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

Archimandrite Constantine (Zaitsev): “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Russian source: Православная Русь, No. 16, 1955.

 

 

“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before” (Matt. 24:23–25).

These words of the Saviour come to mind when one reflects on what is happening in the world today.

We remember the satanic snarl of Bolshevism as it first rose to power: “We have overthrown the Tsar; we shall overthrow God”—that was its openly proclaimed slogan. And the Bolsheviks openly put it into practice, provoking a wave of courageous confession of the faith that flooded our homeland with Light. Darkness, while outwardly taking possession of Russia, was visibly put to shame, revealing its infernal nature: the abomination of desolation only served to throw into sharper relief the holiness of the place where it had enthroned itself. And this abomination was visibly stamped, for all to see, even on the faces of those who, even then, went forth from within the Church to embrace the Revolution. Belial stood opposed to Christ in an openly demonic guise. The choice was easy to make.

True, even then, preparations were already being made and the foundations laid for the substitution that was being planned. The myth of a bright “February,” overthrown by a dark “October,” poisoned the minds of the intelligentsia, while also encouraging the outside world to become convinced that the Revolution had merely been distorted by the Bolsheviks in its essentially benevolent character, but ought nevertheless to be welcomed as the overthrow of “Tsarism.” The consciousness of the Church was darkened by the temptation of “Renovationism,” whose roots reached into the very depths of the Russian soul, captivated by the intellectual and aesthetic riches of the West. The superficial enlightenment propagated by the Populists displaced the age-old consciousness of the Church in the souls of ordinary people, making the Russian people susceptible to evil as soon as it began to assume the appearance of good.

There were already people who had a plan for what they intended to build.

One educator, a steadfast fighter for Truth, told me how, at the very beginning of the Bolshevik anti-Church campaign, a former friend of his, a convinced Communist, had said to him as they parted ways in life: “These persecutions are only the beginning. Just wait until we enter the altar and preach from the ambo! How will you be able to resist us then?”

And now we have lived to see that time.

Do we know how to resist it?

As far as the outside world is concerned, we can answer with complete certainty: NO!

Let us accept the miracle of Fatima, taking its original message literally. What did it proclaim to the Latin world? Russia has renounced Christ—be vigilant! If she does not repent, the world will come to an end! But how did the Catholic world receive this heavenly warning? Not as a call to struggle against the evil of Bolshevism for the sake of restoring Historical Russia, which had been led astray and overthrown by the Bolsheviks, and which was returning to Christ, but as a blessing from above to tolerate Bolshevism in the hope that Russia, devastated by it, would submit to the Papal See.

Let us accept the ecumenical fervor of Protestantism. In the face of Bolshevism, which had seized control of Russia and was preparing to extend its dominion over the rest of the world, to what should the Christian world, uniting around “Christ the Hope,” have called people, if not to struggle against it as a spiritual evil—in alliance with those Christians who were fighting this evil within Russia itself? Yet what do we see? Toleration of Bolshevism, which has penetrated into the very heart of Ecumenism.

Some may object, citing the condemnations of Bolshevism issued by both Catholics and Ecumenists, which, though cautious, are nevertheless sometimes quite unequivocal. But it was precisely so that such condemnations could be made without difficulty, providing a respectable façade to conceal this toleration, that the Bolsheviks entered the Church and now speak from its ambos. For the Latin world, the Moscow Patriarchate, in its agreement with the Soviets, represents a direct continuation of the Russian tradition of the Third Rome: the centuries-old task of the “conversion” of Russia remains—and what could prevent the establishment of a concordat with the Bolsheviks? Nothing has changed compared with the past! For the Ecumenical world, the true face of Bolshevism is concealed beneath the outward splendour of the Moscow Patriarchate—and a hand is extended to it, regardless of who extends a hand in return from behind the curtain that Ecumenism chooses to ignore: whether they are avowed servants of Bolshevism or, at best, its prisoners, condemned to silence and released on the security of their flocks.

The Orthodox world, too, has been led astray to a considerable extent. The ordinary Orthodox believer—whether Syrian or Galician, Greek or Carpatho-Russian: is it easy for him to resist the temptation presented by the image of Russia, even Soviet Russia, which from afar has merged with the image of the Patriarch of All Russia? Even in the eyes of the hierarchy, the Patriarch presents a double image: no little courage is needed to renounce him—and do even those who are capable of seeing reality as it truly is possess such courage? And what of our Russian diaspora? It, too, has by no means entirely succeeded in resisting this temptation, which is growing in strength and spreading before our very eyes.

Speaking of the most recent developments, this temptation exerts a particularly powerful influence in two forms.

One temptation is an obsession with optimism regarding the Soviet evil that has now taken hold of the world: this optimism is contagious. It is useful to recall that if Bolshevism rules Russia, it is not because it is strong, but because no force, even a relatively small one, can be found to crush it at those moments when it is weak. Would anyone venture to say that Bolshevism was a “power” when it was seizing control of Russia? Why, if the cadets’ “uprising” in Moscow had been supported by a few battalions of “real” troops, even if composed entirely of officers, would the Bolsheviks have been able to hold out? Hardly anyone who was in Moscow at the time would dispute this. Was it not the passive toleration of Bolshevism by the masses that brought down the White Movement? Was it not the “bribe” of the New Economic Policy (NEP) that saved the Bolsheviks from collapse, of which the Kronstadt Uprising had been a warning sign? Was it not the “bribe” of “patriotism” that saved Stalin from the Germans? Soviet power has more than once stood, quite literally, on the brink of destruction—and each time it was saved by complacent optimism. And now this same attitude is spreading throughout the world. The latest “bribe” is “Soviet church life.”

Not everyone, however, even needs it. Two reports appeared in the press at the same time. One was an account by an American officer who had been taken prisoner, describing the tortures he had endured (those of which he could speak publicly, since there were others too terrible even to utter!), which had forced him to sign a “confession.” The other was a report of a carefree picnic, complete with all manner of entertainment, with which the Soviet executioners had treated diplomats and correspondents in Moscow. Here, no “stage scenery” was needed at all, just as none had been needed in Geneva. And one can easily imagine the contempt with which the Bolsheviks speak among themselves of the “bourgeois world,” whose “finest” representatives are ready to take the bait of friendly hospitality—hospitality that is even prepared to open prison doors to curious guests, so that the most hidden aspects of life under Soviet rule might not remain concealed from them...

Not in such a crude form, of course, but the temptation of obsessive optimism is also spreading among Russians, as has happened more than once before in various parts of the Russian diaspora: weak souls are carried away by blind faith in the transformation of Soviet power and are ready to examine through a magnifying glass every fact that lends support to this belief.

