An essay in universal history

242^ Revel, How Democracies Perish, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985, p. 286.

243^ Service, Stalin, London: Pan, 2004, p. 591.

244^ Nikolai Nad, “Kto nizverg Stalina. Razvenchanie kul’ta lichnost nachal ne Khruschev” (Who overthrew Stalin. The unmasking of the cult of personality was not initiated by Khruschev), Argumenty i Fakty, 21 August, 2013. http://www.aif.ru/society/history/kto_nizverg_stalina_razvenchanie_kulta_lichnosti_nachal_ne_hruschev?utm_source=Surfingbird&utm_medium=click&utm_campaign=Surfingbird.

245^ Oleg Leusenko, “Bolee poluveka nazad SSSR sbrosil atomnuiu bombu na svoikh grazhdan: pogibli 43,000 sovietskikh soldat” (More than half a century ago the USSR threw an atomic bomb on its own citizens: 43,000 Soviet soldiers died), Retrans24, http://retrans24.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/43-000.html?m=1.

246^ Khruschev, in M.J. Cohen and John Major, History in Quotations, London: Cassell, 2004, p. 881.

247^ Zubov, “Stalin – eto os’, vokrug kotorogo vraschaietsa vsia nyneshniaia vlast’” (Stalin is the axis on which the whole of the present regime revolves), Open Russia, February 25, 2016, https://openrussia.org/post/view/13010.

248^ Revel, op. cit., pp. 285-286.

249^ See Tony Judt’s articles on these two in When the Facts Change, London: Vintage, 2015, chapters 26 and 28.

250^ Revel, op. cit., chapters 19 and 20.

251^ Rustam Bultialetdinov, “Rasstrel ‘Novocherkasskogo Maidana’ v 1962 godu”, Fakeoff, http://fakeoff.org/history/rasstrel-novocherkasskogo-maydana-v-1962-godu.

252^ Revel, op. cit., p. 132.

253^ Pravoslavnaia Zhizn’, N 6, 1976; Monk Benjamin, Letopis’ Tserkovnykh Sobytij (1939-1949) (Chronicle of Church Events (1939-1949)), part 3, http://www.zlatoust.ws/letopis3.htm, p. 100.

254^ The 1946 Council declared that the election of Patriarch Alexis was uncanonical, and on May 10, it decreed: “The Higher Church Administration in Russia in the person of the current Head of the Russian Church Patriarch Alexius has more than once already addressed the bishops abroad with an exhortation to enter into canonical submission to the patriarchate, but, listening to the directions of our pastoral conscience, we do not find it morally possible to acquiesce to these appeals as long as the Higher Church Administration in Russia is found in an unnatural union with the atheistic power and as long as the whole Russian Church is deprived of true freedom, which is inherent in it by its Divine nature.”

The November, 1950 Council, after profusely thanking the Americans for the protection they afforded to refugees from religious persecution, and lambasting the “red dragon” of communism, continued: “Insofar as the present Moscow Patriarch, and the other senior hierarchs of the Church in Russia remain closely bound with the atheist Soviet power and are its helpers in its criminal activity, which is directed to the destruction of the Kingdom of God on earth, our Church Abroad remains as before out of all communion with them, praying the Lord only that He enlighten their spiritual eyes and turn them from that disastrous path on which they themselves have started and on which they are dragging their flock.

“At the same time we, her humble servants, kiss the confessing exploit of the Secret or so-called Catacomb Church, whether she is in the dens of the earth or conceals herself in the depths of the Russian people itself, preserving the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience and struggling with the lies spread by the Bolshevik authorities and by the Russian bishops and clergy who have betrayed her.

“The Russian Church Abroad is in unity, love and prayer with all the other Orthodox Churches which have preserved fidelity to the apostolic tradition, to whatever people their members may belong. Still more would she want to preserve unity of spirit in the bond of peace with the children of our one mother, the Russian Church Abroad, trying to overcome the temporary jurisdictional divisions that exist between them.”

