Frequently Asked Questions about Matthew Raphael Johnson

|
These questions are largely scaled down comments and ideas that have been sent to me over the last two years. Unfortunately, the WWW can be utilized by anyone, no matter how impaired otherwise, and there are many inaccuracies about me and my supporters floating around. Unfortunately, this is the nature of the WWW, and I am far from alone in worrying about it. No one as yet has seen fit to take me on on a scholarly level, but have resorted to labeling, wild accusations and name calling.

I thought that by adding a FAQ section, I can clear up any misconceptions, and provide my friends, as well as my enemies, with information about my basic views, and the purpose of this journal and my Synod, in one location. I have been called nasty names, even names mutually contradictory, often by the same person. Such things as "nazi," "communist," "pinko," "fanatic" and other non-scholarly labels have been thrown around by people on the blogs who apparently have no lives, and no one to listen to them, and have certainly never read my material. For those who are doing research on me, and, so I'm told, there are quite a few of you, I have included some ideas here that might counter some of these attacks. Attacks by those, I might add, whose motives are, to say the least, suspect.

In addition, there are those so possessed by their own self-perpetuating hatred and manifest irrationality, that they have even gone so far to write awful articles and put my name on them, in hopes of defaming me. Some of these are still floating around the WWW even today.

The blogosphere, so far, is merely a mindless gossip forum where alienated people can go and vent, and who actually believe their rants matter, and that anyone with power actually cares. They rarely use thier real names, and are under the spell that they are "safe" behind thier keyboards, and thus do not have to be responsible for libel. It seems that the blogs have no other purpose but to assault and defame. It is supported by the elite because it gives a forum to dissent without actually mattering to anyone with power. People now protest with their keyboards rather than actually taking action. Perfect.

Americans are frightened; politically speaking, they live in fear. They fear being tarred with the brush of “extremist,” and pressure groups abound that will force institutions to eliminate “unwanted” or “inconvenient” individuals. America is, collectively speaking, ill, and imitates the life of Soviet society in an almost perfect mirror image, albeit using differing, yet more sophisticated, methods of control. I will repeat a mantra that I have said many times before: Individuals have no right to an opinion on a topic about which they know nothing. Opinions should be based on research, reading and discussion over a long period of time. Otherwise they are merely prejudices with the aim of defamation. Hopefully, this FAQ will clear a few things up.


1. What does it mean to say that “Russia is the center of the world?”

This simply means that Russia is located in such a way, and has such gifts, that the global economy is dependent upon her political stance and leadership. Controlling Russia is controlling the world. Her natural resources, technological ability and economic strength make her a central force in world politics, and her size provides her with quick access to most global hot spots. Ultimately, the wars in Central Asia are about controlling access to pipelines, transporting both oil and natural gas, the management of which Russia is in a position to influence. The future of the American economy depends on this control of cheap energy. Therefore, the true essence of American foreign policy is to control this vital region, which is another way of saying that Russia needs to be tamed and brought under U.S. influlence, a mission which is growing more difficult by the hour. Russia is now the central partner to China’s huge economic advances and potential, supplying her with both oil and technical assistance. This only compounds her threat to the west, and shows an outline of a future world order. The future belongs to Eurasia.

2. What are your views on America today?

America is a sick society. It is an oligarchy. The state and her "culture" is the property of private interests, and therefore, so is her foreign policy. She is attempting to lead the development of an a-cultural world order dominated by finance and commodity capital, and, therefore, all nationalists and separatists within her borders are mercilessly hounded and regularly assaulted. The extreme left and their neo-conservative hangers-on are funded exclusively by corporate capital, and the public records of their political largesse are available at the Capital Research Center. However, the good news is that the oligarchy is currently losing a war in Iraq, is drowning in unrepayable debt, and is addicted to China’s commodity capital, providing the latter with a substantial lever of power against her imperialist tendencies. Therefore, there is no feasible way for America to recover outside of the slow dismantling of the federal system, and a return to regional and state sovereignty. America’s fall from global power means that the world will be remade into a series of regional power centers, each developing the specific potential of her region.