And it is precisely here that another modern temptation comes to their aid—“Soviet church life.”

It sometimes assumes subtle forms. S. Bolshakov, well known to our readers, enthusiastically describes in his latest bulletin a visit he made in Finland to an elder living among the former monks of Valaam, who, in his spiritual stature, is equal to the desert ascetics of the first centuries of Christianity: pilgrims are already coming to him from all corners of the world. And the one who brought him to public attention was... Metropolitan Nikolai of Krutitsy, who, while visiting the Valaam monks, advised them not to keep such a treasure hidden. Soviet church life has also laid claim to the “Noetic Prayer”—it already has its own authorities and its own interpreters of their teachings. At present, a Soviet booklet entitled The Kazan Icon of the Mother of God is being widely distributed from Paris, with a recommendation to pray for the victory of the “Orthodox”—those united around the Patriarch. This is the very Patriarch who now attends receptions given by Soviet officials for important guests and himself accompanies those officials on visits to the guests’ homes...

And at the same time, reports are being widely circulated of a religious revival sweeping across Russia, one which Soviet power is no longer capable of suppressing and to which it is obliged to give way, albeit reluctantly and with resistance. And amid this religious revival, Patriarch Alexy and Metropolitan Nikolai of Krutitsy, with their blasphemous memorial services for Stalin, their religious congresses held beneath his portrait, and their worldwide propaganda for Soviet “peace,” which earns them Soviet decorations and diamond-studded panagias to adorn their sumptuous cassocks, fade into insignificance as mere trifling details.

A religious revival! It is also being observed throughout the world, but it is precisely here that we must pay the utmost attention to the words of the Saviour quoted above. The world's preparation for the coming of Antichrist will have a religious character! “In the very disposition of the human spirit,” says Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, “there arises a demand for Antichrist, an invitation to him, a sympathy for him, just as in a state of intense pain there arises a craving for a deadly drink. The invitation is issued! A voice of summons resounds throughout human society, expressing an urgent need for a genius of geniuses who would raise material development and prosperity to the highest degree and establish on earth such well-being that paradise and heaven would become superfluous to man.” The fact that the name of Christ is associated with such aspirations should not mislead us: for, as we have repeatedly pointed out, the very prefix “anti-” has a twofold meaning in the word “Antichrist”: not only “against,” as was the case during the first period of Soviet rule, but also “in place of,” as Soviet rule is now demonstrating...

Is there a genuine religious revival in Soviet Russia? We shall not deny it—we are prepared to hope that this is so. But we shall certainly not be persuaded of its existence by reports circulated by ignorant foreigners to whom the Soviets show Russia; rather, such reports should put us on our guard and make us distrustful. One thing we can state with complete certainty: if “there” this religious revival can, to some extent, find expression in the population’s participation in church life controlled and even organized by the Soviets—owing to the simplicity of the people, their ignorance, and necessity—then “here,” where there is no room for such “simplicity,” “ignorance,” or “necessity,” when the true nature of the Soviet Patriarchate is not spoken of directly and openly, and the whole picture of “Soviet church life” is bathed in a favourable light, this already reveals the influence of the spirit of Antichrist. Nor does he spare even the “elect,” according to the words of the Saviour.

The Soviet regime is undergoing a severe crisis—perhaps even the slightest push would now suffice to send it tumbling. If the authenticity of the religious revival in Russia remains open to question, there can be no doubt whatsoever that Communism, as an ideological movement, has completely exhausted itself.

Two solitary, elderly figures loom on the boundless “free” horizon: Adenauer in Germany and Syngman Rhee in Korea. One is preparing weapons against the Bolsheviks, while the other already holds them in his hands, and they are already beginning to fire of their own accord. The rest of the world may harbour hidden reserves of strength—we are prepared to believe this—but what it visibly displays is weakness, cowardice, and betrayal.

The direction taken by political forces does not depend on us. But spiritual strength exists in its own right, and it is our duty to manifest it—both before men and before God.

Let the world visibly prepare for the coming of Antichrist. We do not know what is happening invisibly, in the hidden depths of human hearts—particularly and above all in our homeland. If Russia has indeed matured, through the grievous trials of Soviet rule, in her FAITHFULNESS TO CHRIST, she will be restored to the world, and the world will witness a new era of historical life, however near Antichrist may now seem. But we do not live in hiding places or catacombs—freedom is our lot. And to be, to remain, and to show ourselves faithful servants of Christ, exposing the servants of Antichrist, is our direct and inalienable duty.

Advice from St. Theophan the Recluse: Is It Permissible to Commemorate “Incorrigible Sinners”?

Priest Pavel Serzhantov | January 23, 2025

 

 

As a priest, this is not the first time I have encountered an astonishing phenomenon. For example, a woman who has worked at the church for many years approaches me with a question:

“May I submit commemoration slips for the repose of my father? I was told very emphatically that, since my father drank and died without repentance, no commemoration slips whatsoever may be submitted for him.”

For years, she had been submitting commemoration slips in the hope that this was a beneficial intercession by the Church for her unfortunate father, that intercession at the Liturgy meant more than her prayers at home for her parent… And now someone had shaken her confidence with an “irrefutable” argument:

“Your father lived in drunkenness. That was his choice. He never turned to God before his death and did not receive the Church’s ministrations before his repose. Therefore, you have no right to include his name on a commemoration slip. We should not pretend that he was a churchgoing person.”

Logical? Logical… but there is something flawed in this reasoning.

There is a certain logic and lawfulness here, but no love. There is justice, but a lack of understanding that God is above justice. And so we end up with a kind of flawed reasoning. Christianity is the religion of love. If love is lacking in Christian reasoning, that is a serious problem. This needs to be examined. After all, the Pharisees had similar reasoning: strict and firmly held notions of the Law of God, but a limited understanding of God’s mercy. The Apostle Paul, who himself came from a Pharisaic background, struggled against this ancient failing: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (Rom. 10:4–6).

If we believe in Christ, then we recognize that legalism does not make a person righteous. Only the love of Christ gives every sinner hope for the forgiveness of all sins. And this love reasons differently, not in a legalistic manner. I remember how elderly priests used to instruct us:

“It is better to show mercy and be mistaken than to fail to show mercy and be mistaken.”

These words were once spoken by Archpriest Valentin Radugin, [1] but he was not the only one who followed such a principle in life. Love and mercy are above legalism. Even in Old Testament times, this understanding of God and His people was known. That is why Christ says to those who adhere strictly to the Law: “Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13).

