The Catacomb Church by Professor Ivan Andreyev

Discussion about the various True Orthodox Churches around the world including current events. Subforums in other langauges, primarily English on the main forum.


Moderator: Mark Templet

Post Reply
User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5126
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: United States of America
Contact:

The Catacomb Church by Professor Ivan Andreyev

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

Reprinted From Orthodox Life - Vol. 2 Number 2 - March - April 1951

THE CATACOMB CHURCH IN THE SOVIET UNION

The All-Russian Church Council in Moscow in 1917-1918 gave the Russian Orthodox Church a firm canonical basis for the life of the Christian Church in an anti-Christian state.

Patriarch Tikhon anathematized (19. I. 1918) the Soviet Government while the ideology-minded State whose aim was the reconstruction of the whole life of Russia on an atheistic and materialistic basis was still in statu nascendi (in a state of being born). This anathema was confirmed by the All-Russian Church Council (28 I. 1918).

While acknowledging in principle the impossibility and undesirability of a separation of Church and State, nevertheless Patriarch Tikhon and the Council, by their anathema, separated the Russian Orthodox Church from the new godless anti-Christian Soviet State. By anathematizing only this form of civil government, the Patriarch and the Council established the fact of the incompatibility of the power of the true Christian Church with the power of the spirit of anti-Christ.

A similar act also asserting the incompatibility of the Church and the State was the decree of January 23, 1918, "On Freedom of Conscience," which was called by the All-Russian Church Council, "The Decree on Freedom from Conscience." In the list of 1918 (No. 18, p. 203), the same decree is entitled "On the Separation of Church and State and of Church and Education."

This separation of the State from the Church was not a mere setting of limits between the power of the State and that of the Church but a camouflaged ban that the Soviet Government laid on the Church, which by the very nature of her spirit was anti-soviet. A mutual ban, a mutual proscription of foreign, hostile, incompatible principles — the principles of the atheistic, materialistic, antichristian State with those of the militant Orthodox Christian Church — all this is quite natural. 

The Soviet State and the Orthodox Church were in point of fact two utterly incompatible organizations. A struggle was inevitable and the nature of the struggle was clear. The antichristian, godless, materialistic ideology necessitated definite methods of struggle: in the first place, falsehood, then deception, propaganda, calumny, terrorization, violence, persecution, inquisition; and finally, the entire liquidation not only of the Church but even of all religion in the souls of men. In turn, the Russian Orthodox Church dictated diametrically opposite methods of combat: firstly, confession of faith and truth, exposure of scandals and deception, courageous defense of the Faith, self-denying, preaching, readiness to confess the Faith even to martyrdom; in a word, the defense, even to death, of Christ and of His Immaculate Bride, the Church.

The essence and basis of the Communist ideology showed itself at once in this struggle to be fanatically religious. It is possible to believe in the existence of God and Satan, or not, but it is impossible to deny the existence of ideas connected with these conceptions. Communist ideology is definitely and cynically associated with the idea of the denial of God and His Truth and is committed to hatred for them and war with them; in other words, it is connected with the idea of Satan.

So from the very beginning of the clash of the Church with the State in the Soviet Union, the Church stood for the service of Christ and the State for the service of Satan and antichrist. A life-and-death struggle had begun. Every Orthodox Christian was faced with a dilemma: to accept martyrdom or to compromise his conscience. To choose martyrdom one had to be a saint because the cruelty of the tortures to which the Soviet government subjected her enemies surpassed all the tortures and violence previously known in the history of mankind. By intensifying the tortures the Soviet State simultaneously intensified her insistence on spiritual enslavement.

In his remarkable pamphlet "The Church in the Soviet Union" (Paris, 1947). S. P. accurately and vividly describes the intolerable plight of the Russian people: "To put it briefly, there was and still is an opinion, simple and unequivocal: heroism and martyrdom or slavery and cooperation. The masses of the Russian people understood that in the very beginning and tried to escape by masquerading. Now the whole political development of the revolution may be described as systematic pressure on this masquerading, while on the other hand the masqueraders are still inventing new ways of escaping notice and of avoiding pressure; new means of camouflaging their lives, new formulas of neutrality and semi-loyalty, new subterfuges, new "woods," "ravines," "tundra's" where they might save themselves. It is understandable that even the practicing members of the Orthodox Church could not evade that dilemma, that masquerading."

Just as every single individual believer had to solve this tragic dilemma for himself alone, or at most for his family and friends, so the Head of the Orthodox Church had to solve it for the whole Church. There is plenty of documentary evidence to show that often the lives of many people and sometimes the kind of tortures inflicted on them depended on a single word of the Patriarch.

In order to alleviate the unbearable sufferings of the clergy and laity persecuted by the godless authorities, Partriarch Tikhon made a series of concessions and compromises. But the Soviet government was not satisfied with these concessions and demanded the full spiritual subjection of the Church to the State and intensified the persecutions. At the sight of these cruel persecutions which were becoming more and more outrageous and the moral and physical tests and tortures that were systematically exterminating the clergy and the faithful, and seeing how even "the elect" were falling and apostatizing, Patriarch Tikhon devoted all the powers of his mind and heart to the alleviation of the fate of his flock. He made such further concessions to the godless government as were possible to the religious conscience of an Orthodox Christian. But there was a limit that he never exceeded; he did not surrender the spiritual freedom of the Church to the servants of Satan.

Patriarch Tikhon was the greatest martyr of that period. He was indeed a martyr crucified in spirit. His heart was torn by the moral sufferings and the fate of Russian Orthodoxy from whom the Soviet government was demanding treason to Christ, and he was heartbroken by the plight of his flock whose sufferings were exceeding all bounds.

The diabolical lie of the government first of all consisted in the fact that religious persecutions were called a political struggle, while confession of faith and truth was dubbed political crime. It was in vain that the Patriarch publicly declared that he prohibited the faithful from participating in any kind of political activity; in vain that he "repented" of his "political" crimes and declared that he was "no (political) enemy" of the Soviet government. The Soviet authorities regarded even every purely religious opposition of the faithful as political opposition.

Patriarch Tikhon had the terrible conviction that the limit of the "political" demands of the Soviet government went beyond the limits of fidelity to Christ and the Church. The "masquerade" of strict adherence to the canons which had helped in the struggle with the "Renewed Schismatics" had been discovered by the Soviet authorities. Seeing that the canons were like a wall on which all violence and terror against the faithful was breaking, the Soviet authorities decided to subordinate the Church spiritually on the condition of the strictest adherence to the canonical regulations. To that end the Communists began tempting, terrorizing and torturing not the renegades who are always ready to flout the holy canons but those who were faithful to them. This task proved extremely difficult. Those who were prepared to cooperate with the godless government were breakers of the canons, whereas those who refused to betray the canons refused also to betray the Spirit of Christ. The Soviet government needed a new Judas among the strictly canonical bishops.

According to an intimate friend of Patriarch Tikhon, Professor M. A. Jijilenko, who was head-physician at Taganka Prison in Moscow, and who was later the first secret bishop of a catacomb church — Bishop Maxim of Serpukhov — shortly before his death, the Patriarch expressed the opinion that the only way for the Russian Orthodox Church to maintain her fidelity to Christ in the future would be to escape into the catacombs. Therefore, Patriarch Tikhon gave his blessing to Professor Jijilenko to become a secret monk. Later, if a supreme hierarch of the Church were to betray Christ and cede the spiritual freedom of the Church to the  Soviet government, he was to become a secret bishop.

Patriarch Thikhon died on 25 th March 1925. According to Bishop Maxim, he was poisoned. The "Will" that was found after the death of the Patriarch was unquestionably forged. It was a counterfeit produced by the Soviet government, but it did not help. So, then, with the aid of E. A. Tuchkov, that bloody executioner of the Russian Orthodox Church, a deeply conceived and diabolically cunning Declaration was composed which the Soviet authorities decided to issue in the name of the supreme hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, this hierarch being ostensibly quite canonical and authentic. This declaration was supposed to convert the Russian Orthodox Church into a Soviet church, canonically quite correct, but serving the satanic antichristian plans of the Soviet State.

