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

7284Re: TELLING THE TRUTH IS DANGEROUS...

Expand Messages
  • vkozyreff <vladimir.kozyreff@skynet.be>
    Jan 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear 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
      sleeping".

      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
      different theme.

      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.

      In God,

      Vladimir Kozyreff

      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 authorities—its
      hierarchs and senior clergy) to lie—to 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
      the State.

      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
      Church."

      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,
      and martyrdom.

      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
      eternal truth.

      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "boulia_1 <eledkovsky@h...>"
      <eledkovsky@h...> wrote:
      > I should like to respectfully point out to those brothers and
      sisters
      > in Christ for whom English is a second, or (probably) a third (or
      > maybe even fourth or fifth) language, an error that is repeatedly
      made
      > on this list.
      >
      > That error is the increasingly frequent use of a made-up (i.e.
      > non-existent in the English language) word as an adverb or
      adjective
      > (see just a few recent examples below).
      >
      > 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
      to
      > help these people convey their opinions more accurately, I offer
      some
      > examples of descriptive words that actually excist 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 ...
      >
      > I might also point out that Microsoft Word provides a decent
      English
      > language thesaurus, if my short list proves insufficient,
      inadequate,
      > woeful...
      >
      > Please, dear readers, do not be offended by this comment. As a
      writer
      > and editor by profession, I only mean to point out that over-use of
      > 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
      people
      > as frequently as the word "and" renders its meaning vaguer than
      ever.
      > 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?)
      >
      > In Christ,
      > Elizabeth
      >
      > (preparing for the onslaught on angry replies from members of one
      camp
      > and the silent cheers from everyone else).
      >
      > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff
      > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...>" <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > > 2. Do you forget that L Rosnyanskaya was sent to Vl Vitaly by the
      NY
      > > Synod with the mission to take control over him and to try to
      take
      > > him back to NY under the control of the NY Synod. Is this not
      > > frightful, to sin in the name of the truth? Is this not
      sergianism?
      > >
      > >
      >
      > > You attempt here to show that using fallacies can lead to the
      truth.
      > > This is a kind of intellectual sergianism.
      > >
      > > We all agree that the situation in which we live is very
      abnormal.
      > > Who would have predicted that respected priests in the ROCOR
      would
      > > promote ecumenism and sergianism?
      > >
      > >
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic