Category Archives: Church Unity

Outposts of the Empire: A Brief Catechism of the Christian Resistance Movement

1. Question: It is said by the atheist globalists and secularist indifferentists that there is only One God. How do Orthodox Christians respond to this statement?

1. Answer: There is indeed only One God. And as a result of this fact all members of the Church of God, all Orthodox Christians, are different from others.

2. Question: How are we Christians different from Buddhists?

2. Answer: We are different from Buddhists, for they do not believe in any god, they worship a dead Indian prince, the Buddha.

3. Question: How are we Christians different from Hindus?

3. Answer: We are different from Hindus, for they worship thousands of mythical gods or demons, for they do not know the One God.

4. Question: How are we Christians different from Jews and Muslims?

4. Answer: We are different from Jews and Muslims for they only have their own partial understanding of the Old Testament – an anthropomorphic Old Testament god, the god of vengeance and hatred – not the real Old Testament God, who is made completely known in the New Testament. Rejecting the Revelation of the New Testament, they do not know that God is Love and Forgiveness, as expressed in the unique revelation of the Holy Trinity, Which is the Revelation that God is Love.

5. Question: How are we Christians different from Roman Catholics?

5. Answer: We are different from Roman Catholics, for they secularised the Holy Trinity, blasphemously replacing God with a mere man, an earthly substitute and replacement, a ‘Vicar of God’, who could, for instance, issue infallible decrees to massacre, for Roman Catholicism asserts that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him.

6. Question: How are we Christians different from Protestants?

6. Answer: We are different from Protestants for they replaced the Holy Trinity with themselves, rejecting man made in the image of God and instead making God in the image of each man, each making their own manmade ‘church’ according to their own imagination, this creating today’s secularist culture of egoism, the ‘iChurch’.

7. Question: How are we Christians different from Western secularists?

7. Answer: We are different from Western secularists, for they have replaced God with Gold, Materialism and the worship of the Holy Dollar. This is idolatry.

8. Question: So Who is the One God?

8. Answer: There is indeed only one God and He is the God of the Orthodox Church and Orthodox Christianity.

9. Question: What today is the main enemy of the Church of God, Orthodox Christianity?

9. Answer: Today, and for a thousand years already, the main enemy of the Church, of the Orthosphere, of the Eurasian Christian Empire, is Western secularism. Firstly calling itself Roman Catholicism, its ‘crusaders’ filled Jerusalem with blood, sacked the Eurasian Christian Capital of New Rome and then sank their greedy claws into Russia through more ‘crusading’ knights. Secondly, in part receiving the name of Protestantism, it set about secularising and nationalising the Churches of Christ through political meddling, finally bringing about the Western materialist Revolution of 1917. Thirdly, in its ultimate secularist form of modern Western atheism bent on world hegemony, it is set on destroying the final centre of resistance to its worldwide evil and the reign of Antichrist it wishes to establish by annihilating the reviving force of the Orthosphere, centred in what for the moment is called the Russian Federation.

10. Question: What specific forms of attack on the Church does Western secularism take?

10. Answer: Its attack takes a two-pronged form, the ancient pagan Roman prongs of divide and rule.

11. Question: How does attack by ‘Divide’ work?

11. Answer: Secularism’s first form of attack – ‘Divide’ – works through those who have a conservative, but not Traditional, mentality. ‘Divide’ takes two different approaches. This can take the form of nationalism and nationalistic division. The nationalist attack conditions its victims to believe that the most important thing in Church life is not Christ and so Unity, but their nation, in other words, that being Greek, Russian, Romanian, Serb etc, is the most important thing of all. But the nation is an attachment to the world, a form of worldliness, and to put any nation above the Church is idolatry. This attack can also take the form of ghettoisation, conditioning its believers to divide themselves from others, for some obscure reason, whether of language (converts), calendar (new calendarism or old calendarism), or dogmatisation of personal opinions regarding, for example, the toll houses or the interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Whether nationalists or ghettoists, the victims of ‘Divide’ are all people who cannot see the wood for the trees and divide themselves from the rest of the Church, this weakening her collective witness and also making their tiny sects and subgroups irrelevant.

12. Question: How does attack by ‘Rule’ work?

12. Answer: Secularism’s second form of attack – ‘Rule’ – works through those who have a liberal, but not Traditional, mentality. It involves substituting ‘Halfodoxy’ for Orthodoxy, using liberalism, modernism, renovationism and ecumenism to secularise Orthodoxy. Halfodoxy is used by the American or Western Empire, centred in the USA but with a very powerful tentacle in its puppet EU, to attack continually the ‘soft underbelly’ of the Orthodox world through the temptation of money. This means bribing those areas of the Orthosphere that are on the fringes of Eurasia Christendom, always its weakest and poorest parts, whether in Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, the Middle East, the Western Diaspora, Romania, Bulgaria, or more recently in Serbia, Georgia, Syria and the Ukraine. By creating Halfodoxy, the only form of the Church beloved of, not feared by but courted by and also mocked by, secularists, secularism can rule. This is because Halfodoxy is spiritually neutered and castrated, a balkanised toy, a petty nationalistic and provincial ethnic plaything of secularism, with no more spiritual force than pathetic Uniatism, the tiniest and most mocked provincial branch of secularist Roman Catholicism.

13. Question: How does Orthodoxy fight back against Secularism and its ‘Divide and Rule’, its dividing into sectarian conservative ghettos and ruling over liberal ‘Halfodoxy’?

13. Answer: We fight back with the fullness of the Tradition, with Patristic Orthodoxy, Spiritual and Incarnational Sovereignty and Orthodox International Identity. We fight back by striving to restore our Orthodox Empire, avoiding nationalistic or ghettoistic dividing and ruling by the secularists through Halfodoxy.

14. Question: Who is the Head of the Orthodox Empire?

14. Answer: Christ.

15. Question: Why do we at present have no earthly head of the Orthodox Empire?

15. Answer: Because Orthodox in Russia fell to the apostasy of Western secularism and murdered the last earthly head of the Orthosphere. Until we have all repented for this, we will be unworthy to have a new earthly head, unworthy of the Final Restoration.

16. Question: What is the role in this process of Final Restoration of our monasteries and parishes in the Diaspora?

16. Answer: We in the Diaspora are outposts of the Eurasian Christian Empire, oases, islands and missions of the Orthosphere, embassies of spiritual resistance to Antichrist, spokespeople for our Christian civilisational values against atheist Western secularism. Our role is to gather together all the spiritually vital forces in these last times, to save and convert whatever we can for Christ and His Holy Orthodox Church from the tide of atheist Western secularism.

Geopolitical War in the Ukraine

The word ‘ukraine’ means borderland. In other words, ‘ukraine’ is not a country, but a region. In fact historically, it is a separatist term for Galicia, which was invented for anti-Russian political reasons by Austria-Hungary only some 120 years ago with strong Vatican approval. In reality, all of what is called the Ukraine today is not part of that borderland, but part of the Rus homeland of Orthodoxy, called Little Russia.

Therefore, what is happening today in Kiev and the far western Ukraine (Galicia) is not so much a civil war, but more part of a continuing divisive and imperialistic geopolitical war. This is a war against Eurasian Christian Civilization, an attempted coup d’etat financed and orchestrated by meddling Western atheist secularism, which already tried to annihilate the Sovereignty of the former in 1917, exporting its atheist materialist ideology there. Long before this Western secularism had, under various camouflaged names, already produced the Europewide massacres of Karl the Tall, the Crusades, the Inquisition and Wars of ‘Religion’, and then the worldwide genocides of slavery, Imperialism, the Industrial Revolution, Darwinism, Marxism, Nazism, an utterly corrupt EU whose ‘breathtaking’ corruption costs 100 billion euros a year (according to the February 2014 report of EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem), and exploitative Globalism.

Twenty years ago we saw the first part of this geopolitical war in Yugoslavia, also a borderland area, which the EU, led by the Vatican, wanted to divide and rule, snatching it too away from the cradle of Eurasian Christian Civilization. The US-backed EU has not yet been successful in this and has to supply troops to keep the newly parts of this area even under relative control. These troops, and the threat of bombing and economic blockade of Serbia, have not been able even to begin to prepare this region for European Union control and exploitation by Berlin (except for Slovenia and Croatia). However, today, a similar process is beginning in the Ukraine, where the much-practised Western terrorist techniques of the Arab ‘Spring’, including the use of social networks by the terrorists and snipers, are being tested yet again against the democratically-elected government.

Armouries have been seized in the three former Polish provinces in the west of the Ukraine (Ukraine proper) and semi-professional terrorists, well-trained and orchestrated, have flung themselves against police in Kiev, murdering nine of them in the last 24 hours. These Fascist bandits have left swastikas behind them and one of their leaders, the anti-semite Tyagnibok, has been called a Nazi even by the Calvinistic Angela Merkel in Berlin. However, there are other leaders from the far west, Yatsenyuk, and the favourite German-American puppet Klichko (he speaks English), so beloved of the foul-mouthed US politician Victoria Newland. The present war in Kiev and the far west of the Ukraine is an attempt to yugoslavise the Ukraine.

This attempt is unlikely to succeed, for unlike Serbia, the Ukraine has a border with Russia. As soon as the Olympic Games are over (and the present troubles have clearly been orchestrated by Washington and Berlin to time with them), it is likely that Russia will move to protect its people, the majority of the so-called ‘Ukrainians’. It has no desire to see the Libyanisation and Syrianisation of the Ukraine, or to see it turned into a Polish colomy or German colony, as it was in World War II. Moreover, US dollars and Brussels euros are in short supply nowadays; the US embassy in Kiev has been subsidising the terrorists to the tune of $20 million per week and privding ‘instructors’; the absorption into the US-designed European Union of the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus has all been much too expensive.

Yesterday one of the US warships sent to Sochi two weeks ago to intimidate Russia got stuck on a sandbank in the Black Sea. It may be a symbol of all attempts by Western politicians and media, whether they are Obama or Ashton, to intimidate in the Ukraine. The threat to send NATO troops from Germany, France, Hungary, Poland and Romania to occupy the Ukraine in the latest anti-Christian Western Crusade is only a threat. If the ‘Ukraine’ returns to its pre-1939 borders and the former Polish and before that former Austrian Uniat far west breaks away completely and becomes yet another bankrupt Fourth Reich EU colony, the rest of the Ukraine (85%) will only heave a sigh of relief and say ‘good riddance’.

Victory in Presov – but the War Continues

The enthronement in Rusin Presov in Slovakia on 9 February of Archbishop Rostislav (Hont) as the new Metropolitan of the Local Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia marks a victory for Orthodox consciousness against the modernist, US-dictated policies of the present regime of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The failure by the Phanar to subjugate this Local Church with its 300 parishes, founded by the Russian Orthodox Church on 23 November 1951, is another defeat for the ageing episcopate of Constantinople and its unOrthodox, American policies.

The former head of this Local Church, the totally unreliable Metropolitan Christopher (Pulets), who seemed to have no firm bearings in either Church life or his personal life, was rejected in April 2013 for his compromises with Constantinople. Constantinople’s 87-year old candidate, the embittered, half-Serb Archbishop Symeon, was outvoted by the three young members of the Czech episcopate. The cause of Orthodoxy was much helped by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of the Russian Orthodox Church. On 9 December 2013 he outwitted the two Greek Metropolitans, sent by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to outvote, slander and discredit the three Czech bishops, when interfering Greek bishops have no legitimate vote, and so take over and colonise the Local Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

Of course, this victory has to be set in the context of the wider anti-Orthodox movements of the US/EU-instigated and -subsidised rioting in Kiev, the attempt by Brussels to divide and rule the Serbian Orthodox Church, the US military threats against the Syrian government and the Schadenfreude attempts by the Western media to discredit the success of the Sochi Olympics. Only today the US-loathed but truly Orthodox Metropolitan of Montenegro, Metropolitan Amphilochiy, has called on the so easily bribed and venal politicians of Montenegro to stop ‘worshipping the golden calf of Brussels’. The victory also has to be set against today’s announcement by the aggressively anti-Orthodox new papacy in Rome that it is setting up a Uniat Exarchate in the Russian Crimea.

All these events come against the proposed March meeting in Constantinople – during the first week of Lent! – of the heads of the fourteen Local Orthodox Churches and the increasingly desperate attempts by the ageing Patriarchate of Constantinople to hold a US-dictated ‘Inter-Orthodox Conference’ in 2015. (Two Patriarchs have already said that they will not attend the March meeting and it is rapidly descending into a Pan-Hellenic club meeting). It seems unlikely that the free Orthodox Churches, uncompromised by Turkish politics, Greek philetism and US foreign politics and subsidies, will yield to Phanariot papist threats that their tiny Church is ‘without equals’.

