In addition to the articles “KGB Agents in the Cassocks of the Russian Orthodox Church” and “Totalitarian Sect: ROC MP“, it is essential to reinforce earlier claims with additional materials sourced from archives. We understand that such materials may raise doubts and even mistrust, especially among religiously inclined audiences. This reaction is not surprising, as public perception has long been shaped by the belief that clergy dedicate themselves first and foremost to serving God, rather than secular authorities or intelligence agencies. However, in the case of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (ROC MP), archival evidence reveals a starkly different reality.
Declassified documents and journalistic investigations, published since the 1990s, have uncovered numerous instances of ROC MP clergy collaborating with the KGB of the USSR. Archival research confirms that a significant part of the church hierarchy, including its highest-ranking members, not only maintained contact with state security agencies but actively worked for them.
These findings undermine the conventional image of the ROC MP as an independent religious organization, upholding spiritual and moral values through its priests adorned in golden vestments. Instead, they unveil a structure deeply integrated into the Soviet totalitarian system. Key church hierarchs were substantially used by the state as instruments for controlling society.
Thus, the analysis of archival data supports the assertion that during the Soviet era, the ROC MP functioned less as a religious organization serving spiritual ideals and more as a cog in the state security apparatus, tasked with controlling the believers and leveraging religion for state interests.
In light of this, it becomes less surprising to observe expressions of support for aggression among current ROC MP adherents, including the blessing of weaponry and participation in propagandistic military campaigns. The blessing of armaments and public calls for involvement in the war in Ukraine by ROC representatives are just continuations of the course established during the Soviet period. Modern actions of the ROC MP reflect its historical legacy, where ideologies of war and violence, cloaked in religious symbolism, were presented as a “holy” mission.
This behavior is particularly evident in attempts to justify acts of aggression through religious rhetoric, framing them as a so-called “sacred” war against Western civilization. Instead of serving as a mediator of peace and humanism, the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate today actively participates in mobilizing public opinion to uphold Kremlin propaganda.
Such questionable practices raise significant concerns about the spirituality and independence of the church, its true purpose, and its accountability to society.
But let us continue to delve deeper. When did it all begin?
The Establishment of the Russian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate
Let us return to 1943, to the events when USSR Generalissimo Joseph Stalin decided to revive the Russian Orthodox Church. While the claims that this decision was made during wartime to strengthen national unity of the Soviet Union against fascism are entirely logical, it does not exonerate the church.
We have obtained the following archival photo records sourced from the internet. There is no doubt about the authenticity of these documents.
One such document is a memorandum from V. Merkulov to V. Molotov 1.
Next is a decree establishing the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, signed by Joseph Stalin, Generalissimo of the Soviet Union.
The decree states: “The Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR resolves to establish the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, entrusting it with the task of maintaining communication between the USSR Government and the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Rus‘.”
Another document, dated September 22, 1943, reports on a synod of bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church of the “Tikhonite-Sergianist” orientation, which convened on September 8. The synod elected Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) as Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’. This document also granted permission to reopen churches, theological courses, candle factories, and journal publications. Additionally, the document mandated adherence to specific guidelines, including the following:
“Each newly opened church should be provided with a trusted agent from among the clergy or church asset.”
The next document contains even more intriguing details and is dated September 28, 1944:
To the People’s Commissars of State Security of the Union and Autonomous Republics, Heads of Regional and Provincial NKGB Offices.
In the second half of January 1945, a local council (convention) of the Russian Orthodox Church will be held in Moscow to elect the “Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’.”
The local council will consist of hierarchs and elected delegates from the clergy and laity…
In light of this, the NKGB of the USSR proposes the following:
- Begin selecting candidates for participation in the council from among the clergy and laity, identifying individuals who hold religious authority among the clergy and believers, while ensuring they are also verified in terms of their agent and patriotic work. It is crucial to ensure that the majority of the proposed candidates are NKGB agents capable of advancing the necessary agenda at the council.
- By December 1, for all proposed candidates (excluding bishops), a dossier should be submitted, including a brief biography, professional qualifications, political characteristics, and an assessment of the candidate’s authority within church circles. The process for advancing the selected candidates to the council will be communicated after the November bishops’ meeting. Until further instructions are received, negotiations with agents regarding candidates proposed for participation in the council, or concerning the local council in general, should not be initiated.