3. You have been accused of being anti-Ukrainian. Please comment.

I believe that Ukraine is a separate culture from Russia’s, and as such, should be an independent nation. My ideal is that western Ukraine should become an independent republic (hopefully including Transcarpathia), with her own autocephalous church, and eastern Ukraine should rejoin Russia. I am a scholar of Ukrainian culture and my memories of being a part of the Ukrainian diaspora in America are precisely what led my to become a Slavist. However, I reject and condemn the anti-Russian polemics coming out of certain Ukrainian circles, and am gladdened that polls in Ukraine do not show such an anti-Russian attitude. Ukraine will find out soon enough what is expected of them as a footnote to the European Union, and I believe that soon, her population will want some form of confederation with Russia and Belarus.

4. What are your views on Russia in World War II?

I believe that no one could win WWII. The world would be either made safe for Stalin (which is what happened), or Hitler. Neither alternative was desirable. Stalin and his creature, Mao, murdered over 20 million people in the name of “equality” and “brotherhood.” Hitler would have done the same for a different ideology.

Hitler and Himmler believed the Slavs were a slave race (with the exception of Croatia, apparently), easily expendable in creating a “Greater Germany.” Read Himmler’s “Posen Speech” for a vivid confirmation of this.

I am anti-racist, anti-leftist, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist and anti-communist. As a Serbophile, I condemn Hitler’s genocide, but also realize that his defeat empowered Stalin’s and Mao’s tyranny. Therefore, I reject WWII as the “Good War.” I am a romantic in my view of ethnicity and nationalism (somewhat akin to Mykola Drahomanov), and such ideas were violated under the ideologies of the 20th century, none of which I accept. The 20th century was the graveyard of modernity, and anyone who believes in the promises of the Enlightenment after the "century of slaughter" is a fool.

It should be kept in mind that the mass slaughter of WW I is ultimately responsible for WWII, and the elimination of the Kaiser in Germany and the Tsar in Russia are primarily responsible for the rise of pagan Fascism and atheist and western-financed Marxism in their respective countries. Remember that the Marxists had taken over Bavaria and Hungary briefly just after WWI. I maintain that royal governments in both Germany and Russia remain the only legitimate form of state for those countries. Royalism will temper the complete domination of private, leftist capital in Germany, and the oligarchy of ill-gotten wealth in Russia.

As far as the Third Reich is concerned, it was the Nazis and Italian fascists who assisted the Croat attempt to destroy Serbia (with some reservations). It was the Nazis who invaded Yugoslavia and decimated the Serbian population. It was Himmler who believed Slavs were non-Europeans (i.e. Mongols), and that the Russians were to be enslaved in the interests of a "greater Germany." It was the Nazis who created the Islamic SS in Bosnia, and consistently encouraged Albanian raids on Serbian territory. No true Slavophile can be a supporter of the Third Reich, or Nazism of any kind. I support the German monarchy and empire (i.e. the first and second reich), not the secular politicians of the occult Thule Society who formed the core of German Nazism.

Ironically, it is the US/Soros complex that is continuing the Third Reich’s policies concerning the Bosnian Muslims and Albanians, in the creation of a Greater Islamic movement in the Balkans.

5. What is your ideal for a future world order?

My ideal derives directly from the great, and often unread historians, Johann Herder, Nikolai Kostomarov, and Konstantin Aksakov. A world of many centers of power (as politics is inseparable from power), leading to an order where all the world’s ethnic groups can enjoy their own way of living in a highly decentralized set of communal arrangements. Government should be local, deriving from local concerns, and deriving, morally, from the ethnic traditions of the region. I do not believe in countries or states, but in nations and cultures. Economics, as well, should be based on ethnic and local concerns, developing alternative forms of energy, and being tightly rooted to the soil.

That being said, however, modern global politics make it imperative that Orthodox states organize around ethno-religious state-structures dedicated to the protection of the Orthodox heritage. Thus, in the debate between social nationalism, such as in Belarus, and national anarchism, the belief in autonomous ethnic and regional communes (e.g. elements of the early Serbian Radical Party), modern life forces me to the former as an immediate goal, the latter as a long term result.

One excellent strand of modern economic development is that new forms of energy and technology are being developed that can be run from local, rather than centralized, sources. Technology is good so long as it remains the province of the ethnos, the village and the locality. Otherwise, its record is to merely be a tool of exploitation among the cosmopolitan ruling classes.

