Babylonian Captivity and Communist Yoke

[Joanna Higginbotham]

There is an article on the ROCOR-MP Western Diocese website that makes a parallel between the Babylonian Captivity and the Communist Yoke.
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/01n ... aster.html
(news archives 5/1/05, Bp. Alexander Paschal Epistle)
I recognize this as propaganda designed to justify Sergiamism. Apparently this is not a new tactic, there is a refutation in BITTER FRUITS OF A SWEET CAPTIVITY by Z. Krakhmalnikova published 1989. I'm asking for help, please, in gaining an understanding of why this parallel is disinformation.

[Campostela]

Just to get things going I would like to suggest that there is a much stronger connection between sergianism and the turkish yoke, and that it is a much more applicable comparison. For generations, the head of the Greek church was chosen by the Mohammedans. They were chosen for non-spiritual reasons, often based on bribes / fees. But we don't call into question the legitimacy of the church just because the prelates were subject to Mohammedan masters.

Am I wrong about that, and if so, how?

[Sean]

Just to get things going I would like to suggest that there is a much stronger connection between sergianism and the turkish yoke, and that it is a much more applicable comparison. For generations, the head of the Greek church was chosen by the Mohammedans. They were chosen for non-spiritual reasons, often based on bribes / fees. But we don't call into question the legitimacy of the church just because the prelates were subject to Mohammedan masters.

Am I wrong about that, and if so, how?

Once a canon is broken, does it immediately become "historical precedence" for it to be broken again and again: making it obselete?

[Campostela]

[quote]Once a canon is broken, does it immediately become "historical precedence" for it to be broken again and again: making it obselete?[/quote]

No, that is not my argument at all. I think everyone reading this forum agrees that Sergianism is wrong and should be condemned. But does it cause a break in the life of the Church? Does it negate the grace of all Russian bishops who come after it? If it does, how is it different from the Turkish yoke, when arguably the same circumstances did not have that effect? The question at hand is not "is Sergianism wrong", it is "what must we do about it?"

[Sean]

The problem I have with this argument is that many of the current hierarchs within the MP today, including Alexey II, were also agents of the Godless authority. The Russian Church had been driven into the Catacombs, and the MP was a construct of the Stalinist regime. They are in no way a continuation of the Church in Russia. They are the Fifth Directorate of the KGB, and schismatic. It wasn't that the Church had uncanonically elected hierarchs, it was that the Church was driven underground and replaced by an imposter organization.

However, even if this weren't the case, the MP is ecumenist, and an organic member of the WCC, falling under the Anathema of 1983.

If the MP had humbly repented, condemned Sergius Stragorodsky, left the WCC, broken communion with all heretics, and approached ROCOR to have their orders corrected, this union would have truly been a time to rejoice. However, I realize that with all their money, power, influence, properties and vested interests in the WCC, the MP would never humble themselves and approach a Church which is small and insignificant in the eyes of the world, out of repentance.

Skurla, Arndt, and the rest of the former hierarchs of ROCOR have chosen the world and its ways over Christ and His Church. They are a disgrace to their illustrious predecessors.

[Pravoslavnik]

No, that is not my argument at all. I think everyone reading this forum agrees that Sergianism is wrong and should be condemned. But does it cause a break in the life of the Church? Does it negate the grace of all Russian bishops who come after it? If it does, how is it different from the Turkish yoke, when arguably the same circumstances did not have that effect? The question at hand is not "is Sergianism wrong", it is "what must we do about it?"

Code: Select all

   There are parallels between the Turkish Yoke and the Bolshevik Yoke, but there are also important differences.  Bolshevism was the Evil Ones' second greatest invention, after Mohammedism. The Bolsheviks were avowed atheists, determined to eradicate the Russian Orthodox Church, and to infiltrate and use the outward forms of the Church to serve the ends of the Godless Soviet state.  This is still the raison d'etre of the Moscow Patriarchate today--to serve the geopolitical ends of the neo-Soviet Russian Federation.

   The Moslem agenda--in the Ottoman Empire  and elsewhere--is to establish the universal rule of Islam and sharia, with allowances for religious observances by the Jews and Christians, the "people of the Book," as second class citizens who are required to pay a stipulated religious tax.  I am not aware of the Ottoman Turks having infiltrated the very hierarchy and priesthood of the Greek Orthodox Church with Moslem "moles," who were secretly serving the Sultanate, as the NKVD and KGB (now FSB) have done in the case of the Moscow Patriarchy and the Soviet state. 

     The great tragedy of our time is that the Stalinist Moscow Patriarchy was not reborn, and brought back into the true Church, by the ROCOR through true repentance and resignation of the abominable Soviet/KGB hierarchy, but instead brought the ROCOR, the last major remnant of the true Russian Orthodox Church, under the neo-Soviet/FSB yoke through the coercian and bribery of the reigning ROCOR-Laurus hierarchs.  Perhaps a better historical analogy for the modern Russian Church would be the corruption of the schismatic Latin Church by the Medieval Papacy.  Do we call  the modern Roman Catholic Church "the Church" simply because the Roman Catholics have so many members, and have historical roots in the true Church?  

     Do we ask what is to be done about the Great Schism?  How shall we unite with these Roman Catholics who have violated the canons of the Holy Church?  Should we not more properly ask what these large "churches" (Roman Catholic and Soviet) must do to enter once again into communion with the Church?

[Campostela]

[quote]I am not aware of the Ottoman Turks having infiltrated the very hierarchy and priesthood of the Greek Orthodox Church with Moslem "moles," who were secretly serving the Sultanate, as the NKVD and KGB (now FSB) have done in the case of the Moscow Patriarchy and the Soviet state.
[/quote]

So the difference is that in the case of the Soviets, it was covert, with moles, and in the case of the Ottomans, it was overt? The Ottomans were appointing the Bishops. The patriarchal throne was sold to the highest bidder.

[quote]Do we ask what is to be done about the Great Schism? How shall we unite with these Roman Catholics who have violated the canons of the Holy Church? Should we not more properly ask what these large "churches" (Roman Catholic and Soviet) must do to enter once again into communion with the Church?[/quote]

I'm glad you bring that up. The heresy of the filoque was proclaimed at the council of Toledo in 589. But the great schism did not happen until 1054 - and when it did, it was they who seperated themselves from us, not the other way around. In the meantime, did we not speak out against and condemn their heresy, but nonetheless endure it with patience and compassion? Almost five hundred years!