On the Wheat and the Tares (or On Confessors and Apostates)

Russian source: Анафема РПЦЗ экуменизму: факты и значение (Новая редакция), by Subdeacon Vladimir Kirillov (ROCOR-A), Mera, Paris, 2023, pp. 110-117.

 

 

“Nothing unclean enters the Church as an Organism, whereas in the Church as an organization, the wheat and the tares grow side by side—and must continue to grow, according to the word of the Lord, until the end of this age (Matt. 13:24–30)” (http://www.pravoslavie.ru/100304.html). Thus did the New Martyr Michael Novoselov, one of the founders of the Catacomb Church, so aptly and precisely define the structure of the Church.

And “Just as Christ preaches saving truths to mankind, so the devil, through his servants—hardened sinners, heretics, and false teachers—sows destructive falsehoods and delusions in people’s minds, and various vices in their hearts, embellishing all these things with semblances of truth and goodness. For this reason, the Lord does not call them some other kind of seed, but specifically tares (weeds—V.K.), which outwardly resemble wheat” (see Patristic Interpretation of the Parable of the Tares…, Part II, Chapter 12).

On this basis, the ecclesiastical situation in Russia (and indeed throughout the world) described above by Fr. Lev [Lebedeff] may be likened not only to a tree entwined by a parasitic plant, but also to a field—the world—throughout which His (Christ’s) universal Church extends, as the totality of church-organizations, and in which grow both the tares (apostates and heretics), sown by Satan (the sons of the wicked one), and the wheat (the sons of the Kingdom), with the former striving to choke the latter and prevent them from growing fully. And during the process of introducing and subsequently establishing the dominance of heresy, the most effective means of increasing the number of tares is undoubtedly the commemoration of heretics, which gradually leads others to adopt their heresy as well. Yet at such times, to our shortsighted eyes, it appears that the entire field has been overtaken by tares alone, with the wheat simply no longer visible among them. Thus, the Prophet Elijah, witnessing the apostasy of Old Testament Israel from the truth, cried out to God in alarm, to which God replied that He had preserved for Himself seven thousand men who had not bowed down to the idol. The glorious Prophet himself could not see these men, for this was known only to God, the Knower of hearts.

This is precisely why what we are witnessing today is taking place, in the words of Metropolitan Vitaly, under the Lord’s exercise of an “extraordinary economia,” that is, the granting of grace-filled Mysteries to those who believe in simplicity (the wheat), despite the presence of a great mass of tares—the graceless hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate and its numerous followers and fellow travelers, mired in the heresies of Sergianism and Ecumenism (for more on this, see Chapter 14). And how much longer this extraordinary economia will continue is known only to Christ, the Head of the Church.

And, as has already been the case before, everything in Russia today is sustained not by the apostatizing organization or structure of the Moscow Patriarchate (outwardly very powerful, imposing, and pompous, but rotten within, like an apple that is beautiful on the outside but rotten inside, as Ecumenism and other things demonstrate), nor by its apostate hierarchy, Sergianist in spirit, but, to use biblical language, by Abraham’s five righteous men (or Elijah’s seven thousand—it makes no difference), who struggle in defiance of this rotten organization. And it is upon these righteous men and women—the “white headscarves,” who believe wholeheartedly and in simplicity—that everything rests, together with the small number of new confessors (see, for one example: http://www.portalcredo.ru/site/print.php?act=news&id=126949) who have ceased commemorating the false Patriarch Kirill and who are now being persecuted by the new Sergianists, just as the ill-fated Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) once persecuted the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia.

(See http://3rm.info/main/67930-netslov-po-lekalam-nkvd-nepominayuschego-svyaschennika-sudili-za-neprohozhdenie-flyurografiivideo.html and https://vk.com/video129912296_456243134?list=fc6ff87d8cada83407)

As for the rest (the millions of so-called “believers,” “sleeping in their cabins,” obedient to heretics), they have no interest in any struggle for the purity of Orthodoxy, much less in the anathema against Ecumenism.

“However, for the sake of objectivity, it must be said,” Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) testified, “that there are genuine ascetics, righteous men, and confessors in Russia, ‘of whom the whole world is not worthy!’ They, of course, are almost always hungry and eat their meager but honestly earned crust of bread. They are few in number, and they have no desire to travel or fly anywhere, but only a little leaven is needed for the whole lump of dough. May God grant them the strength to leaven the entire Russian lump.” “I am not saying that all the clergy are like this. There are very good priests who groan under the burden of remaining in the Moscow Patriarchate, but they have nowhere to go: they have families and children, and they would immediately be thrown out onto the street” (http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/print.php?act=news&id=126723).

“Now,” Metropolitan Vitaly continued in his interview with Canadian radio, “if you ask me about our parishes, who are our parishioners? I will answer you this: our parishioners are not only those 90 or perhaps 100 parishes (in Russia, which belonged to the jurisdiction of ROCOR in the 1990s—V.K.). To us belong all those priests, those wonderful priests, who strive with all their might, by the sweat of their brow, to fulfill the will of God while remaining in the Moscow Patriarchate, and who groan because they realize that the leadership above them, which governs them, is not of God. And so, all those priests who groan and sigh are ours! All those people in Russia who now understand, and to whom the falsehood of the Moscow administration, shall we say, is becoming increasingly apparent—they are all ours! Now just try counting how many there would be!” (see Supplement No. 12b or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19D9BTR99Rw).

Even earlier, St. John (Maximovich) had written essentially the same thing:

“Although the Russian Church Abroad has no visible relations with her Church in the homeland, she remains in spiritual communion with all those who suffer and are persecuted there, languishing in prisons and exile. We believe and know that the Orthodox Faith is strong in Russia. The Lord God, Who preserved seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to Baal in the days of Elijah, even now has many servants of His who secretly serve and pray to Him throughout the Russian land.

“And among the hierarchs who are outwardly submissive to the Soviet authorities, many are inwardly tormented by this, and when the opportunity arises, they will follow the example of those who, at the Council of Chalcedon, declared with tears that they had been compelled to affix their signatures at the Robber Council, and the example of St. Patriarch Paul, who, tormented by his conscience, received the schema, conscious of his weakness during the time of the iconoclasts. This is attested to by many who left their homeland during the Second World War.” (St. John of Shanghai, A Brief History of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia – http://www.russian-inok.org/books/arhtih.html#local2).

St. John believed that “All parts of the Universal Church have one common goal—the preaching of the word of God… In pursuing this common goal, each Local Church has its own significance… All of them together constitute the one Universal Church and contribute to her their own distinctive characteristics and gifts… Our Russian Church Abroad is the free part of the Russian Church… Spiritually, the Russian Church is indivisible… Being part of the Russian Church, we cannot have communion with an ecclesiastical authority that is subordinate to and enslaved by a power hostile to the Church… The ecclesiastical authority in Russia is in such a position that we cannot distinguish and understand what it does freely and what it does under coercion… For this reason, the Russian Church Abroad is not administratively bound to such an authority. But we are spiritually united with the Holy Russian Church, for we are part of the Russian Church. We must not think that everyone in our homeland is spiritually enslaved by the authorities existing there… In our dispersion throughout the world, we do not submit to the Local Churches, not because we are hostile toward them, but because we are preserving the Holy Russian Church.”

(On the Spiritual and Moral Significance of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad,  https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ioann_Maksimovich/slova-i-propovedi/5)

For the Saint, the Orthodox Church is one, just as her Head, the God-Man Christ, is one, despite the fact that the Church's earthly organization may be divided, for the sake of convenient administration, into various parts and jurisdictions, which at times are not in communion with one another. “Owing to circumstances, we have found ourselves cut off, but liturgically we are one. The Russian Church, like the entire Orthodox Church, is united eucharistically, and we are united with her and within her. Administratively, however, for the sake of our flock and certain principles, we must follow this course, but this in no way impairs the mystical unity of the entire Church.”

(http://www.rocorstudies.org/2017/03/02/evharistiyaot-yurisdiktsii-ne-zavisit-dialog-cherez-strany-i-epohi/#comments)

“The Church is unity in Christ, the closest possible union with Christ of all those who rightly believe in Him (the wheat—V.K.) and love Him, and the union of all of them through Christ… All who believe in Christ and have united themselves with Him by surrendering themselves to Him and receiving the Grace of God collectively constitute the Church of Christ, Whose Head is Christ Himself, while those who belong to Her are Her members.”

(The Church—the Body of Christ, https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ioann_Maksimovich/iz-propovedeji-pouchenij-arhiepiskopa-ioanna-shanhajskogo/18)

And yet, alongside them grow the tares, planted by the tempter, Satan. “The same consequences of sin, which has not yet been completely expelled from the human race,” wrote St. John (Maximovich), “operate not only in individual people, but through them are also manifested in the earthly activity of entire parts of the Church. Heresies, schisms, and disorders constantly arise, separating a portion of the faithful. Misunderstandings between Local Churches, or parts of them, have troubled the Church since ancient times, and prayers for their cessation are constantly heard in the divine services… Only when Christ appears upon the clouds will the tempter be trampled underfoot and all stumbling blocks and temptations disappear.”

(The Church—the Body of Christ, https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ioann_Maksimovich/iz-propovedej-ipouchenij-arhiepiskopa-ioanna-shanhajskogo/18)

On the basis of the foregoing, St. John believed that “the official Church in Russia is, of course, endowed with grace, although individual hierarchs conduct themselves in an unworthy manner” (from a letter by Archbishop Anthony of Geneva to Fr. Dimitry Dudko, Posev, 1979, No. 12). In other words, the Church is endowed with grace for the salvation of those who suffer and are persecuted—“all those who rightly believe” (the wheat)—and unto the condemnation of all unworthy celebrants of the Mysteries—the tares.

But was Metropolitan Vitaly not saying precisely the same thing when he counted among his flock those wonderful priests “who strive with all their might, by the sweat of their brow, to fulfill the will of God while remaining in the Moscow Patriarchate,” while at the same time pointing to the “extraordinary economia” for the wheat and punishment for the tares?

It is the same thing, expressed in different words. With regard to the anathema against Ecumenism, it must be noted that it was, in fact, proclaimed for the “wheat,” that is, for the truly Orthodox and those who truly believe, who fear and love God and are prepared to confess His truth, for those who, according to the words of the Gospel, are of the truth, hear the voice of truth, and follow it (John 10:4–5, 26-27).

But those “tares” who, by their own free choice, are not of the truth (such as the heretical Ecumenists, the covetous, the perverts, and their lukewarm fellow travelers) follow other, demonic voices, and for them the anathema means nothing—it is an empty sound, just as the purity of Orthodoxy, the commandments of God, and the Holy Canons mean nothing to them. For them (including such priests), the wholesale apostasy of their episcopate means nothing, nor does some Declaration or other, some conciliar decision or other that has legitimized Ecumenism, some imposition of Latin practices or other reformist tricks. They continue to live in their own self-contained, virtual world, as though nothing had happened or were happening. They continue, as before, to celebrate divine services, hear confessions, deliver sermons, speak with great pathos about faith, the observance of the commandments, and obedience to Christ, and solemnly teach and teach… while, with a clear conscience, commemorating heretics and bringing ruin upon both themselves and their flocks… Meanwhile, some think that the Patriarch, the bishops, and their ilk may amuse themselves with their Ecumenism, provided only that they do not interfere with our ministering to the flock that is “sleeping in its cabins.” And thus, through the pursuit of compromise, ingratiating evil (in the words of St. John [Maximovich]) triumphs unhindered, while those with malicious intentions calmly continue their dark work: methodically constructing a new church for the Antichrist out of Orthodox bricks. Yet they do not sense that they are sliding into the abyss (or do not wish to sense it), and even if they do sense it, they successfully suppress such “unprofitable” (“harmful”) thoughts within themselves, although at the same time they may “sincerely” admire the confessional struggles of the Martyrs and Confessors of old and of recent times. Moreover, to those especially deluded, this descent into the abyss of anti-Christianity even appears to be some kind of religious “revival” in the Russian Federation. It is truly a “kingdom of crooked mirrors.”

But here it must be qualified that “long-suffering” and “forbearance,” first and foremost on the part of the clergy, and subsequently of the laity, were possible to a certain extent (by economia) before the Havana meeting and the Council of Crete—or, more precisely, before the conciliar signing of the Council’s documents by the episcopate of the Moscow Patriarchate. After what has taken place, however, such an attitude constitutes, forgive me, an outright betrayal of the truth of Christ, a boundary beyond which begins the zone of estrangement.

Admittedly, those who are most consistent have found an even simpler way of justifying their indifference and apostasy: either by refusing to regard Ecumenism as a heresy (claiming that there are not yet sufficient grounds for condemning it as such or, conversely, that this teaching is supposedly based on the words of the Savior), or by claiming that it is not a heresy at all, but merely an innocent mistake, a contradiction, or an unfortunate formulation; or by arguing that “we must not divide the Church; we must pray for the Patriarch and commemorate him at the Liturgy”; or by refusing to regard a particular champion of this teaching as a heretic, whether a patriarch, metropolitan, bishop, or assembly of bishops; or by asserting that they (the bishops, as though they were little children) were forced or persuaded to sign questionable documents, and that, for the sake of the much-vaunted “unity,” they did not wish to cause a scandal and therefore “swallowed” the heresy; or by claiming that the Patriarch may indeed be a heretic, but our ruling hierarch, despite being subordinate to a heretic, is “good” and not a heretic; and so on and so forth.

But among the zealots there are also those (apparently sincerely mistaken, or perhaps acting out of fear of the Jews—John 19:38) who uncompromisingly denounce Ecumenism in the Moscow Patriarchate and sharply condemn its Latinization, yet at the same time maintain that the Ecumenist hierarchs have not yet been deprived of their episcopal rank or anathematized. Therefore, they argue, faithful laypeople should seek out pastors who, although they commemorate the false Patriarch and his associates, are not heretics “in their hearts” and do not agree with those who have apostatized from the purity of Orthodoxy (that is, who, to use Dostoevsky’s expression, keep a “fig in their pocket”—a concealed gesture of defiance). And these sincerely mistaken people (who reject the necessity of confessing the faith), perhaps without intending to do so, deny the anathema pronounced by the Church Abroad through their actions, refuse to recognize this most important act of the Russian Church Abroad as valid, and, in fact, despite their half-hearted “zeal,” fall under that very anathema (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZaGhd54Xck).

There are also those who like to sit “on two chairs at once,” who, while condemning Ecumenism in words, resort to casuistry in urging others to follow what they claim to be the “royal path,” that is, to avoid both heresy and schism (to oppose Ecumenism while at the same time treating the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate, which participates in Ecumenism, with indulgence and understanding). They fail to understand that, when heresy prevails, the royal path consists precisely in protecting oneself from heresy and its proponents—the heretics (http://www.sobor8.ru/768-sobor-na-krite-put-k-raskolu.html).

Thus, the deceitful conscience of those who are falling away is capable, through their unwillingness to confess the truth, of inventing all manner of justifications (sometimes quite clever and ingenious). And for such deluded people, the anathema against the heresy of heresies might as well “never have existed”—there is no limit to their deceitfulness and self-deception.

Some, admittedly, console themselves with the thought that things are not yet so bad, that they can afford to wait, and that, when the time comes, they will still have time to jump from the train hurtling toward disaster. They forget that a demonic technique, perfected over years—or rather, decades—has already been set in motion: the gradual manipulation of consciousness, the so-called “Overton Window,” the “boiling frog effect,” and the “substitution of concepts”; in other words, a technique for destroying taboos or, as in our case, transforming heresy into something permissible and equivalent to the truth.

