Russian source:
Bulletin of PSTGU. Series II: History. History of the Russian Orthodox
Church, Issue 98, 2021, pp. 130–142.
Abstract: The article is devoted to the attitude of the Russian
Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR) toward the Moscow Patriarchate under
Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky). During the years of his administration of
the Russian Church Abroad, criticism of the actions of the Moscow Patriarchate
intensified. The occasion for the criticism was the latter’s compelled support
of the communist state, as well as its participation in the ecumenical
movement. Metropolitan Philaret, who at first expressed himself with restraint,
gradually changed his rhetoric. In part, the metropolitan’s sharpness is
explained by the influence upon him of radicals — Protopresbyter George Grabbe
(later Bishop Gregory) and Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos). Sharp
statements also came from the Councils and the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR. In
particular, it was said that the Moscow Patriarchate could not be considered
the successor of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, and that its directives were
unlawful. Attempts were made to declare the Moscow Patriarchate devoid of
grace. Such an opinion was expressed by the First Hierarch of ROCOR himself,
Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), as well as by the secretary of the Synod
of Bishops, Protopresbyter George Grabbe. They believed that a cleric of the
Moscow Patriarchate could receive grace only at the moment of joining the
Russian Church Abroad. Despite this opinion, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
did not officially declare the Moscow Patriarchate devoid of grace. A
considerable part of ROCOR spoke of it with respect and was prepared for
dialogue.
In May 1964, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox
Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) elected Bishop Philaret (Voznesensky) of
Brisbane as the chairman of the Synod of Bishops and the First Hierarch. The
leadership of Metropolitan Philaret, which lasted until his death on November
21, 1985, has not yet found its researcher. The most comprehensive work,
"Pillar of Fire," prepared by Nun Kassia (Senina), is largely aimed
at justifying the actions of the archpastor. [1] Other works dedicated to this
topic are mainly of a review nature and are limited to listing facts and
events. [2] And although certain aspects have already been reflected in
scholarly literature, [3] one of the most important questions — the attitude
towards the Moscow Patriarchate — remains outside the scope of research
interest.
The limited study of the topic leads to a number of extreme
assertions circulating in journalism. These assertions boil down to the idea
that the Russian Church Abroad not only denied the grace of the Moscow
Patriarchate but allegedly did not consider it a Christian denomination at all.
For example, one of the Russian authors wrote in the early 1990s: "The
Synodal Church Abroad does not consider those who are under the jurisdiction of
the Moscow Patriarchate to be Christians at all." [4]
What did the Russian Church Abroad actually say about the
Moscow Patriarchate, and did it recognize its grace? The official resolutions
of the Councils of Bishops of ROCOR, as well as the decisions of the Synod of
Bishops, provide an answer to this question. Understanding the attitude towards
the Moscow Patriarchate is also aided by materials from the periodical press of
the Russian emigration and the correspondence of the clergy of the Russian
Church Abroad.
By the time of Metropolitan Philaret's election, the Russian
Church Abroad had been effectively independent for over 40 years. Since 1927,
relations with the Moscow Patriarchate had been characterized by opposition.
After the "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and
his demand for loyalty to the Soviet regime, ROCOR refused to submit to the
Moscow Patriarchate, and Metropolitan Sergius' official statement about the
absence of persecution (1930) led to a break in prayerful communion. In 1953,
in response to the requiem service for Stalin held by the Moscow Patriarchate,
the Council of Bishops of ROCOR decided that its clergy could only be accepted
through repentance. Some representatives of the Russian Church Abroad indeed
went as far as to engage in outright blasphemy. In one interview, Metropolitan
Anthony (Bloom) of Sourozh recalled how Archimandrite (later Metropolitan)
Vitaly (Ustinov) of ROCOR once said to him: "If one is to be polite, you
are not a priest, and if one is to be direct, you are a servant of Satan."