In the economic arena, an area that Herder left blank, the writings of Proudhon are extremely appealing. Steering a difficult course between capitalism and communism, Proudhon envisaged a federation of local workers/farmers associations, centered around, not collective ownership, but rather small scale peasant ownership, and labor control over larger industries. Proudhon, it should be noted, made a strong distinction between state and nation, where the ethnic represents the sacred tradition of a people, where the state stood for the principle of power and domination. Like Herder, Proudhon believed that, ultimately state and ethnos were opposed and, in fact, opposites.

6. What is the role of Orthodoxy in this?

Orthodoxy has always insisted on the local synod for the solving of local problems. The church is not the hierarchy, merely associations of bishops, but rather takes into account the entire body: local conditions, ethnicity and language, and local problems. All of which are the conduits of grace, not merely synods of bishops. In Slavic, this view is called sobornoprovana, and is a brilliant encapsulation of this notion of communal decentralization.

7. What is the fate of American Orthodoxy?

Unfortunately, America is too corrupt to properly assimilate the ascetic ideas of Christ’s church. The middle class lifestyle, based on competition, fashion, and materialism, must be rejected for the Orthodox mind to grow. For the new-calendar jurisdictions, Orthodoxy is merely another denomination, part of the "diverse fabric" of American life, and other such meaningless slogans. Therefore, I am a part of the Church in Resistance, and would like to see islands of small house chapels and sketes (both lay and monastic), with small, intimate congregations who form a single body in Christ, not merely a Sunday gathering, leading to a merely pagan existence throughout he week. We form an exclusive Community of holiness, the incarnation, in a sense, of the Holy Ghost, and are radically different, therefore, from the rest of society. We should be leading separate lives in Community, and viewing the rest of society as a unredeemed and graceless, alienated from God. Unfortunately, my friends in the Antiochean jurisdiction cannot wait to submerge Orthodoxy into the corrupt and immoral life of America, being absolutely clueless not merely about the nature of the church they claim to represent, but also of the corruption of modern life.

8. Are you a part of the “Far Right?”

Such terms are part of the Orwellian rhetorical fabric of the cosmopolitan ruling classes. It is designed to stigmatize those who set their face against the Regime, and designed to stop others from reading their material. It is a powerful form of social control; but since it is not state-run (it is the domain of private corporations) it is invisible to the bulk of the zombie-like American population. The American hydra has proven that private sources can control a population far more effectively than the state, which is a clumsy weapon. This is the primary difference between 21st century America and the USSR. Otherwise, the rhetoric and policies are nearly identical.

I am a part of no American political or social organization or movement, as they are the very picture of vulgarity and Machiavellian opportunism, and I resent all the idiots who try and pigeonhole me in an attempt to discredit my work. I do not vote in American elections. I pay taxes because I am forced to do so. I ask for no tax exemption due to my clerical status or my house chapel, and I never will.

9. What are your views on Zionism?

I am as opposed to political Zionism as I believe in the Jewish right to live in peace. Zionism has led to the deaths of thousands of Jews in Israel’s endless warfare with its hostile neighbors. Every anti-Semite in the world has made the savagery of the Likudites and settlers in Israel central to their contempt for Jewry. Jews have lost much of the world’s sympathy, particularly in the third world, because Israel is rightly perceived as a colonizing country, and an appendage of American money.

10. Do the new calendar jurisdictions have grace-filled sacraments?

The Orthodox church depends on a canonical order for its functioning. These canons are the highest expression of the patristic world view, and institutionalized in ecumenical synods. This order, within the tradition of worship laid down by the saints, deriving its own order from Scripture, is the order of Orthodox life, and the sign of its authenticity. Violation of this order leads to schism. The so-called “SCOBA” hierarchy have routinely violated this canonical order by their innovations, such as the recognition of the mysteries of the heterodox, toleration of widespread Masonry, the belief that non-Orthodox are saved, that the church is a mere human institution, prayers with heterodox, admission of monophysites and other heretics into “communion with Orthodoxy,” manipulation of the services, increasing dispensation from fasting, denial of the Old Testament, and, in the case of the members of the World Council of Churches, utter denial of Christ and his role in salvation history. These are severe disruptions in the canonical order, and lead to a state of schism.

