В НЕДЕЛЮ ПРАВОСЛАВИЯ

Андрей Зайцев

Как правило, этот разъезжающий на Мерседесе и играющий на бирже «владыка», бонвиван и гурман, совершенно не интересуется ни своими клириками, ни своей епархией, ни своей паствой - за исключением тех лиц, которые перед ним лебезят.

Ленивый и инертный, он только оживляется когда видит возможность приписать себе чужие заслуги. В этом ему подражают клирики Кафедрального Собора Сан Франциско – Перекрестов и Котар. (Последний, кстати, казначей епархии, хвастается, что – благодаря деньгам - держит Кирилла Дмитриева в своих руках).  А вот если кто-нибудь умирает, нужно кому-то помочь, кто-то слёг в госпиталь, - Кириллу это «до лампочки». Недавно один из его клириков должен был перенести тяжелую операцию, для которой необходимо было собрать деньги, но Кирилл и пальцем не двинул. Он всегда мол «занят», хотя абсолютно ничего не делает.

Но вот когда в Сан Франциско пожаловала внучка великого князя Кирилла Владимировича и «патриарх» Гундяев приказал Кириллу всячески её ублажать, то этот архиепископ-перевертыш вдруг развернул бешеную деятельность. Он как бы временно очнулся от той спячки, в которую впала епархия после кончины блаженной памяти архиепископа Антония (Медведева). Кирилл начал ото всех требовать пожертвования для покрытия расходов связанных с пребыванием  в Калифорнии – на широкую ногу - «сотрудницы Путина» Марии Владимировны. А успех организованных таким образом - на чужие деньги - банкетов и ужинов, он как обычно приписал себе.

Однако самое скандальное то, что он стал прямым посредником между Марией Владимировной и желающими получить от неё «ордена» - за деньги! Торговля этими, – по сути дела, липовыми, - «орденами» шла на полный ход.

Причем он буквально заставил одну свою богатую прихожанку организовать в честь Марии Владимировны шикарный коктейль и ужин в её роскошной квартире, с окнами открывающими чудесные виды на город, но не позволяя самой хозяйке ничего решать. Он распоряжался всем: от меню до цвета скатертей.

На коктейле присутствовало порядочное число представителей русской эмиграции, старой и новейшей. Однако сразу после коктейля Кирилл позвонил в колокольчик и заявил: «А теперь всякий кто не был специально приглашён на ужин, должен немедленно уйти». На ужин с Марией Владимировной были допущены только избранники, заплатившие крупные суммы за это сомнительное удовольствие. Такого хамского обращения с приглашенными никто не ожидал: сгорающая от стыда хозяйка дома навсегда порвала с Кириллом. Среди оставшихся ужинать была, конечно, и "подруга" архиерея, Елена Валерьевна Ольховская.

Беспринципность перебежавшего в МП Кирилла явствует и из того, что недавно он по собственной инициативе отслужил панихиду по старинному доминикскому обряду в католическом храме, в сослужении с униатским священником. Да и когда он посетил Великобританию, то из кожи вон лез, чтобы сфотографироваться с еретиком - архиепископом Кентерберийским.

        "Наша Страна" 2933

РПЦ против увековечения памяти расстрелянного митрополита

Ирина Осипова , сотрудник «Мемориала»

Он родился 15 декабря 1872 года в городе Устюжна и провел там первые семнадцать лет — будущий митрополит, один из самых почитаемых архиереев Русской православной церкви ХХ столетия, известный духовный писатель. Его забота о чистоте православия, твердость и непоколебимость в отстаивании истины вызывают искреннее уважение, а трагическая гибель от рук богоборцев — глубокую скорбь.

В 2006 году в ленинградском издательстве «Кифа» вышла посвященная ему книга: «Священномученик Иосиф, Митрополит Петроградский: жизнеописание и труды» — в ее подготовке и презентациях принимали участие сотрудники «Мемориала». Естественно, что первая презентация этой книги состоялась в городе Устюжна, на родине священномученника. Там присутствовал настоятель Казанской церкви протоиерей Александр Куликов. Затем презентации прошли в Санкт-Петербурге, в рамках мероприятий выставки «Православная Русь», и в Москве — в «Мемориале». Эта книга везде была отмечена самыми высокими оценками как со стороны светских, так и церковных историков.

Позднее сотрудниками «Мемориала» в издательстве «Братонеж» совместно с издательством «Кифа» было подготовлено второе, дополненное новыми материалами издание книги. Кроме того, решено было установить памятную доску к 140-летию со дня рождения и 75-летию гибели священномученика Иосифа (Петровых). В связи с этим «Мемориал» направил официальные письма с просьбой разрешить установление памятной доски на доме, где родился митрополит Иосиф, а в местной библиотеке презентовать книгу — в три адреса:

— главе Устюженского муниципального района Владимиру Ильичу Виноградову;

— губернатору Вологодской области Вячеславу Евгеньевичу Позгалеву;

— Его Высокопреосвященству Максимилиану, Архиепископу Вологодскому и Великоустюжскому.

6 июня 2011 года пришел ответ, подписанный главой города Устюжна В.Н. Воробьевым и главой Устюженского муниципального района В.И. Виноградовым: «Разрешаем, поддерживаем и окажем необходимое содействие в установке памятной доски на доме, где родился и жил Митрополит Иосиф (Петровых), по адресу: г. Устюжна, пер. Терешковой, д. 14, — в прославление его имени». Положительный ответ пришел и из администрации вологодского губернатора, а Архиепископ Вологодский и Великоустюжский Максимилиан ответил: «Бог благословит».

В соответствии с этими ответами издательством «Кифа» были согласованы с местными властями место установки памятной доски, эскиз и текст надписи, материал, из которого она будет выполнена, и ее размеры. В декабре была согласована и дата торжественного открытия доски — 5 февраля 2012 года — день памяти святых Новомучеников и Исповедников Российских, и эта дата была принята. В этот же день в Устюженском историческом музее планировалась презентация второго издания книги «Священномученик Иосиф, Митрополит Петроградский. Жизнеописание и труды».

Памятная доска была изготовлена в Санкт-Петербурге, причем десятками общин и отдельными верующими из России и зарубежья были присланы средства на это благое дело. 4 февраля был запланирован монтаж доски и накануне, 3 февраля, петербургская часть делегации намеревалась с доской выехать в Устюжну, москвичи выезжали 4 февраля.

Но за день до выезда делегаций все было отменено местными властями Устюжны, причем без объяснения причин и со странной формулировкой — «в связи с вновь открывшимися обстоятельствами». После телефонных переговоров с администрацией Устюжны мы были направлены за объяснением к местному духовенству. Разговор с отцом Геннадием свелся к тому, что они не получили благословения от архиепископа, но главное — их не устраивает текст памятной доски:

«Въ доме № 14 по этому переулку (бывшему Казанскому) въ 1872 году родился и прожилъ первыя 17 летъ своей жизни священномученикъ Iосифъ, Митрополитъ Петроградскiй (въ мiру Иванъ Семеновичъ Петровыхъ). Разстрелянъ въ 1937 году».

Основная претензия — по какому праву мы называем митрополита Иосифа священномучеником? Ссылка на решение Собора Русской православной церкви за рубежом в 1981 году, с которой объединилась РПЦ во главе с Московской патриархией, с точки зрения местного духовенства неправомочна — благословения от духовного начальства ими не было получено.

«Мемориал» — общественная организация, наше государство — светское, почему же церковь может разрешать или запрещать вешать доску в память расстрелянного митрополита Иосифа (Петровых) на доме в городе, где он родился и прожил семнадцать лет? И почему именно церковь решает, кто из расстрелянных достоин или не достоин памяти? Ответа мы до сих пор не получили…

    Постоянный адрес страницы: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/society/51011.html

                                              Who hath remained among you that has seen this House in its former glory, and how do you see it now? Is it not in your eyes as it were nothing? But take heart now...    Haggai 2.3-4.

     “4) he ‘believes not in God, but in Man’ (as he himself has stated);

     “5) he was initiated into an especially occult form of ‘knighthood’ (read: freemasonry) in Germany; 

     “6) he has restored the communist anthem; 

     “7) he has restored the bloody red rag as the RF’s military banner; 

     “8) he has not removed the satanic pentagram from public buildings (including cathedrals); 

     “9) he has plans of restoring the monument to ‘Butcher’ Dzerzhinsky [now fulfilled]; 

     “10) he has not removed the satanic mausoleum in Red Square nor its filthy contents.”[14]

Preobrazhensky points out that Putin “began his career not in the intelligence ranks but in the ‘Fifth Branch’ of the Leningrad Regional KGB, which also fought religion and the Church. Putin carefully hides this fact from foreign church leaders, and you will not find it in any of his official biographies… The myth of Putin’s religiosity is important for proponents of ‘the union’. It allows Putin to be characterized as some Orthodox Emperor Constantine, accepting the perishing Church Abroad under his regal wing. For his kindness we should be stretching out our arms to him with tears of gratitude…”[15]

     “For those who claim,” writes Professor Olga Ackerly, “that the ‘CIS is different from the USSR’ and Putin is a ‘practising Orthodox Christian’, here are some sobering facts. The first days and months Putin’s presidency were highlighted by the reestablishment of a memorial plaque on Kutuzovsky Prospect where Andropov used to live. The plaque was a symbol of communist despotism missing since the 1991 putsch, bearing Andropov’s name – a former head of the KGB, especially known for his viciousness in the use of force and psychiatric clinics for dissidents. On May 9, 2000, Putin proposed a toast to the ‘genius commander’ Iosif Stalin and promoted many former KGB officers to the highest state positions…

     “Important to note is that the Eurasian movement, with ties to occultism, ecumenism, etc. was recently revived by Putin, and a Congress entitled ‘The All-Russian Political Social Movement’, held in Moscow in April of 2001, was ‘created on the basis of the Eurasist ideology and inter-confessional [sic!] harmony in support of the reforms of President Vladimir Putin.’ The movement is led by Alexander Dugin, a sexual mystic, National Bolshevik Party member, son of a Cheka cadre, personally familiar with the so-called ‘Black International’, advisor to the State Duma, and participant in Putin’s ‘Unity’ movement.”[16]

     Banking on the high price of Russian oil, Putin began to rebuild Russia’s economic and military might. But the corruption (often State-sponsored) within the Russian economy hindered the diversification of the economy that he needed. From 2003 Putin moved to reverse the main gains of the liberal 1990s – religious freedom, and a more open and honest attitude to the Soviet past. Churches were seized from True Orthodox Christians and their websites hacked; elections were rigged, independent journalists were killed, and independent businessmen imprisoned on trumped-up charges. New history books justifying Stalinism were introduced into the classrooms. Youth organizations similar to the Hitler Youth were created.[17] Putin’s Russia began to resemble Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

     The MP has shown complete loyalty to Putinism, and takes an enthusiastic part in the criminal economy. This is illustrated by the activities of the recently elected patriarch, Cyril Gundiaev, who imports tobacco and alcohol duty-free and is now one of the richest men in Russia.[18] And so it is Putin who personally brokered the union of the MP and ROCOR, an idea first mooted by Archbishop Mark in 1997 and by Archbishop Laurus on July 17, 1999…[19]

     3. The MP’s “Jubilee” Council. Following the instructions of the KGB, in August, 2000 the MP held a “Jubilee” Hierarchical Council whose main purpose was to remove the obstacles towards ROCOR’s unification with it. These obstacles, as formulated by ROCOR during the decade 1990-2000 were: (a) Ecumenism, (b) Sergianism, and (c) the Glorification of the New Martyrs, especially the Royal New Martyrs.

     (a) Ecumenism. In the document on relations with the heterodox, it was declared that “the Orthodox Church is the true Church of Christ, created by our Lord and Saviour Himself…”; “The Church of Christ is one and unique…”; “The so-called ‘branch theory’, which affirms the normality and even the providentiality of the existence of Christianity in the form of separate ‘branches’… is completely unacceptable.” However, wrote Protopriest Michael Ardov, “the ‘patriarchal liberals’ will also not be upset, insofar as the heretics in the cited document are called ‘heterodox’, while the Monophysite communities are called the ‘Eastern Orthodox Churches’. And the ‘dialogues with the heterodox’ will be continued, and it is suggested that the World Council of Churches be not abandoned, but reformed…”[20]

     The MP’s Fr. (now Metropolitan) Hilarion (Alfeyev) explained the origins of the document on ecumenism: “The subject of inter-Christian relations has been used by various groups (within the Church) as a bogey in partisan wars. In particular, it has been used to criticise Church leaders who, as is well known, have taken part in ecumenical activities over many years.” In Alfeyev’s opinion, “ecumenism has also been used by breakaway groups, such as the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Old Calendarists, to undermine people’s trust in the Church.” Therefore there was a need “for a clear document outlining the theological basis of the Russian Orthodox Church’s attitude towards heterodoxy, i.e. the question of why we need and whether we need dialogue with the non-Orthodox confessions, and if so which form this dialogue should take.” Fr. Hilarion refused to answer the question whether the Council would discuss the matter of the participation of the MP in the WCC, but said that the patriarchate felt obliged to continue negotiations with Protestant and Catholic representatives in the WCC and to be a part of the ecumenical committee.[21]

    After the Council, there was no let-up in the MP’s ecumenical activities. Thus on August 18, “Patriarch” Alexis prayed together with the Armenian “Patriarch”. And on April 21, 2005, he congratulated the new Pope Benedict XVI on his accession, and expressed the hope that he would strive to develop relations between the two churches. When asked how he evaluated Pope John Paul II’s ministry, he replied: “His Holiness’ teachings have not only strengthened Catholics throughout the world in their faith, but also borne witness to Christianity in the complex world of today.”[22] After ROCOR joined the MP in 2007, the MP noticeably increased its ecumenical activities and its relationship with the Vatican continued to improve…

     (b) Sergianism. The MP approved a “social document” which, among other things, recognised that “the Church must refuse to obey the State” “if the authorities force the Orthodox believers to renounce Christ and His Church”. As we shall see, enormous significance was attached to this phrase by ROCOR. However, on the very same page we find: “But even the persecuted Church is called to bear the persecutions patiently, not refusing loyalty to the State that persecutes it”.[23] We may infer from this that the MP still considers that its loyalty to the Soviet State was right and the resistance to it shown by the Catacomb Church was wrong. So, contrary to first appearances, the MP remained mired in sergianism.

     Indeed, sergianism as such was not mentioned in the document, much less repented of. This is consistent with the fact that the MP has never in its entire history since 1943 shown anything other than a determination to serve whatever appears to be the strongest forces in the contemporary world. Until the fall of communism, that meant the communists. With the fall of communism, the MP was not at first sure whom she had to obey, but gradually assumed the character of a “populist” church, trying to satisfy the various factions within it (including nominally Orthodox political leaders) while preserving an appearance of unity.

     Since Putin came to power in January, 2000, the MP has appeared to be reverting to its submissive role in relation to the Soviets, not protesting against the restoration of the red flag to the armed forces and approving the retention of the music of the Soviet national anthem. There has even been an official justification of Sergianism. Thus on July 18, 2002, the Moscow Synod ratified a document entitled “The relationships between the Russian Orthodox Church and the authorities in the 20s and 30s”, which declared: “The aim of normalising the relationship with the authorities cannot be interpreted as a betrayal of Church interests. It was adopted by the holy Patriarch Tikhon, and was also expressed in the so-called ‘Epistle of the Solovki Bishops’ in 1926, that is, one year before the publication of ‘The Epistle of the deputy patriarchal locum tenens and temporary patriarchal Synod’. The essence of the changes in the position of the hierarchy consisted in the fact that the Church, having refused to recognise the legitimacy of the new power established after the October revolution in 1917, as the power became stronger later, had to recognise it as a state power and establish bilateral relations with it. This position is not blameworthy; historically, the Church has more than once found herself in a situation in which it has had to cooperate with non-orthodox rulers (for instance, in the period of the Golden Horde or the Muslim Ottoman Empire).”[24]

     However, Soviet power was very different from the Tatars or Ottomans, and “bilateral relations” with it, unlike with those powers, involved the betrayal of the Orthodox Faith and falling under the anathema of the Church. Moreover, if the Church at first refused to recognise Soviet power, but then (in 1927) began to recognise it, the question arises: which position was the correct one? There can be no question but that the position endorsed by the Moscow Council of 1917-18, when Bolshevik power was anathematized, was the correct one, and that the sergianist Moscow Patriarchate, by renouncing that position, betrayed the truth – and continues to betray it to the present day through its symbiotic relationship with a government that openly declares itself to be the heir of the Soviet State.

     (c) The New Martyrs. With regard to the New Martyrs, the major problems from the patriarchate's point of view were the questions of the Royal Martyrs, on the one hand, and of the martyrs of the Catacomb Church who rejected Metropolitan Sergius, on the other. Non-royal martyrs killed before the schism with the Catacomb Church could be "safely" canonized. Thus in 1989, the MP canonized Patriarch Tikhon, and in 1992 it canonized three more martyrs and set up a commission to inquire into the martyrdom of the Royal Family, about which an MP publication wrote in 1998: “No less if not more dangerous as an ecclesiastical falsification is the MP’s Canonization Commission, headed by Metropolitan Juvenal (Poiarkov), which has suggested a compromise glorification of Tsar Nicholas Alexandrovich: ‘Yes, he was guilty of the tragedy on Khodynka field, he hobnobbed with Rasputin, he offended the workers, the country became backward. In general as a ruler of a state he was completely useless. Most important, he brought the country to revolution. But he suffered for Christ…’ Such a falsification will only continue that dirty stream of slander which the Christ-fighters began to pour out already long before 1917…”[25]  

     After nearly a decade of temporising, the MP finally, under pressure from its flock, glorified the Royal New Martyrs and many other martyrs of the Soviet yoke at the Jubilee Council. The glorification of the Royal New Martyrs was a compromise decision, reflecting the very different attitudes towards them in the patriarchate. The Royal Martyrs were called “passion-bearers” rather than “martyrs”, and it was made clear that they were being glorified, not for the way in which they lived their lives, but for the meekness with which they faced their deaths. This allowed the anti-monarchists to feel that Nicholas was still the “bloody Nicholas” of Soviet mythology, and that it was “Citizen Romanov” rather than “Tsar Nicholas” who had been glorified - the man rather than the monarchical principle for which he stood.

     As regards the other martyrs, Sergius Kanaev writes: “In the report of the President of the Synodal Commission for the canonisation of the saints, Metropolitan Juvenal (Poiarkov), the criterion of holiness adopted… for Orthodox Christians who had suffered during the savage persecutions was clearly and unambiguously declared to be submission ‘to the lawful leadership of the Church’, which was Metropolitan Sergius and his hierarchy. With such an approach, the holiness of the ‘sergianist martyrs’ was incontestable. The others were glorified or not glorified depending on the degree to which they ‘were in separation from the lawful leadership of the Church’. Concerning those who were not in agreement with the politics of Metropolitan Sergius, the following was said in the report: ‘In the actions of the “right” oppositionists, who are often called the “non-commemorators”, one cannot find evil-intentioned, exclusively personal motives. Their actions were conditioned by their understanding of what was for the good of the Church’. In my view, this is nothing other than blasphemy against the New Martyrs and a straight apology for sergianism. With such an approach the consciously sergianist Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov), for example, becomes a ‘saint’, while his ideological opponent Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd, who was canonized by our Church, is not glorified… Metropolitan Seraphim was appointed by Sergius (Stragorodsky) in the place of Metropolitan Joseph, who had been ‘banned’ by him.”[26]

     Other Catacomb martyrs were “glorified” by the MP because their holiness was impossible to hide. Thus the relics of Archbishop Victor of Vyatka were found to be incorrupt and now lie in a patriarchal cathedral – although he was the very first bishop officially to break with Sergius and called him and his church organization graceless! Again, the reputation of Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan was too great to be ignored, in spite of the fact that by the end of his life his position differed in no way from that of St. Victor or St. Joseph.

     Some, seeing the glorification of the Catacomb martyrs by their opponents, remembered the Lord’s words: “Ye build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets’. Therefore ye bear witness against yourselves that ye are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up the measure of your fathers!” (Matthew 23.29-32).

     This blasphemous canonisation of both the true and the false martyrs, thereby downgrading the exploit of the true martyrs, had been predicted by the ROCOR priest Fr. Oleg Oreshkin: "I think that some of those glorified will be from the sergianists so as to deceive the believers. 'Look,' they will say, 'he is a saint, a martyr, in the Heavenly Kingdom, and he recognized the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, so you must be reconciled with it and its fruits.' This will be done not in order to glorify martyrdom for Christ's sake, but in order to confirm the sergianist politics."[27]

     The main thing from the MP’s point of view was that their founder, Metropolitan Sergius, should be given equal status with the catacomb martyrs whom he persecuted. Thus in 1997 the patriarch said: “Through the host of martyrs the Church of Russia bore witness to her faith and sowed the seed of her future rebirth. Among the confessors of Christ we can in full measure name… his Holiness Patriarch Sergius.”[28]

     By the time of the council of 2000, the MP still did not feel able to canonize Sergius – probably because it feared that it would prevent a union with ROCOR. But neither did it canonize the leader of the Catacomb Church, Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd. This suggested that a canonization of the two leaders was in the offing, but depended on the success of the negotiations between the MP and ROCOR.

     The patriarch's lack of ecclesiastical principle and ecclesiological consistency in this question was pointed out by Fr. Peter Perekrestov: "In the introduction to one article ("In the Catacombs", Sovershenno Sekretno, № 7, 1991) Patriarch Alexis wrote the following: 'I believe that our martyrs and righteous ones, regardless of whether they followed Metropolitan Sergius or did not agree with his position, pray together for us.' At the same time, in the weekly, Nedelya, № 2, 1/92, the same Patriarch Alexis states that the Russian Church Abroad is a schismatic church, and adds: 'Equally uncanonical is the so-called "Catacomb" Church.' In other words, he recognizes the martyrs of the Catacomb Church, many of whom were betrayed to the godless authorities by Metropolitan Sergius's church organization…, and at the same time declares that these martyrs are schismatic and uncanonical!"[29]

     For in the last resort, as Fr. Peter pointed out, for the MP this whole matter was not one of truth or falsehood, but of power: "It is not important to them whether a priest is involved in shady business dealings or purely church activities; whether he is a democrat or a monarchist; whether an ecumenist or a zealot; whether he wants to serve Vigil for six hours or one; whether the priest serves a panikhida for the victims who defended the White House or a moleben for those who sided with Yeltsin; whether the priest wants to baptize by immersion or by sprinkling; whether he serves in the catacombs or openly; whether he venerates the Royal Martyrs or not; whether he serves according to the New or Orthodox Calendar - it really doesn't matter. The main thing is to commemorate Patriarch Alexis. Let the Church Abroad have its autonomy, let it even speak out, express itself as in the past, but only under one condition: commemorate Patriarch Alexis. This is a form of Papism - let the priests be married, let them serve according to the Eastern rite - it makes no difference, what is important is that they commemorate the Pope of Rome."[30]

     It is open to question whether the patriarchate's canonisation of even the true martyrs is pleasing to God. Thus when 50 patriarchal bishops uncovered the relics of Patriarch Tikhon in the Donskoj cemetery on April 5, 1992, witnesses reported that "it was even possible to recognise the face of the Patriarch from his incorrupt visage, and his mantia and mitre were also preserved in complete incorruption. Witnesses also speak about a beautiful fragrance and an unusual feeling of reverential peace at that moment. But then, as some patriarchal clerics confirm, on contact with the air the relics crumbled, or - as the Catacomb Christians remark - the relics were not given into the hands of the Moscow Patriarchate. Then they buried them in plaster - a blasphemous act from an Orthodox point of view..."[31]

     The ROCOR clergy of Kursk wrote about the MP council as follows: “Everywhere there is the same well-known style: pleasing the ‘right’ and the ‘left’, the Orthodox and the ecumenists, ‘yours’ and ‘ours’, without the slightest attempt at definiteness, but with, on the other hand, a careful preservation of the whole weight of the sins of the past and present”.[32]

     The “Jubilee Sobor” was final proof, if proof were needed, that the MP had not repented and could not repent unless its higher echelons were removed and the whole church apparatus was thoroughly purged.

     The question now was: how was ROCOR going to react?

I. “THE SECOND OCTOBER REVOLUTION”

     In October, 2000, a Hierarchical Council of ROCOR took place in New York under the presidency of Metropolitan Vitaly. In almost all its acts it represented a reaction to, and to a very large extent an approval of, the acts of the Moscow council. The most important were three conciliar epistles addressed: the first to the Serbian Patriarch Paul, the second “To the Beloved Children of the Church in the Homeland and in the Diaspora” and the third “To the Supporters of the Old Rites”.

     The first of these epistles, dated October 26, declared that ROCOR and the Serbs were “brothers by blood and by faith” and that “we have always valued the eucharistic communion between our sister-Churches and the desire to preserve the consolation of this communion to the end of time”. And towards the end of the Epistle we read: “We beseech your Holiness not to estrange us from liturgical communion with you”.

     It should be remembered that this was written only two years after ROCOR had officially reissued its anathema on ecumenism, and only a few months after the Serbian Patriarch himself had said that there was no communion between his Church and ROCOR, calling ROCOR a “church” only in inverted commas! Moreover, as recently as September, 2000, the official publication of the Serbian Church, Pravoslav’e, had reported that, at the invitation of the patriarchate there had arrived in Belgrade a Catholic delegation, which had made a joint declaration witnessing to the fact that Serbian hierarchs had been praying together with the Catholics for the last three weeks! So, having justly anathematised the Serbs as heretics, and having witnessed the continuation of their heretical activity, ROCOR was now begging to be brought back into communion with the heretics!

     Why? The reason became clear later in the Epistle: “A miracle has taken place, the prayers of the host of Russian New Martyrs have been heard: the atheist power that threatened the whole world has unexpectedly, before our eyes, fallen! Now we observe with joy and hope how the process of spiritual regeneration foretold by our saints has begun, and in parallel with it the gradual return to health of the Church administration in Russia. This process is difficult and is not being carried forward without opposition. Nevertheless, a radiant indicator of it is the recent glorification of the New Martyrs of Russia headed by the slaughtered Royal Family and the condemnation of the politics of cooperation with the godless authorities which took place at the last Council of the Russian Church in Moscow.

     “There still remain other serious wounds in the leadership of the Russian Church which hinder our spiritual rapprochement. Nevertheless, we pray God that He may heal them, too, by the all-powerful grace of the Holy Spirit. Then there must take place the longed-for rapprochement and, God willing, the spiritual union between the two torn-apart parts of the Russian Church – that which is in the Homeland, and that which has gone abroad. We pray your Holiness to grant your assistance in this.”

     So the ROCOR bishops – this letter was signed by all of them without exception - were asking a heretic anathematised for ecumenism to help them to enter into communion with other anathematised ecumenists – their old enemies in Moscow, whom they now characterised in glowing and completely false terms as if they had already returned to Orthodoxy! Why, then, should the ROCOR bishops continue to speak of ecumenism as an obstacle to union with the MP? As the Kursk clergy pointed out: “It is not clear how long, in view of the declared unity with the Serbian patriarchate, this last obstacle [ecumenism] to union with the MP will be seen as vital”.[33]

      The second of the epistles, dated October 27, made several very surprising statements. First, it again spoke of “the beginning of a real spiritual awakening” in Russia. Considering that less than 1% of the Russian population goes to the MP, then, even if the spiritual state of the MP were brilliant, this would hardly constitute “awakening” on any significant scale.

     However, as Demetrius Kapustin pointed out, the signs of this awakening – the greater reading of spiritual books, the greater discussion of canonical and historical questions in the MP – are not good indicators of real spiritual progress: “It is evident that the reading of Church books can bring a person great benefit. However, a necessary condition for this is love for the truth. The Jews also saw Christ, and spoke with Him, but they did not want humbly to receive the true teaching, and not only were they not saved, but also took part in the persecutions and destroyed their own souls. It is the same with many parishioners of the MP. On reading books on the contemporary Church situation, many of them come to the conclusion that sergianism and ecumenism are soul-destroying. However, these doubts of theirs are often drowned out by the affirmations of their false teachers, who dare to place themselves above the patristic tradition. Satisfying themselves with a false understanding of love (substituting adultery with heretics and law-breakers for love for God, which requires chastity and keeping the truth) and obedience (substituting following the teaching of false elders for obedience to God and the humble acceptance of the patristic teaching, and not recognizing their personal responsibility for their own Church state), they often take part in the persecutions and slander against the True Orthodox. In a word, even such good works as the veneration of the Royal Martyrs are often expressed in a distorted form (by, for example, mixing it with Stalinism, as with the ‘fighter from within’ Dushenov)”. Kapustin then makes the important point that “an enormous number of people… have not come to Orthodoxy precisely because they have not seen true Christianity in the MP (alas, in the consciousness of many people in Russia the Orthodox Church is associated with the MP). In my opinion, the MP rather hinders than assists the spiritual awakening of the Russian people (if we can talk at all about any awakening in the present exceptionally wretched spiritual condition of Russia).”[34]

     Secondly, ROCOR’s epistle welcomed the MP’s glorification of the New Martyrs, since “the turning of the whole Russian people in prayer to all the holy New Martyrs of Russia and especially the Royal new martyrs… had become possible now thanks to the recognition of their holiness by the Hierarchical Council of the Moscow Patriarchate”. As if the Russian people had not already been praying to the Holy New Martyrs in front of icons made in ROCOR for the past twenty years!