Patriarch Tikhon, in his time, had categorically refused to sign a similar declaration. After the death of the Patriarch, Metropolitan Peter also refused to sign a declaration of that kind. For that he was arrested in December 1925, deported and tortured in exile; he died eleven years later. After the arrest of Metropolitan Peter, Metropolitan Sergius Starogorodsky succeeded him. Metropolitan Peter had not only refused to act as the locum tenens of the Patriarch but asked that in the event of his death being known he should be remembered in the church services as the Head of the Russian Orthodox Church — as a symbol of unity and fidelity to that Church. The martyr bishop Damaskin was witness to that. According to his own words, he actually had in his hands this last order of the locum tenens.

Metropolitan Cyril, the senior hierarch and the first candidate actually designated to the position of locum tenens by Patriarch Tikhon, also refused to sign the "Tuchkov Declaration." Father Elias Pirozhenko and Father P. Novosiltsev, who visited him in his exile, wrote: "He told us how all that had been carried out by Metropolitan Sergius Starogorodsky had been offered to him and that he was glad to have remained on the straight way." Metropolitan Cyril died in exile in 1936, the year of Metropolitan Peter's death.

Similar offers to sign a declaration had been made to Metropolitan Agafangel, Metropolitan Joseph and Archbishop Seraphim of Uglitch, that is, to all the most outstanding hierarchs from the spiritual point of view and the greatest sticklers for canonical integrity. At last a Judas was found among the bishops who was canonically correct. True, in the gravest moment in the history of the Russian Church, when the "Renewers" began to triumph, he went over to them; but afterwards he did penance in a canonically correct manner. This was Metropolitan Sergius. He delivered the Russian Orthodox Church into the hands of the enemies of Christ, but he gave his treachery a strictly canonical form. He signed the Tuchkov Declaration and polished its formulation. The Declaration was issued in the name of the representative of the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal See, July 16/29, 1927. It was in vain that the faithful bishops, clergy and laity implored Metropolitan Sergius to desist from playing the part of Judas but to take example from the Apostle Peter who wept bitterly over his sin, and to repent of his betrayal of Christ. But the admonitions did not help and the ecclesiastical schism of 1927 took place.

The Soviet authorities tried to arrest the confessors of truth in the Church. During the trials the jubilant examining judges of the Tcheka proved the "strict canonicity"  of Metropolitan Sergius and his Declaration "which compromised neither the canons nor the dogmas."

The resistance of the confessors, the "Tikhonists" and the "Old-Churchmen" (who came to be called "Josephites") was broken physically by the Soviet government with the aid of the Soviet church. The mass executions, persecutions and tortures which shattered the Church which remained faithful to Christ baffle description.

According to the official figures of the Office of Scientific Research of Criminology in the Soviet Concentration Camps in 1929 the number of those sentenced for Church affairs amounted to 20% of all the prisoners in the camps. The true Russian Orthodox Church, faithful to Christ to the last, had no alternative but to withdraw into the catacombs.

The idea of the Underground Church was conceived by Patriarch Tikhon. He may be called the spiritual father of the Catacomb Church. In the first years of her existence the Catacomb Church had no organization or administration. It was physically and geographically disconnected, and was held together only by the name of Metropolitan Peter. Later, having had no contact with Metropolitan Peter for a long time, Metropolitan Cyril was acknowledged by the Catacomb Church as her spiritual leader and head.

In 1936, after the death of Metropolitan Peter and Metropolitan Cyril, Metropolitan Joseph became the spiritual and administrative head of the Catacomb Church which by that time had acquired some kind of organization.

Toward the end of 1938 Metropolitan Joseph was executed for being the head and leader of the Secret Catacomb. Church. After his death the Catacomb Church kept her secrets more strictly, especially the names and whereabouts of her spiritual leaders. Information about the Catacomb Church was not easily come by. And as the enemies of the Underground Church, the soviet and pro-soviet churchmen, require but cannot obtain precise information as to the names, addresses and activities of the members of the Catacomb Church, they deny its existence and call it a myth. If there exists a "Christ Myth" by Professor A. Drews, why should there not be a "Myth of the Catacomb Church?"

I had the good fortune and joy of being a member of the Catacomb Church from 1927 till 1944. While I was a convict in the Solovetsky Concentration Camp (1928-32), I attended many secret consecrations performed by Bishops Maxim, Victor, Hilarion (the Suffragan Bishop of Smolensk), and Nectarius. Similar secret consecrations of bishops took place also in other Concentration Camps such as Svirlag, Belbaltlag, and camps in Siberia.