Led by the Russian Orthodox Church. which has already recently had to endure Phanariot-inspired and US and EU-backed schisms in Estonia and England, as well as threats to Church unity in the western Ukraine and even in Russia, increasingly led by the dissident and semi-renovationist Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev, the free Local Churches are unlikely to accept the politically-inspired claims of the Phanar to be an Eastern Papacy.

For long the Russian Orthodox administrative services in Moscow have concentrated on diplomacy and openness to others. With all the above events, it is now realising that its truest and closest friends are precisely those who have long warned them of too open an approach to ecumenism, especially the Russian Orthodox patriots in the worldwide Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. It is typical that the enthronement of Metropolitan Rostislav was attended only by the Patriarchate of Antioch, freed over 100 years ago from Greek colonial tutelage by the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Polish Orthodox Church.

It is clear that there is now a bloc of free Local Churches which will resist any US-orchestrated claims by the Phanar to papist hegemony over the Orthosphere. With the coming completion of the international Orthodox centre at the New Jerusalem Monastery outside Moscow, the time is coming when the Russian Orthodox Church, multinational and multilingual, will return to assume its natural and obvious leadership of the Orthodox world.

The Euro-American Revenge against International Orthodoxy

We must create a Slavic State in Central Europe on a strictly Catholic basis so that it can become a bulwark against Orthodox Russia.

Adolf Hitler

The present violent disturbances in Kiev and certain formerly Polish, Galician towns in the Ukrainian wild west come after the refusal of the Ukrainian government to cede to the wishes of the violent pro-Western minority and so make the Ukraine into the next bankrupt EU colony. It is crystal clear that the present carefully-orchestrated riots are the ethnocentric, Western revenge for the choice of freedom of the democratically-elected Ukrainian government and people.

After several carefully-timed ‘visits’ in support of the terrorists (many of them known violent criminals) since last November of various high-ranking EU commissars and US Republican politicians, like so many pagan Roman generals and senators 2,000 years ago, after threats from the US administration and from their puppet EU (the EU was ever a post-1945 US creation) to impose sanctions against the Ukrainian government and in support of the few thousand terrorists (many of them said to be Polish nationals and rumoured to be paid a small fortune (for them) of 30 euros a day by the US administration), after invasion threats to the territorial integrity of the admittedly artificial state of the Ukraine by forces in EU Poland, Hungary and Romania, it is clear that the Ukraine may not survive.

The Ukrainian government itself is desperate to keep the territorial integrity of the mere generation-old Ukraine. It has a softly-softly approach with the terrorists in Kiev and elsewhere, even though their tactics are carefully orchestrated and many of them have been professionally trained and equipped, as can be seen in their techniques of kidnapping women and children. If this were Belfast, Washington or Paris, clearly the riot police and soldiers would by now have shot dozens of them. But even with this approach, it may not be possible for the government to preserve the unity of the fledgling State. Just as other colonial states, like Iraq, Syria and virtually all of Africa, have not been able to survive civil wars ultimately caused by bureaucrats in London or Paris who drew up their straight-lined borders on backs of envelopes decades ago, so too the Ukraine, a Stalinist and Khrushchevite colonial formation, may not survive the present civil strife.

Notably, it now seems almost certain that the Russian centre, the Russian south (called ‘New Russia’), including the already autonomous Russian Crimea, and almost all the purely Russian east will no longer tolerate the activities of eastern Catholics and other schismatics from Galicia. It is quite notable that Catholic priests have been prominent in encouraging the riots in Kiev, and even the Cardinal of New York, Timothy Dolan, has been encouraging them. Many already say that ‘it is all Stalin’s fault’. He should, they say, have left the three pro-Nazi provinces in the far west, known as Galicia, to Poland, as before 1939. These people, Galicians, form the backbone of the ‘Ukrainian’ (actually Polish) emigration in the Western world and many of their descendants now advise the ethnocentric and utterly prejudiced US government. Their departure would leave the other 21 provinces of the Ukraine to freedom outside the pro-German EU – for the jealousy of freedom-loving Greeks, Cypriots, Bulgarians, Romanians, Latvians, Italians, Frenchmen, Irishmen, Britons and many others.

If the six million or so Galicians wish to leave the Ukraine for the bankrupt US-sponsored EU, then this would be much better for the rest. Then the rest of the Ukraine, 85% of it, by far the richest part, would be free to enjoy the benefits of multinational Orthodoxy and the Eurasian Union. As for the small Orthodox minority, they could simply become part of the Russian Orthodox Diaspora, either under the care of the Polish Orthodox Church or else directly under the care of Moscow. The only question would be what to do with Orthodox Transcarpathia, the south-westernmost province of the Ukraine, which has been so persecuted by Ukrainian nationalism since it was detached from Czechoslovakia in 1945, when it was still called Subcarpathian Rus.

It might wish to become an independent country, to be called Ruthenia or Carpatho-Russia, and join the Eurasian Union. It certainly needs protection from present EU and Hungarian imperialism, from which latter it suffered so bitterly before 1919. Its Church, with 600 parishes and a multitude of monasteries, quite big enough to be independent, could easily become a new Autocephalous Orthodox Church. Certainly, this would be in the Trinitarian unity in diversity model of Russian Orthodoxy which founds new Local Churches (unlike the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which has never freely allowed any Church to receive autocephaly and does not share this vision of unity in diversity, but only crushing centralism, like the EU or its predecessor the SU).

It is no coincidence that at the same time as these carefully organised events have been unfolding in limited parts of the Ukraine, persecution has been unfolding against Tartar Orthodox in Tartarstan. Churches have been burned down and the 250,000 Tartar Orthodox are being threatened by organised Islamists, trained and financed abroad, mainly financed from the Western allies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. (How well we all remember how President George Bush protected the Saudi Bin Laden family after the Saudi terrorist attacks of 9/11). Thus, both in East and West, the enemies of Christ are attempting to destroy multinational Orthodoxy (the Church of Russia has 62 different nationalities). What the enemies of Christ want to create – and have in many places already created – by their old technique of dividing and ruling, is a disunited, nationalistic Orthodox world, a series of little, balkanised, mononational churches, which would become mere toothless departments of assorted toothless EU states, for consumers of individualistic pietism and folklore, on the disincarnate, Western Protestant model.

It is clear that in 2014 we are facing a turning point on the road of world history. On the one hand, we have the four nations of the newly-formed Eurasian Union (The Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Armenia) with its originally Orthodox Christian unity in diversity basis and ideal of symphony of Church and State, which is in the forefront of the Spiritual Resistance Movement; on the other hand, we have the anti-Christian US/EU, much imitated by the rest of the world, largely made up of former EU and present-day US colonies, although several decades behind their colonial masters. Therefore, there are today only two choices. What is uncertain is whether this is the end or just the last shock before restoration of the Orthosphere and Orthodox government which is the only thing that now stands between Christ and Antichrist, between the Orthodox Church and her faithful and the militantly atheist Western world. Time will show which way we are going to go.

See: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/24/347411/west-targets-russia-by-ukraine-unrest/

The Gathering of the Nations

Fear not, for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west.

Isaiah 43, 5

What is astonishing to the still loyal and uncompromised Orthodox heart and mind is not that the Western world lovingly cherishes its illogical prejudice that the Russian Orthodox Church is wild, backward and lacking in culture, as it so clearly expressed in local media coverage of the 2006 Sourozh schism. What is astonishing is rather that the Western world lovingly cherishes Antichrist and unstintingly and at every turn consistently advances his cause. For his primary aim is the destruction of the integrity of the Orthodox Church, a cause already advanced by the venality of some in many smaller Local Churches outside the canonical territory of Rus, and which he is desperately trying to advance inside that territory, especially on its outer fringes, using as his tools the madcap schemes of his Western and Westernised dupes.

What the Western world does not understand here is that the downfall of Orthodoxy would lead automatically to the last stage of its own spiritual and so cultural suicide, followed by the eradication of all Christian Faith universally. This is because the Western world, like the rest of the world, is wholly dependent on the rays of light that shine, as if from the Sun, from the Orthodox Church, the One and Only Church, the One and Only Spiritual Sun.

The Western world has long been enslaved to Antichrist, worst of all, without even noticing it. This is the most perilous of states because it indicates total self-delusion. This is the self-delusion of him who says ‘the devil does not exist’, so proving not only that the devil does exist, but also that he is his main servant. The destruction of Russian Orthodoxy, attempted, but by not attained by the Western world from 1917 on, would mean that the forces engulfing it would then engulf the Western world and the rest. Russian Orthodoxy sees the fate of the Western world in its latest foolish outburst of short-sighted self-destructiveness, called consumerism, and knows that thus it dooms itself to destruction – unless it repents before the end, so redeeming itself from its repeated sinful attempts to destroy Sovereign and Imperial Rus since 1917.

If this repentance is weighty enough, then there is still even the chance before the end of gathering together the remnants of all the nations, Orthodox, heterodox and even pagan, and bringing them under the spiritual reign of a restored Sovereign and Imperial Rus. If not, then we will be forced to take refuge, fleeing ‘into the mountains’ from the floods of iniquity and the tides of destruction, our last hope remaining only in the Second Coming.

An End to Pan-Orthodox Assemblies: Now it is Time to Start Seriously

Post 200:

The news that the Patriarchate of Antioch has withdrawn its participation in the so-called ‘Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies’ (to be translated into our plain English as ‘Inter-Orthodox Bishops’ Meetings’) is not surprising. Fed up with heavy-handed Greek Imperialism, it has quit. It is ironic since certain Antiochian converts, quite unrealistically, saw them three or four years ago as panaceas (admittedly, to largely non-existent illnesses). This event was all too predictable given the way in which the Patriarchate of Constantinople took over everything in the so-called ‘assemblies’, ‘presiding’ and issuing decrees, even giving the meetings the name ‘Pan-Orthodox’ – ancient, and not so ancient, code for ‘All-Greek’. Perhaps the only surprise is that it was Antioch that went first.

The withdrawal is hardly surprising, since the other five groups – Bulgarians, Russians (both parts) and Serbs (and probably the Romanians and the Georgians) felt much the same. As one commentator in the USA put it, in its recent polite letter to the North and Central American group the Russian Church (ROCOR) took a fly swatter to the problem of Constantinople’s philetism, whereas Antioch took a hammer. Probably all (except Constantinople) are now relieved, as the abscess has been pierced. However, this does not mean that the process is over. All it means is that the primitive and crude attempt of US-backed Hellenist Imperialism to take over the Orthodox Diaspora is over. Now that that is out of the way, we can make a serious attempt to organise the Diaspora on an Orthodox, and not a papist, basis.

What have we learned? Firstly, we have learned that no Local Church should attempt to take over the Diaspora. Imperialism, however much it may be dressed up in pseudo-theological, in fact philosophical, terms is not part of the Church. That may seem obvious – but to some it appears to be an astounding revelation. Secondly, we would suggest that all Inter-Orthodox meetings be presided by a different Church in turn. Thirdly, we would suggest that the bishops and committees meet only once a year – otherwise they risk turning into mere talking shops and empty photo-opportunities.

Finally, we would suggest that the bishops should encourage the grassroots to work together; Church unity will not be founded top-down but bottom up, as the very word ‘found’ suggests. This, like the rest of what we have said, is nothing more than the obvious, obvious to even the least of our parishioners. Unfortunately, ideology never takes into account the least of our parishioners or the obvious. Therefore, we suggest that all ideologies be thrown out of the window and we start again, with Inter-Orthodox Bishops’ Meetings, and forget the highfalutin ‘Episcopal Assemblies’ of the past and all their philosophical jargon on ‘being and communion’ and talk instead about the life in Christ.

A Council?

How well we recall the letter of Fr (now St) Justin (Popovich) of 7 May 1977, ‘On the Summoning of a ‘Great Council’ of the Orthodox Church’. In fact, we still have translations of it in Russian, French and English. In it he stated that there could be no Council of the Orthodox Church because most of the Orthodox Churches were not free and those that were, (he cited the Russian Church Outside Russia, the Church in America and the Japanese Orthodox Church), were not being invited. Instead, the seats were to be filled by a host of titular bishops from the Patriarch of Constantinople and KGB-vetted bishops from, as it was then called, the ‘Moscow Patriarchate’. The Saint’s plea was heard, perhaps not in the courts of men, but by the angels above, and the Council never took place. Now again, the Patriarchate of Constantinople is pushing forward for yet another ‘Pre-Conciliar Meeting’ in March this year and for the Council to take place next year.

