Author Archives: Father Andrew

The Benckendorff Papers (2): Follow the Saints

An Interview with Countess Benckendorff

Father, we last spoke like this two years ago in May 2024. Since then a lot has happened in our world and not much good. Personally, I have survived thanks to the Romanian Church, to my garden, the roses, which are now at the end of May already in bud, and to one or two clothes shops which have not yet closed and which I love. You know how important that is to me, you even came with us once to Cambridge, where I bought that lovely dark red coat from John Lewis, you remember. I don’t buy much, it is too expensive, but I do like good quality. That is my weakness.  Anyway, enough of these women’s matters, let us pass to serious things.

The Russian Church Hierarchy

Countess Benckendorff: I want to know what you are thinking about our Russian Church. Patriarch Kyrill is 80 years old. The question everyone is asking is who will be the next Russian Patriarch?

Father Andrew: Countess, how should I know?!

On paper, there is a choice of candidates between a liberal and a conservative. The liberal is the ecumenist, the very young and totally unprincipled careerist Metr Antony (Sevriuk). I know about him, since over 20 years ago a friend of mine studied with him in Saint Petersburg. He was much disliked by the other seminarists as a ‘grass’, стукач. He has been the new favourite ever since the first scandal with Metr Hilarion (Alfeyev), who is nearly 60. (The latter has just been feted in nationalist Moscow and presented as the innocent victim of Western machinations, but has still been sent into new exile in Brazil. His career is over). On the other hand, the nationalist conservative wing wants Metr Tikhon (Shevkunov), 68 this year, who is currently in the Crimea, building his fantastic nationalist history Church theme park, New Chersonese.

Now, liberals and conservatives have always existed in the Church and always will do. In the fourth century St Epiphanius of Salamis in Cyprus was considered a conservative and he accused St John Chrysostom of being a liberal. But both are saints. The problem is not in liberal or conservative tendencies, it is in excesses, because excesses lead to schisms, the refusal to concelebrate. In the time of Christ on earth, the pharisees were conservatives, but extreme ones, and the saducees were liberals, but extreme ones. This is true of the Russian Church today, where there are also such extremes.

The excessive nationalist, isolationist and racist conservatives, who condemn and despise every Orthodox in every other Local Church, who is not Russian, as racially inferior, sound like FSB Stalinists or Old Ritualists. They are wrong. Their centre is the new heavy and gloomy Military Cathedral outside Moscow, which is like a Museum of Stalinism.

A Cathedral in memory of the 27 million Soviet citizens, 18 million civilians and 9 million military, murdered by the Nazis, should have been dedicated to the Resurrection, full of light, shining like a beacon of hope, painted a brilliant white outside. It should not have been a tomb of gloom, where you shudder

And as for the hideous heathen mausoleum in Moscow with Lenin’s rotted mummy inside, it should be bulldozed tonight and replaced with a beautiful white church dedicated to the New Martyrs and Confessors as soon as possible. Then we could at last say that Russia has thrown off Stalinism – which it clearly has not. Here the Ukrainians, who change Stalinist place names in the Ukraine, are right. The trouble is that then they impose new place names in honour of Nazis….

On the other hand, the excessive liberals (Uminsky, Kuraev etc), who have joined the Patriarchate of Constantinople, sound like Protestant ecumenists or else right-wing CIA agents who hate Russia, like the two ROCOR bishops. These extreme liberals are wrong, they are just secularists, pro-Americans, who want to see Russia destroyed. This is crass American nationalism! For instance, the American Synod has supported CIA policies in the Ukraine, called for Russian troops to abandon the persecuted Russians in the Eastern Ukraine, and as a result has lost many Russian faithful.

Significantly, however, the old Russians being purged from ROCOR are largely being replaced by rebaptised, ultra-conservative Protestant converts, bearded fake Russians, ‘more Orthodox than the Orthodox’, until they lapse, as they always do. Their lapse is usually into the spiritual irrelevance of old calendarist sects, which are basically just Protestant, as they are protest groups. The new ROCOR is full of hatred, like all spiritually irrelevant sects, because hatred for others is how they justify the fact that they are precisely a sect. Hatred is the sign of dark sectarianism. Love is the sign of the Church. ‘I am the Light of the world’, said Christ, He never said that He is the darkness of the sect.

Before the Revolution, the liberal Metr Antony Vadkovsky of Saint Petersburg protected the revolutionary Fr George Gapon, who was something of a debauchee as well as a pro-Marxist political activist, before being murdered. On the other hand, at that time there was the conservative Metr Antony of Kiev (Khrapovitsky), with his young, educated monks, so many of whom then had to be defrocked. However, neither of these was made Patriarch, indeed the first had already died by 1917. Instead, the 1918 Council elected, by lot, the saintly missionary from America, Tikhon, as Patriarch. That was the right choice, the third way, the mystical way, the way of prophecy, the way of the Holy Spirit. Why do we have to put up with another liberal or another conservative? They do not inspire. They are only politicians.

St Tikhon refused to bless whites or reds, saying that all Orthodox are his flock. This is what should have happened in 2022, following the example of St Nicholas of Tokyo, who, when Japan treacherously attacked Russia causing war in 1904, simply disappeared from public life and prayed for peace. A just peace is the only victory for all. Similarly, in 2008 Patriarch Alexis II called for and won peace in Georgia, after the Georgians had invaded South Abkhazia, murdering 1500 plus locals and Russian peacekeepers, and the Russians responded. (True, the Patriarch died rather mysteriously only a few months later). This peacemaking is what should have happened in the Ukraine in 2022. Sadly…..

This is our only hope now. That an as yet unknown candidate will appear, sent by the Holy Spirit to save the Russian Church from the schismatic isolation that its present leaders have created for it. This is what Elder Nikolai Guryanov hinted at. Surely such a Patriarch will refrock all those defrocked anti-canonically for purely political reasons, just as the Patriarchate and the American Synod refrocked each other in 2007, and instead defrock the dozens of utterly corrupt and criminal ‘administrator-bishops’ who lord it freely in the Russian Church today, demanding money at every turn (you remember, how our solicitor told us that it was illegal), bullying, threatening and intimidating in a terror regime, and so destroying parishes and parish life.

Will God send an Archpastor as Patriarch and not a Politician? At present the Russian Church, including ROCOR, runs on terror, intimidation and bullying from bishops. What about a Church which runs on Love from bishops? We can only hope. If not, for its sins, the Russian Church may be closed down in Western Europe, as the EU is threatening to do to Russian churches in Armenia. How long before the EU and UK close down the Russian Church on their territory by force? Everyone will have to flee for protection to the Romanian Patriarchate then, as it has already offered.

CB: With so many scandals, political, sexual and financial, especially among the Orthodox episcopate, which so upset me, where do we go?

FA: With the many, many scandals in Russia and in the jurisdiction of Constantinople, the scandalous suspension for political reasons of the righteous Metr Tykhikos in Cyprus, and the homosexual scandal in Moldova, there is much to be appalled at. But I found the solution fifty years ago.

In 1976 I decided that there was only way to save my soul: To follow the saints, and not money and power. The Church on earth will be saved by the Holy Spirit, not by ‘princes of the Church’, the dollar-loving politicians. This is how we overcome the depredations of patriarchs and other bishops, through the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the saints. That is what I expressed in my May 2006 talk at the Fourth ROCOR Council in San Francisco, warmly greeted as inspirational then, but now completely ignored by the new ROCOR, but their organisation is dying out. I warned them. Told them so.

We joined the old ROCOR, despite the CIA sectarian corruption already among a few in it, because of the many New Martyrs and Confessors, whom the old ROCOR had bravely canonised. We follow the saints. That was why we believed that ROCOR should have merged with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2000, straight after the August Jubilee Council in Moscow, when they too canonised a great many New Martyrs and Confessors; instead, we showed patience and had to wait until 2007. And by 2017 we realised that the merger had tragically been rejected by the new ROCOR episcopate, that there would be no organic merger and metropolitanisation, that is, localisation and incarnation, as CIA-manipulated sectarianism reared its ugly head in the new, schismatic New York sect of ROCOR after 2017.

Later, after we had all received canonical releases from the Moscow Patriarchate in 2022, we joined the Romanian Church, which then canonised 32 Saints, mainly New Martyrs and Confessors, some of whom we will be venerating in the future frescoes in our main church. We follow the saints.  This year, after frescoing the little church with the Saints of these Isles, we will be celebrating the Ancient Saints of Western Europe at the International Congress in Rome of the nearly 1,100 parishes of our Metropolia of Western and Southern Europe. We follow the saints. Our church in Colchester had been dedicated to St Alban. In November 1962 St John left England, entrusting us to St Alban. This is why we had painted in the Ukraine the large icon of St Alban and St John holding our church. We follow the saints.

CB: Do you miss the Russian Church, which I and my husband once so loved and worked for in those idealistic days of the 90s?

FA: Yes, I regret the disappearance of the best of the old emigre Russian Orthodox Church, in which I had been brought up since 1972. By 2022 it had gone. In just fifty years. Where it had not died out, it had largely been replaced by that Soviet-style superstitious ritualism, you know what I mean, or by some weird and fanatical unstable Protestant converts, who know almost nothing and understood even less.

Only a few old Russian emigres born in the 30s and 40s, from the second generation, are left. We have an example here, born in 1940, whom we see regularly, Olga, whose roses you look after. She had an awful experience in the ROCOR Church in London, to which she had belonged until 2010 and had given generously. There she was treated appallingly by a former KGB agent at that church. She will never return to ROCOR, though she is of a Russian aristocratic family, like yourself.

St John of Shanghai and Western Europe, Archbishop Antony of Geneva, Archbishop George Tarasov, Archbishop Seraphim of Brussels, were real bishops. Fr Alexander Trubnikov, Fr Sophrony Sakharov, Fr Alexei Kniazev, Fr Vsevolod Dunayev, Fr Igor Vernik, Fr Ioan Pekarski were real priests. These were my fathers in the Faith and they came from all the jurisdictions. But they are all gone now.

They are gone from all three parts of the Russian Church in the Diaspora; from the part whose leadership sided with the corrupt Soviet State; from the part whose leadership sided with the corrupt Pre-Revolutionary State; from the part whose leadership wanted to corrupt Russia in the Western way, like themselves. But the real clergy were those who sided with the people, not with the leadership. Those real clergy were above petty and unloving jurisdictions, who went to whatever church was nearest to their home, disregarding the lack of love, the labels and the ideologies at the top.

CB: Why are ordinary Russian Orthodox in Russia especially so negative towards their hierarchy? Is it all about money?

FA: Yes, firstly, there is money. The senior bishops preach an ascetic life, while living in luxury, when many of the people are not at all well-off. Many of the senior bishops are mini-oligarchs who rule their dioceses under harsh, totalitarian regimes, as ROCOR now does also. One metropolitan in Russia I met in 2012 has recently even bankrupted his important metropolia. Many of the priests are very poor because the bishops steal their money with threats, like mafia gangsters. As a result, you have a huge number of scandals, like that in the Skopin Diocese in Russia, or in Kolomna (among several others) and that here in England.

The technique of the oligarch-bishop is to give good parishes to his greedy, careerist yesmen, sacking and making homeless the good priests and their families. Then the parishes collapse and their assets can be sold off. This is exactly the technique closely studied and imitated by the new ROCOR episcopate. This is a feudal system. The churches of such bishops are emptying. They are not Christians.

Secondly, there is the support for the war, with bishops and priests blessing guns, shells, tanks, missiles, machine guns etc. Are they even Christians? The present wave of Stalinist nationalism in Moscow, with its literal purges of priests who pray for peace, ‘enemies of the people’, is symptomatic of this anti-Christian, militaristic, Stalinist spirit.

Traditional values?  It is all just hypocrisy. And the same is true of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. There is nothing to choose here between Moscow and Constantinople, with its absurd and criminal OCU. Russia has still not repented for 1917. Elder Nikolai Guryanov said it. The Tsar’s servants are still not canonised, except for Evgeny Botkin. And there is still huge disrespect and even hatred for the Tsar and the Tsarina themselves. All that is happening in Russia and the Ukraine is a hangover, self-punishment for the unrepented sin of 1917.

Clearly, the Orthodoxy of such people is all for show, just clerical ritual, there is nothing inside. That is why some services now are just peopled by clerics in uniform and the people have fled. What proportion of these people are actually atheists? In the first quarter of 2026 alone, 50 priests were defrocked in Russia. (Why were they ordained in the first place? How much did they pay for ordination?) Other priests go ‘zashtat’, that is, they go off roll, effectively retiring to escape episcopal oppression.

For me, however, the main problem is theological.

The Catholicity of the Church

CB: What do you mean by that?

FA: The main problem is the destruction of the Catholicity, Соборность, of the Russian Church through schism. How have the Patriarchate of Moscow and ROCOR become international laughing stocks, losing all respect? The one is a nationalist ghetto church in self-isolation and the other a schismatic church of pharisees and fanatics. Such schism is precisely the result of the lack of Catholicity, the sense of unity of the sixteen Local Churches. Let me give you an example of this from the emigration.

I remember being told how in 1964, after the death of the very ill and demented Metr Anastasy, the American ROCOR Synod had to elect a new metropolitan. Archbp Vitaly and Archbp John of Shanghai tied for the post. Archbp John put forward Bp Philaret, the youngest bishop, as the future metropolitan, the unity candidate, thus keeping Church unity which had been threatened, and also leading to the canonisation of the New Martyrs and Confessors.

Archbp Vitaly, ever ambitious, went home with his white metropolitan’s hat in his suitcase (he had brought it with him, as he had been sure that he would be elected). When Archbp Vitaly was finally elected metropolitan 22 years later, in 1986, he told everyone at his first Synod that ‘Соборность, Catholicity, is over, now I am in charge’. Archbp Antony of Geneva, who had obtained just as many votes in 1986, but had refused to become metropolitan, told us the story when he got back from New York, with that ironic smile he had. Apparently, the CIA Bp Gregory Grabbe had even threatened to get the information about ‘the Brazilian’ out of the Synod safe against Archbp Vitaly – but that is another story for another time.

Well, here in Archbp Vitaly is an example of ‘Orthodox’ Papism, the alien and anti-Catholicity doctrine which is now followed by certain Patriarchs….though not by the saintly Patriarch Ilie of Georgia and the saintly Patriarch Pavle of Serbia.

CB: What do you think is the future of the divided Churches in the Ukraine and in Africa?

FA: I don’t know.

But I will say that through their infighting in Africa, the Russian Church (which has largely established its jurisdiction by recruiting 300 poor priests in Africa, simply by paying them $600 instead of the Greek $200 a month) and the nationalist Greek Church, which tries to make Africans into Greeks, have both lost the mass of Africans. They are both compromised. The Russian Church lost all sympathy for uncanonical Greek imperialism in the Ukraine by barging into Greek Alexandria’s canonical territory in the same uncanonical way. The only African country where the Greek Church has complete loyalty is Kenya, where Metropolitan Makarios (Tillyrides), my old friend from fifty years ago, is so respected.

And they have both lost Western Europe, for the same reason. And they have both lost what will remain of the Ukraine, where they have both made themselves hated. And Moscow is now losing Moldova for the same reason, treating Moldovans as second-class citizens, as Metropolitan Vladimir admitted to me at the Metropolia in Kishinev last October.

All is lost for the same reason, because they squabbled about someone else’s territory, like unashamed colonial imperialists. There is only one solution: when the bosses are incompetent and greedy, autocephaly must come. It is called decolonisation.

The Demographic Crisis

CB: Some predict that some countries in the world will die out because of rapidly declining birthrates, for example, in Italy and Germany and even more in Japan and South Korea. Do you think this is true?

FA: I was brought up on the UN myth of overpopulation – soon there would be so many people that the Earth would collapse. It was of course all nonsense. In the last half of the twentieth century that myth of overpopulation was commonly proclaimed. In fact, there is plenty for everyone, if only there is fair distribution of resources, and wars and injustices stop.

Now we often see the refusal to have children, which is causing the gradual decline in the birthrate in certain countries. This is the result of economic slavery, impossible lives, whereby both husbands and wives have to work very hard just in order to survive. The only thing that counts in secular culture is GDP, so all must work. And it is almost impossible to have a family with two hard-working wage-earners – in fact wage-slaves.

This is the result of the lack of respect for mothers and motherhood. And that comes in many Western societies in part from the Protestant rejection of veneration of the Mother of God. Consequently, there has been the conditioning, indoctrination and brainwashing of girls to make them think that they are boys. As a result, they cannot cope with having children and also gender confusion has ensued. Put simply, the world will die out only if family life is made impossible. And that is what they are trying to do, though they have not succeeded in this.

As you know, it is also the Orthodox world where birthrates are declining very rapidly, partly because of the dreadful situation and the millions of deaths in the Ukraine, but birthrates in Russia, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece are also only about 1.5 children per woman and going down. The time will come when the Orthodox population of the world will decline from 200 million to 150 million. It is suicide.

CB: Thank you, Father. Your words about the lack of respect for mothers and motherhood are close to my heart.

High Suffolk, May-June 2026

Published: All Saints Sunday, 7 June 2026

The Benckendorff Papers (2): The Follies of Empire

An Interview with Count Benckendorff

 Two years ago you interviewed me and my wife and published those interviews under the title The Benckendorff Papers, illustrating the brochure with photos from our home, with our permission. Our project now is to set up a small Russian Orthodox chapel in the garden with your help, though we also want to include some local saints there.

Now we wanted to interview you, Father. The last two years have3 seen so many events. I would like to ask you about political matters, the Countess would like to ask about the Church and other matters, but you will have to come back for that..

Personal

Count Benckendorff: My first question is general – where do you get your ideas and insights from?

Fr Andrew: It is perhaps embarrassing to admit it, but the truth is that any good ideas, if there are any, come when I am not thinking, but when I am asleep. They are sent to me. They are not my thoughts. I regularly have to get up in the night and write thoughts down, which is why I have always kept paper and pen next to my bed. This is the proof that it is bad to think, or in Griboyedov’s Russian expression, ‘grief comes from thinking’ – горе от ума!

CB: How many people did our parishe4s lose when we transferred from ROCOR to the Western European Archdiocese of the Moscow Patriarchate in August 2021?

FA: We lost six Russians who were nationalists and used to come to church about once a month, in part to speak Russian to one another. And we also lost a couple with four children, who were new converts with more zeal than knowledge, who then led their children into the ROCOR schism.

Almost exactly six months later, in February 2022, the Moscow Patriarchate, where we had been, was forced by political pressure to give us a canonical release for the Romanian Patriarchate. This was eight days before the SMO began in the Ukraine. As you know, here we continue exactly as before as refugees, on the old calendar, in the Russian way, but with about 200 new parishioners, mainly Moldovans and Ukrainians, and, above all, free of politics, from Moscow, the CIA and Constantinople. And our Moldovan bishop, whose surname is Rusnak, speaks much better Russian than the old ROCOR bishop!

The Follies of Empire

CB: Let us get on to politics. Has Trump accelerated the decline of the West?

FA: The West has been attempting suicide ever since 1914. The process accelerated greatly after 1939 with the second European attempt at tribal suicide. In 2014, 100 years after the first attempt, the third attempt started. Trump is merely a stage in this third attempt, Trump or no Trump.

Arguably, under Biden the decline accelerated even more quickly than it has under Trump. After all, Trump’s slogan is MAGA. Now, if you have to make American great again, that means that it is already no longer great. If the slogan was KAG, Keep America Great, that would be different. But that is not the slogan. Western Europe’s decline began in 1914, that of the USA, arguably, began in 1975, with its defeat in Vietnam and is ending in Iran, where Trump foolishly thought he could weaken China, destroy BRICS, take revenge for Iran’s liberation from the US puppet regime in Iran in 1979, please the powerful Israel lobby in Washington and, perhaps, keep the rest of the Epstein Files out of public view.

The failure of America to destroy Russia through the battering ram of the Ukraine, which Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden began, is America’s Retreat from Moscow. Its failure to destroy Iran, which began in 1979, is America’s Waterloo. Such are the Follies of Empire.

CB: We of course know Russia and the Ukraine very well. Who do you support in the war?

FA: Do I support a group of Nazi atheist nationalists, who venerate Hitler and his 50,000 Ukrainian SS collaborators, who murdered hundreds of thousands of Poles, Jews and Russians, or do I support a group of Communist atheist nationalists, who venerate the mummy of Lenin and his Russian Bolshevik collaborators, who murdered 700,000 Soviet citizens? The answer is neither. There is no Holy Rus here on either side. I do not and cannot venerate Death, which is the flag and ideology of both Lenin and Hitler, of both Communists and Nazis.

In 2014 the US neocons installed their Nazi Galician junta in Kiev, who then sold off huge chunks of the Ukraine to US Agribusiness like Cargill and Blackrock for billions and enforced Ukrainian as the State language. Yet 83% of Ukrainians speak Russian as their first language; a situation similar to that here in Wales, where most people speak English as their first language and most do not even speak Welsh. Let us not talk about Holy Rus here.

As for Russia, Holy Rus died there in the appalling Russian betrayal of its own Tsar in 1917. Only a few crumbs survived inside Russia and in the emigration outside Russia, so let us not talk about Holy Rus here either.

As you know from your own life in Kiev, modern Ukrainians are just as little Orthodox as modern Russians, both with their mass abortions, declining birthrates, divorces (‘Orthodox’ Kiev is a world centre for surrogacy and prostitution) and all the rest. The only difference is that one regime is pro-Communist, the other is pro-Nazi. It is a Soviet-Nazi war, the end of the unfinished Second World War.

This is a war that common sense says is unnecessary. As you know, I have been to both countries frequently. Put simply, I would tell the Ukrainian proxies and their Western puppeteers: Don’t poke the bear, even if you do not like Russia and find it oppressive, it is still a bear, far bigger than you. It is very foolish for a small and poor country, ruled by Zionist oligarchs, like the Ukraine, to take on the fourth largest economy in the world, which has the world’s best-armed and best-trained army and an endless amount of arms, both traditional and very sophisticated. Use diplomacy. Negotiate unless you want to be killed.

The fault here is with the Western sponsors of Kiev, who have constantly refused to talk and have ‘cancelled’ Russia as ‘subhuman’, just as the Nazis called all Slavs ‘Untermenschen’. The West openly says that its task is ‘to Yugoslav’, that is, to destroy, Russia through divide and rule, just as Hitler’s task was. Therefore, Russia has in turn cancelled the aggressive and hateful Western elite, turned its back on Europe and become Eurasian, facing China, Iran, North Korea.

Today 70% of the cars in Moscow are Chinese. That says a lot; the West has lost Russia and its markets for ever. Emperor Peter’s ‘window on Europe’ was closed by the West after 300 years and Russia was fed up with the draught anyway. Wars happen because people want them to happen and the West wanted this one to happen. Too many people in the West are still making too much money out of this war to want to stop it.

CB: To your knowledge, is the Russian economy suffering from the war in the Ukraine? What annoys everyone we know is the shutting down of Whatsapp and other social media channels by President Putin, rather than anything else.

FA: My friend the economist Sergei Glaziev is optimistic, though I think he should have been appointed head of the National Bank, and not Nabullina. And I can’t see any real suffering to the economy because of the war. The whole world wants to buy Russian national resources, wheat and technology. Apparently, Russian national debt is still only about 16% of GDP (and it is going down thanks to the US, which has doubled the price of oil and gas by attacking Iran, and Russia is selling oil and gas in huge quantities to Western Europe through India, as well as to Asia).

The European elite is financing the Kiev regime by getting even further into debt, which in most Western countries is well over 100% of GDP. The Ukraine went bankrupt in 2022. Russian military spending is 7% of GDP, the Ukraine’s is something over 40% and its teachers and pensioners are paid only by Western money, not to mention its millions of emigrants to Western Europe, many of whom are fed by Western social security systems. Look at the facts.

CB: Why do you think the Russian victory in the Ukraine has been so slow?  We both thought it would end in early 2025.

FA: I would not use the word ‘victory’ here. In wars everyone is a loser. Parts of ‘liberated’ eastern Ukraine are in ruins. The Russian Army has only ‘liberated’ the ruins created by both sides. Where is the victory here? Real victory can only come with a just and therefore long-lasting peace, which accommodates both sides. This is unlike the injustices that happened at Versailles in 1919, which made a second round of war inevitable. And the injustices of 1945 made today’s third round of war also inevitable.

The real solution in the Ukraine, and everywhere else in the former USSR, has never been in war, but has always been in self-determination. Let the people choose which country, and also which Local Church, they want to belong to, and then redraw the borders. However, that goes against imperialism, that of the US, and of Kiev and Moscow (and that of the Russian Church), all of which want to impose by force. The Follies of Imperialism always go against the interests of the peoples.

If only Russia had taken Kiev in the first weeks of the conflict in early 2022 and changed the Nazi regime there for a democratic regime, then perhaps self-determination could have been implemented. So-called ‘Ukrainians’ could have been allowed by internationally-observed referendum in each province (as had happened in the Crimea in 2014) to return to Russia (as before 1922), or to return to Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Belarus (as before 1939). What would have been left after that would have been the real Ukraine, Kievan Rus, a free country, neither an American, nor a Russian colony, with its own people, language and culture, and its Church granted autocephaly. Instead of that, we have imperialism, tragedy and well over a million dead.

In February 2022 the British Secret Service at GCHQ predicted that the war in the Ukraine would last two to three weeks. So much for ‘intelligence’ services. Following the prophecy of Elder Iona of Odessa, I originally thought that it would end in 2024. I was wrong, I misinterpreted. The former Defence Minister Shoigu said 2025. He too was wrong. How can we explain that the war is now in its fifth year?

Firstly, some would say that the length of the war has been caused by Russian naivety, weakness and incompetence. That is certainly part of it. President Putin admitted his extreme naivety at Western duplicity between 2014 and 2022.

His naivety reminds me of that of the Tsar’s government in 1914. It made the very naïve error of attacking German Prussia, under pressure from France and Britain. These were the two countries which had invaded Russia in 1854 and which stabbed Russia in the back in 1917 by betraying their best friend, the Tsar, and so ensuring that the Bolsheviks came to power and then bled the Russian Empire. Russia’s argument was with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, not with Germany.

Some say that Russia should have taken Kiev back in 2014, or at least in 2022. Weakness, incompetence? I do not know, but they must also play a part. Several Russian generals were imprisoned for corruption.

Secondly, there is the fact that by April 2022, Russia was no longer fighting the Ukrainian regime, but the whole of NATO and its completely militarised EU. Ukrainians, ‘to the last one’, had to die as proxies, but with huge amounts of NATO money, arms and tens of thousands of mainly NATO mercenaries. That stretched everything out much longer, as this became a war of attrition against NATO, leaving Russia with huge amounts of NATO arms to destroy. That takes time.

The Western technique is to outsource its wars, to toss others into the fires it starts. As far as it is concerned, the dying must be done by Ukrainians, and if they are willing, Poles (over 10,000 dead NATO Poles so far), the Baltics, Georgians (they refused), Romanians and Moldovans (also refusing) and now they are trying to recruit the Armenians to die for them.

Thirdly, some say that President Putin is going so slowly in order to save the lives of Russian soldiers, of whom at least 200,000 have already died or been seriously injured. Perhaps that is true. After all, the Ukrainians have lost nearly 2,000,000 killed and seriously injured, as they sadistically use their troops as Soviet-style cannon fodder.

Fourthly, there is the question of strategy. The original Russian aims never were to occupy the Ukraine, but to liberate the Russian eastern part of the Ukraine from the ongoing genocide there by Kiev and to demilitarise and denazify the Ukraine. Instead, as a result of the Russian failure not to regime-changing Kiev at the outset which brought further NATO aggression, it is having to demilitarise and denazify the whole of the West, that is, the whole of NATO.

And some say that for the denazification of the West to happen, Russia will have to wait for the Western peoples to overthrow their US-imposed, Globalist elites, formed by the cocaine-sniffing, pedophile or pervert Nazi Epstein Syndicate. That is taking many years. Since 2003 and the French and German refusal to invade Iraq, the US has replaced the French and German elites with US-trained elites, who form the Epstein Syndicate, as also in Moldova, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, the Baltics etc. (The British elite has been in the US pocket since 1956). The US regime-change/elite replacement programme failed only in Slovakia and Hungary. You can always tell where the regime-changed – the new US elites all speak fluent English, like Macron and Merz, Sandu and Tusk.

CB: When will the war end?

FA: Who knows? President Putin has said ‘soon’. This year? What do I know? Though, if I can be ironic, it is said that no European war can end until Italy, and most Eastern European countries, have changed sides, and the UK has gone bankrupt. The latter happened in 1916, which caused the British to betray Russia and sell Palestine, all in order to get help from Zionist bankers and issue the Balfour Declaration in 1917, and then in 1941, which caused the half-American Churchill to sell out Britain to the US. Today it is happening again. So maybe we are not far off.

CB: Why has the British government been so Russophobic? I mean, it invented Litvinenko and then Salisbury, long before the Military Operation began in 2022.

FR: The Russophobia of the British Establishment began in 1814 when Russia defeated Napoleon and then liberated Paris. The ensuing jealousy and panic at a strong Russia resulted in the Anglo-French invasion of Russia in 1854, the Victorian invention of ‘the Great Game’, the British-financed Japanese War against Russia in 1904-5, the British-orchestrated overthrow of the Tsar in 1917, which backfired and brought the Bolsheviks to power, and then Churchill’s 1945 Operation Unthinkable, which was a proposed Anglo-US-Nazi invasion of the USSR.

I have the impression that the Western Europe elite, especially the German, wants revenge for the Soviet victory over Nazism in 1945. This is because they are all basically ideological Nazis, as we can see in all the recent British Prime Ministers. For the British elite, it is all about revenge for not routing Russia in 1856, at the end of the so-called Crimean War, and then jealousy. The British Establishment lost its Empire, so the Russians must suffer. The Establishment are bad losers, for they lost the Great Game which they invented.

CB: I think you agree that the vice of the British is hypocrisy, double standards. What do you think is the vice of Russians? You can be honest with me!

FA: It is the untranslatable Russian word ‘Хамство’, ‘Khamstvo’. For Non-Russian readers, this means great rudeness, but even more than that, it is self-centredness, abruptness, breathtaking contempt for others, arrogance, ignorance and a feeling of racist superiority. Khamstvo is why Russia is today hated by the western Ukrainians, Balts and Poles.