From 1945 till 1949 news of the Catacomb Church behind the Iron Curtain was scarce and hard to secure, but it trickled through every year, including 1949. This information was, of course, smuggled out in extremely cryptic code.

"I will not tell the secret to Thy enemies" — under this motto on both sides of the Iron Curtain I received news of the Catacomb Church. I have had occasion to speak with refugees from "there" and of receiving letters from all parts of the world from former members of the Catacomb Church now scattered in exile. They were often complete strangers to me. They wrote me on account of my articles, mostly in the periodical "Orthodox Russia." Most of the letters were anonymous.

According to information in my possession received from an unquestionably reliable source, the Underground or Catacomb Church in Soviet Russia underwent her hardest trials after February 4th 1945, i. e. after the enthronement of the Soviet Patriarch Alexis. Those who did not recognize him were sentenced to new terms of punishment and were sometimes shot. Those who did recognize him and gave their signature to that effect were often liberated before their terms expired and received appointments.

We have information that a priest after such a registration, told his wife and two daughters who had come to visit him that they should stop going to the Soviet Patriarchal Church when they returned home. "It is better not to go to any church whatever or receive communion at all than to be implicated in a church of evil-doers," he said. The widow of the priest (he was shot after their visit) and her two daughters were persecuted by the Soviet priests who called them "schismatics" and "sectarians." They were nourished in the Catacomb Church and kept the Sacrament in their house (1945). 

"The persecutions of the secret priests and bishops were so cruel," writes one-anonymous correspondent, a refugee from the Soviet Union, "that if was very difficult to find the secret Church." The names of the bishops and priests of the Catacomb Church are kept in the strictest and most reverent secrecy. It is impossible to say with any accuracy how many there are, although information regarding the activity of more than ten secret bishops has even penetrated the Iron Curtain. Some of the secret bishops are now abroad. There are also metropolitans in the Catacomb Church. If it is not possible to ascertain the number of the priests (who are mostly secret hieromonks), we can say that it is known only that there are all too few of them to feed the flock that desires the ministry of such shepherds in the Soviet Union. Those hungry souls are "as the sand of the sea," to quote a secret bishop.

The very existence of the Catacomb Church in the conditions of the Soviet Union would be impossible were it not that nation-wide thirst for the true, as distinct  from a false, Church. The lack of priests is partly compensated for by numbers of secret nuns and also dedicated men and women who serve the Secret Church. They read Akathists and conduct group prayers of a general nature called "meetings by candle-light." Some secret bishops call these pious people, who selflessly serve the Secret Church everywhere, "sub-pastors." The sub-pastors mostly keep in their houses the Holy Sacrament which is obtained with great difficulty and the utmost caution on the rare occasions when meetings with the secret shepherds occur.

According to information given by later refugees (1947-1948) the work of the secret priests prior to 1948 (before the new registration of the clergy) was distinctly easier in the concentration camps than in "freedom." But after 1945 it became more difficult inside the concentration camps than outside them. According to a secret priest from Siberia and a secret monk from the North of Russia who fled from the Soviet inferno in 1945 and whom I saw personally, there were occasions when "komsomols" of the "godless' section who were known for their anti-Church activity were sent in obedience to party discipline as students to the re-opened Theological Seminary.

Citizens of Soviet Russia who formerly used to go to church nd then stopped going were sometimes summoned to the M.G.B. (former G.P.U.) and asked why they had given up going to church. They were forced to choose between going to the official church again or writing and publishing in a Soviet paper a complete repudiation of all religion as an "opiate of the people." Thus, going to a Soviet church was tantamount to renouncing Christ and to the total rejection of religion. A priest of the Soviet church, who in 1948 left the Soviet Zone of Germany for the American Zone, told me personally how he had been summoned to the M.G.B. (G.P.U.) where he was "requested" so to influence an aged women, mother of a Soviet general, that she would stop going to church. The priest, under threat of punishment, was forbidden to mention that the M.G.B. had been involved in the affair. He carried out the request.

All secret priests detected in the Soviet Zone of Germany have been shot. All priests who did not recognize Patriarch Alexis were also shot. According to the testimony of numerous refugees from Soviet Russia who attended Soviet churches in the years 1945-  1949, the majority of the believers are sharply opposed to the official church hierarchy and in particular to Patriarch Alexis personally. "I cannot live without church," some people say, "but I do not recognize the Soviet Patriarch." Many are going to the Soviet churches only because of the venerated and miraculous icons that are still there. "We go to church when there is no service to kiss the icons," say others. "I go to church but I do not confess or communicate, because the bishops and priests are serving the Soviet government," say others. 

There are priests who at home weep and regret that they are serving in the Soviet church. But there are other priests and monks who say, "Now you can save yourself in the church by lying," but "the keeping of the canons" is the most important thing. There are very few who approve fully of all that Patriarch Alexis says and does. The majority of those who do so are the intellectuals, professors who have adapted themselves to the Soviet regime. The simpler the people, the clearer they see the falsity in the church and deplore it. It is beyond doubt that the majority of the clergy and laity in the Soviet church are the so-called "apostates in time of  persecution." A refugee from "there," a man devoted to the Church, who had sometime attended Soviet churches and who afterwards suffered on that account, asserts categorically, "If Russia is liberated and the Church calls people to repent for attending Soviet churches, the repentance will be sincere and nation-wide." 

The majority of those who go to the Soviet churches are convinced that abroad is "The True Russian Orthodox Church which does not acknowledge the Soviet Patriarch" (according to many witnesses). The name of Metropolitan Anastassy and his work are better known at the present time among the faithful in Soviet Russia than formerly the name and activity abroad of Metropolitan Antony. (For instance, almost no one knew anything of the Council of Karlovtsy). This great publicity is explained by the temporary German occupation when large numbers of Soviet citizens learned of the activity of the clergy abroad. During the first years of the occupation the former Soviet citizens were unable to distinguish between the different jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church abroad and regarded them as all equal. Butthey gradually began to see the difference and then they greeted with deep joy the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia led by Metropolitan Anastassy, whereas they began speaking with indignation of the other jurisdictions. That explains why the majority of the so-called new emigration have become active members of the Church Abroad.

The exarch of the Baltic, Metropolitan Sergius (Voskresensky), who during the German occupation, extended his church authority to the districts of Pskow and Novgorod, strove in vain (threatening to suspend his priests) against the non-observance of his orders to remember by name in the church services the Soviet Metropolitan Sergius.

The priests of the Catacomb Church who began to serve in the Orthodox churches which were re-opened in large numbers by the Germans, firmly refused to mention the Soviet metropolitan. For instance, in the town of Soltsy, in the diocese of Novgorod, Father V., formerly provost of the city of Minsk, refused to mention the Soviet Metropolitan Sergius notwithstanding the strictest orders of the provost of the Novgorod district, Father Vassily Rushanov. That was in 1942, but later Father V. became a catacomb priest and in 1943 he began secretly to remember Metropolitan Anastassy. Now it is well known that many of those who after the German occupation returned to Soviet Russia, when attending Soviet churches secretly pray for Metropolitan Anastassy and regard him as Head of the Orthodox Church.

This is information, poor in quantity but significant in quality, which I obtained partly orally and directly, partly through correspondence with refugees unknown to me personally who came from behind the iron curtain between 1945 and 1949. While rejecting categorically the top prelates (the Patriarchs Sergius and Alexis and their active and convinced assistants), who have sinned against the Orthodox Church and the Russian people, we must be very cautious and attentive in deciding what is the character of their flock. 

The Catacomb Church that exists today in the Soviet hell is doing a truly holy work. All persons who take part in that radiant Church, whether as archpastor, pastor, sub-pastor or simple members of the flock who join it deliberately and consciously, can be only a few, select souls capable not only of "living in the Church" (to use Khomiakov's words) but also of dying a martyr's death for her. Such heroism cannot be expected of the broad masses of the people. The masses have proved to be "the fallen in time of persecution." The degree, forms, conditions, character, and circumstances of the fall must be taken into account in each individual case. The sin of apostasy must be denounced, but a distinction must be made in degree of responsibility in the case of the tempters, the tempted and those "little ones" who succumb to temptation. 

