"Vladyka John never submitted to the Moscow Patriarchate..."

The Truth about Vladyka John of Shanghai the Wonderworker

Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco after the Second World War

Protopresbyter Valery Lukianov | December 10/23, 2005 | Lakewood, NJ

 

In the course of the polemics concerning the unification of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) and the Moscow Patriarchate (MP), in recent months statements have appeared in the press and on the internet regarding the role of Saint John of Shanghai in the ecclesiastical events of the Shanghai Diocese during the period after the Second World War. In all these testimonies, a parallel is drawn between the post-war events in Shanghai and the present-day reconciliation negotiations between ROCOR and MP. Naturally, the authority of the Far Eastern saint, now glorified among the saints of God, is placed as the foundation of these judgments.

One example of such a claim, in his online polemics on August 5, 2005, titled "It Is Time for Us to Know Our History," was made by Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff, secretary of ROCOR’s commission for dialogue with the MP. He cites Decree No. 650 of Bishop John, dated August 24 / September 6, 1945 (see below), which commands the faithful “to commemorate the name of Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia at all divine services.” Furthermore, in an online message to ROCOR clergy in English on July 15, 2005, Father Alexander asserts that the current process of rapprochement and ultimate unification between ROCOR and the MP was in harmony with Saint John, as confirmed by an excerpt from Saint John of Shanghai’s message to his flock, dated August 2, 1946 (see below). Archpriest A. Lebedeff writes: “For those who do not believe that the current process aligns with the thinking of the great luminaries of ROCOR in the past, here is a direct quote from Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco’s message, dated almost 69 years ago. It is astonishing how perceptive this holy hierarch was!” (Translation by Protopresbyter V. L.).

Earlier, at the All-Diaspora Pastoral Conference in December 2003, Archpriest Peter Perekrestov, in his thorough and well-documented report titled "Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco the Wonderworker’s View on the Russian Church in the 20th Century," cited the same excerpt from Saint John's address of August 2, 1946. We do not presume to assert that today's reconciliation process would align with the thinking of Saint John. However, numerous references like those mentioned above compel us to look into history and attempt to form a more or less accurate understanding of the events and decisions of the post-war period in Shanghai, at the center of which stood our great saint, Saint John.

Drawing conclusions based solely on excerpts from documents is not difficult for those who did not experience those harsh postwar times in China. However, for the living witnesses of the extremely difficult and complex political situation in Shanghai in 1945–1946, reality was not so simple, and the attitude of the faithful toward the ecclesiastical events of that time was far from unambiguous. The intense polemics surrounding these events naturally occupied the minds of the emigrants in Shanghai during those days. Yet even decades later, accusatory or, on the contrary, conciliatory judgments regarding Saint John’s stance toward the Moscow Patriarchate continued to flare up in the press.

As a witness of these events, I consider it my duty, based on the available testimonies, to reveal and clarify, as much as possible, the historical realities of those days, which, as we see, continue to trouble the faithful to this day. Many believers do not have access to the archival documents of Saint John from the transitional postwar period in the life and administration of the Russian Spiritual Mission in China. Therefore, it should be deemed appropriate to make public the documents related to that time in order to shed light on the events based on authentic testimonies, which are part of the history of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

First of all, let us examine two documents from 1945, after the end of the Second World War: 1) A letter from Bishop John dated July 31 to the ruling Archbishop Victor; 2) Decree No. 650 dated August 24 to the Shanghai clergy.

+ + +

Document No. 1

Bishop of Shanghai JOHN
Shanghai, July 31, 1945
55 Paul Henry, Tel. 72557
Forefeast of the Procession of the Honorable Wood of the Cross
St. Righteous Evdokim

Your Eminence, Most Gracious Archpastor and Father!

Yesterday, I received the resolution of the Episcopal Conference in Harbin, which is probably already known to you. Not considering it possible to take any steps on this matter independently, I present to Your Eminence the following considerations:

1. After the decision of the Harbin Diocese and in view of the absence of information about the Synod Abroad for several years, any other decision by our diocese would make it a completely independent, autocephalous diocese.

2. There are no canonical conditions for such independence, as there is no doubt regarding the legitimacy of the Patriarch, who is recognized both by his own Local Church and by all other Local Churches. Communication with that ecclesiastical authority (i.e., the Patriarch) is already becoming possible, so the decree of November 7, 1920, is not applicable.

3. At present, no ideological conditions have been imposed on us that would have caused us to change the Church Administration Abroad.

4. If unacceptable conditions are imposed again, the preservation of the current order of Church Administration will become the task of that Ecclesiastical Authority which can be established depending on external circumstances.

5. At present, since there are no grounds whatsoever to remain in the status of a self-governing diocese, we must act as the Harbin hierarchs have.

6. The commemoration of the name of the Chairman of the Synod Abroad during divine services must be maintained for now, as according to Canon 14 of the First-Second Council, one cannot arbitrarily cease commemorating one’s Metropolitan.

7. The commemoration of the Patriarch, instead of our current commemoration of “the Orthodox Episcopate of the Russian Church,” must be introduced immediately throughout the entire diocese by your directive, as the nameless commemoration of the Russian Episcopate was introduced only after the news of the repose of Metropolitan Peter, due to uncertainty regarding his successor.

8. According to the decree of the Church Authority in Moscow, the Patriarch is commemorated as follows: "Our Holy Father (name of the Patriarch)," etc. This should also be followed here, continuing with the commemoration of Metropolitan Anastasy as is currently done, and so forth. However, adding "the God-preserved Russian Church" before this has no basis.

9. A greeting with an expression of loyalty and obedience should be sent collectively; however, if this proves difficult, then separately. The clergy have been fully informed by me of what is outlined here at a closed Pastoral Assembly, but we will not make this matter public while awaiting your directive.

