To ROCOR-MP: Have you come to your senses? No — you were deceitful.

Protodeacon Herman Ivanov-Treenadzaty | June 23, 2025

 

So, it took a quarter of a century for eyes to begin to open little by little. Well then, as the saying goes — better late than never. But it is far too early to think that our former brothers of the New York Synod, who consciously betrayed the inheritance of the Fathers, voluntarily submitted themselves to the "spiritual" authority of former KGB agents, accepted the Russian Federation as the Motherland, and the Moscow Patriarchate as the Mother Church, have suddenly come to their senses or are close to repentance for what they have done. None of this has happened.

And in order to understand what has happened, let us take a closer look at what exactly is said in this Statement from June 5 of this year. In fact, one reads it and rejoices: with strong words they denounce the return to the deceitful and God-opposing ideology of the past century, they denounce the tendency to whitewash the crimes of the God-fighters, they quite rightly condemn, as they write, the “horrifying establishment of monuments to criminal figures,” having especially in mind the monument to Stalin at the Taganskaya metro station, which is the restoration of a bas-relief removed several decades ago during the so-called "de-Stalinization." They condemn the restoration of the monument to the Chekist Dzerzhinsky in 2022 to its "historic place" in front of the sinister building of the Lubyanka. They condemn the decision to restore—when demolition would have been necessary—the temple of idolatry on Red Square with the mummy of the monster and hater of Russia, whose name is disgusting even to pronounce. In reality, how else can all this be described other than as a spit in the soul and memory of all those tortured by those very fiends, and as mockery of the feelings of believers and descendants of the Lenin-Stalin victims?

This entire diagnosis can only be agreed with, but what is surprising is that in the long list of facts testifying to the “clear tendency to whitewash the crimes of the God-fighting regime of the 20th century,” there is not the slightest hint as to what the leadership of the MP, with whom they are spiritually connected, might think. And this should have been their foremost concern and subject of anxiety. After all, they are not subordinate to the state authorities, but to the patriarchal ones. And here — complete silence. Not a single word about the MP in this condemnatory verdict, which cannot help but raise suspicions and cast doubt on the sincerity of all these indignations.

Is it really the case that this observable, regrettable return to the past does not affect the church authorities, passes them by, and they remain untouched by these pernicious influences—thus explaining why they continue to adhere to the decision that led them to what is, in the accepted phraseology, the "God-pleasing reunification of the Churches"? And yet it is well known to all that the opposite is true: despite all the "social concepts" adopted by it during the euphoric period of the fall of Soviet power, it continues, just like in the "good old Soviet times," to be entirely obedient to the general line! And in principle, it demands the same obedience from the structures under its authority. And the fact that the MP does not deviate by a single iota from the line of the authorities—whatever those may be—is a fact contested by no one.

Thus, for example, in the solemn ceremony of unveiling the monument to Dzerzhinsky—imagine such a thing!—representatives of the ROC quite naturally and without the slightest pang of conscience took part. By a rough count, after several years of wild liberalism, over a hundred such various Bolshevik idols have been restored across the country, and no one will doubt that such “patriotic events” are always accompanied by the presence and participation of representatives of the MP. One should recall here the case we wrote about in the article The Stalinist Patriarchate, of a priest in the Pskov region consecrating an eight-meter-high monument to Stalin with sprinklings of holy water, accompanying the event with joyful exclamations of “Christ is Risen!” And in the pastoral address that followed, thanks were offered to the Generalissimo for the fact that now, thanks to him, we are given the opportunity to pray and appeal to such a host of holy New Martyrs...

It is both bitter and laughable, but such cases and examples have not in the least troubled the conscience of our former New York brethren until now. Why? How can this be explained?

But that is still far from everything when it comes to the moral characterization of the MP. No one seriously can believe that it has been reborn, having cast off all its past "Sergianism," which always separated the MP from the Church Abroad. This takes us back a quarter of a century to the height of the dispute between those who stood with the legitimate First Hierarch, Metropolitan Vitaly, and those who took the path of betrayal. They persuaded themselves and all of us that all former barriers between us had supposedly fallen. All obstacles to the rapprochement of the two Churches had disappeared. Neither Sergianism, nor Ecumenism, nor the New Martyrs, nor the holiness of the Tsar-Martyr—none of these cardinal issues dividing us remained unresolved; all had supposedly been definitively settled. And anyone who disagreed with this, who criticized and opposed those confidently moving toward rapprochement, was said to be deliberately inventing false pretexts. This is what we were told back then!