[5] In the will of Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky), who held the position
of First Hierarch of ROCOR from 1936 to 1964, there were the following words:
"As for the Moscow Patriarchate and its hierarchs, since they are in
close, active, and friendly alliance with the Soviet government, which openly
professes its complete godlessness and strives to implant atheism in the entire
Russian people, the Church Abroad, in preserving its purity, should not have
any canonical, prayerful, or even simple everyday communication with them,
while leaving each of them to the final judgment of the future free Council of
the Russian Church." [6]
Under Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), the situation
became even more tense. Unlike his predecessors, Metropolitans Anthony
(Khrapovitsky) and Anastasy (Gribanovsky), who began their service in Tsarist
Russia, Metropolitan Philaret grew up spiritually in emigration, and on its
periphery at that. It seems that living in a non-Orthodox Chinese environment,
as well as the political events of the 1920s–1940s, developed in him a habit of
existing in a "ring of enemies." His limited administrative
experience also played a role — he was elevated to the position of head of
ROCOR from the rank of vicar bishop of the distant Australian diocese. As a
result, the metropolitan came under the strong influence of his zealous
entourage, primarily the secretary of the Synod, Protopresbyter George Grabbe
(later Bishop Gregory), and the abbot of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery in
Boston, Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos).
Initially, Metropolitan Philaret's statements about the
Moscow Patriarchate were moderate. "We do not condemn the Soviet hierarchs
for being forced to praise the antichristian power and act according to its
directives," the archpastor wrote in 1971, "we do not condemn them
because we understand their terrible situation: never before in the world has
the Church been in such dreadful conditions. We reject communion with them, but
we pity them and pray that the Lord will free them from this spiritual
captivity, and He Himself, the just and merciful, will judge them." [7]
Other hierarchs held a similar view. In the same year,
Archbishop Averky (Taushev) of Syracuse and Holy Trinity also spoke about the
grace of the Moscow Patriarchate. Discussing the issue of granting autocephaly
to the North American Metropolia, he stated: "We cannot speak about the
validity of the sacraments in the Metropolia if we do not even reject grace in
the Soviet Church." [8]
Nevertheless, harsh criticism of the Moscow Patriarchate was
gaining momentum. Whereas previously the accusations against it were limited to
servility, support of the atheist state, and betrayal of the New Martyrs, new
reasons emerged in the 1960s — the participation of the Moscow Patriarchate in
the ecumenical movement, the formal permission to admit Roman Catholics to the
Chalice, which was in effect from 1969 to 1986, and others. [9]
It was only natural that sooner or later ROCOR would have to
address the question of the grace of the Moscow Patriarchate. Attempts to
declare it devoid of grace were made, for example, at the Council of Bishops in
1971. "If heretics are without grace," insisted Archbishop Anthony
(Sinkevich) of Los Angeles at the time, "then the Patriarchate must be
even more so, for its situation is worse than heresy because it collaborates
with the theomachists." [10] However, the proposal did not gain support.
It was understood that such a step would inevitably lead to the severing of the
already thin thread of canonical communion with the Local Churches and the
transformation of ROCOR into a global outcast. Even an anti-Moscow hierarch
like Archbishop Seraphim (Ivanov) of Chicago and Detroit reminded that the
final decision, according to the will of Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky),
should be made by a Council in a Russia liberated from communism. Bishop Savva
(Saračević) of Edmonton also spoke in the same vein, insisting that the
question of recognizing someone as devoid of grace is complex from a
theological point of view and has not yet been resolved.
The archpastors refused to condemn the Moscow Patriarchate
for the same reason that it refrained from imposing sanctions against ROCOR.
Let us recall that during those years in Moscow, there were also unsuccessful
attempts to anathematize the Church Abroad. [11] In both cases, there was a
fear of "uprooting the wheat along with the tares" (cf. Matt. 13:29).
