15650Re: The difference
- Dec 9, 2005Dear KYRH,
Sergianism and ecumenism are brothers, children of the same father
and always linked with one another.
--- In email@example.com, "Benjamin William Champley
Waterhouse" <bwmc_waterhouse@h...> wrote:
> Fr John Bless!
> It would help if I could spell, forgive me!
> My opinion is that Segianism (from Met Sergei!!)is not the
> overriding problem, that will sort itself out over time.
> It is ecuminism in the MP that I am deeply concerned about. A
> question why is the MP still in the WCC, after being forced into itmight
> originally by the Soviet state for foreign political reasons?
> In Him
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Fr. John McCuen"
> <frjohnmcc@c...> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "Benjamin William Champley
> > Waterhouse" <bwmc_waterhouse@h...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Fr John Bless!
> > >
> > The Lord bless you.
> > > Nope, just that a number of people are saying/implying that the
> > > relationship between the MP and the Soviet state was no
> different eg
> > > than that with Peter the Great, I think it is of a whole
> > > kettle of fish.
> > >
> > In my opinion, the circumstances under Peter (the not-so-Great),
> > made the Church subservient to the state, set the stage for the
> > Declaration of Met. SERGEI. (This does not excuse the
> Declaration; it
> > is merely an appreciation of the circumstances under which it
> > have been made.) Where the "kettle of fish" is different, Iissued
> think, is
> > on the part of the state. Where Peter had sought to bring the
> > "to heel," so that his power to rule would be unchallengeable by
> > Church, the Bolsheviks not only understood the potential for the
> > Church to serve as a nucleus of power apart from their own, they
> > the additional goal of the extermination of all religious beliefs,
> > which they attempted to accomplish upon seizing power.
> > > Even if it wasn't, two wrongs do not make a right. Sergius did
> > > save the Church, he tried to betray it. And some of the
> Heirarchs in
> > > the MP think Sergius did the right thing....
> > >
> > Again, while I cannot help but wish that Met. SERGEI had not
> > his Declaration, from what I have been able to gather about theheld
> > and about the circumstances of the times, I will say that I think
> > was doing what he thought was correct; and so he was not trying to
> > betray the Church. He failed, of course; but the failure, by
> > does not make him a traitor, which he would have been if his
> > was to betray the Church. I think it is telling that (if
> > Pospielovsky's history is correct) Met. SERGEI was approached in
> > with a document similar to the Declaration, which he did not sign;
> > but, after a period of isolation/house arrest, he *did* sign the
> > document in 1927. The reports of the changes in the position
> > St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, from 1918 to 1922 (also in
> > Pospielovsky) show a movement towards a degree of resignation on
> > part of the Church toward dealings with the Bolshevik state; and
> > the Declaration, to me, without in any way negating the damagenecessary
> that it
> > did, takes on a different perspective when viewed in that larger
> > While some in the MP do believe that the Declaration was
> > "save" the Church, and while some who oppose any dialogue with
> > wait for someone in the MP to condemn Met. SERGEI and the
> > I think the statement made by the 2000 Sobor about church-state
> > relations accomplishes the effective renunciation of the policy
> > the 1927 Declaration, even if it does not say explicitly that the
> > policy was wrong. So, on one level, we must ask ourselves what is
> > important; and how much "correction" we will "require" before we
> > willing to say that an objectionable policy of thepast has been
> > aside, and no longer is a barrier to the pursuit of healing the
> > divisions in the Russian Church.
> > unworthy Priest John McCuen
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>