It seems to us that although the situation of the Local Churches in Eastern Europe has radically changed since the fall of atheistic Communism, since when freedom has come to them, in other respects little has changed. The Patriarchate of Constantinople has, if anything, even more become a colony of the US Department of State. The latter has misused it ever since they installed their own US Patriarch in 1948 and exiled the legitimate Patriarch Maximos to Switzerland (who said on his ejection ‘The City is lost’) in order to undermine the Russian Orthodox Church by setting up schisms, for example, in France, Finland, Estonia, England and the Ukraine. In no way can there be a formal meeting of the Orthodox Churches, while the Patriarch of Constantinople and its allies are enslaved by the CIA (and also the Turkish government).

The US Administration appears to think that it can deal with the Orthodox Churches as it dealt with the Vatican, which accepted US Protestantisation in its Second Council fifty years ago and then saw imposed on it an anti-Communist Polish Pope for the 1980s Reaganite Crusade against Communism. Significantly, Roman Catholic sources, like the papist AsiaNews, are pushing Constantinople to arrange this so-called Council so that it will become a modernist Orthodox (therefore pseudo-Orthodox) Second Vatican Council. This would make the Orthodox Church into a mere Uniat department of the Vatican and, in that way, of the US Department of State. This is not going to happen. (In any case a meeting of bishops is not a Council; to become a Council the meeting must first be ‘received’ by clergy, monks and people; paradoxically, Church Orthodox Christians are a lot more democratic than the Non-Church Protestants and Roman Catholics, and always have been).

Thus, the attempts by Constantinople to make the recently set up Regional Inter-Orthodox (called ‘Pan-Orthodox’ by enemies of the Tradition) Assemblies of Bishops in the Diaspora into bridgeheads for their conquest of the Diaspora have failed miserably. Thus, for North and Central America, Archbishop Kyrill of San Francisco has eloquently voiced the opposition of all free Orthodox to such attempts (http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2014/ 20140115_ensynodletterarchbpdemetrios.html). Indeed, in some places the Assemblies have virtually closed ‘for lack of things to talk about’. Much more than this, the agenda proposed for a future Inter-Orthodox Meeting (illogically called a ‘Council’) is looking increasingly tired, a leftover washed up from 1960s liberalism, denounced at the time, even more so now. Let us remind ourselves what the ten items on the agenda are – or were: The Orthodox diaspora; The granting of autocephaly; The granting of autonomy; The diptychs; The Church calendar; Marriage; Fasting; Relations with Heterodox; Ecumenism; Peace, Brotherhood and Freedom. (See our article of several years ago: http://orthodoxengland. org.uk/panorth.htm).

The last six questions are absurd, because the canons are clear and of course unchangeable; the tenth is in particular a piece of masonic nonsense from the 1960s. As regards the fourth issue, the diptychs, if people want to argue about what place they should have on an irrelevant, artificial and anachronistic list, then we say they should first read Mark 10, 37-45. In fact, only the first three issues are discussable – and there will be no agreement on them because they have already been discussed, and with Constantinople in the pocket of the US State Department, a former senior representative of which (Brzezinski) has already declared that the Russian Orthodox Church is its greatest enemy, what point is there in discussing them?

Thirty-three years ago a saint prophetically wrote: ‘Should this Council, God forbid, actually come to pass, only one sort of result can be expected from it: schisms, heresies and the loss of many souls. Considering the question from the point of view of the apostolic, patristic and historical experience of the Church, such a Council will, instead of healing, open only up new wounds in the body of the Church and inflict on Her new difficulties and new misfortunes’. We will not contradict the voice of a Saint.

Cardinal Koch and the Vatican’s current anti-Orthodox Crusade

‘I am the Patriarch of all the Russias. I am not the Patriarch of the Russian Federation, nor the Patriarch of the Ukraine, nor of Moldova…and for me there is no difference between a citizen of the Russian Federation, a citizen of Moldova or any other. The Russian Church exists in 62 different countries’.

His Holiness Patriarch Kyrill, Moldova, 2013

Cardinal Koch, Chairman of the Papal Council for ‘Christian Unity’, has today met Patriarch Daniel of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Bucharest. Speaking of this meeting on Radio Vatican, he once more expressed the hope that Roman Catholics may one day be allowed to take the Body and Blood of Christ in the Orthodox Church (the concept that any Churched Orthodox would wish to accept Roman Catholic hosts is so alien as to be absurd).

For this to happen, as Cardinal Koch still does not understand, though he has been told many times already, Roman Catholics will first have to renounce the heresies of Roman Catholicism – something that happens regularly, though on an individual basis. The main Roman Catholic heresy is their renunciation of the Holy Trinity through their filioque heresy, followed by its result, the centralising ecclesiological heresy of papism. However, the implications of these heresies are enormous and we need no look no further than the streets of Kiev today to see them.

The Western Powers, with full Vatican, German and Polish government support, are at present intent on attempting to snatch the Ukrainian people from the Orthodox Church, to which they have belonged for 1,025 years. This attempt to steal the ‘Ukraine’, as it is now called, the birthplace of Russia, by setting up there a US-funded, anti-Christian junta, is directly parallel to the played-out rehearsal by the Western Powers (the USA with its pawn the colonialist EU) to steal Kosovo, the birthplace of Serbia, by setting up there an Islamist cartel of people-traffickers, gun-runners and drug-dealers. Thus, Uniat and schismatic Ukrainian nationalist demonstrators have been bused in to Kiev from Poland and the borderlands around L’viv by their highly-organised, paramilitary EU backers to demonstrate against history.

It may now be after over 20 years of tension that the Ukraine is going to split apart; the Galician-based western 20% of the ‘Ukraine’, the only actual borderlands (‘ukraina’ in the Slav languages), will rejoin Poland, which their people seem to want. So much the better. They can then integrate their atheist European Union, that is, they will see their young people flee to German and Polish factories for low-paid drudgery, their sovereignty lost and their government bankrupted, as in Greece, Cyprus, the Baltic States and countless other countries that so naively fell for the EU bait. In their spiritual suicide they will also see their anti-Orthodox Uniat and schismatic churches empty and close down one by one, as Eurosodom destroys them, as is happening to Catholic and Protestant all over the EU.

The Orthodox minority in this new Polish colony will then be able to join the Polish Orthodox Church and continue as a minority, as elsewhere in Poland and throughout the geriatric EU, defying the EU tide of secularism by surviving and witnessing to Christ. The rest, the 80% of the country that will remain free, probably reverting to its historic native name of Little Russia, will be able to get on with its inevitable and prosperous destiny in the Eurasian Union, thus joining authentic (i.e. non-EU) Europe and Asia.