Everyone knows that when catching birds, the main thing is to catch a tiny claw in the net, and thus the entire bird can easily be captured. And then it is no longer possible to escape from the “system”… it is too late (and one must also think about the children, the wife who has threatened to take her own life otherwise, the apartment, salary, prestige, old age, a “rainy day,” the loan; “and who am I to engage in such a struggle?”; “and such things have happened before in the history of the Church, and afterward everything somehow returned to normal on its own”; “and the Creed has not yet been changed”; “and an Ecumenical Council has not yet condemned it”; and there has been no ecclesiastical trial yet; and, in any case, “Russia is the stronghold of Orthodoxy,” and “the Lord will not allow this ‘Third Rome’ to be defeated”; or “any day now a truly Orthodox Tsar will appear and restore everything”; and so on and so forth, without end).

And so they remain within the “system”… at first waiting for things to improve, but then, gradually, they begin to justify Ecumenism (as the unification of divided Christians), claiming that “this is what the Lord commanded,” supposedly out of brotherly love. And thus, in this manner, through the pursuit of compromise, they have grown accustomed to heresy, their consciences have been lulled to sleep, and eventually they have come to justify it.

“The pursuit of compromise will become the prevailing disposition among people. Straightforward confession of the faith will disappear. People will devise sophisticated justifications for their fall, and ingratiating evil will sustain this general disposition. People will acquire the habit of departing from the truth and develop a taste for the sweetness of compromise and sin” (St. John of Shanghai, illustration 71 – http://protivkart.org/main/5296-pravosl%20%E2%80%A6%20e-dni.html).

A good example of “ingratiating evil” is the gentle, insinuating explanation given by Metropolitan Pavel (Ponomarev) of Minsk and Zaslavl, Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus and a permanent member of the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate, who explains to his flock from the ambo why Roman Catholics may be commemorated at the Proskomedia.

(See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42c1GBGKf4w and http://napravdestoy.livejournal.com/4950690.html).

And the flock, already led astray by this blatant reformer and manipulator, echoes the heretic, without a single person among them raising an objection. This is far from the only example (though it is a typical one) of the introduction of heresy into the Moscow Patriarchate.

Moreover, it must be borne in mind that all this is being done by disciples of the Jesuits: cunningly and covertly, through a combination of gradualism and a step-by-step approach (although this gradual process is nevertheless rapid and decisive). For this reason, none of the ecclesiastical reformers intends to alter the wording of the Orthodox Creed (much less the Lord’s Prayer) and thereby crudely provoke opposition from those who disagree. Instead, its content is being subtly altered. Thus, a different, Ecumenist meaning is simply inserted into one of its articles, for example, concerning the dogma of the Church: the words “in one” are understood not as referring to one Church, that is, the one and only Orthodox Church, but rather to a united Church, that is, one united with the various separated Christian Churches, with which unity must therefore be sought. And supposedly, the Universal Church itself consists of these so-called separated “Churches,” which, in our understanding, are heretical. This, of course, completely changes the very Orthodox concept of the “Universal Church” as the totality of the Local Orthodox Churches. Moreover, the head of this Ecumenist Universal Church is the Pope of Rome.

The same can be said of the words “I confess one Baptism for the remission of sins,” when Ecumenists understand Baptism no longer as something that takes place only within the Church of Christ and can be performed only once, but rather as implying the recognition of the supposed “baptisms” performed by the so-called “separated Christians” (heretics), which, they claim, must be recognized because the Creed forbids the repetition of this Mystery.

These are difficult times, times of change, and it was concerning these times that Venerable Anatoly (Potapov), the Elder of Optina, warned: “Therefore, my son, when you see the destruction of the divine order of the Church, the Patristic Tradition, and the order established by God, know that heretics have already appeared, although they may at times conceal their impiety and will distort the faith imperceptibly, so that they may succeed all the more in deceiving and enticing the inexperienced into their nets.”

(http://www.sobor8.ru/334--budut-iskazhat-veru-nezametno-prorocheskie-slova-svyatyh-otcov-onastupayucshih-tyazhkih-vremenah-dlya-miryan-i-monahov.html)

Thus, in order to avoid falling into the nets of experienced heretics and manipulators (and Ecumenism is a Masonic project behind which stand infernal, hellish forces; Patriarchs, bishops, and others are merely their instruments), it is necessary, at the very outset, to avoid becoming entangled in their nets, and to this end, to sever decisively all ties with the community governed by heretics.

And it is desirable to do this even at the level of everyday social relations. Let us recall the Testament of Metropolitan Anastassy of ROCOR, whom Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) described as the “Wisest”: “As for the Moscow Patriarchate and its hierarchs, since they are in a close, active, and friendly alliance with the Soviet authorities, who openly profess their atheism and strive to instill atheism throughout the Russian people, the Church Abroad, in preserving her purity, must have no canonical, prayerful, or even ordinary social communion with them, while at the same time leaving each of them to the final judgment of a Council of the future free Russian Church” (http://ortolog.livejournal.com/16425.html). In other words, the only effective means of preserving the purity of Orthodoxy (and protecting oneself from becoming infected with spiritual delusion) is to separate oneself from heretics by ceasing all forms of communion with them. Otherwise, the fruits of the manipulation of people's consciousness are already plainly visible: what for centuries was considered heresy is now no longer regarded as heresy in the Moscow Patriarchate. Thus, Ecumenism (supposedly for the sake of “bearing witness” to Orthodoxy) is no longer considered the heresy of heresies, but rather a teaching that does not contradict Orthodoxy and, moreover, is supposedly commanded by Christ. Previously, ROCOR did not concelebrate with Constantinople because of the latter's apostasy from the truth (and this was recorded in official documents), but now, apparently, everything is permitted, and joint prayers with the Papists are next in line. As modern priests teach: “The APOSTOLIC Canons… are losing their relevance, and a new tradition is taking shape.” It is evident that this “new tradition” is directly connected with preparations for the acceptance of the Antichrist and the construction of a new church for him (https://vk.com/id138064177?w=wall138064177_40682). More precisely, however, what is being constructed is a single, universal church of Satan, and when the false Patriarch Kirill speaks of the one god of Muslims, Jews, heretics, not to mention Freemasons, we must correctly understand what is meant by this.

And if we consider from this perspective the Havana meeting of the two “brothers” in spirit, during which a high degree of mutual understanding was achieved (according to the false Patriarch Kirill), and what has continued to take place since then, it becomes clear that this construction is not only proceeding at full speed but is also supported by the existing authorities of the Russian Federation.

Let us harbor no illusions: there is not only the published version of this Havana meeting, but also secret agreements between the false Patriarch and the most influential representative of the new world order: the Roman Pontiff—the high priest of a new anti-Christian religion (and perhaps even the apocalyptic false prophet). And, as it seems to me, the Russian ecclesiastical leadership, Sergianist in spirit, has bargained for important privileges for itself from this high priest of the Antichrist (Satan). Therefore, since it has something to gain from its efforts, we are witnessing a slow but open and brazen transformation of the Orthodox Faith into an Ecumenist faith (the gradual habituation of the people to it, like a frog being slowly boiled over a fire). In other words, the reformers are initially placing new, poisonous content within the old shell, and subsequently they will turn their attention to the old shell itself (the form and rite).

* * *

But there are also those who, quite consciously apostatizing from the truth, attempt to slander (taking advantage of ignorance of history) and discredit in every possible way the historical Russian Church Abroad as it existed before the schism, which had confessed true Orthodoxy for decades. They seek to declare it unlawful, uncanonical, some sort of gathering of schismatics, and consequently to regard its acts as unlawful and without validity. Such people, who do not know the history of ROCOR’s origins, do not understand the significance of its struggle for the purity of Orthodoxy, and believe the decades-long slander directed against it by the pro-Soviet leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate, would do well to read at least the Act of Canonical Communion “within the one Local Russian Orthodox Church,” in which there is not a single word, nor even a hint, about schism or schismatics.

