7284Re: TELLING THE TRUTH IS DANGEROUS...
- Jan 1, 2003Dear Elizabeth,
You write: " I offer some examples of descriptive words that
actually exist in the English language, that might be used as a
substitute for "sergianism" in future commentaries: distasteful,
incorrect, improper, annoying, immoral, dangerous, aggravating,
evil, frustrating, foolish, inappropriate, illegal, heartbreaking,
irritating, problematic, questionable, bad, wrong ..."
Let me kindly comment that, except evil, distasteful, heartbreaking
and wrong, which are English and which everybody knows, all other
adjectives of your list are French.
I disagree with your suggestion to use them instead of sergianism,
because they are adjectives, and because they express psychological,
affective reactions. They cannot be substitutes for an abstract noun
which expresses a theological concept. In speaking about the Church,
would you suggest, in order to keep the impact strong enough, to
replace that term by such adjectives as: tasteful, correct, proper,
moral, safe, alleviating, beneficial, satisfactory, intelligent,
appropriate, legal, consoling, quietening, clear, unquestionable,
good, right ?
Regarding your idea that "If you want people to believe this "word"
means something, then stick to using it in the context of Patriarch
Sergius' legacy within the MP (that IS what 'sergianism' is supposed
to be about, isn't it?)", let me say the following:
The human mind works by identifying common patterns among apparently
separate objects. Showing the efficiency of this in research and
intelligence was one of the most important contributions of
structuralism in philosophy. This is the way the natural sciences and
medicine progress too.
When Father Shaw suggest that I am "protestant", he makes the kind of
generalisation which is the basic function of intelligence. He
analysed the essence of Protestantism and did not restrict himself to
call Protestants the formal or nominal adepts of Luther's and
associates' legacy. He just decided to call "Protestantism" the
attitude by which a man makes his personal religion, which is the
essence of Protestantism, by contrast to orthodoxy, in which the
faith is one and common. In this, he is correct. One can thus say "In
every man's soul, a protestant is sleeping".
In the same way, one might say "In every man's soul, a sergianist is
I attempt to analyse the essence of sergianism. I think it is the
belief that, in particularly critical situations, instead of
recommending one's soul to God with even more fervour, one must and
can defend the divine truth by lying.
In other words, you can and must make a deal with the Liar to save
the Church of Christ in particular circumstances. It is thus the
apology of lie as a supreme and last resort when God has abandoned
His people. It is related to the principle that the goal justifies
the means. That is why I speak about intellectual sergianism when one
claim to defend the truth by fallacies. The affective reactions that
this evokes in your mind are interesting, but are altogether a
I try to find out how perverse sergianism is and how it can
infiltrate our thinking as a cancer can invade an organism. Remember
that Met Sergius was also an ecumenist before the letter (see post
7041). I think there is a link between the two heresies. It can be
observed in concrete cases (the defenders of the first defend the
second and vice versa, as seen on this list). If one analyses the
essence of the two heresies, I suspect that one might find out that
they have a lot in common.
Christ was crucified because the Jews could not accept that the
Kingdom is not of this world. They felt betrayed by the claim that
the Messiah would not liberate them from the Romans, but from the
sin. The main enemy of man, Satan, constantly tries to convince us
that the Kingdom is of this world, on the contrary. Met Sergius could
not accept that the fight does not go about material things, even
when the Faith is persecuted. Even Orthodox find it sometimes hard to
accept, in spite of their confessing the creed.
Let us thus call a cat a cat and sergianism sergianism. In saying
that we should not use the term because it is not defined is joining
the MP in its attempt to escape repentance. In addition, in doing so,
you are teaching a lesson to our predecessors in our dear Church and
to the millions of martyrs that considered sergianism to be
sufficiently well defined to die for refusing it. Please see again
Father Alexander Lebedeff first manner below.
Fighting sergianism is one of the main reasons for our Church to
exist. When it disappears with ecumenism and when the MP repents, we
will automatically cease to exist as ROCOR and become the orthodox
Church of Russia. So, this is not a boring theme for a believer.