I ask for your holy prayers.

Your Eminence's
Bishop John

+ + +

Document No. 2

August 24, 1945. No. 650.

To the reverend clergy of the city of Shanghai.

In the Russian churches abroad, until and including the year 1936, the Holy Patriarch Tikhon was invariably commemorated as the head of the Russian Church, and after his repose, the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsy.

The uncertainty of the information received in 1937 regarding the repose of Metropolitan Peter and the successor he left behind led the Synod Abroad to establish the designation "the Orthodox Episcopate of the Russian Church" instead of naming a patriarch.

Now, in view of the indisputable and lawful leadership of the Russian Church by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy, who was elected by the All-Russian Church Council as the successor of the late Patriarch Sergius and recognized, like his predecessor, by all autocephalous churches, it is necessary to once again commemorate the head of the Russian Church, replacing the temporarily used designation "the Orthodox Episcopate."

Therefore: 1) During the litanies, the Great Entrance, and after the consecration of the Gifts, commemorate: “Our Lord and Father, His Holiness Alexy, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia”; 2) During the Polychronion at the end of the service, after “the Most Holy Orthodox Patriarchs,” also pronounce his name; 3) After the Most Holy Patriarch, commemorate the other hierarchs who are customarily mentioned in the local churches.

JOHN, BISHOP OF SHANGHAI

+ + +

From Bishop John's anxious appeal to his ruling brother, there is evident a sense of disorientation amid the emerging chaotic situation, a request to resolve the difficulties of the uncertain times, and at the same time, an astonishingly firm determination regarding the established legal and canonical situation.

Bishop John testifies that the Church Abroad in China, lacking the status of an autocephalous Church recognized by all Local Churches, and due to the absence of communication with the Synod Abroad as a result of the war, cannot remain in limbo. For this reason alone, it must, for now (i.e., temporarily—until its legal status is clarified), commemorate the Patriarch of Moscow, but only together with the name of Metropolitan Anastasy.

The second document—the decree—serves as confirmation of the first. According to the directive on commemoration, it must be assumed that after the Patriarch's name, the names of Metropolitan Anastasy, the head of the Chinese Mission, Archbishop Victor, and his vicar, Bishop John were to be commemorated, as indicated in Paragraph 6 of Document No. 1.

From the next document—Bishop John's epistle to his flock dated August 2, 1946—we will see how quickly Saint John, as soon as communication with the ROCOR Synod was restored, ceased the commemoration of the Patriarch and unwaveringly led his flock into the fold of the Church Abroad, despite strong pressure and threats. Archbishop Victor, who had joined the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, issued a decree prohibiting Bishop John from serving (June 1946)—a decree that no longer had any force. When Archbishop Victor's supporters sealed the churches to prevent Bishop John from serving, the blessed saint fearlessly celebrated services on the sidewalks in front of the closed churches. Ultimately, Vladyka safeguarded the Shanghai Cathedral from being seized by opponents of the Synod Abroad.

+ + +

Document No. 3

To the Orthodox Flock of Shanghai

Grace and peace from the Holy Life-Giving Trinity!

Twelve years ago, we were called to episcopal service by the great Luminary of the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan ANTONY, who now stands before the Lord God, and by the Council of Russian Hierarchs Abroad, which he led.

By God’s providence, we were appointed to a land where the first missionaries were sent by our heavenly Patron, Saint JOHN, Metropolitan of Tobolsk.

Seeing in this the will of the Lord and trusting in divine grace, which heals infirmities and completes what is lacking, we accepted the obedience laid upon us, despite being fully aware of our shortcomings. At our consecration, we pledged to obey the ecclesiastical laws and to submit to the Church Authority that had appointed us.

The years of our episcopal service in this multiethnic city—justly compared to Babylon—took place during times of great trials throughout the world. Our city became one of the first sites of military action and later endured many hardships, though not to the same extent as in the countries of Europe.

We strove, as much as possible, to meet the spiritual and material needs of our flock, making no distinction among them. We grieved greatly that the war had halted the spread of Orthodoxy among the Chinese people, which is the primary mission of our work. Our heart, like that of all Russian people, could not remain indifferent to the new sufferings of our Homeland, drenched in blood, and we fervently prayed for its well-being.

Remembering that among people who sincerely strive for good, there may be different views on the means of achieving it, we did not exclude anyone from our spiritual care, granting all Orthodox believers equal participation in church life and resisting all attempts to restrict the ecclesiastical rights of individuals based on their convictions, as, unfortunately, occurred in some other places.

The external successes of our Homeland on the battlefield and the internal successes of the Church in our native land brought us joy and filled us with hope for the swift end of all its tribulations.

Due to the interruption of communications with other countries, we were for several years cut off from our Supreme Church Administration Abroad and, at times, for significant periods, isolated from our diocesan center. We were then forced to independently oversee local church life while making every effort to restore communication.

During the war, an attempt was made to establish a Church Administration for East Asia under the leadership of Metropolitan Meletius. At that time, the authorities in Harbin strongly insisted that the commemoration of Metropolitan Anastasy be discontinued, as they regarded him as their adversary. However, citing numerous references to the canons, the Far Eastern hierarchs opposed this and continued to recognize Metropolitan Anastasy as the head of the Church Abroad.

After the defeat of Germany, there was no news regarding the fate of the Synod Abroad, and various rumors circulated about it.

At the end of July last year, we received word that the Harbin hierarchs had decided to petition His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow to accept them under his jurisdiction.

We immediately wrote to Archbishop Victor, stating that, having no information about the fate of the Synod Abroad and not having the right to remain outside the jurisdiction of the highest Church authority, we must also establish communication with His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and, in the absence of obstacles, submit to him.

However, the prolonged disruption of communication with Beijing at that time prevented us from receiving a response from Archbishop Victor. We ourselves began the commemoration of Patriarch Alexy, independently of the resolution of the question concerning submission to the highest Church authority.

After some time, partial communication with Beijing was restored, though it remained dependent on unpredictable circumstances, and for a long time, the situation there remained unclear.

After the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, we received a radiogram from Geneva sent by Metropolitan Anastasy, informing us that the Synod was functioning.

The very next day, this information was transmitted by telegraph to Archbishop Victor, and in response to Metropolitan Anastasy’s inquiry, we sent a written report on ecclesiastical affairs in the Far East.

Still lacking regular postal communication with Beijing, but striving as much as possible to coordinate our actions with it, we, recognizing the necessity of submission to the Higher Church Authority, renewed our previous relations with the Synod Abroad, receiving from it various directives and instructions and putting them into effect.

In the autumn, we were informed by the Head of the Mission that he had submitted a declaration to His Holiness the Patriarch regarding submission to him. However, due to a delay in the letter, the exact content of the declaration became known to us only upon the Head of the Mission’s arrival in Shanghai in January of this year. A response from the Patriarch to the submitted declaration had not yet been received.

At that time, we informed the Most Reverend Head of the Mission that, in view of the restoration of communication with the Church Abroad Authority, we could transfer to the jurisdiction of another ecclesiastical authority only if we received a directive to that effect from the Church authority to which we are currently subject, as otherwise, we would become violators of the Church canons.

Without fundamentally objecting to the validity of our statement, the Head of the Mission expressed hope that the matter could be resolved without violating the canons.

The clergy of Shanghai also decided to remain with us in submission to the Synod Abroad and to await further directives from it. No other decision could have been made, since there existed an ecclesiastical authority that had established the Shanghai episcopal see and had provided spiritual care for it since its founding. The Church Abroad Administration deemed it beneficial for the Church to continue its spiritual oversight over us, informing us of this decision, and we, in turn, informed the Most Reverend Head of the Mission accordingly. For this reason, we do not consider it possible to make any decisions on this matter without the directive and approval of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Already at the Council of 1938, in which we participated, it was decreed that when the time came for returning to the Homeland, the hierarchs of the Diaspora should not act individually, but that the entire Church Abroad should present its deeds, carried out during the period of forced separation, to the All-Russian Council as a whole.

From the reports we have received since the restoration of communication with the Russian Church Abroad Authority, it was evident that it continued to care for its scattered flock across the world, gathering it together and laying down its life for it under the difficult conditions of exile in foreign lands. The accusations leveled against our Supreme Ecclesiastical Administration Abroad regarding collaboration with the enemies of Russia are unfounded. In any case, its relations with the authorities that our hierarchs in Europe were involuntarily forced to interact with were far less close than those that existed in these lands during the occupation.

The news of the unhindered restoration of canonical and prayerful communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, received by Archbishop Victor on Great Saturday in response to his appeal to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy in August of last year, sincerely rejoiced us. In this, we saw the beginning of mutual understanding between the two parts of the Russian Church, separated by borders, and the possibility of mutual support between the two centers that unite Russian people—both within and outside our Homeland.

Striving toward a common goal and acting separately according to the conditions in which each finds itself, the Churches within Russia and abroad will be able to fulfill both their shared mission and their respective specific tasks more effectively until the possibility of their full reunification arises.

At present, the Church within Russia must heal the wounds inflicted upon it by militant godlessness and free itself from the bonds that hinder the fullness of its internal and external activity. The task of the Church Abroad is to preserve the children of the Orthodox Russian Church in the diaspora, to safeguard the spiritual treasures they brought from their Homeland, and to spread Orthodoxy in the countries where they reside. (This excerpt—italicized—was cited by Frs. Alexander and Peter—Protopresbyter V.L.)

To this end were also directed the acts of the Council of Hierarchs Abroad, which was held in Munich, a city occupied by the Allies, on the anniversary of Germany’s defeat.

That same Council resolved to grant us the rights of a diocesan bishop, making the Shanghai Vicariate an independent diocese and elevating us to the rank of archbishop.

The telegraphed announcement of this was a complete surprise to us and greatly unsettled us, although the question of establishing a Shanghai Diocese was not new. As early as 1938, Archbishop Nestor had submitted to the Synod for consideration by the Council a similar proposal for the distribution of dioceses in the Far East, in which the Shanghai Diocese was envisioned, and its boundaries were defined.

At that time, serving in the Synod as the representative of the Head of the Mission, we did not consider it possible—due to the directive given to us—to agree to the proposed plan. As a result of our objections, it was removed from consideration and sent for review to Bishop Victor and Archbishop Meletius, who soon after personally arrived at the Council.

Now, having received news of the already enacted resolution of the Council, in which we did not participate, we accepted it as a new obedience—neither seeking it nor daring to refuse a duty entrusted to us by the Church authority, which deemed it beneficial.

We were deeply grieved by the ecclesiastical disorder and divisions that arose afterward within our flock, accompanied by a series of sorrowful events. The doors of Shanghai’s churches have always been open wide to all Orthodox Christians. While uniting predominantly Russian people, our church life has always strongly reflected everything connected with our Homeland and expressed the feelings and hopes of its devoted children. At the same time, every other nationality that has preserved Orthodoxy could consider our churches their own and had the opportunity to manifest in the Church their fidelity to the traditions and ecclesiastical customs that bind them to their Homeland. Each individual, regardless of nationality, has always been and remains equally able to find spiritual nourishment in the Church and to participate in ecclesiastical life, provided they adhere to the established rules. In the Church of Christ, “there is neither Greek nor Jew, Barbarian nor Scythian,” for all are equally children of the Church when the teaching of Christ and the Church’s laws are placed above all other doctrines and statutes. It is for the spiritual guidance of this flock of Christ in Shanghai that we were appointed, and the Holy Spirit united us with it through the laying on of hands by the bishops who consecrated us. We will render an account before the Supreme High Priest, our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, for all we have done for His Church and for our spiritual children—both those who bring us joy through their zeal and obedience to the Word of God, and those who sadden us by their disregard for God’s commandments and the Church’s canons.

