[1]
***
Archbishop Seraphim (in the
world—Nikolai Borisovich Sobolev) is one of the most venerated ascetics of
piety in Bulgaria and in Russia and one of the most authoritative apologists of
Orthodoxy.
The hierarch was born in 1881; he
graduated from the Ryazan Theological Seminary and the Saint Petersburg
Theological Academy. In 1908 he was awarded the academic degree “candidate of
theology” for the work “The Teaching on Humility According to the
Philokalia.” In 1908 he was ordained a hieromonk; thereafter he taught at
the Pastoral School in Zhytomyr and at the Kaluga and Kostroma Theological
Seminaries. In 1912 Fr. Seraphim was elevated to the rank of archimandrite and
was appointed rector of the Voronezh Theological Seminary. Together with the
retreating troops of General A. I. Denikin, Archimandrite Seraphim departed for
Southern Russia. In accordance with a decision of the Higher Church
Administration of Southern Russia, in 1920, on the feast of the Protection of
the Most Holy Theotokos, Archimandrite Seraphim was consecrated Bishop of
Lubny, vicar of the Poltava Diocese. In November of the same year the
archpastor left Russia, and in 1921 he headed the Russian parishes in Bulgaria.
That same year the hierarch received from Patriarch Tikhon a new title—Bishop
of Boguchar. In 1938 he was awarded the academic degree “Master of Theology”
for the work “The New Teaching on Sophia, the Wisdom of God,” and was
included in the membership of the Scholarly Committee of the Bishops’ Synod of
the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). In 1944 Archbishop
Seraphim transferred from the jurisdiction of the Bishops’ Synod to the
subordination of the Moscow Patriarchate. [2] The archpastor reposed on the
feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy on 26 February 1950. In 2010 his name was
included in the calendar of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
(ROCOR).
Archbishop Seraphim is known as
the author of a number of works. To the archpastor belong writings against the
teaching of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) on the redemption and against
the teaching of Protopresbyter Sergius Bulgakov on Sophia [the Divine Wisdom of
God]. The ideal of Orthodox monarchy is expressed by the hierarch in the works “Russian
Ideology” and “On the True Monarchist Worldview.” In 1948 the
archbishop participated in the Pan-Orthodox Conference in Moscow, where he
delivered reports on the Anglican hierarchy, on the ecumenical movement, and on
the new calendar style. In the final years of his life the hierarch actively
fought against renovationist tendencies in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.
The epistolary legacy of
Archbishop Seraphim is in fact unknown to researchers. The principal obstacle
to the study of the archpastor’s letters is that the archive of the Russian
parish in Sofia was destroyed together with the church of St. Nicholas during
an attack by British aviation on 30 March 1944. The letters of Archbishop
Seraphim for the period from 1944 to 1950 have also not been preserved in the
archive of the Russian metochion in Sofia.
At present the letters of
Archbishop Seraphim are scattered in various archives. Part of the letters is
preserved, for example, in the archive of the Department for External Church
Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate; part—in various fonds of the State Archive
of the Russian Federation (GARF); [3] part—in foreign archives.
It is understandable that a
letter of any ascetic of piety represents great interest for the Church. But
the letter published below has special significance. It is rare when from a
single letter we can learn the author’s position on an entire series of key
questions of church life. In the given case we are dealing precisely with such
a document.
The letter was written by Bishop
Seraphim (Sobolev) to his friend from student years, Archbishop Benjamin
(Fedchenkov), on 12 February 1934. At that time the archpastors found
themselves on two opposite sides of the barricade. Archbishop Benjamin agreed with
the demand of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) to provide a declaration of
loyalty toward the Bolsheviks and was under the jurisdiction of the Moscow
Patriarchate. The place of service of the hierarch was Paris, where Archbishop
Benjamin founded the church of the “Three Hierarchs.” In 1933 the archpastor
was appointed by Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) as Exarch of the Moscow
Patriarchate in North America.
Bishop Seraphim refused to
provide a declaration of loyalty and at the time of writing the letter was
under the jurisdiction of the Bishops’ Synod of the Russian Church Abroad.