(http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/155920.html), or to read the interview with Patriarch Alexy II, who signed this Act (http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/247856.html)

Thus, the legitimacy and canonical status of ROCOR were confirmed in 2007 by the Moscow Patriarchate itself through the Act of Canonical Communion and the restoration of full unity with it. Admittedly, this communion and unity, as was to be expected, did not restore the Moscow Patriarchate to health, but successfully infected the greater part of ROCOR that united with it with heresy and apostasy (evidently, the “Wisest” was right).

Significantly, the Vatican also welcomed the restoration of the unity of the Russian Church in 2007 (since “such a successful conclusion of the dialogue may also serve as an incentive for the intensification of Orthodox-Catholic relations”), fully understanding that this “unity” would silence the free voice of the Russian Church in its struggle for the purity of Orthodoxy—a struggle that ROCOR had waged for decades and that culminated in the 1983 anathema against the heresy of Ecumenism (http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/247108.html). And it may be said that, had it not been for this much-vaunted “unity” (brought about by the departure of the bishops abroad from their historical path, their secularization, and their adoption of the spirit of falsehood and deceit—see Part II, Chapter 3), there would probably be no worldwide disgrace today: neither the signing of the documents of Crete nor the Havana meeting… However, the independent position of the Russian Church Abroad in relation to the Moscow Patriarchate was rooted in her steadfast adherence to the truth and her defense of ecclesiastical righteousness. Having departed from their historical path, the path of confessorship, the bishops abroad no longer had any need for independence or separation from heresy, and thus their union with the Moscow Patriarchate was a foregone conclusion. The “boiling frog effect” had taken hold—a gradual habituation to the vices of the Moscow Patriarchate. Time passed, and there was no longer anything separating them…

As Fr. Seraphim (Rose) wrote in one of his letters, “The independent existence (independent of other jurisdictions) of our Synod (meaning the Synod of ROCOR—V.K.) is justified only if we are zealots for the Faith and set an example for those jurisdictions that have fallen away or are falling away from Orthodoxy” (http://oseraphim.livejournal.com/127946.html).

The apostasy now taking place is undoubtedly providential. The Lord is testing the hearts of each and every person for their faithfulness to Him, including the clergy and laity of ROCOR-MP. And it is to them that the words of the last legitimate First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, Metropolitan Vitaly, are addressed: “And now, what are we to say to those… clergy and laity of our Russian Church Abroad who are being deceived by the historical outward appearance of the Moscow Patriarchate? Yes, throughout the entire history of the Church of Christ, the Lord has providentially permitted some manifest heresy, unrighteousness, or falsehood to emerge from within the Church herself and lead the people of God astray, thereby testing our faithfulness to the Truth itself. In this way, the Lord has made everything hidden and unclean manifest, so that we might see, in black and white, what we need to repent of!”

(http://www.portalcredo.ru/site/print.php?act=news&id=126723)

Let us therefore wish that the unwary and trusting clergy and laity of ROCOR, who have been deceived by the outward splendor of the Moscow Patriarchate, may repent of their apostasy from the truth of God while there is still time.

To Save or to Be Saved: When Love Becomes an Illness

Viktor Luzhkov | October 13, 2026

 

 

There is one subject in Orthodox circles that people do not customarily speak about. They remain silent about it in confession because they are ashamed. It is not written about in parish bulletins because it is considered “unspiritual.” It is not preached about from the ambo because it does not fit the familiar pattern of “humility” and “patience.” And yet it probably concerns every second believer who has ever loved. Or thought that he loved. It is called codependency, and it is one of the least noticeable and most destructive traps into which a person who sincerely wishes to do good can fall.

We must begin this discussion not with condemnation, but with recognition. Take a closer look at yourself. Are you familiar with the feeling that without another person—a husband, wife, son, daughter, or friend—you cease to exist? That your mood depends entirely on theirs, your joy on their smile, and your peace of mind on their approval? That you are ready to give the last of your strength just to make them feel better, and when you fail, you feel guilty, as though you have neglected something important? That you cannot say “no” because you are afraid of disappointing them, afraid of appearing heartless, afraid that you will be considered “not loving enough”?

If even some of these questions have struck a chord of recognition within you, this article is for you.

Not a Cross, but an Illness

Orthodox psychologists speak plainly and unequivocally: codependency is not a cross; it is an illness. In the Christian understanding, the word “cross” means the voluntary acceptance of suffering for the sake of Christ, for the sake of love. But what happens in codependent relationships has nothing in common with this. It is not sacrifice, but slavery. Not a spiritual struggle, but self-destruction. And most importantly, it is a condition that can be treated. It is not something to be “endured” or “humbly accepted” indefinitely, but something that must be treated—through awareness, through working on oneself, and through turning to the source of genuine love.

Venerable Paisios of Mount Athos, whose words are often quoted in this connection, said that if there is no Christ in a family, no prayer, and no hope in God, that family is doomed to fall apart. This is not about outward piety. It is about the fact that a person who tries to become the source of life, warmth, and meaning for another inevitably becomes exhausted. He takes upon himself a role that only God can fulfill. And when this burden becomes unbearable, he does not acknowledge his own weakness, but blames himself: “I did not try hard enough,” “I did not love enough,” “I am unworthy.”

The love spoken of in the Gospel “seeketh not her own” (1 Cor. 13:5). But how can we distinguish this “not seeking one's own” from the habit of living for someone else's interests, from losing oneself so completely in another person that one loses one's very identity? The line between the two is finer than it seems.

Children Who Became Adults Too Early

Psychologists who work with codependency are almost unanimous: the roots of this condition go back to childhood. A person who, in adult life, cannot stop trying to save others had an experience in childhood that taught him one simple formula: “I am accepted only when I am useful.” If a child constantly heard that he was “not good enough,” if he had to earn love through exemplary behavior, good grades, and causing no problems, he grows up with a deep, almost unconscious conviction: that he has no right to be loved simply for who he is, without making an effort, without being “useful” to others.

In her book Women Who Love Too Much (and this applies not only to women), psychologist Robin Norwood wrote that no one else's love can satisfy us if we do not love ourselves, because when we go in search of love with an emptiness inside us, we find only another emptiness. This statement is the key to the entire subject. A person who has a gaping void within him because he did not receive unconditional love in childhood searches in adult life for someone who will fill that emptiness. And he finds someone. Or rather, he thinks he does. But another person is not God. He cannot fill what was created for God alone. And so the emptiness not only remains but becomes even deeper.

St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov), in his ascetical writings, described the state in which a person seeks in others what he ought to seek in God as prelest—spiritual delusion, self-deception. Codependency is a kind of psychological counterpart to this state. A person sincerely believes that his life will acquire meaning when he saves another. But the other person is not saved, because saving him is not something a human being can accomplish. And the one who is doing the “saving” becomes exhausted to the point of complete helplessness.

What Happens in the Family

There is a particular kind of pain that is rarely spoken of openly. A wife senses that her husband has grown cold, that he is withdrawing into a world of his own. She looks for the cause in herself: “I am not beautiful enough,” “I get too tired,” “I am a bad wife.” She begins to do more: cook better, dress more attractively, be more attentive. But the harder she tries, the more desperate she becomes. And her husband, seeing her efforts, feels not gratitude but mounting tension. Because he senses that something is expected of him. Not simply that he should be himself, but that he should “respond in kind.”

Psychologists frequently encounter this dynamic in their work with families. Watching pornography or retreating into virtual worlds is almost always not about a wife's “shortcomings,” but about the fear of genuine intimacy. True intimacy requires a man to be present, to be vulnerable, and to be able to bear another person's gaze. This is difficult. A screen demands nothing. It does not look at him with judgment, expect anything of him, or become disappointed. It is the safest place on earth—and the most barren.