We will not repeat here all that we had to write twenty-five years ago and which by now ought to have been recognized by all. The merger with the MP was and remains both a betrayal and a folly. It is telling to read in the Synodal Statement: “Christians ought to live with their eyes open, not cloud their vision with substitutions.” What instructive words, and how they recall those “rose-colored glasses” through which the main initiator of the betrayal, Vladyka Mark Arndt, viewed reality—according to the wise characterization of our holy elder, Metropolitan Vitaly.

We are told that the issue of the New Martyrs no longer divides us. But is that really the case? Can we recognize those glorified by the Patriarchate who were obvious Sergianists, and be of one heart and one mind with those who paint “icons” of Stalin or continue to deny or fail to understand the holiness of the Holy Tsar? In the Statement, there is mention of some degenerate who openly declared on a television broadcast that he “would have personally shot Nicholas II.” This, so to speak, person is presented as “a certain well-known professor, respected by many in Russia.” At first glance, there seems to be no reason to reproach the Church for such a degenerate—after all, it is well known that many such “professors” were spawned during the Soviet era—but we made an effort to learn more about him. It turns out this is a certain Yury Simonov, a well-known television presenter who performs under the flattering surname “Vyazemsky,” a journalist, professor at MGIMO (a well-known breeding ground for spies), head of the Department of World Literature and Culture (!) at the Faculty of International Journalism. All of this is as laughable as it is telling, but the most important thing is this: in addition to all this, he is also a member of the Patriarchal Council for Culture and a recipient of several church awards. And this characteristic of the self-styled “Vyazemsky” is not mentioned in the Synodal Statement. It is clear why. One who calls himself a member of the Church Abroad ought to be ashamed to be in communion with such a person, who still remains among the patriarch’s advisors on cultural matters.

But even this, in the end, is not so important. The main cause of the break between the Western Church and the Eastern was the question of the filioque. The main cause of the schism in the Russian Church was the question of Metropolitan Sergius’s Declaration of loyalty to the Soviet authorities. This shows the full significance of the question of Sergianism—a question as much ethical as theological. We were told and are still told that it has been definitively resolved and that no one today, after the adoption of the famous Social Concept, would dare to defend it. And yet, on the anniversary of Metropolitan Sergius’s death, May 15, Patriarch Kirill served a memorial service, prefacing it with the following word in memory of his predecessor and founder:

“He succeeded in leading our Church out of that difficult crisis situation. It was necessary to find ways out of that conflict, and His Holiness Patriarch Sergius found such ways. Of course, some did not like this—especially those who lived far beyond the borders of our homeland, who risked nothing while taking such a position—but the fact that he established direct contact with the highest authorities had simply salvific significance for the very existence of our Church /.../ There are always some critics who cast doubt on the positive service of His Holiness Sergius, but, by the mercy of God, all this criticism has practically disappeared, because time best proves the rightness or guilt of certain church and state figures who leave as a light in History /.../ Therefore, his memory must be carefully preserved, and I call upon our entire episcopate, clergy, and people to pray for the Patriarch, to remember the feat of his life, and to offer thanksgiving to the Lord for the fact that in that most difficult period of our history and the existence of our Church, the leadership was entrusted to this great saint of our land.”

The statement speaks for itself. We have highlighted in bold the guiding principle of patriarchal thinking, their fundamental line of conduct, from which it is evident that the patriarchal faction has not reconsidered its stance on Sergianism by a single iota, and that over the past quarter century our Synodals have reached no agreement whatsoever on this fundamental issue. Or rather, they have either accepted and assimilated the patriarchal interpretation, or they do not consider themselves able or entitled to dispute it. In any case, on this issue—so essential to the Church Abroad—they have suffered a complete defeat. The Patriarchate will now no longer depart from this line: Sergius was a great hierarch of our land, everyone must remember the “feat” of his life and carefully preserve his memory. He is one of those figures who leave a light in History, and if there were “critics” of his policy, then they were mostly those who left for abroad and lived in safety—but time best proves who was right, and today all criticism has practically disappeared.

Patriarch Kirill here definitively canonizes the patriarchal doctrine of “lies for the sake of salvation.” This, henceforth, is the unquestionable patriarchal truth, now imposed on all followers of the MP. Such a “patriarchal credo” is a slap in the face not only to the overseas defectors, but to all the native Martyrs who suffered because of their rejection of Sergius’s Declaration—unlike Sergius himself, they bore witness to the truth of the Church until death.

