Regarding footnote 2 on ROCOR and the Old Rite, in 1971 the MP declared all anathemas against the Old Rite to be null and void. ROCOR’s decree followed a few years afterward.
I was thinking about this when I was writing this footnote and thought that since the ROCOR refused to recognized Moscow Patriarchate as it Mother Church in 1971 the decision to remove anathemas in 1974 was independent. However Moscow's decision must have some triggered the 1974 decision. (it did not look right not to follow the suit.)
Isn’t true that ROCOR never refused to recognize the MP as the Mother Church in 1971, but refused to recognize the MP as being free from Soviet control in 1971? There is a big difference!
I’m not sure that the MP’s decision triggered ROCOR’s decision, but if the MP already cancelled the decision of 1666-1667 on the Old Rite then it gives a different perspective on “how a regional council of the Russian Church canceled the decision of the greater council of the entire Russian Church.”
I am not sure about different perspective since "a regional council of the Russian Church" had already abandoned in 1971 the practice of the same Great Moscow Council on the reception of converts.
1666-1667 was basically a false council. ROCOR came to see this which led to the 1971 decision on reception and the 1974 decision on the Old Rite. Fr. Pimen Simon in ROCOR is well aware that 1666 -1667 was a false council and the reasons why are explained fairly well in chapter 13 of “On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria.” ROCOR’s reception of Greeks in the 1960s after the “lifting of anathemas” led to a reexamination of 1666-1667 in the light of both Greek and Russian teaching and practice, which led to the realization that much of what 1666-1667 promoted was an innovation contrary to the ancient tradition of the Church.
1666-67 was a council when foreigners (guest bishops) triumphed over Russians. Some of its acts were later undid like expulsion of Patriarch Nikon and Greek style damnation against these who follow ancient Russian rites. But not the practice on the reception of converts.
Yes the 1666-1667 decision on reception was not undone in the MP but it should have been, since it went against the tradition and practice in Russia prior to this false council. Patriarch Ignatius of Moscow in the early 17th century was deposed for not receiving Papists by baptism. St. Hermogenes the Patriarch and Wonderworker of all Russia also affirmed that the tradition in Russia was to baptize all converts from Papism and Protestantism. St. Hilarion Troitsky also acknowledged that this was the ancient tradition in Russia before 1666-1667. Met Macarius of Moscow also acknowledged that “everything changed” with regard to the reception of converts in 1666-1667, meaning the decision contradicted tradition. Who prevailed in this decision in 1666-1667? Macarius of Antioch who had pledged his allegiance to the Pope of Rome. Again, this is all covered in the book and chapter I referenced previously.
Regarding footnote 2 on ROCOR and the Old Rite, in 1971 the MP declared all anathemas against the Old Rite to be null and void. ROCOR’s decree followed a few years afterward.
I was thinking about this when I was writing this footnote and thought that since the ROCOR refused to recognized Moscow Patriarchate as it Mother Church in 1971 the decision to remove anathemas in 1974 was independent. However Moscow's decision must have some triggered the 1974 decision. (it did not look right not to follow the suit.)
Isn’t true that ROCOR never refused to recognize the MP as the Mother Church in 1971, but refused to recognize the MP as being free from Soviet control in 1971? There is a big difference!
I’m not sure that the MP’s decision triggered ROCOR’s decision, but if the MP already cancelled the decision of 1666-1667 on the Old Rite then it gives a different perspective on “how a regional council of the Russian Church canceled the decision of the greater council of the entire Russian Church.”
I am not sure about different perspective since "a regional council of the Russian Church" had already abandoned in 1971 the practice of the same Great Moscow Council on the reception of converts.
1666-1667 was basically a false council. ROCOR came to see this which led to the 1971 decision on reception and the 1974 decision on the Old Rite. Fr. Pimen Simon in ROCOR is well aware that 1666 -1667 was a false council and the reasons why are explained fairly well in chapter 13 of “On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria.” ROCOR’s reception of Greeks in the 1960s after the “lifting of anathemas” led to a reexamination of 1666-1667 in the light of both Greek and Russian teaching and practice, which led to the realization that much of what 1666-1667 promoted was an innovation contrary to the ancient tradition of the Church.
1666-67 was a council when foreigners (guest bishops) triumphed over Russians. Some of its acts were later undid like expulsion of Patriarch Nikon and Greek style damnation against these who follow ancient Russian rites. But not the practice on the reception of converts.
Yes the 1666-1667 decision on reception was not undone in the MP but it should have been, since it went against the tradition and practice in Russia prior to this false council. Patriarch Ignatius of Moscow in the early 17th century was deposed for not receiving Papists by baptism. St. Hermogenes the Patriarch and Wonderworker of all Russia also affirmed that the tradition in Russia was to baptize all converts from Papism and Protestantism. St. Hilarion Troitsky also acknowledged that this was the ancient tradition in Russia before 1666-1667. Met Macarius of Moscow also acknowledged that “everything changed” with regard to the reception of converts in 1666-1667, meaning the decision contradicted tradition. Who prevailed in this decision in 1666-1667? Macarius of Antioch who had pledged his allegiance to the Pope of Rome. Again, this is all covered in the book and chapter I referenced previously.