The 1956 Council declared that “the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is an unsevered part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church, being temporarily self-governing on synodal bases, until the abolition of atheist rule in Russia, in accordance with the resolution of the Holy Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the Higher Russian Church Council of November 7/20, 1920, N 362”.

255^ Andreyev, in Russia’s Catacomb Saints, Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Press, 1982, p. 49.

256^ As late as October 25, 1952, Patriarchs Christopher of Alexandria and Alexander of Antioch made a point of telling ROCOR’s Bishop Seraphim (Ivanov) of Chicago that they recognized both the MP and ROCOR, since, as Patriarch Alexander said, “we do not consider ourselves to have the right to be judges in your Russian ecclesiastical quarrel. We have both been in Russia and have seen that Patriarch Alexis has a flock, and quite a numerous one. But we love all the Russians, and for that reason relate with equal benevolence to you, too. A proof of this is the permission [I have given] for the existence in Beirut of two parishes: yours and Moscow’s. If you want, serve anywhere you like with us in the confines of my patriarchate.” Patriarch Christopher said approximately the same, only asking Seraphim to convey to Metropolitan Anastasy his desire that when appointing hierarchs for Africa, he confer with him about it and see to it that his name was commemorated in the Russian churches in Africa (Monk Benjamin, “Letopis’ Tserkovnoj Istorii”, http://www.zlatoust.ws/letopis4.htm, part 4, p. 16).

257^ Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 121-122. However, ROCOR’s Archbishop Nathanael of Western Europe concelebrated with Archbishop Tikhon in May, 1947 (Archbishop Seraphim of Brussels, “Vospominania” (Reminiscences), Russkij Pastyr (The Russian Pastor), N 36, 2000; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 3, p. 122).

258^ Archimandrite Anthony later became Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, and the main supporter of the supposedly grace-filled nature of the MP in the 70s and 80s. This is likely to have had something to do with his own career, which was decidedly suspicious. In 1945, when the ROCOR Synod and chancellery fled from Yugoslavia to Germany, he remained behind and joined the MP. Then, in 1949, he crossed the iron curtain somehow (it was almost impossible to do this without the blessing of the KGB) and was received back into the True Church by his brother, Bishop Leonty of Geneva.

259^ Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 21. Archbishop John continued to retain this “liberal” attitude toward the MP to the end of his life. Thus in a letter dated September 13, 1963 he wrote: “… When under Metropolitan Anastasy they began to speak about ‘the incorrect actions of the Church’, he used to stop them, pointing out that one must not ascribe the actions of the hierarchy to the Church, since the hierarchy is not the whole Church, even if it speaks in her name. On the see of Constantinople there were Paul the Confessor, Macedonius, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Nestorius, Proclus, Flavian and Germanus. Some of them shone in sanctity and Orthodoxy, but others were the leaders of heresies. But the Church remained Orthodox. During iconoclasm after the expulsion of Severnin, Nicephorus and others, not only their sees, but also the majority of Episcopal sees were occupied by iconoclasts. The other Churches did not even have communion with it [the see of Constantinople], according to the witness of St. Paul [patriarch of Constantinople], who abandoned the heresy and his see, since they did not wish to have communion via the iconoclasts. Nevertheless, the Church of Constantinople remained Orthodox, although part of the people, and especially the guards and the bureaucrats, were drawn into iconoclasm. So now it is understandable when people who are not familiar with the language of the Church use the expression ‘Soviet church’, but it is not fitting for responsible and theological discussions. When the whole hierarchy of South-Western Rus’ passed into uniatism, the Church continued to exist in the person of the believing Orthodox people, which after many sufferings restored its hierarchy. For that reason it is more correct to speak, not of the ‘Soviet church’, which is impossible in the correct understanding of the word ‘Church’, but of the hierarchy, which serves Soviet power. Our relationship to it can be the same as to other representatives of this power. Their rank gives them the opportunity to act with great authority and to substitute the voice of the suffering Russian Church, and it is leading into error those who think to learn from them the true position of the Church in Russia. Of course, among them there are both conscious traitors, and those who simply do not find in themselves the strength to fight with their environment and who go with the current – that is a question of their personal responsibility. But as a whole it is the apparatus of Soviet power, the God-fighting power. Being on the one hand a hierarchy in the sphere of Divine services, for grace works independently of personal worthiness, in the social-political sphere it is a cover for the Soviet God-fighting activity. For that reason those who are abroad and have entered its ranks have become conscious helpers of this power…” (Monk Benjamin, “Letopis’ Tserkovnoj Istorii (1961-1971)” (A Chronicle of Church History (1961-1971), http://www.zlatoust.ws/letopis5.htm, part 5, p. 13)