However, due to the fact that the Old Calendar resistance is in such a state, it is perfectly justifiable that many traditionalists remain in SCOBA, and because of this, the grace of the mysteries remain within the SCOBA groups. In the Old Testament, God tells Abraham that if he can find even a handful of true Israelites in Sodom, he will spare the city. We use this Scriptural basis for believing that grace remains in SCOBA, for many just men are found therein. This, however, does not erase the non-canonical nature of these jurisdictions. The canonical order remains solely and in its fullness within the Traditional Orthodox Church, those who derive their orders from +CHRYSOSTOMOS and +AUXENTIOS, and the Synod Abroad. These would include the majority of the Orthodox Resistance in the world, excluding the Matthewite schism. These groups have not deliberately violated a single canon in their existence, and hence hold the full Truth of Orthodoxy, the very expression of the Holy Ghost on earth.

The epithet of “non-canonical,” as an insult thrown at the resistance, is merely a cover for the endless violations of the canonical order by the SCOBA groups, including, but not limited to, the short list above. The synod of +AUXENTIOS remains the standard of Orthodoxy in the world. To believe one is “canonical” because he belongs to the “big” church that “everyone recognizes” is committing the sin of idolatry, and committing the common American error that what is bigger and richer must be better. I would recommend reading the Life of St. Maximos the Confessor for such people.

11. There are a few bad things about your founder, Archbishop +Auxentios of Athens, found throughout the web. Can you comment on this?

There are a few slanders circulating the web that need to be refuted.

The first is that he consecrated a bishop an alleged homosexual named Dorotheos Tsakos. Auxentios denied ever doing this, and that if such a thing was done, it was done without his permission. The synodal trial never produced any evidence of such a thing. It was this that led to the schism of Chrysostomos II, though many of these hierarchs publically repudiated their schism at the great archbishop’s funeral. This new synod later recanted their accusations some years after Auxentios’ death.

As far as the so called “Kallistos schism” is concerned, some of the condemnations made against Auxentios were hashed out in court, for the synod of Auxentios had the schismatics tried for slander, a case which he won, and the offending bishops came back to the bosom of the Auxentian synod.

Archbishop Auxentios is the most beloved of all the Old Calendar hierarchs of Greece. Attacks on him largely come from professional envy, a pandemic among Old Calendar hierarchs, and was something that the archbishop was forced to live with throughout his career. If some accuse him of introducing irregularities into the synodal business, this does not distinguish him from any other functioning Orthodox synod in the world today, but is only a claim that his bureaucratic capacities were below par, a weakness of no real interest to the church. It is a mere reflection of the confusion of the times, a confusion that is getting only worse. It might be noted that the blessed Archbishop demanded affidavits from all clergy seeking canonical protection from him, and this only persistent misrepresentation and perjury allowed some immoral clergy from the Greek new calendarists to infiltrate his synod.

12. Tell me about the Synod of Milan and its canonical status.

The Synod of Milan was erected by Archbishop +AUXENTIOS of Athens in the late 1970s. In 1984, it was given a tomos of autonomy, so as to avoid the fractious nature of Greek ecclesiastical politics. It is considered canonical by the SCOBA hierarchy, in that former Milan bishops +VARLAAM and +LAZAR of the OCA were accepted from Milan without re-consecration, and the consecration dates on the OCA website for these bishops are that of the Milan consecrations. Additionally, the canonical Church of Poland has received the now reposed +GABRIEL, former metropolitan of the Milan Synod, also without re-consecration. Therefore, the attacks on Milan as “non-canonical” are merely libelous.

However, Milan does not commune, at the present time, with any other bodies of Orthodoxy. Partially, this is because the Greek Old Calendar movement is too fractured to favor one group over another, though I personally favor the synod of +MAKARIOS. Once this situation is repaired (as it was with the elevation of +AUXENTIOS by the ROCOR), communion with the other Greek Old Calendarists will be a fact. Partially, this is because many of the Old Calendar groups want little to do with the western rite. For our part, Milan will offer the sacraments to all traditional Orthodox Christians. Unity, for the Orthodox church, is not expressed in bureaucratic and mechanistic terms, but on the faithful following of the holy tradition, the true meaning of the much abused word “canonical.”