The occasion for the letter were
accusations of heresy directed against the Chairman of the Bishops’ Synod of
the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), Metropolitan Anthony
(Khrapovitsky). Metropolitan Anthony, who was an opponent of the juridical
theory of the redemption, in his works “An Attempt at a Christian Catechism”
and “The Dogma of the Redemption” [4] places emphasis on Christ’s
Gethsemane struggle as the moment of His highest sufferings. The teaching of
Metropolitan Anthony was received in different ways in scholarly–theological
circles. The work of the First Hierarch of ROCOR was highly evaluated by
Patriarch Gregory IV of Antioch, [5] Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky), Bishop
Gabriel (Chepur), and others. On the other hand, accusations were voiced
against Metropolitan Anthony of diminishing the significance of the Golgotha
Sacrifice. Some opponents of Metropolitan Anthony (as a rule from jurisdictions
hostile to ROCOR) even accuse him of heresy. [6] But even within ROCOR not all
agree with the new teaching, for example Archbishop Anastasy (Gribanovsky) and
Saint John (Maximovitch). The teaching of Metropolitan Anthony is most actively
opposed by Archbishop Theophan (Bystrov) and Bishop Seraphim (Sobolev). The two
hierarchs jointly succeed in achieving that on 22 April 1926 Metropolitan
Anthony abandons the idea of replacing the catechism of Saint Philaret
(Drozdov) [7] with his own catechism. At a closed session of the Bishops’ Synod
in 1927 Archbishop Theophan and Bishop Seraphim present reports against the
teaching of Metropolitan Anthony. [8] As a result, the Russian Church Abroad
does not officially accept the catechism of Metropolitan Anthony.
However, in 1927 the relations
between Archbishop Theophan and Bishop Seraphim begin to deteriorate. The
reason for this were the excessively sharp statements of Archbishop Theophan
regarding the teaching of Metropolitan Anthony, even to the point of accusations
of heresy. Bishop Seraphim fears to bring such a severe accusation.
At the end of the 1920s
Archbishop Theophan withdraws from participation in the work of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. From 1931 the hierarch lives in Clamart
(France); in 1939 he moves to Limours-sur-Loire, not far from Tours. The relations
of Archbishop Theophan with the Bishops’ Synod deteriorate completely. Living
in France, Archbishop Theophan continues to regard Metropolitan Anthony as a
heretic, and thereafter begins to direct various accusations also against the
Bishops’ Synod. The position of Archbishop Theophan with regard to Metropolitan
Anthony is shared as well by Archbishop Benjamin (Fedchenkov).
Upon learning of this, on 12
February 1934 Bishop Seraphim sends a letter to Archbishop Benjamin, in which
he defends Metropolitan Anthony against the accusations of heresy. In addition,
Bishop Seraphim adduces in his letter interesting facts from the life of the
righteous John of Kronstadt and Archbishop Theophan (Bystrov), expresses his
opinion about Rasputin and about the possibility of recognizing the authority
of the Bolsheviks. What is striking is the fact that, while speaking out
against the recognition of the communist власти on the part of Archbishop
Benjamin, Bishop Seraphim nevertheless continues to regard him as his friend
and intercessor in prayer.
Bishop Seraphim kept a copy of
this letter. On 18 September 1934 the archpastor certified this copy and sent
it to the Bishops’ Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. The
letter reached Russia together with the documents of the Bishops’ Synod, which
after the Second World War were transferred to the Central State Archive of the
October Revolution (now the State Archive of the Russian Federation).
The letter is preserved in fond
6343, “Bishops’ Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia,” in
file no. 283, “Letters of Archbishop Seraphim.” The file contains
correspondence of Archbishop (later Metropolitan) Seraphim (Lukiyanov),
correspondence with Archbishop (later Metropolitan) Seraphim (Lyade). Here
there is also one letter of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), which is published
below.
Publication, introductory
article, and commentary by A. A. Kostryukov
***
Letter of Bishop
Seraphim (Sobolev) to Archbishop Benjamin (Fedchenkov)
18 September 1934
To Archbishop Benjamin, 1934, 12 February
Secret
To the file [9]
Your Eminence, dear
Vladyka!
In the month of August 1932,
those who arrived from Paris at the Council of the Russian émigré
hierarchs—Archbishop Seraphim [Lukiyanov], [10] Bishop Nicholas [Karpov] [11]
of London, and Bishop Tikhon [Troitsky] [12] of San Francisco, now North
American—reported to the remaining members of the Council that Archbishop
Theophan [Bystrov] [13] of Poltava considers all of us, his fellow hierarchs,
to be heretics and Freemasons, and that against one of us he has raised the
insane slander that allegedly he participated in the poisoning of a hierarch
who, of course, died a natural death. Especially strongly, in comparison with
the other hierarchs, Archbishop Theophan speaks maliciously against
Metropolitan Anthony, me, you, and Archbishop Anastasy.
In response to these statements
of the above-mentioned three hierarchs, the members of the Council expressed
the view that Arch[bishop] Theophan is in a very dangerous and destructive
condition and that we must pray to God for him.
I am telling you all this because
you must treat his accusations against us of heresies and vices with the utmost
caution, since he is zealous for the glory of God not out of love for Christ,
but solely on the ground of his vanity and his completely disturbed state of
soul. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that earlier he himself was inclined
fully to share the delusion of the Name-worshippers, and even earlier he took
part in the destruction of Russia through Rasputin, [14] whom he introduced
into the palace of the Grand Duchess Militsa Nikolaevna, [15] and the latter in
her turn led Rasputin also into the imperial palace and introduced him to the
Empress.
Yes, the investigative commission
of Kerensky’s government acquitted Archbishop Theophan in this respect, but one
thing is human judgment and another is God’s judgment. As a student at the
Saint Petersburg Theological Academy, at one of my meetings with Fr. John of
Kronstadt [16] in the altar of the St. Andrew Cathedral church, I had the good
fortune to speak with him. [17] Fr. John was very attentive to me. But when I
told the great righteous one that our inspector, Fr. Archimandrite Theophan,
was sending him his greetings, the expression on Fr. John’s face changed
sharply. He asked me very sharply, with a displeased look: “That little one,
the dark-haired one, the weak one?” I answered, yes. Immediately after this Fr.
John ceased conversing with me, moved away from me, without sending greetings
to Fr. Theophan. And incidentally, when earlier I told him that our rector [18]
was sending him greetings, Fr. John asked me to convey his greetings in return.
Even then the thought occurred to me that this was because of Rasputin. There
could be no other reason for such a negative attitude of Fr. John toward Fr.
Theophan.
Arch[bishop] Theophan ought with
tears to repent day and night for what he caused to Russia and to our entire
Russian Church through Rasputin, instead of engaging in the exposure of
heresies, raising monstrous slanders against his fellow hierarchs by their
stupidity and malice, serving the Divine Liturgy anarchically in his home
without the blessing of his ruling hierarch Archb[ishop] Seraphim [Lukiyanov],
and regarding himself as almost the sole defender of God’s Truth.
In condemning hierarchs he always
appeals to his conscience. But one must have a completely perverted conscience
in order to besmirch people so vilely and thereby become their moral murderer.
Where, after all this, if he does not repent, will his soul go when he
dies?—This is what he ought to think about.
I have never, to anyone, stated
that I consider the teaching of Metrop[olitan] Anthony on the redemption to be
fully Orthodox. But neither have I declared him a heretic, as you and
Arch[bishop] Theophan do. I have not declared Metrop[olitan] Anthony a heretic,
first, because St. Athanasius the Great, until the condemnation of Origen by
the Church, “spoke of him with respect, explained his language, and defended
him from misunderstanding” (History of the Christian Church by James C.
