Archdeacon Herman: Have you come to your senses?
No, you lied.
Автор: Митрополит Агафангел. Дата публикации: 23 июня 2025. Категория: Авторская колонка.
.
related posts:
1.) https://startingontheroyalpath.blogspot.com/2025/06/could-rocor-mp-be-waking-up.html
2.) https://startingontheroyalpath.blogspot.com/2025/06/let-us-pray-along-with-our-ruling.html
2.) https://startingontheroyalpath.blogspot.com/2025/06/let-us-pray-along-with-our-ruling.html
.
So, it took a quarter of a century for the eyes to begin to see clearly. Well, as the proverb says — better late than never. But it is still too early to think that our former brothers of the New York Synod, who consciously betrayed the legacy of the Fathers, voluntarily placed themselves under the "spiritual" authority of the former KGB agents, and 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 repenting of their actions. None of this has happened.
And in order to understand what happened, let's take a closer look at what exactly is said in this Statement of June 5 of this year. In fact, you read it and rejoice: in strong words they denounce the return to the false and ungodly ideology of the last century, they denounce the tendency to whitewash the crimes of the godless, they quite rightly condemn, as they write, "the horrific installation of monuments to criminal figures," especially meaning the monument in honor of Stalin at the Taganskaya metro station, which is a 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 "historical place" in front of the ominous Lubyanka building. They condemn the decision taken to restore, when it would have been necessary to demolish, the temple on Red Square with the mummy of a fanatic and hater of Russia, whose name is disgusting even to pronounce. In fact, how can one call all this anything other than a spit in the soul and memory of all those tortured by those same monsters, and a mockery of the feelings of believers and descendants of Lenin-Stalin’s victims?
One can only agree with this diagnosis, but it is surprising that in the long list of facts testifying to the “obvious tendency to whitewash the crimes of the godless authorities of the 20th century” there is not the slightest hint about what the leadership of the MP, with which they are spiritually connected, might be thinking. And this should be of primary interest and concern to them. After all, they are subordinate not to state authorities, but to the patriarchal ones. But here there is complete silence. Not a single word about the MP in this incriminating verdict, which cannot but alarm and suggest the sincerity of all this indignation.
Is it possible that this observed regrettable return to the past does not affect the church authorities, bypasses them, and they remain alien to these pernicious influences, which could explain that they remain faithful to the decision that led them to, according to the accepted phraseology, "a God-pleasing reunification of the Churches"? But everyone knows very well that, on the contrary, despite all the "social concepts" it adopted during the euphoric period of the fall of Soviet power, it continues, as in the "good old Soviet times", to be obedient to the general line in everything! And in principle, it demands the same obedience from the structures under its control. And the fact that the MP does not deviate one iota from the line of power, whatever it may be, is a fact that is not disputed by anyone.
For example, in the grand opening ceremony of the monument to Dzerzhinsky — what a thought! — quite naturally and without any shudder of conscience, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church took part. According to a quick count, after several years of crazy liberalism, more than a hundred of such different Bolshevik idols have been restored throughout the country and no one will doubt that such "patriotic events" are always accompanied by the presence and participation of representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate. It is worth recalling here the case that we wrote about in the article Stalin's Patriarchate, a priest in the Pskov region, consecrating an eight-meter-high monument to Stalin by sprinkling it with holy water, accompanying this event with joyful cries of "Christ is Risen!" And in the subsequent pastoral sermon, gratitude was given to the Generalissimo for the fact that now, thanks to him, we are given the opportunity to pray and resort to such a host of holy New Martyrs ...
It is both bitter and funny, but such cases and examples have not disturbed the conscience of our former New York brothers in the least. Why? How to explain?
But this is far from all for the moral characterization of the MP. No one can seriously think that it has been reborn, having thrown off all the 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 for the legitimate First Hierarch Metropolitan Vitaly and those who followed the treacherous path. They convinced themselves and all of us that all the former barriers existing between us had 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 — all these cardinal questions dividing us have now been finally settled, and whoever does not agree with this and who criticizes and opposes those who are confidently moving towards rapprochement, is deliberately inventing false pretexts. That is what they told us then!