     Moreover, as Protopriests Constantine Fyodorov and Benjamin Zhukov wrote, “the possibility of turning in prayer to the Russian New Martyrs was opened to the people not by the Moscow Patriarchate (as is written in our Hierarchical Council’s Epistle), but by the martyric exploit of these saints themselves, who were glorified by our Church in 1981. The prayer of the Russian people to these saints never ceased from the very first day of their martyric exploit, but was strengthened and spread precisely by the canonization of the Church Abroad.”[35]

     Thirdly: “We are encouraged by the acceptance of the new social conception by this council, which in essence blots out the ‘Declaration’ of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927”.[36] And yet in the MP’s “social conception” Sergius’ declaration was not even mentioned, let alone repented of. In any case, how could one vague phrase about the necessity of the Church disobeying the State in certain exceptional cases (which was contradicted on the same page, as we have seen) blot out a Declaration that caused the greatest schism in Orthodox Church history since 1054 and incalculable sufferings and death?! Two years later, as we have seen, in July, 2002, the Synod of the MP, far from “blotting out” the declaration, said that Sergius’ relationship to the Soviet authorities was “not blameworthy”, so not only has the MP not repented for sergianism, but it has continued to justify it, contradicting the position of the Catacomb new martyrs whom it has just glorified and who gave their lives because of their opposition to sergianism.

     The epistle, which was signed by all the bishops except Barnabas, obliquely recognised this fact when it later declared: “We have not seen a just evaluation by the Moscow Patriarchate of the anti-ecclesiastical actions of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and his Synod and their successors”. If so, then how can we talk about Sergius’ Declaration being blotted out?!

     The third epistle, addressed to the Old Ritualists without distinguishing between the Popovtsi and Bespopovtsi, was similarly ecumenist in tone, beginning with the words: “To the Believing children of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Homeland and in the diaspora, who hold to the old rite, the Council of bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad sends greetings! Beloved brothers and sisters in our holy Orthodox faith: may the grace and peace of the Man-loving Saviour be with you to the ages!”

     It was one thing to remove the bans on the old rites, as ROCOR had done in its Council in 1974: it was quite another to recognise the schismatics as Orthodox. And in such terms! For later in the epistle ROCOR compares the persecutions of the Old Ritualists to the persecutions of St. John Chrysostom, and begs forgiveness of the Old Ritualists as the Emperor Theodosius the Younger had begged it of the holy hierarch! But, as Bishop Gregory Grabbe pointed out after the 1974 Council, the sins of the Russian State in persecuting the Old Ritualists in the 17^th century should not all be laid on the Church of the time, which primarily condemned the Old Ritualists not for their adherence to the old rites (which even Patriarch Nicon recognised to be salvific), but for their disobedience to the Church. To lay all the blame for the schism, not on the Old Ritualists but on the Orthodox, even after the Old Ritualists had proudly refused to take advantage of the many major concessions made by the Orthodox (for example, the edinoverie) while stubbornly continuing to call the Orthodox themselves schismatics, was to invert the truth and logically led to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church was not the True Church!

      As clergy of the Kursk diocese pointed out: “The conciliar epistle to the Old Ritualists, in our opinion, is not only an extremely humiliating document for the Orthodox Church, but also contains signs of a heterodox ecclesiology. Effectively equating the Old Ritualists with the confessors of Orthodoxy, the Hierarchical Council, first, leaves them with their convictions, thereby blocking the path to repentance, and secondly, either teaches that outside the Orthodox Church there can exist true confession, or considers that the Church can be divided into parts which for centuries have not had any eucharistic communion between themselves. Both in form and in spirit the epistle in question represents a complete break with the patristic tradition of the Orthodox Church…. It seems that all that remains to be added is the request: ‘We humbly beseech you to receive us into your communion and be united to the Holy Church.”[37]

     The feelings of the protestors was summed up by Fr. Stefan Krasovitsky and Roman Vershillo, who said that a “revolution” had taken place, and that “if we are to express the meaning of the coup shortly, then there took place, first, a moral disarmament, and secondly, the self-abolition of ROCOR as a separate part of the Russian Local Church… Alas, [it] is composed in such a way that it is not actually clear who has really fallen into schism from the Church: we or our errant Old Ritualist brothers!”[38]

     For ROCOR the writing was now on the wall. The October, 2000 Council constituted a clear break with the traditional attitude towards the MP and World Orthodoxy adopted by Metropolitans Anthony, Anastasy and Philaret. Only a clear renunciation of that clear break could keep the children of ROCOR within the Church and Faith of their fathers…

     The October, 2000 Council was dubbed “the second October revolution” by its critics. And soon, in imitation of the MP’s own behaviour, suspensions and bans were being placed on the dissidents without any pretence of correct canonical procedure. Bishop Gabriel of Manhattan banned Hieromonk Paisius of Richmond Hill, New York; Bishop Michael of Toronto banned Hieromonk Vladimir of Mansonville, Canada; Bishop Agathangelus of the Crimea banned Priest Nicholas Furtatenko of Kiev; and Bishop Eutyches of Siberia banned three priests from St. Petersburg and two from Omsk. It was clear that opposition to the false council of 2000 was increasing both inside and outside Russia. The question was: would this opposition finally break with ROCOR and, together with those who had already broken with ROCOR or been unlawfully expelled from it, form a coherent and united force capable of regenerating the Russian Church?

II. THE FALL OF THE NEW YORK SYNOD

     “On November 21 / December 4, 2000,” writes Vitaly Shumilo, Metropolitan Vitaly, in reply to the numerous appeals, published his ‘Epistle to the Clergy and Flock’ in which he gave his evaluation of the Moscow Patriarchate and its Sobor of 2000, in particular with regard to the canonization in the MP of the New Martyrs and the Royal Family. ‘The Moscow Patriarchate has decided to carry out a political capitulation and to perform its glorification with one aim only: to pacify the voice of its believers and thereby gain some continued existence for itself.’ In his Epistle Vladyka Metropolitan also gives a critical evaluation of the decree accepted by the ROCOR Sobor concerning the creation of a Reconciliatory commission for unity with the MP and recalled how and with what aim Stalin created the contemporary ‘Moscow Patriarchate’. And here he speaks about the Catacomb Church, which  did not enter upon the path of serving the God-fighting authorities, and about the Soviet church, which submitted to the authorities: ‘The silent response to this on the part of the believers in Russia was that they began to pray in their homes, and in every such flat a house church with an iconostasis was created… This kind of church exists to this day.’ In his Epistle the First-Hierarch affirmed that ‘our Church, which already now for 80 years has gone along the straight path of Christ, will not deviate into any dubious holes’, and ‘the fact that I have signed this Epistle [the conciliar decision of 2000 –author’s comment] by no means signifies that I agree with every point in it, and I know that there are other hierarchs who thought the same as I’. At the end of the Epistle Metropolitan Vitaly once more declared: ‘And so know, faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, that our Church has not changed its path, and we also, if we wish to be saved, must go along this path’, and he called on them to remain ‘faithful to the Lord and His Church’.”[39]

     The most organized resistance outside Russia came from the West European diocese. The clergy there were unhappy with the appointment of the pro-MP Bishop Ambrose (Cantacuzθne) as head of the diocese to replace the anti-MP Archbishop Seraphim, who was retiring. Moreover, on October 17 a letter to the Council of Bishops signed by Bishop Barnabas, 7 archpriests, 7 priests, the Abbess of the Lesna convent and other lower clergy protested against the plans, announced in a letter by two Geneva priests, to transfer the Geneva parish of the Elevation of the Cross to the MP in exchange for “stavropegial” status and administrative and financial independence.

     The role of Bishop Ambrose of Geneva in this affair was not immediately obvious.[40] Although he had been conducting negotiations with the MP for the last five years, he appeared at first to distance himself from the two priests. However, on October 27 he was elevated to the rank of diocesan bishop of the Western Europe diocese, and immediately, at a parish meeting, said that he was very happy with the parish council’s decision to join the MP…[41]

     There were stirrings in Russia also. On January 21 / February 2, 2001, Bishop Benjamin (Rusalenko) of the Kuban and Black Sea made the first open declaration by a bishop withdrawing his signature from the unorthodox decisions of the Council of the year 2000. In June he was followed by Archbishop Lazarus. Now all the Russian bishops except Bishop Eutyches of Ishim and Siberia[42] were on the side of the protesters.

     On February 6-8 there took place a meeting of the Hierarchical Synod in New York under the presidency of Metropolitan Vitaly that confirmed all the decisions of the Council. “We are very upset,” said the Synod, “by the disturbances that have taken hold of some parts of our church organism. In connection with this we affirm that we – all the members of the Hierarchical Synod, headed by the president, his Eminence Metropolitan Vitaly, - unanimously stand by the decisions and declarations accepted at the Hierarchical Council and we cannot agree with the attempt to introduce a spirit of doubt and disagreement into our midst.”

     In response to this, on February 24 / March 9 Bishop Benjamin and the clergy of the Kuban and Black Sea diocese wrote to Metropolitan Vitaly and the Synod, saying: “We insistently ask you to convene a new Council with the participation of clergy, monastics and laity. Because by your decisions you have introduced strong dismay and disturbance into the whole of our Church. We are expecting a positive response to our Address from the next meeting of the Hierarchical Synod. But if our voice is not heeded by the Archpastors, then we shall be forced, in accordance with the holy canons that forbid joint prayer with heretics, to step on the path of decisive actions (‘depart from evil and do good’)… We have not lost hope that our Hierarchical Synod will review these decisions and by the conciliar mind of the Russian Church Abroad will correct the errors that have been made.”

     Meanwhile, the clergy of the West European diocese were continuing to refuse to accept Bishop Ambrose’s authority. Fr. Nicholas Semeonov of Brussels and Fr. Constantine Fyodorov of the Lesna convent in France were suspended. On February 28, 2001, Bishop Barnabas withdrew his signature from the October Council’s letter to the Serbian patriarch. The next day Bishop Ambrose “released the clergy and the flock of the French vicariate [of Cannes] from submission to Bishop Barnabas”.[43] Then, on April 24 the ROCOR Synod, on the basis of a report by the Protopriests George Larin and Stefan Pavlenko, suspended the French clergy for their refusal to commemorate Bishop Ambrose, and told them to meet Archbishop Laurus in Munich on May 2. This suspension was signed by Metropolitan Vitaly and Archbishop Laurus, secretary of the Synod. The French clergy, meeting with Bishop Barnabas, unanimously rejected the suspensions as uncanonical, and did not go to the meeting in Munich. But on April 25, Bishop Barnabas was also placed under ban. These acts were signed by Metropolitan Vitaly and Archbishop Laurus.[44]

     None of the banned clergy was able to arrive at such short notice for the meeting on May 2. In their absence a broadened Hierarchical Synod confirmed the April decisions to ban Bishop Barnabas and his clergy.[45] On May 5 Bishop Barnabas and his clergy signed an Address in which they evaluated the activity of the Synod and Bishop Ambrose in the last few months. They pointed out that they had made several appeals to the Synod to review the ecumenist and pro-MP activity of Bishop Ambrose and to remove him from administering the diocese. In reply, instead of investigating the complaints and initiating an ecclesiastical trial, the Synod had banned the appealers “until repentance”. Referring to Bishop Benjamin’s Declaration (“the voice of Bishop Benjamin of the Black Sea and Kuban has sounded out in a confessing manner”, they said), the West European clergy appealed to the like-minded clergy and flock in Russia and abroad to unite “and form a powerful opposition to the new course in our Church”.

     On May 6/19 another Address of the West European clergy appeared on the internet, in which their position was explained and bewilderment expressed with regard to the bans placed on them by the Synod. “The essence of the question is not in some crude and enigmatic disobedience to the hierarchy, but in the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Moscow Patriarchate. The question was clearly put at the Council of the year 2000, which established a Commission for the Unity of the Russian Church and turned to the Serbian ‘Patriarch’ with a request that he intercede on the path to this unity. The hierarchs deliberately ignore this question and cover it with a supposed violation of church discipline. The appointment of Bishop Ambrose as the ruling bishop, although he is a supporter of rapprochement with Moscow and in spite of all the warnings, has brought the diocese into complete disorder… In recognizing the Moscow Patriarchate as the genuine Russian Church, the hierarchs have condemned themselves as schismatics, falling under the Moscow Patriarchate’s condemnation of the Church Abroad.” At the end of the Address the banned clergy declared that this kind of action on the part of the members of the Synod “has no real ecclesiastical significance, and all their decisions bear only a party character”. The crisis in the West European diocese had reached the point where formal synodical decrees and bans were no longer able to resolve it.

     But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the whole affair was the fact that Metropolitan Vitaly had signed these bans…

     On May 22 / June 4 Archbishop Lazarus withdrew his signature from the decisions of the Council of 2000. In his Address (which he had begun in January, 2001, but had been prevented from completing because of illness) he, following Bishop Benjamin, called for an extraordinary Council of ROCOR to review several points in that Council’s documents. And he went on: “In no way am I thinking, and never have thought, of leaving ROCOR and causing a schism, but, on the contrary, by this step of mine I guard myself and the flock entrusted to me by the Holy Church from deviating from the only true path of confession along which ROCOR and RTOC (as two parts of one Russian Church) have unwaveringly gone since the very moment of their origin.”

     Archbishop Lazarus also warned against premature breaking with the Synod. He was probably thinking of the action of the Paris Protopriest Benjamin Zhukov, who in the previous month of May, had attempted to have Archimandrite Sergius (Kindyakov) consecrated and had unsuccessfully tried to draw Lazarus into his plot.[46] But he did succeed in enrolling Bishop Barnabas, who travelled with the aim of consecrating Sergius to Mansonville in Canada, but was deterred from carrying out the consecration by Metropolitan Vitaly. However, Bishop Barnabas and Fr. Benjamin went on to register a new church group under the name of “The Russian Orthodox Church in Exile” in the Paris prefecture as a “public, non-commercial corporation.” It appeared that already these two were plotting a church coup, with the replacement of Vitaly by Barnabas as metropolitan and with Zhukov as the real controller behind the scenes…

     At this point, Metropolitan Vitaly, seeing the chaos being created in the Church, began to step back from the course he had undertaken together with the other hierarchs. In an epistle dated June 7/20, he rescinded the bans on Bishop Barnabas and the French clergy. He had the right to do this as a temporary measure, in accordance with article 38 of the ROCOR Statute, pending the convening of a new Sobor that alone could make a final decision. Then, in an encyclical dated June 9/22, which he ordered to be read from the ambon of all the churches, the metropolitan subjected many positions adopted in the recent Sobor to just criticism, and called for the convocation of a new Sobor. Although the metropolitan did not personally repent of his part in the creation of this chaos (as recently as the Synodal session on February 8 he had upheld the decisions of the October 2000 Council[47]), his willingness to review the disastrous decisions of the October Sober was very welcome. On June 25 / July 8 Archbishop Lazarus expressed his “support and profound gratitude” for the encyclical.

     However, the encyclical “was forbidden to be read on the orders of Bishop Gabriel”[48] of Manhattan, the deputy secretary of the Synod, who declared that the metropolitan had probably not composed the encyclical but had been pressured into signing it by unknown persons (the first of several such accusations in the months to come). Bishop Gabriel’s claim was supported in letters by Archbishop Mark and Bishop Ambrose. But then Bishop Barnabas weighed in on the side of the metropolitan, pointing out that the encyclical had been thrashed out in the course of three days of talks in Mansonville and expressed the freely expressed opinions of the metropolitan himself.[49]

     On July 10, a critical session of the Hierarchical Synod was held. The event turned into a very crude and rude attempt to force the metropolitan to retire – only two or three days before the fiftieth anniversary of his service as a bishop. The metropolitan said that he could retire only as the result of the decision of a Sobor; but the other bishops said that that was not necessary. The metropolitan then closed the session, declaring that he had nothing in common with the other bishops, and that he would see them at the Sobor.

     However, two documents dated the same day and signed, as it would seem, by Metropolitan Vitaly as well as by the other ten bishops, declared that the metropolitan had submitted a petition that he be allowed to retire “in view of age and illness” (he was 92), that his petition had been accepted with understanding, that Archbishop Laurus was appointed deputy of the first hierarch “with all proxy powers” (protocol № 9) until a Sobor could be convened, and that a Sobor to elect a new metropolitan would be convened in October![50] The decision was taken that “any official documents coming from the Synod without the signature of the deputy of the First-Hierarch, Archbishop Laurus, are invalid (article three of the Act). And it was also decreed that a Hierarchical Sobor should be convened in October to elect a new First-Hierarch (article 4). Archbishop Laurus was appointed Deputy of the First-Hierarch, and his name was to be commemorated in all the parishes after the name of the First-Hierarch…

     Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Benjamin did not submit to these decrees, and continued to commemorate Metropolitan Vitaly without commemorating Archbishop Laurus.

     On July 12 a triumphant liturgy and moleben was celebrated in honour of Metropolitan Vitaly’s jubilee, after which a number of hypocritical speeches praising the metropolitan were uttered by hierarchs who had been treating him with such disrespect only two days before.[51]

     On July 13 the Synod declared, in an attempt to assuage the fears of Metropolitan Vitaly’s supporters: “None of the hierarchs of ROCOR is pushing towards a unification with the MP. There is no pro-MP faction amongst us.” The falseness of these words was already evident, but would be demonstrated even more clearly in the coming years…

     “Shortly after the forced removal of Metropolitan Vitaly,” writes Professor Olga Ackerly, “… the MP began to voice its endorsement: ‘We welcome the fact that the more healthy forces in the Church Abroad have predominated and are now for all practical purposes in charge of it.’”[52]

     On September 4-5, a Conference of the Hierarchs, Clergy and Laity of the Russian Parishes of ROCOR took place in Voronezh under the presidency of Archbishop Laurus, and with the participation of Bishops Benjamin, Agathangelus and Eutyches. At this meeting the Kursk and Belgorod clergy declared their break of communion with the New York Synod and addressed their bishops – Lazarus, Benjamin and Agathangelus – with a suggestion that they appeal to Metropolitan Vitaly and Bishop Barnabas that they unite with them on the basis of the pre-2000 dogmatical and canonical position of ROCOR. Bishop Agathangelus reacted by demanding that the Kursk clergy renounce their break of communion with the New York Synod. Otherwise, he would not sign any proposed documents. And he showed the clergy the door… Archbishop Lazarus did not support his colleague’s hardline attitude to the Kursk clergy, but agreed with him about not breaking with the Lavrites. Bishop Benjamin adopted a neutral position. Although the majority of the Conference agreed with the Kursk clergy, they now tried to persuade them, for the sake of “the good of the Church” to withdraw their words about a break of communion with the New York Synod. Fr. Valery Rozhnov said that the Synod had fallen under their own anathema. Archbishop Lazarus retorted that nobody had anathematized them. When the Kursk clergy refused to back down, Bishop Agathangelus said that he was not in communion with them. And so they left the meeting… Finally, the Conference accepted an Address to the forthcoming Sobor in which support was expressed for Metropolitan Vitaly’s encyclical and for the banned Bishop Barnabas and the West European clergy, while the practice of this kind of ban was condemned. Then, addressing Metropolitan Vitaly personally, the Conference besought him not to abandon his post of First-Hierarch.

     On reading this Address in New York, Metropolitan Vitaly raised his right hand and said: “There is the True Church. Here everything is finished…”[53] And on September 8/21 Bishop Barnabas and the West European clergy (including Fr. Benjamin Zhukov) expressed their gratitude to the Russian hierarchs and their complete support for their position.

     Bishop Agathangelus signed all the decrees and addresses of the Voronezh Conference, and was entrusted with representing its views to the Sobor in New York. He assured the participants that he would not vote for the new course of rapprochement with the MP, and that if Metropolitan Vitaly refused to take part in the Sobor and left the hall, he would follow him. However, having arrived in New York, he changed course and joined the uniates. And then, on returning to Russia, he raised a persecution against Archbishop Lazarus and his colleagues. He denounced them to the civil authorities, tried to have their registration rescinded and their churches taken from them. He even tried to seize the church of St. John of Kronstadt in Odessa that belonged to Archbishop Lazarus…

     At the first session of the Sobor in New York, on October 10/23, Archbishop Laurus was elected metropolitan – a decision welcomed by “Patriarch” Alexis of Moscow. Metropolitan Vitaly was present at this session, but only in order to hand in the following declaration, dated October 5/18, after which he left the hall:

     “Recognizing the depth of the sinful fall of certain members of the Hierarchical Council of our Church in their intensive, but not yet expressed desire to unite with the Moscow Patriarchate, I, with full responsibility before God, the Russian people and my conscience, consider it my archpastoral duty to declare that the coming Hierarchical Sobor, which is due to open on October 23, 2001 cannot be called anything other than a collection of irresponsibles.

     “This Sobor undoubtedly intends to discuss questions relating to a possible union with the false-church of the Moscow Patriarchate. The other day I received a ‘Fraternal Epistle’ from Patriarch Alexis II, which, to my profound sorrow, elicited a joyful reaction from many clerics of our Church. They even sent a triumphant address to the Sobor, asking the Sobor to react positively to this epistle of the patriarch. Their address was signed by 18-odd clerics of our Church. But how many more are there who do not dare to express themselves openly? Seeing no other way out of the situation that has been created, and not wishing to bear responsibility for the final destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad that has been entrusted to my care, I declare:

     “I consider myself the lawful heir of all the preceding metropolitans of our Holy Church Abroad: first Metropolitan Anthony, then Metropolitan Anastasius, and finally Metropolitan Philaret. I am the fourth Metropolitan of our Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and until the most recent time, I have continued, with the help of God, to lead this ship on the straight path amidst the threatening waves of the sea of this world, avoiding underwater rocks, sudden storms and deep pits that suck ships to the bottom of the sea. Unfortunately, a fateful time has come, when I have understood and appreciated the sad fact that between me and the other hierarchs of our Synod there is no longer oneness of mind and soul. I said this at the last Synod, when after the first session I, distressed and fully conscious of my isolation among the other hierarchs, left the gathering. On this basis and only on this basis, I agreed to retire and will be considered the Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in retirement. In this Church I was born, was baptized and will die when the time comes.

     “I wish to declare for all to hear that as First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, I completely reject and condemn any rapprochement whatsoever and union in the future with the false-church, the Moscow Patriarchate.

     “I also wish to declare that I remove my signature from the following documents signed by me:

     “1. My signature on the address to the Serbian Patriarch Paul.

     “2. My signature on the agreement to form a commission for the establishment of negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate…”

     On the same day Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Benjamin again addressed the Sobor and Metropolitan Vitaly personally. They called on the Sobor to review the unacceptable documents accepted in the previous Sobor, and asked the metropolitan not to retire, saying that they recognized only him as First-Hierarch. They said that they were not able, for objective reasons, to be in New York, but were ready to take part in the work of the Sobor by telephone – on condition, however, that all the bishops withdrew their signatures from the documents of the Council of 2000.

     On October 11/24, Bishop Barnabas also wrote to Metropolitan Vitaly expressing his support. Before that he and Protodeacon Herman Ivanov-Trinadtsaty had phoned him, appealing to him not to retire. On the same day Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Benjamin once again wrote to the metropolitan, asking him to review his decision to retire. Archbishop Lazarus even repeated the request in a phone call to Mansonville. “No,” replied the metropolitan firmly, “I am a metropolitan in retirement.” “How then is it to be with us now in Russia?” asked the archbishop. “Place your hope on God. God will bless”, replied the metropolitan…

     On receiving this reply, Archbishop Lazarus decreed that for the time being only the name of the ruling bishop should be commemorated in his cathedral church of St. John of Kronstadt in Odessa. With the retirement of the metropolitan, the ruling organ of the Russian Church now became the Hierarchical Conference of Russian Bishops, first created with the blessing of the ROCOR Hierarchical Council in 1994 with Archbishop Lazarus at its head.

     On October 11/24, having discussed the declarations of the Russian bishops, the Sobor in New York elected Archbishop Laurus as metropolitan by a majority of votes and confirmed its adherence to the decisions of the robber council of 2000.

     On October 12/25, Metropolitan Vitaly came into the hall, congratulated “the new First-Hierarch Metropolitan Laurus” and said “that he was going into retirement and is handing over the reins of the Church’s administration”. From what is written in the Protocol, the conversation was friendly. The metropolitan congratulated Archbishop Laurus and wished him “to guide the ship of the Church in the same way that it had always been guided, on the straight path of True Orthodoxy”. On his part, Archbishop Laurus “in the name of the Sobor thanked Metropolitan Vitaly for his labours for the good of the Church”, and “asked him for his help in bringing order to Church life”. The metropolitan once again emphasized that “by reason of his health and in view of his advanced age he could no longer administer the Church. He had never been ambitious. He truly needed rest.” The session continued without the metropolitan, and they discussed the participation of Vladyka Vitaly at the enthronement of Archbishop Laurus and the provision of a pension for him in his retirement.

     The Sobor wanted Metropolitan Vitaly to hand over all his property in Canada to the Synod. To this end, fearing the interference of his secretary, Liudmilla Rosnianskaia, it was decreed, already on October 11/24, to remove her immediately from the Synodal house, “bringing to an end her position as a servant of the Hierarchical Synod”. Then, on the evening of the same or the following day (that is, on October 11/24 or 12/25), she was unceremoniously thrown out of the Synodal building, and the contents of her handbag, containing the metropolitan’s Canadian passport, medication and $20,000, were stolen. The next day, the metropolitan himself fled, first to the house of Fr. Vladimir Shishkov (where Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal happened to be staying), and then to Canada. The ROCOR hierarchs gave an order to detain him at the border, but he successfully arrived at his Transfiguration Skete in Mansonville. The next day ROCOR sued Fr. Vladimir for assisting in the supposed kidnapping of the metropolitan, and Rosnianskaia was accused of kidnapping him, of giving him drugs to destroy his memory, and of exploiting his senility to her advantage.

     As a result of these events, through the greed of the Synodal hierarchs, Metropolitan Vitaly was prevented from taking part in the enthronement of Archbishop Laurus and of praying together with the uniate hierarchs. On the day after his departure for Canada there was an earthquake in New York… And on the very night that Metropolitan Laurus arrived in the Holy Trinity monastery in Jordanville, a fire broke out in the monastery…[54] The fire was stopped at the seminary building in which was housed the cell icon of the Iveron Mother of God that had belonged to Metropolitan Philaret.[55]

     On November 13, President Putin met Bishop Gabriel, secretary of the ROCOR (L) Synod, and invited him and Metropolitan Laurus to visit Moscow. He must have agreed this invitation with Patriarch Alexis. So with the blessing of the KGB leaders of both Church and State, the real negotiations on union, a process that was called “structuring” [56] by its supporters, could begin.

III. THE CREATION OF THE MANSONVILLE SYNOD

     Meanwhile, in Mansonville Hieromonk Vladimir (Tselischev), an ally of Fr. Benjamin Zhukov, finally convinced Metropolitan Vitaly to come out of retirement. According to the witness of Fr. Vladimir, the argument that prevailed with him was the support of the Russian bishops and the question: “Vladyka, to whom are you leaving the Russian bishops and flock?”

     This represented a striking volte face on the part of Hieromonk Vladimir. Only a few months before he had dismissed the metropolitan, saying: “there is no more metropolitan” (letter of November, 2000). He said that the metropolitan was no longer able to administer the Church because he was “deprived of orientation and memory” and remained in “an unhealthy state of mind and reasoning (letter of May, 2001). He “completely depended” on his secretary, L.D. Rosnianskaia, who had control of his signature, his writing paper and his seal. “One should have no illusions about this,” he wrote (letter of July, 2001). Such inconsistency raised suspicions about Fr. Vladimir’s real motivation – suspicions that were to be confirmed quite soon…

     Indeed, if the main body of the bishops led by Archbishops Laurus and Mark were preparing a “revolution on the left” against the authority of the metropolitan, there is strong evidence that a “revolution on the right” was also being prepared. The real leader of these rightist revolutionaries was the Paris Protopriest Benjamin Zhukov. In May, 2001, he asked the metropolitan to bless Bishop Barnabas of Cannes (his creature at the time) to consecrate Archimandrite Sergius (Kindiakov) to the episcopate. The metropolitan refused, and Zhukov, annoyed, then tried to persuade Archbishop Lazarus of Tambov and Odessa to carry out the consecration in secret, suggesting that he would become “metropolitan” and “first-hierarch”. Lazarus refused, thereby earning the hatred of Zhukov – with dire consequences for the Church.[57]

     Persuaded by “rightist revolutionaries” such as Tselischev and Zhukov, on October 14/27, the metropolitan issued an “Extraordinary Declaration” on the internet: “In view of the unwillingness on the part of the majority of the bishop to reconcile and pacify the unheard-of disturbance among our clergy and flock, and also taking into account the requests of some of the bishops and many of the children of the Church Abroad, I with all responsibility declare that, in accordance with paragraph 34 of the Statute on the ROCOR, I remove my signature concerning my voluntary retirement and handing over of my powers to Archbishop Laurus. My name must be commemorated as before at services in all the churches of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. In case of unforeseen circumstances, Bishop Barnabas of Cannes is entrusted with temporarily bearing the powers of Deputy of the First-Hierarch of ROCOR until the election of a new First-Hierarch of the Church Abroad by hierarchs who have remained faithful to the Orthodox faith.” [58]

     This news was greeted with joy, but also with some perplexity, by the opponents of union with the MP. After all, only three days before the metropolitan had refused to revoke his decision to retire even after several earnest entreaties from hierarchs, clergy and laity both within and outside Russia. Moreover, there was considerable concern whether the metropolitan had the right to come out of retirement and resume the leadership of the Church without the decision of a Sobor of bishops. [59] Paragraph 34 of the Statute on ROCOR did not provide him with that authority.