The wife's silence in such a situation is not humility, but tacit permission. Humility and patience are virtues, but there is a fine line beyond which humility becomes complicity in the destruction of the family. The husband perceives his wife's silence not as a virtue, but as permission to continue. This is not love. It is fear of speaking the truth. And fear of speaking the truth is already the beginning of the very slavery we are discussing.

How Love Turns into Dependency

The difference between healthy love and emotional dependency is the difference between “I feel good when I am with you” and “I feel unbearably miserable without you.” The first is freedom. The second is a prison. In a healthy relationship, a person can be both together with another and apart from them. He does not lose himself. He does not lose his individuality. His worth does not depend on whether the other person loves him as much today as yesterday. In a dependent relationship, everything is different. Without the other person, I cease to exist. He is busy—therefore, nobody needs me. He is tired—therefore, I am a bad person. He is silent—therefore, I must have done something wrong.

A person suffering from emotional dependency is like someone who is hungry but cannot satisfy his hunger because the food he seeks has no nutritional value. He seeks love where it does not exist. Or, more precisely, he seeks from another human being what only God can give.

Archimandrite John (Krestiankin) spoke of the necessity of beginning and ending the day with prayer. This is not merely a pious recommendation. It points to the source from which alone a person can draw the strength for genuine love, rather than love that leaves him exhausted. Prayer is not merely words. It is an acknowledgment that I cannot manage on my own, that I need help, that I am not God. A person who prays does not try to save the world through his own efforts. He knows that the world has a Savior, and that he is not that Savior.

What It Means to Rediscover Yourself

Codependency is when a person lives someone else's life rather than his own. He lives according to other people's expectations, problems, and moods. He does not know what he himself wants because he has spent too long asking others what they want. The path to freedom begins with a simple but very difficult question: “What do I want?” Not “What would be best for him?” or “What should I do to avoid upsetting him?” but “What do I feel?”, “What do I want?”, “What is important to me?”

This is not selfishness. Selfishness is when I ignore others. Codependency is when I ignore myself. Both conditions are distortions of love. Genuine love begins with a person knowing himself, respecting himself, and caring for himself—not in order to shut himself off from others, but so that he can give out of fullness rather than emptiness.

Psychologists point to a fundamental mistake in the modern approach to marriage: many young people approach it with a consumer mentality—“What will I get from my partner?”—rather than a Christian one—“What can I give?” But there is a subtle distinction here. “What can I give?” does not mean “I must give everything, down to the very last drop.” Healthy love is not endless self-sacrifice. It is a mutual exchange in which each person can both give and receive. In which each remains himself, yet at the same time transcends himself.

The Road Home

If you have recognized yourself in these lines, do not be afraid. Codependency is not a life sentence. It is a condition that can be healed. Not immediately, not quickly, but healing is possible. The first step is to acknowledge that the problem exists. Not to justify it in the name of “love” and “humility,” not to hide it behind spiritual language, but to call it by its proper name: I have lost myself in another person. I am trying to do what only God can do. I need help.

The second step is to begin rediscovering yourself. One small step at a time. Ask yourself questions you have not answered in a long time. Remember what you enjoyed, what brought you joy, what was important to you. Learn to say “no” when saying “yes” would mean betraying yourself. Learn to endure another person's displeasure without being devastated by it.

And the third, most profound step is to reclaim the right to be loved not for anything you have done, but simply because you exist. This is what Christianity calls grace. In his Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle Paul writes words that must be read slowly: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). While we were yet sinners. Not when we had become good. Not when we had stopped making mistakes. Not when we had learned to be useful. Even then. Love existed before we corrected our faults. And therefore, our imperfections cannot deprive us of it.

A person who has understood this—not merely with his mind, but with his heart—ceases to be codependent. Because the source of his love is not another human being, but the One Who loves him unchangingly. And then he can love another not out of a desperate emptiness, but out of fullness. Not in order to save the other person, but simply to be there for him. Not in order to receive confirmation of his own worth, but to share in joy.

This is the road home. To oneself. To God. To a love that does not wound, because it makes no demands. That does not enslave, because it liberates. That does not exhaust, because its source is inexhaustible.

 

Russian source: https://pravoslavie.ru/180776.html

 

An Orthodox Critique of Liberation Theology

Panteleimon Tomazou, Ph.D. Candidate in Dogmatic Theology

October 16, 2026 | Orthodoxos Typos

 

 

From an Orthodox perspective, one of the most fundamental problems of Liberation Theology lies in the way it connects the Kingdom of God with historical and social liberation. The Kingdom of God is not an ideal social condition that is gradually realized within history, nor is it the result of changes in economic and political structures. It is the uncreated divine Kingdom, the very uncreated glory and energy of God, which is not brought about by historical development and is not the product of human action. It is timeless and eternal. It is not history that develops until it is transformed into the Kingdom of God; on the contrary, the uncreated Kingdom enters into history and draws the worthy into itself, making them partakers of the divine life.

A characteristic example is the Transfiguration of Christ. The disciples did not create the Kingdom or bring it into being within history. They were deemed worthy to partake of and behold, according to the measure of their receptivity, the uncreated glory of Christ. Therefore, the Kingdom is not something built by man within history, but an uncreated reality into which man is admitted by grace.

For this reason, Orthodox eschatology cannot identify the progress of history with the coming of the Kingdom. A more just society is certainly desirable, and care for the poor is an integral part of Christian life. Nevertheless, even the most just social order remains a created and historical reality. The created does not develop into the uncreated. The Kingdom is not the ultimate achievement of a social program, but man's participation in the uncreated divine life.

Similar caution is also needed regarding the concept of so-called “structural sin.” From an Orthodox perspective, sin has a personal character. An economic, political, or social structure does not possess a heart, freedom, will, or personal responsibility, and therefore cannot commit sin. This certainly does not mean that unjust social conditions or institutions that perpetuate injustice do not exist. They do exist, however, because many persons commit sins, and these personal sins have social consequences and can become entrenched in institutions, attitudes, and practices.

Greed, avarice, lust for power, injustice, hatred, and exploitation originate in the human heart and from there enter into society. Therefore, it is not the impersonal “structure” that sins; it is human persons who create, maintain, and make use of unjust structures. Social injustice is real, but its root lies in the passions and personal sins of human beings.

For this reason, the Orthodox healing of social evil begins with repentance and the purification of the heart. This does not mean indifference to society. Quite the contrary. He who is healed of avarice does not exploit the worker. He who is healed of self-love can truly love his neighbor. He who is freed from ambition does not use power to oppress others. Personal healing inevitably has social consequences. Orthodoxy, however, does not seek the primary source of evil in an economic or social system, but in the heart of fallen man.

At this point, caution is also needed regarding the contrast between Orthodoxy and orthopraxy. For the Orthodox tradition, these are not two independent realities that must subsequently be brought together. True Orthodoxy necessarily includes orthopraxy. Right faith is not an abstract ideological acceptance of dogmatic propositions, but a concrete way of being and living within the body of the Church. If someone professes the faith correctly but does not live in accordance with what he professes, this does not mean that we must add an independent “orthopraxy” to Orthodoxy. It means that he himself does not put into practice in his life the faith that he professes.

This becomes even clearer if we examine the patristic concept of theoria. Liberation Theology often contrasts contemplation with action and calls for a transition from an abstract, theoretical theology to liberating action. However, such a contrast cannot be transferred unchanged to Orthodoxy. In the Orthodox patristic tradition, theoria does not mean the ideal, abstract thought, or an intellectual construct detached from reality. Theoria means primarily vision, the vision of God and, at its culmination, the contemplation of and participation in the uncreated divine glory.