We will not repeat here everything that we had to write twenty-five years ago and that today should be recognized by everyone. The merger with the MP was and remains a betrayal and stupidity. It is symptomatic to read in the Synodal Statement: "Christians should live with open eyes, not to cloud their vision with substitutions." What instructive words and how they remind us of those "rose-colored glasses" through which the main initiator of the betrayal, Bishop Mark Arndt, looked at reality, according to the wise definition of our holy elder Metropolitan Vitaly.
The issue of the New Martyrs, they say, no longer divides us. But is this really so? Can we recognize the obvious Sergians glorified by the Patriarchate, be of one mind and one-minded with those who paint "icons" of Stalin or continue to not recognize or not understand the holiness of the holy Tsar? The Statement speaks of some freak who openly declared on television that he "would have shot Nicholas II himself." This, with your permission, person is presented as "a certain well-known professor respected by many in Russia." At first glance, there is no reason to reproach the Church for such a freak; it is known that many such "professors" have proliferated during Soviet times, but we took the trouble to learn more about him. It turns out that this is a certain Yuri Simonov, a well-known TV presenter, who goes by the flattering name of "Vyazemsky," a journalist, a professor at MGIMO (a well-known breeding ground for spies), and the head of the department of world literature and culture (!) of the faculty of international journalism. All this is as funny as it is characteristic, but the most important thing is the following: in addition to everything else, he is also a member of the Patriarchal Council for Culture and the holder of several church awards. And this characteristic of the impostor Vyazemsky is not indicated in the Synodal Statement. It is clear why. It should be shameful for someone who calls himself a "Zarubezhnik" to be in communication with such a person, who is still among the Patriarch's advisers on cultural issues.
But this, in the end, is not so important. The main reason for the break between the Western and Eastern Churches was the question of filioque. The main reason for the schism in the Russian Church was the question of the Declaration of Loyalty to Soviet Power of Metropolitan Sergius. This shows the full importance of the question of Sergianism, a question as ethical as it is theological. We have been told and are told that it has been finally resolved and no one today, after the adoption of the famous Social Concept, will dare to defend it. So, on the next anniversary of the death of Metropolitan Sergius, May 15, Patriarch Kirill held a memorial service, prefacing it with the following words in memory of his predecessor and founder:
"He managed to lead our Church out of that grave crisis situation. It was necessary to look for ways out of this conflict and His Holiness Patriarch Sergius found such ways out, "He managed to lead our Church out of that grave crisis situation. It was necessary to look for ways out of this conflict and His Holiness Patriarch Sergius found such ways out, taking such a position, but the fact that he had established direct contact with the highest authorities was simply saving meaning for the existence of our Church itself /.../ There are always some critics, which cast doubt positive service of the most holy Sergius, but, by the grace of God, all this criticism has practically disappeared, because Time is the best prover of rightness or the guilt of certain church and government officials, which leave light in History /.../ /.../ That's why the memory of him must be carefully preserved and I call upon all our bishops, clergy, and people to pray for the Patriarch and remember the feat of his life, and they gave thanks 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 the great saint of our land".
The word speaks for itself. We have underlined in bold the guiding principle of the patriarchal thinking, their basic line of conduct, from which it is clear that the patriarchs have not revised their attitude toward Sergianism one iota and that our synodals have not reached any agreement on this fundamental issue over the past quarter of a century. Or rather, they have either accepted and assimilated the patriarchal interpretation, or do not consider themselves in a position or right to challenge it. In any case, they have suffered a complete defeat in this fundamental issue for the Church Abroad. The Patriarchate will not abandon this line now: Sergius was a great saint of our land, everyone should remember the feat (!) of his life and carefully preserve the memory of him. He is one of those figures who leave light in History, and if there were critics (!) of his policy, then this was mainly among those who went abroad and lived in safety, but time best proves the rightness and today all criticism has practically disappeared.
