Patriarch Sergius and 'Sergianism'

[Theron Mathis]

My question does not directly pertain to the current stream of discussion, but this seemed the best place to post a question regarding controversies and discussions within the Orthodox community.

After reading meaning of the ROCOR sites and listening to their disputes with the Moscow Patriarchate, I keep hearing a term that is never defined. Can anyone tell me what is meant by Sergianism?

Thanks and God Bless,

Theron Mark

[Razhden]

Greetings in Christ,

I believe that you will find that it is "protecting" the Church by allying it with the Communist Party.

I have never fully understood what this meant.

If you will look at the "ukase" of 1929 you will find that Sergius( who was "acting Locum tenens"(not even patriarch)) said that "...the joys and successes of Communist Party will be the joys and successes of the Orthodox Church...".

The Communist Party was bent on the destruction of the Orthodox Church. This could never be acceptable as church policy.

Correct me if I am wrong.

God guide us all,
ICXC,
Razhden

[John Curtis Dunn]

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.
{http:/www.orthodoxinfo.com/resistance/sergianism.htm (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/resistance/sergianism.htm)}

[John Wehling]

Greetings in Christ reverend Fathers, brothers, and sisters,

I don't know if any of you are familiar with Fr Roman Braga. He is a Romanian Archimandrite who was imprisoned and tortured by the Romanian Communist government for several years before being released and finally coming to America. At present he is the spiritual father to the Holy Dormition Community in Rives Junction, Michigan.

In Fr Roman's book Exploring the Inner Universe (pp.65-66), he writes about those who condemn the Hierarchs of the Romanian and Russian Churches under Communism on the grounds that they compromised the Church and the Faith of the Church. Fr Roman, who himself suffered severely under the communists, believes that this sort of condemnation is wrong. The Hierarchs compromised what Fr Roman calls the non-essentials in order the maintain the essentials: the Sacramental life of the Church. He also cites St Genadius, a Patriarch of Constantinople under the Ottoman Turks who faced severse criticism when he was forced to do the same thing, sacrificing non-essentials to keep the Sacramental life of the Church available to the people.

I was blessed to see and hear Fr Roman for almost a year before coming to seminary. He is a gentle, loving, and beautiful man who learned inner prayer in the communist prison camps. His life, shining with the grace of the Holy Spirit, his prayer for his enemies and for the Hierarchs of the Church in Romania, says infinitely more about the true Faith and the true Church than all of the attacks I have heard against so-called Sergianism.

It is time for peace and for healing, is it not?

In Christ,

John Wehling

[Tania]

With "Sergianism," maybe we should all be asking: how does it affect the church today? Are there ways in which whatever mistakes patriarch Sergius made are still so vitally divisive to the church in our own day?

Tania

[Owen Jones]

The issue for Sergianism for Americans is a little more subtle than that of the communist state. The issue is how much are we willing to allow compromise with a secular society than in no less telling a way is bent on the destruction of Orthodoxy, although it is not an organized conspiracy, but rather a sign of the times. Many of our hierarchy and clergy adopt a go along to get along policy, because they do not wish to be too demanding of the laity. This usually leads to quite a backlash in America. Holy men like St. John Maximovitch get spat upon for calling for something that it outside of the mainstream of American life. A particular example is the difficulty in America in promoting authentic monastic vocations -- something that most hierarchs do not wish to see happen. You also have the problem of the various jurisdictions in America being governed by political concerns from their canonical domiciles -- places like Syria, for example. This has a muzzling effect on the American church.

So I see Sergianism as a problem not confined to the Stalinist situation, but a general problem that is pronounced in the U.S.

Owen Jones (Seraphim)

[Razhden I. Guriadze]

Greetings in christ,

Owen I couldn't agree more. I believe that the difference here is that it is done with a lot more subtlety.