What is the connection with Cardinal Koch? Like Uniatism, the Ukraine was an anti-Orthodox invention of the Vatican. In 1900 virtually no-one had heard the word applied with its new nationalistic meaning. The Galician far west of the Ukraine is precisely the place where in the last two decades Orthodox have been viciously persecuted (some have been martyred) by Uniats. Their property has been massively stolen by fanatical, Vatican-supported, Ukrainian nationalists, our priests and faithful beaten up by racist, anti-Semitic thugs, whose grandfathers fought in the SS.

The present attack on our Russian Orthodox Church, on our international ideal of Holy Rus and on the Orthodox people of the Ukraine, as it is now called, is nothing new. The Vatican has throughout history mounted crusade after crusade against the Church of God. Today’s Vatican attack, exploiting violent nationalism (‘the aim justifies the ends’, as the Jesuits say) is only just another repeat of the Vatican’s 13th century crusade against the Church of Christ, when the Vatican was defeated by St Alexander Nevsky, or that of their Polish 17th century crusade, of that of the secularised Catholic Napoleon in the 19th century and the paganised Catholic Hitler in the 20th century, which were all against Moscow and which all failed.

This is the real reason why, Cardinal Koch, you cannot take the Body and Blood of Christ in the Orthodox Church; because you have not repented for your inherently secularist sins against Christ’s Church. Only when you have repented for your crimes and anti-Christian crusades, will your eyes be opened, will your spiritual blindness be overcome and your heresies fall away from you, as the millennial delusions that they are. If you, like the hopelessly divided Ukrainian Uniats, with all their nationalistic schisms and renunciation of their historic heritage and identity, wish to support the bankrupt Eurosodom rabble against United, Multinational, Worldwide Holy Russia, to support the materialistic against the spiritual, that is your choice. But do not say that you were not warned.

On the Importance of Sobriety (2)

Edited E-mail Correspondence Following the Questions and Answers of 17 September

Q: In your answers in the correspondence in ‘On the Importance of Sobriety’ (17 September) you seemed to be defending ROCOR as a Church of moderation, which is why the extreme Greek and convert old calendarists left it between 1986 and 2007. But surely there were extremists among the Russians in ROCOR, for example, people who actually seriously believed that there was no grace in the rest of the Russian Orthodox Church? And they did not leave in 1986.

A: On the ROCOR side I knew of only two Russians (admittedly very senior figures) who asserted that the Patriarchal part of the Russian Orthodox Church had no grace. But I met hundreds, if not thousands, of ordinary ROCOR clergy and laity who believed otherwise, freely gave the sacraments to anyone from Russia and indeed were scandalised by such an absurd thought of gracelessness. So let us look at all this in proportion. You will always find a few extremists in any group of human-beings, but that does not mean that the vast majority are extremists. By definition they are not.

However, it is also true that a few members of ROCOR at that time (I am speaking about the Cold War period before 1991) appeared to be more interested in anti-Communism than in Christianity. However, the members of that generation have either died out or else have left ROCOR since 1991. The problem for them after the fall of Communism was that they no longer had any motivation to be active in Church life. You cannot be anti-Communist when Communism is no more. They had lost their raison d’etre, and so they gradually disappeared from Church life. This was most regrettable for them, but on a human level it was a great relief to us because they had put us ordinary ROCOR laity and clergy under pressure, trying to politicise the Church, which we resisted.

And I would like to add to all this very important qualification. Those few who previously claimed that there was no grace in the Patriarchate after 1991 received several clergy from it without ordaining them, let alone baptising them! And they gave the sacraments to Patriarchal laypeople without dreaming of baptising them. So it had all been empty words, rhetoric, political propaganda and not actions. In reality, they full well knew that the Patriarchate preserved apostolic succession. They rejected their own absurdity, which had only ever been a purely political ploy. I seriously think that the ludicrous concept of a graceless Church inside Russia may even have been invented by the CIA. It is simply not theological, but purely secular.

Q: You have said before and also in ‘On the Importance of Sobriety’ that all Russian Orthodox parishes outside Russia will eventually come under ROCOR administration. But why should not all, including ROCOR ones, come under the administration of the Church inside Russia instead?

A: There are three reasons why not. First of all, the agreement of 2007 was crystal clear: all parishes outside Russia will come under ROCOR, all parishes inside Russia will come under the Church inside Russia. Secondly, there is the name, ROCOR. It is only logical: only ROCOR is the Church Outside Russia, it is absurd to have parishes outside Russia that belong to the Church inside Russia. It is literally inside out or, if you prefer, outside in.

However, there is a third and moral reason. During the Cold War period (I mean, after 1945 and until well after 1991) the Church inside Russia was under KGB administration and there appeared outside Russia very many unworthy representatives of the Patriarchal Church, at best Soviet bureaucrats, at worst liars and renovationists, politically or morally compromised or just plain corrupt. (The notable exception was Archbishop Basil (Krivoshein) of Brussels). And I am afraid that the Church inside Russia lost all the trust of the world outside Russia at that time. In a word, it shot itself in the foot and ever since it has had to pay the price for the distrust that it created.

As a result, even today, I cannot think of a single person in ROCOR who would go under the Patriarchal administration outside Russia. Even today, virtually the only people under the Patriarchate outside Russia are those who have come out of the former Soviet Union over the last 20 years

I mentioned Archbishop Basil (Krivoshein) of Brussels as an exception, but it must also be said that his integrity was wasted, as that of other sincere people. He had the nominal title of Archbishop, but his diocese consisted of little more than two priests, two deacons and about a dozen laypeople. And in general, until 1991, the Patriarchate only had tiny churches outside Russia. Russian Orthodox outside Russia would have nothing to do with a KGB-sponsored organisation. That is not a secret and not a theory. It is simply a fact of history.

An example of such corruption is the case of the late Archbp George (Wagner), who was a victim of it. A priest of the Patriarchate in 1950s Berlin, he was asked by it to become a Soviet spy. To his credit he refused and left for the Paris Jurisdiction. He was just one in a very long series of sincere people who left the Patriarchate because of its corruption. Another even more striking example is the present Metr Hilarion of ROCOR, who was brought up in the Patriarchate in Canada and left it when he realised that it was not free.