In 1977, the patriarch of Georgia was visiting America, bishop +HILARION of Texas for Milan went to meet him, and introduced himself. In front of Metropolitan +PHILIP of the Antiocheans in America, the patriarch announced that Milan “was the only good thing to come out of the synod of Auxentios.” As it turns out, some time later, the patriarch of Georgia issued an invitation to join the Georgian patriarchate, which was accepted. A harsh letter from Patriarch +BARTHOLOMEW of the Phanar to Georgia scuttled that idea, and quite frankly, left the Milan hierarchs shaken, with a lesson about the limits of ecumenical “love.”

As far as Auxentios himself is concerned, he took the reins of the moderate Old Calendarists of Greece in the early 1960s, after the death of the Blessed +CHRYSOSTOMOS left it without a leader. Under the guidance of +PHILARET of the Synod Abroad, Auxentios and his synod were received officially as a sister church, and placed at the helm of the resistance movement in Greece. After the death of the saintly +Philaret, mutual condemnations in Auxentios’ synod left +Auxentios alone until his death in 1994. As tragic as that was, it has no affect on Milan, which had been a self-governing body prior to the depositions of 1985.

Therefore, despite what some might claim, Milan is a fully canonical body carrying on the traditions of the Blessed Auxentios of Athens as part of the fully regularized Greek Old Calendarist Movement, a movement that has, alas disintegrated after the death of Auxentios into the squabbling bodies one sees today. But until another competent leader shows himself, the situation is unlikely to change.

The Milan Synod is the most stable group of the Greek Old Calendarist movement, largely refusing to partake in the polemical (and destructive) infighting among the Old Calendarists worldwide, preferring instead to accept their faith as the criterion of canonicity. We were specifically designed to be governed by an autonomous synod of convert-bishops of a specifically western ethnic background, and our bishops are either Italian, German or Anglo-Saxon in ethnicity. This was to avoid regular contact with the fractious Greek-centered groups, and thus to encourage stability and provide a home for those of western European ethnic backgrounds that often feel alien in a Greek or Slavic world.

The Greek Old Calendar movement, which we support and from which our orders derive, is in a state of chaos. Therefore, the last remains of Auxentios’ synod, Milan, will remain in limbo unto a solution can be found. Certainly, this is nothing new in the church. Bulgarian autocephalicity took a long time to develop, while the church itself was unrecognized by Constantinople. The same could be said of the Serbs, and even the Russians until the sacking of Constantinople in 1453 forced the Greeks to help erect a Russian patriarch, the saintly +JOB. In my personal opinion, Auxentios knew something was coming, and thus gave Milan autonomy (hence “sealing us off”) before the storm hit, thereby preserving the synod of the Church of Greece, and his own legacy after he was gone. And it was on this basis that the Georgian patriarch maintains, to this day, that Auxentios' synod was preserved only at Milan, and thereby the canonical order of the True Orthodox Church of Greece. One year after the tomos of autonomy was issued, Auxentios’ synod fell apart, and Auxentios was "deposed" (a "deposition" only to be reversed posthumously in 1997).

It is probably worth noting that our metropolitan, +EVLOGIOS was the co-consecrator of Metropolitan +CHRYSOSTOMOS of Etna, CA, for the Cyprianite synod, along with +CYPRIAN himself. Unfortunately, it was our stress on the Orthodox western rites that ended the negotiations between Milan and +CYPRIAN to merge our synods. Something, however, might still come of this in the future.

For the record, I believe a canonical order is extremely important, and is an outward sign of canonical/sacramental grace, the manifest presence of the Spirit on earth. Therefore, my opinion is that the true canonical order is currently preserved in Russia, Serbia and Georgia, and their exarchs abroad. In Greece, the canonical metropolitan of the church is +MAKARIOS of Athens, who, in the absence of +MAXIMOS, is the true successor to Blessed +AUXENTIOS. In the west, Milan remains as AUXENTIOS' only intact successor. The remainder I believe to be schismatic. However, as there are many good people in those other groups, God will take care of them, and provide them all the graces necessary, and I do, therefore, call them brothers in the faith, but this is a matter of economy, not of strict order.