By refraining from harsh judgments, the participants of the
ROCOR Council of Bishops in 1971 agreed that, alongside the leadership of the
Moscow Patriarchate, there are many Orthodox believers in the homeland who
belong to it but do not sympathize with its course. Even Archbishop Vitaly
(Ustinov) of Montreal and Canada, who had previously made blasphemous remarks
about Moscow clerics, did not support the condemnation. "The
Patriarchate," said the archbishop, "consists not only of Nikodim [Rotov]
and those like him. By making a decision about the lack of grace, we touch all
the clergy and laity. The catacomb Church is not only those who are hiding but
also some of the open clergy." [12]
Archbishop Averky (Taushev) added that the church people in
Russia are able to distinguish the "true" pastors from the
unbelievers, and he also spoke of a priest from the Moscow Patriarchate who
joyfully spoke about the canonization of Father John of Kronstadt, which had
taken place abroad. Archbishop Nikon (Rklitsky) of Washington and Florida held
a similar opinion, stating that the efforts of the Council should be directed
against the higher hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate, not against all
believers.
The First Hierarch summed it up: "There are people who,
although they have erred, do so while internally reproaching themselves;
nonetheless, they serve the flock and uphold the faith. Undoubtedly, Archbishop
Anthony of Los Angeles is right that a complete betrayal of the truth leads to
a loss of grace, but for now, it is better not to dwell on this issue."
[13]
No matter how much some hotheads wanted to anathematize the
Moscow Patriarchate, public opinion was clearly not on their side, and
therefore the harsh statements of the zealous émigrés were interspersed with
vague and relatively peaceful formulations. In the report "On the
Spiritual Essence of the Moscow Patriarchate," delivered at the Third
All-Diaspora Council (1974), Archbishop Nikon (Rklitsky) rejected any hostility
towards the clergy and believers, testified to deep respect for the Russian
people, and only expressed sorrow that "the Moscow Patriarchate, in the
person of its head and leaders, aligns itself with the oppressors and enslavers
of the Russian people and the international villains, the communists." [14]
The Third All-Diaspora Council also cited the confessional service of
representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate — Archbishop Hermogenes (Golubev),
priests N. Gainov and D. Dudko, and layman B. Talantov. [15]
An example of yet another irenic text was Protopresbyter
George Grabbe’s reply to A. I. Solzhenitsyn concerning his message to the Third
All-Diaspora Council. In it, the writer reproached “the line of subservience
begun by Metropolitan Sergius… and continued by his followers, even rolled
further down the slope.” Solzhenitsyn pointed out that the émigrés should not
bow beneath the yoke placed by the godless regime upon the Moscow Patriarchate.
Yet Alexander Isaevich did not dare to reject it. “The present Church in our
country,” Solzhenitsyn wrote, “is captive, oppressed, crushed, but by no means
fallen!” The writer insisted that the Moscow Patriarchate would overcome its
problems by itself, from within, without help from abroad. And it was naïve to
suppose that after the overthrow of the Bolshevik yoke, the Orthodox people
would rush to the Church Abroad with a plea that it take the lead over them.
Therefore, “the only correct path is the path toward the future merger of all
branches of the Russian Church.” [16]
The writer's thoughts expressed in the message were sound,
and responding to them in the spirit of anti-Patriarchate propaganda would have
been inappropriate. Therefore, Protopresbyter G. Grabbe in his response pointed
out that no one in ROCOR sees themselves as judges called to pass a verdict on
the Patriarchate and that the Church Abroad merely hopes to be represented at a
free All-Russian Council when it is convened. According to the ideologist, the
Church Abroad also does not harbor hostile feelings toward the Moscow
Patriarchate, welcomes Orthodox laypeople arriving from the USSR "as
brothers," and any priest of the Moscow Patriarchate who baptizes without
documents and registration is already to some extent a catacombnik,
risking his life for Christ. [17] The arguments of Protopresbyter G. Grabbe
were later repeated (sometimes directly quoting his secretary) by Metropolitan
Philaret. [18]
Unfortunately, the beautiful words did not reflect reality —
the anti-Moscow course had long been set. In 1968, Archbishop Savva (Raevsky)
of Sydney and Australia-New Zealand issued a decree prohibiting any meetings
between ROCOR clergy and laity with representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate,
whether clergy or laity. [19] On January 1, 1970, the Synod of Bishops in its
message declared that the Moscow Patriarchate was a conscious tool of the
godless government, and therefore any spiritual and social interaction with it
was unacceptable. [20] The confrontation took on severe forms in places where
the parishes of the two jurisdictions were neighbors, such as in Israel.