We seek above all the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, both for them and for ourselves, and we are always ready to renounce all titles if it is necessary for the good of the Church. We will obey those archpastors to whom our Supreme Church Authority deems it beneficial to subordinate us, or we will withdraw from all church affairs if the successors of the bishops who ordained us relieve us of responsibility for this flock. Yet even then, we will not cease to pray for those whom we have spiritually cared for during these years.

Until they or death release us from this responsibility, we, "having once taken upon ourselves the hierarchal care, must uphold it with spiritual strength" and not "show ourselves negligent" (Epistle of the Third Ecumenical Council).

Not only to the first bishops, ordained by the Apostles themselves, but also to us, their successors—perhaps in the last times—are addressed the God-inspired words of Saint Paul the Apostle: "Be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry steadfastly." (2 Timothy 4:5)

Our office imposes upon us the duty to undertake and accomplish all that is necessary for the welfare and proper order of the Church, in accordance with the ecclesiastical canons. While our immediate concern is for the Shanghai flock, we must also, according to the words of Saint John Chrysostom, offer prayers and supplications for the entire Church. "The desire of our heart and our unceasing fervent prayers to God are for Russia, for the Russian people, and for their salvation." (Romans 10:1)

We pray to the Lord that He may hasten the coming of that longed-for and anticipated hour when the First Hierarch of All Russia, ascending to his Patriarchal throne in the Primatial Dormition Cathedral, will gather around himself all Russian archpastors, who will have come together from all Russian and foreign lands.

We earnestly pray to the Lord and call upon our entire flock to do the same, that Christ God may "turn the unbelievers to true faith and piety, and lead the faithful to turn away from evil and do good! That He may also be revealed to those who do not seek Him," both in our Russian homeland and in the land of China, to which missionaries were sent from Russia for its enlightenment and where the Chinese martyrs bore witness to their faithfulness to Christ with their blood.

Above all, let us fervently pray to the Helmsman and Chief Shepherd of the Church, that He Himself may peacefully guide the Ship of the Church. With zeal, let us repeat the prayer that we chant each year before the Shroud at the Matins of Great Saturday: "O Life-giving, Most Immaculate, Pure Virgin, calm the temptations of the Church and grant peace, for Thou art good." (End of the Second Stasis).

JOHN, ARCHBISHOP OF SHANGHAI.

August 2, 1946,

Commemoration of Saint Basil the Blessed of Moscow

 

+ + +

This epistle contains the excerpt (italicized) that drew the attention of Fr. Alexander Lebedeff. It appears that he sought to use the authority of the great saint and ascetic to support the argument that Vladyka John would have necessarily viewed today's process of church unification with sympathy. However, it must be noted that today’s dialogue between the two parts of the Russian Church, while highly analogous to the Far Eastern process of 1945, is by no means identical. At present, the Russian Church has two independent governing authorities—one within Russia and one abroad. A dialogue is currently taking place between them to determine the possibility of their unification. By contrast, in China, due to the consequences of war, communication was lost with the Synod Abroad, which had always been the legitimate ecclesiastical authority. At that time, there was a temporary choice—either to recognize the legitimacy of the Church within Russia or to remain entirely without a supreme ecclesiastical authority. This is where the parallel ends. The August 1946 epistle reflects all the postwar events in the Shanghai Diocese—events that created great temptations in the hearts of both clergy and laity, as noted by the author himself. Bishop John’s temporary commemoration of the Patriarch of Moscow lasted for only two to three months. The decree on commemorating the Patriarch was issued on September 6 (New Style), and soon after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, a radiogram from Metropolitan Anastasy arrived from Geneva (according to the Declaration of October 2). Following this, Bishop John resumed his submission to the Synod Abroad. The statements and explanations in this epistle-report—his pastoral account for the past year—must be understood in the context of the time and his position as a bishop abroad. Notably, Vladyka signed the epistle not as Bishop, but as Archbishop of Shanghai, a rank to which he had been elevated by the Council of Bishops of the Church Abroad in May 1946. The question that continues to preoccupy minds today concerns Vladyka John’s true stance regarding the canonical recognition of the Moscow Patriarchate. It is known that Vladyka never addressed the question of grace within the Church in Russia. However, based on the decrees and epistles he issued to his clergy and flock, one may reasonably conclude that Saint John recognized the canonicity of the Moscow Patriarchate only temporarily, as a forced measure—until the existence of the Synod Abroad could be determined. Otherwise, why would he not have entered into permanent submission to the Moscow Patriarchate, as Archbishop Victor did? In fact, there is some basis to suggest that Vladyka realized he had made a hasty decision in commemorating Patriarch Alexy. Moreover, as previously noted, alongside the commemoration of the Patriarch, Bishop John continued to commemorate Metropolitan Anastasy, which further provoked the pro-Soviet circles against him. This epistle clearly illustrates how difficult it was—not only then but even now—to fully comprehend the complex ecclesiastical situation that befell the Far Eastern flock during the war and postwar years, and how challenging it remains to accurately assess the actions of the ruling hierarch under those conditions.

The political pressure on Russian émigrés in Harbin from the Soviets and the proximity of the Soviet army to the border forced the northern dioceses to seek recognition from the Moscow Patriarchate. On July 26, 1945, the hierarchs in Manchuria recognized Patriarch Alexy of Moscow. Meanwhile, in Shanghai, the political situation at that time was extremely tense and unstable. The Communist armies were advancing toward the city. At the same time, the Soviets intensified their propaganda, persuading Russian émigrés to repatriate to the USSR. Thousands were deceived by this and paid a heavy price for their decision.

How events unfolded during this time can be learned from the detailed testimony-declaration of G.K. Bologov, chairman, and the members of the Russian Emigrant Association of Shanghai.

This document was written and sworn under oath in San Francisco on May 9, 1963, and was published there. I present the text from a copy of the typewritten original, bearing the handwritten signature of Archpriest Peter Triodin, who administered the oath to the authors of the letter.

+ + +

Document No. 4

DECLARATION

 

We, the undersigned, residing in San Francisco and the surrounding cities:

G.K. Bologov, former long-time Chairman of the Russian Emigrant Association of Shanghai

Dr. P.I. Alekseenko and V.V. Krasovsky, former members of its Executive Committee in its last composition

N.N. Pleshakov and B.M. Krapin, former members of the Supervisory and Audit Commission in its last composition

B.L. Kuper, former Head of the Charitable Department of the Association

M.A. Moshkin, former Chairman of the Russian Chamber of Commerce of Shanghai

We, by this declaration, sworn on the Cross and the Holy Gospel, certify with our signatures and publicly proclaim that:

During his tenure as the spiritual leader of the many-thousand-strong Russian émigré colony in Shanghai, throughout his entire time serving first as Bishop and later as Archbishop of Shanghai, from 1936 until the mass evacuation of Russian anti-communists from China to the Philippine Islands in early 1949—

Vladyka John never submitted to the Moscow Patriarch, never entered into any relations with the Moscow Patriarchate, and never maintained any connection with it.

Furthermore, the letter dated March 21, 1963, published on the second page of the newspaper "Russkaya Zhizn" (No. 5326, April 30, 1963), is nothing but a libel, a falsehood, and a slander aimed at tarnishing the honor of this Orthodox Russian Hierarch.

His selfless and heroic struggle against the tremendous pressure and assault from representatives of the Soviet authorities and from hierarchs who had defected to the Soviet side—including his own ruling archbishop—took place before the eyes of thousands of Russian anti-communists in Shanghai.

These people will forever remain grateful to Vladyka John for saving the Shanghai Cathedral from being seized by the godless authorities; defending all Orthodox churches in Shanghai, except for one, and securing them under the jurisdiction of the Synod Abroad; preventing the majority of Orthodox clergy from following the example of the ruling Archbishop of China, Victor, who had subordinated the Russian Spiritual Mission in China to the Soviet authorities; and selflessly resisting communist propaganda, which sought to deceive Russian souls with false patriotism, coercing and intimidating them into taking Soviet passports and repatriating to the Soviet Union under Stalin’s so-called amnesty.

The mobilization of all Russian anti-communist forces in Shanghai to resist and repel the fiercely escalating Soviet propaganda and mass provocations, as well as the establishment of the Russian Emigrant Association, which united over 6,000 White Russians—would have been impossible without the spiritual leadership, steadfastness, and example of Vladyka John.

These six thousand honest Russian people from China are grateful to their humble, yet wise and spiritually strong archpastor for the fact that they and their children now live in the United States, Brazil, and Australia, rather than on the virgin lands of Soviet Siberia, for his role in their salvation was great.

Few know what Vladyka John had to endure during those months in Shanghai, what his struggle cost him in resisting Soviet attempts to seize the churches, communities, schools, organizations, Orthodox clergy, and faithful of the Russian diaspora, and the dangers he faced.

We were witnesses to this postwar struggle—the battle of Vladyka John and the faithful Orthodox clergy and laity against Soviet attempts to seize the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

At the same time, G.K. Bologov, who had served as warden of the Cathedral in Shanghai since 1938, and M.A. Moshkin, former assistant warden of the Cathedral since 1943, were closely associated with Vladyka, actively participated in this struggle, and knew all its details.

The pressure on Bishop John of Shanghai from the Soviet side began even before the end of the Second World War. This occurred when the hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad in Manchuria—Metropolitan Meletius, Archbishops Nestor and Dimitry, and Bishop Juvenaly—sent letters to the ruling Archbishop Victor of China and Beijing and to Bishop John of Shanghai. In these letters, they informed them that on July 26, 1945, they had recognized Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia and proposed that Archbishop Victor and Bishop John follow their example and submit to the new Moscow Patriarch as the legitimate head of the Russian Orthodox Church. Due to the war, there was no communication with the Synod Abroad outside of China, and the true state of affairs in Europe, America, and other countries was unknown. Bishop John, upon receiving this letter from the hierarchs in Harbin, wrote to his superior, Archbishop Victor in Beijing, advising him not to take any steps toward recognizing the Patriarch until communication with the Synod Abroad was restored. To determine the legitimacy and canonical correctness or incorrectness of the election of Patriarch Alexy, Bishop John suggested that Archbishop Victor send a brief greeting on the occasion of his enthronement and await a response. This approach aimed to clarify whether the new Patriarch was truly the successor of the ever-recognized hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad—His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter (of Krutitsy)—or whether he was merely continuing the policies of the deceased Soviet Patriarch Sergius. While awaiting clarification on this matter, and in order to pacify that portion of the Russian colony in Shanghai that had become pro-Soviet and was demanding recognition of the Moscow Patriarch, Bishop John issued a directive (Decree No. 650, dated September 6 / August 24, 1945) for the temporary commemoration of Patriarch Alexy during divine services, replacing the previous commemoration of "the Orthodox Episcopate of the Russian Church."

Meanwhile, communication with the Synod Abroad was finally restored on October 2, 1945, when Bishop John received a telegram from Switzerland signed by Metropolitan Anastasy. In it, Metropolitan Anastasy briefly informed him that the Synod Abroad continued to exist, that Vladyka John's parents were alive and in Germany, and that he, the Metropolitan, requested a report on the state of the Church in China. Bishop John sent a report detailing the situation in Shanghai and requested further instructions. He also forwarded the text of Metropolitan Anastasy’s telegram to Archbishop Victor in Beijing. The next telegram arrived in November from the United States, sent by Archbishop Tikhon of Western America and San Francisco. In it, Vladyka Tikhon reported that Metropolitan Anastasy, Archbishops Vitaly, Joasaph, and Jerome, along with himself, had re-established communication with one another and were asking Bishop John to remain with them and not recognize the Moscow Patriarch.

This was all that Bishop John needed to know, and when, in early December 1945, he received a letter from Archbishop Victor informing him that he had recognized Patriarch Alexy, Bishop John categorically refused to acknowledge the new Patriarch, despite tremendous pressure, persuasion, and threats.

On the evening of January 15, 1946, Archbishop Victor arrived in Shanghai by airplane from Beijing and announced that he had not only recognized the Patriarch but had also become a Soviet citizen, having taken a USSR passport.

Archbishop Victor vainly tried to persuade, demand, and order Bishop John to submit and recognize the Patriarch. Eventually, he attended the regular weekly clergy meeting, where he formally announced his transition to the Soviet Church, demanded that the clergy follow his example, and, leaving Bishop John to preside, exited the meeting. After Bishop John’s address, in which he urged the clergy to remain faithful to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, the assembly passed the resolution he proposed: To report to Metropolitan Anastasy their loyalty to the Synod Abroad and request further instructions. For a long time, no response was received from the Synod, and during this period—approximately seven weeks—Bishop John was subjected to immense pressure from Soviet authorities, Archbishop Victor, Metropolitan Nestor of Manchuria, a large segment of the Russian community that had applied for Soviet passports, clergy who had defected to the Soviet side, and other influential figures.

Both in writing and speech, through the press, clubs, and public gatherings, the Soviet side sought to prove that the election of the Patriarch had been conducted lawfully, in full accordance with church canons. As evidence, they proposed screening a documentary film about the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

Bishop John agreed to watch the film in order to personally observe and verify the entire election procedure, but on the condition that it not be shown in the Soviet club, where all Soviet films were screened at the time, but instead in the auditorium of a neutral theater.

The screening was attended by the majority of the Shanghai clergy, including Mitred Archpriest N. Kolchev, who now resides in San Francisco, Fr. I. Ven, and others.

Before the film began, and without any prior warning, the orchestra suddenly played the Soviet anthem. Bishop John immediately left the hall. The organizers of the screening rushed after him, stopped him in the foyer, and began apologizing and urging him to stay. Bishop John returned to the hall only after the anthem had ended. After watching the film, he declared that the so-called election of the Patriarch had no legitimacy whatsoever, stating that it had been conducted in the classic Soviet manner: only one candidate was presented, every diocesan representative voted identically, reading aloud the same stereotyped phrase, and the entire process lacked anything spiritual or canonical.

Bishop John's statement further infuriated the Bolshevik circles, and the persecution against him and the clergy faithful to him intensified even more.

On March 20, the Feast Day of the Cathedral, during the Divine Liturgy, a telegram was brought to Vladyka John. Since he never allowed himself to be distracted by anything unrelated during worship, Bishop John placed the telegram in his pocket without reading it and only opened it after the service. The telegram, signed by Metropolitan Anastasy, read: "I recognize the resolution of the clergy under your chairmanship as correct."

This moral support, received from the Head of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, gave the remaining faithful clergy renewed strength to continue defending the Orthodox churches from the claims and encroachments of the Bolsheviks.

In this struggle, Vladyka John knew no rest. He literally flew from church to church, visited schools and community organizations, preached in defense of the Synod Abroad, urged Russians to remain faithful, and drove out Soviet agitators from Orthodox churches and White Russian organizations.

During this period, Vladyka John was subjected to particularly intense pressure and threats from both Archbishop Victor and Metropolitan Nestor, who had been appointed as the Exarch of Patriarch Alexy in the Far East.

Finally, on May 15, a telegram arrived from Metropolitan Anastasy in Munich, informing that Bishop John had been elevated to the rank of Archbishop with direct subordination to the Synod of Bishops. However, this could not be publicly announced until the official decree was received from the Synod.

On Friday, May 31, 1946, Archbishop Victor arrived in Shanghai once again. This time, however, upon his arrival, he was met not by the clergy and faithful but by officials of the Soviet consulate. That same evening, Archbishop Victor proceeded to the cathedral, escorted by consular officials and newly recruited Komsomol members, and took over part of the cathedral quarters with his entourage. That night, the Soviets organized a demonstration, attempting to expel Vladyka John from the cathedral and its quarters.

The next day, on June 1, 1946, the long-awaited official decree arrived, confirming the elevation of Bishop John to ruling Archbishop with direct subordination to the Synod.

The new ruling Archbishop informed Archbishop Victor of this appointment and ordered him to vacate the cathedral residence and leave the territory of the Shanghai Diocese.

On June 15, Archbishop Victor in turn presented Archbishop John with Decree No. 15 from the Moscow Patriarch, dated June 13, 1946, which appointed Bishop Juvenaly from Manchuria to Archbishop Victor’s jurisdiction "to replace Bishop John of Shanghai, who had not recognized the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate."