Like everything else, Khamstvo existed before 1917, but it developed greatly under the Soviet system, after the murder or expulsion of the old White Russian cultural elite. For example, as you will recall, in the USSR a good job was considered one where you could steal a lot from your employer. Since the Soviet State had stolen everything from the people, the people considered that they had the right to steal back. ’Normal’, as the Soviet word says.

You see it in people like Fr Andrei Tkachov, the anti-woman Ukrainian priest, now much promoted in Moscow, who upsets people with his sweeping generalisations and insults issued on TV. He has no idea of tact and diplomacy and justifies himself by saying that he is just ‘frank’. He can only see black and white. There are many poorly-educated priests like that. That sort of priest is a bully and you see in Russian churches how they make women cry at confession and during sermons and seem to enjoy punishing others. A little power makes these people crazy. We had one such Russian convert priest here a few times some years ago. A very jealous type, he made two women cry, so I asked him not to confess any more. Thank goodness he left.

As you know, in Russian you even have a verb for the ‘Хам’, the rude person, which is ‘Хамить’. To translate it as ‘to be very rude’ does not even begin to express the idiocy of it. A typical such person is a Russian driver who in heavy rain soaks pedestrians by driving fast, near the pavement. Such people have absolutely no consideration for others. So it is not just extreme rudeness, but thoughtlessness, lack of any culture, being badly brought up, the ‘I spit on you’ attitude as in the Russian expression: Мне наплевать.

Another example was a friend in Odessa in 2017. A woman who had been going to church all her life, she had broken her right hand, which she had in a sling. She went to church and made the sign of the cross with her left hand. A typical ‘Kham’, who knew nothing about Church life, shouted to her rudely, swearing at her, and told her how to make the sign of the cross properly with her right hand. And then there is the old woman, the babushka, who seems to guard the entrance to every Russian church, so she can curse badly-dressed visitors who come in. It is all Khamstvo. ‘Без предел’, no limits, as you say.

This was also the attitude of the Stalinist State and I have seen senior Russian bishops do it as well. You know the sort who behave as feudal lords and have brought three priests in Russia to suicide in the last year alone. If the British are hated for their hypocrisy and resulting perfidy, the Russian Church has committed suicide through its ‘Khamstvo’ everywhere, inside and outside Russia, above all in the Ukraine. Most of its bishops have made themselves hated.

CB: What do you think will happen to China and Taiwan, given US preoccupations elsewhere?

FA: Taiwan will one day return to China, probably quite naturally, without military means, which is what over 50% of the Chinese in Taiwan want anyway. Taiwan has been part of China for millennia. The so-called ‘Taiwanese’ are Chinese. The nationalism of some in Taiwan is petty and artificial (how can you be loyal to a country that is not real, like Taiwan, Belgium or for those who live in the east of the Ukraine to the Ukraine?). Economically, Taiwan already depends on China anyway.

 

 

The following was written in 2021 about Metr Antony )Bloom), who tonsured me reader in January 1981. This was all long before the developments in Hungary and this wekkend’s in the Czech Republic, which should surprise nobody who knew the obvious weaknesses of the Metropolitan, long before he became a Metropolitan. However, in fairness, it should be said that the young Bishop Hilarion’s stereotypical and very foolish errors, which Christ warned about in the Gospel, have been repeated by so many other bishops, not least in ROCOR…. 

How did Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh relate to Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev?

December 3, 2021

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh and Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev knew each other and even served together for some time (130 days) in the Sourozh Diocese in England, London. At that time, unrest arose in the diocese, known as the “Sourozh crisis.”

At first, Metropolitan Anthony very much wanted a competent priest to be sent to him from Russia (the Sourozh Diocese in England is under the Moscow Patriarchate).

He addressed this request to Kirill Gundyaev, who at that time was Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad and chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate (DECR MP). The Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’ then was Alexy II (Ridiger).

Metropolitan Anthony had heard many good things about Hilarion Alfeyev. He had an impressive résumé. Alfeyev received a Doctor of Philosophy degree from Oxford University and a Doctor of Theology degree from the Paris St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute. He authored more than 150 publications on theological and church‑historical topics, as well as translations of the works of the Church Fathers from Greek and English. He became a bishop at the age of 33. At an audience with Pope John Paul II, he sharply criticized the activities of the Catholic Church on the “canonical territory” of the Russian Orthodox Church. Thus, Alfeyev was knowledgeable, educated, bold, and familiar with foreign culture.

For these reasons, Metropolitan Anthony assumed that such a person was exactly what the Sourozh Diocese needed. He asked that Bishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk be sent to the diocese. His request was granted.

But soon Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh realised that he had been mistaken about Hilarion Alfeyev, having failed to take into account some very important and subtle points that he learned only later. A conflict arose — and a serious one.

What did Metropolitan Anthony see?

When Bishop Hilarion arrived — young, educated, and ambitious — on the very first day Metropolitan Anthony spoke with him heart‑to‑heart, with care.

In the conversation he heard from Hilarion a phrase that deeply wounded him. Alfeyev said to Metropolitan Anthony: 

“When hands were laid on me at my consecration, I felt that I was now a bishop and THAT I HAD POWER.”

The experienced and spiritually wise pastor Anthony of Sourozh was horrified by these words. All his life he firmly believed that Orthodox Christian pastors are called to serve people, to care for them, not to wield power. 

For Christ Himself says in the Gospel of Mark:

“Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.” Mark 9:35.

And here he heard — sensed in the motives of his interlocutor’s soul — something opposite to Christ, anti‑Christian: power vs. love.

It seems that the young Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev did not want to listen to Metropolitan Anthony’s guidance, did not want to become his spiritual child, nor to absorb the spirit and culture of the Sourozh Diocese, which Anthony of Sourozh had lovingly cultivated for 53 years.

Hilarion Alfeyev began traveling around the diocese and introducing a “new culture.” In the Sourozh Diocese there was a tradition of conducting services both for the English‑speaking population (in English) and for the Russian‑speaking population of England. There was no hostility between these groups; on the contrary, peace and good‑neighbourliness were cultivated and maintained as true Christian values.

Metropolitan Anthony was called “the apostle of love,” because for him the most important thing in ministry was fulfilling Christ’s commandment: “Love one another.”

Hilarion Alfeyev began pursuing a policy of dividing the English and Russian flock, trying to make the diocese strictly “for Russians in England,” national in character. He decided to close existing parishes and Eucharistic communities and open new parishes instead. Overall, he acted like a young ambitious bishop who did not want to understand or accept the spirit and traditions of the diocese so carefully and patiently built by Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh. 

Metropolitan Anthony pointed out to Bishop Hilarion that his activities and the form they were taking were incompatible with the spirit and life of the Sourozh Diocese. He asked him to return to Moscow, where he could apply his considerable talents more constructively than in the Sourozh Diocese. He explained everything calmly and humbly, with respect.

But in his decision, the Metropolitan was firm. 

There was even a threat that if Hilarion did not leave the diocese, the Sourozh Diocese would break from Moscow and enter the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (this position was promoted by Bishop Basil Osborne, who, as an American, disliked the strictness of Moscow’s administration).

The threat worked. Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev was recalled from the Sourozh Diocese. For him, those 130 days were among the most difficult in his career.

He continued to serve successfully in the Russian Orthodox Church and expresses his ambitions in the tasks entrusted to him. He advanced in his career, becoming a metropolitan. He is not indifferent to ecclesiastical career advancement — perhaps even very interested in it. Some say that in the future he is one of the likely candidates for the position of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’, the successor to the current Patriarch Kirill. Anything is possible.

On the Spiritual Disease of Narcissism

What is NPD?

Narcissism is technically known as NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In previous times, narcissists were simply called vain, self-admiring or simply selfish, however we now know that such vanity can be a pathology, not mere vanity, but narcissism. And today the whole world knows what NPD is, thanks to President Trump. Personally, I have come across nineteen clear-cut cases. Two of these are well-known from history: Hitler and Trump (though that list could be extended to nearly every ‘great’ political or military leader in history, from Alexander the Great to the President of France), the other sixteen I have come across in life.

Of these remaining seventeen, four were bishops, three belonging to ROCOR (the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) of different nationalities, two were priests (neither was ROCOR), whose wives had wretched lives, indeed one drank herself to death, then there was a son’s employer, a friend’s father and sister, a friend’s wife, and the seven others I have come across in life. I have only known two of these cases very well. Both are still alive. One of these I met 47 years ago and the other I met in 2017. In the second case, I immediately knew who I was dealing with, from the experience that I had had with the first case. Thus, I knew exactly who Trump was from the experience with those two.

Where Does Narcissism Come From?

Narcissism stems from a disordered childhood, it is the spoilt brat syndrome, and the narcissist can be created by the mother, by the father, or by both. Narcissists can be male or female, probably to an equal degree. Today, when fewer and fewer women are full-time mothers and instead go out to work, there are more and more female narcissists, created by the workplace. Such is equality.

Most narcissists are heterosexuals. Some are homosexuals, like Oscar Wilde, a monster created by his mother (see The Portrait of Dorian Gray). And we all now know the American case of one who is a pedophile. A disordered childhood means that they search for affection, in their case this means they search for fame and money. However, their toxic personalities mean that they do not get affection and they always end up isolated and are depressed about their isolation. Theirs is a trap inside a vicious circle.

How Many Narcissists Are There and Who Are They?

Psychiatrists say that as many as 1 in 100 is a narcissist. This may be true, though I think the number of really pathological cases is fewer. But we should be careful of cultures which spoil their children, which is what creates narcissists. This is regardless of whether those cultures are rich or poor.

Narcissism has been much encouraged by today’s media and social media culture. Many television presenters and ‘celebrities’ are toxic narcissists, as are careerists and the wealthy, including aristocrats, oligarchs, politicians and successful businessmen (and that includes bishop-businessmen). How those ‘princes of the church’ love adulation and money and how they preen their personal appearance!

Facebook, Tik-Tok and Instagram are full of narcissists, who are much attracted to doing podcasts, which can sometimes become vehicles for personality cults and gurus. ‘Look at me! I am an influencer!’ The female narcissist wants a perfect body (the key to money from foolish males). Modern cosmetics, facelifts, implants, silicon, make this possible, though often with disastrous and deeply saddening consequences. The male narcissist simply wants power, to control the souls of others.

Power: The Food of Narcissists

The worst thing that you can do for a potential narcissist is to give him more power. This is his food. (Many a deacon has remained a deacon, when the bishop realised his mistake nearly in time, others were ordained priests or even bishops with catastrophic consequences). Unfortunately, some limited power can be obtained very simply through marriage or from being a parent. Thus, the classic case of a narcissist is that of the marriage-wrecking mother or mother-in-law: ‘My son is too good for you’.

However, men can become narcissists by getting married and then lording it over their wife and children, who become their unwilling victims. Children develop narcissism through being allowed to bully at school. Here we should recall that bullies are always cowards. If you have the guts to stand up to them, they will run away. Their bubble burst.

Narcissists are common in the workplace. There is always one. Men or women may obtain positions of power in their professions and become vampires, sucking the blood of their victims. The best advice I have ever heard vis-a-vis narcissists is – Run! And run as far as possible. I have known three cases where people actually changed countries and even continents in order to avoid narcissistic parents, making sure that the parent did not know where they went to live.

The victims of narcissists are always financially or psychologically dependent, weak, naïve, idealistic and sycophantic yesmen. The ‘Church narcissist’ likes to set up a personality cult, playing at the guru. The narcissist here uses his psychological manipulations, known as gaslighting, to deceive and exploit his victims, often very idealistic people, and hides behind his mask of ‘piety’, which the naïve cannot see through. This always ends up very, very badly, in scandals and disenchantments, though it takes time.

Gaslighting: Psychological Transfer

Narcissists are never to blame for anything, never at fault, they are incapable of taking responsibility. ‘Not my fault’ is their slogan. Others are always to blame. In Russia we have come across three cases of priests who committed suicide under pressure from narcissistic bishops whose self-appointed task was to extract money from them. The priests could not take the pressure.

Most notoriously there was the case of ‘Rev’ Jim Jones in 1978 (over 900 dead at his command), though many a Protestant ‘televangelist’ is similar. Narcissists always transfer their own faults to others, making then feel pathologically guilty, and accusing the others of their own faults! One example was that of a bishop-thief, who always accused others of being thieves – simply because they refused to bow to his extortionate demands for ever more money! This is called transfer.

No Rules

Narcissists have no rules. Thus, Trump says that he obeys no rules, because he only obeys his conscience. The problem is that his conscience is asleep. Thus, he has no time for international law, US law, the Congress, he disrespects and insults all and behaves as a dictator. Like so many kings and presidents he is above the law, rules by Divine right, immune to the law, and is prone to megalomania. Surely Napoleon was also a narcissist? In cases of bishops, they have no time for the Church laws, the canons. As one very young ROCOR bishop told me, ‘we bishops are above the canons!’  In other words, all these people are literally ‘a law unto themselves’. They also twist the canons in whatever way they want in order to justify their misbehaviour.

Side by side with this, narcissists are prone to extreme jealousy and rages. None can be as good as them and rage comes when others are more popular than they are or they are contradicted by the facts. (Trump versus Obama, for example). These rages are those of psychopaths. Narcissists are certainly capable of violence through rage. The rages of Hitler are well-known. And we all know the raging tantrums of spoilt children, the classic cases of ‘throwing the toys out of their pram’, and that of the playground/schoolyard bully. Threats and attempts to intimidate – that is how narcissistic bishops behave. Narcissists are always bullies. If you are married to one, divorce them or else see your life ruined.

They Love Themselves

Narcissists by definition are in love with themselves. ‘I love me’, as one of them actually said to me, and that must be their slogan. They punish those who resist them very harshly, sadistically. Above all, jealous narcissists hate empaths, as they are rivals, who upset their competitive spirit – empaths are popular without trying. Narcissists are never popular. Many a saint has been an empath, from St Chad of Mercia in the seventh century to St Seraphim of Sarov in the nineteenth, but St Nicholas and St Spyridon are perhaps the best-known empath-saints. The greatest empath of all is Christ, as He is Love. And the greatest narcissist of them all is Lucifer, the Devil, as He is Hatred. He fell precisely because he admired his own beauty. Hell is full of unrepentant narcissists.

Narcissists have no love for others, they are dried up, loveless crusts. The best definition of them was given by the Apostle Paul in Chapter 13 of his first letter to the Corinthians:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profits me nothing. Love suffers long, and is kind; love envies not; love vaunts not itself, is not puffed up. It does not behave itself unseemly, seeks not its own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil.

 

A Call to Repentance: On Overcoming the Imperialism that is Alien and Divisive to the Church

Foreword: Superiority versus Humility

Ever since Cain and Abel the world has been divided into strong and weak, between those who consider that Might is Right and those who believe in justice and righteousness. The real revolution in world history here was the coming of Christ and His giving of the Beatitudes, which turned Cain’s law of the jungle upside down. However, for a thousand years now, the elite of one Civilisation, the Western, has proclaimed its superiority over all others and implemented its belief through multiple acts of violence, both locally and globally. This obsession with superiority is clearly in contradiction with the Christian Gospel of love for our neighbour and humility, despite their claims.

Introduction: Fukuyama versus Huntingdon

After the economic and then political collapse of the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991, two schools of US geopolitical thought emerged. Firstly, there was Francis Fukuyama, who proclaimed that the Soviet collapse was ‘the end of history’ – the Triumph of the West, since the whole world would now apparently adopt the ‘superior’ Western ways, ‘the West is Best’ and ‘the Rest’ would have to slavishly follow. On the other hand, the conservative academic Samuel Huntingdon pessimistically declared that now there would be a ‘Clash of Civilisations’ and that the West would have to reinvigorate its decadent self in the new world, if it were to survive.

Fukuyama’s thesis was clearly wrong, but was Huntingdon’s civilisational clash inevitable? Clearly, it was unnecessary, but sadly, and credit is due to the prophetic Huntingdon here, clashes caused by the hubristic and therefore unreinvigorated West are what have happened. At present, there is a first armed clash between the West and Russia in the Ukraine and a second armed clash between the West and Iran. And apart from that, there are tensions between the West and China in Taiwan, between the West and Latin America in Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela, and between the West and Africa, especially in former French colonies like Mali and Niger.

Two Local Orthodox Churches Contaminated by Geopolitics

It is as a result of this geopolitical background that the life of the sixteen Local Orthodox Churches has also been contaminated and overshadowed by the aggressive conflict between two of them, which are now in schism with one another. This conflict is the result of extremist clerical tendencies and the vain, but divisive attempts to try and dominate the other fourteen Churches on the part of both de facto schismatic groups. The two warring Local Churches at the heart of this problem are the Russian Patriarchate of Moscow and the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople. What are possible solutions for their future healing? Surely this schism cannot last much longer?

First of all, we must understand that the problems in both Local Churches are symptomatic of the wider problems in both their secular societies, which sadly have been reflected in their Church life. Both sets of problems were caused specifically by the former Russian and Greek Empires and their spirit of Imperialism which tried to dominate other races and which made the words, ‘Soviet’ and ‘Hellenism’, into dirty words among Non-Russians and Non-Greeks. Thus, the problems of Russian society are largely caused by Soviet imperialism, though that problem originated in the 200-year Imperial enslavement of the Church, even before Sovietisation under Stalin.

Similarly, the problems of Greek society, in Constantinople, Greece, corrupt Greek Cyprus and in the Greek Diaspora, are the result of intensive American Imperialism. Thus, all Greek Patriarchs since 1948 and all Greek politicians since the 1950s, and not only the Fascist Colonels of the 1960s, have been puppets of the US Deep State. This is also true of NATO Greek Cyprus, 40% of whose land was invaded by NATO Turkey, without the US lifting a finger to protect it. (Some say that the UK is at fault here; indeed, it was originally at fault, but now its two military bases in Cyprus are slavishly operated only for the US to bomb Israel’s Middle Eastern enemies).

The Patriarchate of Moscow desperately needs destalinisation, of which it is the last museum, that is, it needs liberating from its Russian nationalist centralisation, with its catastrophic failure to grant autocephaly to Non-Russian Churches. This has made Moscow detested in the Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltics and in the Diaspora. Moscow’s militaristic (Stalinist?) and anti-lay clericalism, ritualism, episcopal taxes and bureaucracy are detested. Only by ridding itself of these Non-Christian attitudes can the Russian Orthodox Church be restored, as it was before it was made into a mere department of State, both of the Imperial State and then of the Soviet State.

As part of official delegations to the Russian Church in 2007 and then in 2012, I was shocked to see the potential degeneration in just five years then. In 2007 all was still possible. After the fall of the USSR, freedom had come and the faithful enthusiastically took up building and rebuilding churches, learning to sing. This was the People’s Church. By 2012, all had been put under central control and censorship, professionalised and clericalised. The old enthusiasm was going. People gave up trying: they could not fight against Church officialdom, who made them cry. Archpastors had been replaced by Archpoliticians. This was no longer the Church of the People.

The very term ‘Patriarchate of Moscow’ is a Soviet, or rather Stalinist, term. Therefore it has negative connotations among all Non-Russian peoples, in the Ukraine, the Baltics, Moldova and among lifelong Orthodox faithful in the Diaspora, who experience Moscow as a Persecuting Church. Let it be replaced as the ‘Patriarchate of New Jerusalem’, its headquarters transferring to the New Jerusalem Monastery outside Moscow. All parts of the Russian Church, including its Lutheran-style New York Synod, should return to canonical communion with all the Local Churches, to the catholicity of the Church, as an equal, thus overcoming nationalist domination, schism and the sect.

In the same way, the Patriarchate of Constantinople desperately needs deamericanising, that is, it needs liberating from its absurd hegemonic Papist ambitions, ecumenist secularism and indifference to the Church Tradition of the Holy Spirit. These have been reflected in it and imposed on it by its love for transatlantic dollars. Let Constantinople at last be reunited with the Greek Orthodox Church and transfer its administration to Greek Thessaloniki, near the benign influence of Mt Athos, returning to canonical communion with all the Local Churches, to the catholicity of the Church, as an equal, thus overcoming nationalist domination, schism and sectarianism.