Archimandrite Anthony (Grabbe), who headed the ROCOR mission in the Holy Land
and was the son of the Synod's secretary, actively obstructed visits to the
monasteries under his authority by official delegations of the Moscow
Patriarchate. Upon learning of the planned visits in advance, the archimandrite
would declare these dates as "Days of Mourning" and close the
monasteries to pilgrims. [21]
Protopresbyter G. Grabbe, who assured A. I. Solzhenitsyn of
brotherly feelings toward the Moscow Patriarchate, openly declared its lack of
grace. In his report to the 1979 Council, the protopresbyter explained that all
sacraments outside the Church, including baptism, are not valid at all; they
only become effective and filled with grace after a heretic or schismatic is
united with the Church. According to the report, this principle should also
apply to the "apostate" Local Churches, [22] including the Moscow
Patriarchate. In the opinion of the powerful protopresbyter, its clergy should
be accepted only after renouncing "Sergianism," repenting, and
receiving the "laying on of hands by a bishop." This procedure would
also have to be undergone by dissidents, such as priests Dmitry Dudko and Gleb
Yakunin, if they were to go abroad. Even though they oppose the Patriarchate's
policies, they still commemorate their ecclesiastical authorities, which is
already a sin. The protopresbyter also took a straightforward approach to the
question of how to deal with laypeople: they should not be received "as
brothers," but only after a confession in which they would promise not to
receive communion in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate. For certain
categories of clergy and believers, Protopresbyter G. Grabbe proposed even
stricter measures. For example, the protopresbyter had a strong aversion to the
popular priest in Russia, Protopriest Alexander Men. Father George refused to
consider both him and his followers as baptized: "It is impossible, for
example, to allow the followers of the Judaizing priest [Alexander] Men, who is
no longer a Christian, to receive communion." For such people, only public
repentance is possible, and perhaps even a second baptism. [23]
In their logical conclusion, such ideas would have led to
decisive actions like re-baptisms and re-ordinations. However, such actions
were too scandalous and would have met with fierce resistance from a
significant part of the ROCOR clergy, not to mention the laity.
Fearing to officially voice radical views, the leadership of
the Church Abroad found a way out by publishing anti-Moscow articles signed by
laypeople. This approach allowed for criticism of the Patriarchate while
shielding the hierarchy from accusations of extremism, making it possible to
attribute unwarranted conclusions to journalistic zeal if necessary. And the
journalists were not restrained in their expressions. For example, Peter Mar,
citing the fact that the Soviet government was anathematized by Patriarch
Tikhon and the All-Russian Council of 1917–1918, argued that all its supporters
are also subject to anathema. Since the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate is
among those supporters, it too is under anathema, which can only be lifted by a
legitimate All-Russian Council. [24] From this, it was only a short step to
writing the word "patriarch" in quotation marks when referring to His
Holiness Pimen (Izvekov), something that was quite common in ROCOR periodicals.
Metropolitan Philaret gradually changed his attitude toward
the Moscow Patriarchate. In a letter to Metropolitan Ireney (Bekish), the head
of the Orthodox Church in America, he compared the grace of the Moscow
Patriarchate to a barrel of honey into which a dead rat had fallen. "The
honey itself is excellent, but it has been tainted by the poison and stench of
a corpse. Do you, in good episcopal conscience, truly consider those dressed in
cassocks and klobuks who serve the KGB to be the true spiritual leaders
of the much-suffering Russian Church? Can you not see that at the bottom of
that quasi-church Soviet organization with which you have associated yourself
lies the dead rat of Soviet communism?" [25]
Toward the end of his life, the metropolitan became even
more hardened. Like Protopresbyter G. Grabbe, the head of ROCOR explained the
acceptance of Moscow clergy in their existing rank solely as an act of economia
— a fear of alienating those who were wavering. In reality, however, according
to Metropolitan Philaret, the Moscow Patriarchate has no grace, and the
sacraments performed by its clergy only become valid after they repent of
"Sergianism." In the summer of 1980, the head of ROCOR wrote to
Protopriest Victor Potapov: "When we accept Soviet clergy, we apply the
principle of economia. We accept clergy from Moscow not as those who
possess grace, but as those who receive it upon joining. But we certainly
cannot recognize the church of the deceitful as a bearer and keeper of grace.
For outside Orthodoxy, there is no grace, and the Soviet church has deprived
itself of grace." [26]
Like Protopresbyter G. Grabbe, Metropolitan Philaret began
to speak out against the opposition clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate. Neither
their bravery nor the appearance of their names in the pages of émigré
periodicals helped these pastors. The mere fact of belonging to the
"Soviet church" became, for Metropolitan Philaret, sufficient reason
to consider these clergy almost as heretics. "On what basis did you and
other clergy have direct communication with Fr. Dudko?" Metropolitan Philaret
asked Priest Victor Potapov in the summer of 1980. "You wrote him letters,
etc. ... If Fr. Dudko had said: 'I am breaking with the official church and
leaving it,' then you could have entered into a lively communion with him. But
without this, your actions are a violation of church discipline. Dudko wrote to
me personally, but I did not reply, although I could have said much in
response." [27]
It reached the point of fanaticism—some ROCOR priests
refused to give Communion to infants if their parents had taken them to receive
Communion in Moscow. This even applied to children whose parents were under the
spiritual care of Priest Dmitry Dudko. [28] However, it was unclear what the
infant was supposed to do in such a situation—repentance was impossible due to
their unconscious age, and re-baptism was not allowed in the Church Abroad, at
least not officially. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that if the power of
Metropolitan Philaret and his "gray cardinal" Grabbe had been
all-encompassing, and if their supporters had formed a majority in ROCOR, the
Moscow Patriarchate would not have avoided being "anathematized."
The Council of Bishops in 1981 stopped just short of making
an irreversible decision. In the resolution dated October 27, it was stated
that only universal repentance and the revival of the Orthodox Church in Russia
could halt the global apocalyptic processes. However, its subordination to the
godless government and participation in the ecumenical movement cast doubt on
such a possibility: "In safeguarding the purity of Orthodoxy, we cannot
have any communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, which is in full service to
the atheist government, even if some of its servants may think they are
simultaneously serving both Belial and Christ, which, according to the words of
the Apostle Paul, is incompatible." The acts of the Moscow Patriarchate
were recognized by the Council as uncanonical and invalid. [29]
Nevertheless, ROCOR never officially recognized the Moscow
Patriarchate as devoid of grace, as it repeatedly affirmed. The Russian Church
Abroad did not accept the emigrated catacomb figure A. Chernov (Schemamonk
Epiphanius). The reason was Chernov's fanaticism and his preaching of the
gracelessness of the Moscow Patriarchate. [30] When another catacomb figure,
Hieromonk Lazarus (Zhurbenko), contacted ROCOR, Archbishop Anthony
(Bartoshevich) of Geneva and Western Europe reminded him that the Russian
Church Abroad had never declared the Moscow Patriarchate to be devoid of grace
and did not repeat the sacraments performed by its clergy. Therefore, Fr.
Lazarus was allowed to use holy chrism consecrated by the Moscow Patriarchate
and, in extreme cases, to resort to its sacraments, albeit with trusted
priests. [31]
Fortunately for the Russian Church Abroad, radicals did not
constitute a majority within it. Alongside extremely negative statements, there
was also a calm perspective. Until the end of his days, Saint John
(Maximovitch) did not deny the grace of the Moscow Patriarchate. Protopriest
Vladimir Rodzianko (a cleric of the Serbian Church) wrote: "Every time he
came to London, he invariably invited me to serve with him, even though he knew
that I often served with Bishop Anthony (Bloom) in the patriarchal church... He
didn't even raise the issue: the factually existing Eucharistic communion
(through the Serbian Church) was ABOVE canonical disputes." [32]
Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich) spoke similarly about
Bishop John. Responding to another anti-Moscow outburst from Protopresbyter G.
Grabbe, the archpastor expressed the saint's point of view: "He asserted,
as I have already written to you, that the Moscow Patriarchate is not devoid of
grace, and so on. Now, alas, it's too late to re-educate us. That's all!"
[33]
There are many examples of the positive attitude of ROCOR
hierarchs and clergy towards the Moscow Patriarchate.
According to the report of the hierarch of the Moscow
Patriarchate, Metropolitan Philaret (Vakhromeev) of Berlin and Central Europe,
Archbishop Philotheus (Narko) of Berlin and Germany (ROCOR) had a great deal of
sympathy for the Church in the Homeland. He did not plan to leave the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia but also did not prevent the faithful of his
diocese from receiving communion in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate. At
the same time, the archpastor understood that unity was impossible under those
conditions, which he attributed solely to the stubbornness of ROCOR's higher
leadership. In his conversation with Metropolitan Philaret (Vakhromeev) in
March 1976, Archbishop Philotheus said that it was useless to try to reach an
agreement with the First Hierarch of ROCOR and that the best approach was to
establish connections at the grassroots level. Archbishop Philotheus's
position, known in New York, did not contribute to his friendship with ROCOR's
leadership. The archbishop himself admitted that he was removed from the real
management of the Berlin diocese — all matters were handled by Bishop Paul (Pavlov)
of Stuttgart. [34] However, Bishop Paul's attitude towards the Moscow
ecclesiastical authorities was also not hostile — he later met with hierarchs
from Russia as well. [35]
Respectful attitudes towards the Moscow Patriarchate were
also observed among the clergy. In 1982, Sydney priest Nikolai Gan requested
permission from Archbishop Vladimir (Sabodan), the rector of the Moscow
Theological Academy, to attend a course on the history of the Russian Church,
even if only for one year. The issue was discussed at the level of the
Department for External Church Relations (OVCS). They were hesitant to accept a
cleric from a hostile jurisdiction. The request was denied on the grounds that
there was no one-year course for studying individual subjects at the MTA. [36]
When visiting Russia in July 1989, ROCOR cleric Protopriest
Andrei Semyanko told the OVCS representative accompanying him that
approximately 25% of the clergy and laity of the Russian Church Abroad were
already ready for reunification, 25% were strongly opposed, and the remaining
50% were indifferent to the issue and would follow the leadership. Therefore,
the negotiation process should be productive. [37]
Thus, the statements regarding the gracelessness of the
Moscow Patriarchate remain the responsibility of private individuals.
Unfortunately, among them was also the First Hierarch of ROCOR, Metropolitan
Philaret (Voznesensky). As for the conciliar and synodal resolutions of ROCOR,
they were often harsh, denied the succession of the Moscow Patriarchate from
Patriarch Tikhon, and rejected the canonicity of its acts, but they did not
address its grace. Overall, a significant portion of ROCOR's hierarchy and faithful
were already in the 1960s–1980s ready to thaw relations with the Church in the
homeland and clearly understood that the sacraments within it remained valid.
It is precisely thanks to this segment of its clergy that the Russian Church
Abroad never officially declared the Moscow Patriarchate to be without grace.
NOTES
1. Pillar of Fire. Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) of
New York and Eastern America and the Russian Church Abroad (1964–1985) /
compiled and annotated by Nun Cassia (T. A. Senina). St. Petersburg, 2007.
2. The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad: 1918–1968.
Vols. 1–2 / edited by A. Sollogub. New York, 1968; Makovetsky A., Archpriest. The
White Church: Far from Atheistic Terror. St. Petersburg, 2009; Popov A. The
Russian Orthodox Diaspora. Moscow, 2005.
3. See, for example: Anashkin D. “On the Question of the
Peculiarities of the Liturgical Life of the Russian Church Abroad in 1946–2000”
// XXVII Annual Theological Conference of PSTGU. Moscow, 2017. Pp.
164–172; Bochkov P., Priest. A Survey of Non-Canonical Orthodox
Jurisdictions of the 20th–21st Centuries. Vols. 1–4. St. Petersburg, 2018;
Kornilov A. A Monk from Optina to Platina: The Life of Bishop Nektary of
Seattle (Kontsevich). N. Novgorod, 2008; Psarev A. “The Development of the
Worldview of the Russian Church Abroad in Relation to the Local Churches and
Heterodoxy” // Acts of the Fourth All-Diaspora Council of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside Russia. Moscow, 2012; Slesarev A. The Old-Style
Schism in the History of the Orthodox Church (1924–2008). Moscow, 2009.
4. Borisov A., Priest. The Fields White unto Harvest:
Reflections on the Russian Orthodox Church. Moscow, 1994. P. 62.
5. Pokrovsky V. “Relations with the Church Abroad Have
Become Milder” // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. No. 113 (284). 7.06.92.
6. “The Testament of His Beatitude Metropolitan Anastasy” //
Church Life. 1965. No. 1–6. P. 4.
7. Philaret, Metropolitan. Letter to Archpriest V.
Rodzianko. 1.09.1971 // Archive of the DECR. File “The Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad.” Folder “1971.” Fol. 6.
8. Minutes No. 8 of the session of the ROCOR Council of
Bishops, 16.09.1971 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File “Council of
Bishops, 1971. Minutes.”
9. Decisions of the Holy Synod // Journal of the Moscow
Patriarchate. 1970. No. 1. P. 5; Decisions of the Holy Synod // Journal
of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1986. No. 9. Pp. 7–8.
10. Minutes No. 6 of the session of the ROCOR Council of
Bishops, 14.09.1971 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File “Council of
Bishops, 1971. Minutes.”
11. The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, May
30–June 2, 1971. Moscow, 1972. Pp. 36, 127, 173–174.
12. Minutes No. 6 of the session of the ROCOR Council of
Bishops, 14.09.1971 // Archive of the Synod of Bishops. File “Council of
Bishops, 1971. Minutes.”
13. Ibid.
14. Nikon (Rklitsky), Archbishop. “On the Spiritual Essence
of the Moscow Patriarchate” // Church Life. 1975. No. 1–6. P. 25.
15. “Epistle of the Third All-Diaspora Council of the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia to the Orthodox Russian People in the
Homeland” // Church Life. 1974. No. 7–12. P. 27.
16. Letter of A. I. Solzhenitsyn to the Third Council of the
Russian Church Abroad // Orthodox Russia. 1974. No. 18. Pp. 7–8.
17. Orthodox Russia. 1974. No. 18. P. 11.
18. Reply of Metropolitan Philaret to Mr. Solzhenitsyn // Orthodox
Russia. 1974. No. 19. Pp. 5–6.
19. Decree for the Australian-New Zealand Diocese of ROCOR
// Unity. 22.11.1968. No. 47 (950).
20. Archpastoral Epistle of the Synod of Bishops // Church
Life. 1970. No. 1. P. 4; Epistle of the Free Bishops of the Russian Church
to the Orthodox Russian People in the Homeland // Church Life. 1971. No.
7–12. P. 71.
21. Visit of a Delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate to the
Holy Places in the Holy Land, including those belonging to the Church Abroad //
Church News. 1989. No. 3. P. 6.
22. Grabbe G., Protopresbyter. Report to the Council of 1979
on Questions Arising in Contemporary Church Practice. Pp. 1–8 // Stanford
University, Special Collections Librarian. F. “Grabbe.” Box 4. Folder 3.
23. Ibid. Pp. 11–13.
24. Mar P. “In Search of Unity” // Orthodox Russia.
1975. No. 9. P. 4.
25. Philaret, Metropolitan. Reply to Metropolitan Ireney // Orthodox
Russia. 1975. No. 7. Pp. 6–7.
26. Pillar of Fire. P. 200.
27. Ibid.
28. Rodzianko V., Archpriest. Letter to Protopresbyter G.
Grabbe. 3.02.1979. P. 7 // Stanford University, Special Collections Librarian.
F. “Grabbe.” Box 6. Folder 13.
29. Decisions of the Council of Bishops of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside Russia // Orthodox Russia. 1981. No. 24. P. 11.
30. Anthony (Bartoshevich), Archbishop. Report to the
Council of Bishops on the Reception of a Group of Catacomb Christians // HTSA.
F. “Catacomb Church”; “A Noteworthy Biography” // Notification No. 37
from the DECR under the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. 1981. April–June. Pp. 4–5.
31. Anthony (Bartoshevich), Archbishop. Report to the
Council of Bishops on the Reception of a Group of Catacomb Christians.
32. Rodzianko V., Archpriest. Letter to Archpriest G.
Grabbe. 3.02.1979. Pp. 5, 7 // Stanford University, Special Collections
Librarian. F. “Grabbe.” Box 6. Folder 13.
33. Anthony (Bartoshevich), Archbishop. Letter to
Protopresbyter G. Grabbe, 25.07.1975 // Stanford University, Special
Collections Librarian. F. “Grabbe.” Box 1. Folder 7.
34. Philaret (Vakhromeyev), Metropolitan. Report addressed
to the Chairman of the DECR, Metropolitan Juvenaly, 29.04.1976. P. 2 // Archive
of the DECR. File “The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.” Folder “1976.”
33. Artemov N., Archpriest. Discussions between
Representatives of the Clergy of the Two German Dioceses (MP and ROCOR),
1993–1997, as the Beginning of the Restoration of the Unity of the Russian
Church // XVIII Annual Theological Conference of PSTGU. Moscow, 2008.
Vol. 1. P. 317.
34. Gan N., Priest. Letter to Archbishop Vladimir (Sabodan),
n.d. // Archive of the DECR. File “The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.” Folder
“1982”; Platon (Udovenko), Archbishop. Letter to Bishop Alexander (Timofeev),
16.02.1983 // Archive of the DECR. File “The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.”
Folder “1983.”
35. Report on the Stay in Vladimir of Archpriest A.
Semyanko, July 1–3, 1989. Pp. 1–2 // Archive of the DECR. File 43 “Reports.”
Folder “1989.”
Bibliography
Anashkin D. “On the Question of the Peculiarities of the
Liturgical Life of the Russian Church Abroad in 1946–2000” // XXVII Annual
Theological Conference of PSTGU. Moscow, 2017. Pp. 164–172.
Artemov N., Archpriest. “Discussions between Representatives
of the Clergy of the Two German Dioceses (MP and ROCOR), 1993–1997, as the
Beginning of the Restoration of the Unity of the Russian Church” // XVIII
Annual Theological Conference of PSTGU. Moscow, 2008. Vol. 1. Pp. 302–324.
Borisov A., Priest. The Fields White unto Harvest:
Reflections on the Russian Orthodox Church. Moscow, 1994.
Bochkov P., Priest. A Survey of Non-Canonical Orthodox
Jurisdictions of the 20th–21st Centuries. Vols. 1–4. St. Petersburg, 2018.
Kornilov A. A Monk from Optina to Platina: The Life of
Bishop Nektary of Seattle (Kontsevich). N. Novgorod, 2008.
Makovetsky A., Archpriest. The White Church: Far from
Atheistic Terror. St. Petersburg, 2009.
Popov A. The Russian Orthodox Diaspora. Moscow, 2005.
Psarev A. “The Development of the Worldview of the Russian
Church Abroad in Relation to the Local Churches and Heterodoxy” // Acts of
the Fourth All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
Moscow, 2012. Pp. 180–205.
The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad: 1918–1968. Vols. 1–2 / edited by A. Sollogub.
New York, 1968.
Slesarev A. The Old-Style Schism in the History of the
Orthodox Church (1924–2008). Moscow, 2009.
Pillar of Fire. Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) of New
York and Eastern America and the Russian Church Abroad (1964–1985) / compiled and annotated by Nun
Cassia (T. A. Senina). St. Petersburg, 2007.
Russian source online:
https://periodical.pstgu.ru/pdf/files/article/en/article_2302_date_1615369528.pdf