Where are we to learn this? In the Book of the Prophet Hosea, God says: “For I desired mercy (חֶסֶד), and not sacrifice” (Hos. 6:6). Biblical scholars in various countries have discussed at length how difficult it is to translate the word חֶסֶד (hesed). Translating it into Russian is not particularly difficult, unlike translating it into certain other languages. The Russian concept of “love” has the meanings of “mercy” and “compassion” firmly embedded in it. This is how peasants understood love: “If someone has compassion for you, it means he loves you.” The Lord desires mercy-compassion-love toward our neighbor, not sacrifice—that is, merely fulfilling a clearly defined set of obligations based on justice toward God and our neighbor. According to the legalists of all nations and all ages, “The law is harsh, but it is the law” (Dura lex, sed lex). But priests who served during the painful years of persecution knew something different from their own experience: we must not be heartless legalists; we should not impose the strictest demands on parishioners and occasional visitors to the church and, if they fail to meet those demands, drive them out of the church without mercy.

…Let me also cite an authoritative and convincing statement. St. Theophan the Recluse writes to Archimandrite Macarius (Sushkin):

“You ask about commemorating sinners who remain in sin and do not abandon it. I think there is no harm in commemorating them, and you should do so without the slightest hesitation. The Lord came to save not the righteous, but sinners. And prayer to Him on their behalf is pleasing to Him. Prayer… also draws the very person for whom prayers are offered toward prayer and repentance, acting upon the soul through the sympathy between souls.” [2]

Someone might object: “Your reference is not relevant here, because St. Theophan is speaking not about the dead, but about the living.” I agree, but let us consider carefully the reasoning behind his spiritual counsel. The Saint writes about those who live in sin and do not abandon it. By sin, he clearly means not some minor failing in the spiritual life, but a sin systematically repeated and firmly entrenched in a person’s way of life—that is, a grave sin. To put it plainly, mortal sins fall into this category. Such a person is alive in body, but his soul is already dead, because his spiritual life has been destroyed by sin. From a worldly perspective, he is a living person. From a spiritual perspective, he is dead. It was about such people that the Saviour spoke those fearful words: “Let the dead bury their dead” (Luke 9:60). Thus, it turns out that there are people who, though alive, are as good as dead. Therefore, the words of St. Theophan concerning commemoration for the health of the living could also be applied to commemoration for the repose of the departed.

What does the Saint write? There is no harm in commemorating sinners who have not abandoned their sins. This is his firm conviction, indeed his advice (“do so without the slightest hesitation”), and not merely the Saint’s private opinion. But how can this be? After all, it would seem dangerous for a pious person to associate closely with sinners. The Pharisees reproached Christ because He did not shun sinners who had defiled themselves with grave sins. Yet He came to save not the self-righteous “righteous,” but sinners. The legalists of old sincerely regarded themselves as righteous men (tzaddikim) and sages (hakhamim). They were not ashamed to call themselves by these titles and gladly accepted them from others. All this sprang from vainglory. The subtle and grave passion of vainglory drives a person to perform acts of piety and adopt an “especially pious” way of life. The thought of his own piety delights the Pharisee’s heart. All that remains for the Pharisee is to add acts of ostentatious piety to this self-satisfaction, and he can enjoy a daily dose of sweet flattery from those who notice his devoutness and praise him for it.

Yes, intercessory prayer is pleasing to the Lord—not only prayer for those who are active members of the Church, but also for hardened sinners. Such is the conviction of St. Theophan. And the Saint believes that such prayer will not bring misfortune upon the person offering it. Incidentally, I have heard it said many times that it is dangerous to pray for an unrepentant sinner—one may get into trouble, and demons may attack. Moreover, this was presented as spiritual discernment based on experience, rather than mere speculation. I believe that one can indeed get into trouble—but only if one offers intercessory prayer for a sinner with a sense of spiritual superiority over him: “I am praying him into salvation.” Sometimes there is even an underlying conviction: “I have already prayed myself into salvation, and now I am praying my father into salvation.” In other words, once again, it is vainglory and conceit that bring misfortune and expose a person to danger, not intercessory prayer itself.

We have now come to the mysterious words of St. Theophan. He says at the end:

“Prayer… also draws the very person for whom prayers are offered toward prayer and repentance, acting upon the soul through the sympathy between souls.”

Only the general meaning of these words is perfectly clear: prayer draws down God’s mercy upon the sinner and upon the person praying for him. Through such prayer and God’s mercy, the sinner may come to repentance and begin to pray. Apparently, the person about whom Fr. Macarius wrote to St. Theophan had ceased praying to God and was living in sin without repentance. What is mysterious here is the expression “sympathy between souls.” What does it mean? Apparently, it refers to some immaterial connection between one person and another: what one person experiences and feels is, to some extent, communicated to the other. As a result, even the obstinate sinner, in time, begins to experience and feel an attraction toward prayer and repentance.

In the history of the Church, there are known examples of such intercessory prayer rising to extraordinary heights of boldness before God, while remaining humble. One striking example was given by Venerable Silouan the Athonite. He lived at a time when persecutions of the Russian Church had already begun, and some of his fellow Athonite monks refused to commemorate the godless persecutors in their prayers. During those years, Elder Silouan would recount an example from the lives of the saints:

“Venerable Paisios the Great prayed for his disciple, who had denied Christ and married a Jewish woman, asking the Lord to forgive him. And the Lord was so pleased with this prayer that He Himself wished to console His servant, and appeared to him and said: ‘Paisios, why do you pray for one who has denied Me?’ But Paisios replied: ‘Lord, Thou art merciful; forgive him.’ Then the Lord said: ‘O Paisios, thou hast become like Me in thy love.’ So pleasing to the Lord is prayer for one's enemies.”

Wondrous and glorious is our Lord Jesus Christ!

Intercessory prayer is needed by those who “live ungodly lives,” in sin—and members of the Church have always prayed and continue to pray for them. We ourselves also need intercessory prayer: in the future, someone will commemorate us without attempting to anticipate God's judgment or condemning us to eternal torments. In our present, everyday life, intercessory prayer raises the Christian's soul step by step in love for God and neighbor. Those who understand this look for opportunities, or ways, to offer prayer for a sinner and to persevere in interceding for him. Those who do not understand it look for reasons to refrain from such prayer. Should we refrain?