13. Why is there a schism between “old” and “new” calendarists?

The calendar alteration was forced on the Greek church by the Greek government, and the very election of the deposed Patriarch of Constantinople (actually he was driven out of town by a mob in 1923, after which he resigned) Meletios Metaxakis, was fraudulent, paid for with Greek and English money. It was Metropolitan Germanos who received the majority of the votes for that election, but political pressure saw to the election of Meletios. Later, the Metropolitan stated that he was asked to take a bribe of 10,000 English pounds to forfeit the election in favor of Meletios. Like it our not, this is the origin of the calendar change and of the ecumenical movement as it pertains to the Greek church. As it happens, Meletios had been deposed by the Greek synod on December 29, 1921 for “creating a schism,” and was “elected” to his patriarchal post soon after, quite unexpectedly. He was reinstated later that year. Most of the churches in Orthodoxy, especially the church of Alexandria, condemned the new calendar as late as 1921. The Orthodox Church of Greece condemned the new calendar in 1903 and again in 1919. The church of Romania in 1903.

Metropolitan Germanos, for his part, pointed a finger at English interests both in Greece and Egypt, paying quite a bit of money to make sure that “western oriented” persons were elected to both Orthodox Sees. According to the Metropolitan, Greek nationalist politicians had visited him after the fraudulent elections and explained to him that English pressure brought this all to bear, claiming that Meletios had substantial contacts with England, and could bring in much money and political prestige to Greece, particularly after the destruction of World War I and the necessities brought to bear on the Orthodox world after the murders of the Russian royal family. The fact that the Freemasons of England at the time called Meletios a “brother” certainly did not hurt his cause.

Now, in spite of all the fraud, the calendar was just the beginning. The new calendar, the way Meletios saw it, was a stepping stone for broader ecumenical relations. Since that time, the mainline Orthodox churches have joined the World Council of Churches (WCC), who, as part of its constitution, claims that all religions have an equal share of truth, spiritually speaking. This was reaffirmed in 1992 at Barr, Switzerland, where the WCC officially proclaimed that “Christ was not necessary for salvation.” It was this outrage that led the patriarchates of Serbia, Georgia and Bulgaria to leave the WCC (though the American branches of these churches remain). Mainline Orthodox churches often commune and concelebrate with Roman Catholics and Anglicans, particularly the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the Patriarch of Antioch has officially entered into communion with the Jacobite church, despite the synodal anathemas passed against the non-Chalcedonians.

These are serious canonical infractions, not to mention scandals to the Orthodox faithful. Hence, a state of schism exists, where the True Orthodox condemn these canonical violations and have protected themselves from such activity by forming independent synodal organizations, as the canons of St. Basil (among others) explicitly provide for. The mere attachment to a historical patriarch is not sufficient to claim one is “canonical,” but an actual following of the canonical regularity of the church, however, is. The mainline attacks on the True Orthodox as “non-canonical” are mere name calling, and are designed to distract attention from the own lack of respect for a true canonical order.

It remains, however, that, because of the personal ambition of many hierarchs among the True Orthodox under the synod of Auxentios in the 1980s, the movement itself has disintegrated into several squabbling groups. This situation is embarrassing, and desperately needs to be settled. What is required, it seems to me, is that the Synod of Georgia, itself highly sympathetic to the True Orthodox movement, consecrate or regularize some of Auxentios’ former synod members into a True Orthodox synod, as was done with Auxentios himself in the early 1960s with the Synod Abroad. Until then, however, we remain in limbo, a status, however, that does not speak to the faith or devotion of the True Orthodox movement, such as it is.

14. What is your view on the Moscow Patriarchate?

The Patriarchy of Moscow was reestablished during the Civil War, and suffered every day of its existence since then. I believe that, despite many setbacks, the patriarchy maintained some sort of Russian Orthodox tradition under the western-financed Bolsheviki. Their people suffered extermination, deportation and genocide at every level of its accepted definition. I strongly disagree with my traditionalist compatriots who believe this patriarchy is “without grace,” for its association with the Marxist regime. The reality is that, had this cooperation, which undoubtedly took place, not occurred, the church, as the CHEKA had threatened, would have been totally annihilated.

