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

Re: "Sviatitiel'" Sergii? - Total hogwash.

Expand Messages
  • Benjamin William Champley Waterhouse
    Father Alexander Bless! I have thought long and hard about the statement that you published and, as you ask, in all honesty, I read a wishy washy legalese form
    Message 1 of 71 , Oct 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Father Alexander Bless!

      I have thought long and hard about the statement that you published
      and, as you ask, in all honesty, I read a wishy washy legalese form
      of words that does not clearly condemm the heresy of sergianism. I
      read words and phrases like, "correct relations", "incorrect", "as a
      whole"

      Overall it says, to me, that what Sergius did was probably not a
      good thing; but it was in the past so it doesn't matter now; and
      that what Sergius did was understandable and right for the time; and
      as we are in a "democratic" state now we would hope not to do it
      again.

      This is not, to me, a renunciation of Sergius and Sergianism.

      KYRH
      s.b.


      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Lebed
      <lebedeff@w...> wrote:
      >
      > >--- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw" >
      > > > JRS: Quite the contrary. The Moscow Patriarchate has renounced
      > >both,
      > > > and quite some time ago.
      >
      >
      > To which Benjamin replied:
      >
      >
      > >Father John Bless!
      > >
      > >Really? When and How?
      >
      >
      > I would really like to ask Benjamin (and Vladimir K.) to read
      carefully the
      > words of Patriarch Alexei II regarding the Declaration of
      Metropolitan
      > Sergius (from Izvestia 1991):
      >
      > "Today we can say that there is falsehood interspersed in his
      [Metr.
      > Sergius's] Declaration. The Declaration had as its goal placing
      the Church
      > in a correct relation with regards to the Soviet government . But
      these
      > relations -- and in the Declaration they are clearly depicted as
      > subjugation of the Church to the interests of the politics of the
      > government -- are exactly what are considered to be incorrect from
      the
      > point of view of the Church."
      >
      > "We did not rush to repudiate it until until the time when in
      deeds, in
      > life, we could achieve a truly independent position. During this
      year, I
      > consider, we were able to in reality come out from under the
      entangling
      > oversight of the government and therefore we have the moral right
      to say
      > that the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, as a whole, has
      departed into
      > the past and we no longer are guided by it. . . The Declaration
      does not
      > place the Church into a correct relationship with the government,
      but the
      > opposite--it destroys that distance that even in a democratic
      society must
      > exist between the government and the Church. . . The tragedy of
      > Metropolitan Sergius is that he tried on the basis of "word of
      honor" to
      > negotiate with criminals, who had seized power."
      >
      > =======================================
      >
      > Now, I ask you--and please be honest:
      >
      > What more would any reasonable person want?
      >
      >
      > With love in Christ,
      > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • vkozyreff
      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
      Message 71 of 71 , Oct 6, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        organised confusion.

        In God,

        Vladimir Kozyreff



        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, frvboldewskul@a... wrote:
        > Dear Vladimir,
        > Context. My comment was in a context to Fr. Basil. Likewise, Fr.
        Alexander's
        > 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
        does
        > > not need to repent for or condemn Metropolitan Sergius. The
        person
        > > 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]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.