Conclusion: Towards the New BRICS World

The New World of BRICS is all about building a worldwide Community of Nations, everything that the United Nations, with its inbuilt bias of three out of five nations on the Security Council being Western warmakers, never has been and never can be. This is also what the sixteen Local Orthodox Churches should also be – a Community. However, when Constantinople invaded Russian territory and Moscow cut off communion with it in 2018, that was hardly Communion. That the two Patriarchs refuse to take Communion together is their affair, but why involve all the bishops, let alone ordinary Greek and Russian pious priests and pious faithful, who have been scandalised?

All this is against the background of the collapsing US hegemon. The latter has refused to recognise the reality of its downfall, incompetence and inability to win any war, against the peasants of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, let alone against the advanced military technologies of Russia and Iran. Once it was ‘The West is Best against the Rest’. But today the Rest is grouping as BRICS, with ten full members and six partner countries, many who want to join, and three central members, the RIC: Russia, Iran and China – no longer India, which fell to Zionism and has now put itself on the fringes of BRICS, leaving Iran as the new moral leader of the Global South.

Afterword: A World Without the American and Soviet Empires

In other words, the Greek Orthodox world, just like the present Kiev puppet regime and its proxy soldiers, is losing America and American support. But equally today’s Russia is no longer Stalinist, despite the nostalgia of the elderly, including many bishops, as it is just one of many in BRICS. In other words, both the Soviet and the American imperialist mentalities belong to the past, and although not dead, they are dying. Ecclesiastical administrations, whether in Moscow or Constantinople, are to heed the fools for Christ, whose prophetic role is to call to repentance the rich and powerful, including rich, powerful bishops, who sinfully imagine that they are ‘princes of the Church’.

Unless you want your souls to die, let repentance begin!

 

Gleams of Hope for All Who Have Never Been British: The End of Western Domination and the Future of a Freed England

Introduction: The Rise and Fall of the West

What are the origins of ‘the West’, that is, of the mindset of those born in countries of Western Europe and English-speaking former colonies, who arrogantly decide that they are superior to all others and must dominate them and meddle in their affairs? Their mentality of superiority, at first racial and then ideological, first became apparent a millennium ago. The first obvious and visible symptoms of this spiritual disease were the ‘Crusades’ to the Holy Land, which set out in 1096.

However, decades before those clear acts of jihad, there were other less well-known acts of organised mass violence, also in fact Crusades, in Iberia, now Spain and Portugal, in southern Italy, to England in 1066, leaving 100,000 dead, and decades after 1096 came what were in fact other Crusades, to conquer Scotland, Wales, Ireland, then against the ‘Cathars’ in Albi and south-western France, followed by the Inquisition in Spain, and the Crusades of the Teutonic Knights against the Baltics and Russia.

All of these actions justified mass murder because they were done in the name of the Papacy. Thus, the West became and also continues to be a Crusading Society. For example, today Washington, just like the Papacy, unites the Collective West. Crusades are now done in the name of ‘freedom and democracy’ as ‘humanitarian interventions’ and the Jesuits have been replaced by NATO and the other monastic orders by NGOs. But whether in the Name of the Pope or of the US, it is the same mindset.

This mentality consists of the condescending imposition of alien values, arrogant meddling and self-justifying mass violence. Through today’s ‘Crusading’, called ‘Christian Zionism’, Western leaders have resisted, and isolated themselves, from the post-2008, multipolar world. They are still desperately and delusionally clinging to the sinking Titanic, listening to the last strains of the orchestra playing on the deck, instead of getting into the lifeboats, of which there are enough for all.

The Example of One Western Country: Today’s UK

The situation in today’s UK closely parallels that in other Western countries, where exactly the same transformations are under way for exactly the same reasons. For all are controlled by anti-democratic, cocaine-addled politicians, quite often sexual perverts and even pedophiles, who are appointed by Globalist oligarchs and their Zionist-controlled media. These form what is called ‘the Epstein class’. In England the specific political parties concerned are three old ones and two new ones.

The Dying Establishment Parties:

Conservatives: This is the ‘Cemetery Party’, mainly supported by old people who live in the past and still read daily newspapers. Can it survive until 2035?

Labour: This governing Party is mainly supported by the Metropolitan elite, the ‘champagne socialists’, who support the wealthy, anti-charismatic and incompetent, denationalised bureaucrat Starmer, who is the most hated man in the UK, not surprisingly as he hates all its peoples. He was only ever elected by 20% of the electorate and was appointed by the puppet-masters to take revenge on the people who voted for Brexit, which the Establishment is desperately trying to reverse.

Liberal Democrats: This is mainly supported by the upper middle-class, many of whom have second homes in France or villas in Tuscany or on Greek islands.

The New Parties

The Greens: This is mainly supported by the underclass, leftists and middle-class hippies. Its leader, a homosexual Jew who calls himself Zack Polanski (real name David Paulden), was slandered by the Labour Party as ‘an anti-semite’!

Reform: This is mainly supported by any patriot or social conservative, the working class, the lower middle class, farmers, the upper class, by anyone who is for Brexit or who does not know what ‘transgender’ and ‘pronouns’ mean.

The present situation with the three rapidly dying Parties and the two new ones is not at all the end of the British two-party system. This has alternated for a century between Conservative and Labour, Parties which today are anti-patriotic centre-right Globalist elitists and anti-patriotic centre-left Globalist elitists, thus forming the Uniparty. The simple majority system remains in England, but for Reform and Greens, and that unrepresentative system ensures that the democratic deficit remains.

Yes, the indistinguishable Conservatives and Labour have been replaced in England by the Greens and the Sovereignist Reform Party, but that is still only some 45% of the electorate. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been taken over by National Parties, Scottish, Welsh and, although without that specific name, Irish. Since, in reality, Reform is the English National Party, we have four National Parties amid the collapse of the century-old United Kingdom, to the joy of the great majority.

Conclusion: The New England

In East Anglia, Suffolk, North Essex, Norfolk, East Cambridgeshire, we have never had any sympathy with the imperialist activities of the foreign elite in London, carried out behind our backs. Most of us are still down to earth, literally, as two generations ago so many of us still worked on the land and still had ethnic roots and values. We have never been British. We are sovereign, we are the English. That is why we sympathise with other peoples, as they suffer in the same way from elites.

They suffer from the same alien metropolitan elites in their capitals, who oppress us all. We are the English and have wanted for nearly a millennium to see the restoration of Independent England. Let a Confederation of the Four Sovereign Nations, England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, be formed, called IONA, the Isles of the North Atlantic, a Confederation with an Ionan Capital on the Isle of Man, a four-part composite Ionan flag, Ionan embassies, Ionan Television, Radio, Games etc.

Sovereign Ireland, Scotland and Wales will restore their national identities. In Sovereign England, let London’s ‘Trafalgar Square’ be renamed ‘Alfred Square’ and ‘Nelson’s Column’ be renamed ‘Alfred’s Column’ in honour of King Alfred the Saint. The statue of Nelson can be sent to the Museum of the British Empire (the former British Museum), together with the statues of Roman Emperors, William the Bastard, Henry VIII, Cromwell, Rhodes, Churchill, Thatcher and all the other imperialist tyrants.

There will be plenty of space there, since British Empire loot will be returned to their owners in Greece, Egypt, Benin etc. (There is nothing English inside it). The statues on the four plinths in Trafalgar Square could be replaced by statues of Robin Hood, William Wilberforce, Princess Diana and Vera Lynn. London will remain the financial capital, so let there be a new English Capital in the geographical centre of England, in Atherstone in Warwickshire. Let England rise from the dead elite.

Let justice be done and a millennium of injustice be undone!

 

More on Fr Seraphim (Rose)

The latest article by Sergei Chapnin, Canonization and the Act of Betrayal,  https://publicorthodoxy.org/2026/05/11/canonization-and-the-act-of-betrayal/ highlights the catastrophic identity crisis of the new ROCOR. Having ejected the old traditional ROCOR priests (yet another one has left the tiny Western Europe Diocese, mainly staffed by converts and Moldovans, this time for South America), the latest crop of American bishops has no idea of what ROCOR was and is. The proposed canonisation process for Fr. Seraphim Rose (1934–1982), the first possible convert-saint of recent years, unlike the wonderful non-convert St Olga of Alaska. As Sergei, press officer of Patriarch Alexei II, who loved the old ROCOR ever since his visit to us in 1997, points out:

The decision to move toward Fr. Seraphim’s glorification forces ROCOR to confront the inner logic of his own ecclesiology—and it is precisely here that the Synod may already have stepped into a trap….I suggested that ROCOR is now opening the way to a political canonization, responding to a specific demand for ideological Orthodoxy in the contemporary American context.

Sergei refers here to the sectarian and schismatic ideology of the new, post-2017 ROCOR. He continues:

A church body that has severed itself from the ecclesiological horizon within which Fr. Seraphim understood truth, apostasy, and fidelity cannot quietly edit away the sharpest lines of his worldview and then glorify him as though no contradiction existed. In his own eyes, the present ROCOR would no longer obviously belong to the “genuine Holy Orthodoxy” of which he wrote. And if a church community has lost its own living bond with what he regarded as true Orthodoxy, then it has also lost the spiritual right to deliberate about his sanctity. In that light, a canonization carried out by the present ROCOR would appear, from within Fr. Seraphim’s own ecclesiological logic, not as a triumph of holiness, but as a cheap spectacle.

In 2021 we left the new schismatic American ROCOR after the old ROCOR had been assassinated by American converts. We duly returned to the Western European Archdiocese, from which we had been loaned in 1988, our 2007 mission to return ROCOR to canonical communion completed. When Metropolitan Jean was forced by Moscow career politicians to abandon us after fifty years of fidelity to the real Russian Orthodox Church, he issued us with letters of canonical leave, which took us at once to the Patriarchate of Romania. Unlike Russian bishops, Romanian bishops at once blessed our missionary work, did not try to steal our churches and even awarded us, not persecuted us, for resisting theological schism.

 

 

On Fr Seraphim (Rose)

We are not examining here whether the late Californian monk, Fr Seraphim (Rose), who in the 1960s joined the then Russian Orthodox Church in exile (ROCOR), was a saint or not. That is not our task and we are not qualified to do this. In the 1970s we always found his works logical and obvious, with common sense, opposed to ‘super correct’ fanaticism, but no more. I remember saying at the time that if you did not already know what he was writing, then you could not be a conscious member of one of the Orthodox Churches.

