Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

15650Re: The difference

Expand Messages
  • vkozyreff
    Dec 9, 2005
      Dear KYRH,

      Sergianism and ecumenism are brothers, children of the same father
      and always linked with one another.

      In Christ,

      Vladimir Kozyreff

      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.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
      simple
      > question why is the MP still in the WCC, after being forced into it
      > originally by the Soviet state for foreign political reasons?
      >
      > KYRH
      > In Him
      > SB
      >
      > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John McCuen"
      > <frjohnmcc@c...> wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.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
      > different
      > > > kettle of fish.
      > > >
      > >
      > > In my opinion, the circumstances under Peter (the not-so-Great),
      > which
      > > made the Church subservient to the state, set the stage for the
      > 1927
      > > Declaration of Met. SERGEI. (This does not excuse the
      > Declaration; it
      > > is merely an appreciation of the circumstances under which it
      might
      > > have been made.) Where the "kettle of fish" is different, I
      > think, is
      > > on the part of the state. Where Peter had sought to bring the
      > Church
      > > "to heel," so that his power to rule would be unchallengeable by
      > the
      > > Church, the Bolsheviks not only understood the potential for the
      > > Church to serve as a nucleus of power apart from their own, they
      > had
      > > 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
      > *not*
      > > > 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
      issued
      > > his Declaration, from what I have been able to gather about the
      > man,
      > > and about the circumstances of the times, I will say that I think
      > he
      > > 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
      > itself,
      > > does not make him a traitor, which he would have been if his
      > intention
      > > was to betray the Church. I think it is telling that (if
      > > Pospielovsky's history is correct) Met. SERGEI was approached in
      > 1926
      > > 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
      held
      > by
      > > St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, from 1918 to 1922 (also in
      > > Pospielovsky) show a movement towards a degree of resignation on
      > the
      > > part of the Church toward dealings with the Bolshevik state; and
      so
      > > the Declaration, to me, without in any way negating the damage
      > that it
      > > did, takes on a different perspective when viewed in that larger
      > context.
      > >
      > > While some in the MP do believe that the Declaration was
      necessary
      > to
      > > "save" the Church, and while some who oppose any dialogue with
      the
      > MP
      > > wait for someone in the MP to condemn Met. SERGEI and the
      > Declaration,
      > > I think the statement made by the 2000 Sobor about church-state
      > > relations accomplishes the effective renunciation of the policy
      > behind
      > > the 1927 Declaration, even if it does not say explicitly that the
      > old
      > > policy was wrong. So, on one level, we must ask ourselves what is
      > > important; and how much "correction" we will "require" before we
      > are
      > > willing to say that an objectionable policy of thepast has been
      set
      > > aside, and no longer is a barrier to the pursuit of healing the
      > > divisions in the Russian Church.
      > >
      > > unworthy Priest John McCuen
      > >
      >
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic