Editorial: ROCOR Has Reasserted Itself as the Conscience of the Russian Church
In its June 5th statement, the Synod of Bishops confronts the revival of Soviet ideology and defends the sacred memory of the New Martyrs—reaffirming ROCOR’s vital role as the conscience of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The Synod’s statement addressed the alarming resurgence of Soviet-era symbols, rhetoric, and the public glorification of some of the 20th century’s most brutal mass murderers. The Bolsheviks led the charge in the bloodiest century in the history of the Christian Church. They deserve to be remembered for what they truly were: enemies of God and butchers of the Orthodox people of Russia and Eastern Europe. The ROCOR Synod’s statement, therefore, deserves the full support of every faithful Orthodox Christian—not only within ROCOR, but across all jurisdictions.
By proclaiming the truth without reservation, ROCOR has reaffirmed its longstanding role as the impartial conscience of the wider Russian Orthodox world. In doing so, it has answered—and effectively silenced—those liberal academics and schismatics who claim ROCOR is merely a mouthpiece of the Moscow Patriarchate.
The Synod’s words are not political in nature, nor are they an attempt to intrude on international affairs. Rather, they constitute a pastoral response to a disturbing trend: the rehabilitation of figures and ideologies that were openly hostile to the Orthodox Church and the foundations of Christian life. As the statement notes, statues of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky are being erected once more; Lenin’s idolatrous mausoleum is being renovated instead of demolished and consigned to the ash heap of history. Worse still, Orthodox saints and heroes—who were condemned under false charges by the Soviet regime and later vindicated by careful post-Soviet investigations—are now having their names arbitrarily slandered by state agencies and academics alike.
The glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia was one of the most significant spiritual milestones of the post-Soviet period. These men, women, and children remained faithful to Christ in the face of horrific violence, humiliation, and injustice. Their canonization was not a political gesture—it was a recognition that their steadfast witness continues to shape the conscience of the Church. To suppress their memory—or to glorify those responsible for their deaths—is not merely inconsistent. It is spiritually destructive.
These developments represent a profound shift in how Russia is choosing to remember its past. And when that past includes the brutal persecution of the Church and the execution of tens of thousands of clergy and faithful, memory is never neutral. I would argue that this attempted rehabilitation of Bolshevik symbols and figures—regardless of who promotes it—has one source and one aim: it is a demonic effort to derail the re-Christianization of the Russian land and her Orthodox people.
This is especially evident in the persistent attacks on the memory of the Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II and the Royal Martyrs. The Synod specifically references a prominent Russian academic who repeated the old Bolshevik slander that St. Nicholas was responsible for bringing Russia into the First World War and for its subsequent defeat—going so far as to say, “I would have shot him myself.” While not directly criticizing the Moscow Patriarchate, the bishops pointedly observe that “despite the conclusions of the commission concerning the authenticity of the relics of the Royal Family and their faithful servants, the Moscow Patriarchate has still not been able to come to a clear determination on this question.”
Personally, I was overjoyed by this message. How often have I heard Russians—even some within ROCOR—spread conspiracy theories about the relics of the Royal Martyrs? As our Lord reminds us: A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house (Matt. 13:57).
Contrary to the narratives pushed by the Bolsheviks, the Tsar’s presence at the front during the war was a great encouragement to the soldiers. The campaigns he directed—though as brutal as any in that war—achieved real success in pushing back the Austro-Hungarian and German armies.
I thank God that our Church Abroad has always proclaimed the truth of the most pious and God-fearing Royal Passion-Bearers of Russia. Their sanctity is so evident that even an American like myself can proclaim it proudly—and our Greek brothers have rightly honored it with works such as The Romanov Royal Martyrs: What Silence Could Not Conceal.
In this context, the Synod’s statement reaffirms something vital: ROCOR’s role as the pious guardian of Russian Orthodox tradition and as a voice of moral clarity within the Russian Orthodox Church. Free from the constraints of state influence, our Church Abroad is uniquely positioned to speak when others may hesitate. This is not a rejection of communion with the Moscow Patriarchate; rather, it is a reminder that ROCOR has always served as a kind of mirror—a voice able to call attention to spiritual dangers when they arise. That voice is needed now more than ever.
The statement also refutes the claim that ROCOR has lost its independence or relevance. On the contrary, our bishops have shown that they are willing to speak boldly and truthfully, even when it is uncomfortable to do so. Their concern is not political maneuvering or institutional pride, but the integrity of the Church’s memory and their pastoral duty to guide the faithful in truth.
For my own small part, I would like to encourage other Orthodox jurisdictions—especially here in North America, where the legacy of the Russian Church is shared—to stand in solidarity with the Synod’s concerns. The Orthodox Church in America (OCA), as co-heir to the legacy of St. Tikhon of Moscow, is uniquely positioned to affirm the truth about the past and to encourage sober Orthodox reflection in the present.
The renewal of Orthodox life in Russia over the past decades has been a cause for genuine joy. But this renewal must be rooted in truth. No revival can flourish on a foundation of selective memory or ideological distortion. A “Holy Russia” worthy of that name must honor the memory of the New Martyrs—not obscure it.
