Sergianism

[ArmyMatt]

Like the Ottoman Empire?

no. that depended on the Sultan. plus, nothing came to my knowledge from the Church that united the Church to an Islamic state.

 

[Not David]

no. that depended on the Sultan. plus, nothing came to my knowledge from the Church that united the Church to an Islamic state.

Ok. Let's see.

There is nothing wrong with a Christian government and a Christian Church's synergism (if the government does something wrong the Church must oppose).

The Soviet Union was an Atheist Communist Government and the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic Government. The Church couldn't go against the Ottomans, The Church couldn't go against the Soviets. Both the Ottomans and the Soviets could change bishops.

Is there a difference I am missing?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ok. Let's see.

There is nothing wrong with a Christian government and a Christian Church's synergism (if the government does something wrong the Church must oppose).

The Soviet Union was an Atheist Communist Government and the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic Government. The Church couldn't go against the Ottomans, The Church couldn't go against the Soviets. Both the Ottomans and the Soviets could change bishops.

Is there a difference I am missing?

Patriarch Sergius openly declared basically that the word of the state would be the word of the Church. that's a big difference.

 

[buzuxi02]

The Soviet Union was an Atheist Communist Government and the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic Government. The Church couldn't go against the Ottomans, The Church couldn't go against the Soviets. Both the Ottomans and the Soviets could change bishops.

Is there a difference I am missing?

The Church doesnt can't go against certain United States policies, that not the issue. It has to operate in many different climates. The Ottomons did not remove and replace bishops with non believers. Upon election to the Patriarchate a tax payment had to be made. The Ottomons would remove a patriarch so the synod can elect a new one who had to pay the tax again. This is why many bishops would re-ascend the throne. Once one was removed the same one took over paying a tax over and over again...

In Sergianism the Church agrees to undermine itself and place itself captive to its hostile masters. Muslims never became bishops in the Ottomon era but atheist communists were indeed placed as bishops. In Sergianism the Church agrees to act subserviantly against it's own doctrines in order to elevate the doctrine of the hostile power.

 

[Not David]

The Church doesnt can't go against certain United States policies, that not the issue. It has to operate in many different climates. The Ottomons did not remove and replace bishops with non believers. Upon election to the Patriarchate a tax payment had to be made. The Ottomons would remove a patriarch so the synod can elect a new one who had to pay the tax again. This is why many bishops would re-ascend the throne. Once one was removed the same one took over paying a tax over and over again...

In Sergianism the Church agrees to undermine itself and place itself captive to its hostile masters. Muslims never became bishops in the Ottomon era but atheist communists were indeed placed as bishops. In Sergianism the Church agrees to act subserviantly against it's own doctrines in order to elevate the doctrine of the hostile power.

Interesting. I didn't know there were atheist Communist bishops in the Soviet Church.

 

[buzuxi02]

Interesting. I didn't know there were atheist Communist bishops in the Soviet Church.

Many bishops were secretly KGB agents placed their by the state.

 

[Not David]

Many bishops were secretly KGB agents placed their by the state.

I read that Metropolitan Iriney, Patriarch Filaret and Patriarch Alexy I were spies but they were already monks.

 

[Not David]

Ok, thank for explaining more about the Russian Church during the Soviet Union, I always thought they simply had to avoid opposing the Communists and that the government could replace bishops if they didn't like them.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Which atheist dogmas?

"There's No God" for starters. You'd think a "Christian Church" would have a problem with that one, y'all!!

 

[E.C.]

Interesting. I didn't know there were atheist Communist bishops in the Soviet Church.

Some priests too.

Part of why ROCOR formed was because they felt that the Russian Orthodox Church had lost Grace when Patriarch Sergius aligned with the government. I try not to judge him too harshly because he was in a tough position. Similar ROCOR-esque organizations formed as other countries fell to Communism (for example, the Free Serbian Orthodox Church) and after Communism fell, most of these organizations reunited with their Mother Church.

Now, you also had what is called the "underground Church" in the USSR. While the government did allow a number of parishes to operate, most of the ones that did were filled with untrustworthy priests who were indeed spies. The "underground Church" were those who worshiped in secret.

 

[Not David]

Some priests too.

Part of why ROCOR formed was because they felt that the Russian Orthodox Church had lost Grace when Patriarch Sergius aligned with the government. I try not to judge him too harshly because he was in a tough position. Similar ROCOR-esque organizations formed as other countries fell to Communism (for example, the Free Serbian Orthodox Church) and after Communism fell, most of these organizations reunited with their Mother Church.

Now, you also had what is called the "underground Church" in the USSR. While the government did allow a number of parishes to operate, most of the ones that did were filled with untrustworthy priests who were indeed spies. The "underground Church" were those who worshiped in secret.

Weren't ROCOR and "The Underground Church" part of the "True Orthodox" groups?