Robertson. Vol. 1. p. 99. St. Petersburg, 1890), and St. Gregory the
Wonderworker of Neocaesarea, on the occasion of Origen’s death, delivered a
eulogistic oration. [19] In the life of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, it
is reported with what love and reverence he related to an elder, a great and
popular ascetic, who taught that the Melchizedek mentioned in the Bible is the
actual Christ. This love of St. Cyril and his prayer, with the cooperation of
the very elder who was in error, turned the latter onto the path of truth. [20] Our Holy Church even among the saints
glorified by her has such whose opinions do not coincide with her teaching. For
example, in the writings of the Hieromartyr Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, there is
a teaching about the millennial earthly kingdom of Jesus Christ (Works of
the Hieromartyr Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. St. Petersburg, 1900, Book 5 Against
Heresies, pp. 519–526). In the writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa, in
particular in his dialogue with his sister Macrina, on the basis of the words
of the Apostle Paul, “that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), there is
expressed the opinion that at some time evil and vice will disappear.
Consequently, torment will also cease. True, in that same dialogue, as well as
in other places in his writings, St. Gregory of Nyssa teaches the eternity of
torments (Works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. On the Soul and the
Resurrection, dialogue with his sister Macrina. Moscow, 1862, pp. 275,
278–279). Nevertheless, the Holy Church has not concealed from us the lines
from the works of this holy father about the advent of a moment when supposedly
evil will disappear and vice will cease; nor has she considered them an
obstacle to including St. Gregory of Nyssa among God’s saints.
Second, I cannot declare
Metropolitan Anthony a heretic also because he declared in writing that his
teaching on the redemption is his private theological opinion and asked that
his catechism not be introduced into educational institutions in the capacity
of a textbook. Moreover, in this same teaching of his on the redemption he does
not deny the saving significance for us of the Savior’s death on the Cross, but
assigns greater significance in the work of our redemption not to the human,
but to the Gethsemane sufferings, on the grounds that sufferings of the soul
are heavier than bodily ones.
In his printed sermons and
discourses, delivered during his tenure as rector of the Kazan Theological
Academy, Metrop[olitan] Anthony adheres to the general Church teaching on the
question of the redemption. It is interesting to draw attention to the
following excerpts from his sermons and discourses:
1. “Life itself,” he says,
“persistently confirms the teaching of Divine Scripture that our nature is
damaged by sin, that we are in need of gracious renewal, of higher spiritual
help” (Works of Bishop Anthony. vol. 1. Sermon on the Day of the
Descent of the Holy Spirit, 1887, p. 20).
2. “Our Lord Jesus Christ took
upon Himself the death of all people and Himself died on the cross for our
sake” (ibid. Sermon on the Day of St. Nicholas, 6 December 1886, p. 11).
3. “Not a single person can by
his righteousness blot out the sinfulness of all, and besides, every person is
himself born in sin… He (the Son of God), born without a man, seedlessly, of
the pure Virgin, took human nature into Himself. And thereafter, having
committed not a single sin, He was pleased to take upon Himself the guilt of
all mankind and with terrible sufferings of soul and body satisfied God’s
justice and redeemed the human race from sin, the curse, and eternal death,
reconciling it with God… By His feat of the Cross, He fulfilled everything that
people had to endure… Therefore, strive more often and more attentively to
reflect upon the mystery of the redemption, by delving into the reading of the
sacred lines of the Gospel, especially those of its chapters in which the
sufferings of the Cross and the death of our Lord Jesus Christ are described”
(ibid., pp. 25–27. Discourse on the 4th Sunday of the Holy Fast,
delivered in the Saint Petersburg Kazan Cathedral in 1887).
Orally, in conversations with
Metrop[olitan] Anthony, and in writing—only to him—I have spoken solely about
the nonconformity of his teaching with that of the Holy Fathers.
It is interesting to note that a
year and a half ago, in a private conversation with the metropolitan, I again
spoke to him about this. At that time, he stated to me that he does not see a
nonconformity between his teaching and the teaching of the holy Fathers of the
Church. By this statement Metrop[olitan] Anthony testifies that in him there is
no desire to differ from the holy Fathers of the Church; consequently, there is
also lacking in him the disposition characteristic of heretics, who are not
ashamed openly to deny their authority.
