From MP historian A. A. Kostryukov: “The Position of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on the Question of Grace in the Moscow Patriarchate under Metropolitan (Voznesensky)”

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