     The only justification that the metropolitan could give for his action was the fact that he had been coerced to retire in July. As he himself said: “I hereby declare that, at that time [July 2001] I was coerced by violence to put my signature on documents prepared and written by the Synod... I have been the object of outrages and of high and repeated psychological pressures from the bishops. These tortures have exhausted me.” That Metropolitan Vitaly had indeed been coerced was witnessed by two participants in the July meeting, Archimandrite Sergius (Kindiakov) and Priest Anthony (Orlov).[60] As against this, however, is the fact that by October the metropolitan appears to have been completely reconciled with his retirement, refused to withdraw it when asked to on many occasions, and voluntarily congratulated Archbishop Laurus on his election as the new metropolitan, reaffirming that he was retiring because of his health and old age and because he “truly needed rest”.

     “Here it is appropriate to note a similar precedent,” writes Vitaly Shumilo: “it was for precisely this reason that the pre-revolutionary Russian Church did not recognize the canonicity of the so-called Belokrinitskaya Old Ritualist hierarchy, which traced its origins to Metropolitan Ambrose of Bosnia and Sarajevo, who was in retirement. The Old Ritualists’ references to the fact that Metropolitan Ambrose had been sent into retirement not in accordance with his will, but on the demand and under the pressure of the Turkish government, and that the metropolitan did not recognize the decision of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate – were not accepted by the Holy Synod.

     “The fact that Vladyka Vitaly was in the situation of a bishop in retirement is confirmed by consideration of what rights he actually enjoyed in the ‘Mansonville Synod of Vicar-Bishops’. With the seizure of power in Mansonville by Protopriest B. Zhukov, Hieromonk V. Tselischev and Priest N. Orlov, Metropolitan Vitaly was de facto retired for the second time (the first time was by the plotters from New York headed by Archbishop Laurus and Archbishop Mark): all the parishes in Canada were removed from the direct administration of Vladyka Vitaly as the ruling Bishop of Montreal and Canada and transferred to the administration of the vicars, who proclaimed themselves to be ‘ruling’. From this time and until his blessed death, Metropolitan Vitaly had not one single parish under his administration in Canada. From a canonical point of view, this was a possible situation for a hierarch only if he was in retirement. The remarks that the Metropolitan was weak and unable to administer the parishes are not honest. If the Metropolitan was not able to administer his parishes, was he able to administer the Church? It is clear that the people who kept the Metropolitan in captivity were inconsistent – not to say, cunning.”[61]

     There was a similar canonical problem with regard to the metropolitan’s appointment of Bishop Barnabas as his deputy. Barnabas was under a ban signed by the metropolitan himself. That ban could be removed only by a Sobor of bishops. Therefore the Metropolitan’s decision to appoint him as his deputy without the authority of a Sobor, and later to allow him to ordain bishops and be raised to the rank of archbishop, was uncanonical.

     The only way in which what we shall now call ROCOR (V) could correct these canonical deficiencies was to turn to the Russian hierarchs Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Benjamin in order to convene a canonical Sobor. For they were in fact the only ruling bishops opposed to the New York synod who did not need a Council of bishops to reinstate them as fully functioning bishops. These bishops were very eager to help in this way. On October 27, the very day of his “Extraordinary Declaration”, they had declared their loyalty to Metropolitan Vitaly.[62]  And on October 28^th, 29^th or 30^th they “made their declaration of loyalty to Metropolitan Vitaly by telephone. This phone call was received by Bishop (then Hieromonk) Vladimir in Mansonville in the presence of Protopriest Spyridon Schneider and Priest Andrew Kencis. When Bishop Vladimir finished his phone call with Archbishop Lazarus he enthusiastically proclaimed: ‘Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Benjamin are with us, they are commemorating Metropolitan Vitaly.’”

     The Mansonville group were happy to welcome the Russian bishops in October, when they were desperately in need of support against the uniate Synod under Metropolitan Laurus (ROCOR (L). However, the tragedy was that within a few days they no longer felt any need for them and in effect broke communion with them. For Zhukov wanted to rule the Synod on his own; he cared nothing for the canonical scruples of the Russian bishops, who wanted the convening of a canonical Sobor in order to correct the canonical deficiencies of the Mansonville Synod, but wanted with the aid of Bishop Barnabas alone to promote his protιgι priests…

     “On November 1, 2001,” writes Shumilo, “an event took place greatly perplexed many Orthodox Christians. On the initiative of the New York Synod, Metropolitan Vitaly, accompanied by police, was forcibly sent to a psychiatric hospital for testing. This was a great indignity for the person of the Metropolitan, a mockery of his rank and age, but Vladyka Vitaly humbly and with dignity bore it all…

     “[On November 3], immediately on the return of Vladyka Metropolitan from hospital, taking advantage of his distraction and under the excuse of ‘saving’ the Church, on the initiative and under the direct pressure of Protopriest V. Zhukov (who shouted down the phone to Bishop Barnabas: ‘Consecrate a bishop immediately, even if it’s with a rope around his neck’ – this is witnessed by clergy from France and Russia who were present at the conversation), the Vicar-Bishop Barnabas carried out the consecration of Archimandrite Sergius (Kindiakov). The decision to carry out this consecration was taken hastily, it was not discussed in council, and none of the acting hierarchs was informed about it (not to speak of the necessity that they should give their written consent to the carrying out of a hierarchical consecration, as is demanded by the church canons and the Statute of ROCOR, see paragraph 11, and the note to this paragraph, also Canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council: ‘… and those who are absent must compose an agreement by means of letters: and then the consecration can take place’, etc.). Only one consent was obtained to this consecration, together with the Metropolitan’s oral blessing – but not immediately, but after some pressure on him (the decisive argument was: ‘You can be arrested and the Church will remain without bishops’)…

     “As many sources witness, the ninety-year-old Metropolitan, by reason of his health had not been able to serve a liturgy since 1999, was very weak and unable to take full part in the consecration of Archimandrite Sergius. He was present at it clad only in a mantia (this is witnessed by photographs: on them Bishop Barnabas and Bishop Sergius are in full hierarchical vestments, but Metropolitan Vitaly is in a mantia), whereas neither a liturgy nor a hierarchical consecration can be carried out in a mantia. The consecration of Archimandrite Sergius was carried out by Vicar-Bishop Barnabas on his own…

     “This consecration laid the foundations for the creation of a new church organization – the ROC in Exile (ROCiE, it was under that name that it was registered in France, Canada and the USA)…

     “If, taking into account the exceptional circumstances, for the sake of love and peace and with the aim of averting a schism in the Church, it would have been possible, in a conciliar fashion, with the application of the broadest economy, to accept the consecration of Archimandrite Sergius at a Hierarchical Sobor with a consequent laying of hands [cheirothesia] on him, then all the later ‘Mansonville consecrations’ [of Bishops Vladimir, Bartholomew, Anthony and Victor] carried out by Bishop Barnabas and Archimandrite Sergius in secret even from Metropolitan Vitaly (without the participation and contrary to the will of the metropolitan) were openly unlawful, and it is impossible to accept them.”[63]

     On November 5, the Mansonville Synod published an ukaz stating that the metropolitan was now to be commemorated as “First-Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile”. It was decided that the Church should be incorporated under this name (we recall that Zhukov had already done this in France), and Fr. Joseph Sunderland was appointed as legal advisor to carry this out. However, since a change in name usually signifies a change in Church, the ukaz disturbed many believers and was rejected by the Russian bishops. Archbishop Lazarus even orally forbade the commemoration of the metropolitan for a few weeks. But then, on November 20, the Mansonvillians recognized their mistake and reversed their previous decision, restoring the name “Russian Orthodox Church Abroad”. As emerged only later, Metropolitan Vitaly had always been against the change of name. With the original name restored, on November 24 Archbishop Lazarus ordered that the metropolitan’s name be commemorated again. Bishop Benjamin issued a similar ukaz. [64]

     Also on November 5, the new “Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile” raised Bishop Barnabas to the rank of archbishop with the title “of Cannes and Europe”. Strangely, Archbishop Barnabas’ signature was not on this document. However, he was all too willing to accept the power it gave him. Thus already on or about November 7, he declared that he would not accept Archbishop Lazarus as senior to himself.[65] And later he claimed that, as deputy to the metropolitan and “Archbishop of Europe”, he should have control over the whole of European Russia, thereby excluding Lazarus and Benjamin from the administration of their sees!

     Later, the Mansonvillians would describe the meeting at which these decisions were made as “the first Hierarchical Sobor of the regenerated ROCA”. And yet much later, on May 20, 2003, they decreed the “establishment of the Hierarchical Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad”! The absurdity of establishing the Synod already eighteen months after “the first Hierarchical Sobor of the regenerated ROCA” appears to have escaped the notice of these “rightist revolutionaries”.

     After this “first Hierarchical Sobor”, Metropolitan Vitaly left Montreal with his secretary, L. Rosnianskaia, who reported him as having been against the consecration of any more bishops after Archimandrite Sergius, “so that they don’t say that we bake bishops like pies”. He arrived in Mansonville on the evening of November 6. We can imagine his astonishment, therefore, when, that same evening, he saw Hieromonk Vladimir (Tselischev) coming to him with a hierarchical panagia on his breast. For Archbishop Barnabas and Bishop Sergius had ordained him as Vicar-Bishop of Sacramento that day, claiming falsely in the ordination certificate that this had been done with the metropolitan’s blessing. The metropolitan refused to recognize this “consecration”.

     However, as in the case with Archimandrite Sergius, they persuaded him to recognize it “for the sake of the good of the Church”. So as to hide the illegality and give the “consecration” an appearance of lawfulness, the signature of the metropolitan was added to the ordination certificate under the printed resolution: “I confirm”.[66]

     That this consecration was performed against the will of the metropolitan was confirmed on July 12/25, 2004 by Archbishop Barnabas, when he wrote: “I repent of taking part in the consecration of Bishop Vladimir without your permission”. He had good reason to repent, for the consecration violated the Sixth Canon of the First Ecumenical Council, which says: “If anyone is made a bishop without the permission of the metropolitan, this Great Council has defined that he must not be a bishop”.

     This administrative chaos was compounded by yet another uncanonical episcopal consecration. On November 11, Bishops Sergius and Vladimir, without the agreement or blessing, not only of Metropolitan Vitaly, but also, this time, of Archbishop Barnabas also, consecrated Archimandrite Bartholomew (Vorobiev) as Bishop of Grenada.

     Later, on July 12/25 Archbishop Barnabas wrote in his penitential letter to Metropolitan Vitaly: “I repent that I did not express my protest in connection with the consecration of Bishop Bartholomew, which was carried out by Bishop Sergius and Bishop Vladimir in spite of your and my decision”. And a lie was added to the lack of canonicity: in Bishop Bartholomew’s ordination certificate it was asserted that the consecration had been carried out by Metropolitan Vitaly.

     So all three consecrations – of Sergius, Vladimir and Bartholomw - were carried out contrary to the canons, without the convening of a canonical Hierarchical Sobor, by vicar bishops without the participation of the only two ruling bishops of the Russian Church that were not under ban or in retirement (Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Benjamin), in two cases against the will of their metropolitan, and in one case secretly from him. We therefore come to the conclusion that if ROCOR (L), at its October Sobor, fell away from the confessing path of the true Russian Church Abroad by its declared intention to unite with the MP and World Orthodoxy, only a few days later ROCOR (V) fell in the opposite direction through its violation of the conciliar norms of the Holy Church as enshrined in the holy canons. Taking advantage of the infirmity of Metropolitan Vitaly and his personal ascendancy over the “Mansonville Synod of Vicars”, Protopriest Benjamin Zhukov accomplished a coup d’ιglise that left Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Benjamin as the only canonical survivors of the pre-2001 Bishops of ROCOR.

     On November 22 a second attempt to kidnap Metropolitan Vitaly and take him to New York was made by Bishop Michael (Donskov) of Canada, as a result of which the metropolitan anathematized him. [67] When the attempt failed (Canadian judges refused to allow the kidnapping), the Synod of ROCOR (L) issued a statement condemning the action and claiming that it had always wanted to persuade the metropolitan to return by peaceful means. Bishop Michael was freed from governing the Canadian diocese and sent to Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville.[68]

     On December 7, Metropolitan Vitaly wrote to all the clergy and flock of the Church Abroad: “The supporters and followers of the so-called self-styled Metropolitan Laurus, who tried to seize ecclesiastical power in our Church Abroad, have departed into complete spiritual tracklessness.

     “Seeing the disturbances in our Church, I have returned to myself the rights of head of the Church. In reply to this, the Synod, with the participation of Bishops Michael and Hilarion, raised a real persecution against me. I was subject to arrest at the hands of the civil authorities without the slightest indication of any reason for my guilt. Exclusively in order to cleanse the Church from such apostates, with my blessing and participation the ordinations of new bishops have been carried out: Bishop Vladimir of Sacramento and Bishop Bartholomew of Grenada…

     “The apostates headed by Archbishop Laurus cannot be considered to be within the bounds of the Church…”[69]

     Evidently Patriarch Alexis was speaking the truth when he later said in the media that Metropolitan Vitaly’s removal had been a necessary condition of the rapprochement of the MP and ROCOR…[70]

     Let us return to the beginning of November. At that time a group of priests led by Protopriest Victor (Melehov), exarch of the flock of the “Holy Orthodox Church of North America” (HOCNA) in Russia, left HOCNA and were received in their existing rank by Metropolitan Vitaly into ROCOR (V). Fr. Victor was then nominated by Fr. Anatoly Trepatchko, and unanimously elected by all the clergy and bishops, as Secretary of the newly incorporated “Russian Orthodox Church in Exile”, while Fr. Michael Marcinovsky was voted Treasurer.

     Later, Fr. Benjamin Zhukov, seeing in Melehov a potential enemy to his plans to take over the Synod, inserted the words “in North America (USA and Canada)” after the word “Secretary” on the ROCiE official website, and also fraudulently claimed that he himself had been made secretary of the Synod on November 5.[71]

     Having been appointed secretary, Fr. Victor immediately made his presence felt. As Fr. Spyridon Schneider writes: “Within a few days [on November 8] Fr. Victor came to Mansonville,… and asked them to: 1. renounce the MP and Sergianism; 2. renounce any relationship with the Serbian Church, 3. reaffirm the 1983 anathema against ecumenism, and 4. renounce Cyprian of Fili and his heretical ecclesiology which had been accepted in 1994 by the Synod of Bishops. These issues were discussed for about two and one half hours and when the Metropolitan, the Bishops and Fr. Victor were finished with these discussions they were all very happy that complete agreement had been reached. Soon after the meeting a statement was written by Vladika Vladimir that addressed these four points and faxed to Fr. Victor with all of the Bishops’ signatures including Archbishop Barnabas.”[72]

     This “Declaration of the Hierarchical Synod of ROCiE” appeared on the internet, and declared that (i) that ROCiE had no canonical or Eucharistic communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, and (ii) that there would be a cessation of “the badly thought out establishment in 1994 of Eucharistic communion with the Synod of the Resisters under the Presidencey of Metropolitan Cyprian of Orope and Fili”. The latter resolution was signed by “Metropolitan Vitaly, Bishop Sergius for Archbishop Barnabas with his agreement, Bishop Sergius, Bishop Vladimir”. Later Archbishop Barnabas, who had left Canada for France the previous day, declared that he had not given his agreement to the placing of his signature under this resolution.

     However, to the distress of the American clergy, some French clergy began to criticise the condemnation of Cyprian. And on November 7/20 the decree on cessation of communion with the Cyprianites was halted.

     But on December 16/29, at a Pastoral Convention of the North American clergy, under the signatures of all the bishops except Archbishop Barnabas, who was not present, the Cyprianite ecclesiology was formally condemned.[73] Barnabas did not protest the decision to break with Cyprian, although he introduced one qualification. However, rumblings of discontent continued from some of the lower French clergy, especially Protodeacon German Ivanov-Trinadtsaty,[74] and two priests with links to the Cyprianites, Michael and Quentin Castelbajac, who joined ROCOR (L). On the other hand, there was support for the decision from others in Western Europe and elsewhere.[75]

     The decision to renounce Cyprianism was important, for it signalled a return to the ecclesiology of Metropolitan Philaret, which had been jettisoned when ROCOR joined the Cyprianites in 1994. Formally speaking, it could be argued that this decision was incorrect, since only a canonical Hierarchical Council could overturn the decision of another Hierarchical Council – and, as we have seen, several of the hierarchs at this Council were not canonical, nor were the canonical bishops in Russia allowed to participate.[76] However, it expressed the truth – and that was the main thing.

     The opposition of the French had its roots in the fact that they had lived for many years under the omophorion of Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, the most ecumenist hierarch of ROCOR for at least 20 years until his death in 1993, whom even now they called their “great Abba” and “he who restrained [the coming of the Antichrist]”. And Archbishop Barnabas himself had had a very chequered career. Therefore a root-and-branch examination of the past, with repentance for all mistakes, - conducted, moreover, on the initiative of American clergy, some of whom had broken with ROCOR in 1986 precisely because of their opposition to ROCOR’s ecumenist tendencies under Metropolitan Vitaly and Archbishop Anthony of Geneva - was deeply threatening to them.

     This led Fr. Victor and the group of North American clergy to call for: (i) the introduction of order into the administrative chaos of ROCOR (V), which required the convening of a Sobor; and (ii) the introduction of a clear ecclesiology which would help to avoid the mistakes in ecclesiology made by ROCOR in the past and provide a firm foundation for her development in the future.

IV. THE RUSSIAN TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH

     Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Benjamin, while rejecting the decisions of the Mansonville Sobor of November, 2001 as uncanonical, remained in communion with Metropolitan Vitaly and continued to call for a canonical Sobor in which they would take part. Knowing that this would expose his own nefarious activity, Zhukov tried hard to discredit them and the whole idea of a Sobor. Thus on December 2/15, 2002 he wrote in an “Explanation”: “In the conditions that arose at the beginning of 2002, when Archbishop Lazarus was actively trying to acquire the whole of the Russian flock faithful to Metropolitan Vitaly (and consequently the removal of ROCOR from all missionary work in Russia – which was equivalent to its end), the convening of a Sobor became for Her a dangerous undertaking. Only when order would reign in the Church and all her members would know their place, would the participants in the Sobor come with a constructive intention. Then they would be able to say that truly “the Grace of the Holy Spirit has brought us together today” and would think, not of themselves, but about the Preservation of the Church of Christ. A hasty convening of a Council would have led to a catastrophe, and for that reason Vladyka Barnabas addressed the Metropolitan with a request that he defer this initiative.”

     While putting off the convening of a Sobor, Zhukov incited Archbishop Barnabas to seize as much of Archbishop Lazarus’ flock as possible. Thus on December 16, 2001 he accepted under his omophorion the Kursk, Belgorod and some of the Voronezh clergy who belonged to Archbishop Lazarus’ diocese. Lazarus reacted fiercely. In a telephone conversation with the warden and treasurer of one of the Voronezh parishes, he declared that Archbishop Barnabas was “defrocked”, that the new Synod under Metropolitan Vitaly consisted of people unknown to him, who had simply solicited the Episcopal rank, for which reason he did not recognize it, and that in general they should from now on commemorate only him, Archbishop Lazarus. [77] Lazarus’ anger was fully justified. [78]

     A full breakdown in relations between the Russian bishops and the Mansonville Synod was averted after a phone call by Bishop Benjamin to Bishop Vladimir on December 20.

     However, this partial reconciliation was accepted only grudgingly by Archbishop Barnabas. Thus in January he wrote to Bishop Vladimir: “It is necessary to stop the organization with Vladyka Lazarus and Benjamin. Now action is being taken to destroy our Church in which these bishops involuntarily participate. Therefore it is necessary to keep them in the most limited rights. I, on the other hand, as the deputy of Metropolitan Vitaly, must be given the broadest care for Russia.”[79]

     It is necessary to remind ourselves that while remaining in communion with Metropolitan Vitaly, the Russian bishops never accepted the canonicity of the consecrations of the Mansonville vicars. Later Zhukov himself recognized this fact. He said that the Russian hierarchs “did not enter our Church, but attached themselves only to Metropolitan Vitaly”.[80] This was quite true. For the “Mansonville Synod of Vicars” was an uncanonical organization of uncanonically consecrated bishops. At the same time Zhukov accused the Russian bishops of trying “to obtain a Sobor”. A strange accusation! According to Orthodox tradition, all Church conflicts and major Church questions can only be resolved at Councils of Bishops. So trying “to obtain a Sobor” was quite natural and praiseworthy. It was Zhukov’s (successful) attempt to put off the Sobor that required explanation and justification…

     On December 15/28 or 16/29 Metropolitan Vitaly declared at the Pastoral Convention of North American Clergy in Mansonville: “After many long, hard years of trying to manage the Church in Russia from New York, I have learned that it is impossible to manage the Church in Russia from Abroad. We do not know and understand their problems and we do not know their people and possible candidates for the clergy. Without a knowledge of their people and their problems the best that we can do is give them Apostolic Succession and Grace and allow them to organize while maintaining communion with them and praying that they will be able to do something for themselves… There must be a separate administration in Russia, another administration in Europe and a third administration in North America…”

     Shortly after this, on December 25 / January 7, 2001/2002, Metropolitan Vitaly issued his “Nativity Epistle and Spiritual Testament” in which he hinted that he was in captivity, and that people should be very careful in trusting everything that was published in his name: “We live in such a time when they can steal men away and in my name begin to try and convince you. Know that from captivity I will not convince you of anything. Believe only my living word…”

     On January 8/21, 2002 (№835/65) Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Benjamin wrote an “Epistle on the Contemporary Situation of the Orthodox Church” to Metropolitan Vitaly. In it they gave a short characterization of the situation of the Church in the contemporary apostate world, beginning from the time of the God-fighting revolution and until ROCOR’s October, 2000 Council. At this Council non-Orthodox decisions were taken on union with the MP and Eucharistic communion with the ecumenist Serbian patriarchate; the council of 2001 did not repeal these decisions, therefore the hierarchs of ROCOR had fallen “under their own anathema” and the 45^th Apostolic Canon, which “categorically forbids communion in prayer with heretics: ‘Let a bishop […] who has only prayed with heretics be excommunicated /.../ from the Church’ – the Epistle said. Also, reasons were given why the falling of the hierarchs of ROCOR into apostasy had become possible: ‘sergianism and ecumenism have poisoned the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad’. The Epistle went on to say: ‘The Holy Patriarch Tikhon, applying all his strength to preserve the Orthodox Church from the blows of the God-fighters, in his God-inspired Ukaz №362 of November 7/20, 1920 foresaw the form that Church administration would take if the activity of the organs of the Higher Church Authority should cease. The essence of this ukaz can be reduced to this: if the activity of the Higher Church Administration ceases […] the diocesan bishops takes upon himself the whole fullness of power in his diocese until the formation of a free ecclesiastical administration.

     “The Russian Orthodox Church existed on the foundation of this Ukaz. In Russia, after the issuing in 1927 […] of the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, the Catacomb Church began to be created […] With the blessing of Patrairch Tikhon and the Locum Tenens Metropolitan Chril, and also on the foundation of Metropolitan Agathangel’s Epistle of June 5/18, 1922, communities of the True Orthodox Church (TOC) were formed under the leadership of the most eminent hierarchs. These communities preserved original Orthodoxy. They suffered especially terrible persecutions. The Bolsheviks ferreted out the “catacombniks” wherever they could, often with the help of priests of the “patriarchate”, who denounced the true bishops and priests to the “organs”. Those who fell into the camps for belonging to the TOC generally did not come out again.

     “The whole episcopate of the Russian True Orthodox Church was destroyed. In spite of this, by 1982 quite a few communities of the True Orthodox Christians remained scattered over the whole territory of the Soviet Union, creating an extensive widowed diocese. Archimandrite Lazarus (now Archbishop) was secretly ordained to the Episcopal rank by a ROCOR bishop who came specially from abroad, to rule this diocese.

     “After the fall of the Bolshevik regime, the Russian True Orthodox Church acquired a legal status and was officially registered in the Ukraine (registration №356 of June 19, 1993).

     “Until October, 2000 no insoluble problems in administration arose. But after the publication of the documents of the October 2000 council of ROCOR a wave of contradictory ukazy, bans and the most varied kinds of false information was poured out upon the Orthodox living on the territory of the former Soviet Union, and chaos, unclarity and confusion was created in administration.

     “We, the Russian bishops, on the foundation of ukaz №362 of November 20, 1920 of Patriarch Tikhon, in connection with the complicated situation in ROCOR, on the basis of multiple addresses of the First-Hierarch of ROCOR Metropolitan Vitaly to the Council of Bishops, in 1998 and 2000, on the provision of independence to the Russian Bishops (of which we are witnesses), and also in connection with all that has been said above, ask the at present lawfully acting Metropolitan Vitaly to provide us with temporary administrative-canonical independence.. We do not refuse to be in spiritual, prayer and Eucharistic communion with those who have not fallen into sergianism, ecumenism or any other heresy, and we also call to repentance all those whom the Lord has not deprived of this great gift.

     “We turn to you, beloved in the Lord Vladyko Metropolitan Vitaly. We turn to you as to the eldest First-Hierarch of ROCOR, chosen by lot, who has preserved the purity of Orthodoxy. We raise your all-honourable name in services and ask your blessing on our beginning.”

     Since the Russian bishops were never allowed to speak personally to Metropolitan Vitaly, Archbishop Lazarus entrusted this letter to Protopriest Vladimir, now Bishop Irenaeus, to deliver personally to the metropolitan in Mansonville. Bishop Vladimir refused to allow Fr. Vladimir to see the metropolitan (“you have arrived without warning”), but Vladyka Vitaly, hearing that a priest from Archbishop Lazarus in Russia had come to see him personally, immediately accepted him and gave him hospitality for several days.

     In these days Fr. Vladimir managed to convince the metropolitan that Archbishop Lazarus was unanimous with him on all important questions of Church life. So the metropolitan wrote a small letter to Archbishop Lazarus in which he said: “With all my heart I wish you spiritual and archpastoral success in our great common archpastoral stand in the Truth”. Then, three days later, on February 26 / March 11, on the official notepaper of the First-Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, Metropolitan Vitaly wrote to Archbishop Lazarus in his own handwriting: “May God bless you to carry out the consecration of new bishops. You must create your own Hierarchical Synod which would be in concord with our Hierarchical Synod. At the next Hierarchical Sobor I will inform all our hierarchs about this situation. Let us be with Russia of one mind and of one soul, while having separate administrations. Church life itself virtually dictates this to us.”

     This was good and important news. And so on April 4/17 – 5/18, at the Second All-Russian Conference of hierarchs, clergy and laity of RTOC in Voronezh under the presidency of the head of the Hierarchical Conference Archbishop Lazarus and his deputy Bishop Benjamin, “the decision was taken, on the basis of the Holy Canons, the Decree of the Holy Patriarch Tikhon no. 362 and the Directive-Testament of Metropolitan Vitaly of February 26 / March 11, 2002, to carry out hierarchical ordinations for RTOC and to transform the Hierarchical Conference of Russian Bishops of RTOC that had been created with the blessing of the Hierarchical Council of ROCOR in 1994 into the Hierarchical Synod of RTOC.”[81]

     Maintaining their continued devotion to Metropolitan Vitaly, the Conference reproached Bishop Barnabas for the various anticanonical actions conducted against them in the past, but nevertheless called for peace and cooperation between them.[82]

     On April 19, Archbishop Barnabas replied angrily, calling the Conference’s address to him “shame” and “deception”, and  saying that the “Lazarite schism foreseen by us is trying to wipe her [ROCOR (V)] finally off the face of the earth”.[83]

     On April 20, Metropolitan Vitaly met Bishops Sergius and Vladimir and four North American priests, including Fr. Victor Melehov, in Mansonville. They decreed that “in spite of the fact that his Eminence Metropolitan Vitaly gave his personal agreement, the decision on the creation of an ecclesiastical administration in Russia is in the competence of the whole of the Hierarchical Council. Before and without a conciliar decision, in spite of the 34^th Canon of the Holy Apostles [which decrees that nothing should be done by the hierarchs without the agreement of the first-hierarch, and vice-versa], that is, in view of its uncanonicity, no separate administration in Russia can be formed. Consequently, hierarchical consecrations can take place in Russia only after a decision of the Hierarchical Council of ROCOR.”

     The irony of this statement consisted in the fact that “the Lazarites” had been calling for a Hierarchical Council consistently since the very foundation of ROCOR (V), but Zhukov, followed by his puppet Bishop Barnabas[84], had always argued against it!

     Bishop Benjamin then asked Metropolitan Vitaly: “Should we carry out hierarchical consecrations, or should we refrain from this until a final conciliar decision on the basis of the 34^th Apostolic Canon?” He also informed him that Archbishop Lazarus had three candidates for hierarchical consecration and that the consecrations were appointed for Bright Week. Metropolitan Vitaly replied that this question was “exceptionally important and needed a conciliar decision”.[85]

     In May Archbishop Lazarus and his Diocesan Council asked again for the summoning of a Council, but with the following “necessary preconditions”: (i) the cessation of all hostile actions and propaganda against the Russian Bishops, and an apology for the latest public insults; (ii) the cessation of attempts to usurp ecclesiastical power by exploiting the difficult position of the first hierarch; (iii) respect for the rights of the Russian Bishops, including those that were given them by the decree of Metropolitan Vitaly in March; (iv) a clear declaration by the non-Russian bishops whether they were intending to establish a Church in Russia, or join Suzdal or the Greek Old Calendarists.

     It should be pointed out that the fact that the Russian bishops were ready to join with ROCOR (V) in a common Council did not mean that they accepted any of the consecrations carried out by ROCOR (V) since they were contrary to the holy canons and the ROCOR’s Statute. And so Archbishop Lazarus continued not to recognize the “Mansonville Synod of Vicars”. [86]

     Spring passed into summer, and still no Sobor was convened. Finally, in August, despairing of the possibility of the convening of a Sobor that would discuss all these questions as well as the consecration of bishops for Russia, the Russian bishops consecrated four new bishops: Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia, Hermogen of Chernigov and Gomel, Irenaeus of Verney and Semirechiye and Dionysius of Novgorod and Tver. [87] They felt that they had the right to do this, on the basis not only of Metropolitan Vitaly’s blessing, but also of Patriarch Tikhon’s ukaz no. 362 of November 20, 1920.