And that was all a great loss of talent for the Patriarchate. But it was their own fault; they did it to themselves. In general, the Patriarchate, whether in Paris, Berlin, Vienna, London or New York, lost many people, the best friends of Orthodox Russia in the West, because of its unworthy representatives, with their political and moral compromises and corrupt personality cults. It lost the best friends of Orthodox Russia precisely because its representatives were not the best friends of Orthodox Russia. This is why ROCOR is an autonomous part of the Russian Church. If ever, things go badly in Russia again – as they could, the situation is still relatively fragile – ROCOR will retain its independence. That is very important.

Fortunately, virtually all such unworthy representatives had died out before the reconciliation of 2007, sometimes well before. Now we are waiting for a new generation. The Patriarchate outside Russia has been expanding with the new emigration. We believe that the majority of the new representatives are and will be more worthy, will at least be up to the standard of ROCOR and so prepare the Patriarchal churches outside Russia for their transfer to ROCOR.

Q: Do you feel bitter about this waste during the Cold War due to the captivity of the Patriarchate at that time?

A: Of course not! A Christian cannot feel bitter because he believes in Divine Providence, the ever-present, intervening love of God. This makes all mistakes into opportunities, all negatives into positives.

Q: What is your view of the murder of Fr Pavel Adelheim in Pskov last August

A: On average one priest a year is murdered in Russia and every murder is a tragedy and a crime, including that of Fr Pavel. I saw a Russian programme about the murder. His matushka appeared and spoke of the tragedy with great dignity.

However, Fr Pavel Adelheim himself was a well-known dissident and controversialist, a marginal figure and in that sense a bit like the late Fr Alexander Men, who is believed by many to have been a Catholic. The latter is a hero to all those who are anti-Orthodox, especially since he asserted that ‘it is better to be a Hare Krishna than to be like Fr Seraphim Rose’. (By the way, under the old regime the London Patriarchal Cathedral on Ennismore Gardens refused to sell his books, just as they refused to put up icons of the New Martyrs; that has changed now). Murder is a tragedy, but it is does not absolve anti-Church views. I am not saying that Fr Pavel was like Fr Alexander Men, he was not pro-Catholic, but nevertheless he was very much a fringe personality. It is very interesting that although deaths like that of the late Orthodox priest Fr Daniel Sisoev are hardly mentioned in the West, Fr Pavel’s was widely reported and by two groups.

The first group was the freemasons of the Russophobic Rue Daru with their Western supporters and the second was the equally Russophobic old calendarists. It is disgraceful that such anti-Russian-Church groups opportunistically and self-justifyingly try and make capital of a tragic murder, which was carried out by a satanist. You cannot justify schism. What such sectarian groups as Rue Daru and old calendarists, two sides of the same coin, do not understand is that the Church is not an exclusive club for those with eccentric views, but it is for all who believe in Christ. The fact that Fr Pavel had peculiar views and was then tragically murdered does not for one moment mean that those views are justified.

Q: Russophobia has been in the international spotlight recently. What would you say about the civil war in Syria and President Putin’s recent intervention that averted US missile attacks?

A: First of all, this is not a civil war. The original legitimate protests against the dictatorial Syrian government were hijacked by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey (all Israeli-backed). 1200 murderers, rapists and bandits were released from Saudi prisons, armed and trained by Western Special Services in camps in the Jordan and Turkey and paid over $1000 dollars a month to murder, maim and cannibalise innocent Syrians. Together with them there are tens of thousands of fanatical foreign mercenaries, Chechens, Tunisians, Libyans and many Muslims from Western countries like Britain, France, Belgium and Germany. (These terrorists, who use chemical weapons in Syria, are the same people who prepare chemical weapons in Somalia). The war in Syria is a war between Syrian patriots on the one hand and foreign-financed traitors and foreign mercenaries on the other hand.

As regards the intervention of President Putin, the man who is so hated by Rue Daru and the old calendarists, what is remarkable is that for the first time, someone has stood up to resist the New World Order, that will lead to the enthronement of Antichrist in the rebuilt Temple on Zion. (Speaking of Russia, called the ‘Heartland’ in geopolitical science, Zbigniew Brzezinski said that the ‘New World Order’ would be built on its ruins). President Putin may even have averted a Third World War and certainly deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, unlike President Obama who should be stripped of his.

It was not a billion-peopled China or India or Africa, representing half the population of the planet between them, but Russia that stood up to the New World Order. President Putin has played the role of the Orthodox Tsar, of ‘him who restrains’ (2 Thessalonians 2, 6). This is remarkable on the part of a mere politician. Moreover on 19 September the President went on in his Valdai Speech to explain that the role of Russia is in Orthodoxy and that this is her Christian civilisational role against the secularist and suicidal West which has opted for Sodom.

The West has two great enemies in Russia today. The first is President Putin, the second is Patriarch Kyrill. It will do its utmost to bring them both down, as it has already done.

Q: Why?

A: Because the secularist West knows that if either of them is successful or both of them are successful, they will with time be replaced by even more powerful Orthodox figures in Russia. They will not only resist the New World Order even more successfully, but will actually reverse it, restoring the Russian Orthodox Empire in Eurasia and worldwide Orthodox unity. That will be the end of the Antichristic, unipolar global project, of Orthodox countries eternally indebted and enslaved to the European Union, the end of absurd new calendarism and masonic puppet Orthodox bishops, the beginning of freedom for Orthodoxy in China, financial support for the Orthodox missions in Latin America, Africa and Asia, the building of tens of thousands of churches there and, if God wills and the world lasts long enough, the foundation of new autocephalous Churches. In a word, this will be the great gathering of all Orthodox Christianity before the end.

Q: It is 20 years since the attempted coup of October 1993 in Moscow, with the bombardment of the White House and the Yeltsin era. What are your thoughts?

A: The 1990s were a disgraceful period, when Russia went from Communism to Consumerism, from lies to theft. Russian public assets were stolen by those whom we now call oligarchs through so-called ‘privatisation’. These oligarchs, international criminals, now live in asylum under British government protection in London and elsewhere in the Western world that so adored their stolen billions that so impoverished Russia. This was massive, State-sponsored theft. In the 1990s the West tried to dismember and destroy the Russian Lands, just as it had tried to do under the seven months of the Provisional Government of 1917. It is said that these new Kerenskys, Harvard-educated privatisers, the cowboys of the ‘Wild East’, actually rigged the election of 1996 so that the drunkard Yeltsin could win. It is possible. The CIA has plenty of experience in rigging elections all round the world. In 1917 the decadence lasted seven months; in the 1990s it lasted seven years until the Jubilee Council of August 2000 and the canonisation of the New Martyrs in Moscow.