Patriarch Kirill will finally canonize here patriarchal teaching of lies for salvation. This is now an indisputable patriarchal truth, now imputed to all followers of the MP. Such a "patriarchal credo" is a slap in the face not only to foreign defectors, but to all domestic Martyrs who suffered from the rejection of Sergius' Declaration, unlike Sergius himself, who testified to the church truth until their death.
Vladyka Mark prophesied that in the event of unification with Moscow, we would become the yeast that would make the Russian dough rise. As then, his words sound bitterly ironic today. Alas, the Russian dough did not rise, the first pancake was lumpy. Nevertheless, this does not prevent them from continuing along the same unrealistic line and issuing a brave appeal: “We raise our voices and are ready to offer our help and prayerful support in opposing these tendencies, wherever they manifest themselves.” Unfortunate ones - who will follow you?! What help in your current deplorable state are you capable of bringing to Russia? Do you not hear a healthy answer to your call: Physician, heal thyself! Our holy First Hierarchs preserved the Church Abroad as a pledge of the thousand-year-old Truth of the Russian Church. You have destroyed this monolith and are now capable of conveying no more than a nondescript gruel..
So, it is time to answer the question — what prompted the New York Synod to unexpectedly publish such a Statement. We see the explanation not in their moral sobriety, but in something completely different. The fact is that the instigators of the betrayal pursued different goals, one of them was to get out of the state of isolation in which the uncompromising stand held 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, on the other hand, thirsted for recognition, communication, a way out of this isolation, which had become burdensome to you.
The world has opened its arms wide to you and you were ready to renounce your previous existence. You had to prove to everyone that you were not at all the diehards that the Abroaders were previously presented as. Explaining why the unification with the MP had not taken place earlier, Vladyka Laurus was not ashamed to say that it was because "the old emigration, to which I do not belong, interfered." Let us clarify what the "old emigration" is. This is the very backbone on which the Abroad Spirit was built. For his part, in order to prove his liberalism, Vladyka Hilarion was not ashamed to be photographed, with an eternal smile on his lips, together with some Freemason master, despite the fact that the Church Abroad, and specifically Saint Metropolitan Anthony, had proclaimed anathema to Freemasonry. One after another, concelebrations began with all sorts of new calendarists, ecumenists, and all sorts of bishops, with whom you would never have thought of talking before. And you sighed — we are recognized by everyone, we can serve with whomever and wherever we want!
And here comes the first quirk: the MP does not collude with the Patriarch of Constantinople and is right to break off prayerful communion with him. In connection with this, your horizons narrow sharply, half of the Orthodox Churches break off communion with you, after all, you are nothing more than the Moscow Patriarchate. Several years pass — the second quirk: a special military operation. Whatever anyone thinks about it, this operation quarantined Putin's Russia, and since the Patriarchate naturally supports the operation, now the entire Western world has turned away from you and stopped communicating. And so, wanting to breathe deeply, enjoy complete freedom, communicate with the entire world, you suddenly turned into some kind of outcasts. Previously, the Church Abroad was isolated, but it was a noble isolation, not a shameful one, as here.
So, how can we get out of this situation? So you came up with the idea of making such a loud statement to show your rejection of Putin's policies, hoping to thereby regain your status as civilized people. A futile attempt: as long as you remain in the Patriarchate, you will share its fate. And here is the key to understanding what prompted you to publish this synodal Statement: you are not at all didn't come to their senses, do not repent of betraying the mission of the Church Abroad, but they lied in the hope of getting out of the situation. The mystery remains — why in your Statement you do not say a word about the MP, despite the fact that it is completely guilty of all the sins that you denounce. This is because you do not intend to break with the Patriarchate at all, for this would mean repentantly admitting your original mistake, but you are in no way ready for this. Let us not forget that your unchangeable slogan is: "Reunification is a God-pleasing deed"!