- Upon the arrival in Moscow, the agents among the bishops, participating in the pre-council November meeting, must contact the officers of the 5th Department of the 2nd Directorate of the NKGB of the USSR. They should do so by calling the following numbers: K-4-24-00, asking for Alexei Ivanovich, or K-4-59-07, asking for Alexander Ivanovich. Telegram notifications of their departure should be sent in advance.
Head of the 2nd Directorate of the NKGB of the USSR, State Security Commissar of the 3rd Rank, Fedotov.
Head of the 5th Department of the 2nd Directorate, State Security Commissar Karpov.
September 28, 1944, Moscow
Finally, we would like to present a truly intriguing document from Joseph Stalin’s archive (a conclusion we draw from the blue pencil notation on the paper: “My archive. J. Stalin”).
On September 5, 1943, this letter of gratitude was signed by Sergius Stragorodsky, Alexy and Nicholas of Kyiv, Galicia. Below is the full text:
Dear Joseph Vissarionovich!
The historic day of our meeting with the great Leader of our people revered across all Rus’—who is guiding our Motherland toward glory and prosperity — will forever remain in the depths of our hearts as servants of the Church. In every word and every sentence, we felt a heart burning with fatherly love for all your children. It is especially dear to the Russian Orthodox Church that you felt with your heart that the Church, together with the entire Russian people, truly lives by a common will to victory and a holy readiness for every sacrifice in the name of the salvation of the Motherland.
The Russian Church will never forget that the Leader — recognized throughout the world — not only through the Stalin Constitution but also through personal involvement in the Church’s destiny, has lifted the spirit of all church members to even greater efforts for the good of our beloved homeland.
On behalf of the Russian Church, we express our profound gratitude to you.
May God pres erve you for many years, dear Joseph Vissarionovich!
This document is perhaps one of the most striking examples of hypocrisy in modern history. The totalitarian regime, which proclaimed atheism and godlessness as its official doctrine, ruthlessly suppressed the clergy, subjected church leaders to repressions, destroyed churches, and obliterated their traditions, suddenly decided to restore the institution of the church. However, under the guise of “revival”, an instrument of power is rather created, while a return to spiritual roots is out of the question.
Those chosen for this “new” church willingly accepted their roles, demonstrating their loyalty to the totalitarian regime. And we believe they were quite sincere in thanking the dictator, as they legally gained access to peaceful sleep, healthy nourishing food, cars, luxurious apartments, and authority over their flock. They were returned to comfortable ‘royal’ living conditions.
Thus, the Russian Orthodox Church, meant to carry the beacon of spirituality, became an artificially created structure serving the political apparatus.
This story is a bitter reminder of how lofty spiritual ideals can be distorted for political purposes, while faith and morality are replaced with allegiance and servility. This is an example of totalitarian power that destroyed religion only to later use its facade for its own purposes. It demonstrates the depth of cynicism that a system striving for absolute control is capable of.
Of course, the question, “Where is God in all this?” is not even up for discussion.
The Story of an Agent’s Report
In the article “KGB Agents in the Cassocks of the Russian Orthodox Church,” we presented declassified short excerpts from the central archive of the KGB of the USSR, specifically regarding the assignments in which church leaders were involved. But how exactly did the interaction between priests and KGB officers take place?
To give readers an idea of what this looked like, we offer an example of a typical agent report (sourced from here 2), which resembles a literary essay. It was written by an agent with the code name “Antonov.” After identifying the agent network, it was revealed that the alias “Antonov” belonged to Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko), the patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate.
Top Secret
Agent Report
Informant: “Antonov”
Received: June 4, 1958, by Operations Officer Spirin.
Report Content:
A delegation of Anglican Church monks arrived in Kyiv by plane from Moscow on May 27, 1958, at 16:35. The delegation, consisting of Hugh Fenwick, Robert Ptinier, Matthew Shaw, Mark Tweedy, and John Lawrence, was led by Mark Gibbard. All except John Lawrence are representatives of various Anglican Church monasteries located in northern U.K. and Africa. The monks (five in total) wore cassocks tied with belts resembling ropes with three knots. The three knots symbolize the three monastic vows.
Mark Gibbard gives the impression of an intelligent person. Cheerful. Tactful. He doesn’t say or ask anything unnecessary. He is a member of the World Council of Churches. In August of this year, a conference of this council is scheduled to take place in Geneva, where Mark Gibbard is expected to speak before Christian journalists.
A distinctive feature of Matthew Shaw is that he does nothing to draw attention to himself.