We cannot find proofs for or against his possible holiness. Perhaps God will reveal something and then all will be clear, one way or the other. Our task here is to examine why many members of the American Synod of Bishops, still called ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia), despite the fact that it has been almost completely Americanised and most of its bishops cannot even speak correct Russian, want to canonise him today. There are clear reasons for this which are to do with the Synod’s historic crisis of identity.

Now, all Local Orthodox Churches in Western countries are primarily composed of immigrants or exiles from Orthodox countries, from Romania, Greece, Russia, the Ukraine, Serbia, Bulgaria, Syria etc. However, unlike all others, ROCOR, founded after the 1917 ‘Russian Revolution’, no longer has a natural constituency. Normal Orthodox Russians, not many of whom live in Western countries, do not join the New York-based ROCOR, if they can join what they prefer, their own Moscow-based Church of present-day Russians.

The latter is nearly 200 times bigger than ROCOR. Some wonder why it bothers with such a small group abroad. The reason is political, as the Russian Patriarch told a Metropolitan-friend. The Moscow Church needs to be represented in the USA, ROCOR is good for that, even though ROCOR has in the last decade become increasingly strange, even to the point of schism. For reasons of State, Moscow has chosen to overlook that. However, behind the shield of Moscow, which alone gives ROCOR official canonicity, ROCOR has an identity crisis.

Originally a part of the pre-Revolutionary Russian Church, today its third, fourth, fifth and even sixth generations, few in number, hardly speak a word of Russian. Most Russians were assimilated generations ago and lost all interest in Russian Church life. This membership has been much supplemented by converts, who have no Russian origins, with the result that a once Russian Church has largely become an American Church. However, most converts join mainstream Orthodox groups. Why join a historical fragment, ROCOR?

Most American converts to Orthodoxy join their own Church, the OCA (Orthodox Church in America) or other US groups. However, ROCOR in the USA has attracted a niche group, or constituency, often called ‘crazy converts’. These are highly conservative and even pathological converts, apparently quite common in the USA and in California, though there are a few such people especially in other English-speaking countries, who are drawn to what is exclusive and anti-Protestant (ironically, most converts are Protestants).

Today, the American episcopate of ROCOR wants to canonise a convert, which is what Fr Seraphim (Rose) was. He will then be the saint of their converts, a self-justification for their schismatic behaviour and condemnation of all others, a kind of national flag, a unique and exclusive identity, which they hope will attract even more crazy converts. And they are necessary, as the old ROCOR Russian core is today growing ever smaller. However, it is pathological converts who have created the anti-woman and anti-family ethos of today’s ROCOR.

After its long-awaited submission to the Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church and so the restoration of full canonicity in 2007, ROCOR had the opportunity to merge with the Moscow-based Church and also contribute positively to the other Orthodox living in Western countries from the mainstream. Tragically, by 2017 ROCOR had turned its back on this God-given opportunity and turned inwards, cutting itself off from others, refusing concelebration and communion, openly supporting Trump’s Republican Party.

In choosing the uncanonical and politically-driven path of the Protestant sect and condemning other Orthodox like pharisees, taking their clergy without letters of leave, the American Synod has isolated itself and discredited itself. Its intention to canonise an American convert, a repentant homosexual, but who did then spend many years with a pedophile, has cast further doubt on it, already compromised by its links with the CIA. In any case, as regards a possible canonisation of Fr Seraphim Rose and after the war in the Ukraine is over, Moscow will have the last word.

 

 

Filioquism, the Last Crusade and the Post-Filioque World

Foreword: Might is Not Right

Throughout history there have always been those who believe that ‘Might is Right’, either individually or collectively. Big and powerful individuals, kings or bishops, have often bullied the small and weak. Big and powerful nations have often bullied small and weak nations. There are many examples in history, from the Persians, the Chinese, the Indian kingdoms, to Alexander the Great, the Romans, the Franks, the Aztecs, the Incas and African tribes who sold each other into slavery. However, the case of the barbaric European tribes who even made their rivalries and jealousies into ‘World Wars’ is unique. This is because those rivalries were institutionalised, made systematic, made into an ideology. It is this ideology, at first racist, then of beliefs, at first confined to one individual in Rome, then spread to millions, who share the ideology.

The Suicide of Filioquism

To cut off your nose to spite your face is an expression which means to harm yourself in an attempt to harm someone else. This expression defines the attitude of the European elite towards the Ukraine. It has fully supported the Neo-Nazi regime which the US installed in Kiev in 2014 despite isolating itself from the vast majority of the world diplomatically and morally, not to mention losing cheap Russia oil and gas, without which most European industry is going bankrupt. Why this self-harming obsession? It is all about justifying the elite’s millennial ideology of superiority over others. For them that is what ‘Europe’ means. For Europe is not for them a geographical understanding, but an ideological construct. They are mentally unable to look back to the Old Europe, before the barbarian Franks and Normans introduced Filioquism. What is this?

Filioquism

Filioquism, more recently known variously as Zionism, Trotskyism, Fascism, Nazism or Globalism, is the ideology that one ‘self-appointed’ group should reign supreme above all others. It is completely secular. Believing Jews do not accept Zionism, just as believing Christians do not accept ‘Christian Zionism’ (which is a contradiction in terms). We do not seek to build a paradise on earth (which is what Karl Marx, the apostate, atheist grandson of a rabbi, wanted), nor do we seek to force Christ to return to earth by destroying the planet in Armageddon (the prideful fantasy of self-righteous ‘Christian Zionist’ prigs), we seek the Heavenly Jerusalem. What is the origin of this heresy, that an elite should seek to build a paradise for itself in the form of an anti-spiritual dictatorship, regardless of whether it is called the USSR, the USA or Israel?

The origin of Zionism as an ideology is in the ‘filioque’, a system a millennium old, which claimed that the Holy Spirit does not govern humanity, as the Holy Spirit had been replaced by a man in Rome. That is the first thing that the abandonment of the Nicene Creed by Rome in 1014 led directly to, thus reviving and justifying pagan Roman emperor-worship. By the end of the eleventh century, in 1096, exactly 930 years ago, this novel substitution of the Holy Spirit by a supposedly Divinely-sanctioned earthly authority, known as ‘the filioque’, had spread to all that man’s followers. They launched ‘the Crusades’, acts of organised imperialist violence against ‘inferior’ neighbours. All who accepted this ideology were in fact ‘filioquised’, as they exalted themselves above all others, making themselves superior to all others.

The first ‘inferior’ neighbours of Western Europe to suffer were Jews, then Muslims and Orthodox Christians. These ‘Crusades’ slaughtered their way through Europe into West Asia, lasting almost 200 years, from 1096 until 1291, in the Holy Land and the surrounding lands. However, they had begun with other ‘Crusades’ which had slaughtered Muslims and Jews in the Iberian Peninsula, murdered Orthodox in southern Italy and launched the bloody invasion of England in 1066. After the ‘Crusades’ had begun, there were ‘Teutonic Crusades’, invading northern Russia. Although the crusades in Iberia and England were successful, the eastward crusading movements against the Holy Land and Russia failed. Thus, with the movements eastwards resisted by Islam and Orthodox Christianity, the failed West looked further westwards.

Specifically, the Frankish Spanish who had been successful in what is now Spain and Portugal, looked south-westwards, helped by a greedy and fanatical Italian merchant-explorer called Columbus. Having failed to liberate the earthly Jerusalem in the Holy Land, these self-appointed ‘infallible beings’ decided to create their own New Jerusalem in the New World. They created what is now Latin America, genociding, both consciously and unconsciously, its native peoples. As for the Norman elite, who had been successful in England, it looked north-westwards and the Anglo-Normans created what is now the USA and Canada, genociding, both consciously and unconsciously, its native peoples. Here is the origin of ‘Judeo-Christian Civilisation’, a phrase invented only in the last century to describe the Western mentality, which is Filioquism.

The Last Crusade

The Last Crusade of the ‘Judeo-Christians’ is that of the last Crusader State of Israel, founded by the Anglo-Norman elite. It succeeded the Crusader settler State established in the twelfth century. This State is now genociding native Palestinians, just as the first Crusaders genocided the local Muslims, the Spanish and Portuguese genocided the native peoples of Latin America, and the British, French and other Filioquist Europeans genocided the native peoples of Northern America. The settler State of Tel Aviv exists only through the finance and arms donated by the USA. It uses them to attempt to genocide Gaza, the West Bank, the Lebanon and Iran. But today the USA has been defeated in its war against Iran and has seen nearly all its bases in the Persian Gulf destroyed. It is in full retreat from West Asia, once called the Middle East.

Afterword: The Post-Filioque World

Today, the USA is not only in full retreat from West Asia, but also from Western Europe, from where it is withdrawing thousands of its troops, and from East Asia, which it has lost to the economic influence of China, as well as from Africa, which rejects European colonialism, from Latin America and even English-speaking Oceania. Russia, Iran and China are together freeing Eurasia, by defeating the US rogue state in the Ukraine, Iran and the Pacific rim, where US hegemony had since 1991 been unchallenged. India, and many others, will follow. Here is the New, Non-Zionist World, the Post-Filioque world, which says that it is the Holy Spirit that governs us, not those who falsely claim Divinely-sanctioned supremacy. Meanwhile, the filioquised Western media only deals in wishful thinking, not reporting the facts of this Post-Filioque New World.

 

 

NOTHING HAS CHANGED: ON THE RUSSIAN CLERGY ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION

From the Memoirs of St. Mardarije (Uskoković)

Fpr those who do not know the Russian Church and Russian history well, below is the key to everything. Having read it, you will understand why the Russian Revolution, with the brutal persecution of Russian Orthodox, carried out mainly by baptised Russian Orthodox, took place.

Mitred Archpriest Andrew Phillips

St Mardarije (Uskoković)

The future St. Mardarije (Uskoković) (1889–1935), the first Serbian bishop in the United States and Canada, spent more than ten years in Russia on the very eve of the revolutionary events that brought tragic and unprecedented trials to the Church. The uniqueness of the young Serbian hieromonk from Montenegro lay in the fact that during his years of study and service in Russia he interacted with a remarkably broad circle of public and ecclesiastical figures, from Volhynia and Kishinev to Kiev and St. Petersburg. As a vivid and exceptional personality, he was welcomed into various homes and circles and spoke extensively with bishops and other representatives of the Russian clergy. At the same time, he was always filled with ardent love for the Russian Church, Russia itself, its spirituality, history, and culture, to which he became deeply spiritually akin in the fullest sense.