Vladyka Mark prophesied that, in the event of unification with Moscow, we would become the leaven through which the Russian dough would rise. As then, his words today sound with bitter irony. Alas, the Russian dough did not rise—the first pancake came out a lump. Nevertheless, this does not prevent them from continuing along the same unrealistic path and issuing a bold appeal: “We raise our voice and are ready to offer our help and prayerful support in resisting these tendencies, wherever they may manifest.” Poor souls—who will follow you?! What help are you, in your present pitiful state, able to offer Russia? Do you not hear the sound reply to your appeal: Physician, heal thyself! Our holy First Hierarchs preserved the Church Abroad as the pledge of the thousand-year Truth of the Russian Church. You have destroyed this monolith and now are capable of offering nothing more than a meager gruel.

So then, it is time to answer the question—what prompted the New York Synod to suddenly publish such a Statement? We see the explanation not at all in any sort of moral sobering, but in something entirely different. The fact is that the initiators of the betrayal pursued various goals, and one of them was to get out of the state of isolation in which the uncompromising stance had placed the Church Abroad. Yes, the Church Abroad was isolated; the official world did not communicate with it, but it was respected, looked upon as a stronghold of Truth. You, however, longed for recognition, for interaction, for an exit from this isolation, which had become burdensome to you.

The world opened its arms wide to you, and you were ready for every renunciation of your former state. You needed to prove to everyone that you were not at all the same hardliners that the Church Abroad had previously been perceived to be. Explaining why the union with the MP had not happened earlier, Vladyka Laurus was not ashamed to say that it was because “the old emigration was standing in the way, and I do not belong to it.” Let us clarify what is meant by “old emigration.” It is that very backbone upon which the spirit of the Church Abroad was built. For his part, to prove his liberalism, Vladyka Hilarion was not ashamed to be photographed—ever smiling—together with some master Freemason, despite the fact that the Church Abroad, and specifically by the holy Metropolitan Anthony, had proclaimed an anathema against Freemasonry. One after another came concelebrations with all sorts of new calendarists, ecumenists, and various hierarchs with whom in earlier times one would never have even considered speaking. And you sighed—now we are recognized by all, we can serve with whomever and wherever we wish!

And then—the first jolt: the MP does not come to an agreement with the Patriarch of Constantinople and acts rightly in breaking off prayerful communion with him. As a result, your horizon narrows sharply; half of the Orthodox Churches break communion with you, for you are nothing other than the Moscow Patriarchate. A few years pass—the second jolt: the special military operation. Whatever one may think of it, this operation placed Putin’s Russia under quarantine, and since the Patriarchate naturally supports the operation, now the entire Western world has turned away from you and ceased all interaction. And thus, having wished to breathe freely, to enjoy full liberty, to be in communion with the whole world, you suddenly turned into outcasts. Previously, the Church Abroad was isolated, but it was a noble isolation—not a shameful one, as in this case.

So then—how to get out of this situation? You came up with the idea of making such a loud statement in order to show your disapproval of Putin’s policies, hoping thereby to regain your status as civilized people. A vain attempt: as long as you remain within the Patriarchate, you will share its fate. And here is the key to understanding what prompted you to publish this Synodal Statement: you have not come to your senses in the least, you do not repent of the betrayal of the mission of the Church Abroad, but have acted deceitfully in hopes of escaping the situation. One mystery remains—why in your Statement do you not say a single word about the MP, despite the fact that it is entirely guilty of all the sins you denounce? It is because you have no intention whatsoever of breaking with the Patriarchate, for that would mean confessing with repentance your original mistake—and this you are in no way ready to do. Let us not forget that your unchanging slogan is: “Reunification is a God-pleasing act”!

So, you observe how the country is leaning back toward Soviet Russia, and naturally this saddens you, as it does us. But for us it was even more painful to witness how part of the White Church moved into the Soviet Church. You look at the reality surrounding you and are rightly horrified, but what right do you have to take the pose of denouncers of vice? Rather, look within yourselves, remember your deeds, recall all the lies that brought you to where you are today—and in which you do not even consider it useful to repent. Your words of condemnation are correct, but it is not for you to utter them; rather, reflect deeply on the meaning of the proverb: Don’t blame the mirror if your face is crooked. And if you want to be taken seriously, then you know very well what remains for you to do.

 

Russian source:

http://internetsobor.org/index.php/stati/avtorskaya-kolonka/protodiakon-german-opomnilis-net-slukavili