 

NOTES

1. See the article about Archpriest Valentin Radugin published on our website: https://pravoslavie.ru/121201.html

2. Archimandrite Macarius was the abbot of the Russian Monastery of St. Panteleimon on Mount Athos. St. Theophan’s letter to him is dated August 20, 1888. It was first published two years ago, and the original letter is preserved in the archives of the Russian Monastery of St. Panteleimon on Mount Athos. See: Chronicle of the Life and Writings of St. Theophan, Recluse of Vysha, 1815–1894, in 6 volumes, Vol. V: 1879–1888. Moscow: Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2022, pp. 883–884.

 

Original Russian source: https://pravoslavie.ru/166618.html

Greek translation: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/10/blog-post_17.html

Putin’s Ideology

Vladimir Moss | November 23 / December 6, 2022

 

 

Putin has no ideology. He is a thief, a bandit, a warlord, a murderer, a billionaire Mafioso “boss of bosses”, and such people do not have ideologies in the normal sense. If they have one, it is: “Might is right”, or “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die”. However, Putin is also the head of a very important and powerful state (and not only because of its nuclear weapons); and almost all heads of state have ideologies, if only as ways of uniting and motivating their peoples behind them. So Putin pretends to have an ideology. If someone will object that Putin truly has an ideology and is sincere in holding it, I shall not dispute that here. My main purpose in this article is not to delve into the sincerity or otherwise of his professed beliefs, but to inquire what those beliefs would appear to be, whether sincerely held or not.

Putin was originally a communist, and unlike, for example, Boris Yeltsin, he never formally renounced communism. He says he threw his party card into the top drawer of his desk, and left it there, implying a kind of indifference to, but not outright rejection of, the party. As we shall see, he still holds to certain communist beliefs, but claims they are compatible with Christianity (which they are not). He is loyal to historic Communist Russia, especially the period of Stalin’s wartime rule, and considers that in spite of certain “mistakes” in its governance the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the twentieth century.

In the 1990s Putin had the opportunity to take part in certain shady capitalist deals, and acquired a taste for a kind of capitalism, “anarcho-capitalism”, as it has been called. Indeed, surprising as it may seem, capitalism is probably the most sincerely held part of his belief structure. The reason is simple: it pays. And for Putin and his band of thieves, that is absolutely the first priority. That is why among Putin’s highest priorities is Russia’s unfettered access to world markets and all the mechanisms of the global capitalist system.

However, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and the West’s exceptionally strong sanctions in reply, has probably destroyed his chances of being a “normal” capitalist country – at least, in the foreseeable future. Fortunately for him (but not for anybody else), he still has vast mineral resources. So as long as he controls those gas and oil reserves, he is unlikely to become a complete pauper.

Is Putin a democrat? He certainly pretends to be; and he holds elections that have deceived enough people into thinking that he really cares that the will of the people should prevail. But he claims that his system is not democracy tout court, but “sovereign democracy” – a significant difference which means he is in favour of democracy so long as it produces only one consistent winner – himself. He, rather than the people, is the sovereign. He manipulates elections and electoral processes so as to stack the odds against all but one candidate. Dangerously popular candidates such as Nemtsov or Navalny he either kills or poisons or imprisons. As for the constitution, he feels free to manipulate it so as to keep him or his stooge, Medvedev, in the presidency. In 2020 he claimed a democratic mandate for changing the constitution to enable his to remain president indefinitely; but he achieved that by mixing up the issue of the presidency with other issues, such as gay marriage, where he could be more sure that the people would agree with him.

“Sovereign democracy” also means that he claims to be the real sovereign of the whole territory of the former Soviet Union, of the “Russian world”, including its non-Russian parts. Hence his persistent attempts to distort the Ukrainian elections, resorting to force in the early 2000s when they came up with the wrong winner. In the case of Crimea, he invaded first, and then staged an election. In the case of Georgia, he simply invaded. In 2020 he put forward a new constitution for voting in a referendum. It more or less guaranteed that he could remain President for life in Russia as his “eternal friend” President Xi of China is.

With regard to liberalism, the issue is clearer: Putin openly despises liberalism and human rights. He is profoundly opposed to free speech. And although he has not destroyed it altogether, his control of the media (apart from the internet) is more or less complete.

Is he a nationalist? He certainly claims to be, although in a multi-national country like Russia he has to be careful with his language about other nationalities. He certainly delights in Russian successes, whether in sport or culture or science or on the battlefield. He is not a racist in the manner of Hitler, and displays no obvious anti-semitism; but the similarities between his and Hitler’s regime are numerous; hence his nickname “Putler”.

Probably the most difficult – but potentially most rewarding – juggling-act that Putin is trying to pull off is to be the successor not only of the Russian democrats of the 1990s, and of the Soviet communists of the period 1917-91, but also of the pre-revolutionary Orthodox Russian tsars. Of course, this is an impossible feat; the ideological contradictions between the three are too great. But this does not stop Putin from trying in this way to be the heir of “all the Russias”, understood temporally as well as spatially.

What attracts Putin to Orthodox tsarism is its authoritarianism, its rejection of the concept of human rights (as opposed to the values of the Gospel) and its appeal to the growing number of Russian Orthodox patriots. There are other, less obvious, but not inconsiderable benefits. Thus Putin, who loves nothing better than to squeeze his oldest and poorest subjects ever more tightly while indulging in a billionaire’s lifestyle, can claim to be following the teaching and example of his fellow-KGB Agent, the Moscow Patriarch Cyril Gundiaev, who urges his mainly poor Orthodox parishioners not to aim for riches and be content with their lot, in accordance with the Gospel, while indulging in very conspicuous consumption himself.

Putin has played the part of an Orthodox Christian in general well. He claims to have been baptized in his childhood, and dutifully goes to church on major feasts, putting out candles and crossing himself. He even claims to have an Orthodox spiritual father – the ambitious and talented Metropolitan Tikhon (Shevkhunov) of Pskov. 

But there are flaws in Putin’s performance in relation to Orthodoxy and the Orthodox autocracy, some of them important. The rest of this article is devoted to an analysis of them…

First of all, there is Putin’s religious ecumenism. The Russian Federation has four official religions. Among them, Orthodoxy is clearly the most favoured, but not in the sense confessed by the tsars, that is, as the one true faith. Indeed, Putin goes out of his way, both at home and abroad, to show his great respect for other religions, especially Islam and Judaism. While hotly defending Russia and Russia’s political system against all rivals, he does not do the same in regard to Russia’s traditional religion, Orthodox Christianity.