On June 16, 1946, this decree was published in the Soviet newspapers, marking the beginning of an open struggle for physical control of the Cathedral and for the right to conduct services within it. Archbishop Victor forbade the clergy loyal to Vladyka John—Fr. Hieromonk Modest, Fr. Medvedev, and Fr. K. Zanevsky—from serving in the Cathedral. Meanwhile, Vladyka John continued to serve daily himself and ordered them to serve alongside him, forbidding Soviet priests from delivering sermons and instead preaching himself in their place, explaining to the faithful why the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad did not recognize the Moscow Patriarch. Sensing Vladyka John's increasing influence, the Soviet side resorted to threats, mobilized Komsomol members and agitators, and at one point, there was serious concern that they might kidnap Archbishop John and other anti-communist leaders of the White Russian community and transport them onto a Soviet steamship. Without Vladyka’s knowledge, members of the youth from the White Russian community secretly organized a security detail that discreetly followed him everywhere to protect him.

When Archbishop Victor "removed" Archbishop John by his decree and forbade him from serving, Vladyka John did not leave the Cathedral. Instead, he ascended the ambo and told the faithful that he had been removed by Archbishop Victor because he remained faithful to the oath they had both sworn to the Synod Abroad. Then, he proceeded to serve the entire Divine Liturgy in full!

By August 1946, the Soviet clergy and Soviet citizens had ceased attending the Cathedral. The National Government of China and the municipal authorities officially recognized Archbishop John as the head of the Shanghai Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

Of the six hierarchs of the Synod of the Church Abroad in China, only one remained faithful to the Synod Abroad and its First Hierarch, along with more than 6,000 laity, his spiritual children.

On their behalf, we, the undersigned, the last elected representatives of the governing bodies of the Russian Emigrant Association of Shanghai, have come today to defend, under oath, against vile slander the honor of Archbishop John, the dignity of an Orthodox Hierarch, and the Russian National Honor.

The Last Chairman of the Russian Emigrant Association of Shanghai:
G.K. Bologov

Former Members of the Last Executive Committee:
P.I. Alekseenko
V.V. Krasovsky

Former Members of the Supervisory and Audit Commission:
N.N. Pleshakov
B.M. Krapin

Former Head of the Charitable Department of the Association:
B.L. Kuper

Former Chairman of the Russian Chamber of Commerce of Shanghai:
M.A. Moshkin

The above signatories were sworn in by Archpriest Peter Triodin of the Bogoroditse-Vladimirsky Women's Monastery.

May 9, 1963

San Francisco, California.

 

+ + +

 

In his Decree No. 650, Vladyka John initially affirmed the legitimacy of the conciliar election of the Moscow Patriarch. However, after viewing the documentary film about this election in Moscow, his attitude changed drastically. According to the sworn testimony of the aforementioned declaration, Vladyka publicly stated that "there was no legitimacy whatsoever in the so-called election of the Patriarch." This marked the beginning of his persecution for his steadfastness and loyalty to the Church Abroad.

An example of the Chinese saga of suffering endured by the Russian people can also be found in the personal account of a witness whom Vladyka John especially trusted and who played a crucial role in defending his holy hierarch from the trap of the Soviet political machine. Below follows the report of Jonah Seraphimovich Ma, provided by his daughter-in-law, Lydia Ionina, a pious and trustworthy parishioner of the San Francisco church community. She requested that I publish this account in order to reveal the truth about the dire situation and the persecution of Vladyka John by the Soviets after the end of the war. Here is the testimony of this faithful servant of the saint:

+ + +

Document No. 5

 

I was born in Beijing, China, in 1905 and was baptized at birth into the Orthodox Faith. For eight years, I studied at the Russian Orthodox Embassy School in Beijing. Bishops Innokenty and Simon were my teachers. They taught me to be a Christian. Archbishop John was the spiritual mentor of my sons. I am eternally grateful to them for their guidance and prayers.

In 1934, Bishop John arrived in Shanghai from Yugoslavia after being appointed to the Shanghai See. I was a member of the Chinese Nationalist Government and worked in the Counterintelligence Department. Operating underground, my primary task was gathering intelligence on Japanese and Soviet espionage in China. I quickly became closely acquainted with Archbishop John. At that time, Shanghai was home to approximately 100 Orthodox Chinese. Archbishop John appointed me Secretary for Chinese Affairs. His prayers and way of life had a profoundly positive impact on Orthodoxy in China. We all respected and loved Archbishop John. In October 1940, during the Japanese occupation of China, my underground counterintelligence activities were discovered, and I was captured by the Japanese authorities in Shanghai and arrested. Fortunately, I was rescued after one year in prison and escaped to Chongqing (the wartime capital of China). Unfortunately, I was forced to leave my family behind in Shanghai. Throughout this time, Archbishop John cared for my family.

In 1945, after Japan's surrender, I returned to military service in counterintelligence and anti-Soviet operations in Nanjing (the postwar capital of China). At that time, the ruling Archbishop of China, Victor, became a Soviet citizen and was working as a Soviet spy in Beijing. Archbishop Victor began urging Russian émigrés in China to apply for Soviet citizenship and return to the Soviet Union. Many followed his advice and did so. For his efforts, Archbishop Victor was awarded the Stalin Medal.

During this period, there were more than ten Russian priests in Shanghai. Some of them, including Fr. Gavriil, Fr. Mikhail, and a few others, applied for and received Soviet citizenship. Others left China by different means.

At that time, approximately 15,000 Russian émigrés were living in China. About one-third, or roughly 5,000 émigrés, obtained Soviet citizenship. However, Archbishop John refused to join the Soviet side, as Archbishop Victor demanded of him. As a result, the Soviets ordered Archbishop Victor to travel from Beijing and seize the cathedral in Shanghai by force. Their first plan was to assassinate Archbishop John. The alternative plan to remove him was to forcibly capture him, take him out of the cathedral, transport him onto a Soviet steamship, and deport him to the Soviet Union.

Most of the Russian priests had already arranged their departure from China, leaving no one to ensure the safety of Archbishop John and the cathedral. Nevertheless, a few remained with Archbishop John. Among them were Fr. Ilya Ven, Fr. Nikolai Li, and Fr. Elisei Zhao. Together with this small group, Archbishop John decided to reach out to me in Nanjing.