260^ See Chernov, "Proniknovenie Obnovlenchestva v Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Tserkvi" (The Penetration of Renovationism into the Russian Orthodox Church) (MS); letter of Archbishop Averky to Metropolitan Philaret, September 14/27, 1966.

261^ Chernov, “Proniknovenie Obnovlenchestva…”, op. cit., p. 3. However, Archbishop Ambrose (von Sievers), following Chernov, asserts that in July-August, 1950 Metropolitan Seraphim was secretly received into the MP. This was followed by his mysterious death at the hands of bandits on August 15, 1950. Archbishop Ambrose explains this by the fact that ROCOR, being a “public-legal corporation” in German law, was the only organization that guaranteed Russian emigrants freedom from deportation back to the USSR. The news that Metropolitan Seraphim had secretly defected to the MP threatened all these emigrants (“Bezobrazniki: K sobytiam v RPTsZ 1945-55gg.” (Hooligans: On Events in ROCOR from 1945 to 1955), Russkoe Pravoslavie (Russian Orthodoxy), N 2 (16), 1999, p. 17).

262^ Letter of Protopresbyter George Grabbe to Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, May 6/19, 1969, in Bishop Gregory Grabbe, Pis’ma (Letters), Moscow, 1998, pp. 14-15.

263^ Pravoslavnaia Rus’, N 10, 1954, pp. 5-6; http://rocormoscow.livejournal.com/3507.html, 2.

264^ Quoted in Nun Vassa (Larin), “The Ecclesiastical Principle of oikonomia and ROCOR under Metropolitan Anastasy”, a report to the Conference on the History of the Russian Church in November, 2002.

265^ Fr. Alexander Lebedev, “1956 ROCOR Sobor on Eulogian Jurisdiction”, [e-mail]. November 30, 2002.

266^ True the Eulogian jurisdiction had obtained a retraction of his views from the leading Sophianist, Fr. Sergei Bulgakov. However, the Eulogians did not clearly condemn the heresy, and their jurisdiction continued to be a hothouse of heresy for decades. See Andrew Blane (ed.), Georges Florovsky, Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1993, p. 67.

267^ Nun Vassa, op. cit.

268^ Quoted by Deacon Nicholas Savchenko, “Pis’mo otkolovshikhsia” (A Letter of Those Who Have Fallen Away), Otkliki na deiania Arkhierejskogo Sobora RPTsZ 2000 goda i na prochie posleduiuschie za nim sobytia (Reactions to the Acts of the Hierarchical Council of the ROCOR in 2000 and to Other Events that Followed it), Paris, 2001, p. 9.

269^ Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 28.

270^ Andrei Psarev, “The Development of Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia’s Attitude Towards Other Local Orthodox Churches”, http://www.sobor2006.com/printerfriendly2.php?id=119_0_3_0, p. 3.

271^ lesolub, http://www.livejournal.com/users/dodododo/601987.html, December 12, 2005.

272^ Metropolitan Anastasy, in Fr. Alexis Young, The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, San Bernardino, CA: the Borgo Press, 1993, p. 47.

273^ Metropolitan Anastasy, in Young, op. cit., pp. 55-56.

274^ Quoted by Irina Pahlen, “Metropolite Anastasy” (Metropolitan Anastasy), [e-mail]. December 3, 2002.