     On August 21, however, Metropolitan Vitaly and four ROCOR (V) hierarchs condemned the consecrations as “uncanonical” and the initiators of it as being “outside the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad”.[88] Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Benjamin were then condemned without a trial or summons to a trial. For, as Zhukov argued, “to summon Bishops Lazarus and Benjamin to a Sobor would be a crime against our Church. Since any variant of their presence at the Sobor, whether to recognize or not to recognize the consecrations carried out by them, or for a trial on them themselves, would lead to the annihilation of our Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.”[89]

     So, according to this logic, to expel the Russian bishops through a lawful canonical trial would be more destructive of the Church than to expel them uncanonically and without a trial!

     Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Benjamin never received official notification that they were banned from serving.[90] They continued to recognize Metropolitan Vitaly as head of their Church, declaring that his signatures were being forged and that he was “in captivity” to Protopriest Benjamin Zhukov and L.D. Rosnianskaia “and in complete isolation from the external world”.[91] The present writer has personal experience of this. In January, 2003, in Mansonville, Rosnianskaia blocked his and Hieromonk Augustine Lim’s access to the metropolitan, although Bishop Sergius of Mansonville had given his blessing…

     Having finally succeeded in manipulating the expulsion of the Russian bishops, Zhukov now proceeded to further purges within the church organization that he controlled. The American priests led by Fr. Victor Melehov had been shown alarming signs of a concern for canonical order. So it was now their turn…

     The movement to oust Melehov had begun some months before. In June, 2002 he was informed by Bishop Vladimir that he was the secretary only of North America. In July, he was told by Bishop Vladimir that he recalled that Fr. Benjamin Zhukov was in fact the secretary of ROCiE. In September, Fr. Victor made preparations for Metropolitan Vitaly’s visit to Russia, but the visit was stopped by Zhukov. In October, he began to receive anonymous letters telling him that he would be suspended and defrocked.[92]

     And so, writes Fr. Victor, “when, in October, 2002, there was published on the official site of ROCOR (ROCiE) the preconciliar report of the secretary of ROCOR (ROCiE), Protopresbyter Victor Melehov, on the situation of the ROCOR, together with a projected confession of faith to be sent to the flock, Protopresbyter Victor Melehov did not only not receive any response from the hierarchs on the ecclesiological questions, but was subjected to reproaches by Bishop Vladimir for publishing this report.

     “Some hope that the hierarchs would be able to come out with an Orthodox confession of faith appeared after Bishops Bartholomew and Sergius, at the beginning of November, 2002, in response to the worries of the North American clerics, signed a letter-appeal demanding the immediate convening of a Hierarchical Council, the removal of the commission that was blocking its convening, the resolution of the problem with Archbishop Lazarus and the necessity of the acceptance of a confession of faith by the clergy of ROCOR (ROCiE). Bishops Bartholomew and Sergius also signed the text of this confession of faith. However, after talking to Bishop Vladimir and Archbishop Barnabas, they withdrew their signatures.

     “Bishop Bartholomew decided to compose a new appeal to all the clergy and faithful of ROCiE on the catastrophic situation of ROCiE and the necessity of accepting a confession of faith. This letter of November 13/26, 2002, together with the former text of the confession of faith, was again signed by Bishop Bartholomew. However, on the very day when the letter should have been placed on the official site, Bishop Bartholomew again withdrew his signature, fearing, in his words, ‘to bite the bullet’.

     “This letter was nevertheless published on the official site of ROCiE signed only by the secretary of ROCiE, Protopresbyter Victor Melehov, and the dean of the Western American deanery, Protopriest Joseph Sunderland. The confession of faith was signed by these clerics and by Priests Michael Martsinovsky, Andrew Kencis and Mark Smith.

     “The letter had not been on the official site of ROCiE for one day before it was removed on the demand of the episcopate of ROCiE, and many learned of its contents from other sources.

     “On December 9, 2002, Bishop Bartholomew officially informed us that his signature on the appeal of the North American clerics was invalid and was being removed (and this in spite of the fact that the appeal had been published without his signature)…”[93]

     The final act in this shameful episode was the uncanonical expulsion of the still-unyielding American clerics led by Fr. Victor Melehov. It was officially announced on January 18, 2003 that he had never been secretary of the ROCOR (V), that he had been admitted into the Church “by an oversight” and that he was actually a defrocked ex-clergyman.[94] In February, Fr. Victor received a letter from Metropolitan Vitaly, Bishops Barnabas, Bartholomew and others stating that “ROCiE does not know Fr. Victor Melehov”. This was the height of anti-canonical arbitrariness: no trial, no summons to a trial, not even a more or less plausible accusation, but only: “We do not know you”!

     Fr. Victor summed up the situation well: “Factually speaking, the ship of our Church is without direction and is being borne along in complete darkness and obscurity… The main aim of the Synod of Laurus - to paralyze the activity of the Metropolitan as First-Hierarch and not to allow the restoration of our Synod – has been attained… Our brothers in France apparently do not even realize that they are in the same camp as the Synod of Laurus and the other opponents of our Church, who are abusing the Metropolitan-elder in every way…”[95]

     On June 22 / July 5, 2003, “the canonical organ of administration of the parishes of RTOC – the Hierarchical Conference of Russian Bishops – was transformed into the Hierarchical Synod of the Russian True Orthodox Church as ‘a small constantly acting council of bishops’ (literally the word ‘synod’ in Greek means gathering, council). The oldest Russian hierarch, Archbishop Lazarus of Odessa and Tambov, was elected as President of the Hierarchical Synod of RTOC.”[96]

     On June 24 / July 7, 2005, shortly after the death of Archbishop Lazarus, Bishop Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia was elected first-hierarch of the Russian True Orthodox Church.

  Archbishop Barnabas was now at the height of his power. However, his fall was to be precipitate. Anton Ter-Grigorian writes: “Soon after getting rid of Fr. Victor [Melehov] and the priests and laity who supported him, Archbishop Barnabas lost the need for the all-powerful cleric of his diocese, Protopriest Benjamin Zhukov, who after the ‘general victory’ over ‘the Melehov schism’ began to demonstrate too much independence… He was soon distanced from closeness with Archbishop Barnabas, and the closest advisor of the ‘deputy of the First Hierarch’ again became Protodeacon German Ivanov-Trinadtsaty.” [97]

     His power began to slip at the Sobor which Zhukov now graciously allowed to convene from May 3/16 to 7/20, 2003. Three candidates were put forward for the episcopacy: Archimandrite Anthony (Rudej), as vicar of the European diocese with the title Bishop of Balt and Moldovia; Hieromonk Anastasy (Surzhik), as ruling Bishop of the Far Eastern diocese with the title Bishop of Vladivostok and the Far East; and Priest Victor Pivovarov, as a vicar of the European diocese with the title Bishop of Slavyansk and South Russia. These candidacies were confirmed, although Archbishop Barnabas was opposed to that of Pivovarov. He asked instead that the candidacy of Archimandrite Alexis (Makrinov) and Hieromonk Joseph (Philosophov) be considered. He also asked that all priests and laymen coming from the dioceses of Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Benjamin should be received by repentance.[98]

     On June 26, 2003 Archbishop Barnabas issued an ukaz criticizing Zhukov for anti-canonical behaviour, and demanding that he return his diocesan seal and facsimile signature, which Barnabas suspected he had been using unlawfully. Zhukov rejected the ukaz and flatly refused to give back the seal and signature. Instead, he stirred up such a vicious campaign against the bishop that “six out of the eight ‘French’ parishes very soon began to demand from the Synod ‘the replacement of the Bishop’ and even ‘the defrocking of Archbishop Barnabas’.” Barnabas was forced to leave the parish. Taking advantage of his master’s absence, Zhukov summoned Bishops Vladimir and Sergius from Canada, who, on Archbishop Barnabas’ canonical territory, and against his will, proceeded to consecrate Fr. Victor Ponovarov - who was not only a KGB agent with the nickname “Ponomar” [99], but had also been defrocked by his former bishop, Benjamin of the Black Sea, and was considered to be a heretic by Bishop Sergius – and Fr. Anastasy (Surzhik) to the episcopate. Several weeks after this scandalous event, Archbishop Barnabas received his diocesan seal and facsimile signature in the post from Zhukov – they were no longer needed by him![100]

     Rev. Zhukov then proceeded to convene a Synod meeting from November 14/27 to 16/29, at which three independent dioceses were formed. The Russian part of Archbishop Barnabas’ diocese was removed from him and divided between Bishop Anthony of Moldova, who took Ukraine, Belorussia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and Bishop of Victor of South Russia, who took the North-West, the Centre, the Volga and the Southern regions of Russia with Georgia, while “separating those parishes whose priests want to continue commemorating Archbishop Barnabas”. As for Barnabas himself, he was confined to Western Europe. Bishop Anastasy’s Far Eastern diocese was enlarged to include the Japanese islands, Korea and China (where there were no ROCOR parishes!), while the Siberian diocese (including the Urals district and Kazakhstan) was also entrusted temporarily to Bishop Anastasy.

     Then the bishops declared Archbishop Barnabas’ acceptance of some Romanian new calendarist parishes into his diocese as uncanonical[101], removed Barnabas’ title of “Deputy of the First Hierarch”, and defrocked one of his clerics, Hieromonk Seraphim (Baranchikov), for immorality.[102]

     On November 6/19, 2004 the Synod issued the following anathematization: “To those who affirm the antichristian heresy of Sergianism; who teach that the Church of Christ is supposedly saved by union with the enemies of Christ, and reject the exploit of martyrdom and confession, and construct a false church on the foundation of Judas, and for its sake permit the transgression and distortion of Christian teaching, canons and moral laws; who command Christians to bow down to the God-hating authorities as if they were given by God, and to serve them not out of fear but for conscience’s sake, blessing all their iniquities; who justify the persecutions against the True Church of Christ at the hands of the God-haters, thinking thereby that they serve God, as was done in fact by the continuers of the renovationist heresy, Metropolitan Sergius and all his followers – Anathema!”

     But right-believing anathemas could not conceal the inner corruption of the Synod. For Archbishop Barnabas, the coup de grβce was not long in coming. On December 7, 2003, striking out against his tormentors, he banned Zhukov from serving.[103] However, on January 19, 2004, brushing aside an explanatory letter from Archbishop Barnabas[104], Metropolitan Vitaly and the North American bishops declared this act to be invalid, saying that Barnabas had “exceeded his rights” (although Fr. Benjamin was a priest of Archbishop Barnabas’ diocese, and directly subject to his authority), and placing him “in retirement”.[105] On July 8 the Synod banned him from serving.[106] On July 25 he wrote a penitential letter to Metropolitan Vitaly, repenting of many of his acts in the last few years.[107] But this repentance only enraged his enemies. At the November Hierarchical Sobor he was defrocked - naturally, without a trial or summons to a trial…[108]

     On January 27 / February 9, 2005 Archbishop Barnabas issued a “sorrowful epistle” in which he said that he did not recognize “the so called ‘Mansonville Synod’” as having any power or significance, since “it had shown its complete incompetence and its deeply uncanonical conduct of its affairs”.[109] Shortly after this, Barnabas joined the Synod of Metropolitan Laurus, recognizing the original ban placed on him in April, 2001…[110]

     The further disintegration of the Mansonville Synod was now unstoppable. On June 3, 2006 the Synod’s official site published a declaration of Zhukov, Bishop Vladimir and Bishop Bartholomew, announcing that power in their Synod had been seized by Archbishop Anthony (Orlov), Bishop Victor (Pivovarov) and a certain Irina Mitse-Goldberg. Anthony declared Metropolitan Vitaly to be incompetent, made charges against Bishops Vladimir and Bartholomew, and took over the Church with Bishop Victor.

     Archbishop Anthony was a married man who, secretly from Metropolitan Vitaly and his own wife, had been consecrated to the episcopate in 2002 in Paris by Bishops Barnabas and Sergius. For two years, this consecration had been a secret, and was only revealed in 2004 on the internet. For a long time Metropolitan Vitaly did not recognize this consecration, but Zhukov finally forced him to give in. Although all the bishops knew that Anthony, as Priest Nicholas Orlov, had been living in a church marriage with his wife at the time of his consecration, they still recognized it, and even, at Zhukov’s insistence, raised him to the rank of “archbishop” and “deputy of the First-Hierarch” in place of Barnabas. Anthony’s church divorce was formalized two years after his consecration. His civil marriage remained in force…[111]

     On June 22, 2006 Metropolitan Vitaly, under pressure from Archbishop Anthony, Bishop Victor and Archimandrites Damascene (Balabanov) and Stefan (Babaev), was invited to the local police station so that he could officially, without outside influence, express his will regarding their presence in Mansonville. When the police officer asked: “Does Metr. Vitaly wish that Orlov, Pivovarov, Balabanov, Babaev and Mitze leave the territory of the Transfiguration Skete?” the metropolitan replied firmly: “Yes, I wish it.” Archbishop Anthony tried to persuade the metropolitan to change his mind, but the police officer said: “Enough. The answer has been received.” The group were then asked by the police to leave Mansonville before July 25. The next day, June 23, Archbishop Anthony issued an ukaz saying that he counted it “his duty temporarily to take over the administration of ROCOR” because of the poor health of the metropolitan, “who is not able sometimes even to recognize his deputy and bishops” because of the “inconsistence and false ukazy cancelling the previous ukaz signed by the First Hierarch” and because of the “malicious isolation of the First Hierarch”.[112]

     The disintegration continued. In 2006 Bishop Victor broke from archbishop Anthony and formed his own Synod together with Bishop Damascene (Balabanov). These two were later to split again…. Archbishop Anthony, meanwhile, had taken to calling himself “Metropolitan of Moscow, Los Angeles and all Abroad”!

     On September 12/25, 2006 Metropolitan Vitaly reposed. Fr. Spyridon Schneider writes that this “marked a turning point in the life of ROCiE. When Metropolitan Vitaly reposed… there were four bishops remaining in the Vitaly Synod. Bishop Vladimir of San Francisco and Western America, Bishop Bartholomew of Edmonton and Western Canada (who is in the advanced stages of Parkinson’s disease and has severe dementia), Bishop Anthony of Moldova and Bishop Anastassy of Vladivostok. Bishop Vladimir became temporary acting First Hierarch on the basis of the fact that he, at the age of thirty nine, was the oldest bishop by ordination.

     “… In the early winter of 2006 Protopriest Benjamin Zhukov and Bishop Anthony of Moldova sent Protopriest Nicholas Semenov from Brussels to Edmonton, Canada with a document for Bishop Bartholomew to sign. Through intrigue and deceit Bishop Bartholomew, not knowing and understanding what he was signing, applied his signature to this document. The document was an ukaz retiring Bishop Anastassy of Vladivostok. This action was taken in a totally uncanonical and unethical manner, without due process, without a meeting of the Synod, without the presence of the Acting First Hierarch and without following the Regulations which govern the Russian Church Abroad.”[113]

     On May 12, 2007, continues Fr. Spyridon, “at a meeting with Bishop Vladimir which included Archpriest Constantine Fyodorov, Archpriest Spyridon Schneider and Priest Andrew Kencis, Bishop Vladimir explained that he intends to call a Sobor of Bishops with the full knowledge and expectation that Bishop Anthony of Moldova and the Secretary of the Synod, Archbishop Benjamin Zhukov, will not attend. Bishop Vladimir explained that he will call the Sobor in Edmonton, Canada so that Bishop Bartholomew… can participate in the first session of the Sobor. Bishop Vladimir further explained that if Protopriest Zhukov and Bishop Anthony do not come to the Sobor, as expected, then Bishop Vladimir, Bishop Bartholomew and Bishop Anastasy will constitute a quorum. Therefore when the meeting is convened the first item on the agenda will be to consider and accept Bishop Bartholomew’s petition to retire from one year ago. This decision will be made with the vote of Bishop Bartholomew. Once Bishop Bartholomew is retired then he will no longer participate, nor will he be counted as a member of the Synod. Consequently, Bishop Vladimir and Bishop Anastasy will then have a two-third majority of the votes which would allow them to go forward with their agenda for the future of the Church. Bishop Vladimir further explained that Fr. Benjamin Zhukov, although he is secretary of the Synod and has always voted in the Synod meetings, will not have a vote because he is a priest and not a bishop…”[114]

     Zhukov could never submit to such a demotion. On November 1/14, 2007, at his instigation, Bishop Anthony (Rudej) of Moldova, secretly and on his own, consecrated Archimandrite Seraphim (Skuratov) as Bishop of Birmingham, and then with Bishop Seraphim ordained Fr. Roman Apostolescu as Bishop of Brussels.[115] Zhukov had now created his own “catacomb church” – in the free West!

     With the departure of Zhukov from the scene of the Synod he both created and destroyed, we shall end our account of ROCOR (V).  The  disintegration  has  continued in recent years,  as was only to be expected.  For,  as  the Greek Old Calendarist Confessor Papa Nicholas Planas said, “Whatever has been done uncanonically cannot stand – it will fall…”[116]

     The second bishop to be consecrated for ROCOR inside Russia during the 1990s, after Archbishop Lazarus, was Bishop Valentine (Rusantsev) of Suzdal. Having been unlawfully expelled by the ROCOR in 1996 together with three other bishops consecrated by him and Archbishop Lazarus,[117] and having taken part neither in the dogmatic errors of the shameful October Sobor of 2000, nor in the canonical violations of both ROCOR (L) and ROCOR (V) in 2001, the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) under Metropolitan Valentine was in a relatively strong canonical position at the beginning of the new millennium. However, strong suspicions had often been voiced about the personality and history of the first hierarch himself, who while in the MP had received many medals from the God-fighting state and had two charges of homosexuality against him dropped – through the intervention of the KGB, as many thought. His relatively strong performance in the 1990s had begun to dispel these suspicions; but now a new threat appeared which exposed his real character, and the weakness of his Church organization, in a glaringly unattractive light…

     The threat appeared in the form of a group of intellectualist refugees from ROCOR in St. Petersburg, led by the Byzantinist (although some Byzantinists would deny him that title) Basil Louriι. From the beginning of their entrance into ROAC in 1999, this group made no secret of their plans to “reform” it in accordance with their perverted understanding of patristic tradition, which involved: a heretical, Manichaean approach to marriage and sexuality; an almost Nietzschean fascination with popular culture and rock music and its cult of death and suicide[118]; an extremely negative attitude to the pre-revolutionary Russian Church; a cool attitude towards the Catacomb Church and her martyrs and confessors; a “positive” attitude towards Stalin; an approval of the “name-worshipping” heresy of Fr. Anthony Bulatovich; and several other deviations.

     However, Metropolitan Valentine was only too eager to use this group to raise the educational standard of his clergy and the general profile of ROAC in Russian society. He blessed their often interesting, but also often highly controversial publications, especially Vertograd-Inform (which began life in ROCOR), which the Petersburg group published in collaboration with other “near-Church” intellectuals, such as Alexander Soldatov (the chief editor), Egor Kholmogorov and Michael Kiselev. And, overlooking Louriι’s unscrupulous use of mafia connections[119] and his uncanonical abandonment of his wife and child, he ordained him to the priesthood.

     Alarm-bells began to ring in 2000, when Louriι published a book entitled The Calling of Abraham, which claimed that sexual relations in marriage were sinful, and that the celibate and monastics possessed the grace of the New Testament, while the married were merely “Old Testament Christians”. Alarmed by criticisms of this work, the metropolitan, instead of investigating the book himself and coming to a decision about it in the Synod, blessed the publication of a critique of Louriι’s book by four authors (including the present writer) entitled Marriage, the Law and Grace (Moscow, 2001).

     In the winter of 2000-2001 further alarm was caused when a disciple of Louriι, Hierodeacon Theophanes (Areskin), began a series of lectures to clergy in Suzdal in which he praised the “name-worshipping” heresy of Fr. Anthony Bulatovich, who was condemned by Patriarch Tikhon and the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.[120] The leader of the attacks on Louriι and Areskin was Protopriest Andrew Osetrov, the secretary of the Synod and a close collaborator with Metropolitan Valentine. In March, the metropolitan turned to the present writer, asking him to enter into a dialogue with Louriι in order to ascertain his true views on name-worshipping and other matters, assuring him (Moss) that if he found his (Louriι’s) views to be heretical, he would bring him to trial before the Holy Synod.

     The dialogue began, and would no doubt have continued peacefully if Osetrov had not brought the issue to a head in a Synod meeting at the end of April, during which, supported initially by the Catacomb Archbishop Seraphim of Sukhumi, he demanded that the metropolitan condemn Louriι. When the metropolitan refused in a particularly crude form, Osetrov left ROAC. The next day, at the glorification of Metropolitan Philaret of New York as a saint of the Russian Church, Archbishop Seraphim served with the metropolitan, demonstrating his loyalty to him for the time being and his separation from Osetrov – probably because Osetrov had not contented himself with attacks on heresy within the Church, but had proceeded publicly to accuse the metropolitan of paedophilia…

     Osetrov told parishioners in Suzdal that he had a video film showing interviews of adolescents admitting to intimate relations with the metropolitan. This film turned out to be less incriminating than Osetrov claimed, and would in any case have been inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. More serious was the accusation of the well-respected Hieromonk Paisius (Gorbunov) that he personally had witnessed a homosexual act of Metropolitan Valentine in 1995. Enormous pressure was brought to bear on Fr. Paisius, who repented of his accusation, then reaffirmed it and fled into hiding (with the help of his spiritual father, Archbishop Seraphim).

     The metropolitan now demanded the defrocking of those clerics (about five) who accused him of immorality, and eventually obtained the signatures of the other bishops – although Archbishop Seraphim delayed signing for six weeks. Between June and August the Vladimir newspaper Prizyv printed a series of eight articles in support of Osetrov’s accusations. Fighting to stay out of prison, the metropolitan claimed that Prizyv had received direct orders from the Vladimir public prosecutor’s office and regional administration to publish “compromising material on Valentine”.

     In an interview with Keston College’s Geraldine Fagan on March 26, 2002, Osetrov “maintained that, since Metropolitan Valentin had actively restored churches whereas the Moscow Patriarchate had been quite incompetent in that area, he had ‘enjoyed some kind of protection’ from the Suzdal authorities. Fr Osetrov admitted that he himself had been instrumental in maintaining this state of affairs throughout the ten years during which he had worked as synodal secretary to Metropolitan Valentin, initially having been ordained in ROCA. When any accusations against the Metropolitan of homosexual practice - a criminal offence in Russia until 1993 - or sexual abuse were made, he said, he ‘arranged everything so that they died away or got lost in bureaucratic channels.’ Once he had been removed after protesting that ROAC clergy who preached heresies were not being dealt with, said Fr Osetrov, his protection of Metropolitan Valentin had ceased: ‘This time I gathered evidence and sent it to reliable people in the Lubyanka [the headquarters of the FSB] and the Vladimir public prosecutor's office.’ Had the affair been left to the Suzdal public prosecutor, he maintained, ‘it would have been completely covered up.’

     “When Keston asked how Fr Osetrov had managed to serve in the ROAC for ten years without suspecting Metropolitan Valentin, he replied that the accusation of homosexuality (golubizna) was commonly used as an easy way of discrediting a person in the Soviet period. While the rumours about Metropolitan Valentin grew from year to year, he said, they were at first vague and he was disinclined to believe them until some of his own children began to relate details they had heard at school. Fr Osetrov said that he then discovered that the Suzdal authorities' protection of Metropolitan Valentin dated back to 1988 – ‘I was shocked, both the local police and administration knew everything.’ In that year, said Fr Osetrov, local police investigated the then criminal activities of 70 homosexuals in Vladimir region, including then Archimandrite Valentin. An article in the May-September issue of Suzdal Diocesan News, partially edited by Fr Osetrov, contains computer scans from the original police files on Criminal Case No. 0543, including various witness statements graphically describing homosexual activity involving Archimandrite Valentin. According to Fr Osetrov, this was why the Moscow Patriarchate attempted to transfer Archimandrite Valentin from the town of Suzdal, in response to which he ultimately left the Moscow Patriarchate. In his view, the only possible reason why Archimandrite Valentin was not prosecuted by the authorities at that time was because ‘he was working for the KGB,’ who, he said, most probably used his sexual orientation to compromise him.

     “When interviewed by Keston on 19 October, ROAC Archbishop Feodor continued to maintain that the allegations against Metropolitan Valentin were being fuelled by an alliance of the Vladimir authorities and the Moscow Patriarchate. The parish priest of Suzdal's Kazan Church, Fr Dmitri Ledko, and Archbishop Yevlogi (Smirnov) of Vladimir and Suzdal were the local Moscow Patriarchate representatives present at the June 2001 meeting aiming to ‘sort out Valentin’, thought the archbishop. While declining to confirm whether such a meeting had indeed taken place, Fr Leonid did tell Keston that there were anonymous persons in authority who wished to see Metropolitan Valentin removed, ‘without them there would be no court case or publications or anything.’”[121]

     Valentine now accepted the help of a very dubious new member of his Church, the “polittechnologist” and close associate of Putin, Gleb Pavlovsky, who had been introduced to him, coincidentally, by – Louriι! Pavlovsky stopped a programme on ORT television attacking Valentine in September, and offered to pay all the expenses of several lawyers who were employed to defend the metropolitan; they were to be supervised by Louriι and his closest associate, Olga Mitrenina. Precisely why Pavlovsky should have chosen to support the metropolitan at this time was not clear: perhaps, it was suggested, he was trying to build up “Suzdal” as a counter-weight to the MP, in order to frighten the latter and extract political concessions from it. In any case, what was clear was that the metropolitan’s accepting the help of such a compromised figure, deeply immersed in Kremlin politics and with a history of betraying dissident enemies of the Soviet rιgime[122], could only come at a price. It soon became clear what that price was: the relaxation of pressure on Pavlovsky’s “childhood friend”, Louriι, and the expulsion – by force, if necessary - of those who persisted in raising the question of Louriι’s heresies. A vicious whispering campaign had already been started against Louriι’s (and Pavlovsky’s) main critic, the layman and editor of the internet server Romanitas, Anton Ter-Grigorian. He was even punched outside the church by one of Louriι’s cronies, the former parliamentarian Michael Kiselev.

     The present writer also experienced pressure in his efforts to clarify Louriι’s heresies – a task that had been entrusted to him by the metropolitan himself. In May, 2001, the metropolitan invited Egor Kholmogorov to mediate between Moss and Louriι in drawing up an agreed theological statement on the issue of “name-worshipping”. When Moss rejected the statement proposed by Kholmogorov and accepted by Louriι as involving an unacceptable compromise between Orthodoxy and heresy, the metropolitan terminated the theological dialogue between Louriι and Moss.

     Then, in July, he issued an ukaz appointing Moss head of a theological commission to investigate the long list of Louriι’s blasphemous statements that had caused commotion in the Church – but stacked the rest of the commission with all of Louriι’s closest cronies, including Louriι himself, with only one of the six members, Protopriest Michael Makeev, being of undoubted Orthodoxy. Moss refused to accept headship of a commission that would in effect allow those accused of heresy to be judges of their own case, and reminded the metropolitan of his promise that if he (Moss), after the concluding of the now-aborted theological dialogue with Louriι, were to consider Louriι’s views heretical, then he (the metropolitan) would bring him to trial before the Holy Synod. The metropolitan angrily rejected any idea of bringing Louriι to account, saying that the issue of “name-worshipping” interested only a few people and would “disappear of itself”.

     On September 3 Louriι conducted a press-conference in the House of the Journalist arranged by Pavlovsky, in which he fawned before the government, denying the involvement of either the state or the MP in “Osetrovschina” (though this was manifestly untrue), and spoke about “three branches” of Orthodoxy in Russia – the MP, the ROAC and the Old Believers.[123]

     On September 5, Metropolitan Valentine was formally accused of “committing forcible acts of a sexual nature”, “compulsion to commit acts of a sexual nature” and “enticing minors into antisocial activity” under Articles 132 (part 2), 133 and 151 (part 1) respectively of the Criminal Code. His trial began on 7 February, 2002 in Suzdal District Court, but was adjourned on 13 February until August.

     In October, 2001 the metropolitan made an attempt to be reconciled with Moss and Ter-Grigorian and invited them to dinner in Suzdal. However, he then proudly declared that he had been working for Christ’s Church for fifty years! When Moss pointed out to him that by his own confession he had left the Catacomb Church at the age of 19 to join the MP, and that it was ROAC’s official confession that the MP was a false church, which he had left only in 1990, he became angry and insisted that he had been a true priest while in the MP.[124] In a private conversation the next day, trying to cover up the bad impression he had made the previous evening, he told Moss that Louriι was “not ours”, strongly hinting that he was KGB and that for that reason he could do nothing about him. After all, he said, Putin was replacing all the mayors in Russia by communists, and the new mayor of Suzdal was one of them…

     The metropolitan then departed for America. But before leaving he accepted from Moss an open letter to the bishops and a few senior priests of ROAC listing all Louriι’s heresies and appealing for action to be taken against them. Somehow this letter got into the hands of Louriι’s associates, who created a special web-site where the open letter was “discovered” and “announced” by a certain “Sergius Louriι”, as evidence of Moss’s desire to discredit ROAC publicly - although it was precisely this website that made the matter public! Then, on November 2, Tatiana Senina, another of Louriι’s associates, created another website devoted exclusively to propaganda for the heresy of “name-worshipping”. Shortly after, on November 7, the anniversary of the revolution, Protopriest Michael Ardov published an open letter against Moss’s open letter in Vertograd, which, in addition to defending Louriι and “name-worshipping” publicly, made an astonishingly crude and completely slanderous attack on Ter-Grigorian, forbidding him even to enter his church in Moscow.

