Dear Father Victor, bless.
The MP should not repent in Met. Sergius's place, but should repent
for following him and for claiming that he took the right decision.
The MP should not condemn Met. Sergius but condemn his actions and
his false teaching.
Some in ROCOR, in their effort to justify the rapprochement with the
MP, maintain the confusion between condemning a person and
condemning his actions. "Seergianism is all right because we cannot
condemn Met Sergius. We cannot condemn him, because we all sin". The
distinction between condemning a person and condemning actions is
however elementary in the exercise of discernment.
Stating that in the negotiations with the MP in Munich, it was
resolved that the person and the actions of Met Sergius were not to
be discussed because "he is MP's sviatitiel' " is hogwash.
Stating that we have resolved on this forum that the person and the
actions of Met Sergius should not be discussed is not hogwash.
Is it hogwash to believe that the MP does not want Met Sergius's
person and actions to be discussed (whether in Munich or in Moscow)
and that the ROCOR agrees with this?
I am afraid we are not progressing at all, except in deliberately
--- In email@example.com, frvboldewskul@a... wrote:
> Dear Vladimir,
> Context. My comment was in a context to Fr. Basil. Likewise, Fr.
> comment of "hogwash" was within a context, and not related to
anything I or
> Protodeacon Basil wrote.
> Priest Victor Boldewskul
> In a message dated 10/5/04 4:55:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> vladimir.kozyreff@s... writes:
> > Dear father Victor, bless.
> > You write: "At least we resolved that the Moscow Patriarchate
> > not need to repent for or condemn Metropolitan Sergius. The
> > of Metropolitan Sergius then is off the table. We are making
> > progress".
> > Do you mean that this is not "hogwash" after all?
> > In God,
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]