Of course, in this respect he is following the consistent practice of all the political and ecclesiastical leaders of Russia since the 1960s, including that of Patriarch Cyril. However, ecumenism is a pre-eminently western doctrine, which since the early twentieth century has been promoted especially by the Anglo-Saxon nations as part of their liberal programme of human rights. It was therefore rejected as a form of western capitalist propaganda by Stalin, who in 1948 organized a Pan-Orthodox Conference in Moscow to counter and condemn the first General Assembly of the World Council of Churches that was taking place at the same time in Amsterdam. In 1961 the KGB changed course, and sent KGB Major-General Nikodem Rotov, Metropolitan of Leningrad (Agent “Sviatoslav”), who also happened to be a secret Catholic bishop, to the General Assembly of the WCC in New Delhi to spy on western churchmen, and to propagate the Soviet view of the world. (Nikodem was accompanied by Metropolitan Anthony [Bloom] of Sourozh, based in London, who was suspected by many of working simultaneously for the KGB and MI5.) Both patriarchs of the post-Soviet period, Alexis II (Agent “Drozdov”) and the present Cyril (Agent “Mikhailov), were disciples of Nikodem, and continued his ecumenist policies. In 2016 Cyril even had a “summit” with Castro and Pope Francis I in Havana…

But Putin is, of course, anti-western

Putin’s regime claims to be the successor not only of the RSFSR and the USSR but also of the pre-revolutionary Russian Orthodox Empire. It may be described as neo-Soviet and neo-Fascist, without the apparatus of conventional Marxism but with “Communist Christianity”, drawing support from a heady mixture of conflicting constituencies: nationalists and democrats and monarchists, Orthodox Christians and pagan mystics and dyed-in-the-wool atheists, westerners and capitalists, mafiosi bandits and Slavophile patriots. Putin aims to find a place in his all-embracing heart for all the Russias of the last century – and all its faiths going back to the tenth century.

One of those faiths is communism, and Putin has clearly not renounced that. As he said in 2016 to the Pan-Russian People’s Front: “You know that like millions of Soviet citizens – over 20 million – I used to be a member of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union), and not just a regular member: for almost 20 years I worked for the organization called the Committee for State Security of the Soviet Union [KGB]. This organization derives from the Cheka [Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage], which was then called the armed unit of the Party. If for some reason a person left the Communist Party, they were immediately fired from the KGB. I did not join the party simply because I had to, though I cannot say I was such a dedicated communist, but I treated this with great care. As opposed to numerous party functionaries, I was not one of them; I was a rank-and-file member. As opposed to many functionaries, I did not trash my membership card, I did not burn it. I would not want to criticize anyone now – people had different motives and this is their own business. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union fell apart; my membership card is still out there somewhere.

“I have always liked communist and socialist ideas. If we consider the Code of the Builder of Communism that was widely published in the Soviet Union, it strongly resembles the Bible. This is not a joke; it was actually an excerpt from the Bible. It spoke of good things: equality, fraternity, happiness. However, the practical implementation of these ideals in this country had little in common with what the utopian socialists Saint-Simon or Owen spoke about. This country had little resemblance to their City of the Sun.”

Andrei Melnikov writes: “Vladimir Putin’s words to the effect that the communist ideology is ‘very close’ to Christianity, were uttered in a documentary film ‘Valaam’ that was shown on January 14 of this year [2018] on the television channel ‘Russia 1’. They elicited a strong reaction even in spite of the fact that the Russian president had expounded similar views earlier. The head of the government’s thought has probably sounded particularly clear now in view of the beginning of the presidential campaign. Let us not note that the maker of the film was the journalist Andrei Kondrashov, who was recently appointed head of Putin’s pre-election campaign headquarters. The president visited Valaam monastery in June, 2017, and he has been there before. 

“‘Faith,’ said Putin on the television screen, ‘has always accompanied us. It has become stronger when our country was suffering particularly intensely during the most God-fighting years, when priests were killed and churches destroyed. But at the same time, you know, they created a new religion’ – the communist ideology, - which ‘is very akin to Christianity’. ‘Freedom, brotherhood, equality, justice – all these are invoked in the Holy Scriptures, it’s all there. And what of the ‘Law Code of the Builder of Communism’? This was a sublimation, a primitive excerpt from the Bible, they didn’t think up anything new there’.

“Let us recall that the president said similar things earlier. For example, during his speech in 2016 before the activists of the Pan-Russian People’s Front – a structure that had played the role of locomotive in the preceding electoral campaign of the acting president. ‘I very much like and to this day I still like communist and socialist ideas,’ said Putin then. ‘If we look at the ‘Law Code of the Builder of Communism’, which was published in large quantities in the Soviet Union, we see that it is very reminiscent of the Bible. This is no joke, this is in fact an extract from the Bible.’ ‘But the practical incarnations of these remarkable ideas in our country were far from what the socialist utopians expounded. Our country was not like the City of the Sun’, explained the head of the Russian state to the PPF activists.

“However, this time Putin added one more ‘burning’ topic – the fate of Lenin’s body in the Mausoleum. The past year was marked, in connection with the 100th anniversary of the revolution, by a sharpening of the discussion over the burial of the leader of the world revolution. One of those who expressed himself in favour of a ‘normal’ burial of Lenin was the head of Chechnya Ramzan Kadyrov, after which he had a bit of a quarrel with the president of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennady Ziuganov.

“‘Look,’ said Putin, ‘they put Lenin in the Mausoleum. In what does this differ from the relics of the saint? For the Orthodox, or simply for Christians? When they tell me: there is no such tradition in the Christian world, how come? Go to Athos and look. There they have holy relics. Yes, and her (on Valaam) there are also holy relics, those of Sergius and Herman.’ ‘In essence, the authorities at that time thought up nothing new. They simply adapted what humanity had already long ago invented to their own ideology,’ explained the head of the state.

“These words on ‘relics’ received a stormy reaction from the State Duma Deputy Natalya Poklonskaya, who in the course of the past year, in unison with Kadyrov, spoke out for the burial of Lenin. ‘In my view, it would be incorrect and a consciously self-interested distortion, for political or other motives, to use and interpret ‘in one’s own way’ the words of the president on a certain parallel between the dead body of Ulyanov in the Mausoleum, on whose conscience are millions of murdered people, and the holy relics in the monasteries and churches. The opinion he voiced is not about that, but about government regimes and the attempt to create a false religion at a definite stage of history,’ wrote Poklonskaya in her account on Facebook.

“However, the words on the Mausoleum were received with rapture by the communists headed by Gennady Ziuganov. On the one hand, this is understandable: Ziuganov has himself expressed analogous ideas about the similarity between the moral imperatives of communism and those of Christianity. ‘If you take the Moral ‘Code of Law of the Builder of Communism’ and the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus Christ and put them side to side, you will be surprised: the texts coincide completely,’ declared the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in 2012 in an interview on the same ‘Russia 1’ channel. On the other hand, the rhetoric of compromise addressed to the older generation, who are not indifferent to their memories of the Soviet past, contributes to the rising popularity of Pavel Grudinin, a candidate for the presidency from the CPRF.