No one has a right, theologically or otherwise, to condemn the “collaborators,” who did so to save their lives and that of their parishes. These men watched their compatriots tortured to death. Who can tell what sort of emotional and spiritual torment they suffered through as a result? “Canonical” issues are irrelevant here, given the extreme levels of confusion the “revolution” created. There was really no canonical order of any kind, nor could one have ever been expected. Orthodox people have been under heterodox rulers at one time or another for centuries. No one dared say the Phanar was "graceless" while under the Ottoman regime, or that Moscow was equally so when under the Mongols. In both cases, the infidels were cooperated with by the Orthodox authorities, sometimes gleefully so. In all cases, bishops were forced to pay for their appointments. Still, no one called them "graceless." As far as I am concerned, all factions of the Russian church who suffered during the persecutions all were grace filled, more so than their lazy and fat American brethren. They survived the tyranny in different ways, and those living comfortable lives in the west should merely keep silent, and should thank God for the benefits they have received.

That being said, while I publically support the communion between Moscow and the ROCOR, there are several worries. Given the nature of Orthodox polemics, these worries are often stated in the most extreme form possible. First, the Patriarchy has yet to leave the WCC. Second, I worry that the ROCOR will now believe its part of the “big church” and, blinded by this worldly prestige, will lose its specific royalist and traditional point of view over time. And third, that by increasing contact with the non-canonical SCOBA jurisdictions, the ROCOR will begin to be infected with such pernicious teachings. Hopefully, these are just jitters, but time will tell.

I believe that restoration of communion between the ROCOR and the MP is a signal for repentance by the MP. The Patriarchate had been forced to excommunicate the Synod Abroad many times over, and here, by reestablishing communion through no change on the Synod’s part, proves that the MP is repenting of its former sins, and making certain all know its previous actions under "Marx's thumb" are null and void.

I get the impression that Alexy II and his synod remain in the WCC because that organization, in spite of its anti-Christian corruption, was instrumental in interceding for the church with the Soviet authorities. They also, however, sent a condescending letter to the patriarch in 1999 condemning Russian military forces in Chechnya.

But here it is from the horses’ mouth. Concerning “Sergianism:” “The rejection of the course of the Russian Church in her relations with the state as reflected in the ‘Declaration' opens the path to the fullness of brotherly communion.” In other words, Alexy II officially condemned the 1927 “Declaration” as an aspect of returning to the ROCOR in repentance. He also said the following: “As the Body of Christ is the sole vessel of salvation, as the pillar and foundation of truth, the Church never divided itself nor disappeared, but always, over the entire history of Christianity, taught the pure teaching of the Gospel in the abundance of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit.” And also the following: “A condition of the participation of the Orthodox Church in inter-confessional organizations, including the World Council of Churches, is the exclusion of religious syncretism. Orthodox Christians insist on their right to freely confess their faith in the Orthodox Church as the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church without conceding the so-called 'branch theory' and definitively reject any attempts to dilute Orthodox ecclesiology.” And further:

“The Orthodox Church excludes any possibility of liturgical communion with the non-Orthodox. In particular, it is considered impermissible for Orthodox to participate in liturgical actions connected with so-called ecumenical or inter-confessional religious services. In general, the Church should determine the forms of interaction with the heterodox on a conciliar basis, stemming from its teachings, canonical discipline and ecclesiastical expediency.” (Cf. “On the Attitude of the Orthodox Church Towards the Heterodox and Towards Inter-Confessional Organizations”).

The synod expressly affirmed: “Also, if key participants in the WCC continue to depart from the fundamentals of Christian theology and morality, we will reconsider the forms of—and even the very fact of—our further participation.”

I’m not sure what more can be done to reject ecumenism, except of course, depart fully from the WCC.

15. Do you have an opinion on the New Romanian Patriarch?

I do not believe Daniel to be the canonical patriarch of Romania. There is little doubt that he was a Marxist collaborator, and a few high ranking security officials have implicated him in this. The late Patriarch, for whom I pray regularly, did all in his power to keep anyone from researching any possible collaboration scandals, or so says the Romanian press.

