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

Re: What good did Metropolitan Peter?

Expand Messages
  • vkozyreff
    ERRATUM The sentence: In other words, he did all that undertook and implemented metropolitan Sergius . Should read: In other words, he refused all that
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      ERRATUM

      The sentence: "In other words, he did all that undertook and
      implemented metropolitan Sergius".

      Should read:

      "In other words, he refused all that undertook and implemented
      metropolitan Sergius".

      Corrected in the text below.

      Please accept my apologies.

      VK

      "Metropolitan Sergius claims his preeminence

      A priest living in Moscow, jurist by his training before
      Revolution, guided by a starets, and member of the catacomb Church,
      speaking about the thirties, quotes Metropolitan Sergius in this way:

      - "What good did Peter?"

      Sergius said it was the purpose of metropolitan Peter to ensure the
      safety of the Church...

      Metropolitan Sergius defends himself by putting forward some
      practical considerations. The guardian of the Church Peter was
      inflexible. He refused to give a statement of convenience for the
      Soviet power. He did not agree to ban the undesirable bishops.

      He refused to condemn for " political activity " the ROCOR bishops.
      He refused the submission of the Church to the Soviet power. In
      other words, he refused all that undertook and implemented
      metropolitan Sergius.

      - « To what did it all lead? » his vicar said, « the
      Metropolitan was excluded from the body of the episcopacy and is now
      in a hard banishment, ruining its health. Is it really reasonable?
      One must think of the Church! Why not bash your head against the
      wall? »

      (Thank God, the martyrs to whom we pray for intercession did not
      hesitate to "ruin their health", note by VK).

      Metropolitan Peter acted as demanded by his rank of sanctity and
      his position of first bishop of the Church. He acted as did before
      him the other holy confessors and martyrs. He showed an example of
      invincibility of mind and of the force of the faith. We must admire
      him and thank the Lord who supported him in this great feat in the
      depths of our Church.

      Metropolitan Peter, fortified by the grace of God followed an
      exceptional path, thank to the only force of his faith and of
      martyrdom. He was condemned to a slow death during more than ten
      years and did not give in to this inhuman pressure.

      (Testimony of a priest from Moscow, from:

      http://membres.lycos.fr/orthodoxievco/bul/14.htm




      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
      <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
      > Dear List,
      >
      > The teaching of Metropolitans Sergius and Peter are totally
      opposite
      > to one another and exclude one another.
      >
      > One needs not be a great cleric to decide which is closer to
      Christ's
      > teaching. You cannot take both.
      >
      > One cannot say: "It was a tragedy" (a way of refusing to choose,
      > which is quietly choosing the devil). Is it really convincing to
      say,
      > as did Alexiy II : "At least, thank to Met Sergius, the ROCOR has
      got
      > somebody to talk to".
      >
      > Who, in the depth of his soul, even among those who support the
      > union, sincerely accepts such an argument, and plans to try it
      before
      > Christ at the dread judgement?
      >
      > In God,
      >
      > Vladimir Kozyreff
      >
      >
      > "Metropolitan Sergius claims his preeminence
      >
      > A priest living in Moscow, jurist by his training before
      Revolution,
      > guided by a starets, and member of the catacomb Church, speaking
      > about the thirties, quotes Metropolitan Sergius in this way:
      >
      > - "What good did Peter?"
      >
      > Sergius said it was the purpose of metropolitan Peter to ensure
      the
      > safety of the Church...
      >
      > Metropolitan Sergius defends himself by putting forward some
      > practical considerations. The guardian of the Church Peter was
      > inflexible. He refused to give a statement of convenience for the
      > Soviet power. He did not agree to ban the undesirable bishops.
      >
      > He refused to condemn for " political activity " the ROCOR bishops.
      > He refused the submission of the Church to the Soviet power. In
      other
      > words, he refused all that undertook and implemented metropolitan
      Sergius.
      >
      > - « To what did it all lead? » his vicar said, « the
      > Metropolitan was excluded from the body of the episcopacy and is
      now
      > in a hard banishment, ruining its health. Is it really reasonable?
      > One must think of the Church! Why not bash your head against the
      > wall? »
      >
      > (Thank God, the martyrs to whom we pray for intercession did not
      > hesitate to "ruin their health", note by VK).
      >
      > Metropolitan Peter acted as demanded by his rank of sanctity and
      his
      > position of first bishop of the Church. He acted as did before him
      > the other holy confessors and martyrs. He showed an example of
      > invincibility of mind and of the force of the faith. We must admire
      > him and thank the Lord who supported him in this great feat in the
      > depths of our Church.
      >
      > Metropolitan Peter, fortified by the grace of God followed an
      > exceptional path, thank to the only force of his faith and of
      > martyrdom. He was condemned to a slow death during more than ten
      > years and did not give in to this inhuman pressure.
      >
      > (Testimony of a priest from Moscow, from:
      >
      > http://membres.lycos.fr/orthodoxievco/bul/14.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.