Hungarian Church Press, 1958 (10. évfolyam, 1-2. szám)

1958-01-15 / 1-2. szám

.HCHP 1.15,-11.1,1958, Vol.X/l-2 - 16 - 16

the press, I am sure,telling that the Hungarian ehurchmeft hr.a gone to America not for preaching the Word but for maldng political propaganda. In spite of the fact that we were under a constant political attack we wore auch reserved not to enter any dispute of that kind and rgm^pgOn the church’s territory. On the contrary - I assert - that this Kálvin- j sermon was nothing but propagating the American manner of life, Visser *t Hooft asked then whether I had wanted to say that the Central Committee of the World Counoil of Churches should not come to Hungary ? toMy reply was: I did not want that, only I wanted to suggest that it should be car«ful not /be used for political propaganda but be a conference of jphe Churches really.

It has been made public in various form what happened in Galyatető, The Meeting in Galyatető was in organic connection - according to the proportion“ of our church - with tknt preparation, that psychological preparation / which led to the events of the counter-revolution. And meanwhile the counterrevolution began the moot tragical game in the life of the Hungarian people,

László Pap and Visser *t Hooft kept joyfully telephoning to each other about things what wore happening and were going to happen in Hungary. When God judges maketh the hearts fat taketh the seeing and hearing away that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. Certain people got into the great rebellion, against* the received way deliberately, others apt to be deceived, misled in this imposition.

In 1948, when the Reformed church lived in the necessity to be reorganized, I spoke tó László Ravasz telling him that accor ing to rny best conviction it would be advisable to resign. He accepted it with open heart mentioning that he had in mind to renounoe to his offices in the autumn of 1948. Then I told him not to wait till autumn because on my firm belief the church*s further way requested it and that Albert Bercczky should take over this leading service as early as possibly. Then László-Ravasz agreed with mo there.

Why have I told all this ?For two reasons. It rumoured in the October-Noveuiber days as if László Ravasz was put aside by v.rious intimidations in 1948. I am the star witness of László Ravasz*s resignation. I have every moral ba.sis to speak about openly of this private talk for as far as I know László Ravasz without .asking me, had put it on paper vary carefully and in the utmost dangerous period of the tension without my consent smuggled out to Geneva,

That is the authentic history of his giving up i.e, in 194o he had resigned consideiv ing the situation. On the last general assembly of the church district it was uttered a statement from his part which was assistance to the further way. That was the true, the sincere László Ravasz.. Ml said about J&L giving up later either by him or others is not true, and no sincere speech. I

I have still something to say. I newly emphasize that I do not want to make anybody responsible for the fact that I had written that certain letter in October the 51st 1956 in which I placed my position at the disposal of the general assembly of the church district. The question is not about me.

That László Ravasz who ought to have remembered in those days how I had talked to him in the summer of 1948, that László Ravasz an November* the 1st - on a meeting I do not know what one may call it - styled me names and titles- . . and announced that I was going to be demanded to give up — the consequence of which names was putting one to the sword by the counter-revolutionists* groups

in Budapest in those days. Had I been in Budapest in those days I might have met that fate as a result of László Ravasz*s words. Cn the contrary I was talking with him in 1948 asyOi?Sthe church bearing responsibility for the church has to tall-; brotherly to the other.