Archbishop John sent Fr. Nikolai Li to Nanjing with the necessary documents to inform me about the situation and seek my advice. Upon learning of the plan to abduct and assassinate Archbishop John, I devised a strategy to protect him and the cathedral in Shanghai, as well as other Orthodox churches in China. That same evening, after discovering the horrific plot, I presented my plan to the Chinese government. I must note that the American government also supported Archbishop John and submitted a similar report to the Chinese authorities, which provided significant assistance in this matter.

As a result, Archbishop Victor was immediately arrested by the Chinese police, and armed guards were deployed to protect the Shanghai cathedral and provide round-the-clock security for Archbishop John. The Chinese government officially recognized Archbishop John as the ruling bishop in China.

Later, I advised Archbishop John to accept Chinese citizenship, and he eventually agreed. After completing all the necessary paperwork for the archbishop, I personally delivered his credentials to him. Only after Archbishop John received Chinese citizenship did the Soviets abandon their plan to forcibly seize both him and the cathedral. Our beloved Archbishop John and the cathedral were saved. In 1949, on the eve of the Chinese New Year, along with several others, I was awarded a certificate of recognition from Metropolitan Anastasy. That same year, the Chinese National Government fled to Taiwan. By that time, I had already attained the rank of colonel (now a special agent). I was assigned to remain in Shanghai to continue my underground work.

In 1958, I was arrested by the Chinese Communist government and sentenced to 15 years in prison in Shanghai, followed by six years of house arrest. My crimes were defined as "Actions against Stalin and the Soviet Union."

In 1979, I was released and was able to join my son in the United States in 1983. Now, every day, I stand before the icon of Vladyka John and pray to him and to God for the eradication of evil on earth and for the granting of love, peace, and happiness to all. (Blessed John the Wonderworker passed away in 1966 and was canonized in 1994.) (Jonah Seraphimovich Ma passed away in 1997 in San Francisco, California.) Written by Jonah Seraphimovich Ma on July 5, 1989.

Translated from the Chinese text by Peter Ionich Ionin, September 2004.

+ + +

While, on the one hand, there were and still are voices claiming that Vladyka John found it difficult to keep the Shanghai Diocese loyal to the Church Abroad, on the other hand, the testimony of Jonah Ma and my own personal experience of those ruthless years reveal Saint John as a true and fearless shepherd, faithful to his pastoral oath to the Church Abroad. For thousands of White Russians in China, Saint John was a protector and savior, and we will always be grateful to him for teaching us to stand firm, despite the need for adaptation (but never compromise) to the conditions of postwar devastation and chaos. For this reason, it seems unwise and unjustified to introduce politicized statements into the official documents of the Negotiation Commissions between ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate. Thus, in the commentary on these documents, it is stated:

"The work of the hierarchs and pastors of the Russian Orthodox Church during the years of the Second World War, who blessed the people for self-sacrifice in the struggle against fascism, became a vivid example of the fulfillment of Christian and patriotic duty.

"The awareness of the grave danger of German Nazism was also shared by the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, who sympathized with the tragic fate of the Russian people. It is well known that Archbishop John (Maximovich), who was beyond the reach of the godless authorities and was later glorified as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, offered molebens for the victory of his Homeland and organized fundraising efforts to support the fighting army." (Commentary No. 4).

It is difficult to understand how the joint commissions could have allowed such a biased statement to be included in the official documents. Incidentally, Saint John was the only hierarch in the Far East who did not send any congratulatory message or expression of gratitude to Generalissimo Stalin on the occasion of Germany's defeat. We, the Orthodox youth of that time, will never forget that autumn day when our magnificent St. Nicholas Memorial Church—dedicated to the Martyr-Tsar Emperor Nicholas II and His August Family—on Rue Corneille was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, and during the liturgy, the commemoration of "the noble Generalissimo Joseph" was heard. And we will never forget the heroic efforts of our Vladyka—when the situation in Shanghai reached the brink of inevitable catastrophe, Saint John secured the evacuation of White Russian émigrés from the burning country through the tropical island of Tubabao in the Philippines into the free world of the diaspora, where they immediately began building churches and parish schools, establishing monasteries, and founding various ecclesiastical organizations and charitable institutions.

Regarding his Homeland, Saint John primarily prayed for the suffering Russian people and helped those in distress during the war. To attribute anything beyond this to him is hardly justified. In general, it is well known that Vladyka responded wholeheartedly to the needs of all people, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox, without distinction. As for his own convictions, he was known as a staunch and principled monarchist.

Let everyone who reads these testimonies—written not with the craft of political maneuvering but with blood—decide for themselves what kind of man our wondrous hierarch, Saint John, truly was and with what sensitivity and reverence his holy name should be invoked.

We cannot but return to the one question that consumes our minds today—the fate of the Russian Church—for truly, "does not our heart burn within us?" (Luke 24:32), and do we not know that "the wind returns to its circuits?" (Ecclesiastes 1:6). The answer lies with our Vladyka:

"The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is not spiritually separated from the suffering Mother Church. It offers prayers for Her, preserves Her spiritual and material treasures, and will, in due time, be reunited with Her when the causes that divided Them disappear." ("Russian Orthodox Church Abroad," 1991, p. 20).

This is our sole concern—may the Lord God bless our mutual efforts toward the attainment of true unity in the crystal-clear purity of Christ’s Truth, through the prayers of our suffering Saint, the wondrous miracle-worker, and universal Teacher, John.

Protopresbyter Valery Lukianov
St. Alexander Nevsky Cathedral
Lakewood, New Jersey
December 10/23, 2005

 

Russian source: https://web.archive.org/web/20071012045413/http://www.russian-inok.org/page.php?page=tema/0506tema9