Re: Condemning a position, not people
- Dear Vladimir,
There is the compromise of Metropolitan Sergius. There are the
actions of other bishops, clergy & faithful of that time. Then there
is now. None of these is the same thing and it serves no good
purpose for us to see all of this as betrayal or call all of
If we believe that Metropolitan Sergius did not save the Church by
his actions we should also ask ourselves if he destroyed it. In
effect the question of sergianism cuts both ways. The actions of
Metropolitan Sergius are not what saved the Church after all. But
the Church remained. There are thus two seperate issues here- the
actions of Metropolitan Sergius and the fact that the Church in
Russia survived. Somehow these two often get confused so it ends up
sounding as if the actions of Metropolitan Sergius were wrong
therefore there is no longer a (canonical) Church in Russia. Seen
through Orthodox eyes anti-sergianism really means the triumph of
the Church over sin & death; it means the fall even of a Patriarch
does not destroy the Church of Christ.
Thus it is with those who desire reconciliation in our own time. We
do not desire unification with any betrayal but rather with the
Church in Russia which remained despite sergianism.
In Christ- Fr Raphael Vereshack
PS: I have just returned from a week-long pilgrimage. Next week I am
away again for two weeks.
In firstname.lastname@example.org, "vkozyreff"
> Dear List,made
> Below is a translation that I made of comments about a statement
> on another forum, in which Mr. Tchertkoff (a friend) defended thefrom
> position that the MP had saved the Church. The remarks below are
> a contradictor, another friend of mine (PK), with whom I agree.terms
> In God,
> Vladimir Kozyreff
> What a dialogue of the deaf since 70 or 80 years! To our using
> of condemnation, they reply:was
> 1. Who are you to condemn?
> 2. You do not know how much they suffered.
> 3. Thank to the few bishops that remained on the spot, the Church
> able to survive, and now, she lives again and becomes stronger. Itis
> a fact.acted
> They stop short of saying: "Are you going to claim that the Church
> survived thank to the emigrates or thank to the martyrs?"
> And it does not occur to them that the bishops who remained on the
> spot did so thank to Stalin. The Russian Church was not with Met
> Sergius but in the catacombs.
> The depth of the misunderstanding is enormous: "Those bishops
> only for the good of the Church" (this is what our opponent'sdid
> conscience tells him.)
> Mr. Tcherkoff is right. One may not judge a bishop that had (or
> not have) a gun pointed at his head.being
> We say that we do not condemn people. We condemn the position that
> they hold. They nevertheless reply again (1) above.
> Since we condemn sergianism (the position) they condemn us for
> Impossible dialogue...
> (My remark: With God, all is possible. Let is pray).