Sergianism is not the recognition by the Church of the existence of a
State dedicated to the eradication of the Church.
It is not the recognition by the Church of the authority of a State
dedicated to the eradication of the Church.
It is not the cooperation of the Church with a State dedicated to the
eradication of the Church.
Sergianism, in its essence, is the concept that in order for the
Church to preserve some semblance of its existence in the face of a
State dedicated to the eradication of the Church, it is permissible
for the Church (as represented by its ecclesiastical authoritiesits
hierarchs and senior clergy) to lieto lie openly and bare-headedly,
both to one's flock, and to the entire world.
To lie openly about the extent of the persecution of the Church by
To lie openly about the very existence of persecution of the Church
by the State.
To lie openly by denying the Martyrs and Confessors of the Church.
Sergianism is the very denial of Christ, Who said "I am the Way, the
Truth, and the Life."
Sergianism is the very denial of the path of Christ, the path of the
Cross, the path of Confessors and Martyrs.
Sergianism is the embodiment of the concept that the "end justifies
the means," that any means, including those expressly forbidden by
God's commandments (specifically, "Thou shalt not bear false
witness"), are permissible, as long as the goal is to "save the
Sergianism is the affirmation of the concept that it is we who
must "save the Church," even at the cost of lying openly and
bareheadedly (thus following the path of Satan, the "Father of
Lies"), rather than it is us who must be saved by the Church, by our
standing fast in the Truth, even in the face of persecution, torture,
As such, Sergianism is contrary to our very calling, as Christians,
and must be totally rejected by Orthodox Christians, and it must
never be justified.
Those who attempt to justify it are, unfortunately, just compounding
the sins of their predecessors.
The sooner this sad page in contemporary Orthodox history is put
behind us, the sooner we can all move forward in proclaiming God's
--- In email@example.com, "boulia_1 <eledkovsky@h...>"
> I should like to respectfully point out to those brothers andsisters
> in Christ for whom English is a second, or (probably) a third (ormade
> maybe even fourth or fifth) language, an error that is repeatedly
> on this list.adjective
> That error is the increasingly frequent use of a made-up (i.e.
> non-existent in the English language) word as an adverb or
> (see just a few recent examples below).to
> It appears that this word has become, for certain posters, a
> catch-all, to be used to describe any activity by any person or
> ogranization of which he or she disapproves. In a sincere attempt
> help these people convey their opinions more accurately, I offersome
> examples of descriptive words that actually excist in the EnglishEnglish
> language, that might be used as a substitute for "sergianism" in
> future commentaries:
> distasteful, incorrect, improper, annoying, immoral, dangerous,
> aggravating, evil, frustrating, foolish, inappropriate, illegal,
> heartbreaking, irritating, problematic, questionable, bad, wrong ...
> I might also point out that Microsoft Word provides a decent
> language thesaurus, if my short list proves insufficient,inadequate,
> Please, dear readers, do not be offended by this comment. As a
> and editor by profession, I only mean to point out that over-use ofpeople
> ANY word tends to dilute its impact. That is even more true for a
> made-up word like "sergianism," which really has no succinct and
> logical definition. The fact that it is bandied about by some
> as frequently as the word "and" renders its meaning vaguer thanever.
> If you want people to believe this "word" means something, thenstick
> to using it in the context of Patriarch Sergius' legacy within theMP
> (that IS what 'sergianism' is supposed to be about, isn't it?)camp
> In Christ,
> (preparing for the onslaught on angry replies from members of one
> and the silent cheers from everyone else).NY
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "vkozyreff
> <vladimir.kozyreff@s...>" <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
> > 2. Do you forget that L Rosnyanskaya was sent to Vl Vitaly by the
> > Synod with the mission to take control over him and to try totake
> > him back to NY under the control of the NY Synod. Is this notsergianism?
> > frightful, to sin in the name of the truth? Is this not
> > You attempt here to show that using fallacies can lead to the
> > This is a kind of intellectual sergianism.abnormal.
> > We all agree that the situation in which we live is very
> > Who would have predicted that respected priests in the ROCORwould
> > promote ecumenism and sergianism?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>