jealousy beyond reason.

5. They support disobedience to the authorities and various kinds of disobedience, they love to savor scandals, they support discord within the Holy ROC-MP. From all their actions and words, it is clear that they do not love and respect their "mother" - the Holy ROC MP, because the Church is not their mother.

and other signs.

But is there salvation for them - the schismatics?

Of course. A person has free will, and if they want, they will sort out their delusions, humble themselves, bring repentance to the Holy ROC MP in confession in their schismatic deeds and join the Holy Catholic Apostolic Orthodox Church. Everything is not so gloomy, but the question is - will they want to do this themselves, will they be able to reconcile and admit their delusions?

The ability to admit your mistakes–it is a property of spiritual strength.

May the merciful Lord help them to return to the bosom of the Holy Church and not perish forever, because "the schism is such a terrible sin that it is not washed away even by martyr's blood."