Q: Some conservative convert Orthodox, especially under the Patriarchate of Antioch in the USA, would perhaps be shocked by your words. They think that privatisation is good. What would you say to them?

A: Conservatism is not the same as the Tradition. To use American vocabulary, neoconservatives or ‘neocons’ (unprincipled Money Tories or economic liberals in Britishspeak) worship God and Mammon against the Gospel. Indeed, monetarism is just another word for Mammon. And even the so-called Paleoconservatives (High Tories, UKIP, noblesse oblige, the Patriarchal) are not the same as Orthodox. Firstly, paleoconservatives have a tendency to racism. Secondly, unlike Orthodox, they have little sense of social justice. (If socialism exists, there are reasons). And thirdly, the paleoconservatives tend to attract a lunatic fringe, people who are obsessed with conspiracy theories, hate the Jews, admire Hitler and other such nonsense

Q: What are your hopes and fears for the revival of the Russian Church in Russia today?

A: We must understand that the revival of the last 25 years, although spectacular, has only just begun. As Patriarch Kyrill said last week, at the present rate it will take 100 years just to build enough churches to catch up with the number of churches that existed in the Russian Empire before the Revolution. Instead of building 1,000 churches a year, over the next ten years 14,000 churches need to be built every year. That is what would be happening if Russia were not nominally Orthodox, but actually Orthodox. Another example: at the Synod in Moscow on 5 October seven new bishops were nominated. That is very good and it should bring the total to more or less 300 bishops. But if Russia and the Church’s canonical territories were actually and not nominally Orthodox, there would be 200 times more bishosp being nominated – 1,400 new bishops. Then any future Inter-Orthodox Conference (falsely called a Pan-Orthodox Council by the Phanariots) would be Orthodox

Q: One last question. Earlier you mentioned Fr Seraphim (Rose). Do you think he will one day be canonised?

A: God makes saints, not men. It may be that one day God will reveal Fr Seraphim to have been a saint. It is quite possible, judging from his life. But, before this, the monastery at Platina will first have to return to ROCOR. That is what Fr Seraphim would have wanted. That would be justice correcting the historic injustice of Platina leaving ROCOR, something carried out after Fr Seraphim’s repose. I would even say that the main impediment to Fr Seraphim’s canonisation is precisely the fact that Platina has not yet returned to ROCOR. Then everything will fall into place.

Q: Would Fr Seraphim have agreed with the reconciliation between ROCOR and the Church inside Russia?

A: Of course, he would. He was a deeply anti-sectarian person, as you can see by the way in which the proud ‘super-correct’ persecuted him in the 1970s. He was a genuine monk who had no pathological complexes, like many of the super-correct converts at that time. He suffered greatly from them, especially when they insisted on being photographed with him – photographs that they now display in their self-justification! ‘Look at me, I’m standing next to Fr Seraphim, I’m a saint’. That is what they proclaim and yet in his lifetime they were his worst enemies. It was the same with St John of Shanghai. Some of his worst persecutors during his lifetime, those who put him on trial, proclaimed after his canonisation how much they had supported him!

Q: When you see what is being introduced in the Western world, what has been called ‘Eurosodom’, are you pessimistic or optimistic about the future

A: It is a strange fact that all empires end in sodomy because they lose faith, they no longer have any self-belief and so they commit suicide. It happened in Ancient Greece and Rome. And today we are seeing not the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, but the decline and fall of the Western Empire. It is a tragedy. And it is the duty of Orthodox to try and save the best of Western culture before it disappears altogether under the tidal wave of atheism.

Am I pessimistic or optimistic? True, it is quite possible that only very little of my above hopes for the future restoration of Orthodox Russia will be realised. I have no illusions. But even so, even despite all this, I remain optimistic because, although man proposes, God disposes, and God has already won, ‘trampling down death by death’. The worst that can happen is that we die. And if, I repeat if, we die repentant, and I underline repentant, we will go to Paradise! Who can be a pessimist? Fear not, little flock!

Neo-Hesychasm and the Struggle for Authentic Orthodoxy

Already before the First World War, British Establishment freemasonry in Cyprus, then 65 years ago, in 1948, the US State Department in Constantinople, and then 32 years ago, in 1981, the EEC (now called the EU) in Greece, have all taken part in their conscious Crusade to enslave the Church. They have wanted to create an artificial, politically correct Orthodoxy, acceptable to the secular powerbrokers of this world. This pseudo-Orthodoxy, a lightweight ‘Diet Orthodoxy’, persecuting of piety, Cross-less, fasting-less, comfortable, consumerist and anti-ascetic, is sterilised, diluted, degutted, neutered, castrated and disincarnate.

It is therefore new-calendarised, uniatised, anglicanised, protestantised, modernised, liberalised, finlandised, often beardless and homosexualised, confessionless and repentance-free because of its self-admiring pride, the sense of the sacred and mystery removed together with the iconostasis, and replaced by plastic, steel and chrome, salt that has lost its savour. The Neo-Frankish neo-colonialist process has so far affected some 20% of the Orthodox world, but not the vast majority of the Russian, Serbian and Georgian Churches, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, or parts of the Polish and Czechoslovak Churches and others.

There is conscious resistance to such humanistic modernism and renovationism. The latter have manipulated shallow, spiritually weak, uprooted and so disincarnate, nominally Orthodox intellectuals in the Diaspora in particular, victims of their own pride of mind and vanity. The ascetic alternative to the above Westernised and Western-supported and financed ‘Orthodoxy’, this alternative for which we have fought for most of our lives, comes in the form of the ever-renewed Tradition of the authentic Orthodox Faith – which we may call Neo-Hesychasm. This means the Trinitarian opposition to all of the above, implying:

The continuing recognition of the Fatherhood of authentic monasticism in Church and society; the Sonhood of conscious commitment to the Incarnational, Orthodox civilisational world view and ethos, with its sense of supra-national Orthodox unity (the Patriarch of Moscow taking on the unifying role of the Tsar until the election of the new and coming Tsar, the Patriarch of Constantinople having lost this role in 1453); the Spirithood of an unshakeable commitment to authentic Orthodoxy worldwide, with, implicit in this, the understanding and openness to heterodox to make missionary work among them possible.