rUSSKIY mIR oRTHODOXY

The entanglement of Marxism and the Russian Orthodox Church reflects a tragic distortion shaped by Russia's complex history and politics. Rooted in a twisted sense of authority and exploitation, this bond harkens back to the fertile soil of czarist culture, where authoritarianism thrives. Now, it has completed a full circle, with the mindset it once nourished now the Kremlin’s church under the simulacrum patriarchate of Cyril Gundyaev.
​
Throughout Russian history, the Russian Orthodox Church has wielded significant influence, strategically positioning itself as a tool for whatever ruling Muscovite Dynasty was in charge. Whether the Princes of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir or Vladimir Putin. This strategic positioning, marked by a series of calculated moves and abuses of ecclesial power, is a stark reminder of its pivotal role in shaping the political and religious landscape, and it is this intrigue we’ll delve into.
​

​The journey of the Russian church began with a contentious transfer of the See of Kyiv to Moscow between 1299 and 1325, a move that not only consolidated ecclesial power in the emerging Russian capital but also sparked controversy. In a bold assertion of authority without proper ecclesial consent, it adopted the self-proclaimed and unauthorized title 'Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia' in 1448. This trend demonstrates a blatant disregard for canonical law and a lustful pursuit to not only claim primacy but also to be the sole throne of Orthodoxy, free from the Ottoman authority perceived as its adversary.

​In a further bid to assert its desired dominance, in 1589, the church forcibly annexed the patriarchal title. It was placed fifth in the diptychs, solidifying its perverted autonomy, which it continues to wield unilaterally. The abusive establishment of a self-appointed autocephaly followed this audacious move. It was based on its new Patriarchal title and declaring independence from all external ecclesiastical authority, including canons and proper Orthodox ecclesiology. This reflection on the church's autonomy and power plays is crucial in understanding the contemporary manifestation of the Russo-centric trend under the guise of 'diversity. '

​These ecclesial power plays culminated with the reactionary abolition of the patriarchate in 1721, consolidating control under the Russian imperial government. For the next three centuries, the church expanded Russia’s influence unabated, disregarding canonical norms and traditions to pursue the Russkiy Mir agenda. 

​This Russkiy Mir agenda encompassed the Russification and alteration of every facet of Orthodoxy's traditional heritage. Firstly, on its perceived territory, followed by infiltration on Mt Athos, Jerusalem…   This included questioning dogmatics, such as labeling Palamas and others as heretics, introducing architectural innovations like St. Basil's Cathedral, adopting neo-classical iconography, replacing Byzantine music and hymnography with Tchaikovsky's compositions, and abusing vestments and liturgical practices (such as allowing mitered priests). The theological and ecclesiastical abuses of the Russkiy Mir are too numerous to detail here fully.

​This Russo-centric trend, often referred to as the panHeresy of Russkiy Mir, masquerades under the guise of "diversity," appealing to those who prioritize sentimentality and compliance, while dissenters are labeled nonconformists. Through this influence, the Russians have even introduced their version of Uniatism, known colloquially as the "Western Rite," which is only embraced by Russophile satellite churches in ROCOR and some within the Antiochian Church. Though Cyril has conducted many sacraments in the Western fashion, this practice represents another instance of Russian manipulation and canonical abuses deserving further examination.

"Patriarch" Cyril sprinkles baptism during Ruissia Orthodox Western Rite baptism service

Saint John of Shanghai, when he was the schismatic ROCOR Archbishop took responsibility for this novel Russian Orthodox Western Rite community.

Initiated in Russian Churches they've adapted Western liturgical rites, forming what is termed Western Rite Orthodoxy. The Roman Rite or Anglican rites are adapted to Orthodox theology and used in the local vernacular.

---

​Non-conformity is the greatest pan-heresy for the Moscow Church. Maximus, the Greek of Vatopedi’s ordeal, reflects a track record and well-documented pogrom of Hellenism condemning dissenting voices. This is part of a broader strategy within the Russian Orthodox Church, which is still heavily utilized and employed by Cyril and Putin.