So, you are watching how the country is leaning back towards Soviet Russia and this naturally saddens you, as it does us. But for us it was even more painful to see how part of the White Church moved to the Soviet Church. You look at the reality around you and are rightfully horrified, but what right do you have to take the position of denouncers of vices? Look quickly at yourselves, remember your deeds, remember all the lies that brought you to where you are today, and which you do not think it is useful to repent of. Your words of denunciation are correct, but it is not for you to utter them, rather think about the deep meaning of the proverb: There is no point in blaming the mirror if your face is crooked. .And if you want to be taken seriously, then you know very well what you can do.
Protodeacon Herman Ivanov-Thirteenth
And in order to understand what happened, let's take a closer look at what exactly is said in this Statement of June 5 of this year. In fact, you read it and rejoice: in strong words they denounce the return to the false and ungodly ideology of the last century, they denounce the tendency to whitewash the crimes of the godless, they quite rightly condemn, as they write, "the horrific installation of monuments to criminal figures," especially meaning the monument in honor of Stalin at the Taganskaya metro station, which is a 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 "historical place" in front of the ominous Lubyanka building. They condemn the decision taken to restore, when it would have been necessary to demolish, the temple on Red Square with the mummy of a fanatic and hater of Russia, whose name is disgusting even to pronounce. In fact, how can one call all this anything other than a spit in the soul and memory of all those tortured by those same monsters, and a mockery of the feelings of believers and descendants of Lenin-Stalin’s victims?
One can only agree with this diagnosis, but it is surprising that in the long list of facts testifying to the “obvious tendency to whitewash the crimes of the godless authorities of the 20th century” there is not the slightest hint about what the leadership of the MP, with which they are spiritually connected, might be thinking. And this should be of primary interest and concern to them. After all, they are subordinate not to state authorities, but to the patriarchal ones. But here there is complete silence. Not a single word about the MP in this incriminating verdict, which cannot but alarm and suggest the sincerity of all this indignation.
Is it possible that this observed regrettable return to the past does not affect the church authorities, bypasses them, and they remain alien to these pernicious influences, which could explain that they remain faithful to the decision that led them to, according to the accepted phraseology, "a God-pleasing reunification of the Churches"? But everyone knows very well that, on the contrary, despite all the "social concepts" it adopted during the euphoric period of the fall of Soviet power, it continues, as in the "good old Soviet times", to be obedient to the general line in everything! And in principle, it demands the same obedience from the structures under its control. And the fact that the MP does not deviate one iota from the line of power, whatever it may be, is a fact that is not disputed by anyone.
For example, in the grand opening ceremony of the monument to Dzerzhinsky — what a thought! — quite naturally and without any shudder of conscience, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church took part. According to a quick count, after several years of crazy liberalism, more than a hundred of such different Bolshevik idols have been restored throughout the country and no one will doubt that such "patriotic events" are always accompanied by the presence and participation of representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate. It is worth recalling here the case that we wrote about in the article Stalin's Patriarchate, a priest in the Pskov region, consecrating an eight-meter-high monument to Stalin by sprinkling it with holy water, accompanying this event with joyful cries of "Christ is Risen!" And in the subsequent pastoral sermon, gratitude was given to the Generalissimo for the fact that now, thanks to him, we are given the opportunity to pray and resort to such a host of holy New Martyrs ...
It is both bitter and funny, but such cases and examples have not disturbed the conscience of our former New York brothers in the least. Why? How to explain?
But this is far from all for the moral characterization of the MP. No one can seriously think that it has been reborn, having thrown off all the 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 for the legitimate First Hierarch Metropolitan Vitaly and those who followed the treacherous path. They convinced themselves and all of us that all the former barriers existing between us had 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 — all these cardinal questions dividing us have now been finally settled, and whoever does not agree with this and who criticizes and opposes those who are confidently moving towards rapprochement, is deliberately inventing false pretexts. That is what they told us then!
We will not repeat here everything that we had to write twenty-five years ago and that today should be recognized by everyone. The merger with the MP was and remains a betrayal and stupidity. It is symptomatic to read in the Synodal Statement: "Christians should live with open eyes, not to cloud their vision with substitutions." What instructive words and how they remind us of those "rose-colored glasses" through which the main initiator of the betrayal, Bishop Mark Arndt, looked at reality, according to the wise definition of our holy elder Metropolitan Vitaly.