275^ Metropolitan Anastasy, in Nashi Vesti (Our News), 1991, no. 4.

276^ A.A. Sollogub (ed.), Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ za granitsej (The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad), vol. I, 1958, pp. 306-307; quoted in Protopresbyter Victor Melehov, “O Polozhenii Russkoj Zarubezhnoj Tserkvi v Sovremennom Mire” (On the Position of the Russian Church Abroad in the Contemporary World), 2002, MS.

277^ Maximenko, Motivy moej zhizni (Motifs of my life), Jordanville, 1955, p. 77.

278^ Maximenko, op. cit., p. 25.

279^ Maximenko, op. cit., p. 45.

280^ V.K. Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov’ na Steziakh Otstupnichestva (The Russian Church Abroad on the Path of Apostasy), St. Petersburg, 1999, p. 48.

281^ Mansfield, A History of the Middle East, London: Penguin, 2003, pp. 228-229, 230.

282^ Mansfield, op. cit., pp. 230-231.

283^ Montefiore, Titans of History, pp. 581-583.

284^ Alex von Tunzelmann: “It had been widely expected in Britain, France and Israel that the US would not go against Israel in public, but in fact they did – extremely strongly. This was all happening in the week leading up to Dwight D. Eisenhower’s second presidential election, too, and it was assumed that he wouldn’t stamp on Israel because he would lose the election if he lost Jewish votes in the US. But actually Eisenhower was very clear that he didn’t mind about losing the election, he just wanted to do the right thing” (BBC History Magazine, September, 2016, pp. 66-67).

285^ Stone, op. cit., pp. 141-142.

286^ Shulman, “Boj nad Suetsem” (Battle over Suez), Russkaia Planeta (Russian Planet), June 14, 2013.

287^ Andrew Blane, Georges Florovsky, p. 122.

288^ Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarkhii (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate), 1958, N 6; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 30.

289^ "Nekotorie Stranitsy Biografii Mitropolita Nikolaia (Yarushevicha)" (Some Pages from the Biography of Metropolitan Nicholas (Yarushevich), Vertograd-Inform, NN 7-9 (16-18), 1996, pp. 16-17; Andrew and Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive, London: Allen Lane, 1999, p. 636.

290^ Deriabin, who served in the Kremlin Guard Directorate and then as Rezident in charge of espionage in Vienna, testified that “every priest is an agent of the secret police. Even the second ranking official in the Russian Orthodox Church of Moscow [Metropolitan Nicholas] is an agent” (Chronicle-Telegraph of Elyria, Ohio, July 20, 1961; in Vladimir Kozyreff, “Re: [paradosis] Happiness and successes – and Bishop Meletieff”, [e-mail], January 19, 2006.

291^ Gordun, "Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov' pri Sviateishikh Patriarkhakh Sergii i Aleksii" (The Russian Orthodox Church under their Holinesses Patriarchs Sergius and Alexis), Vestnik Russkogo Khristianskogo Dvizhenia (Herald of the Russian Christian Movement), vol. 158, I-1990, pp. 120, 133, 134.

292^ Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 4, p. 42.

293^ Monk Benjamin, “Letopis’ Tserkovnoj Istorii (1961-1971)” (A Chronicle of Church History (1961-1971), http://www.zlatoust.ws/letopis5.htm, p. 1.

294^ Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, p. 3.

295^ "The Russian Orthodox Church in the System of Contemporary Christianity", in A. Preobrazhensky (ed.), The Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow: Progress, 1988, p. 387.

296^ See William C. Fletcher, Religion and Soviet Foreign Policy, 1945-1970, London: Oxford University Press, 1973, chapter 9.

297^ Archbishop Basil of Brussels, Vospominania (Reminiscences); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, pp. 3-4.

298^ The Daily Telegraph (London), November 22, 1961.

299^ Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, p. 5.

300^ V. Moss, "Ecucommunism", Living Orthodoxy, September-October, 1989, vol. XI, N 5, pp. 13-18.