And it is precisely for this reason that theoria presupposes praxis. Man does not attain the vision of God through an abstract intellectual process. Faith, repentance, the observance of the divine commandments, ascetic struggle, and the purification of the heart from the passions must come first. Praxis, therefore, is not the opposite of theoria; it is its necessary prerequisite. And theoria, on the other hand, is not an escape from reality, but man's vision of and participation in the uncreated energy and glory of God by grace.

Therefore, in Orthodoxy there is no division between theoria and praxis, the ideal and the real, Orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The patristic path is organic: faith – observance of the commandments – praxis – purification – theoria. Praxis leads to theoria, while true theoria is inevitably expressed in man's way of life as well. There is therefore no need to replace a supposedly “theoretical Orthodoxy” with a “practical Orthodoxy,” since this contrast is foreign to the very patristic meaning of these terms.

Another serious issue concerns the attempt to ground a particular social model in the eternal relations between the Persons of the Holy Trinity. In Liberation Theology, and particularly in the theology of Leonardo Boff, which we shall examine in a subsequent article, Trinitarian communion is used as a model for human society. The mutuality, communion, and equality of the divine Persons are thus presented as the theological foundation of a society free from relations of domination and oppression.

Such a transposition, however, is problematic from the standpoint of Orthodox theology. Human society cannot reflect the eternal Trinitarian relations. The relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not a sociological model that can be transferred to political or social organization. The Holy Trinity is not a society of three human subjects from which we can derive principles of social organization. Rather, it is the uncreated mystery of the one God, the eternal hypostatic relations of the three divine Persons, which cannot be transformed into political or sociological categories.

It is precisely here that the radical distinction between the created and the uncreated must be preserved. The eternal relations of the divine Persons belong to the uncreated mystery of divine life, whereas human society belongs to the created order. If we transfer the intra-Trinitarian relations directly to social reality, we risk turning Trinitarian theology into a social theory and treating the mystery of the Holy Trinity as a model of political organization.

This, of course, does not mean that the Christian faith does not provide a foundation for love, solidarity, and care for one's neighbor. However, the foundation of Christian solidarity must not be sought in a sociological imitation of the eternal Trinitarian relations, but in the common human nature which Christ assumed. Through the Incarnation, the Son and Word of God assumed our common human nature. Christian love for every human being is therefore founded upon the fact that Christ assumed the nature common to us all.

For this reason, love for the poor, the suffering, and those who have suffered injustice does not need to be grounded in a social or political interpretation of the Holy Trinity. It is grounded in Christology and anthropology. Our neighbor is of the same nature as ourselves, a partaker of the same human nature, the nature which Christ assumed, sanctified, and deified in His own hypostasis. The Incarnation, therefore, provides the true Christological foundation for love and solidarity, without any need to turn the eternal relations of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit into a model of social organization.

Herein lies a more general problem as well: theological frameworks from the Western world cannot be transferred unchanged into the Orthodox context and then used as criteria for interpreting the Orthodox tradition. Liberation Theology arose under very specific historical, social, and theological conditions, primarily in Latin America. The questions it sought to answer, the social analysis it employed, and even the very tension between theoria and praxis were shaped within a particular Western theological and sociopolitical environment.

Orthodoxy, however, has its own anthropology, ascetic tradition, ecclesiology, and eschatology. Above all, it possesses the fundamental distinction between the created and the uncreated, and the experience of theosis as real participation by grace in the uncreated divine energies. Therefore, even when Orthodox theology confronts entirely real problems—poverty, exploitation, injustice, and social exclusion—it must address them on the basis of its own theological and patristic presuppositions, rather than adopting unchanged a theological model that arose in a different ecclesiastical and historical environment.

The essential difference can therefore be summarized as follows: for Orthodoxy, the ultimate liberation of man is not the construction of an ideal society within history, but the healing of the human person and his participation by grace in the uncreated life and Kingdom of God. The Kingdom is not the culmination of social development; it is uncreated and timeless. Sin does not originate primarily in structures; it originates in the human heart and from there acquires social consequences. Orthodox theoria is not an escape from praxis; it is the vision of God, which presupposes faith, the observance of the commandments, praxis, and purification. Finally, just as the uncreated Kingdom cannot be transformed into a historical social program, neither can the uncreated Trinitarian life be transformed into a sociological model. Love and solidarity toward one's neighbor are grounded Christologically in the common human nature which Christ assumed. From the healing and transformation of man flow organically love for the poor, justice, almsgiving, and genuine care for one's neighbor.

 

Greek source: https://orthodoxostypos.gr/%e1%bd%80%cf%81%ce%b8%cf%8c%ce%b4%ce%bf%ce%be%ce%bf%cf%82-%ce%ba%cf%81%ce%b9%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%ba%e1%bd%b4-%cf%84%e1%bf%86%cf%82-%ce%b8%ce%b5%ce%bf%ce%bb%ce%bf%ce%b3%ce%af%ce%b1%cf%82-%cf%84%e1%bf%86/

 

 

 

Stalin’s Theology: The Religion of the Godless

July 3, 2026 | Lviv Herald

 

 

The Soviet Union was founded upon an explicit rejection of religion. Yet one of the great paradoxes of the twentieth century is that under the rule of Joseph Stalin, the officially atheist state developed many of the characteristics of a religious civilisation. Churches were demolished, priests were imprisoned and religious education was prohibited. Nevertheless faith did not disappear. Rather, it was redirected. Stalin’s regime created a political theology in which the Communist Party became the Church, history became providence, Marxism became scripture and Stalin himself assumed the role of an infallible high priest.

This was not theology in the traditional sense. It did not concern itself with God, salvation after death or divine revelation. Instead it sought to answer the same questions religion has always attempted to resolve: why suffering exists, what gives life meaning, how history is ordered and who possesses legitimate authority. In replacing supernatural belief with historical inevitability, Stalinism constructed a secular faith that demanded absolute obedience while permitting no competing source of moral truth.

The philosophical foundations lay in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx famously described religion as the “opium of the people”, not merely as an illusion but as a symptom of economic injustice. Once class exploitation disappeared, religion itself would supposedly become unnecessary. Yet Marx imagined a historical process rather than an authoritarian dictatorship. It was Stalin who transformed Marxist historical theory into a rigid doctrine whose interpretation belonged exclusively to the state.

History under Stalin ceased to be an academic discipline. It became revelation. The Party alone possessed the capacity correctly to interpret the movement of history. Disagreement therefore ceased to be intellectual error and became heresy. Those accused of deviation were not simply mistaken; they were enemies of historical truth itself. Political trials resembled inquisitions in which confession was valued above factual innocence. Like medieval heretics, the accused were expected publicly to acknowledge their sins before punishment.

The Communist Party functioned as a priesthood. Admission required ideological initiation. Advancement depended upon demonstrated orthodoxy. Members were expected to study canonical texts with the seriousness traditionally devoted to sacred scripture. Quotations from Marx, Engels, Vladimir Lenin and increasingly Stalin himself acquired almost scriptural authority. Official publications became commentaries explaining how eternal doctrine should be applied to contemporary circumstances.

Central to Stalin’s political theology was the concept of historical inevitability. If history necessarily progressed towards communism, then every sacrifice made in pursuit of that future acquired moral legitimacy. Famines, forced collectivisation, mass deportations and political executions could all be justified as temporary suffering on the road towards universal redemption. The promise of heaven was replaced by the promise of the classless society. Neither could be immediately observed. Both demanded faith.

This vision transformed ethics. Traditional religious systems usually distinguish between means and ends. Murder, theft and deceit remain morally problematic regardless of political objectives. Stalinism largely dissolved these distinctions. Actions were judged according to whether they advanced the historical mission of socialism. If violence accelerated history, violence became virtue. If deception protected the revolution, deception became honesty in service of a higher truth.