 

[E.C.]

Weren't ROCOR and "The Underground Church" part of the "True Orthodox" groups?

Not necessarily.

ROCOR was formed as the Russian Church in the Russian diaspora after the Bolsheviks took over, so they couldn't, by definition, be part of the underground Church in Russia (two separate entities). That being said, I have heard that there were ROCOR priests within Russia assisting with the underground Church, but I personally don't know enough to say much more. The other thing is that Patriarch Tikhon issued an ukaze (or order) in 1920 after the Bolshevik Revolution telling the parishes and bishops in the diaspora to administer themselves until normal relations between them and the patriarchate could be restored. ROCOR was one of those groups. There was a lot of chaos in the period from 1917-1925 or so for Orthodoxy and it was in that chaos when ROCOR was born.

With the "True Orthodox" groups, ROCOR didn't find themselves in that position. "True Orthodox" groups formed as Old Calendarist entities in countries, like Greece or Romania, that had adopted the New Calendar. "True Orthodox" groups make the calendar a dogmatic issue. Ironically, none of the "True Orthodox" groups are even in Communion with each other!

Russia never adopted the New Calendar, so therefore there aren't any "True Orthodox" groups from Russia in that regard. I think there is one group that still considers the Moscow Patriarch as compromised. There are some groups that broke away from ROCOR throughout the years for a variety of reasons (most of them stupid). The last major schism that happened from ROCOR was those who did not want to reunite with the Russian Orthodox Church in 2007. Almost the entirety of ROCOR's South America diocese went into schism afterwards.

 

[Euodius]

Sergianism is the apostasy of giving the state the false power to determine and be the arbiter of all values. It refers specifically to Met. Sergianism who while acting in temporary power between patriarchs gave the church organization to the communists stating that the church endorses, blesses, and celebrates the aims and actions of the communist regime - including, but not limited to, the destruction of all faith and religion. Sergianism predates Sergius as the reforms of Peter the Great was also Sergiast as his reforms legally and specifically placed himself over Christ in the hierarchy of the Church, dissolved the synod and put the Church of Russia into an uncanonical working structure (but not making the church itself uncanonical.)

The Ukraine Schismatics are a product of Stalin, not being actual Schismatics because by and large they were never in the Church - but were a bunch of people who declared themselves a new Church against the hierarchy of the real Church and welcomed the communist takeover of Russia before being incorporated into the False Living Church.

The EP and the MP both are currently weakened by sergianism. The EP also went sergianist after the OSS kidnapped Pat. Maximus and under Athenagoras - part of the reason of the tension between the EP and the GOC - hence the recent schism.

 

[AMM]

The EP also went sergianist after the OSS kidnapped Pat. Maximus and under Athenagoras - part of the reason of the tension between the EP and the GOC - hence the recent schism.

The schism between.... the Greek Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarch? I didn’t think there was tension between those groups

 

[prodromos]

The schism between.... the Greek Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarch? I didn’t think there was tension between those groups

Ah, you should have been around Greece when Metropolitan II Panteleimon of Thessaloniki passed away and Metropolitan Anthimos was chosen to take his place. Thessaloniki is administered by the Church of Greece but it belongs to the jurisdiction of Constantinople (even earlier it was under Rome's jurisdiction).
The Synod in Athens chose Anthimos without consulting HAH Bartholomew who refused to recognise Met. Anthimos as the bishop of Thessaloniki. In our own parish we had one priest who continued to commemorate Met. Panteleimon in the liturgy instead of Met. Anthimos while the others commemorated Anthimos (we were the 2nd largest parish in Greece).
There was quite a bit of tension during that time.

 

[AMM]

Ah, you should have been around Greece when Metropolitan II Panteleimon of Thessaloniki passed away and Metropolitan Anthimos was chosen to take his place. Thessaloniki is administered by the Church of Greece but it belongs to the jurisdiction of Constantinople (even earlier it was under Rome's jurisdiction).
The Synod in Athens chose Anthimos without consulting HAH Bartholomew who refused to recognise Met. Anthimos as the bishop of Thessaloniki. In our own parish we had one priest who continued to commemorate Met. Panteleimon in the liturgy instead of Met. Anthimos while the others commemorated Anthimos (we were the 2nd largest parish in Greece).
There was quite a bit of tension during that time.

Ah I see. That does sound like it would produce a lot of tension. Is that an ongoing tension or are things resolved now?

 

[prodromos]

Ah I see. That does sound like it would produce a lot of tension. Is that an ongoing tension or are things resolved now?

The dust has long since settled
Part of the problem here is that the Church in Greece is autocephalus, but despite the bishop of Athens being "Archbishop of Athens and All Greece", his jurisdiction does not include Macedonia and Thrace which both fall under the EP's jurisdiction. It makes for fun times on occasions