     At this point, if the metropolitan were not to be accused of connivance with the heresy of “name-worshipping”, he had to renounce Ardov’s statement and close down Senina’s website. This he did not do. Indeed, since Ardov is a very cautious man, it is very unlikely that he would ever have undertaken such a step without “a nod from on high” – that is, either from the metropolitan himself, or from those who spoke in his name and by this time had effective control over him, especially Alexander Soldatov, the editor of Vertograd.

     But now Protopriest Michael Makeev, the second priest of ROAC in Moscow, wrote to the metropolitan saying that he was very unhappy with the heresies in the Church and that he intended to send a letter to that effect to the bishops. Immediately, the metropolitan summoned a meeting in Moscow for the next day, November 15. Present were Archbishop Theodore, Archimandrite Irinarch, Protopriests Michael Ardov and Michael Makeev, Soldatov, Kholmogorov, Ter-Grigorian and others. The metropolitan told all sides to stop quarrelling and to forgive each other. He placed most of the blame for the situation on Moss, who was a “Judas” and “going along the path of Osetrov”. No rebuke was given to Louriι, Senina or Ardov. It was agreed that both Vertograd and Romanitas should remove all polemical articles from their sites - Romanitas complied with this order: Vertograd did not.

     At a session of the ROAC Synod in December, 2001, another attempt was made to stop all discussion of the heresies.[125] In May, 2002 the ROAC Synod at last addressed the question of name-worshipping, only to “deliver judgement of the teaching of Hieroschemamonk Anthony Bulatovich to the competence of a Local Council of the Russian Church”. This gave the false impression that Bulatovich and his teaching had not yet been judged by the Russian Church…

     On July 26, 2002, Ter-Grigorian was excommunicated “for violation of Church discipline”. Later, he was excommunicated six more times and even anathematized! On September 9, 2003, an “Official Communication of the Editors of the Suzdal’skie Eparkhial’nie Vedomosti” declared that the reason for his excommunications was his open preaching of Nestorianism, refusal to call Christ God and the Virgin Mary – the Mother of God, a false teaching on the presence of two Persons and two Hypostases in Christ and a false teaching on the deification of Christians. Needless to say, all these accusations were completely without basis in fact.[126]

     And so the position of ROAC at the beginning of 2002 had changed radically from a year earlier: her metropolitan was due for trial in the secular courts on the most serious of moral charges; her senior priests in Moscow and Petersburg were publicly proclaiming heresy and were not being rebuked for it; a vicious campaign of slander and intimidation against her “dissidents” was well under way; and her attitude to the Sergianism and the neo-Soviet authorities had notably softened – at least on the part of her spokesmen.[127]

     Metropolitan Valentine and his supporters saw his trial as persecution by the MP, as part of a general trend of increasing persecution of the True Orthodox by the official Orthodox Churches. There is no doubt that the MP was interested in humiliating him, and that Osetrov’s campaign against him was malicious. But there is also no doubt that he had a case to answer…

     And it was in order to win much-needed friends in high places that in the autumn of 2002, just two days before the first session of the trial of Metropolitan Valentine, ROAC published an “Address to the state leadership of the Russian Federation, the organs of the international community and the rulers of the world” analogous to the “social doctrine” accepted by the MP at its “Jubilee” Sobor, in which it was written that “as in the case of the Christians of ancient Rome or the Soviet epoch, an increase in persecutions on our Church will not lead to our civil disobedience, and still less to a rebellion against the powers that be. We are ready humbly to bear any persecutions, and, to the extent that we are able, to defend our lawful rights.”[128] This statement of loyalty to the neo-Soviet regime, upon whose goodwill the fate of the metropolitan now depended, was supposedly signed by a long list of clergy – but many knew nothing about the declaration, and protested the inclusion of their names under such a sergianist document.

     Since many clergy, and in particular the Catacomb hierarchs Archbishop Seraphim of Sukhumi and Bishop Anthony of Yaransk, were continuing to be disturbed by the teaching of Louriι and calling for his defrocking[129], on October 18, at a session of the ROAC Synod he presented a “report” expressing “my deep regret regarding my public statements concerning name-worshipping, which have become a reason for discord within our Church. I hold to the teaching of the Holy Fathers and confess no heresy about the name of God, which would have been condemned by previous Fathers and Councils. I also hold to the resolutions of the All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918, which were confirmed by two resolutions of the Synod of our Church, in accordance with which the decision on the essence of the question of name-worshipping belongs exclusively within the competence of a Local Council of the Church of Russia”.[130] Louriι did not mention, or repent of, any of his other heresies and blasphemies.

     The craftiness of this statement is immediately evident from the fact that the All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918 did not in fact issue any resolutions on name-worshipping – these came both earlier and later.

     Further craftinesses were exposed by Protopriest Alexander Lebedev, who wrote: “Very interesting phrasing here that has to be read carefully.

     “First of all, Fr. Gregory does not deny that he holds to the teaching of name-worshipping, nor does he state that he considers it to be a heresy. He has always maintained that it was not a heresy and that it was the true teaching of the Holy Fathers.

     “The phrasing ‘Fathers and Sobors’ seems to neatly set aside the condemnations of the name-worshipping heresy that were made not by ‘Sobors’ – but by the Holy ‘Synod’ of the Church of Russia (and Constantinople) and by Patriarch Tikhon.

     “His agreement with the concept that the final resolution of the question belongs solely to the competence of a Local Council of the Russian Church equally neatly puts off this final resolution almost indefinitely, as no full Local Council of the Russian Church is contemplated in the foreseeable future, perhaps decades, perhaps even longer.

     “And, finally, although he states that he will himself refrain from any more public statements on this issue, he does not take any of his previous statements back or renounce them, and he does not promise to direct his followers to refrain from continuing to defend name-worshipping…”[131]

     On October 30, the Parish Council of the Orthodox Parish of St. Michael, Guildford, England under Hieromonk Augustine (Lim) wrote a letter to the ROAC Synod asking for answers to twelve questions on the faith arising as a result of the various heresies and blasphemies of Hieromonk Gregory (Louriι).[132] Instead of replying, Metropolitan Valentine said that only a larger Synod or the Tsar himself could compel him to reply! Louriι was allowed to present his defence in a “report” to the metropolitan, which drew no comment or criticism from the Synod.[133]

     In December, having received no answer to their questions, and seeing that the metropolitan was determined to defend the heretics, who now had complete control of all the official organs of ROAC, the Parish of St. Michael left ROAC. Nine months later, when the Parish was already in another jurisdiction, the metropolitan declared that Fr. Augustine had been banned from serving, and that the present writer was excommunicated because of his supposed opposition to monasticism, which was influenced, according to the metropolitan, by the Jewish Cabbala![134] The latter false accusation is more than a little curious in that Fr. Gregory Louriι is a direct descendant of the foremost cabbalist of sixteenth-century Europe, Isaak Louriι Levi, and a Jewish influence in his heresies has been suspected…

     In July, 2003 the ROAC Synod declared in an epistle: “The old ‘Christian world’ has gone, never to return, and that which is frenziedly desired by some, the regeneration of the ‘Orthodox monarchy’ in some country, in which the true faith will reign, must be considered a senseless utopia.”

     This epistle was almost certainly written by Fr. Gregory Louriι. However, it was signed, according to Vertograd for July 30, by the bishops: Valentine, Theodore, Seraphim, Irinarch and Ambrose. Therefore unless Vertograd is lying and one or more of these signatures were forged – which is quite possible, since Archbishop Seraphim in particular has said that he never signed certain synodal decrees on name-worshipping which he is quoted by Vertograd as having signed, - then we must conclude that the ROAC has officially rejected the hope of all truly Orthodox Christians in the resurrection of Orthodoxy under an Orthodox Emperor, and in particular the resurrection of Russian Orthodoxy under a Russian Tsar. According to it, the faith and hope of many, many saints and martyrs is a “senseless utopia”, an object of “frenzied” desire that cannot possibly be fulfilled and must be renounced![135]

     In August, 2003, the metropolitan was convicted of paedophilia by the court, and given a conditional four-year prison sentence. The sentence was upheld by the appeal court in the autumn. But in March, 2004 his conviction was expunged. Although there had been no new evidence, and no new trial, Vertograd immediately trumpeted this as an acquittal. However, one of the lawyers of the metropolitan himself contradicted Vertograd, saying that this legal whitewash was based on the metropolitan’s private acknowledgement of his guilt – and would be removed immediately if he “misbehaved” again…

     Opposition to the heretics continued, but in November, 2003 the ROAC Synod was able to silence its critics in a clever way: both Fr. Gregory Louriι and one of his principal opponents, Fr. Roman Pavlov, were “retired”. No matter that de facto this meant that Fr. Roman was able to serve only with the explicit permission of the metropolitan, while Fr. Gregory’s activities and serving were in no way hindered or diminished. From now on, the ROAC was not responsible for Louriι because he had supposedly been “retired”…[136]

     Early in 2004 two priests (Protopriest Michael Makeev and Fr. Roman Pavlov) and a parish of ROAC in Moscow, which included the seven-times excommunicated and anathematised Anton Ter-Grigorian, left ROAC. They joined the True Orthodox Church of Cyprus under Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kition. It is reported that many Catacomb Church parishioners were also leaving ROAC at this time…

     In March, 2004, the name-worshippers Yegor Kholmogorov and Fr. Gregory Louriι demonstrated that they deviated from True Orthodox teaching in another important way. According to Vertograd, they “publicly recognized themselves to be supporters of the Declaration of Sergius Stragorodsky of 1927, distinguishing, from their point of view, the Declaration of Sergius Stragorodsky from ‘sergianism as such’. Yegor Kholmogorov declared the following: ‘The position expressed in the Declaration by the formula [there follows a long quotation from the Declaration, including the most contentious passage about “our sorrows and joys”] seems to me to be absolutely just and faithful to the church-political position in those conditions.’

     “Later, Ye. Kholmogorov declared the following: ‘Thus if one considers that sergianism is the recognition of Soviet power as the civil authority in Russia, an authority that could aid the strengthening of lawfulness, the flourishing of the country, etc., then sergianism is undoubtedly a justified church position and there is nothing for which to reproach Metropolitan Sergius.’

     “Besides this, Comrade Kholmogorov affirms that Holy Hieromartyr Joseph of Petrograd held to the principles reflected in Sergius’ Declaration on loyalty to the Bolsheviks. While on ROCOR and the Catacomb Church he writes the following: ‘… It is completely incomprehensible why the position of the Orthodox Christian should be that of the political partisan. To justify this political partisanship, both in ROCOR and in the catacombs, completely made, absolutely heretical theories were created that turned a certain part of the catacombniks into a new edition of the Priestless Old Ritualists with their “spiritual antichrist”…’

     “Hieromonk Gregory (Lourie) completely agreed with him and declared the following: ‘Yes, it’s something like that. Especially important is the distinguishing between the Declaration and sergianism as such.’

     “In his time the chief ideologue of ROAC and the chief editor of Portal Credo.ru, Alexander Soldatov, expressed himself on the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). In an editorial article for Credo.ru dated September 8, 2003 he referred to Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) as on a par with ‘the great hierarchs of the epoch of the Ecumenical Councils’, while the word ‘sergianism’ he put in inverted commas.

     “Earlier, from very many judgements of comrades Kholmogorov, Soldatov and Lourie it followed that they consider sergianism to be an insignificant canonical transgression. But now they speak about it openly…”[137]

     In July, 2005 Archbishop Anthony of Yaransk met Fr. Victor Melehov, who had been expelled from ROCOR (V), in Dmitrov. As a result of their meeting, at which the heresies of Louriι were discussed, Archbishop Anthony blessed Fr. Victor to commemorate him alone at the Liturgy. When Archbishop Anthony arrived in Suzdal, Metropolitan Valentine secured the banning of the American priests for creating a faction (Fr. Christopher Johnson was banned for trying to become a bishop![138]). However, Archbishop Anthony, supported by the Catacomb Bishops Gerontius and Hilarion from the Ukraine, secured the banning of Louriι and the setting up of a commission to investigate “the matter of Fr. Gregory Louriι”.

     On September 5, Louriι, 2005 was defrocked – without a trial - by the Synod.[139] The heretic had at length been removed. But the uncanonical manner it which it had been done allowed the heretic to paint himself as a victim. Soon he managed to detach two bishops (Sebastian of the Urals and Ambrose of Khabarovsk) from the ROAC Synod. They soon consecrated him “Bishop of St. Petersburg and Gdov” and made him leader of their group. As Louriι’s influence has waxed, - he now poses as a focus of unity of the different True Orthodox jurisdictions, - so that of Metropolitan Valentine has waned. The only hope for members of ROAC would seem to reside in coming under the omophorion of the only remaining canonical branch of the Russian Church, RTOC under Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia…

     All this time ROCOR (L) was coming inexorably closer to official union with the MP… In May, 2003 it declared that it and the MP mutually recognised each other’s sacraments, which was followed by cases of de facto concelebration.[140] And yet, if the Moscow Patriarchate now recognized the sacraments of ROCOR (L), it had a strange way of expressing it. In 2003, a book published by the Moscow Patriarchate called Strazh Doma Gospodnia (The Guardian of the House of the Lord) not only justified the official Church's capitulation to the Soviet regime, but also condemned the confessors in the Catacomb Church and ROCOR who did not capitulate. True, the author, Sergius Fomin, did make the startling admission: “If Metropolitan Sergius, in agreeing in his name to publish the Declaration of 1927 composed by the authorities, hoping to buy some relief for the Church and the clergy, then his hopes not only were not fulfilled, but the persecutions after 1927 became still fiercer, reaching truly hurricane-force in 1937-38” (p. 262). But the book as a whole sought to justify Sergius. Moreover, the foreword, which was written by Patriarch Alexis, praised the heroic path taken by Sergius and viciously castigated his critics. Those that did not follow Sergius in his submission to Stalin were "schismatics", who, "not having reconciled themselves to the new government, became a danger just as big as the persecutions." Sergius, on the other hand, received only words of praise, and was credited with averting, "maybe even the destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church itself."

    In November, 2003 a delegation to Moscow led by Archbishop Mark kissed the patriarch’s hand and asked forgiveness for any harsh things ROCOR may have said about the MP in the past. Since a great deal had been said in the past, and by all the leaders of ROCOR, such an apology could only be interpreted as capitulation to the MP. Again, on January 26, 2004, Archbishop Mark said in answer to a question about the canonical status of the Moscow Patriarchate: “The Russian people has made its choice. It has recognized the present Russian Orthodox Church in Russia and its hierarchy. We must take account of this in spite of possible objections from members of the Church Abroad. At the beginning of the 1990s we still could not see the processes that were happening in Russia as the people there saw them. Life in Russia went by a different path from how the ιmigrιs presented it…”[141]

     In May, 2004 Metropolitan Laurus headed another ROCOR delegation on a two-week visit to Russia. On May 15, the anniversary of “Patriarch” Sergius’ death, Patriarch Alexis demonstratively served a pannikhida for the traitor-patriarch, after which he said: “May the Lord create for him eternal and grateful memory”. Then, during a liturgy at the Butovo polygon, where thousands of Christians, both True Orthodox and sergianist, were killed and buried[142], he had this to say to his foreign guests: “Today is the 60^th anniversary since the death of the ever-memorable Patriarch Sergius. The time of the service of this archpastor coincided with the most terrible years of the struggle against God, when it was necessary to preserve the Russian Church. In those terrible years of repression and persecutions there were more sorrows. In 1937 both those who shared the position of Metropolitan Sergius and those who did not agree with him suffered for the faith of Christ, for belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church. We pay a tribute of respect and thankful remembrance to his Holiness Patriarch Sergius for the fact that he, in the most terrible and difficult of conditions of the Church’s existence in the 1930s of the 20^th century led the ship of the Church and preserved the Russian Church amidst the stormy waves of the sea of life.”[143]

     The idea that those who shared Sergius’ position and those who rejected it were equally martyrs is to mock the very idea of martyrdom for the truth. Clearly, therefore, “Patriarch” Alexis, “forgetting” historical facts as accepted even by MP historians, was determined to justify even the most shameful acts of the “ever-memorable” Sergius, claiming that he truly “saved the Church” by his agreements with the God-haters. There could be no doubt, therefore, that he remained a dyed-in-the-wool sergianist. And there could similarly be no doubt that Metropolitan Laurus, in listening to this speech in respectful silence and without interjecting the slightest objection, was a sergianist, too.

     The conclusions of the first two sessions of the joint commissions of the MP and ROCOR (in June and September, 2004) were approved in the autumn by the MP Council of Bishops, although very few details were made public. However, on November 1 Patriarch Alexis revealed something, which was published by “Yedinoe otechestvo” under the intriguing title: “Wishing a speedy union with ROCOR, Alexis II emphasises that it is wrong to judge Metropolitan Sergius and his actions”. The patriarch was reported as saying: “Two working meetings of the commission of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad on the dialogue over the re-establishment of ecclesiastical unity took place, and the projects of the following documents were agreed: on the relationships between the Church and the State, on the relationships between Orthodoxy and the heterodox communities and the inter-confessional organization, and on the canonical status of ROCOR as a self-governing Church.” In other words, all the important issues have already been agreed! But what was the agreement? And if it is in accordance with Orthodoxy, why was it not being published?[144]

     While every attempt was made to pretend that the MP and ROCOR were negotiating on equal terms, many facts indicated the opposite. Thus when Fr. Constantine Kaunov left the Volgograd diocese of the MP and joined the Siberian diocese of ROCOR under Bishop Eutyches, and was banned from serving by the MP Bishop of Ekaterinburg (under whom he had never served), he was told by Bishop Eutyches that he was banned because he had not submitted to the ban of the MP bishop! In other words, already now, before full, official union, ROCOR priests in Russia were under the power of the MP – with the full connivance of the ROCOR bishops![145]

     On January 24, 2005 Metropolitan Cyril (Gundiaev) of Smolensk, head of the MP’s Department of Foreign Relations and the future patriarch, confirmed that the MP did not condemn Sergianism: “We recognize that the model of Church-State relations [in the Soviet period] did not correspond to tradition. But we are not condemning those who realized this model, because there was no other way of preserving the Church. The Church behaved in the only way she could at that time. There was another path into the catacombs, but there could be no catacombs in the Soviet space…”[146]

     But there were many “catacombs in the Soviet space”. And it was precisely the existence of those catacombs, and of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of the Catacomb Church, that gave the lie to the MP’s assertion that there was no other way. That other way was the way of Christ, Himself the Way, the Truth and the Life – and for the true Christian there was no other Way! [147]

     Meanwhile, Patriarch Alexis officially endorsed the communist view of the Second World War. In February, 2005, there was a “Worldwide Russian People’s Council” in Moscow, to which several guests from ROCOR (L) were invited. As Laurence A. Uzzell, president of International Religious Freedom Watch wrote for The Moscow Times: “The speeches at that gathering, devoted to celebrating the Soviet victory in World War II and linking it to the Kremlin’s current policies, suggest that the domestic church [the MP] is counting on Russian nationalism to woo the ιmigrιs. Especially striking is the distinctively Soviet flavor of that nationalism. The main speeches failed to mention the victory’s dark sides, for example the imposition of totalitarian atheism on traditionally Christian societies such as Romania and Bulgaria. Patriarch Alexey II made the incredible statement that the victory ‘brought the Orthodox peoples of Europe closer and raised the authority of the Russian Church’. If one had no information, one would think that the establishment of Communist Party governments in the newly conquered countries were purely voluntary – and that what followed was unfettered religious freedom…”[148]

     Uzzell continues: “Sergianism is clearly still thriving, despite the Moscow Patriarchate’s occasional abstract statements asserting its right to criticize the state. The Patriarchate’s leaders still openly celebrate Patriarch Sergei’s memory, with some even favoring his canonization as a saint. With rare exceptions, they still issue commentaries on President Vladimir Putin’s policies, which read like government press releases. They seem sure that this issue will not be a deal-breaker in their quest for reunion with the ιmigrιs. Putin’s Kremlin will be hoping that they are right.”[149]

     Matushka Anastasia Shatilova noted: “In the Moscow Patriarchate there can be observed an elemental striving towards the ‘glorification’ of a series of very dubious personalities, including Ivan the Terrible (seven times married, who killed his own son and sent Maliuta Skuratov to suffocate the holy Hierarch Philip of Moscow for his rebuking of the Tsar’s cruelties) and Rasputin (whose ‘icons’ are even streaming myrrh). The crown of all this is the ‘icon’ of Stalin, which was put on the “Live Journal” on the internet on June 5. On it this outcast of the human race is portrayed in hierarchical vestments with an omophorion, a Gospel book and a sword in his hands!”[150]

     In June, 2005 four documents agreed by the joint MP-ROCOR commissions were published – on the same day that a delegation from the WCC visited the patriarch in Moscow! These documents contained a more or less complete submission to Moscow’s commands, including even a justification of Sergius’ declaration.

     On November 22, 2005 (old style) the Cyprianites, who, while accepting that the MP had grace, still opposed union with it, broke communion with ROCOR (L). In December, 2005 the Hierarchical Synod of ROCOR (L) broke communion with the Cyprianites. The real reason was that the MP had laid it down as a condition for the union of the MP with ROCOR that ROCOR “regulates its relations with groups that have separated from their Local Churches” (Protopriest Nicholas Balashov).

     In May a so-called “Fourth All-Diaspora Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad” was convened by ROCOR (L) in San Francisco. By dint of a great deal of manipulation and the weeding out of dissenters, the Sobor endorsed the union with the MP. Nevertheless, the dissenters who were able to speak at the Sobor were still able to make some telling points, especially about the continuing ecumenism of the MP.

     Thus in his report to the Sobor Priest Victor Dobrov said: “Just recently, from February 14-23 of this year in Porto Alegre, Brazil the regular 9^th ecumenical Assembly of the WCC took place.

     “The Russian Church (MP) at this Assembly was unusually imposing with more than 20 members in its delegation.

     “The Summary Document, adopted and ratified by the participants of this ecumenical Assembly, and particularly by the Moscow Patriarchate in the face of its representatives, is the Document PRC 01.1 entitled “The Teaching on the Church:  Called to be a United Church”.

    “A careful study of this Document casts doubt on the multitude of statements made by the representatives of the Moscow side, that the objective of the continued membership of the Patriarchate in the WCC is the uncompromising witnessing to the Truth to the heterodox world.  Moreover, this document evokes doubt in the Orthodoxy of the confession of the faith of the Moscow Patriarchate itself. The entire adopted Document is heretical from beginning to end, but because of the lack of time for a thorough examination, we will focus only on the most glaring evidence.

     “Let us refer to the text of the Document:

     “One may call the following assertion in the Document a theological breakthrough, yet it is far from Orthodox thinking:

     “’All who have been baptized into Christ are united with Christ in his body’. (III, 8) (i.e. in the Church of Christ!)

     “It is completely unequivocal, simple and comprehensible! Since nowhere in the remainder of the Document is it stated that this implies baptism with the obligatory participation of the one being baptized in the Eucharist which is in the Orthodox Church, therefore now there is every basis to consider the Moscow Patriarchate as already being of one body with Protestants…

     “Our Orthodox consciousness is amazed and startled by the ecumenical statement adopted by the Moscow Patriarchate on recognizing the grace and genuineness of baptisms carried out in heretical communities!”[151]

     The Council declared: “Hearing the lectures read at the Council, the reports made by the Commission on negotiations with the corresponding Commission of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the various points of view expressed during the discussions, we express our conciliar consent that it is necessary to confirm the canonical status of the Russian Church Abroad for the future as a self-governing part of the Local Russian Church, in accordance with the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia currently in force.”

     A kind of autonomy of ROCOR within MP was granted her – but it was only a fig-leaf to hide her complete submission. The Patriarch still retained veto power on appointments, the Orthodox Church of America remained outside ROCOR’s control, and, most important, full communion with the “Local Russian Church”, i.e. the Moscow Patriarchate, was established.

     The declaration went on: “From discussions at the Council it is apparent that the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in the World Council of Churches evokes confusion among our clergy and flock. With heartfelt pain we ask the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate to heed the plea of our flock to expediently remove this temptation.

     “We hope that the forthcoming Local Council of the One Russian Church will settle remaining unresolved church problems.”

     This rather pathetic appeal to the conquerors to heed the “heartfelt pain” of the vanquished was swept aside. Since the union between the MP and ROCOR, the ecumenist activities of “the One Russian Church” has actually increased, especially since the enthronement of Patriarch Cyril. In any case, since ROCOR did not lay down the renunciation of ecumenism as a sine qua non of union, and only asked that the “remaining unresolved church problems” be settled “at the forthcoming Local Council of the One Russian Church”, that is, after union, there was no real pressure placed on the MP: ROCOR had surrendered…

     Protests continued to the very end. Thus former KGB Lieutenant-Colonel Constantine Preobrazhensky reminded the ROCOR faithful of what they already knew but had begun to forget: “Absolutely all [my italics – V.M.] the bishops and the overwhelming majority of the priests [of the MP] worked with the KGB…”[152] And very near the end, in February, 2007, Fr. Nikita Grigoriev, an instructor at Holy Trinity Seminary, Jordanville, produced one of the most incisive exposιs of the Moscow Patriarchate in the whole history of its existence.[153]

     But in vain. On May 17, 2007, deceived by the vain hope of retaining some kind of real autonomy within the MP, and suppressing the unassailable evidence that the MP was still sergianist and ecumenist to the core, Metropolitan Laurus signed the union with the KGB-Patriarch while the KGB-President beamed approvingly... The Russian Church Abroad, the last free voice of the True Russian Church, had ceased to exist.

     Or so it seemed…

                                                                  And the Lord said to satan: the Lord rebuke thee, O satan, the Lord rebuke thee  Who hast chosen Jerusalem! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?  Zachariah 3.2.

     As the wise Solomon says, pride goes before a fall (Proverbs 16.18). The fall of ROCOR was the result of pride – pride in her own past virtues, and pride in relation to the other bearers of True Russian Orthodoxy. This is not to say that the achievements of ROCOR were not genuinely great. Apart from providing spiritual food for her own large flock scattered over every continent, and bringing many foreigners to the light of the true faith, she faithfully preserved the traditions of the pre-revolutionary Russian Church that were being destroyed with the utmost ruthlessness in the Homeland, while providing a voice (and, in some cases, an omophorion) for the catacomb confessors. Several of her conciliar declarations – the condemnation of sergianism (1928), the glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors (1981) and the anathema against ecumenism (1983) – will stand forever as monuments of the faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

     Probably her greatest long-term achievement was that accomplished when she was almost at the end of her strength: her creation of parishes inside Russia in 1990, and her resurrection of the apostolic succession and hierarchy of her sister-church in the Homeland, the Russian True Orthodox Church. Paradoxically, however, it was this final achievement that brought about her downfall; for the task of replacing the Moscow Patriarchate as the dominant confession in Russia was beyond her strength, and the spiritual diseases and temptations transmitted through the first face-to-face encounter with the old enemy in the Homeland since the 1920s shook her faith and determination. Forgetting their duty before God and their flock both in Russia and abroad, the majority of the hierarchs wavered, began to listen to the siren-calls of pseudo-Russian Soviet nationalism, and fell into a false union with the Sovietized Moscow Patriarchate and apostate World Orthodoxy.

     This is without doubt a profound spiritual tragedy whose consequences are still reverberating among the Orthodox all over the world. However, “all things work for the best for those who love God” (Romans 8.28), and “the Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble” (Proverbs 16.4). So even in this terrible tragedy there is hidden the hope and the means of spiritual healing and resurrection – ROCOR’s fall by no means excludes the possibility of a recovery. But that recovery must now come primarily from within Russia, and not from abroad, especially since 95% of ROCOR inside Russia refused to join the unia with the MP as opposed to 30 % outside Russia.[154] And it must come with a full understanding of the causes of the past failures, and a determination not to repeat them.

     What are the lessons from this tragedy? Briefly, they are: that Soviet power is not from God, but from the devil, and that neither with it, nor with its neo-Soviet successor under KGB agent Putin, is any “symphony of powers” possible; that the Moscow Patriarchate, having sold its soul to the devil in the form of Stalin in the 1920s and not repented of it even after the fall of communism, does not have the grace of sacraments and is no longer an ark of salvation; that ecumenism is “the heresy of heresies”, and union with the ecumenist churches in the World Council of Churches or other ecumenical forums is spiritual death; and that the unity of the Russian people cannot be bought at the expense of the betrayal of God and of the confession of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia.

     A further lesson, of a less dogmatic nature but still important, is that the leadership of the Russian Church has now passed from Abroad back to the Homeland. In a sense, this was inevitable, both from a historical and from a canonical point of view. In her early years, the Russian ιmigrιs were always looking to return to the Homeland; they felt themselves and their Church to be truly “in exile”, and the purpose of their lives to be the resurrection of true piety and the True Church in the Homeland. The hope of this resurrection grew fainter with time, but the primacy in the hearts of the exiles of the Church in the Homeland, of which the Church Abroad was merely a part (and rather a small part - merely “a drop in the ocean” in the words of St. Philaret of New York), remained. It was therefore entirely natural that the return of the Church Abroad to Russia in 1990 should be seen as the culmination of her existence, and the struggle with the MP that ensued as “the last battle”.