Mark Tweedy knows some Russian, suggesting he had been preparing for this trip to the Soviet Union for some time.
Robert Ptinier is older than the other members of the delegation. For some reason, he showed a strong interest in chernozem (fertile black soil) and even wanted to take some back to England.
Hugh Fenwick stands out for his intrusiveness. He showed readiness to inspect every nook and cranny. He was particularly attentive to anything that could create a negative impression. Fenwick wore an olive-green cassock and sandals without socks, giving the appearance of a beggar. His face is unattractive. Hugh Fenwick carried a film camera, which he parted with only when sleeping or eating. He had numerous notebooks, which he guarded carefully. He speaks little but listens attentively. His eyes look in all directions.
John Lawrence is a frequent visitor to the Soviet Union. He travels with various church delegations, including some to which he is not officially affiliated. During the Great Patriotic War, he served as a military attaché in the Soviet Union. In 1955, Lawrence was assigned to a church organization from the Russian Orthodox Church, which visited several cities in Great Britain and Scotland. He currently collaborates officially with the editorial staff of a church magazine. Lawrence accompanied the delegation as an interpreter.
The delegation was met by Archpriest V. Yurchenko and Igumen Filaret. Upon exiting the plane, Yurchenko gave a brief welcoming address, to which Mark Gibbard responded. According to him, the purpose of the Anglican monks’ visit to Kyiv was to learn about the life of Russian monkhood.
The delegation and their escorts then boarded cars and proceeded to the “Inturist” hotel. On the way, Mark Tweedy asked, “May I photograph St.
Michael’s Monastery? I was asked to do so in the U.K.” Igumen Filaret replied that St. Michael’s Monastery had been destroyed during the war.
Upon arriving at the hotel, John Lawrence refused to entrust his suitcase to anyone else. Apparently, it held significant value to him. After settling into their rooms, within 5–10 minutes, the Anglican monks and their escorts gathered for lunch, where they engaged in lively conversation on harmless topics. It was during this time that the delegation was invited to visit the Pokrovsky Monastery and the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra on May 27, 1958.
At 19:20, the delegation arrived at the Pokrovsky Monastery. The guests were greeted by Abbess Rafaela. In the monastery, Hugh Fenwick focused on the sick walking around in pajamas and began filming them. After inspecting the church, which took about 15–20 minutes, Abbess Rafaela invited the guests to her quarters for tea. Guests did not refuse. Hugh, meanwhile, cast a critical eye around the room but found nothing suitable for his camera.
One of the Anglican monks asked how many nuns lived in the Pokrovsky Monastery and at what age women could enter monastic life. Abbess Rafaela replied that the monastery housed 250 people, and women could join at the age of no younger than 25 but were admitted to monastic vows at the age of 40.
Lawrence asked, “Where did the nuns stay during the war?” — “Here, in the monastery,” Abbess Rafaela replied.
When the delegation left the abbess’s quarters and proceeded to inspect the summer church, they were surrounded by a crowd, including patients in pajamas. Hugh made an effort to photograph everyone. Notably, Hugh appeared more interested in the crowd than the nuns, despite his stated purpose of learning about monastic life.
From the Pokrovsky Monastery, the delegation proceeded to the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra. At that time, the evening service in the Lavra was concluding. The guests stood briefly in the church before heading to the Near Caves. At the Lavra, Hugh paid particular attention to the beggars sitting at the entrance. The delegation received a brief welcome from Hieromonk Joseph, who also gave comments.
In the caves, the Anglican monks made the sign of the cross in the Orthodox manner and even kissed the relics, despite the Anglican Church rejecting veneration of relics. The Lavra was not a suitable environment for questioning. After viewing the Near Caves, the guests returned to their hotel by car, where dinner awaited them. It was 8:30 PM. During dinner, the program for May 28, 1958, was planned.
After dinner, the Anglican monks gathered in Mark Gibbard’s room. They had their notebooks with them. They held daily meetings for discussing something collectively.
On May 28, 1958, at 7:30 AM, the delegation conducted an Anglican liturgy in Mark Gibbard’s room. The liturgy lasted 45 minutes. Afterward, Archimandrite Pimen, who accompanied the delegation, delivered a welcoming speech on the occasion of their communion and expressed hope that the unity between the Russian and Anglican churches would grow stronger over time. The guests were very pleased.