​During the early years of Soviet rule following the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Soviet government, heavily influenced by Marxist ideology, actively promoted atheism and sought to suppress religion, including the Russian Orthodox Church, despite the closure of churches, persecution of clergy, and restrictions on religious practices, an era known as the "Red Terror,"  the Russian Church innovated, creating a novel 'restoration synod' that elected a self-proclaimed Patriarch: Tikhon.  After Tikhon’s death (1925), the government forbade patriarchal elections. In 1927, Metropolitan Sergius formally expressed the church’s 'loyalty' to the Soviet government and refrained from criticizing the state. Not limited to Russia, the Russian Church’s culpability in the tragic events of the Ukrainian Holodomor, the Russian Orthodox Church finds itself deeply infiltrated and characterized by cooperation and surveillance.

This marked a significant shift in the church's stance as it systematically absorbed the KGB in its ranks, and this antiquated and incestuous church/state Russkiy Mir mentality has flourished. During World War II, the Soviet government under Joseph Stalin sought to further co-opt the Russian Orthodox Church as a means of bolstering national unity and morale in the face of the Nazi invasion. The government allowed the church a degree of freedom in exchange for supporting the war effort. This period marked a temporary relaxation of the state's hostility toward religion.
​
Following Stalin's death in 1953, tensions gradually relaxed between the church and the state, as the Soviet government retained firm control over all religious affairs and infiltrated every aspect of this new tool of the state. Suspicion permeated society, uncertain about who might act as informants for the government, spanning from monastics and clergy to the hierarchy, amidst tales of confessional abuses and mysterious dissident disappearances. 

The Russian Orthodox Church is infiltrated from top to bottom with Soviet and Post Soviet dreams of conquest inherited from a Czarist "Orthodox" Russia

​The reach of this infiltration extended well beyond Russia. In the 1960s, the Metropolia in America faced internal divisions, with factions split between those aligned with Russian interests and those supporting American values. As a result, it broke away from the Moscow Patriarchate, arrogantly perhaps forming the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), disregarding the other various jurisdictions. This move displayed defiance and nonconformity, fueled by the understanding that the Moscow Patriarchate lacked the Russian military backing to enforce obedience in the American Metropolia. In a calculated diplomatic move perceived to curb the Ecumenical Patriarch's influence, the Moscow Patriarchate capitulated and unilaterally granted autocephaly to the former Metropolia, now called OCA. Moscow betrayed Orthodox canons once again in a very protestant paradigm. 

Metropolitan of Moscow Pimen and Bishop Theodosius share a moment upon granting uncanonical autocephaly

​With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, there was a resurgence of religious activity in Russia, including within the Russian Orthodox Church. However, the legacy of Soviet-era repression still lingers, and the relationship between the church and the state remains complex. Despite appearing to have religious autonomy, the church has long been influenced by state interests. It serves as a key propaganda tool for Putin domestically, with the government's perceived repentance manifested in the rebuilding of churches destroyed by the Communists. While experiencing a revival in cultural influence, it also encounters challenges from sectors of society that rightly maintain skepticism about its relationship with the state.

​

---

The image depicts the union of the Soviet Communist Party and the state under Leonid Brezhnev alongside hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church of Moscow, including then-Metropolitan Alexy II and Metropolitan Pimen. This historical alliance is echoed in contemporary times with figures like Putin, Alexy, and Alexy's protégé, the current simulacrum patriarch, Cyril.

---

​This complex interplay continues to unfold today, with the Moscow Patriarchate under Patriarch Cyril. Here is a short list of clergy recently defrocked by Patriarch Cyril for nonconformity:

• Father Sergiy Romanov - Excommunicated in 2023 for his nonconformist stance, he “chastised President Vladimir Putin as a ‘traitor to the Motherland’ who was serving a Satanic ‘world government,’ and denounced Patriarch Cyril, and other top clerics as ‘heretics’ who must be ‘thrown out.’”
• Father Ioann Koval was defrocked in 2023 for substituting the word "victory" with "peace" in a prayer. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople later overturned his defrocking.
• Hieromonk Ioann Kurmoyarov - Sentenced to 7 years in prison in 2023 for criticizing Russia's actions in Ukraine and sharing "fake news" about the Russian army. He posted several videos on his YouTube channel outlining his religious opposition to Russia’s war in Ukraine.
• Archimandrite Cyril Hovorun—Defrocked in 2024, their true motive was his outspoken opposition to the war in Ukraine.