The most damning piece of information about this man’s lack of fitness to be patriarch of anything is the testimony of a former head of the Romanian Marxist Securitate, Ioan Mihai Pacepa, who became a defector sometime in the 1970s, which confirmed Daniel’s support of the Marxist state.

This man, like most modernists, is largely an obedient servant of whoever or whatever is in power at any given time. He differs from those in formerly communist states, such as the USSR, who supported the state out of fear; in Daniel's case, he filled his posts with relish, and, unlike many others, has retracted nothing. Nevertheless, a mere matter of collaboration is not sufficient to claim one is "non-canonical," but his career under the Marxists, and throughout the 1990s, certainly does.

Here are a few of his former offices that the Romanian New Calendarist sees fit to brag about: 1980-1988 he was a lecturer at the “Ecumenical Institute of Bossey” in Switzerland. This could never have happened unless he had the personal support of the late and unlamented dictator of Romania, who did not permit such foreign contacts unless personally designated by him. In 1988, he had another position, apparently written in code. The patriarchate describes it like this: “1988 – Councillor of Patriarchate, Director of Contemporary Theology and Ecumenical Dialogue Sector.” Throughout the 1990s, this man was a member of the executive committee of the WCC. Hence he was part of the drafting commission of the infamous Barr Statement that “Christ is not necessary for Salvation.” Since that time, he has served on nearly every ecumenical body in Europe. Some of these I have never heard of. He was the favored candidate of the WCC, and will, by his own statements, continue to promote their agenda.

Unlike the church in Russia, Romania reverted to the new calendar in the 1920s, and, like the Greeks, began a violent persecution of the True Orthodox, St. Glycerii being one of them. Since the Cold War ended, Romania has continued to be one of the most liberal churches of the Orthodox household. Russia has issued statements against ecumenism and renewed contact with the ROCOR, demonstrating a commitment to tradition. Romania continues to be a major prop in the WCC and its big-money founders. The churches of Georgia, Serbia and Bulgaria, on the other hand, took hold of their new-found freedom to withdraw from the WCC.

There are also persistent rumors that he is a freemason, though I have not been able to verify that. In short, no Orthodox in good conscience can believe that this man is the canonical patriarch.

16. Tell us about your Education.

My M.A. was earned in the History of Political Ideas in St. Louis, at the University of Missouri, in 1994. There, my thesis was on Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. In 1999, my dissertation was completed, largely centering on the connection between science and revolution in Michael Oakeshott’s Experience and its Modes. I strongly recommend this latter book in order to understand how both Hegel’s metaphysics and epistemology operate in a practical context, as Oakeshott himself was a Hegelian. Therefore, my graduate education, whether in Lincoln or St. Louis, largely centered around Hegel, Plato and Idealism. It was not long before I discovered the Slavophiles, who cut their teeth on Schelling and Hegel, and from then on, I focused on Holy Russia. In 2006, I have completed by seminary studies at the Monastic Seminary of the Holy Name in New Jersey under Bishop +JOHN, where I specialized in early medieval liturgics, chant and church history, all from a Benedictine and Gregorian monastic perspective.

My conversion to Orthodoxy came, ironically, at a Uniat parish, that of St. George in the Ukrainian Uniat church, located in the Belmont district of Lincoln, NE. It was a tiny group of old folks, all of whom were survivors of both Stalin and Hitler’s camps. They were forced laborers in the GULAG and at Dachau. St. George was an extraordinary place. Ethnic tradition, unity and love united this congregation, and, despite their frequent fights, they remained a family. Though they had menial jobs, they wanted for nothing, and sacrificed to send money and material to the imprisoned Ukrainian Uniats and Orthodox in the old country. I was “adopted” by this group, and made a reader (whether I liked it or not). I then served at the altar as an acolyte. Regardless of the fact that the parish was Uniat, they were simple enough not to know or care about the distinctions, and lived and prayed in an Orthodox manner, since this is all they knew, and had no grasp whatever on “Catholic” theology or practice. Some time later, I was chrisimated by the Serbs, and then received by the Bishop of the Milan Synod (who recognized the Serbian chrism), and struggled to live in an Orthodox fashion ever since.