All this I wished to express in
brief and concise form at our council in 1928 and to summarize my attitude
toward the teaching of Metrop[olitan] Anthony in the following form: although
this teaching does not coincide with the patristic teaching, I cannot call
Metrop[olitan] Anthony a heretic. But Arch[bishop] Theophan interrupted me at
the very beginning of my statement on this matter, not giving me the
opportunity to speak, and I fell silent. Thus, he himself impeded the conciliar
discussion of this question.
If God grants that I live to see
the fall of the Soviet power—to the cessation of the bloody persecution of the
Russian Orthodox Church and to the convocation of a free, canonical All-Russian
Church Council—then, if there is need, I will say this at that council.
In conclusion of the present
letter I am obliged to say that you also ought not to declare Metrop[olitan]
Anthony a heretic, and not only on the basis of what I have set forth above,
but also for this further reason: the sin committed by you—the recognition of
the Soviet power, and moreover such recognition freely and with conviction—is
heavier than the sin of heresy. By this recognition you consciously and freely
sanction the innumerable atrocities of the Soviet power in the destruction of
our Russian Orthodox people and of our Russian Orthodox Church—you condemn the
countless and valiant host of new martyrs and confessors who suffered from the
Soviet power as a bloody persecutor not only of our faith but of everything
good on earth, and you hand over our entire Russian Church into the power of
Satan, because the Soviet power serves not God but Satan, since it is a godless
and God-fighting power. I will not expand upon what the Soviet power
represents. The Paris Archbishop Seraphim has explained this in his articles
with exhaustive completeness. [21]
To expose Metrop[olitan] Anthony
as a heretic after the free recognition of the Soviet power means to see the
speck in the brother’s eye and not to see the beam in one’s own eye. Even if we
were to assume that Metrop[olitan] Anthony is destroying one of the stones in
the foundation of our Orthodox Church, you, by recognizing the Soviet power,
are casting the entire church edifice into the abyss.
Look upon these lines of my
letter as an expression of my love for you, in response to your sincere,
brotherly, and friendly love which you showed me in our student years, and
afterward as well. This love I will never forget.
If, however, the aforementioned
lines do not find a corresponding response in your soul and you are grieved by
them, then forgive me.
Every day I fervently pray for
you, my dear Vladyka! And I ask you not to forget me in your prayers. With love
I bow to you, and so does my brother, who suffers very severely from pains in
the head and from stomach pains after the operation he underwent.
May the Lord preserve you.
Your loving brother in Christ,
Bishop Seraphim
1934, 14/27 February
True to the original:
P.S. This letter was sent by me
to Arch[bishop] Benjamin in response to the political note of Archbishop
Theophan of Poltava published in his journal “For Orthodoxy,” in which
Metrop[olitan] Anthony and I are accused of heresy.
Arch[bishop] Seraphim. 1934. 18
Sept[ember] [22]
State Archive of the Russian
Federation. Fond 6343. Inventory 1. File 283. Sheets 6–9 verso. Manuscript.
Certified copy; postscript and signature—autograph.
1. Source: Bulletin of PSTGU. II: History. History
of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2011. Issue 5 (42). pp. 124–133. Available
at: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/novye-svedeniya-o-vzglyadah-arhiepiskopa-bogucharskogo-serafima-soboleva-na-problemy-russkoy-pravoslavnoy-tserkvi#ixzz3NrbQ8SWG
2. Here the author allows an inaccuracy, which seems strange,
considering that he himself writes in other of his studies that the decision to
receive Archbishop Seraphim into the Moscow Patriarchate was taken on 30
October 1945 (see, for example: Andrei Kostryukov. Biography of Archbishop
Seraphim (Sobolev). Sofia, 2011. p. 116). Saint Seraphim himself learned of
the decision at the beginning of 1946. — Translator’s note.
3. GARF – State Archive of the Russian Federation. — Translator’s
note.