Hieromonk Mardarije (Uskoković)

He began early to write and speak about various problems in society and Church life. It is possible that his judgments and actions were marked by a certain youthful fervour and naivety, but they were also entirely sincere. The young servant of the Church soon revealed a gift for preaching, which was especially appreciated by the Russian flock. Several collections and pamphlets by the future saint were published in Russia, and he himself took part in the Local Council of 1917–1918. As a man deeply immersed in Church life and personally acquainted with it from within, the future bishop wrote with pain about certain phenomena he observed.

It is interesting that the young hieromonk repeatedly expressed his views on the state of the Russian clergy and on relations between bishops and priests in private conversations with outstanding hierarchs and pastors of the Church in Russia. Many of them listened to his assessments with attention and interest; some agreed, while others disagreed less with his conclusions than with the practical steps he proposed for changing the situation as he saw it from distant Montenegro. Nevertheless, the memoirs and descriptions of the future saint are of special value, first and foremost because they illuminate important aspects of the life of the Russian Church on the eve of the terrible trials that befell it after the Revolution, and they compel us to reflect on what lessons and examples we may draw from the tragic experience of the Russian clergy more than a century ago.

The memoirs Incomprehensible Russia was written by St. Mardarije in the 1930s, though it is possible that it was based on periodic notes written earlier and later assembled into a unified work. Its English-language text, entitled Incomprehensible Russia, was discovered only relatively recently and is dated 1935. A Serbian translation was published in 2017 with the blessing of Bishop Longin of New Gračanica and Midwestern America at St. Sava Monastery in Libertyville.

From the Chapter ‘On the Russian Clergy’

Representatives of the Russian episcopate, for the most part, very rarely descended from their thrones into the midst of ordinary life. Avoiding contact with common people, they also tried not to allow the lower clergy to come too close to them.

Such aloofness was explained by the belief that close interaction with parishioners and priests could undermine the authority of the “princes of the Church,” whereas distance only elevated them further.

Only a few fortunate members of the lower clergy ever received a “gracious” invitation to dine at a bishop’s table. Fewer still were those who could freely visit a bishop expecting a warm reception.

The attitude shown toward me by the higher Russian clergy was, of course, exceptional. To this day I gratefully remember the hospitality with which certain bishops and the rector of Kazan Cathedral, Archpriest Ornatsky—who was not only a priest but also a philosopher—received me. But things were quite different with the Russian priesthood generally, as I repeatedly observed while traveling throughout Russia.

Yet there are no rules without exceptions, and among the one hundred and thirty Russian bishops there were notable exceptions to the rule I have described of proud isolation. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that the Russian episcopate was divided into two classes: those who kept themselves apart and enjoyed a lifeless authority sustained by vanity formed the first and much larger class, while the second, smaller group consisted of those unconcerned with their own dignity, who believed in spiritual communion with the people and regarded the clergy not as subordinates but as fellow labourers in the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.

This smaller group did not lose authority; on the contrary, it raised its authority in the eyes of clergy and parishioners alike by creating a living bond of mutual love and respect in place of the armour of cold formalism. How far the first group stood from the meek image of the Savior, walking through the wheat fields of Galilee with words of love on His lips and seeing nothing degrading in washing the feet of His disciples. Nothing but mutual love and faithfulness explains why the Lord’s disciples were ready and glad to die for Him.

I recall a typical example from the first, larger group, which I once witnessed in a bishop’s reception hall.

In a large round chamber, petitioners and visitors stood waiting along the walls, as was customary in the offices of ministers and government officials, while important and highly placed persons were received in the bishop’s private study.

After some delay, the bishop appeared accompanied by a secretary carrying pencil and paper. The bishop began walking around the room while the secretary followed behind, taking notes concerning the business of the petitioners.

At first the bishop was cold, dry, and formal. Suddenly something displeased him in one of the priests who had come with a petition, and he unleashed the full force of his anger upon him. The petitioner was stunned and too frightened to gather himself and explain; besides, the bishop gave him no opportunity to do so.

Nearby stood a rural priest with an ascetic, deeply wrinkled face resembling one of the fathers of the ancient Church. It seemed as though St. Anthony the Great, Paul of Thebes, or Pachomius the Great had come there from the Egyptian desert. In his aged hands he held a petition requesting the ordination of his grandson so that he himself might retire.

But he could not withstand the bishop’s fury. Trembling, he dropped the petition from his weak hands, as though expecting that the bishop’s wrath would soon fall upon him as well.

Distressed by this sad and unseemly scene, I turned my gaze toward the corner of the reception room, where there stood a blessed icon of the Savior, who patiently endures even those who have sinned deeply.

Although the bishop kept an icon of the Savior in his reception room, I saw no evidence that this stern, thunderous hierarch carried that image within his own heart.

During my years in Russia I encountered bishops from both groups, and now I would like to sketch a pair of contrasting portraits.

I remember one bishop from the first group very clearly, because I studied together with him.

As an academy student he distinguished himself in nothing except his enormous stature and thunderous voice. In these he had no equal.

Lacking particular spirituality, he paid great attention to the external appearance of a priest. If one of his fellow students—a monk gifted with talent, spirituality, and a true pastoral calling—merely trimmed his beard, our future bishop sharply criticized him. His own beard was always very large, since he regarded it as a necessary outward symbol of three qualities he himself did not possess: piety, spirituality, and monastic restraint.

Even during his student years, while still only a monk, he openly declared that he expected to become a bishop. At the time this amused us more than impressed us. But he had influential friends, and after graduating from the Theological Academy he advanced through the ecclesiastical hierarchy twice as fast as normal. A talented graduate without connections needed about ten years to reach a bishop’s see. He achieved it in four. He quickly became a vicar bishop, and soon afterward received his own diocese.

Before departing for his diocese, he summoned representatives of the diocesan clergy to the capital in order to instruct them regarding the ceremonial arrangements for his solemn entry into his new episcopal residence. Everything was carefully prescribed, and they returned with detailed instructions on how he was to be received generally and, in particular, how he was to be greeted at the diocesan border.

Before boarding the train, he changed his appearance, replacing his modest black monastic cassock with a purple one and decorating his mighty chest with all the honours he possessed.

The train arrived at the station, where officials had gathered on the platform awaiting the new bishop. His personal railway carriage, adorned with flowers and branches, stopped opposite a special reception area, and from it emerged the bishop in solemn procession, immediately surrounded by the crowd ordered to greet him.

At the appointed hour he arrived at the cathedral for the solemn liturgy, where a great crowd awaited him, including clergy, officials, and military officers. Seeing his immense stature—for physically he resembled Ilya Muromets—and hearing his powerful voice, those present imagined that a giant both of spirit and body stood among them.

But disappointment awaited them. At the conclusion of the brief service the bishop addressed the people, as was customary. His voice carried beyond the cathedral walls, but his words were banal, empty, and devoid of spiritual meaning.

An even greater disappointment awaited those who sought an audience with him the next day. Despite carefully prepared letters of recommendation, it proved far from easy to obtain access to the new bishop. By the evening rumours had spread throughout the city and diocese that a steel barrier, embodied in the secretary and the bishop’s lay brother-assistant, had arisen between the bishop and his flock. Visitors had to pass through the purgatory of double interrogation. Moreover, it was their practice not to admit petitioners and not even to listen to those seeking spiritual support. Such people were sharply dismissed: “The bishop should not be troubled over trifles.”

Nor did the bishop himself show much hospitality toward those wishing to visit him—whether bishops from other dioceses or former fellow students, even those who had become outstanding preachers.

He politely declined such visits. In this way he succeeded in protecting not only his cathedral but the entire diocese from visits by authoritative, energetic, and talented individuals.

Thus he became a highly successful representative of the first group of bishops already described.

And now—a portrait of a very different kind of bishop, a man who made an unforgettable impression on me.

A large crowd of people, myself among them, waited beneath the warm spring sun for the arrival of the train. That day too there was a crowd, but with one important difference. The people had come not because of an episcopal order, but voluntarily, having heard many good things about him.

Animatedly conversing, everyone watched intently as the train approached the platform, then rushed toward the last carriage, where governors and bishops usually travelled.

We waited for the bishop to appear. A minute passed, then another. Our impatience grew, but no one emerged onto the platform. Someone bolder asked the conductor and then turned to us and announced that the bishop had arrived in a third-class carriage attached directly behind the locomotive.

Without losing a moment we hurried there, but it was too late. The bishop had already left the station through a side exit, hired the first cabman he found, and gone to the cathedral.

At first those standing in the cathedral were perplexed by his modesty and simplicity of dress. But the opening words of his address explained everything. His speech was fiery, and the hearts of the listeners “burned within them” (Luke 24:32). Some even wept. The sermon concluded with the words of the Great Shepherd: “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28), to which the bishop added: “Believe me, the doors of my home will always be open to all who are in need of help and counsel.”

Those present at the reception of the new bishop departed with warmth in their hearts and the joyful news: “This new bishop is right for us.”

In the first months of the Russian Revolution, a phenomenon occurred in many dioceses that at first glance seemed surprising. Priests gathered together to vent their anger against their bishops. I witnessed such scenes many times, but I was not surprised. In those dioceses no spiritual bond united bishop and flock, and there was nothing surprising in their desire to replace a worthless bishop with a better one. In some dioceses the bishops were better, and everyone knew it.

During those revolutionary days I attended an assembly in one such diocese. At the mere mention of the bishop’s name, thunderous applause broke out, although he himself was a thousand versts away in Petersburg on diocesan business.

I understood well what had provoked such an ovation. Several years before the Revolution I had accompanied him on an inspection tour through the diocese. He visited peasants in their humble village homes. He spent much time with his clergy, instructing them, paying attention to their children, and explaining to their wives how they might become true friends to their husbands and help them bear the heavy burden of responsibility. With interest and love he asked about their troubles and emphasised the importance of their labours for the welfare of the Russian people.

It is no wonder that when the Revolution began, priests and laypeople unanimously demanded the return of absent bishops such as this one. They knew they could rely on him in difficult times.