301^ Kuraiev, "Vo dni pechal'nie Velikago posta" (During the Sad Days of the Great Fast), Den' (Day), N 13, March 29 / April 4, 1992.

302^ Martin, The Keys of this Blood, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990, pp. 258-59.

303^ Thus in September, 1962 Patriarch Alexis in an interview with a French journalist said the following on the participation of MP representatives at the Second Vatican Council: “The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are close to each other in the spheres of faith and liturgics, and we believe that those differences that divide them can, with the help of God and mutual good-will, can be overcome in time. In respect of dogmatics, the main points dividing us are the infallibility of the pope and his headship in the Church, some questions of Mariology, the question of the Filioque and some other particularities.” (Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarkhii (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate), 1962, N 9, pp. 14-16; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, p. 6).

304^ Protopresbyter Vitaly Borovoj, “I on byl veren do smerti” (He, too, was faithful unto death); Monk Benjamin, op. cit., part 5, pp. 6-7.

305^ France Nouvelle (New France), January 16-22, 1963, p. 15.

306^ Serge Keleher, Passion and Resurrection – the Greek Catholic Church in Soviet Ukraine, 1939-1989, Stauropegion, L’viv, 1993, pp. 101-102. Cf. The Tablet, March 20, 1993. Recently, writes Ludmilla Perepiolkina, “the Catholic Journal Truth and Life published the memoirs of Miguel Arranz, in which this Jesuit, who in Nikodem’s time taught at the Leningrad Theological Academy, told, among other things, that with Nikodem’s blessing he celebrated ‘the Eastern Rite Liturgy’ in Nikodem’s house church at the Leningrad Theological Academy.” (Ecumenism – A Path to Perdition, St. Petersburg, 1999, p. 276, note). Again, Hieromonk Tikhon (Kazushin) writes: “In 1989 dsuring a reception at the French embassy an elderly man, Czech by nationality, came up to me and introduced himself as head of the Jesuit pension for Russian youth in Medon near Parish and as a high-ranking officer of the [Jesuit] order. Thus he said that Nikodem was their man and also a high-ranking officer in the Order close to the General. It is know that in his cell Nikodem almost everyday performed a so-called ‘spoken mass’” (communication on Facebook, 24 January, 2015, https://www.facebook.com/lregelson/posts/981429488551934?comment_id=983137605047789&offset=0&total_comments=96¬if_t=feed_comment_reply).

307^ Psarev, op. cit., pp. 6-7.

308^ Revel, op. cit., p. 177.

309^ P.K. Kurochkin, Evoliutsia sovremennogo russkogo pravoslavia (The Evolution of Contemporary Russian Orthodoxy), Moscow, 1971, pp. 81, 82.

310^ Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarkhii (The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate), 1967; translated in Orthodox Life, № 110, March-April, 1968, p. 25.

311^ Grabbe, Dogmat o Tserkvi v sovremennom mire (The Dogma of the Church in the Contemporary World), report to the Third All-Diaspora Council, 1974.

312^ Reynolds, “Nuclear Fall-Out”, BBC History Magazine, July, 2016, p. 43.

313^ Ruane, “Winston Churchill: Atomic Warrior, Nuclear Peacemaker”, BBC History Magazine, November, 2016, p. 23.

314^ Kissinger, World Order, London: Penguin, 2015, pp. 332-333, 334.

315^ Thornton, “Castro’s Cuba”, The New American, 6 April 2016, http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/22899-castros-cuba. However, the intelligence experts Christopher Andrew and Vasily Mitrokhin write that “the word ‘socialism’ did not appear in any of Castro’s speeches until 1961. Castro had a privileged upbringing in an affluent Cuban landowning family, and drew his early political inspiration not from Lenin but from the radical nationalist Partido del Pueblo Cubano and the ideals of its anti-Marxist founder, Eduardo Chibas.” (The KGB and the World, London: Penguin, 2006, p. 33)