It is sad to see the Church "suck up" to the politicians to maintain the "status quo".
God give us the strength to stand up for what we believe in,

ICXC,
Razhden

[Vlad Benea]

Though quite young, being a Romanian, makes me more familiar with the problem of Sergianism than most of the Orthodox people in other countries. I would like to explain a little better the difference between the so-called Sergianism (here in Romania it's not called that way) in Romania and the one in Russia. The reason Pr. Braga (whom books I had the pleasure to read, and like a lot) defends the Hierarchs that promoted a Church politic that meant to keep the Church above the surface, despite some compromises, is because the effects of this politic was quite obvious when comparing the two nations (Russia and Romania). Where as in Russia, which was much less affected by Sergianism (not necessarily seen as a compromising notion), there were (and still are) millions of people that are not baptized, here in Romania we have none of that. In a time that in Russia 90% of the monasteries and churches were closed, Romania saw the construction and reopening of some. Sure, not everything thrived. Besides that, despite the Holy Hierarchs showed an attitude of Sergianism (please excuse my English), they secretly helped and maintained the numerous monasteries, revigoratind some, and building others.
The main thing, i think, is this: Communism is (mostly) dead, the Church, with the help of God, lives.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us.

[Jovan]

Am I correct in reading some of the above sentiment as being in support of Sergianism? I find this rather horrifying! I can sometimes see people's point when they say that Sergianism is understandable from a historical point of view... but I can't see how it could be a good thing!

- Jovan

[Vlad Benea]

Well, first of all, Jovan, I would like to be pretty specific on the term of Sergianism, (it does not exist in Romanian, and I recently found out that it meant to describe the Russian Orthodox Church). As I tried to explain on the above message, the so-called "Sergianistic" politics had, in a state meant to destroy the church, a very pozitive effect, by maintaining the Sacramental Life of the church, and sharing it to the whole of the people. I find it pretty difficult to express myself in English, so please be indulgent. But what I want to say is that, for the sake of the millions of people that died baptized (rather than unbaptized), haven taken the Holy Body and Blood of our Saviour (rather than not haven taken Them), etc., for the sake of those people, whom we all hope found their salvation, Our Lord will forgive the sins of those Hierarchs that made these things possible. That's what I think and state, and if that means being pro-Sergianism (whatever that means), then I am pro.

Forgive me if I am wrong (as Theoclytos of Dionysiou says: Mystake is a law of the human mind),

In Christ,
Vlad

[Vlad Benea]

As a follow up to my post, Jovan, and the others, I would like to quote, as John said earlier, St. Gennadius:


(the translation is mine, so therefore all the mistakes in it are mine, sorry)
"He who would want to introduce the whole [rigourous] of the Church customs in these hard times [Greece was under the Ottoman occupation], as in the times of freedom, that one becomes an enemy of christianity because he attempts impossible things. He who makes some compromise in order to maintain the whole, has an apostolic mind and willbe judged by God with mercy... Today, Christianism is like before Constantine[+337], for we have neither Kingdom, nor a free Church, nor the freedom of confessing our faith, like never before. There is nobody to teach us and to teach the others, and the love of our shepherds who know the canons has "cooled".

Also, recently, here in Romania, the files of the Political Security (basically the Romanian KGB) have been published (some of them).

I thought it would be interesting to write here an episode I like a lot. There was a great scandal in the beginning of the 1960s, when Patriarch Justinian (a very controversial figure of the Church) throwed out from the Holy Synod a Bishop, Nicolae Popovici, who was a good bishop, and for that was not liked by the Communist regime. Well anyway, all of the people criticised heavily the Patriarch for that. But when the files were published, the other face of the coin was revealed: in the same meeting of the Holy Syond in which Bishop Nicolae was deposed, Patriarch Justinian gained from the communists the right to catechize the children [religion was no longer taught in school for several years by then], and the communists had to accept it because he had deposed Bishop Nicolae. So he sacrificed Bishop Nicolae, in order to attain the permission of the catechization of children in schools, and thereafter the Priests sometimes were able to teach religion. Not to mention that Bishop Nicolae would have had to be sacrificed (i don't think that's a right term) anyway.

I think this is a very relevant episode of a part of the Church History.
And I am expecting commments.

In Christ,
Vlad

[John Wehling]

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

Vlad, thank you for your most recent post to the list. I think these = words of Pat. St Gennadius show the wisdom of one who knows the crucial = difference between the letter and the spirit. And the story about Pat. = Justinian is also illuminating, is it not? I know nothing about him, but = perhaps the story reminds us of the danger of judging anybody, and = certainly of judging hastily with only part of the information. Who = knows the depths of the human heart and the wisdom of the Spirit?