“If all this is understandable for the communist electorate, there remains the question: to what extent do the thoughts of the president chime in with the point of view of the church? If we are to take the opinion of Patriarch Cyril of Moscow and All Russia as the official position of the ROC, then it is impossible for us not to register the striking consonance between his sermons and the speeches of Putin on the issue in question, with the exception, perhaps, of his words on Lenin. On April 6, 2011 in Kiev the head of the ROC said: ‘Even the years of life in the conditions of unbelief did not root out in us that very programme which was laid as a certain Code of development of our Orthodox peoples. And in this sense the unbelievers of the Soviet period were in a rudimentary way Orthodox Christians – they remained in the same system of values… At that time atheist ideology wanted to reform the system of values, but did not encroach on morality. Take the very ‘Code of Law of the Builder of Communism’ – it was dictated from the Bible. Without God, but the same morality.’ However, with regard to the burial of Lenin, the representatives of the Church in 2017 more than once said that it was necessary to wait with that.

“‘Putin’s real ideas about Christian values are hidden from us,’ thinks the leader of the Centre for the Study of Problems of Religion and Society at the Institute of Europe RAN, Roman Lunkin. ‘The president has not spoken about fulfilling the Gospel commandments or about his parish life.’ ‘For Putin the important things in public are formalities – his baptism in childhood, Orthodoxy as an element consolidating society, his principled visits to a simple church service at Christmas and more officially – at Pascha,’ said the religious expert of ‘NGR’. 

“A leading expert of the Centre for Political Technologies, Alexei Makarkin, pointed to the fact that ‘in his interview Putin did not say that this was Christian tradition in its pure form, that would have been strange: he spoke about copying tradition, and the striving of the essentially antichristian party to borrow something.’ ‘In this way each auditorium can read what it wants,’ explained the political expert. ‘The main auditorium – nostalgic Russians – can read in it the main thing that Putin is against – that Lenin should be taken out of the Mausoleum, at any rate now. At the same time there is another variant for people holding other views, in the first place believers: who, from the point of view of the believers, will copy Jesus Christ? He will be copied by the Antichrist, who will try to make out that he is Jesus, being in actual fact his most terrible enemy. For the Christians there could be the following interpretation: since the president recognizes that the communists can copy certain Christian traditions, that means that everything is in fact like that – the enemies of Christ are trying to copy, while at the same time distorting, ‘said Markarkin of the ‘NGR’.”

*

This article goes a long way to answering the question that has exercised and divided Russian True Orthodox Christians: is Putin’s regime a reincarnation of the antichristian Soviet regime (in a fascist, nationalist mode) or something new? If the former, then it lies under the same anathema of the Moscow Council of 1918 that fell on the obviously antichristian Soviet regime and all those who cooperated with it. If the latter, then we must consider the possibility that Putin’s regime is actually worse than the Soviet regime, being antichristian in a different, more subtle and more profound manner.

The word “Antichrist” has a dual meaning. The preposition “anti” in Greek can mean either “against” or “in the place of”. The Soviet regime was clearly “against” Christ – it murdered millions of Christians, and persecuted the faith in word and deed. However, it did not pretend to “take the place of” Christ or God. For how could it take the place of a being that, according to communists, does not exist?

But the Soviet regime came to an end in 1991, and with it so did the open persecution of Christians. There was nobody left in Russia who was openly “anti” – in the sense of “against” – Christ. There were still very many atheists and heretics, but no more “God-fighters”; all the surviving former God-fighters were living on their pensions; “God-fighting” was no longer legal or in any way approved.

But in 2000 Putin came to power. Now Putin had just recently been director of the FSB (KGB), the executive branch, as it were, of the Soviet government’s war against God. For such a man to become president was therefore a profound shock and a stern warning for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. It was as if the head of the Inquisition had become head of the World Council of Churches, or Himmler – the president of Germany after the war. It was tolerated in Russia, first, because, as surveys showed, most Russians still considered the Soviet Union to be their native country, and Lenin and Stalin to be heroes; and secondly, because the West clung on to the stupid belief that over seventy years of the most terrible blood-letting in history – far longer and far more radical than Hitler’s twelve years in power – could be wiped out and reversed without any kind of decommunization, without even a single person being put on trial for the murdering of innocent people in the name of the “collective Antichrist” of Soviet power. The tragic farce has reached such a stage that the KGB has become a hero of Russian literature and cinematography, with its own church in the middle of its chief prison, the Lubyanka in Moscow – not, as it might be thought to commemorate the martyrs who suffered so terribly within its walls, but for the executioners! The West concurred with this filthy whitewash; the official Orthodox Church (itself ruled by KGB agents) concurred; the masses of the Russian people concurred by voting Putin into power repeatedly. 

And then the “rebirth” took place: without repenting in the slightest of his communist past, and while gradually reintroducing more and more Soviet traditions and symbols, Putin underwent a conversion to Christ! Or rather, from being part of the body of the Soviet Antichrist, which was “anti”, that is, “against” Christ, he is now preaching a form of Communist Christianity that, as Makarkin puts it, “copies” Jesus Christ, placing its own ideas “in the place” of Christ’s and passing them off as His. And if the “copy” is a poor one – just as Lenin’s stinking body is a very poor imitation of the fragrant relics of the saints, and the murderous “Code of Law of the Builder of Communism” is a very poor imitation of the Sermon on the Mount - this does not matter, so long as the masses are taken in by it, or, if not taken in by it, at least convinced that Christ and the antichristian state are now on the same side...

So the Russian revolution has mutated from one kind of Antichristianity to another, from Lenin’s Antichristianity that was openly against Christ, to Putin’s Antichristianity which pretends not to be against Christ but to copy Him and take His place… There can be no doubt that this new, more sophisticated kind is more dangerous than the former – and closer to the kind that will be practised by “the personal Antichrist” himself at the end of time. For of that Antichrist, the Lord said: “I have come in My Father’s name and you do not believe Me: if another shall come in his own name, him you will believe” (John 5.43). In other words, you have rejected the real Christ, and as a direct result you will accept an imposter, a man-god, for the real thing, the God-Man.

But we must not be deceived, remembering Putin’s words: “Once a chekist, always a chekist…”

On the Question of the "Revised Julian Calendar"

By Father George Lardas

Source: Indiana University’s Orthodox LISTSERV discussion list, September 1996.