     But from a canonical point of view the whole existence of ROCOR was highly anomalous. A part of the Russian Church that existed outside Russia, throughout the world, and in many places on the territories of other Local Churches, but as an autonomous, self-governing unit – this was an unprecedented phenomenon in Orthodox Church history. Strictly speaking, the existence of such a global, “floating” Church body contradicted the basic territorial principle of Church administration. It could be justified only on the grounds that to merge with the other Local Churches, and still more with the official Church in the Homeland, would be to the detriment of the Orthodox Faith and the spiritual welfare of its flock. This justification was seen as adequate by all zealots of the faith, both Russian and non-Russian – and yet the situation of the Church remained anomalous, and therefore necessarily temporary, requiring a canonical resolution sooner or later. Moreover, the anomaly became still more extreme when the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia became – contrary to the first paragraph of its own Statute – also the Russian Orthodox Church Inside Russia in 1990. How could the Church Outside Russia be at the same time the Church Inside Russia?!

     The anomaly could be resolved only by transferring the central authority of the Church from Abroad to the Homeland. Such a solution had many obvious and major advantages, whereas keeping the administration of the Church in the hands of hierarchs living thousands of miles away with no knowledge of the conditions in contemporary Russia was a recipe for disaster. This was at least partially recognized by Metropolitan Vitaly himself, when he declared in December, 2001: “After many long, hard years of trying to manage the Church in Russia from New York, I have learned that it is impossible to manage the Church in Russia from Abroad. We do not know and understand their problems and we do not know their people and possible candidates for the clergy. Without a knowledge of their people and their problems the best that we can do is give them Apostolic Succession and Grace and allow them to organize while maintaining communion with them and praying that they will be able to do something for themselves…“

     And yet the leadership of ROCOR (V) strenuously resisted bestowing any such autonomy on ROCOR inside Russia, let alone giving the leadership of the Russian Church as a whole to hierarchs inside Russia; and this prideful insistence that the Russian Church can only be governed from Mansonville or Paris must be considered as the main reason for the fall of ROCOR (V).

     However, the fall of ROCOR (V), and the emergence of RTOC under Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia as the only truly canonical Russian Church jurisdiction, has now solved the problem. The leadership of RTOC always insisted that the Russian Church Abroad and the Catacomb or Russian True Orthodox Church should be seen as separate but closely related organisms, “sister-churches”. Even when under extreme provocation, they tried hard not to break the link with Metropolitan Vitaly. But once ROCOR (V) had definitely fallen away, they created a Church structure that was the mirror-image of the old ROCOR. That is, the central leadership of the Church was now permanently inside Russia, while the Church Abroad existed as a semi-autonomous body with its own bishop(s) in communion with the main body inside Russia.

*

     This “ecclesiastical perestroika” had its critics, however, even within RTOC and even within that remnant of ROCOR – about a third of the parishes worldwide – who refused to accept the unia with Moscow. They gathered around the figure of Bishop Agathangelus of Odessa, the only bishop in ROCOR (L) who rejected the unia, and who now proclaimed himself the sole lawful successor-bishop of the old ROCOR. While continuing to live in the Ukraine, he declared that the centre of the Church was still Abroad, and has recently been given the title “Metropolitan of New York”.

     We have met Bishop Agathangelus before, as the hierarch who, in October, 2001, betrayed his spiritual father and RTOC and “jumped ship”, joining Laurus at just the moment that Laurus fell away from the faith. Little good should have been expected from such a turncoat, and so it turned out. Only three days after the May, 2007, RTOC sent an appeal to Agathangelus to unite with them[155]. But Agathangelus rejected it. In fact, he not only refused to join any of the existing “splinters” (oskolki) that had been saved from the shipwreck of ROCOR: he vigorously claimed that they were all schismatics, that the Lavrite Synod had been the only true Russian Synod until its fall in May, 2007, and even that all the decisions of the Lavrite Synod until that date were valid and correct – including, presumably, all the decisions of the false Council of 2000 and the decision to seek union with the MP!

     Agathangelus now proceeded to repeat all the errors of the 1990s that had undermined the strength of ROCOR in the 1990s, beginning with the union with the Cyprianites and the acceptance of their ecclesiology. Thus in November, 2007 he entered into communion with Metropolitan Cyprian and his Synod. The Cyprianites claimed that there had never been a break in communion between them and Bishop Agathangelus, but this was not true, since the Lavrite Synod, of which Bishop Agathangelus was then a member, broke communion with the Cyprianites in 2006. Then, early in December, Bishop Agathangelus consecrated two further bishops for his jurisdiction with the help of the Cyprianite Bishops Ambrose of Methone and George of Alania (South Ossetia) in Odessa: Andronik (Kotliarov) for New York, and Sophrony (Musienko) for St. Petersburg. So the “Agathangelite” Synod, thanks to the Cyprianites, now has three dioceses: one each for the Ukraine, Russia and North America.

     Some hailed this expansion of the Agathangelite Synod as “the resurrection of ROCOR”. Did this title correspond to the truth about the Agathangelite Synod? It would have corresponded to the truth only if: (1) the confession of faith of this Synod were purely Orthodox, (2) its apostolic succession were undoubted, and (3) it were the only Synod that could reasonably argue that it was “the continuer of ROCOR”. But the Agathangelite Synod failed to pass this test on all three counts.

     1. The Confession of the Agathangelite Synod is not purely Orthodox. The present writer asked the Cyprianite Bishop Ambrose of Methone: “Can we take it that Bishop Agathangelus shares your ecclesiology in all respects? In particular, does he, like your Synod, regard the Moscow Patriarchate as having grace?” His reply (the bishop was speaking only in his own name, not for the whole Cyprianite Synod) was: “So far as I know, and so far as I have discussed [it] with him, yes.” We can assume that this was a correct answer, because the Cyprianites and the Agathangelites have remained in communion to the present day without any quarrels over the faith.

     In other words, Bishop Agathangelus recognized the Moscow Patriarchate and the whole of World Orthodoxy to be grace-filled. Moreover, he embraced the false Cyprianite ecclesiology that heretics such as Patriarchs Alexis and Bartholomew were “sick” members of the True Church. The immediate reaction was: had Agathangelus learned nothing from the fall of Metropolitan Laurus? Or rather, did he consider it a “fall” at all, since Laurus, according to his and the Cyprianites’ understanding, was simply returning to union with his “Mother Church”, the Moscow Patriarchate? Did he not understand that it was precisely when ROCOR entered into communion with the Cyprianites, in 1994, that the Synod began negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate and began its rapid descent into union with heresy?

     More recently, Agathangelus and his Synod (ROCOR (A)), while continuing fiercely reject all jurisdictions “to the right”, such as ROCOR (V), ROAC or RTOC, have shown increasing sympathy for jurisdictions located “to the left”. Thus Agathangelus and the deposed Patriarch Irenaeus of Jerusalem, who since 2005 has been living under house arrest, now recognize each other and commemorate each other at the Great Entrance in the liturgy. Moreover, as Protopriest Alexander Lebedev writes, “the liberalism of ROCOR (A) in its reception of communities and clerics serves the aims of broadening its influence and increasing its numbers. In the words of Metropolitan Agathangelus, ‘we take everybody’. The politics of careful examination, which we see, for example, in RTOC, does not permit an increase in the quantity of communities and clerics, while ‘economy’ present many opportunities for this. In unofficial Orthodoxy, besides the ‘splinters’ of ROCOR and the Greek Old Calendarist jurisdictions, which are known for their serious attitude to questions of ecclesiology and faith, there exists an enormous ‘bank’ of jurisdictions and clerics who have dubious canonical origins and a vague confession of faith. In ROCOR (A) they have already shown long ago that in order to broaden their ranks they are ready to us this diverse conglomerate. The first step was undertaken by the newly formed jurisdiction already in 2007, when ‘catacomb hierarchs of the Sekachite tradition’ were received [by cheirothesia] into the ranks of their episcopate. This autumn it became known that ROCOR (A) was reviewing the question of receiving into their ranks the Orthodox Church of Ecuador, whose first-hierarch, however, earlier managed to join the True Orthodox Church of [the ‘healer’] Metropolitan Raphael (Motovilov)…”[156]

     2. The Apostolic Succession of the Agathangelite Synod is doubtful for two reasons: first, because their Cyprianite co-consecrators’ Synod was formed in schism from the True Orthodox Church of Greece under Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis) of Athens, and secondly, because Agathangelus has not yet publicly renounced the false and heretical councils of 2000 and 2001 – and heretics do not have apostolic succession.

     3. There are other Synods having an equal, or greater claim to be the “continuer of ROCOR” – especially RTOC. Bishop Agathangelus’ claim to be the sole canonical successor of ROCOR is founded on nothing stronger than the fact that he was the last to separate from the Lavrite Synod. But is that anything to be proud of? Is it not rather something to be ashamed of? After all, the Holy Canons – in particular, the 15^th Canon of the First-and-Second Council of Constantinople – do not praise procrastination in matters of the faith, but rather praise those who separate immediately heresy is proclaimed. And in the case of ROCOR that took place, not in 2007, as Bishop Agathangelus likes to think, but in 2001, if not in 1994…

     Bishop Agathangelus’ position is similar to that of a person who criticizes those who jump off a heavily listing ship that has been holed below the water-line, and himself “jumps” only when the water has reached his neck… And yet his position is still worse. For he claims that the ship he jumped off, ROCOR-MP, and which is now at the bottom of the ocean of this sinful world, is in fact floating majestically on the surface with Christ Himself at its helm! If that is what he believes, then we are entitled to ask: why did he jump in the first place? And still more pertinently: will he not be tempted at some time in the future to return to that ship, becoming one of those who, “having thrust away a good conscience concerning the faith, have made shipwreck…” (I Timothy 1.19)?

*

     Let us return, finally, to the one ray of true light to emerge from the dark and stormy history that is the subject of this small book – the emergence of the Russian True Orthodox Church under Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia.

     This is the only Church body that the present writer can recommend as having preserved both the faith and the apostolic succession of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in the period before it began to fall away, while at the same time preserving the traditions of the Church of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, the Catacomb Church. It is a relatively small Church, and compared with uncanonical bodies such as ROCOR (A), it is growing slowly. However, slow but steady growth is no bad thing after the recent period of extreme turmoil.

     Moreover, in its Sobor in Odessa in November, 2008 it demonstrated a model of what true Church Sobornost’, or Conciliarity, should be in an age when that quality has been very hard to find. The Sobor issued a large number of documents on a wide range of subjects. And it canonized Metropolitan Philaret of New York and 49 Catacomb confessors, thereby demonstrating its veneration for the faith and piety both of the Russian Church Abroad and of the Catacomb Church.

     Let us conclude, then, by quoting one of the Sobor documents, “Definition of the Sacred Council on the Confessional and Ecclesiological Foundations of the Russian True Orthodox Church”, a statement of that Faith that alone can serve as the rock on which the future Russian Church will be built[157]:-

     “The Russian True Orthodox Church confesses and holds the Orthodox Christian Faith as it has been preserved by Holy Tradition from the foundation of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church of Christ, and as it was until 1927 in the Local Russian Church, as the Catacomb Church kept it in a confessing spirit, and as the Russian Church Abroad kept it right until the year 2000.

     “We believe in the Triune God, the Holy Trinity, as expounded in the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Symbol of faith, and in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church vwhich our Lord Jesus Christ founded, and which is the pillar and ground of the Truth (I Timothy 3.15). We believe that the Church is the Body of Christ, a Divino-human organism, in which we, the faithful, constitute Its Body, while the Head of the Church is the Lord Jesus Christ (Colossians 1.18). We believe that the gates of hell cannot prevail over Her (Matthew 16.18). Like the Lord Himself, She cannot be destroyed, annihilated or divided, and for that reason does not need to be “saved” by human forces.

     “In full unanimity with the Symbol of faith, we confess one baptism for the remission of sins. The Russian True Orthodox Church strictly holds to the ecclesiastical laws which prescribed that it be carried out by three-times and complete immersion in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

     “That which the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers of the Church accepted and confirmed, we also accept and confirm, and that which they rejected and anathematized, we also reject and anathematize, without adding or subtracting anything. And together with the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, we proclaim: “We follow the ancient traditions of the Ecumenical Church, we keep the laws of the Fathers; we subject to anathema those who add or take away anything from the Ecumenical Church.”

     “The Russian True Orthodox Church is an indivisible part of the Local Russian Church, and governs itself on conciliar bases in accordance with the decree of his Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, the Holy Synod and Higher Church Council of the Russian Church of November 7/20, 1920, № 362. We have canonical succession from the Catacomb Russian Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad as two equal-in-honour and spiritually united parts of the True Russian Church remaining in Eucharistic and canonical communion under different ecclesiastical administrations, as it was in the time of the Holy Martyr Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa, and as was blessed by the last lawful First Hierarch of ROCOR, Metropolitan Vitaly. We confess our spiritual and ecclesiological unity with the Holy New Martyrs of Russia and the Father-Confessors of the Catacomb Church, and also with the First Hierarchs of ROCOR and Her outstanding hierarchs and pastors.

     “Confessing that the Church saves man, and not man – the Church, we reject the sergianism confessed by the Moscow Patriarchate, which is so-called from the name of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), as a special form of apostasy and ecclesiological heresy. This false teaching is not compatible with the teaching of the Holy Fathers on the Church and on political authority, for sergianism is the inner preparedness of the Orthodox Christian for compromise with antitheism, and in a broader sense, for compromise with lies, with any evil, with the elements of this world. This preparedness proceeds from the heart, from the spiritual condition of man himself, and for that reason we affirm that the Moscow Patriarchate is being cunning when it calls sergianism a temporary phenomenon conditioned by a political situation. In raising sergianism – that is, compromise with antitheism – into a norm of ecclesiastical life, the Moscow Patriarchate is thereby preparing its flock to recognize the power of the Antichrist as a lawful power, and to accept “the seal on their right hand” (Revelation 13.16). We affirm that true Orthodoxy in our suffering Fatherland cannot be regenerated without a consciousness of the sergianist fall and without repentance for this fall.

     “We are unanimous with the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia and the Catacomb Father-Confessors, and also with the outstanding holy hierarchs and pastors of the Church Abroad, that sergianism is a heresy, which the Moscow Patriarchate that was born from it is “a neo-renovationist schism” which entered into symphony with the antitheist authorities and to which are applicable the definitions and canonical bans of the Russian Church that were laid on renovationism and its hierarchy. Having been formed as a schism, the Moscow Patriarchate unlawfully calls itself “the Mother Church”.

     “Our faith in the oneness and uniqueness of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is incompatible with ecumenism, and for that reason we recognize ecumenism to be a heresy that has trampled on the Orthodox Faith. Confessing our unity with the heritage of ROCOR, we confirm the condemnation of ecumenism made by the Council of the Church Abroad in 1983 and the proclamation of a conciliar anathema on this heresy “and on those who have communion with these heretics or help them, or defend their new heresy of ecumenism”. The participation of the Moscow Patriarchate in the ecumenical movement is not a private apostasy of individual hierarchs, but was conciliarly confirmed as the Church’s course in 1961 at the Hierarchical Council of the MP. Having joined the “World Council of Churches”, the Moscow Patriarchate has defined itself not only as “a neo-renovationist schism”, but also as a heretical community that has fallen both under the anathema of the Holy Patriarch Tikhon and the All-Russian Council on the communists and all their co-workers, and under the anathema of the ROCOR Council.

     “Also falling under the anathema on the 1983 heresy of ecumenism are all the hierarchs and clergy of the official Local Churches that confess their Eucharistic unity but at the same time participate together in the pan-heresy of ecumenism, in the acceptance of the new calendar, in modernism, and in the construction of the new world order. For that reason the Russian True Orthodox Church can have Eucharistic communion and unity with none of them; and, following the patristic teaching, it decrees that official World Orthodoxy has fallen away from the Church of Christ, and that its sacraments are ineffective [nedejstvenny] for salvation. By this we confess the witness of Church Tradition that the grace of the Holy Spirit works in a saving manner only in the True Church of Christ, to which heretics and schismatics do not belong.

     “We reject the destructive opinion that heretics and schismatics have not fallen away, but are so-called “sick members of the Church”, in whom the grace of God works in an equally saving manner as on the members of the True Orthodox Church. We confess that all the members of the Church who live in the world and bear flesh are sick through their sins, and only in the True Church of Christ can they receive true healing and salvation. But deviation into heresies and schisms is nothing else than falling away from the Body of the True Orthodox Church. That is why, as the Holy New Martyrs of Russia taught, the Moscow Patriarchate is not the True Church of Christ and its sacraments cannot be effective for salvation.

     “However, we do not thereby usurp the Judgements of God and do not boldly declare that the Lord is not able to turn to repentance and save a sincere Christian soul that remains in the official church, but affirm that salvation is possible only through entering the Church of Christ.

     “We decree that clergy coming into the True Church from the MP must be received through repentance and the carrying out on them of an additional laying on of hands (kheirothesia) by the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church with the aim of completing the ordinations (kheirotonia) that the arriving clergy received from the apostate hierarchy of the MP.

     “Concerning the rite of reception from heretical and schismatic communities, the Russian True Orthodox Church, as a part of the once united Local Russian Church, continues to preserve Her heritage, Her historically formed local traditions and conciliar decrees, at the basis of which was laid the principle of ecclesiastical condescension (oikonomia), in order that, according to the word of the holy Hierarch Philaret (Voznesensky), First Hierarch of ROCOR, “many should not be driven from the Church”.

     “In spite of the fact that there now exists an admissible variety of differences in the rites of reception of laymen practiced by some True Orthodox Churches, we consider that it is necessary to proceed towards the overcoming of these differences, basing ourselves on the dogmatic teaching of the Church. For the time being it is possible to relate to these differences in the rites of reception in same way as did St. Cyprian of Carthage in his letter to Jubian: “But someone will say: what will happen to those who, before this, having converted from heresy to the Church, were received into the Church without baptism? The Lord by His mercy is powerful to give them forgiveness, and not to deprive of the gifts of His Church those who, having been received into the Church, reposed in the Church”.

     “A basis for changing the rite of reception of laymen from the MP could be, for example, facts concerning the open, official concelebration of the hierarchy of the MP with Roman Catholics or other heretics.

     Confessing the RTOC to be the True Russian Church and the canonical successor in law of the Catacomb and Abroad Churches, we do not isolate ourselves and do not dare to think of ourselves as “the only true Church”.

     “We confess unity of Faith with our brothers, the Old Calendarist Orthodox Christians in Greece and other countries, who reject the unia with ecumenical and new calendarist official Orthodoxy, and who do not accept the heresy of ecumenism either in its open confession or in its hidden form in the teaching on the “sick in faith” members of the Church.

     “The Sacred Council of the Russian True Orthodox Church confirms the validity [dejstvennost’] of the decree of the ROCOR Council of August 15/28, 1932, which decreed “the condemnation of Masonry as a teaching and organization hostile to Christianity, and the condemnation also of all teachings and organizations that are akin to Masonry”. In accordance with this conciliar decree, the idea of the “new world order” begotten by Masonry is subject to condemnation, as well as the processes of globalization introduced with this aim in mind, and the systems of global control over mankind that are directed to preparing society for the establishment of the power of the Antichrist in the future.

     “Remaining faithful to the heritage of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of the Catacomb Church, we witness that for True Orthodox archpastors and pastors participation in the processes of world apostasy, one of the forms of which is contemporary political activity, is not permitted. In his service the Orthodox pastor must guard his flock from the destructive influence of “this world”, and the official Orthodoxy that goes in step with it, as well as from the imitation artificially generated by it – so-called “alternative Orthodoxy”, explaining to his flock the destructive essence of these phenomena. Both these phenomena, which surround the Church on the left and on the right, derive their origin from one and the same apostate source of this world, and are foreign to True Orthodoxy.

     “Following the outstanding holy Hierarchs of the Ecumenical and Russian Church, we believe that the power established by God is the Orthodox kingdom. We sorrow over the loss of this God-given Orthodox kingdom by our ancestors, and pray to the Lord for its restoration. However, we also witness to the fact that a truly Orthodox kingdom can be restored in Rus’ only after the repentance of the Russian people and its return to the True Church, for there can be no genuine repentance, nor restoration of an Orthodox monarchy, in a false church. A monarchy founded with the blessing of the church of the evil-doers will have craftiness at its very foundation. Such a kingdom is not pleasing to God; even if great and powerful, it will only prepare the ground for the coming of the Antichrist.

     “We call on all Orthodox Christians to stand in the Truth, to increase their penitential prayer and union around our Holy Mother – the True Orthodox Church. The spiritual regeneration both of every individual human soul and of society in general is possible only through repentance and the conciliar participation of all of us in the Body of Christ, in Which the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth and Love, acts. The loss by the community of men of true conciliarity [sobornost’] brings with it the loss of participation in the Body of Christ, which means the loss also of the beneficial action upon this community of the grace of the Holy Spirit. This grace-filled action is possible only through the True Church of Christ.

     “Understanding this, the contemporary world is trying to substitute artificial spiritual fakes and false-churches for the True Church. For that reason there is nothing dearer for the Orthodox Christian than the genuine regeneration of the True Orthodox Church, the pure Bride of Christ, Who remains faithful to Her Heavenly Bridegroom. Outside the Church salvation and the true spiritual healing of the soul damaged by the passions is impossible. Amen.”

    March 18/31, 2011.

    St. Edward the Martyr, King of England.

Н.Смоленцев-Соболь

(Продолжение, начало в №164, 165, 167, 169 «Верности»)

И двинулись танковые колонны Гудериана и Готта, пошли немецкие дивизии взбивать сапогами пыль, тарахтеть мотоциклетками, гудеть моторами, требовать радостно: «Мамка, яйко! Мамка, млеко!»

Для русских совсем другой резон. Сердца старых белых воинов радостью захолонуло. Назад, господа, Россиюшку от нечисти освобождать! Избавлять матушку-Русь от большевицкой мрази! Нам-то что, хоть с чертом, да против Сталина! Потом отмолимся! Снова зазвонят литые колокола. Затеплятся лампадки. Вздохнет народ вольно. Работать еще не разучились, за рупь вклада всегда два с полтиной бакшиша наколотим. Где землицей сами прокормимся да ленивую Европу досыта накормим, где лесом обогатимся, где море выгоду свою даст, а где заводы укрепят рабочий люд да хозяевам прибыли навалят. С Богом-то оно всегда легче и верней.

Ожили, зашевелились ветеранские общества да воинские союзы, офицерские организации да церковные приходы, светские салоны да редакции. Что ни день друг к другу в гости, новостями обмениваться, друг друга подстегивать да подгонять.

«Красная армия рухнула... Сдаются батальонами и полками!»

«Не мудрено, господа. Куда им против танковых колонн? Бегут как зайцы! Комиссаров кроют, винтовки бросают...»

«Слыхали, германец старую границу в два дня перешел. К Киеву идут!»

«Что же мы-то сидим, ребята? Али порох отсырел? Али штыки поржавели? Эдак германец весь пудинг слопает, нам не достанется...»

«Не слопает, господин ротмистр. Россия не какая-то там Бельгия или Дания. Вы же на курсах генерала Головина штаны просиживали. Стратегию изучали. Расстояния, Сергей Максимович, немаловажный фактор в современной войне...»

«Но сидеть по квартирам да водочку попивать – не прошляпим событие?»

А события развивались молниеносно. 24-го июня занят Каунас, за ним и вся Прибалтика. Белосток и Бобруйск встречали немцев 27 июня, на следующий день немцы вошли в Волковыск и Минск. Львов был оставлен Красной армией без боя и ждал еще три дня, до 30-го июня, когда немецкие танкетки выкатят на площади города. Выкатили, были встречены цветами, караваями на рушниках, улыбками и радостью.

Через две недели был занят Витебск, а 16 июля в полной панике, бросая оружие, боеприпасы, оставляя склады, после катастрофического разгрома, красные оставили Смоленск. Тут же пали Орша и Полоцк. Еще десять дней спустя сдан Могилев.

«Господа, а ведь в 15-ом году в Могилеве была Ставка нашего Государя Николая Александровича! Как сейчас помню, прибыл я с генералом Ванновским, он тогда только как получил дивизию...»

«Так вы, господин полковник, были знакомы с моим дядюшкой?»

«Я был у него дежурным офицером связи».

Быстро восстанавливались родства, утверждались связи. Письмами была завалена почта, телеграммы летели во все края. Радостно-яростный клич по миру: русские, домой едем! Домой!

Из шкафов вынимались старые мундиры. Из рундуков и чемоданов извлекались награды. Со всех концов света съезжались, сбирались бывшие белые воины в Германию. Прибывали из Испании, Франции, Болгарии, Италии, Дании, Норвегии. Добирались из Америки, Мексики и Канады. Плыли из Аргентины и Бразилии, из Марокко да Египта, не говоря уже о Турции да Югославии, которая за несколько месяцев до того сдалась и была оккупирована.

Казаки, те сразу к своему Атаману, знаменитому на весь русский свет писателю Петру Николаевичу Краснову:

«Прими, батько, под свой бунчук! Айда назад, красному зверью башку снесем, из тихого из Дона родной водицы испьем, хлебушка аржанова покушаем, водочкой старинной, с гербами царскими, попраздновать, никакой красный гад не страшен будет. А коли лечь белыми косточками в землю, так в нашу, горячую степную, под звон серебряных ковылей...»

Армейские да гвардейские офицеры – в отделения РОВС-а.

«Возвратим же, братцы, всего сполна. И за Врангеля, и за Кутепова, и за Миллера!..»

«За наши порушенные очаги...»

«Ваше Превосходительство, осмелюсь напомнить, что у меня после гражданской было еще восемь лет выслуги у короля Александра».

«Мой племянник уже в школе Крампниц, будет офицером, рвется в бой!»

«Говорят, генерал Барбович в Югославии...»

«Там сейчас всем заправляет генерал Скородумов. У него успешные переговоры с германским командованием...»

«Вчера состоялся чудесный банкет. Собрали несколько тысяч рейхсмарок. Баронесса Вендль вынула из ушей свои изумрудные серьги. Ротмистр фон-Морген принес все свои сбережения. Но более всех удивил старик Усов, вы же знаете, что он можно сказать, нищ и чуть ли не роется в мусорных корзинах... он принес и сдал в общую казну золотой ятаган, захваченный вместе с турецким пашой еще его пра-прадедом».

«Слава Богу, господа. Думал, что не доживу. Вчера молебен заказал, за победу германского оружия над большевицкими вандалами. И все присутствующие молились. Коленопреклоненно!»

«Но что решили на на Фосс-Штрассе? Есть у них решение в отношении нас?»

«Ах, оставьте!»

«Почему это “оставьте”? Фюрер понимает обстановку лучше, чем кто бы то ни было. Если он примет положительное решение...»

«Уж Додо примет решение!»

***

Георгий Анисимов не ждал, что будут решать на Фосс-Штрассе или на Бендлер-Штрассе, или на Принц-Альбрехт-Штрассе, или на Унтер-ден-Линден. У него свои задумки, у него свои знакомства. По редакциям и салонам он не ходит, ему палочку о берлинский асфальт стачивать жалко. Он глазами страшно не вращает, он речей горячих не толкает, в споры-разговоры не влезает. Кто сказал, что в спорах рождается истина? В спорах рождается гевалт и тому подобные безобразия.

Майор Иоганн фон-Гиблер глазам своим не верит: знаменитый полковник Альманзар, прихрамывая, входит в его кабинет. На неновом, потертом, а кое-где аккуратно заштопанном русском мундире награды Русской Армии, Китая, Японии, Испании, Финляндии. С ним полковник Тилле, легендарный Тилле, с помощью которого расколупали линию Мажино, как свежесваренное яйцо на завтрак.

«Иоганн, вы в хороших отношениях со фон-Тресковым, не так ли? – ладонь полковника Тилле суха и крепка. - Вот обстоятельная докладная записка. Было бы хорошо, если б она попала или ему, или фон-Штауфенбергу, а при удаче может, его самому фон-Браухичу. Основная мысль – использование русских военных кадров против Советов».

«Вы полагаете, герр оберст...»
 

«Газеты, конечно, промолчат, что потери вермахта на Востоке уже до полумиллиона. Но ни для вас, ни для меня это не секрет. Еще полгода такого блицкрига, и армия истечет кровью. Русский военный кадр, офицеры и унтер-офицеры – все подданные Рейха, рядовой состав – военнопленные, после соответствующей работы с  ними! Это будет значительная поддержка Великой Германии. Так, могу я полагаться на вас, Иоганн?»

«Я постараюсь сделать, что в моих силах».

«В следующий раз встретимся у вашего дяди, генерала. Он мне звонил. Сказал, что перед очередным отъездом на Восток хотел был поохотиться в своем имении».

Майор фон-Гиблер отличался острым умом и исполнительностью. Докладная записка с подробными выкладками была подана куда надо и легла на стол кому надо. Может быть, это был сам фон-Браухич, главнокомандующий сухопутными силами Рейха. Может, его адъютант фон-Штауфенберг или кто-то из окружения фельдмаршала. Во всяком случае, машина завертелась. Офицеры туда-сюда, каблуками щелк-щелк, папочкамим хлоп-шлеп: герр оберст, вот еще такая бумага. А что говорит об этом такой-то? Такой-то сказал, что резон в этом есть. Ах, так? Тогда давайте и я посмотрю. Оставьте до завтра.

Не прошло и двух недель, как полковнику Анисимову была назначена встреча с генералом фон-Шенкендорфом. В руках Шенкендорфа находились все тыловые службы и формирования группы армий «Центр». Письменное приглашение привез посыльный. Он был в чине лейтенанта. Георгий Анисимов надел свой светло-коричневый штатский костюм, такую же шляпу, взял трость с серебряным набалдашником. На улице подозвал таксо-мотор.

Вернулся спустя четыре часа, к обеду, окрыленный, глаза блестят, улыбка с лица не сходит.

«Эти пруссаки в военном деле понимают гораздо больше, чем их крикливые политики-выскочки!»

Любовь Макаровна только всплеснула руками.

«Не пущу, Георгий! Тебе не двадцать и не тридцать. Посмотри, у меня после твоей Финляндии голова поседела. Нужна тебе старуха? И как мне жить, если с тобой что случится? Вдовой по углам побираться?»