How easy it is to be an armchair quarterback! Forgive me, brother, for = that phrase will probably not make any sense to you. It means, simply, = it is easy to judge those who are actually in the midst of the struggle = from our safe, comfortable positions away from it. It really does = require humility and much discernment to know when to speak and = criticize and when to be silent. Unfortunately I have very little of = either! God forgive us. Thank you, Vlad, for these words.

John

[Tatiana Suprun]

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

Vlad, thank you for your most recent post to the list. I think these = words of Pat. St Gennadius show the wisdom of one who knows the crucial = difference between the letter and the spirit. And the story about Pat. = Justinian is also illuminating, is it not? I know nothing about him, but = perhaps the story reminds us of the danger of judging anybody, and = certainly of judging hastily with only part of the information. Who = knows the depths of the human heart and the wisdom of the Spirit?

How easy it is to be an armchair quarterback! Forgive me, brother, for = that phrase will probably not make any sense to you. It means, simply, = it is easy to judge those who are actually in the midst of the struggle = from our safe, comfortable positions away from it. It really does = require humility and much discernment to know when to speak and = criticize and when to be silent. Unfortunately I have very little of = either! God forgive us. Thank you, Vlad, for these words.

John

Avete, amici!
I am really glad to see the understanding of the stance adopted by Metropoitan Sergius. There is some special Greek term, like ikonomia(?), to talk about situations when compromise seems to be and often is inevitable. Some, well, implacable experts do manage to explain why M.Sergius's policy was impermissible dogmatically and so had the gravest consequences, causing the Church to lose its sacramental divine nature, retaining only "the semblance of existence" as John Curts Dunn puts it. Those texts look logical, but, as the saying goes, logic tends to get you to where you previously arranged a meeting with it. But what if look at the attitude to this question of the Russian New Martyrs.
Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), whose role in saving the Russian Church was crucial, who had really become a petrus, resisting all tricky schemes of the secret police (gpu-nkvd), who could be called a great martyr, because such were his torments, - he not only never disputed the rights of M.Sergius to perform the functions of the Head of the Russian Church; he refused to do or write anything which could in any way lead to questioning those rights.
As for Sergianism in general, I believe it's just the question of striking the right balance and mistakes are always likely. Nothing new about it; if we turn to the history (e.g.the first thousand years), read Fathers talking about similar problems, maybe even worse... Nothing to get nervous about - there is hard routine work of resisting the bad, cultivating the good, first of all fighting with one's own sins. Please excuse my verbosity. It is a sore point indeed.

[Father David Moser]

Tatiana,

I would like to point out that you are responding in 2008 to a discussion from 2002. As I know you are aware, in the interim, the joint commissions of ROCOR and MP have met and discussed our various differences, including Sergianism, and have come to resolution on them. One year ago the reconciliation between these two parts of the Russian Church was achieved. Sergianism was addressed as the interference of the state with the Church, a topic which was clearly addressed by the Russian Church in the 3rd section of the Basis of the Social Doctrine (http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=183)


The state should not interfere in the life of the Church or her government, doctrine, liturgical life, counselling, etc., or the work of canonical church institutions in general, except for those aspects where the Church is supposed to operate as a legal identity obliged to enter into certain relations with the state, its legislation and governmental agencies. The Church expects that the state will respect her canonical norms and other internal statutes.

and


Nor has she [the Church] the power to fall silent and to stop preaching the truth whatever other teachings may be prescribed or propagated by state bodies. In this respect, the Church is absolutely free from the state. For the sake of the unhindered and internally free preaching of the truth, the Church suffered persecution by the enemies of Christ not once on history. But the persecuted Church is also called to endure the persecution with patience, without refusing to be loyal to the state persecuting her.
...
If the authority forces Orthodox believers to apostatise from Christ and His Church and to commit sinful and spiritually harmful actions, the Church should refuse to obey the state.

This powerful section from the Basis of the Social Doctrine repairs the harmful inroads of so called "Sergianism" into the life of the Church forged during the Soviet era and sets a standard designed to prevent their future reappearance.

For now, "Sergianism" is a dead issue. The personal issue of how Patriarch Sergius will be viewed by the Church is all that remains as a live issue. Certainly Patriarch Sergius was acting in what he thought was the best interest of the Church - but whether his actions were wise or foolish, that remains for God to judge.

Fr David Moser