The personality cult surrounding Stalin represented perhaps the clearest theological innovation. Although communist doctrine rejected divine rulers, Stalin gradually became an object of quasi-sacred veneration. Portraits appeared in every workplace and school. Poems celebrated his wisdom. Cities were renamed in his honour. His birthdays became national festivals. Children were taught stories emphasising his compassion, intelligence and superhuman foresight.

The language surrounding Stalin frequently echoed religious devotion. He became the “Father of Nations”, the “Great Leader” and the “Brilliant Genius of Humanity”. These were not merely political titles but expressions of reverence. His authority approached infallibility because questioning him implied questioning history itself.

Ritual occupied an equally important place. Military parades, Party congresses, youth organisations, collective celebrations and mass demonstrations all performed functions once associated with religious festivals. Participation reinforced communal identity while simultaneously displaying loyalty. Public confession sessions resembled religious acts of repentance, except that forgiveness was often absent. Redemption was achieved through complete submission to Party authority rather than divine grace.

The Soviet state also developed its own calendar of saints and martyrs. Revolutionary heroes replaced biblical figures. Lenin’s preserved body in the mausoleum on Red Square functioned almost as a secular relic, attracting pilgrims from across the Soviet Union. Sacred spaces survived even when churches disappeared; only their ideological content changed.

Yet Stalin’s theology differed fundamentally from traditional religion in one crucial respect. Most religious systems recognise a moral authority existing beyond the state. God judges kings as well as ordinary citizens. Under Stalin there existed no higher tribunal. The Party created morality because the Party defined history. There was no independent standard against which governmental action might be measured.

This absence of transcendence proved profoundly dangerous. Religious institutions, despite their historical failures, often preserve moral principles that limit political power. Stalin deliberately eliminated every competing authority: churches, independent intellectuals, civil associations and autonomous legal institutions. Once the state became the sole interpreter of truth, there remained no peaceful mechanism through which its crimes might be condemned.

Ironically, Stalin himself partially reversed Soviet anti-religious policy during the Second World War. Recognising the patriotic value of the Russian Orthodox Church during the struggle against Nazi Germany, he permitted limited religious revival. Churches reopened and clergy regained restricted public roles. This was not theological conversion but political pragmatism. Religion remained subordinate to the state and was tolerated only insofar as it strengthened national unity.

The legacy of Stalin’s political theology extends beyond the Soviet period. Many modern authoritarian systems, while differing ideologically, reproduce similar structures. They elevate the leader above ordinary criticism, monopolise historical interpretation, suppress alternative moral authorities and encourage emotional devotion that resembles religious faith more than rational political allegiance.

The lesson is that human beings appear to possess a persistent desire for systems that provide certainty, purpose and collective identity. If traditional religion is removed without leaving space for intellectual pluralism and independent institutions, political ideology may assume religious functions instead. The result can be more dangerous than conventional faith precisely because it combines absolute moral certainty with the coercive machinery of the modern state.

Stalin did not abolish theology. He nationalised it. He transferred sacred authority from heaven to history, from priests to Party officials and from God to the state. The consequences demonstrated that secular societies are not immune from religious impulses. They merely relocate them. When politics becomes theology, disagreement becomes blasphemy, compromise becomes apostasy and power acquires the terrifying certainty of divine command. The twentieth century paid an immense price for that transformation.

 

Source: https://www.lvivherald.com/post/stalin-s-theology-the-religion-of-the-godless

The Poison of Sovietism

Protodeacon Herman Ivanov-Trinadtsaty | October 17, 2026

 

 

Yes, alas, we must constantly resort to yet another “revaccination”—if one may put it that way—against this most terrible disease.

What am I talking about?

The same thing as always: Russia is not the USSR, and the Russian Federation is not Russia. Even though, most happily, the Russian Federation is undoubtedly no longer the USSR, the fact that the Russian Federation is not Russia became clear very quickly, as soon as the hated Soviet regime “fell.” This was particularly evident during the famous days of August 1991, when the Russian flag and the red rag flew simultaneously over the roofs of the Kremlin, while the last General Secretary continued for a time to cling helplessly to his seat of power.

Very soon, only the Russian tricolor remained. And indeed, it became easier to breathe. But what was really concealed beneath that Russian tricolor, under which our grandfathers had fought and died?

Alas, this flag had absorbed all the achievements of the “Great October Revolution,” as it was called at the time. Our hopes, cherished for so many years, for the restoration of the true Russia were not fulfilled, and this became evident very quickly.

Yes, some felt nostalgia for the Russia of the past. This was characteristic of those who looked upon the White Emigration with adoring eyes, but this enthusiasm quickly faded. Alongside them were those who looked with even greater affection and hope toward America and its famous but vulgar way of life. These people emigrated abroad in successive waves, where they now constitute the “Russian emigration,” which has little in common with our own.

We shall not even speak of those who reminisce about the “good old Soviet days” and hope for their return, although such people are by no means few, and their numbers are growing with each passing day. One simply does not know what to think of them or what to say. It is beyond all imagination.

No, let us speak here of those who are unfamiliar with the epistles of the Holy Apostle Paul, who asked: “And what communion hath light with darkness?” — and who dream of uniting the irreconcilable, things that are fundamentally impossible to unite.

These are the people who took the first commendable step toward the truth, but then, frightened by their own boldness, immediately began mixing truth with falsehood. These are the people who stubbornly keep repeating that the USSR is the very same Russia, its natural continuation. “After all, this is our common history,” they say. One must be spiritually ill to assert such absurdity! One might ask: what does Russia have in common with anti-Russia, which even erased the very glorious and cherished name of Russia, replacing it with a monstrous four-letter acronym?! The Russian people disappeared—they were replaced by the Soviet people. Those who seized power in Russia themselves proudly declared: Russia is not the USSR. And they were absolutely right. How, then, can anyone today speak of Russia and anti-Russia as a single whole?

And yet, what do we observe today with sorrow?

In official symbolism, particularly military symbolism, this is immediately apparent. Take an officer’s peaked cap: on its upper part there is a more or less stylized double-headed eagle, and below it a cockade bearing a five-pointed star. True, the star is not red but golden, yet it is still a star—intended to demonstrate continuity and kinship! As the saying goes, whence it all began…

At today’s parades, one can see soldiers marching in step, some carrying the Red Banner, others the St. Andrew’s Flag. The “Defender of the Fatherland Day” is also solemnly celebrated on February 23. Defending one’s homeland, one’s fatherland, is a most noble undertaking, and it could serve as the impetus for a new life that has broken with the Soviet-Bolshevik past.

But the question arises: why was February 23 specifically chosen?

It turns out that this is the date on which the anniversary of the founding of the Red Army, created by Trotsky in his day, was formerly celebrated! Therein lies the rub! This is how a noble undertaking is transformed into something indescribably vulgar. This is the source of the continuity in the understanding of the defense of the Fatherland among those who wield power in the Russian Federation.

To combine, to merge into a single whole, the defense of the homeland and the celebration of that which made it possible to establish the bloodthirsty Bolshevik regime, which drowned tens of millions of its own children in blood! One could cite such repulsive absurdities endlessly, and they all come down to a single concept—the reconciliation of the Reds and the Whites. To this end, in 1994, a grotesque “Day of Accord and Reconciliation” was even proclaimed, which, strangely enough, was celebrated on November 7…

All these attempts are nothing other than a slap in the face of Russia. For true members of the Russian Church Abroad, the so-called reunification of the breakaway part of ROCOR with the Moscow Patriarchate was, and remains, just such a slap in the face.

So what plunged us into these gloomy reflections and prompted us to write this article?