«Любушка, тебя я любить буду какую угодно, седую, старую и даже ворчливую. Пулю для меня краснюки еще не отлили. Да и не на фронт я еду. Это больше, как инспекционная поездка...»

И сын тут как тут:

«Папа, можно мне с тобой?»

«Пока нет, сынок. Но скоро, очень скоро мы с тобой вместе постреляем!»

***

Скоро он выезжает из Берлина на восток. Не один, а с испытанным и верным другом по оружию, сыном генерала, Игорем Сахаровым и еще несколькими старшими офицерами. Аусвайсы новенькие, имена красивые. Сын генерала стал полковником Левиным. Другой старый воин стал Саниным. Третий – полковником Штольцем. Четвертый – хауптманом, то бишь капитаном Зибертом. Сам Георгий Анисимов взял имя подполковника Галкина. Эта война для них не отличалась от прошлых. Они ехали на нее не за славой. Имена для них не значили ничего.

В купе вагона, при свете мелькающих мимо полустанков, курили, вспоминали, строили планы. Шестьсот тысяч пленных за два месяца? Такого не было ни на одной войне. Это значит, что народ отвернулся. За большевицкую власть воевать не хочет. Что, в свою очередь, непременно – конец их власти!

«Дальше, господин полковник. Дальше развивайте свою мысль!»

«Ответ напрашивается сам собой, герр оберст. Из шестисот тысяч набрать пять дивизий молодцов-удальцов. И с Богом – на Москву, на Санкт-Петербург...»

«Вот когда и курсы генерала Головина пригодятся, и университетское образование по экономике и администрированию. Инженерные кадры у нас свои, в банках, торговле и  предпринимательстве есть собственные Функи, Линдеманны, Круппы и Шредеры, а уж земельку-то за эти двадцать лет мы не разлюбили... Немцам так или иначе придется на нас расчитывать».

«Нельзя не признать вашу правоту, господин ротмистр. Сначала даже неплохо, чтобы было все по-германски. Не голова, а бургомистр, не советы, а земства».

«Но земства, Иван Андреевич, это все ж русская придумка...»

«Главное, господа, армию постепенно создавать. Армия должна быть национальная, русская, без комиссаров, упаси Боже! Три-четыре года, и вытрясем из всех этих комвзводов и комрот их большевицкий душок... Опять почувствуют, что такое русский офицер, что такое русский фельдфебель или простой стрелок...»

Георгий Анисимов, аккуратно расправив свой старый русский мундир на вешалке, подтянул раненую ногу и сказал:

«Ах, грезы, грезы, господа. Не пора ли спать? Через шесть часов уже Эссэсерия пойдет...»

***

-Что они наделали с русским народом, Николай! – Георгий Васильевич долго качает своей почти лысой головой, словно додумывая что-то или досматривая былые видения. - Что эта большевицкая орда натворила!

Я знаю, что там с нами произвели. Но молчу.

Старик вздохнул и продолжил:

-В финнскую кампанию... – он сглатывает, потом трудно произносит, - я этого не заметил. Короткая она была, та война. В плен, кроме Черемши и сержанта Кускова, мы взяли еще человек двадцать. Почти всех – помороженных сильно. Сразу в Гельсинфорс отослали, чтобы потом на финнов менять. На что они еще нужны? Так что не было времени у меня к красноармейцам присмотреться. В 41-ом же – невиданное дело. Как почали советские войска сдаваться, да не отдельными группами или разрозненными взводами, а целыми полками и дивизиями – с оружием, техникой, с полным боезапасом, с мастерскими, с лазаретами, складами провизии, с хозяйствами, с конным заводом, со всеми транспортными силами, тут и меня оторопь взяла. Ни в жисть такого не видел...

Первые пленные. Они врезались в память на всю жизнь.

Они ползли длинной, почти нескончаемой, в несколько верст колонной. Охраны при них было всего-ничего. Может, десятка два немцев с винтовками. Да один унтер-офицер с «вальтером» на боку. Унтер сидел в мотоциклетке. На каске защитные очки. Но видно было, что это только для блезиру.

Автомобиль с русскими офицерами остановился. Колонна волочилась мимо. Их даже пленными назвать было трудно. Какая-то рабская животно-покорная масса. Лиц нет, все одна костлявая небритая морда. Потухшие взгляды, кашель, вздохи. Одеты и обуты кто во что горазд. Одни в серых, рваных бушлатах, другие в распущенных гимнастерках, третьи в неимоверно грязных оборванных и прожженных шинелях. Чуть не каждый второй-третий были босыми, в одном исподнем, полураздетые. Их посиневшие от холода ступни, заляпанные грязью, походили на ступни трупов. Было много раненых. Бинты черые, обычные грязные тряпки, пропитанные потом, кровью и гноем.

 «Куда вы их ведете, унтер-офицер?» - спросил по-немецки Левин.

«На сборочный лагерь в Оршу, господин майор».

«Сколько их тут?»

«Пять тысяч триста по спискам, господин майор».

В это время ветер слегка изменился. В нос шибануло смрадом старого пота, немытой кожей, удушливой прелостью сотен грязных тел, горькой вонью нестиранных рубах и обмоток.

Русские офицеры переглянулись и замолчали.

Потом тронули капитана Зиберта за плечо: надо ехать!

В «дулаг-127» они добрались раньше колонны. Там их документы придирчиво, с немецкой пунктуальностью просмотрели. Сопроводительное письмо к лагер-фюреру было при них же вскрыто, прочитано. Унтер-связист тут же запросил подтверждение по телефону из штаб-квартиры. Оно было получено. Тогда раздались отрывочные команды, солдаты комендантской роты забегали, подхватили чемоданчики гостей, повели их к уютным домикам.

«Сегодня мы ожидаем прибытие новой партии военно-пленных, господин майор, - сказал лагер-фюрер Левину. – Завтра весь мой штат будет к вашим услугам. А пока отдохните, обед будет вам подан через час».

«Благодарю вас, господин хауптштурмфюрер», - сдержанно ответил тот.

Следующие три недели были заполнены работой. Каждый из «инспекторов» выбирал в соответствии с его нуждами. Полковник Левин безжалостно браковал танкистов и связистов, но брал пехотинцев с хорошими физическими качествами. Обер-лейтенанту Хлопову требовались здоровенные молодцы в его саперный и мосто-строительный батальон. Капитану Зиберту – знающие автомобили. Танкистами и бывшими трактористами он также не гребовал.

Подполковник Галкин подбирал людей только по ему одному известным качествам.

«Где родился?»

«Село Больше-Лаврово, Козловского уезда».

«Откуда был призван?»

«Город Каргополь».

«Что туда занесло?»

«Раскулаченные мы. Тятьку в 30-ом забрали, мне всего одиннадцать лет было. А нас с мамкой да еще три сестрички и младшего братика, выслали в Каргополь».

«Хлебнули советской власти?»

«Хлебнули, гражданин начальник!»

«Я тебе не гражданин, солдат Смагин. Я – подполковник. Изволь, голубчик, так меня и называть, как полагается: господин подполковник».

«Слушаюсь, господин подполковник».

Предложение о переходе на сторону немцев принималось с охотой. Наголодались и нахолодались солдатики. Да еще стали гонять их на работы. Рабочие команды строили дороги, разгружали вагоны, копали котлованы под бетонные капониры. Лопата да кирка в руки, черпай больше, кидай дальше. А силенок-то и не осталось. И те, что остались, убывали с каждым днем. Немецкая охрана била. За отказ выходить на работу бросали в карцер. В карцере и положенной осьмушки хлеба не давали. За повторный отказ уводили. Больше таких отказников никто не видел.

«Где родился?»

«В Москве».

«Образование?»

«Незаконченное средне-техническое».

«Откуда был призван?»

«Из Харовска. Вологодская область».

«Как туда попал?»

«Выслан как ЧСИР».

«ЧСИР?»

«Член семьи изменника родины».

«Кто в семье был изменником родины?»

«Отца в 38-ом забрали. Работал на метрострое. Бригадиром. Кто-то донес».

Георгий Анисимов слушал эти бесхитростные исповеди и, наверное, впервые в жизни не находил в своем сердце ненависти. Удивление было, недоверие было, опаска была, но не ненависть. Потому что где жалость в сердце, там ненависти места нет.

«Василий Панкратович Макушкин. Рядовой. Беспартийный... Семейный...»

«Образование какое у тебя, Макушкин?»

«Четыре класса, господин офицер! Мы из Калязина».

«Колхозник?»

«А что ж поделаешь? Приказали все свести на обчественный двор, вот свели и коровушку, и жеребца... Я сам по лошадиной, то ись гужевой части... А детишков жалко было. Да и бабу мою, она из соседнего Кашина, хворает все. То зерна в карманы насыплешь, то яблок нарвешь, вот живем...»

За три недели набрал себе подполковник Галкин семьдесят человек. Ездил в Могилев, в Смоленск, в Витебск, выезжал на передовую, за Вязьму. Снова встречал голодные взгляды отощавших людей. Во всех этих ауфлагах, дулагах и шталагах тысячи и тысячи бывших красноармейцев. Они бродили по колено в грязи между бараков и землянок. Сидели на ящиках, бревнышках, на тряпье, на клочьях соломы. Искали друг у друга вшей. Затягивались «козьими ножками», которые лепили из обрывков газет, обильно слюня края. Тянулись грязными пальцами за сигаретами. Хватали кусок хлеба и убегали.

И снова этот запах, эта удушливая вонь перепрелой человеческой кожи. Многие в парше, струпьях, язвах, с сочащимися сукровицей ранами.

«Возьмите меня, герр оберст, я вам укажу, кто в нашем бараке комиссары и коммунисты. И в других бараках полно попряталось...»

У самого нос крючком, глаза навыкате, будто хлопнули его в детстве по спине со всего маху. И ведь совсем молодой, не больше двадцати. А своих продать готов за миску похлебки погуще.

«Комсомолец?»

«Я студент. Учился на филологическом. В Москве. Нас всех вызвали и приказали: будете рыть окопы. И повезли. А тут немецкие танки. Я сам сдался...»

Смотрит подполковник на капитана Зиберта. Нужен тебе такой? У того на лице гримаса, будто чесночным духом шибануло. Нет, таких и мне не нужно. Ничего, такие не пропадают. Из таких вся советская падаль состоит.

«Все, иди!»

«Так, я могу и бухгалтерию, и писарем...»

«Я сказал: иди!»

Отобранных подполковник Галкин привозил в Оршу. Здесь их вели в баню, стригли, кормили, давали чистую одежду и обувь – огромные запасы советского обмундирования были взяты при наступлении. Здесь пленные отсыпались. Потом снова неспешный, внимательный разговор. Не допрос, а именно беседа. Глаза в глаза. Сердце слушало другое сердце.

И открывались бывшие красноармейцы перед подполковником Галкиным. Точно своего узнали. Рассказывали все, как на духу. У каждого в семье аресты, урон, разорение, голод, болезни, смерть. Раскулаченные, оклеветанные, арестованные по доносам, советской властью битые, почти убитые. Подполковник был уверен, эти будут драться с большевиками.

Вскоре батальон Левина насчитывал около четырехсот человек, собранных по многим лагерям. Многие были рады переменам в судьбе. В учебно-тренировочных лагерях их кормили по нормам немецкой армии: мясо, крупы, овощи, масло, сыр, яйца, настоящий кофе, хлеба – сколько в брюхо влезет. 

Они спали на койках с матрацами, а не на барачных нарах и не на прелой соломе, наваленной в грязь. Но главное, офицерами у них вдруг оказались... русские. А потому словно бы старая, добрая, щедрая, богатая Русь вернулась для них.

«Батальо-о-он, слу-ушай! На молитву – шапки долой!»

И выходил старый узловатый, словно из мореного дуба выдолбленный, с белой, легкой, как пух бородой, монах, отец Серафим:

«Господи, к тебе припадаем...»

Был отец Серафим в звании унтера еще на Русско-японской. В Великую вышел прапорщиком. Получил штабс-капитана в Гражданскую, был командиром пулеметного взвода. Оставлял поверженную Россию через Польшу, в составе корпуса генерала Бредова. Стал монахом в Италии, отправился пешком в Святую Землю – дал обет такой. С одной котомкой, в которой было лишь старенькое Евангелие да фляжка с водой, да три-четыре сухаря. Ходил потом по святым местам Сербии, Греции, Болгарии, добрел до святого града Константинополя. Там много молился. Пешком же вернулся в свой Бари, к любимому Николе-Угоднику. Опять молился, выращивал помидоры, ловил рыбу, и снова молился. А услышал, что советская граница взломана, тут же подхватил свою котомку: домой пора!

«Господи, спаси и помилуй люди Твоя!»

Война катилась все дальше, на восток. Немецкие танки утюжат Можайск, рвутся дальше, к Москве. Взяты Харьков, Брянск, Орел, Курск, Сумы. Взят Крым. Немецкие войска под Ленинградом. Почему не входят в город, непонятно. На немецких картах он обозначен по-старому: Санкт-Петербург. Красивое название. Много начудил Петр Первый, но город-столицу отстроил удивительный. И имя дал ему созвучное – город Святого Петра.

«У меня отец был морским офицером. И дед – морским офицером. Мы вообще свой род ведем от адмирала Ушакова, - рассказывал подполковнику Галкину худенький паренек, перебежчик из-под Луги. – Но мама запрещала об этом упоминать. Отца забирали в 25-ом, потом в 29-ом. Дали пять лет поражения в правах. В Питер нам было запрещено возвращаться. Папа устроился механиком по дизельным моторам в Острове, это в пятидесяти верстах от Пскова. Там мы жили. В казенной квартире. Оттуда меня мобилизовали в июле. Винтовок нам не выдали. Дали топоры, лопаты, ломы и пилы...»

«Счастливчик ты, Сашка. Своим тебе в спину пальнуть ничего не стоило. Немцы тоже могли под сурдинку прикончить».

«От своих я прятался в стожках да сараях. А для немцев... заранее учил, господин подполковник, немецкий язык. Мама свободно говорила по-немецки, она из прибалтийских, баронесса».

Сашку Ушакова взял под свою опеку подполковник Галкин. Держал ординарцем, поселил в смежной комнате, в офицерском домике. Чем-то напоминал он ему собственного сына Игорька.

На Рождество повез его домой, в Берлин. Представил семье. Любовь Макаровна угощала Сашку печеным гусем, да крабовым салатом, да ветчиной, да собственного посола огурчиками. Собрались тогда все старые русские воины, кто не оказался по делам службы далеко от германской столицы. Пили крепкий кальвадос, яблочный шнапс, расспрашивали Сашку о жизни в Эссесэрии, а Георгия Васильевича – что он думает о нынешних красноармейцах, о командном составе, об их моральном и боевом духе, о техническом оснащении советских. Под Москвой немцы остановились.

Стоят, барахтаются, как слепые кутята.

Что там произошло? Или хвалилась синица море зажечь?

Через своих людей в высшем эшелоне вермахта узнал Георгий Васильевич, что потери под Москвой огромны. Блиц-криг лопнул. Армия оказалась не готова к холодам. Тысячи замерзших, полковые госпиталя заняты одним – режут и режут ноги и руки. Лазаретные поезда забиты обмороженными, с ампутированными конечностями. По Берлину стали шастать солдаты без ушей. Им бы не летние пилотки, а настоящие ушанки, не шинелишки на рыбьем меху, а овчинные полушубки. Да где столько взять столько ума их хваленому Хитлеру?

-Не любите вы Гитлера, Георгий Васильевич? – спросил я, разомлев от двух рюмок водки и большой чашки чая.

-Хитлер... Мы его звали Додо. Не помню, кто придумал. Но прилипло. Иной раз зайдет ко мне сослуживец: айда, Додо послушаем! Ну, ладно, пойдем к его радио, сядем, послушаем. Потом обсудим. Что он, что Сталин, два сапога пара. Оба ненормальные. Сволочь, а не людишки. Своих не жалели, о других подавно думать не думали. Кто видел ту войну так, как я, тот все подтвердит. Были у Додо в начале войны талантливые генералы, тот же фон Браухич, фон Бок, Кессельринг, Гальдер, Райхенау, Гудериан, Готт... И что же? Мешал их, как карты. Того в отставку, этого в резерв, третьего в отпуск, позову, когда сочту нужным. Себя одного видел гением. Подлюку Розенберга приблизил, а я вам, Николай, скажу, что был Розенберг последней гадиной.

-Доводилось встречаться?

-Не раз. Наиподлейший человечишко был. Хуже подлюки из ГПУ! Мы так и пришли к мнению, что нечисто с этим Розенбергом. Так ненавидеть русских мог только гад, для которого Христос – враг до семижды седьмого колена.

-Как же вы уживались? Даже служили в вермахте?

Старик поднял отполированный указательный палец:

-Сам на свой вопрос ответил. Служили-то мы в вермахте. Для армейского кадра такие, как Розенберг и подобные, были пустым местом. У армейцев свои порядки.

И потом, за второй или третьей чашкой душистого чая рассказывал с добрым привкусом самоиронии – как служили, жили-были.

Генерал Шенкендорф белым русским благоволил. Оказалось, что Сережка Пален ему какой-то троюродный племянник. Ну, а где родство-кумовство не в почете? При царе-батюшке такое водилось, чего греха таить? И у кайзера в старой доброй Германии чудеса творились: из юнкеров в полковники, из капитанов - в генералы.

Сам дядюшка Макс, как они стали Шенкендорфа называть, любил к ним наведаться, поприсутствовать на русских посиделках. Водки попить – как не уважить? Поесть блинов с икоркой – за ушами трещало. У него штаб-квартира в Смоленске размещалась. Он Сережку назначил комендантом Шклова, заштатного городка. Стали они в Шклов тот самый ездить: на автомобиль и айда!

Автомобиль у них был всем известный, довоенный американский Виллис. В его четыре дверцы броневые листы вставили, болтами прикрутили, мотор броневой обшивкой затянули. Не напрасно старались – пять раз партизаны обстреливали. Да один раз сами немцы, со страху-перепугу. Ну, так драная ворона и куста боится.

-Партизаны докучали?

Георгий Васильевич неспеша допивает свою четвертую чашку, вытирает полотенцем взмокший лоб.

-Партизан – это первая сволочь. Не с немцами они воевали. Они страх на людей старались нагнать. Вот расскажу случай... Две девчужки-подружки, лет по двенадцать, пошли нарвать в лесу опят. Да на их бандитскую стоянку наткнулись. Одна сразу сообразила, как дунет через кусты. Другая остановилась... Через день крестьяне нашли ее, на березке висела... Отец ее – берданку в руки, в лес ушел. Убил двух. Партизаны в деревню воротились, сожгли двадцать домов. Взрослого населения понаказнили – человек тридцать. Мы тогда в тот район выдвинулись. Как раз я с моей ротой... Отец убитой девочки из леса вышел, стал в роту проситься.

-Взяли?

-Добрый оказался боец, хотя и бывший красноармеец. Командиром взвода разведки в красной армии был. Сам просился и еще пять бойцов привел. Сидел у меня в избе и плакал: дочку-то за что? Ну, кому бы она что рассказала? Ему? Так он сам член ВКП(б)... Такие вот дела, Николай...

-А бандитов?

-Мы эту банду «Кречета» по лесам и болотам гоняли, пока всех не перебили. Последних в болоте кончали. Пулю в башку – и буль-буль, молодчик!.. Потом уже, в Дорогобуже, нам один с их стороны, перебежчик, подсказал: настоящее имя «Кречета» было Асмус Зиновий Борухович. Был он полковым комиссаром, засланым через фронт. Вот те и лапти-армяки, свинская собака!.. Чекистом был Зиновий Борухович, а по-русски сказать, каратель и бандит.

***

Незадолго до нашего старого доброго русского Нового года удача мне улыбнулась. Кто-то сказал кому-то, что есть какой-то Смоленцев-Соболь. Умеет писать статьи. Я приехал вечером 13-го января с тортиком и бутылкой шампанского к старухе и ее дочери, в их квартиру возле Вашингтонского Моста. Они мне сообщили, мол,  некая Белла знакома с редактором русско-язычной газеты. Ну и что? А то: редактор сказал Белле, что ему нужен работник. Газета только начинается. Туда требуются репортеры. Нужно показать, что я умею. Если я вообще что-то умею.

Я поблагодарил за новость, съел треть тортика, выпил две чашки чаю. Потом сел за стол в другой комнате и не долго думая, набросал статейку. Не помню, о чем. Наверное, о чем-то хорошем.

За окном раздавались крики и бойкая латиноская музыка. Корасон-корасон, амор, мучача бонита и все такое прочее. Белые американцы в этом районе Нью-Йорка, вокруг Вашингтонского Моста, старались не селиться. Поэтому в многоэтажках жили густенько доминиканцы с пуэрториканцами. В ликеро-водочном магазине на 182-й улице - полный выбор по доступным ценам.

Я отослал статью по указанному адресу и купил бутылочку рома «Пало Виехо». Потом спустился в подземку, доехал до 34-й улицы, прихлебывая из бутылочки, а там пересел на нью-джерсийский поезд.

На то, чтобы снова стать репортером, почти не было надежды. У меня по-прежнему отсутствовало разрешение на работу. Все, что я делал до сих пор, было против Американского Закона о труде. Я бы сказал, это было даже преступлением.

Я зарабатывал у Чака Хоффмайстера по шесть долларов в час и не платил налогов. И с тридцатки Сан-Саныча Муссонэ ничего не платил. То же самое, работая на Рената, татарина из Бруклина. Точнее, Ренат был из Йошкар-Олы, но жил в Бруклине, а работы добывал в Манхэттене и Квинсе. Его специализацией была установка разного рода вентилляционных и отопительных систем. В моду входили встроенные системы. Никаких чугунных батарей, никаких тонко-ребристых калориферов. Все спрятано под панелями, под стенами. Только нажмешь кнопочку электронного устройства на стене, поставишь той же кнопочкой нужную температуру, и через пятнадцать минут в квартире именно эта температура. Ренат платил мне семь долларов в час, что было прогрессом. Налогов я опять-таки не отчислял.

О других таких же временных работах не стоит и упоминать. Что пришло, то и ушло. Вы с нами так, но и мы с вами соответственно.

А тут такая неожиданность! Репортером да еще в газету на русском языке. Одна только надежда на это давала свежий воздух и вливала новые силы.

Сан-Саныч новость о возможной работе встретил с издевкой:

-Знаете, кого в газеты сюда берут? Только евреев. Если вы еврей, то вас возьмут. Знаете, как евреев узнают?

Я чуть было не ляпнул, что по писуну.

Но Сан-Саныч поспешил со своими расистским выпадом:

-По ушам.

И он посмотрел на мои уши.

Я ухмыльнулся и поправил его:

-А также по форме черепа.

И стал внаглую разглядывать форму его черепа. Уши у меня, по правде сказать, добротные, большие, в драках не раз поломанные. Достались они мне от прадеда с отцовой стороны, царского полковника. Того полковника советская власть в лагерях гноила, а он презирал ее, советскую власть, со всеми ее коммунистами, колхозами, вертухаями и конц-лагерями. Правильный был прадед, крепкий, старорежимный, несгибаемый, так что ж мне стесняться моих ушей?

-Я даже знаю, какие пропорции черепа должны соблюдаться, чтобы индивидуум был признан не-семитом, - добавил я. – Мне и линейки не надо, я могу ладонью замерить...

И я сделал движение рукой, будто прямо сейчас и начну замер.

Сан-Саныч разнервничался. Он такого оборота не ожидал.  Я для него был «советским». Например, какой цивилизованный человек будет пить ром в публичном транспорте, в вагоне? Только дикие, необразованные советские способны на такое. Или работать за копейки? Только с советских нелегалов можно было стряхнуть приварок. А то полиэтиленовый пакет под водой мыть и на заборчике сушить – потом пригодится... Это и вовсе был мираж коммунизма. Одно вводило его в ступор и непонятку: почему старик с Толстовской Фермы, непримиримый Джордж Анисимов, меня не гнал, а скорее радовался, когда я приезжал, и даже чаем поил? Да рассказывал свои бесконечные истории.

-Между прочим, Сан-Саныч, однажды Адольфу Гитлеру доложили, что его главный разведчик Гейдрих – еврей. Знаете, что ответил вождь немецкого народа докладчику? Он сказал знаменитые слова: в Рейхе я решаю, кто еврей, а кто нет!..

Сан-Саныч пробурчал что-то на своем безупречном английско-американском и ушел в другую комнату. Его подруга Аманда Кулиш, беспокойно посмотрела на меня и стала допытываться, что случилось. Кое-как, мешая английские, французские, русские, татарские и польские слова, я объяснил, что у меня, кажется, будет работа... 

(ПРОДОЛЖЕНИЕ СЛЕДУЕТ)

Елена Семёнова

Болезни русского самосознания или нечто о «дохлых кошках»

Это те, что кричали: «Варраву
Отпусти нам для праздника», те,
Что велели Сократу отраву
Пить в тюремной глухой тесноте.

Им бы этот же вылить напиток
В их невинно клевещущий рот,
Этим милым любителям пыток,
Знатокам в производстве сирот.
 