The issue of the New Martyrs, they say, no longer divides us. But is this really so? Can we recognize the obvious Sergians glorified by the Patriarchate, be of one mind and one-minded with those who paint "icons" of Stalin or continue to not recognize or not understand the holiness of the holy Tsar? The Statement speaks of some freak who openly declared on television that he "would have shot Nicholas II himself." This, with your permission, person is presented as "a certain well-known professor respected by many in Russia." At first glance, there is no reason to reproach the Church for such a freak; it is known that many such "professors" have proliferated during Soviet times, but we took the trouble to learn more about him. It turns out that this is a certain Yuri Simonov, a well-known TV presenter, who goes by the flattering name of "Vyazemsky," a journalist, a professor at MGIMO (a well-known breeding ground for spies), and the head of the department of world literature and culture (!) of the faculty of international journalism. All this is as funny as it is characteristic, but the most important thing is the following: in addition to everything else, he is also a member of the Patriarchal Council for Culture and the holder of several church awards. And this characteristic of the impostor Vyazemsky is not indicated in the Synodal Statement. It is clear why. It should be shameful for someone who calls himself a "Zarubezhnik" to be in communication with such a person, who is still among the Patriarch's advisers on cultural issues.
But this, in the end, is not so important. The main reason for the break between the Western and Eastern Churches was the question of filioque. The main reason for the schism in the Russian Church was the question of the Declaration of Loyalty to Soviet Power of Metropolitan Sergius. This shows the full importance of the question of Sergianism, a question as ethical as it is theological. We have been told and are told that it has been finally resolved and no one today, after the adoption of the famous Social Concept, will dare to defend it. So, on the next anniversary of the death of Metropolitan Sergius, May 15, Patriarch Kirill held a memorial service, prefacing it with the following words in memory of his predecessor and founder:
"He managed to lead our Church out of that grave crisis situation. It was necessary to look for ways out of this conflict and His Holiness Patriarch Sergius found such ways out, "He managed to lead our Church out of that grave crisis situation. It was necessary to look for ways out of this conflict and His Holiness Patriarch Sergius found such ways out, taking such a position, but the fact that he had established direct contact with the highest authorities was simply saving meaning for the existence of our Church itself /.../ There are always some critics, which cast doubt positive service of the most holy Sergius, but, by the grace of God, all this criticism has practically disappeared, because Time is the best prover of rightness or the guilt of certain church and government officials, which leave light in History /.../ /.../ That's why the memory of him must be carefully preserved and I call upon all our bishops, clergy, and people to pray for the Patriarch and remember the feat of his life, and they gave thanks 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 the great saint of our land".
The word speaks for itself. We have underlined in bold the guiding principle of the patriarchal thinking, their basic line of conduct, from which it is clear that the patriarchs have not revised their attitude toward Sergianism one iota and that our synodals have not reached any agreement on this fundamental issue over the past quarter of a century. Or rather, they have either accepted and assimilated the patriarchal interpretation, or do not consider themselves in a position or right to challenge it. In any case, they have suffered a complete defeat in this fundamental issue for the Church Abroad. The Patriarchate will not abandon this line now: Sergius was a great saint of our land, everyone should remember the feat (!) of his life and carefully preserve the memory of him. He is one of those figures who leave light in History, and if there were critics (!) of his policy, then this was mainly among those who went abroad and lived in safety, but time best proves the rightness and today all criticism has practically disappeared.
Patriarch Kirill will finally canonize here patriarchal teaching of lies for salvation. This is now an indisputable patriarchal truth, now imputed to all followers of the MP. Such a "patriarchal credo" is a slap in the face not only to foreign defectors, but to all domestic Martyrs who suffered from the rejection of Sergius' Declaration, unlike Sergius himself, who testified to the church truth until their death.