For some time now, we have been receiving links from a certain Vladimir Nikolaev, unknown to us, containing his impressions of a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. His account is interesting and profound; it is clear that he is a man of convictions, kindred to us in spirit. Vladimir Nikolaev publishes his Pilgrim’s Diary on the popular website Russian People’s Line, widely known by its English name, Ruskline.ru. This portal proudly displays as its most noble motto: “Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality,” adhering to Orthodox-patriotic and conservative views. Among its contributors are such authors as Archpriest Alexander Shargunov, Vladimir Nikolaevich Krupin, who did so much as editor-in-chief of the journal Moscow and other publications during the fateful 1990s, and others.

But let us return to Vladimir Nikolaev. In the fifth part of his Diary, entitled “Jerusalem Notes,” we find confirmation of our suspicions and of the reproaches we directed at those who, in the early 2000s, were preparing to betray the Russian Church Abroad. We also learn of a fact that has shocked us.

We remember well how, in the old days, every kopeck was carefully saved on the Mount of Olives and throughout the properties of the Church Abroad—unlike today! According to Vladimir Nikolaev, extensive restoration work is being carried out on the Mount of Olives, something that in the past could only have been dreamed of. Money, it seems, is now pouring in (from an obvious source), for in August 2027, solemn receptions are to be held for distinguished guests from Moscow and the Church Abroad on the occasion of the forthcoming 180th anniversary of the founding of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem. But, as everyone knows, nothing comes free. Money is money, and that is not even the most important thing. What is important and inevitable is that whoever pays is the master—or, as the saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune. And here we come to the shocking fact mentioned above.

From September 18 to 20 of this year, elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation were held. And here we learn from Vladimir Nikolaev’s account that, in connection with the elections, the recently appointed Abbess Judith announced that … “an electoral commission from the Russian Embassy in the State of Israel will be operating at the monastery for the elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation. The nuns and pilgrims of the monastery who are citizens of the Russian Federation have been instructed to come to the abbess’s quarters with their international passports in order to cast their votes”!

This is what one might call the symphony of Church and State in all its glory! One might ask: could this event not have been held in the embassy building? Is that not, among other things, what an embassy is for? How far our former brethren of ROCOR-MP have fallen! One can easily imagine what the nuns of the old school who had labored in asceticism in this holy monastery must have thought and felt. And just think—could such an outrage have taken place during the abbacy of Mother Juliana, our heroine and confessor revered throughout the Russian Church Abroad, who was expelled from the Holy Land for her steadfastness in the truth through the machinations of the notorious Metropolitan Mark Arndt … At the time, we were told that we were making unfounded accusations of evil intentions, that there would be no change in the Church’s course. Only the joy of “reunification” was to be expected. Let everyone judge for themselves.

But there is more to come, and this (and only this) upset our pilgrim Nikolaev, and rightly so. Here is how he describes coming to vote with his international passport: “When my turn came, I received a ballot paper, went into the private room (one of the rooms in the abbess’s quarters), placed the ballot on the table, looked at all the political parties, headed by United Russia, and … drew a large cross across the entire ballot, crossing it out completely. On the eve of the elections, our president had called upon us to come and fulfill our civic duty. Well, I fulfilled mine, and abroad at that—not one of these parties, headed by United Russia, has my confidence!”

Such was his response to the president’s appeal, and Nikolaev, as was his established custom, sent his account to the Russian People’s Line. But here he encountered an unpleasant surprise, which quite rightly infuriated him.

“Editor Mikhailova threw out an entire paragraph about the elections from my notes, falsifying its contents,” writes Nikolaev with understandable indignation. Let us therefore reproduce the text published by Ruskline.ru, then compare it with the original, and we shall see that the matter goes beyond merely omitting a paragraph: “When my turn came, I filled out an application, and the members of the electoral commission recorded the details of my international passport. I received a ballot paper from them and went to fill it out in secret in a separate room in the abbess’s quarters. For the first time in my life, I voted abroad. I had indeed fulfilled my conscientious, yes, precisely conscientious, civic duty! Just as President Putin had urged us to do the day before! And glory be to God! Amen.”

Judging by this fraudulent example, Ruskline.ru could add “Lack of Principles” to its motto, “Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality,” since the text was not merely shortened or slightly edited, as is within the rights of any editorial board, but completely distorted. And not merely distorted, but deliberately distorted beyond recognition.

How are we to understand such a glaring contradiction: on the one hand, proclaiming a certain truth, and on the other, resorting to falsehood or professing what are essentially inhuman values? This is precisely the poison of Sovietism that we denounce. Let us explain this concretely, using a real-life example.

Anatoly Dmitrievich Stepanov is the editor-in-chief of Russian People’s Line, a historian, chairman of the Russian Assembly, and a member of the Writers’ Union of Russia. An undoubtedly commendable man, but … There is a significant “but.”

Let us quote a few gems from Stepanov, particularly when he openly presents himself as an Orthodox Christian: “It is time to stop dreaming about demolishing Lenin’s Mausoleum (with a capital letter! — G.I.-T.). It is time to stop demonizing the name of Joseph Stalin, who is revered in these countries. In general, it is time to put an end to Orthodox anti-Sovietism, which is already becoming an act of sabotage against Russia.” Astonishing, is it not, coming from the editor of an almost monarchist, right-wing portal?

Here Stepanov was speaking out against a broadcast on Radio Radonezh, accusing the station of wanting to “become a foreign agent.” In another article, bearing the unambiguous title “Anti-Stalinists Are Enemies of the Church,” he writes explicitly about “a certain portion of Orthodox priests and Orthodox publicists. Most of them, I hope, became anti-Stalinists because of their poor knowledge of history and inability to think independently.” One hardly knows whether to laugh or cry. Thank God, Stepanov intends to devote himself actively to reeducating them …

In yet another article, he touches upon a subject close to our hearts. As we recall, in June of this year, a “Statement of the Synod of Bishops Concerning the Return of Twentieth-Century Ideological Approaches in Russia” was published, to which we devoted an article entitled “Have They Come to Their Senses? No—They Have Acted Deceitfully.” Stepanov, utterly bewildered, likewise launched into a scathing article entitled “The ROCOR Synod Makes the Same Mistake Again,” in which, far from rejoicing at the apparent awakening of his brethren in the Church Abroad, he expresses bewilderment and harshly criticizes them for daring to oppose the course pursued by the authorities. The poverty of his arguments makes it hardly worthwhile to spend any more time analyzing his article. Thus, the Synod’s Statement, outwardly courageous but in reality deceitful, came under criticism from two sides, albeit for opposite reasons. Let us merely note that, since then, all has been quiet among the pseudo-members of the Church Abroad. The criticisms that briefly surfaced immediately died down.

The example of Stepanov says it all. A veritable watermelon: green on the outside (or, for our purposes, let us say white), but red on the inside. On the one hand, Stepanov is the editor-in-chief of a website regarded by many as the best White Russian website in present-day Russia, while at the same time he is an ardent Stalinist and an opponent of removing Lenin from the Mausoleum. Stepanov is by no means unique. A great many such Stepanovs, combining good and evil, mixing red and white, can be found among people who, at first glance, appear respectable.

Is it conceivable to reconcile such diametrically opposed approaches and convictions? This is precisely that most pernicious poison of Sovietism that seeps into the minds and consciences of seemingly the finest people, and which we seek to expose. This is the terrible inner division of the ordinary post-Soviet citizen, who has fallen victim to the Bolshevik experiment of creating a new man—Homo Sovieticus—and a new Soviet society, the fruits of which we continue to reap despite all the supposed “collapses” of the Soviet Union.

But God is merciful: a few individuals have survived unscathed, and everyone has the opportunity to free himself from the inner leaven of Sovietism. This is possible only through a complete rejection of everything Soviet and all its tares, and the categorical repudiation of any attempts to build bridges between Russia, Russianness, and Sovietism. Only in this way can one be cured of this spiritual malady, which afflicts so many minds and consciences. For “And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?”

 

Russian source: https://karlovtchanin.eu/index.php/belaiaideia/1243-yad-sovetchiny-protodiakon-german-ivanov-trinadtsatyj