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.