Более полувека минула с той поры, как написаны были эти строки, но защитников не поубавилось. Защитников искренних и благонамеренных. Защитников горячих. Ничто не вызывает такой непримиримой и нервной реакции у этой части общественности, как выпад в адрес «вождя». За неимением серьёзной аргументации любая дискуссия на эту тему быстро превращает в гвалт, в оскорбления, в кухонную разборку, в истерику. Фанатизм бьёт через край. Убеждённость – непробиваемая никаким фактом. Говорил некогда Сталин, психолог тонкий, Шолохову: «Народу нужно божка». Он и стал божком этим. Стал идолом. Кровавым идолом неоязыческого культа, которому слепо поклоняются уже десятилетия поколение за поколением. Именно этим обожествлением, идолопоклонством обусловлена та бурная реакция, которая возникает на неуважительное отношение к идолу. Это уже не просто расхождение во взглядах, а своеобразное оскорбление «религиозного чувства» верующих… в Сталина. А бороться с «религиозным чувством» крайне сложно. Тем не менее стоит внимательнее остановиться на аргументах, которые приводят обычно защитники Сталина, и разобраться в их состоятельности.
1. «Сталин в кротчайшие сроки провёл индустриализацию, «взял с сохой, а оставил с атомной бомбой». Что ж, индустриализация была проведена, это так. Научно-технический прогресс налицо. Правда, стоило бы заметить, что фундамент для многих достижений был заложен ещё при Царе и не получил развития лишь из-за разрухи, спровоцированной революцией. И созидателями выступали, большей частью, учёные, начавшие путь свой ещё в России царской. К слову, иные из них (академик Вавилов, например) за свои заслуги были умерщвлены в сталинских застенках. Главной же оплатой за индустриализацию стало разрушение русской деревни. Русская деревня, оставаясь фундаментом старой России, с первых дней была бельмом на глазу коммунистической власти. Борьба с ней носила характер духовный. Разрушая всё до основания, нельзя было не разрушить самого основательного и многочисленного класса – крестьянства. «В этой сатанинской всепожирающей оргии, как хворост, сгорала и русская интеллигенция, и дворянство, и казачество, и деловые люди из банков и от станка и наконец огненная стихия добралась и до станового хребта государства, до его столбовой опоры — до мужика. С деревней возились дольше всего; да и то сказать — в обмолот пошло доселе неистребимое и самое многочисленное племя хлеборобов, пуповиной связанное с землей–матерью. Обрезали и эту связь...» - писал Б.А. Можаев. Идея сплошной коллективизации принадлежала Троцкому и его подручным. Сталин, имевший целью «свалить» своего давнего конкурента, её не принял, заявив, что по пути продразвёрсток советская власть больше не пойдёт. После этого Троцкого сместили, а коллективизация была проведена в точности по его лекалам . Шолохов, наблюдавший воочию процесс раскулачивания, с ужасом описывал происходящее в письме «вождю». В нём он отмечал, что кошмар коллективизации много превосходит даже виденные им страшные картины гражданской войны. По примерным подсчётам обошёлся нам этот погром русской деревни в 15 млн. душ. Не каких-нибудь, а самых крепких, сильных, здоровых мужиков, хозяев своей земли, на которых веками стояла деревня, а с нею и Россия. Если Столыпин сделал ставку на сильных и трезвых, и в к 1913-му году Россия достигла величайшего в своей истории подъёма и изобилия, то коммунисты поставили на слабых и пьяных, на лодыря, а не на работника, говоря языком ненавистного и Ленину, и Сталину Достоевского – «на сволочь». Лучшая часть народа была пущена «в распыл», а сволочь заняла её место, сволочь восторжествовала. И в этом торжестве – суть коллективизации, нанёсшей смертельный удар нашей деревне, от последствий которого не суждено было ей оправиться. И великого этого преступления индустриализации не перевесить.
2. «Сталин был русским патриотом!» Утверждающим это полезно было бы ознакомиться с речами «вождя». Вот, например, фрагмент из речи на Х Съезде: «Суть этого неравенства национальностей состоит в том, что мы, в силу исторического развития, получили от прошлого наследство, по которому одна национальность, именно великоросская, оказалась более развитой в политическом и промышленном отношении, чем другие национальности. Отсюда фактическое неравенство, которое не может быть изжито в один год, но которое должно быть изжито путем оказания хозяйственной, политической и культурной помощи отсталым национальностям»; «Суть национального вопроса в РСФСР состоит в том, чтобы уничтожить ту отсталость (хозяйственную, политическую, культурную) национальностей, которую они унаследовали от прошлого, чтобы дать возможность отсталым народам догнать центральную Россию и в государственном, и в культурном, и в хозяйственном отношениях»; «Затем старое государство, помещики и капиталисты оставили в наследство такие загнанные народности, как киргизы, чеченцы, осетины, земли которых служили для колонизации со стороны казачьих и кулацких элементов России. Эти народности были обречены на неимоверные страдания и вымирание»… Равно как Ленин и вся коммунистическая верхушка, главную опасность видел Сталин – в русском народе. И немало усилий приложено было им для превращения нас в «Иванов, родства не помнящих». Культивирование культа доносительства, отречения детей от родителей – какой колоссальный урон нанесло это психологии русского народа, какой великий удар это был для национального характера нашего. Разобщение, скрытность, страх, укоренение подозрительности, недоверия даже к самым близким людям – вот, плоды этой политики. Эти пороки, приобретенные в ту пору, и по сей день не могут быть изжиты. Они въелись в души, впитались в нас. Чувство взаимного доверия вытравили в русских людях, а без доверия не может существовать ни одна организация, ни один народ. И очень хорошо понимал это Сталин, созидая предсказанный Достоевским рай рабов. «Русский патриотизм» «чудесного грузина» – фикция. В этой связи стоит полюбопытствовать, кто занимал руководящие посты в различных отраслях в ту пору? Кто были начальниками лагерей, наградами и званьями звенящими, лагерей, в которых «загибались» преимущественно русские люди? Списки не раз публиковались, повторяться не будем. Кто заправлял искусством? Кто занимал огромный процент высших должностей в Красной армии? «Именно в конце 30-х гг. роль евреев в различных сферах жизни советского общества достигла своего апогея за весь период существования советской власти», - утверждает еврейская энциклопедия. Надо полагать, что все они тоже были «русскими патриотами». О русском народе вспомнил «вождь», когда загорелась земля под ним, когда надвинулась фашистская армада. А ну как пустил бы её замордованный за 20 лет коммунистической власти народ? Ну как воспользовался бы случаем поквитаться, как предлагалось некоторыми? Вот не поздоровилось бы тогда «кремлёвскому горцу» с его подручными! Тут-то и вспомнили – о русском народе, о русском патриотизме, о победах русского оружия… И вынес русский народ страшную эту войну на своих плечах! Вздохнул с облегчением тиран, тост поднял – «За русский народ!» - то-то счастье нам по сию пору!
3. «Сталин выиграл войну». Вот уж утверждение, уничижительное для народа, единственно великому подвигу и бесчисленным жертвам которого обязан весь мир этой Победой. «Сталин выиграл войну» - утверждают так, будто за многовековую историю нашу никаким иноземным захватчикам не давали мы отпора. Будто не было ни великих побед Суворова, ни 1812-го года (почему бы не сказать, что Александр Первый ту войну выиграл?). Говорят, позабыв о тех многочисленных стратегических ошибках, кои солдаты потом оплачивали своей кровью (а её-то не берегли вовсе в отличие от суворовских времён). Сталин не выигрывал войны, но присвоил себе русскую Победу, по сути, украл её. Поднял тост «за русский народ» и вновь вверг народ этот в лагерную тьму. И ужесточили УК – уже не по 10 лет давать стали, а всё чаще – по 25. Побывавших в плену приравнивали к изменникам. Тут, быть может, знание истории сыграло роль свою. Взяли русские Париж в своё время, насмотрелись офицеры на тамошнее житьё-бытьё, а потом на Сенатскую площадь вышли. Панически боялся «вождь», что и против него ощутивший силу свою, раскрепостившийся, вздохнувший полной грудью и вновь почувствовавший себя нацией за 4 года войны народ поднимется на него, и принимал превентивные меры. К слову, примечательно, что наши мастера искусств, падкие на безосновательные параллели, любили сравнивать «николаевскую Россию» с Россией советской, с Россией сталинской. И Николая Первого показывали нам, как страшного тирана. «Страшный тиран» казнил пятерых восставших, имевших целью физически устранить всю царскую семью, остальных отправил на каторгу, при этом все родные их («члены семьи врагов народа») не только не были подвергнуты репрессиям, но даже не утратили своих постов, их дети были определены в лучшие учебные заведения, их семьям был назначен пенсион «по утрате кормильца», говоря языком современным. Так и видится подобная гуманность в коммунистической России! Да и в либеральной – тоже.
4. «Сталин был верующим и открыл церкви». Надо ли напоминать, какое количество священнослужителей было истреблено в 30-е годы? Десятки тысяч священнослужителей томились в тюрьмах и лагерях. Смертельно больного Серафима Чичагова увезли из дома на «скорой» и расстреляли на Бутовском полигоне. Всего же свою смерть нашли здесь около 1000 священнослужителей и верующих мирян. А сколько ещё таких полигонов! Синодик убиенных громаден, многие из страстотерпцев прославлены сегодня в лике святых. И вот убийцу святых, явленных и неявленных, предлагают нам воспевать «православные сталинисты». Почему бы не воспеть в таком разе Ирода? Нерона? Случается слышать «довод», что священников, де, расстреливали за подстрекательство рабочих к бунту. Аргумент этот не имеет под собой оснований, что элементарно доказывается чтением соответствующих документов. Вот, к примеру, описания начала террора против духовенства в северной столице: «Воистину Гефсиманской стала для монашествующих ночь на 18 февраля 1932 г. В народе её так и назвали – святой ночью. В те страшные часы гонители арестовали более 500 иноков. Со словами: «Да будет воля Твоя!» - вступали на путь страданий бесчисленные сонмы верующих. К ноябрю 1933 г. число действующих храмов в Петербурге сократилось с 495 до 61. Монастыри и подворья были полностью разгромлены и разграблены. Даже колокольный звон к тому времени был запрещён» («Житие Преподобного Серафима Вырицкого»). Надо полагать, что все эти смиренные иноки только тем и занимались, что ходили по заводам и «подстрекали». Пройдясь катком по русской Церкви, Сталин вспомнил о ней, как и о русском народе, лишь с началом войны. Тогда и прозвучало памятное – «братья и сёстры». Да и как было не вспомнить, если гитлеровцы, занимая русские земли, начали было открывать церкви, думая тем привлечь на свою сторону население? Нужно было лишить врага этого козыря. Вообще же, сотрудничество РПЦ со Сталиным, пресловутое «сергианство» остаётся одной из самых чёрных страниц её истории. Многие оправдывают «дипломатию» патриарха Сергия и его последователей заботой о пастве. Но этот аргумент принять сложно. На молебне в честь 70-летия «вождя» в 1949-м году патриарх Алексий говорил в своей речи: «Он — признанный всем миром Вождь не только народов Советского Государства, но и всех трудящихся; он — первый в ряду поборников и защитников мира среди народов, мира во всем мире. Мне нет нужды, ибо это всем нам хорошо известно, излагать здесь его великие заслуги перед Родиной нашей в деле укрепления ее мощи, в деле её необыкновенного преуспеяния во всех отношениях, во всех отраслях труда; нет надобности напоминать вам и о том, что, благодаря его гениальному руководству, наша славная армия в годину тягчайших испытаний, постигших наше Отечество, когда на него напал сильный и злобный враг, — одержала победу над этим врагом, и Родина наша вышла из горнила испытаний еще более сильной, славной и мощной. Всякий, кто лично знаком с нашим Вождем, поражается обаянием его личности; он покоряет собеседника своим внимательным отношением ко всякому делу; ласковостью; своей необыкновенной осведомленностью во всяком деле; силой и мудростью слова; быстрым и благоприятным решением каждого представляемого ему дела и вопроса. Мы, церковные люди, должны благодарить его особенно за его участливое отношение к нашим церковным нуждам; всякий церковный вопрос, соприкасающийся с гражданскими сферами, он разрешает в благоприятном для Церкви смысле. Святая Церковь наша имеет в нем верного защитника. Мы собрались сегодня в великом множестве в храмах наших, чтобы, как это свойственно нам, верующим и церковным людям, молитвою принять участие, в праздновании этого знаменательного для него и для всех нас дня и испросить у Господа ему и в дальнейшем благословение на его великий подвиг служения родному Отечеству и народу и успех во всех его благих начинаниях. Да даст ему Господь много лет в здравии и. благоденствии стоять у кормила, правления родной Страной, и да процветает Страна наша под его мудрым водительством многая и многая лета на радость и счастье ее народов. Аминь» . Христос учил отдавать кесарю кесареву, но не учил петь хвалу Ироду, не учил умножать ложь. Иерархи же РПЦ воспевали Сталина, подобно идолу. «Сергианство» до сих пор не изжито Церковью, остаётся основой современной её политики и служит причиной всё новым и новым расколам, пагубность которых очевидна.
5. «При Сталине был порядок. Уголовники сидели». Согласно официальной большевистской теории, уголовники признавались «социально-близкими», то есть способными к исправлению, а потому имеющими право на снисхождение. Исходя из этого «блатари» в лагерях всегда пользовались привилегированным положением, имели преференции от лагерного начальства и полную свободу в измывательстве над 58-й, которая никаких прав не имела. Об этом говорят буквально все мемуаристы. Такое отношение к уголовникам закономерно. На них, «на сволочь» делали ставку во время революции, когда вчерашние каторжане мгновенно возносились на должности, становились начальством, из них были и большевистские вожди («страшная галерея каторжан» - Бунин), и сам Коба в молодости занимался грабежами, именуемыми «экспроприацией». Социальная близость налицо! Любопытно также, что до 1947-го года, согласно УК, срок за кражу (в том числе квартирную) колебался от 6 месяцев до года. Для сравнения 58-я исправно получала сроки от 10 до 25 лет. Небезынтересна и история амнистий того периода. Касалась она только и исключительно уголовников, которые благополучно выходили на свободу, возвращались к своему «ремеслу», а места их в лагерях занимала 58-я, на которую амнистии не распространялись. Хороший порядок, ничего не скажешь.
6. Главная заслуга Сталина в глазах его апологетов состоит в том, что он разделался со «старой гвардией». Гад пожрал гада – значит, уже перестал гадом быть? Логика странная, но требует разбора. К сожалению, так уж вышло, что слова «репрессии», «ГУЛАГ», «лагеря» ассоциируются у подавляющей массы населения с 37-м и 38-м годами и лишь с одной, меньшей частью жертв, не с трагедией русского народа, но с бедами (преувеличенными) народов иных. Как произошло это? Роковая подмена началась ещё при разоблачении культа личности. Тогда, в первую очередь, бросились реабилитировать старых партийцев, «невинно пострадавших» старых большевиков, среди которых было немалое число тех, кто приложил руку к расправам над русскими людьми ещё при Ленине. Оправдывали одних палачей, пострадавших от рук других палачей. Верные партийцы, не загибавшиеся на общих, пользовавшиеся сочувствием лагерного начальства, устраивавшего их на тёплые места, а потому в отличие от бесчисленного множества крестьян, священников и других зэков благополучно уцелевшие, бросились писать мемуары, насквозь пронизанные ложью. Сталин стал единственным козлом отпущения, тогда как Ленин, его приспешники, партия, даже сотрудники НКВД и лагерные начальники оказывались вне критики, оставаясь «умом, честью и совестью». В конце 80-х история повторилась. Реабилитировать ринулись опять же палачей: Зиновьева, Каменева, Бухарина и т.п. Так выработался стереотип, будто бы в 30-х уничтожали (и поделом бы - за все художества) только их, а все прочие жертвы оказались благополучно забыты, словно их и не было. Процесс же реабилитации прочно увязался с именами людей, разрушавших государство, людей, ненавидящих не столько советскую власть, но саму Россию, не советское, а русское, не партию, но сам русский народ. О репрессиях больше всех кричали те, чьи предки весьма отличились по части истребления народа в «славные» ленинские времена. Те, которые разграбляли страну в 90-е. Те, что открыто радовались каждой русской беде с экранов. Те, что продолжали всемерно дело Ленина и Ко. Их вещания о «незаконно репрессированных» приводили к обратному эффекту: «то, что говорят они, не может быть правдой, по определению, стало быть, и все репрессии – это ложь, и побили тогда только таких гадов, как они, и прав был товарищ Сталин» – такой вывод делали для себя многие обыватели. Именно с таких позиций начинает расцениваться всякое упоминание об этой теме, всякая книга о ней, всякий, берущийся писать или говорить о ней. Происходит инстинктивное отторжение. Таким образом, рассуждения о репрессиях из уст продолжателей дела палачей России служили и служат дискредитации их жертв, мешают подлинному пониманию истории и отдаляют постижение трагедии России 20-го века. К слову, эту тенденцию ещё на заре её отметил А.И. Солженицын на страницах «Архипелага»: «Этих людей не брали до 1937 года. И после 1938-го их очень мало брали. Поэтому их называют «набор 37-го года», и так можно было бы, но чтоб это не затемняло общую картину, что даже в месяцы пик сажали не их одних, а всё те же тянулись и мужички, и рабочие, и молодежь, инженеры и техники, агрономы и экономисты, и просто верующие. «Набор 37-го года», очень говорливый, имеющий доступ к печати и радио, создал «легенду 37-го года», легенду из двух пунктов: 1) если когда при советской власти сажали, то только в 37-м, и только о 37-м надо говорить и возмущаться;
2) сажали в 37-м - только их».
И легко восприняло общество эту легенду… Амос Оз говорил: «Быть евреем означает чувствовать: где бы ни преследовали и мучили еврея, — это преследуют и мучают тебя». И ничего нет ценнее для них, чем жизнь их соплеменника. Поэтому Сталину они не могут простить несколько сотен попавших под общий каток сродников. Но почему русские люди не только готовы простить Джугашвили миллионы своих уничтоженных и умученных братьев, но ещё и прославлять его как величайшего из великих, называя своих убиенных родных «щепками»? И как могут иные из них при этом именовать себя русскими националистами? Никакого касательства подобная позиция к национализму не имеет.
7. И последний «аргумент» который приводят сталинисты: «если бы Троцкие остались, было бы хуже», «а сейчас разве хорошо?» Это – аргумент бессилия. Не безумно ли, сравнивая два Зла, одно из них, на основании того, что оно кажется меньшим, возводить в статус Добра и прославлять?..
«Сталинизм», как уже было сказано выше, тяжёлая болезнь. Болезнь русского национального самосознания. Болезнь, которая становится шлагбаумом на пути русского движения. Нам говорят, что не нужно говорить о ней, чтобы не усугублять раскол. Но болезнь не исчезнет, если о ней молчать. Болезнь требует лечения. Для здорового развития национального самосознания, национального движения и государства нужна здоровая идеологическая платформа. И помесь святого Сергия с Распутиным, Николая Второго с Иваном Грозным, Христа со Сталиным таковой дать не может. Разруха в головах, плодом которой является подобный ералаш, делает неосуществимым процесс созидания, но усугубляет развал. Потому так жизненно необходимо её преодоление.

                                    ПСАЛОМ

                                                                    П. Котлов-Бондаренко

Пребудь со мною, мой Спаситель,

Как добрый Пастырь мой и Врач.

Ты мой Наставник и Водитель,

Кто меня от смерти спас!

Держи меня Своей рукою

И на путь Свой направляй,

Дабы Тебя я всей душою

Возлюбил и почитал!

Дай сил идти мне за Тобою,

Во всем Тебе лишь подражать –

И с благодарною душою

Твою волю исполнять.

К. Шуплецова.

Сыне, распятый во имя любви!

Ожесточаемое,

Оскудеваемое

Сердце Ты в нас освежи, обнови!

Дух Святый! Правды источник живой!

Дай силу страждущему!

Разуму жаждущему

Ты вожделенные тайны открой!

Боже! Спаси Ты от всяких цепей Душу проснувшуюся

И ужаснувшуюся

Мрака и зла и неправды людей!

Вставших на глас Твой услыши мольбу,

И цепенеющую,

В лени коснеющую

Жизнь разбуди на святую борьбу!

                                                                                          Я. Полонский                     

Ничего я больше не хочу

Того дай мне, Господи свечу.

Этот малый, тихий огонек

Чтоб его до смерти я берег.

А когда средь раннего утра

Мне в твой дом придет идти пора,

В тишине Своей, не пред людьми,

Сам из рук моих свечу возьми.

                                                                                Святитель Иоанн Максимович

Эти бедные селенья,

Эта скудная природа -

Край родной долготерпенья,

Край ты русского народа!

Не поймет и не оценит

Гордый взор иноплеменный,

Что сквозит и гордо светит

В наготе твоей смиренной.

Удрученный ношей крестной,

Всю тебя, земля родная,

В рабском виде Царь небесный

Исходил, благословляя.

                                                                                      Ф. И. Тютчев

Дорог мне, перед иконой

В светлой ризе золотой

Этот яркий воск, возженный

Чьей неведомо рукой…

Знаю я - свеча пылает,

Клир торжественно поет:

Чье-то горе утихает,

Кто-то слезы тихо льет;

Светлый ангел упованья

Пролетает над толпой…

Этих свеч знаменованье

Чую трепетной душой:

Это - медный грош вдовицы,

Это -лепта бедняка,

Это…может быть…убийцы

Покаянная тоска…

Это - светлое мгновенье

В диком мраке и глуши,

Память слез и умиленья

В вечность глянувшей души.

                                                                                           А. Майков

Себя Собою составляя,

Собою из Себя сияя,

Ты Свет откуда свет истек,

Создавший все единым словом,

В твореньи простираясь новом,

Ты был, Ты есть, ты будешь ввек!

Ты цепь существ в Себе вмещаешь,

Ее содержишь и живишь,

Конец с началом сопрягаешь

И смертию живот даришь.

Как капля в море опущенна,

Вся твердь перед Тобой сия;

Но что мной зримая вселенна?

И что перед Тобою я?

Неизъяснимый Непостижный!

Я знаю, что души моей

Воображения бессильны

И тени начертать Твоей;

Но если славословить должно,

То слабым смертным невозможно

Тебя ничем иным почтить,

Как им к Тебе лишь возвышаться,

В безмерной радости теряться

И благодарны слезы лить.

                                                                                       Г. Р. Державин

                                                             МОЛИТВА О ЛЮБВИ

Научи меня, Боже, любить

Всем умом Тебя, всем помышленьем,

Чтоб и душу Тебе посвятить

И вся жизнь с каждым сердца биеньем.

Научи Ты меня соблюдать

Лишь Твою милосердную волю,

Научи никогда не роптать

На свою многотрудную долю.

Всех, которых пришел искупить

Ты Своею пречистою кровью,-

Бескорыстной, глубокой любовью

Научи меня, Боже, любить!

                                                                                                         К. Р.                             

                                                                КОЛЫБЕЛЬНАЯ

                                                                Князю Иоанну Константиновичу

Спи, в колыбели нарядной

Весь в кружевах и шелку,

Спи, мой сынок ненаглядный,

В теплом своем уголку

В тихом безмолвии ночи

С образа грусти святой

Божией Матери очи

Кротко следят за тобой

Сколько участья во взоре

Этих печальных очей

Словно им ведомо горе

Будущей жизни твоей.

Быстро крылатое время

Час неизбежный пробьет

Примешь ты тяжкое бремя

Горя, труда и забот.

Будь же ты верен преданьям

Доброй простой старины,

Будь же всегда упованьем

Нашей родной стороны.

С верою твердой, живою

Честно живи ты свой век:

Сердцем, умом и душою

Русский ты будь человек

Пусть тебе в годы сомненья

В пору тревог и невзгод

Служит примером терпенья

Наш православный народ

Спи же, еще не настали

Годы смятений и бурь.

Спи же, не зная печали,

Глазки малютка зажмурь.

Тускло мерцает лампадка

Перед иконой святой…

Спи же беспечно и сладко

Спи, мой сынок дорогой.

Летом 2000 года в России мироточила и проносилась крестным ходом копия калифорнийской иконы Царственных мучеников: царя-страстотерпца Николая и Его августейшей Семьи. В 1918 году замечательный русский поэт патриот С. С. Бехтеев написал стихотворение для Царской семьи, которое и передал Их Величествам в ссылку в Тобольск через графиню А. В. Гендрикову.

Вот текст стихотворения С. Бехтеева, найденного в тетрадке Великой княжны Марии Николаевны:

                                                                Молитва

                   Посвящается Их Императорским Высочествам Великим Княжнам  

                                           Ольге Николаевне и Марии Николаевне: 

Пошли нам, Господи, терпенье

В годину буйных, мрачных дней

Сносить народное гоненье

И пытки наших палачей.

Дай крепость нам, о Боже правый,

Злодейство ближнего прощать

И крест тяжелый и кровавый

С твоею кротостью встречать.

И в дни мятежного волненья,

Когда ограбят нас враги,

Терпеть позор и униженья,

Христос Спаситель помоги!

Владыка мира, Бог вселенной,

Благослови молитвой нас,

И дай покой душе смиренной

В невыносимый, страшный час…

И у преддверия могилы,

Вдохни в уста Твоих рабов

Нечеловеческие силы

Молиться за своих врагов.

        Русский романтизм и духовная поэзия XIX века.

Поэт «пушкинской плеяды», современник А. Пушкина, К. Батюшкова, В. Жуковского, Н. Языкова, И. Козлова, А. Хомякова, А. Кольцова, Петр Вяземский был талантливым, широко образованным человеком. Светлое и возвышенное настроение поэтов и мыслителей Н. Языкова, П. Киреевского, Д. Давыдова и чистое дыхание их поэзии не могло не оказать благотворного влияния на творчество князя П. Вяземского.

Каким же был на самом деле этот блестящий поэт-аристократ, рано лишившийся родителей, похоронивший семерых своих детей и переживавший как личную трагедию смерть А. Пушкина. Впрочем, и сам Н. Языков писал к сестре, что обстоятельства дуэли очень запутанные, темные настолько, что и история бессильна пролить свет на эту дуэль.

Рядом с Вяземским оказались лучшие люди того времени: Языков, Киреевский, Погодин, Жуковский, Карамзин. Последний приходился князю-поэту родственником и долгое время работал над своей «Историей государства Российского» в Остафьеве, подмосковном имении Вяземского, которое сохранилось в целости до наших дней. В путешествиях по России рождались лучшие стихи поэта, в которых слышался размеренный звон дорожного колокольчика: «Тройка мчится, тройка скачет…»и «Колокольчик однозвучный».

Продолжатель поэтической традиции Вяземского - неспешного, глубоко лиричного, осторожного разговора с читателем, писатель уходящего Серебряного века русской литературы Борис Константинович Зайцев с признательностью вспоминал о поэте в своей беллетризованной биографии В. Жуковского. Нежная, акварельная манера описаний природы у Вяземского обаяла Б. Зайцева и придала ему особенный духовный настрой, научила вслушиваться в природу, понимать ее, как сие умели романтики начала 19 века. Вяземский хорошо знал, «что жизнь не такая, как он ее изображает» (по выражению Б. Зайцева), но изменять себе не мог. Лира его поэзии, среди которой есть малоизвестная страница - духовная лирика была воспитана на лучших пушкинских традициях, голос ее не фальшивил и не срывался в хрип.

Автор басен, сатиры в Ювеналовом духе, куплетов «Ноэлей» в подражание французским П. Вяземский не принял демократов, не выносил на дух чернышевских, писаревых. И. Тургенев в глубокой антипатии к образу Базарова, созданному им же, и Н. Лесков в неприятии образа Термосесова были близки к отвращению П. Вяземского к новым людям. Критика настаивает на идеализировании раннего Вяземского, называя его вольтерианцем и насмешником, оставляя без внимания тот факт, что поэт в зрелом возрасте коренным образом изменился в привязанностях. (По слову Джона Донна: «Все ж лучшие из дней: дни страха Божия!».) Особенно заметен душевный переворот поэта в его духовной лирике. Как тут не вспомнить переписку А. Пушкина с митрополитом Московским Филаретом Дроздовым и его знаменитое стихотворение «Владыка дней моих…». Духовная поэзия П. Вяземского знала молитвенное настроение и слово, согревающее сердце и душу:

                                                        Петр Вяземский

Чертог Твой вижу, Спасе мой,

Он блещет славою Твоею,-

Но я войти в него не смею,

Но я одежды не имею,

Дабы предстать перед Тобой.

О, Светодавче, просвети

Ты рубище души убогой,

Я нищим шел земной дорогой:

Любовью и щедротой многой

Меня к слугам твоим причти.

                        1858 г.

Любить. Молиться. Петь. Святое назначенье

Души тоскующей в изгнании своем

Святого таинства земное выраженье,

Предчувствие и скорбь о чем-то неземном

Преданье темное о том что было ясным,

И упование того, что будет вновь;

Души, настроенной к созвучию с прекрасным,

Три вечные струны: молитва, песнь, любовь!

Счастлив, кому дано познать отраду вашу,

Кто чашу радости и горькой скорби чашу

Благословлял всегда с любовью и мольбой

И песни внутренней был арфою живой.

 

                                                                                А.К. Толстой

Из поэмы «Иоанн Дамаскин»

Зачем не в то рожден я время,

Когда меж нами, во плоти,

Неся мучительное бремя,

Он шел на жизненном пути.

Зачем я не могу нести

О, мой Господь, Твои оковы,

Твоим страданием страдать

И крест на плечи твой приять,

И на главу венец терновый!

О, если б мог я лобызать

Лишь край святой Твоей одежды,

Лишь пыльный след Твоих  шагов,

О, мой Господь, моя надежда,

Моя и сила и покров!

Тебе хочу я все мышленья,

Тебе всех песней благодать,

И думы дня, и ночи бденья,

И сердца каждое биенье

И душу всю мою отдать!

Не отверзайтесь для другого

Отныне, вещие уста!

Особо ценна духовная авторская поэзия священников (что актуально, безусловно, и в наше время), а также монашествующей братии.

                                                Старец Варсонофий Оптинский (+1912)

Давно, в дни юности минувшей

Во мне горелъ огонь святой.

Тогда души моей покой

Былъ безмятежен, и живущий

В ней дух невидимо храниль

Ея от злобы и сомнѣнья,

Оть пустоты, тоски, томленья.

И силой чудною живиль.

Но жизнью я увлекся шумной.

Свою невинностъ, красоту

Не мог я сохранитъ безумный!

И вихрем страстныхъ увлечений

Охваченный я погибалъ…

Но снова к Богу я воззвалъ

С слезами горьких сожалений,

И Онь приникъ к моимъ стенаньямъ

И мира ангела прислалъ

И къ жизни вечной вновъ призвалъ,

И изцелиль мои страданья.

 

                                                            На смерть старца Анатолия (1824-1897)

Онь какь ангелъ небесный служилъ,

Полный веры предъ Господомь силъ,

Какъ светильникъ сіяя средь насъ!

Все мы помнимъ торжественный часъ,

Когда в схиму его облачили

И съ слезами во гробъ положили,

И почтили молитвенно память его,

Песнь воспели надъ нимъ погребальную,

Песнь святую и грустно-прощальную;

«Упокой, Христе, душу раба Твоего,

Со святыми, где нетъ воздыханія,

Ни болезни, ни гласа стенанія,

                                                                      Всеблаженная жизнь безконечная!»

О, возлюбленный, Авва родной,

Веримь мы, что чистой душой,

Совершивши путь истинный правый,

Вь вечномъ свете небесныхъ обителей

В лике его верныхъ служителей!

Насъ, истомленныхъ душевной борьбой,

Помяни ты въ молитве святой.

                                                                            Весна

Еще покрыты белой пеленой

Поля, стоитъ безмолвно лесъ

В своемъ серебряномъ уборе.

Но всюду веет силой творческой – весной,

И ярче и светлее свод небесъ,

И тонетъ взоръ въ его просторе.

Когда ж, о Господи, въ душе моей больной,

Немоществующей, унылой и скорбящей

Повеетъ Святый Духъ животворящий,

Ликуюшей, духовною весной?

Изчезнетъ безъ следа твоя печаль,

И ты увидишь, полный изумленья

Иной страны сіяющую далъ,

                                                                                Страны живыхъ, страны обетования.  

Духовное стихотворение последних Ново-Афонских иноков. Написано приблизительно в конце 20-х годов.

Прости нас, обитель святая,

Прости, наша мать, навсегда.

Тебя нам, обитель святая,

Не видеть уже никогда.

Погасли лампады и свечи

Навеки во храмах твоих.

Умолкли священные речи;

И звон колокольный затих.

Источник уже опустелый:

Не видно народу на нем.

Веселье навек улетело,

И грусть воцарилася в нем.

Скажи нам, обитель святая,

Насельники где же твои?…

Где те, что тебя создавали,

Все отдали силы свои.

Стоишь ты одна, одинока;

Зачем не зовешь нас к себе.

А мы на чужбине далеко

Льем слезы в тоске о тебе.

Но нет уж надежды возврата

Святая обитель в тебя.

Горька для нас эта утрата:

Но что же поделать - судьба.

Господь нам послал утешенье

И отнял обитель у нас.

И все мы томимся в изгнании:

О, Господи, вспомни о нас.

Живя нерадиво на свете

Прогневали Господа мы.

Подай нам всещедрый создатель

На тихую пристань прийти.

Корабль наш ветрами разбитый

И нет уж надежды спастись.

Разсыпал ветрила и снасти

Кормила далеко снеслись.

Но подлинным шедевром православного христолюбивого творчества были и есть русские государственные гимны «Коль славен наш Господь в Сионе...» и «Боже, Царя храни...» [Первый гимн-молитва православной императорской России был написан в царствование правнука Петра Первого государя Павла Петровича и был Им же высочайше утвержден. Авторами слов и музыки стали поэт знаменитый писатель, куратор Московского университета Михаил Херасков и выдающийся русский духовный музыкант и композитор Дмитрий Бортнянский.

Вот они слова этого непревзойденного, чрезвычайно возвышенного русского гимна. То есть уникальный в истории пример государственного гимна, полностью посвященного Творцу всего сущего.!

Коль славен наш Господь в Сионе,

Не может изъяснить язык:

Велик Он в небесах на троне!

В былинках на земле велик!