 

The matter of the "Revised Julian Calendar" has recently been raised on this list and has generated some discussion. Since some were wondering about its relation to the traditional calendar of the Church, the Julian Calendar, on the one hand, and the Gregorian Calendar on the other, as well as the question of their astronomical accuracy, I thought the following might be helpful:

As everyone knows, the year is about 365 and a quarter-days long. This is, however, only an approximation. We are concerned here with the seasonal, or tropical year, the average time from vernal equinox (the beginning of spring) to vernal equinox. The more accurate figure is 365.2422 days, a figure close to that known to the ancient Greek astronomers (Callippus, Ptolemy, et al). The Julian Calendar, the Church's traditional calendar, has 365 days in a year and an extra day added once every fourth year to February, making an average year length of 365.25 days. When the Church chose this as her own calendar at the Council of Nicaea (AD 325), the vernal equinox fell on 21 March. But since the Julian year is 0.0078 days longer than the true year, over a span of time 21 March will occur later than the astronomical equinox at the rate of about one day in 128 years.

By 1582, when Pope Gregory XIII changed the calendar, 21 March fell 10 days after the astronomical event. He adjusted the calendar by omitting 10 days from that year, so that the following year the astronomical equinox would fall on 21 March again, and he also adjusted the rule for leap years to keep the calendar date from drifting away from the astronomical event. This is accomplished by dropping a leap day every centennial year (those divisible by 100), but retaining the leap day every year divisible by 400. In other words, the years 1700, 1800, and 1900 are not leap years in the Gregorian calendar, but the years 1600 and 2000 are leap years. To obtain the average length of the Gregorian year, we must subtract from the Julian year three days in four hundred years,

365.25 - 3/400 = 365.25 - 0.0075 = 365.2425

The Gregorian year is therefore 365.2425 days, or 0.0003 day longer than the true tropical year. This error will accumulate to about one day every 3200 years. At a council held in Constantinople, attended mainly by representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople under Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis, some astronomers proposed the "Revised Julian Calendar". Under this proposal, the Julian calendar would be corrected by dropping 13 days from the current year to bring the calendar 21 March in line with the astronomical equinox, and to keep it from drifting away from that date by omitting seven leap days every 900 years. That is to say, every centennial year would be a regular year without a leap day, except if when divided by 900 it leaves a remainder of 200 or 600. In other words, the years 1800, 1900, 2100, 2200, and 2300 would not be leap years but regular years because when divided by 900 they leave a remainder of 0, 100, 300, 400, and 500 respectively. But the years 2000 and 2400 would be leap years since these leave a remainder of 200 and 600 respectively when divided by 900. The average length of the calendar year is then, 365.25 days less 7 days in 900 years or

365.25 - 7/900 = 365.25 - 0.0077777... = 365.242222...

Which is almost exactly the length of the tropical year. This revision would make the calendar accurate to a day in about 40,000 years. This is the 900-year cycle that was mentioned by some on this list.

The differences between the three calendars can be summarized in the following table. The first column shows century years. The next heading under Leap Years shows which of the three calendars has that year as a leap year. J stands for the traditional Julian calendar, in which every year divisible by four is a leap year (including all century years), G stands for the Gregorian calendar, in which only the century years divisible by 400 are leap years, and R stands for the "Revised Julian Calendar" in which only those century years that leave a remainder of 200 or 600 when divided by 900 are leap years. The next column gives the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars in days. This difference holds for that century year, and the 99 years that follow. The next column shows the difference between the traditional Julian Calendar and the "Revised Julian Calendar". The asterisks in the Gregorian and Revised columns are those century years that are leap years and the difference from the Julian calendar remains the same as the previous century.

 

It is interesting that from the year 1600 to the year 2799, a span of 1200 years, the Gregorian and "Revised Julian" calendars agree exactly. From 2800 to 2899 they differ by one day, after which they again agree for another three hundred years. One may wonder whether for ecclesiastical purposes the adherents of the "Revised" calendar will celebrate their Holy Days one day earlier than the rest of the world for one century, or whether after so many centuries of agreement, they might not tacitly leave the matter as it had been.

Some adherents of the New Calendar claim that they have adopted a "Revised Julian Calendar", rather than the Papal Gregorian Calendar, and therefore they do not come under any penalty of the bans on that calendar adopted by the Pan Orthodox Councils of 1582 and 1583. However, for centuries to come, there is no practical difference between the Gregorian and "Revised Julian" calendars. They amount to the same thing. The payoff in astronomical accuracy will not be realized for several thousand years, far beyond any practical human purpose. One may wonder why one should devise a revision that is practically the same as that used by most of the world, and yet diverges in the distant future. For the next 800 years, we would follow identical calendars, then by the time they diverged, the matter would have been settled one way or the other, and everyone would then remain on the same calendar. It is not too hard to guess which way will win.

It is also misleading to call this calendar the "Revised Julian", since the Gregorian Calendar itself is a revised Julian calendar.

I would like to touch on another subject mentioned on this list: the "leap second", a feature of scientific chronometry. Until recently the second was defined as 1/864,000 of a mean solar day (24 hours x 60 minutes per hour x 60 seconds per minute yield 864,000 seconds in a day). The earth, however, has slight seasonal variations in the rate of rotation (imperceptible except by the most sensitive instruments), and because a time standard was needed, accurate to a fraction of an atomic vibration for global positional calculations, the national and international scientific chronometric standard has come to be the atomic clock. The second is now defined as a certain number of vibrations of a certain kind of atom, a rate determined by the laws of physics and presumably invariable. The earth, on the other hand is slowly running down, and the mean day is getting longer at the rate of about a millisecond per century. The difference between the actual length of the day and the nominal length defined as 864,000 seconds accumulates. After a number of years the mean astronomical midnight and midnight by the atomic clocks can diverge by as much as a second. At that point, by international agreement, everyone counts an extra second before midnight of New Year's Day to bring the two standards once more into synchronization. This is the leap second. It does not follow a regular cycle, because it is determined by observation, and the differences accumulate irregularly. It has no practical effect on our daily lives.

In the long run, however, the slowing of the earth's rotation causes the number of days in the year to change very gradually. One effect of this is that no calendar that is cyclic can ever be more accurate than a day in about forty or fifty thousand years.