Vladyka Mark prophesied that in the event of unification with Moscow, we would become the yeast that would make the Russian dough rise. As then, his words sound bitterly ironic today. Alas, the Russian dough did not rise, the first pancake was lumpy. Nevertheless, this does not prevent them from continuing along the same unrealistic line and issuing a brave appeal: “We raise our voices and are ready to offer our help and prayerful support in opposing these tendencies, wherever they manifest themselves.” Unfortunate ones - who will follow you?! What help in your current deplorable state are you capable of bringing to Russia? Do you not hear a healthy answer to your call: Physician, heal thyself! Our holy First Hierarchs preserved the Church Abroad as a pledge of the thousand-year-old Truth of the Russian Church. You have destroyed this monolith and are now capable of conveying no more than a nondescript gruel..
So, it is time to answer the question — what prompted the New York Synod to unexpectedly publish such a Statement. We see the explanation not in their moral sobriety, but in something completely different. The fact is that the instigators of the betrayal pursued different goals, one of them was to get out of the state of isolation in which the uncompromising stand held 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, on the other hand, thirsted for recognition, communication, a way out of this isolation, which had become burdensome to you.
The world has opened its arms wide to you and you were ready to renounce your previous existence. You had to prove to everyone that you were not at all the diehards that the Abroaders were previously presented as. Explaining why the unification with the MP had not taken place earlier, Vladyka Laurus was not ashamed to say that it was because "the old emigration, to which I do not belong, interfered." Let us clarify what the "old emigration" is. This is the very backbone on which the Abroad Spirit was built. For his part, in order to prove his liberalism, Vladyka Hilarion was not ashamed to be photographed, with an eternal smile on his lips, together with some Freemason master, despite the fact that the Church Abroad, and specifically Saint Metropolitan Anthony, had proclaimed anathema to Freemasonry. One after another, concelebrations began with all sorts of new calendarists, ecumenists, and all sorts of bishops, with whom you would never have thought of talking before. And you sighed — we are recognized by everyone, we can serve with whomever and wherever we want!
And here comes the first quirk: the MP does not collude with the Patriarch of Constantinople and is right to break off prayerful communion with him. In connection with this, your horizons narrow sharply, half of the Orthodox Churches break off communion with you, after all, you are nothing more than the Moscow Patriarchate. Several years pass — the second quirk: a special military operation. Whatever anyone thinks about it, this operation quarantined Putin's Russia, and since the Patriarchate naturally supports the operation, now the entire Western world has turned away from you and stopped communicating. And so, wanting to breathe deeply, enjoy complete freedom, communicate with the entire world, you suddenly turned into some kind of outcasts. Previously, the Church Abroad was isolated, but it was a noble isolation, not a shameful one, as here.
So, how can we get out of this situation? So you came up with the idea of making such a loud statement to show your rejection of Putin's policies, hoping to thereby regain your status as civilized people. A futile attempt: as long as you remain in the Patriarchate, you will share its fate. And here is the key to understanding what prompted you to publish this synodal Statement: you are not at all didn't come to their senses, do not repent of betraying the mission of the Church Abroad, but they lied in the hope of getting out of the situation. The mystery remains — why in your Statement you do not say a word about the MP, despite the fact that it is completely guilty of all the sins that you denounce. This is because you do not intend to break with the Patriarchate at all, for this would mean repentantly admitting your original mistake, but you are in no way ready for this. Let us not forget that your unchangeable slogan is: "Reunification is a God-pleasing deed"!
So, you are watching how the country is leaning back towards Soviet Russia and this naturally saddens you, as it does us. But for us it was even more painful to see how part of the White Church moved to the Soviet Church. You look at the reality around you and are rightfully horrified, but what right do you have to take the position of denouncers of vices? Look quickly at yourselves, remember your deeds, remember all the lies that brought you to where you are today, and which you do not think it is useful to repent of. Your words of denunciation are correct, but it is not for you to utter them, rather think about the deep meaning of the proverb: There is no point in blaming the mirror if your face is crooked. .And if you want to be taken seriously, then you know very well what you can do.
Protodeacon Herman Ivanov-Thirteenth
.
Posts
