THE RESTORATION OF ROMANITY Essays in Orthodox Political Theology Vladimir Moss © Copyright: Vladimir Moss, 2010 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................3 1. THE FALL OF ROMANITY: THE ABDICATION OF TSAR-MARTYR NICHOLAS ...................................................................................................................4 2. THE DOGMATIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ORTHODOX AUTOCRACY ......42 3. WHAT POWER IS OF GOD? ................................................................................65 4. ON MONARCHISM, TRUE AND FALSE............................................................84 5. GOD, THE NATIONS AND NATIONALISM ......................................................94 6. THE EUROPEAN UNION: A NEW TOTALITARIANISM?.............................121 7. WHAT PRICE FREEDOM? .................................................................................130 8. THREE FAITHS, THREE POLITICAL SYSTEMS ............................................140 9. “THE END OF HISTORY”?.................................................................................153 10. THE HEREDITARY PRINCIPLE......................................................................186 11. CHRIST AND THE NATIONS ..........................................................................195 12.FASCIST ORTHODOXY: THE SERBIAN WARS...........................................216 13. THE RESTORATION OF ROMANITY ............................................................226 14. THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT .....................................................................248 15. MUST AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BE A MONARCHIST?.......................264 16. THE REBIRTH AND DEATH OF COMMUNISM...........................................279 17. ORTHODOXY, UNIVERSALISM AND NATIONALISM..............................284 INTRODUCTION This book brings together a number of articles and lectures written in recent years whose common theme is the relationship between religion and politics from an Orthodox Christian point of view. Several of the articles were published in various Orthodox Christian theological journals in America and Russia in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and have been revised for this publication. The book takes its title from the word for the religio-political unity of Orthodox Christians under a truly Orthodox Emperor or Tsar – Romanity (Romanitas in Latin, in Greek). Since the fall of Romanity in 1917, with the catastrophic consequences for the whole world that are plain for all to see, the restoration of Romanity is the fervent hope of all truly Orthodox Christians. If this book contributes in even the smallest way to the understanding and realization of that hope, it will have achieved its end. Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us! Amen. June 10/23, 2010. East House, Beech Hill, Mayford, Woking, Surrey, England. 1. THE FALL OF ROMANITY: THE ABDICATION OF TSAR- MARTYR NICHOLAS The abdication of Tsar Nicholas II on March 2, 1917 (old style) was the single most important event in modern history, whose consequences are still reverberating to the present day. And yet it remains in many ways shrouded in mystery. For there is no consensus on several critical questions raised by it, such as: Did the Tsar in fact abdicate? Did he have the right to abdicate? Was he right to abdicate? In the months leading up to the abdication, the Tsar was put under increasing pressure by the political and military leaders of Russia. They were convinced that his abdication in favour of a government “responsible to the people”, i.e. a constitutional monarchy or parliamentary democracy, would bring peace and prosperity to the country. But Nicholas, with his deeper knowledge of God’s ways and his country’s needs, was doubtful, repeatedly asking: "Are you confident that my abdication will save Russia from bloodshed?" They reassured him that it would. But the Tsar knew the quality of the men who were advising him. As he sadly wrote in his diary on the day of his abdication: "All around me I see cowardice, baseness and treason." And again, on the same day, while holding a bundle of telegrams from the Corps of Generals and even from his own uncle, he said: "What is left for me to do when everyone has betrayed me?" And indeed, there was very little he could do. He could probably continue to defy the will of the social and political elite, as he had done more than once in the past. But could he defy the will of his generals?1 Perhaps he could count on the support of some military units. But the result would undoubtedly be a civil war, whose outcome was doubtful, but whose effect on the war with Germany could not be doubted: it would undoubtedly give the Germans a decisive advantage at a critical moment when Russia was just preparing for a spring offensive. It was probably this last factor that was decisive in the Tsar’s decision: he could not contemplate undermining the war effort for any, even the most 1 E.E. Alferev writes: “Factually speaking, in view of the position taken by [Generals] Ruzsky and Alexeev, the possibility of resistance was excluded. Being cut off from the external world, the Sovereign was as it were in captivity. His orders were not carried out, the telegrams of those who remained faithful to their oath of allegiance were not communicated to him. The Empress, who had never trusted Ruzsky, on learning that the Tsar’s train had been help up at Pskov, immediately understood the danger. On March 2 she wrote to his Majesty: ‘But you are alone, you don’t have the army with you, you are caught like a mouse in a trap. What can you do?’ (Imperator Nikolaj II kak chelovek sil’noj voli (Emperor Nicholas II as a Man of Strong Will), Jordanville, N.Y.: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1983, 2004, p. 121). plausible reason. For the first duty of an Orthodox Tsar after the defence of the Orthodox faith is the defence of the country against external enemies; and if his continuing in power was likely to undermine that defence, then it would be undermining the very purpose of his service as Tsar. And so, after an entire night spent in prayer, he laid aside the crown for what he felt was the good of his country. For, as he wrote: "I am ready to give up both throne and life if I should become a hindrance to the happiness of the homeland." And again: "There is no sacrifice that I would not make for the real benefit of Russia and for her salvation." What has been called “the Abdication Manifesto” was in fact a telegram to the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Alexeyev: “During the days of the great struggle against the external foe which, in the space of almost three years, has been striving to enslave our Native Land, it has pleased the Lord God to send down upon Russia a new and difficult trial. The national disturbances that have begun within the country threaten to reflect disastrously upon the further conduct of the stubborn war. The fate of Russia, the honour of our heroic army, the well-being of the people, the entire future of our precious Fatherland demand that the war be carried out to a victorious conclusion, come what may. The cruel foe is exerting what remains of his strength, and nor far distant is the hour when our valiant army with our glorious allies will be able to break the foe completely. In these decisive days in the life of Russia, We have considered it a duty of conscience to make it easy for Our people to bring about a tight-knit union and cohesion of all our national strength, in order that victory might be the more quickly attained, and, in agreement with the State Duma We have concluded that it would be a good thing to abdicate the Throne of the Russian State and to remove Supreme Power from Ourselves. Not desiring to be separated from Our beloved Son, We transfer Our legacy to Our Brother Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich, and bless Him to ascend the Throne of the Russian State. We command Our Brother to conduct State affairs fully and in inviolable unity with the representatives of those men who hold legislative office, upon those principles which they shall establish, swearing an inviolable oath to that effect. In the name of our ardently beloved Native Land We call upon all faithful sons of the Fatherland to fulfil their sacred duty before it, by submitting to the Tsar during the difficult moment of universal trials, and, aiding Him, together with the representatives of he people, to lead the Russian State out upon the path of victory, well-being and glory. May the Lord God help Russia. Pskov. 2 March, 15.00 hours. 1917. Nicholas.” It has been argued that the telegram was not an abdication, but a final coded appeal to the army to support him. But such a supposition cannot be reconciled with the plain meaning of the text. And since everyone agrees on the crystal-clear sincerity and selflessness of Nicholas’ character, there is no reason not to believe the plain meaning of the text. It has also been argued that the “abdication”, if that is what it was, had no legal force, that there was no provision for abdication in the Fundamental Laws. Thus, as Mikhail Nazarov points out, the Basic Laws of the Russian Empire, which had been drawn up by Tsar Paul I and which all members of the Royal Family swore to uphold, “do not foresee the abdication of a reigning Emperor (‘from a religious… point of view the abdication of the Monarch, the Anointed of God, is contrary to the act of His Sacred Coronation and Anointing; it would be possible only