So far, I have only discussed the solar calendar. The Church determines Pascha and the feasts depend upon it by taking into account a lunar reckoning. The Nicene Council adopted the lunar reckoning used by the Alexandrine astronomers, a 19-year cycle in which the phases of the moon repeat on the same calendar days. This, too, is an approximation, but it had the advantage of simplicity. After a long drawn out struggle the whole Church came to accept the Alexandrine Paschalion adopted by the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. Over the course of time, its use became deeply embedded within the festal cycle of the Church and provisions were made in the Typicon for all possible combinations of the lunar and solar reckoning. This recurred exactly every 532 years, over which the same pattern of Pascha dates were repeated. This is the product of the 19-year lunar cycle and the 28-year Sunday cycle (the days of the week repeat exactly in the Julian calendar every 28 years, this is the 4-year leap year cycle times the 7 possible days of the week), so that 19 x 28 = 532.

Since this lunar reckoning was also only approximate, and the error accumulated at the rate of one day in about 307 years, Pope Gregory also revised the lunar reckoning by dropping a day every 300 years. However, the Gregorian Calendar is now practically not cyclic, since the period over which the calendar repeats is several thousand years.

The astronomers who proposed the "Revised Julian Calendar" offered no cyclic correction to the Alexandrine Paschalion, but proposed that the actual astronomical full moon after the astronomical vernal equinox, both calculated for the meridian of Jerusalem, be used to reckon the date of Pascha. This would have the effect of abolishing the periodicity of the calendar entirely. It would also make dating the festal calendar in the past and in the future extremely difficult, and would require complicated astronomical calculation. In the event, this proposal was not adopted by anyone, and the adherents of the "Revised Julian Calendar" had to be content with calculating the fixed feasts (the Menolgy) by a calendar practically identical with the Papal calendar, and the movable feasts (Paschalion) according to the traditional Alexandrine (Julian) Paschalion, with all the dislocations that this entails. The Roman Church, and any Eastern Rite Catholics that follow the Papal Calendar, would never have any problem with circumstances unforeseen by the Typicon, since they would follow a consistent calendar that keeps Pascha between the conventional bounds of calendar 22 March and calendar 25 April. The calculation of the date of Gregorian Easter is not very simple.

The Traditional Paschalion, in contrast, is a model of simplicity. It has a 19-year table of Paschal full moons ("nomikon phaska" or the Pascha of the Law) which represents the nominal Jewish Passover, and the Sunday thereafter is Pascha. The dates repeat every 532 years, but the calculation is simple.

This simplicity served the practical purposes of the early Church. It was achieved after much controversy, and was accepted by all who call themselves Christian until Pope Gregory's reforms. It was the unmarred heritage of all Orthodox Christians until 1924. The ancient astronomers who developed these cycles, as well as the Fathers of the Church were aware of the slight inaccuracies, but the calendar admirably served the Orthodox Church for so many centuries. It never presented any hardship to the farmers who use the calendar, for it is immaterial what the number on the calendar was that marked spring planting or the fall harvest, so long as it was consistent. It would have presented no hardship to modern civilization to have retained the Julian Calendar, because it makes no difference to engineering and commerce whether Christmas is celebrated 13 days earlier or later.

The fact that we follow a different calendar (almost all Orthodox still follow the Traditional Paschalion), from that followed by the world around us is good. It marks us out as a distinct and peculiar people that "kept the ways that are hard" (Psalm 16). We have a practical advantage in keeping the Old Calendar in that we can avoid the noisy and crass commercialism that is secular Christmas, and usually, also that surrounding secular Easter.

We have no need to ask the Jews or the astronomers when the Church should celebrate her Holy Days, for it is entirely a matter for the household of the Faith to order her celebrations according to her own needs. The traditional calendar is an icon of time. It has become sanctified by centuries of use. It is not "realistic" in the same way that icons are not realistic. It is the product of a hard-won unity that is now broken by the innovators. None of the reasons set forth for adopting the Papal calendar hold water. Our purpose is not astronomical accuracy, for as we have seen, this is won at the cost of great complexity. Everything in the Church should be done decently and in order. Anything as momentous as that touching the liturgical unity of the Church should be a matter of unanimous decision of the Church, and the proposal should have been set forth properly and before all.

It was, however, introduced by force and deceit, and in disobedience to the traditions and canons of the Church. When we see the arguments, disputes, and divisions caused by the introduction of the New Calendar, can we call it a good thing? Our Saviour tells us that by their fruits shall we know them. If some change is controversial, it is the responsibility of those that propose to show that it is beneficial and needful, and if it is rejected by a large part of the Church, they should, in all humility and out of a desire not to offend the brethren, withdraw the proposal. The harmful results of the introduction of the New Calendar, viz scandal and schism, are the fruits of disobedience on the part of the innovators.

The purpose of the introduction of the New Calendar was not for astronomical accuracy, but for ecumenism, for bringing Orthodox faith and practice more in line with those of the heterodox, so as to prepare the way for union with them. Those that resisted this change were therefore resisting ecumenism. Even now, one of the barriers to union with the heterodox is a different festal calendar. When the calendar innovators changed the calendar, they did not dare to change the Paschalion for fear of outright rejection on the part of the Orthodox faithful. They have thereby introduced a hybrid monster of a calendar that is neither truly New nor truly Old. Thus, the liturgical unity of Orthodoxy was not entirely broken. But if the Paschalion could be changed, it would make union with the heterodox easier. Contrariwise, if the innovators would abandon their innovation, they would go a long way toward restoring unity within the Orthodox Church. It is in their power alone to do so. What has been stolen, let it be restored.

I should be very much interested to know whether those Orthodox Churches that have officially adopted the New Calendar have, in fact, adopted the "Revised Julian Calendar" with its 900-year cycle, or have merely embraced calendar reform without specification of this intricate detail, being content to use the Papal reckoning of the fixed calendar.

I would also like to point out that using astronomical observation or calculation for determining Pascha was but one of several proposed innovations to the Orthodox Church Calendar. Among others are: 1) A proposal to use the Papal Paschalion (which has been adopted by the Church of Finland and the OCA mission in Mexico), and 2) A proposed fixed day for Pascha, say, always the second Sunday of April, regardless of the phases of the moon. This latter is proposed for adoption by all Christian bodies in the world. This is not the final end of calendar innovation. One such proposal is the World Calendar, whereby the number of days in the month is regularized, and the sequence of the weekdays is broken up once (on leap years, twice) a year for the sake of keeping any given calendar date on the same day of the week year after year. This, needless to say, is totally unacceptable to any religion that celebrates a seven-day week. If the Jews and the Muslims can keep their peculiar religious calendars in a modern society, why cannot we Orthodox Christians stand for our own traditions and faith? Some have already answered that question for themselves. Let us also have the courage to do so, too.