At 8:30 AM, breakfast was served. It was Wednesday — a fasting day. The delegation expressed a desire to observe the fast in accordance with Russian church traditions.
After breakfast, they began exploring the churches and the city. From 9:20 AM to 11:00 AM, the delegation visited St. Volodymyr’s Cathedral. A liturgy was taking place at that time. The guests listened to the service and then examined the cathedral and its remarkable frescoes. The cathedral left a deep impression on all the visitors.
Surprisingly, Hugh did not photograph any of the artwork. Instead, his attention was drawn to the praying people, of whom there were few that day. From an elevated position, he carefully adjusted his camera and began filming. He ignored the comments being given and wandered around, peering into every corner.
After an exterior tour of the university, the Shevchenko monument, and the Khmelnytsky monument, the delegation arrived at the St. Sophia Cathedral Museum. The guests showed great interest in the mosaics, frescoes, and the tomb of Yaroslav the Wise. Hugh paid little attention to the explanations. He alternated between taking photographs and wandering around, peeking into corners, constantly trying to lag behind the group. In the section displaying mosaics and frescoes from the St. Michael Monastery, Hugh also filmed several images. The delegation then viewed St. Sophia Cathedral from the outside. The tour lasted from 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM, and the guide provided quite satisfactory commentaries.
At 12:00 PM, the delegation arrived at St. Andrew’s Church. The guests spent some time admiring the beautiful view of the Dnipro River. From the church’s gallery, they were shown the churches in Podil, the pedestrian bridge, and the site where, according to museum staff, the statue of Perun once stood. They then examined the church’s interior while comments were offered and they asked questions related to its history, architecture, and paintings. Lawrence recalled that the relics of Apostle Andrew had been in Scotland in the 7th century, which made the visit to the church dedicated to Apostle Andrew the First-Called especially meaningful for the guests.
The delegation spent about 45 minutes on Volodymyr Hill, admiring the scenery. Hugh did not photograph the monument to Volodymyr. When asked why (he did not photograph), he replied that the light was too bright, although he had filmed in equally bright light on other occasions.
At 2:00 PM, lunch at the hotel. After lunch, a walk in the forest along the Chernihiv Highway. The delegation showed great interest in the Monument to the Baptism of Rus’. Therefore, they first went to the monument and then walked along the embankment, crossing the Paton Bridge into the forest.
Along the way, Mark Tweedy asked how many students were enrolled in the seminary. Igumen Filaret replied, “112.”
Mark Tweedy: “How many of them will continue on to the academy?”
Igumen Filaret: “About six.”
Igumen Filaret: “How many students are in your seminary?”
Mark Tweedy: “Forty people.”
In the forest, Hugh separated from the group and went deeper into the woods, apparently hoping to find something interesting for his camera.
After resting, at 5:00 PM, the delegation headed to the Vvedensky Monastery. The guests were greeted by the monastery treasurer (Igumenia Eleutheria was ill). A service was being held in the church, with nuns singing. The guests stood for a while, then went outside and toured the buildings from the outside. The treasurer invited the guests into her cell, seated them, and offered candies and fruit water. Lawrence asked, “At what age do they accept novices into the monastery?” A nun (not the treasurer) answered, “At 18.” Lawrence then inquired, “Where were the nuns during the war?” The nun replied, “We were evicted from the monastery, and when the war operations ended, we returned to the monastery.” Lawrence asked, “What did the nuns do?” The nun explained, “During the time free from service, we sew blankets and perform other monastic duties.” As they left the monastery, Mark Tweedy remarked, “Poor monastery.”
At 7:30 PM, the delegation returned to the Lavra for a tour around the distant caves. Lawrence suggested replacing the cave visit with a look at the monks’ cells and their life. Archimandrite Pimen promised to fulfill the request, but Igumen Filaret explained that the monks were in the church for the service, and their cells were closed. The delegation then proceeded to the slopes of the Dnipro River, where Hugh set up his camera. He was apparently photographing a passing steamboat and Darnița, as from his location, that was the only possible shot. The delegation moved on, but Hugh stayed behind and appeared to be writing something down.
When the group reached the wells, Hugh stopped and tried to take a photo of a poorly dressed boy, but was unable to take a shot. The rest of the group left, and Hugh stayed by the well to reload his camera. At the same time, he appeared to be making notes. He always kept the films with him. After this, the delegation briefly attended the evening service and then, by 7:00 PM, headed to the “Prokat” boat station for a river cruise on the Dnipro. The guests were very pleased with this outing.
