Vova Lutchenkov wrote:
> Lets get back to the question at hand, what do you
> have to say about Father Georgii's letter?
JRS: I would have to go back in the archive to go over every point. But in general, he seems rather "middle of the road": he has criticism and praise for elements in both the MP (his own jurisdiction) and ROCOR.
> (It's a question of semantics some may say but I find
> it incorrect to say Russian Orthodox as opposed to Orthodox member
> the Church of Russia.
JRS: Besides Russians, there are also Armenians, Georgians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Uzbeks, and just about any nationality you could name (and some many of us have never heard of) in both the MP and ROCOR.
Besides that, as you may recall, there are even some Cossacks who consider that their nationality, instead of "Russian".
> <<Vova: One question was (I will paraphrase)"If the MP must repent
> fine but what about you - ROCOR members - what will you repent?"
> But what are
> your thoughts on this?
JRS: I think that good progress is being made.
> Keeping it [commission work] private really
> did not work either considering some of the leaks that occurred.
> None of this has helped the Church.
JRS: At least at the beginning, they needed some privacy to be able to start getting to know one another and sorting out what the issues were.
Those who have been attacking them, would have done so no matter what the circumstances.
> My point was that it seems that there was or is a fear that
> there is a fear of actually hearing from the laity at our Sobor.
JRS: If we could somehow hear equally from ALL the laity, that would be helpful. But in practice, there are a few people who like to make noise, and the "silent majority" that may entirely disagree with the noise made by the few.
> Father John:
> <<Vova: Actually we still do not have a list of delegates posted on
> the Sobor Web site. Why is that?
JRS: Probably, because the groups that are raising a storm against reconciliation, would have given the delegates no peace, had they known their names, phone numbers, mailing addresses...
> Sorry but it seems that based on some of what I have seen, heard and
> what has been reported there were attempts to remove people as
> delegates that were perceived as not following the party line. Ooops
> sorry, I meant were not "team players".
JRS: That has not been the case in this Diocese.
Fr. John R. Shaw
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]