Father Sergiy Romanov

Father Ioann Koval

Hieromonk Ioann Kurmoyarov

Archimandrite Cyril Hovorun

​Understanding the historical context of how Marxist ideas infiltrated the Russian Orthodox Christian paradigm and continue to influence the Moscow-based church is crucial. This involves interpreting Russian theology and practices through the lens of Marxist analysis, which focuses on class struggle, materialism, and the critique of capitalism. 

​Here are some ways in which Marxist ideas have infiltrated Russian Orthodoxy:

1. Class Struggle and Liberation Theology: It's essential to recognize that class struggle is not just an abstract concept but endorsed by the Russian hierarchy; theologians and activists within Russian Orthodoxy draw on Marxist concepts of class struggle to develop liberation theology and a false sense of “defending” Orthodoxy from the decadent West and ultimately the Ecumenical Patriarch. Victimhood positions the Russians and the Russian Church as victims in convoluted arguments against the West, CIA, and, inherently, the Ecumenical Patriarchate. 
   This approach emphasizes the liberation of the oppressed and marginalized, viewing the Russian Church as a liberator and advocate for the oppressed Russians, genuine Russian Orthodoxy, and Russian Traditions. It promotes manufactured injustices and prejudicial inequalities, always advocating for ethnic and national standards in line with Marxist principles, even unto fratricide.
2. Critique of Capitalism and the West as ecclesial constructs: Russian Marxist Orthodoxy analysis critiques capitalism, euphemistically naming the West as a system perpetuating exploitation, inequality, and ethnic supremacy and then connecting Hellenic Orthodoxy to Western governments via the CIA or Islam via Turkey. 
   ​Russian Orthodox thinkers have applied this critique to contemporary ecclesiastic systems, arguing that the West undermines Orthodoxy and human dignity, promotes greed, and leads to ecclesial injustice. They advocate for alternative ecclesial models based on Russian solidarity as social justice and Russkiy Mir proprietorship principles rather than the norms of the Ecumenical Councils, which have governed Orthodoxy for millennia.
3. Social Justice and Activism: Marxist ideas about social justice and solidarity have infected Russian Orthodox activism on various issues, including LGBT, autocephaly rights, environmental protection, and human rights. Activist groups within the Russian Church draw on Marxist principles to advocate for systemic change in status and challenge ecclesial structures of power and privilege. The Putin regime has drafted many hierarchs, clergy, and monastic centers as social media hubs promoting the caustic ideologies promulgated by the FSB propaganda disguised as authentic Orthodox “symophonia.”
4. Dialectical Materialism and Theology: Dialectical materialism, a key concept in Marxist philosophy, translated into Russian Orthodoxy, emphasizes the interconnectedness of social, economic, and historical forces encapsulated by the Russian Mir Church concept. Some theologians, and even the patriarch, have preached parallels between dialectical materialism and theological concepts such as the dynamic relationship between God and nation, Cyril and Putin. They seek to integrate Marxist insights into theological discourse, viewing Marxism as a tool for exploiting Russian Orthodoxy and practice's historical and ecclesial revisionism.
5. Critique of Religious Institutions: Marxist Russian Orthodoxy critique extends to Orthodoxy's religious institutions, which, according to Moscow, serve the West's interests and perpetuate ecclesial inequality. This perverted Russian Orthodox mindset has applied this critique to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Orthodox institutional structures of the church found in the canons, challenging canonical hierarchies of the Protos, and privileges within Orthodoxy and further advocating for greater Russo-centric dominance: aka “Russkiy Mir.” Denouncing all inter-Christian dialogue as antithetical to Orthodox Phronema.

​Orthodox Christianity outright rejects Russkiy Mir's Marxist ideology, viewing it as incompatible with our Orthodox faith. At the same time, the Moscow Patriarchate embraces Marxist Orthodoxy as a means of promulgating manufactured injustices in light of its nationalistic convictions. This tension between the two traditions underscores the complexity of modern Orthodoxy.

​If you're a Russian sycophant, my authoritative and convincing paper probably didn't change your perspective. However, you cannot deny being presented with the undeniable facts concerning Russkiy Mir and Patriarch Cyril's persistent abuses against Orthodoxy and human dignity. Conversely, if my arguments have swayed you, you now hold the essential insights necessary to confront the misinformation perpetuated as Orthodox ecclesiology.

---