4. See: Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. An Attempt
at a Christian Catechism // Nikon (Rklitsky), Archbishop. Biography of
His Beatitude Anthony, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia. Publication of the
North American and Canadian Diocese, 1961. Vol. 8. pp. 11–171; Anthony
(Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. The Dogma of the Redemption // Ibid.,
pp. 143–288.
5. GARF. Fond 6343. Inventory 1. File 6. Sheets 344–345.
6. See: S. “The Karlovci Council” // Latest News.
1926. No. 1945; N.P.V. The Karlovci Church Schism // Latest News.
1926. No. 1969; S.S. The Émigré Russian Bishops’ Gathering in Sremski
Karlovci // Morning Dawn. 1926. No. 8. p. 125.
7. See: Betts R., Marchenko V. Spiritual Father of the
Royal Family. Saint Theophan of Poltava. Platina: Brotherhood of St. Herman
of Alaska; Moscow: Russian Branch of the Valaam Society of America, 1994. p.
102.
8. See: Seraphim (Sobolev), Archbishop. Distortions of
Orthodox Truth in Russian Theological Thought. Sofia, 1943. p. 6.
9. Handwritten note of the secretary.
10. Seraphim (Lukiyanov, Aleksandr Ivanovich) (1879–1959),
metropolitan. He graduated from the Saratov Theological Seminary and the Kazan
Theological Academy with the academic degree of Candidate of Theology (1904).
Tonsured into monasticism in 1902, ordained to the rank of hieromonk in 1903.
He taught at the Ufa Theological Seminary; rector of the Taurida and Saratov
Theological Seminaries. In 1914 he was consecrated Bishop of Serdobol, vicar of
the Finnish Diocese. From 1917 he was temporary administrator of the Finnish
Diocese; from 1918 Bishop of Finland and Vyborg; from 1920 in the rank of
archbishop; from 1921 head of the autonomous Orthodox Church in Finland. In
1923 the Finnish government deprived him of his see; he lived in the Konevets
Monastery. From 1926 he was chairman of the parish in London, vicar of
Metropolitan Evlogy; from 1927 he lived in Paris. In 1927–1945 he headed the
Western European Diocese of the ROCOR. In 1945 he was received into the
jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. From 1946 he was metropolitan,
patriarchal exarch of Western Europe. In 1949 he was retired. For some time he
again passed into the ROCOR. In 1954 he resettled in the USSR. From 1956 he
lived in the Gherbovets Monastery in Moldavia.
11. Nicholas (Karpov, Ivan Ilyich) (1891–1932), bishop. He
graduated from the Tobolsk Theological Seminary and the Moscow Theological
Academy with the academic degree of Candidate of Theology (1917). Tonsured into
monasticism in 1913; ordained hierodeacon in 1913 and hieromonk in 1916. From
1920 he was in emigration, teacher and inspector at the Bitola Theological
Seminary. In 1923 he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite by the Bishops’
Synod of the ROCOR. From 1929 he was Bishop of London, vicar of the Western
European Diocese of the ROCOR.
12. Tikhon (Troitsky, Aleksandr) (1883–1963), archbishop. He
graduated from the Kostroma Theological Seminary and the Kazan Theological
Academy with the academic degree of Candidate of Theology (1908). In 1905 he
was tonsured into monasticism; in the same year ordained hierodeacon; in 1908
ordained hieromonk. He taught at the Taurida Theological Seminary; inspector of
the Volhynian, and then of the Kharkov Theological Seminaries. From 1910 he was
in the rank of archimandrite. From 1920 he was in emigration, living in
Yugoslavia. In 1925–1926 he was in the brotherhood of the Monastery of St.
Panteleimon on Mount Athos. From 1930 he was Bishop of San Francisco, vicar of
the North American Diocese of the ROCOR. In 1933–1934 he was temporary
administrator of the North American Diocese. From 1934 he was Archbishop of San
Francisco and Western America. Permanent member of the Bishops’ Synod of the
ROCOR.