At 9:00 PM, they had dinner at the hotel. During the conversation, Igumen Filaret told Mark Gibbard that personal meetings between church leaders help familiarize them with the life of the churches and strengthen friendly relations. Personal meetings offer what books cannot provide. Mark Gibbard agreed. Lawrence mentioned that on May 27, he was with an Anglican monk in the city. This was around 10 AM or 11 AM. Some Kyiv resident saw the monk and asked if he was from Scotland. The stranger mistook the monk’s cassock for a skirt.
May 29, 1958, 8:45 AM – breakfast. 9:45 AM – the delegation headed to the airport. At this time, a plane carrying Romanian Patriarch Justinian and his entourage landed in Kyiv. A meeting took place. Mark Gibbard gave a brief welcome speech to Patriarch Justinian and introduced each member of the delegation.
The Anglican monks’ delegation departed at 10:30 AM. Before the departure, the guests warmly bid farewell and expressed their gratitude for the warm reception. On behalf of Metropolitan John, a photo album featuring images of the Vladimir Cathedral and the book “Kyiv in Photographs” were presented to each member of the delegation.
“ANTONOV”
NOTE: This report by agent “ANTONOV” was submitted upon our assignment, given to him in part to study the behavior of the Anglican Church delegation during their stay in Kyiv.
ACTIONS: A copy of this agent report by “ANTONOV” is to be sent for informational and operational use to Department 4 of the 4th Directorate of the KGB under the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
After the fall of the USSR, Patriarch Filaret-Denysenko-“Antonov”, while admitting to cooperating with the state security services, showed no remorse for his actions.
In an interview with the ZIK channel, Kyiv Patriarch Filaret (Denysenko) stated that bishops of the ROC were forced to cooperate with the KGB during Soviet times:
“Cooperation with the KGB is not a sin…” he casually justified his actions. “If the Lord allowed this godless Soviet power, then we must live under this godless power” 3.
Absolute power often leads individuals to perceive reality only in a way that benefits themselves. This phenomenon is extremely dangerous because distorting the objective picture inevitably leads to mistakes, inner degradation, and, as a result, severe tragic consequences for society.
In conclusion
Georgi Edelstein, the only priest among the Moscow Helsinki Group — the oldest human rights organization in Russia — shared in an interview 3:
“In 1991, an interview of mine was published in the ‘Arguments and Facts’ newspaper under the title ‘KGB agents in Cassocks,’ where I stated that every second clergyman of the Moscow Patriarchate was directly or indirectly connected to the KGB (USSR Committee for State Security). I was confronted with loud accusations that I was dishonoring the church. Father Shergunov, in particular, argued that it wasn’t every second but only every tenth, in his opinion. Eleven years have passed since then. Every tenth — at that time, there were 10,000 clergymen — so at least 1,000, as Father Shergunov said, are guilty of this Judas sin. How many of those 1,000 have repented? As far as I know, not a single one has repented. So today, at least 1,000 Judases stand at the holy altar, kissing their fellow clergymen…
KGB generals and employees of the Council for Religious Affairs openly stated and wrote that, without exception, all leaders of religious organizations were appointed by two non-church organizations — the ideological department of the CPSU Central Committee and the KGB’s (4th Department of the 5th Directorate).”
In the same interview, Gleb Yakunin, whom we mentioned previously, also said:
“I was shocked when I saw the monstrous materials, which testify that the church is truly just a branch of the KGB 5. I couldn’t keep this information inside…”
We are no less shocked than Gleb Yakunin.
However, this realization allows us to rid ourselves of illusions regarding the high spirituality of the senior clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and their justification of crimes against humanity.
Sources:
1. https://web.archive.org/web/20240925150815/https://rodina-history.ru/2018/09/03/rodina-religia.html
2. https://web.archive.org/web/20240620194312/https://reltoday.com/news/patr-filaret-agent-antonov-arhivnye-dokumenty/
3. https://dailystorm.ru/news/v-rpc-soglasilis-s-mneniem-patriarha-filareta-chto-sotrudnichestvo-s-kgb-ne-greh
4. https://web.archive.org/web/20221211234830/https://www.svoboda.org/a/24190988.html
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB
6. https://web.archive.org/web/20240522052015/https://afanasiy.net/dyrektyvy-nkgb-sssr-o-sozdanyy-moskovskoi-patryarhyy-yz-arhyva-sbu
