Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sergius Bulgakov"
(Sophiology declared a heresy by the Moscow Patriarchate) |
(Recent Edits by Nocontinuingcity) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The Moscow Patriachate denounced this Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov as heretical in 1935 according to the Wikipedia and The St Herman Botherhood. | The Moscow Patriachate denounced this Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov as heretical in 1935 according to the Wikipedia and The St Herman Botherhood. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Recent Edits by Nocontinuingcity == | ||
| + | |||
| + | If Nocontinuingcity can supplement this article with facts that he can document from reliable sources, that is of course in keeping with the policy of Orthodoxwiki. However, it has to be presented in a way that is in keeping with the [[MCB]] policy. Also, you cannot just remove factual statements that you don't like, particularly those for which reliable source references have been provided. You may not like the St. Pachomius Library as a source, but St. John Maximovitch certainly is a reliable source... and he was a contemporary participant in the controversy, and so statements that cite his views on the matter cannot just be white washed, and over written with the opposite views. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 03:32, December 13, 2007 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 11:32, December 13, 2007
St John Maximovich, in his book, The Orthodox Veneration of the Virgin Mary devotes an entire chapter on why the Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov is heresy. This heresy is as destructive as the Nestorian Heresy.
The Moscow Patriachate denounced this Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov as heretical in 1935 according to the Wikipedia and The St Herman Botherhood.
Recent Edits by Nocontinuingcity
If Nocontinuingcity can supplement this article with facts that he can document from reliable sources, that is of course in keeping with the policy of Orthodoxwiki. However, it has to be presented in a way that is in keeping with the MCB policy. Also, you cannot just remove factual statements that you don't like, particularly those for which reliable source references have been provided. You may not like the St. Pachomius Library as a source, but St. John Maximovitch certainly is a reliable source... and he was a contemporary participant in the controversy, and so statements that cite his views on the matter cannot just be white washed, and over written with the opposite views. Frjohnwhiteford 03:32, December 13, 2007 (PST)