13. Theophan (Bystrov, Vasily Dmitrievich) (1873–1940),
archbishop. He graduated from the Saint Petersburg Theological Seminary and the
Saint Petersburg Theological Academy with the academic degree of Candidate of
Theology. In 1898 he was tonsured into monasticism and ordained to the rank of
hieromonk. In 1901 he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite and appointed
acting inspector of the academy. In 1905 he was awarded the academic degree of
Master of Theology. In the same year he was appointed extraordinary professor and
inspector of the academy. From 1909 he was rector of the Saint Petersburg
Theological Academy. In 1909 he was consecrated Bishop of Yamburg, vicar of the
Saint Petersburg Diocese. From 1910 he was Bishop of Taurida and Simferopol;
from 1912 Bishop of Astrakhan; from 1913 Bishop of Poltava and Pereyaslav. From
1918 he was in the rank of archbishop. In 1919 he emigrated, living in
Constantinople, then in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. From
1925 he lived in Bulgaria; from 1931—in France.
14. Rasputin, Grigory Yefimovich (1872–1916), a peasant from
Tobolsk Governorate. He possessed the ability to stop the bleeding of the
hemophiliac Tsarevich Alexei, as a result of which he gained the trust of the
imperial family. He exerted influence on state and church affairs; by his
behavior he discredited the imperial authority. Killed by conspirators.
15. Militsa Nikolaevna (1866–1951), Grand Duchess, daughter
of the Montenegrin Prince Nicholas I Petrović, wife of Grand Duke Peter
Nikolaevich.
16. John of Kronstadt (Sergiev, Ivan Ilyich) (1829–1908),
saint. Mitred protopresbyter, spiritual writer. From 1855 he served in the
Andreevsky Cathedral church of the city of Kronstadt; from 1894 he was chairman
of the Andreevsky Cathedral church. From 1907 he was a member of the Holy
Synod.
17. That during the years of his studies at the Academy N. B.
Sobolev repeatedly visited the righteous John of Kronstadt is also testified by
a disciple of Archbishop Seraphim, Archimandrite Panteleimon (Staritsky) (see:
Panteleimon (Staritsky), archim. Memorial address on the first anniversary
after the repose of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) // Life, miracles, and
testaments of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev). Sofia: Convent of the
Protection of the Most Holy Theotokos; Publishing House of St. Apostle and
Evangelist Luke, 2001. p. 21).
18. Sergius (Tikhomirov, Sergei Alekseevich) (1871–1945),
metropolitan. He graduated from the Novgorod Theological Seminary and the Saint
Petersburg Theological Academy. In 1896 he was tonsured into monasticism and
ordained hierodeacon and hieromonk. From 1896 he was inspector of the Saint
Petersburg Theological Seminary; from 1899 he was rector of the SPbTS in the
rank of archimandrite. In 1905 he was awarded the academic degree of Master of
Theology and appointed rector of the Saint Petersburg Theological Academy. In
1905 he was consecrated Bishop of Yamburg, vicar of the Saint Petersburg
Diocese. From 1908 he was Bishop of Kyoto; from 1912 Bishop of Tokyo and Japan.
From 1940 he was retired.
19. St. Gregory the Wonderworker. Thanksgiving Oration to
Origen // Works of Saint Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of
Neocaesarea. Petrograd: Printing House of M. Merkushev, 1916. pp. 18–52.
20. See: Lives of the Saints in the Russian Language, set
forth according to the guidance of the Chetii-Minei of St. Dimitry of Rostov.
Book 10. Moscow: Synodal Printing House, 1913. p. 174.
21. On the position of Archbishop Seraphim (Lukiyanov)
regarding the Soviet power, see: Seraphim [Lukiyanov], archbishop. The
Church and Soviet Power. Belgrade, 1933; Dneprov R. Conversation with
Archbishop Seraphim // Church Gazette. 1930. Nos. 15–16. p. 8.
22. From the words “True to the original” to the end of the
document, the text is written in the hand of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev).
Bulgarian source: https://bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/rr/lode/sseraphim/sseraphim-mven.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.