Professor Ivan Andreyev.

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5126
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Josephitism from http://www.theorthodox.org

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

Josephitism

For virtually all centuries of its history, the Orthodox Church in Russia had been playing an important stabilizing and consolidating role, especially in the times of critical cataclysms. In the years of the Civil War it also didn’t take side of any of the belligerents; Patriarch and the Holy Synod were fighting for putting an end to the fratricidal discord and obsession with political passions, advocating tolerance and love of fellow men.

In the first decade of the Soviet State’s existence the attempts of the civil authorities to subdue the Orthodox Church, take it under total control, and turn into “an appendage of the state apparatus” (the Renovationists and other dissents) in general, ended with failure. It was at that time that the catacomb (secret) communities appeared, turning to illegal position.

The events of the late 1920s became a starting point for a new, most acute, crisis in the Patriarchal Church. The turning point was legalizing the Interim Patriarchal Holy Synod (IPHS) at the Deputy Acting Patriarch Metropolitan Sergiy (Stargorodsky), which required substantial concessions. The 1927 Declaration, meaning a retreat from indifference towards politics, has led to the appearance of a new form of the Patriarchal Church’s relations with the state. Exactly at that time the civil authorities established a total control over the internal church life. These compromises met with negative attitude of many priests and laymen.

The Noncommemorators (of the civil authorities and Metr. Sergiy)  movement founded in 1927 was widespread throughout the country: initially over 40 archbishops rejected administrative subordination to Deputy Patriarch and the IPHS.

Central place among the Noncommemorators was occupied by the strongest Josephite group named after its leader, Metropolitan of Leningrad, Joseph (Petrovykh).

The goal of the present paper is researching the Josephite movement, an attempt of a part of the clergy and believers to find their own (alternative to Sergian and catacomb) way of development in the form of legal or partly legal opposition to the Soviet state under the conditions of the strengthening of the totalitarian regime in the country.

The experience of the next decades demonstrates that the only alternative to the compromise way chosen by Metr. Sergiy was the clergy’s turning on an illegal position, eparchies and parishes’ self-government, and arising of the Catacomb Church. However, for most believers, priests, and hierarchs this proved unacceptable. Josephites chose the way of legal opposition, and their further fate was tragic.

There is no special works dedicated to the Josephites movement in neither Soviet nor foreign historiography. However, this subject is being touched upon in the context of Church history of the first half of the twentieth century in the papers of representatives of the official Soviet historiography, Moscow Patriarchate clergy, and foreign scholars. Authors usually stand on different church positions and adhere to opposite political views, which often causes distortions in describing the events of the epoch under discussion. Therefore, we believe it necessary to appraise the reliability of the researchers used in this paper considering the authors’ political and church likings and comparing it with their works’ concepts. Papers by Soviet historians of the Orthodox Church are of general review character and reflect the official ideology (N. S. Gordiyenko, M. S. Korzun, et al). Here the Church is presented as a reactionary anti-popular institution, while the Josephite movement is called “Black Hundred.”

In the works of contemporary historians V. A. Alekseyev and M. I. Odintsov dedicated mostly to the state religious policy in USSR neutral approach dominates toward the internal church struggle. Speaking about the “Josephite dissent,” Alekseyev remarks that it didn’t become a notable event in the history of the Orthodoxy.

Historical papers by clergymen of the Patriarchal Russian Orthodox Church Metr. Manuyil (Lemeshevsky), f. s.  Innokenty (Pavlov), A. I. Kuznetsov, and Metropolitan Ioann of St. Petersburg (Snychev) are of substantial interest. They contain many facts, though in terms of concepts they idealize Metr. Sergiy’s (Stargorodsky) church policy, lacking critical approach toward appraising his actions. Josephites are called schismatic, and Metr. Ioann claims that they profaned everything sacred for the Orthodox Church. Professor of the Leningrad University N. A. Meshchersky (died in 1986), who played an active role in the movement at its initial stage but later changed his position, adhered to the same stand in his memoirs.

Representatives of various trends in the Catacomb Church whose historical concepts not always coincide with each other hold a directly opposite opinion. Members of the Mother of God Center consider the Patriarchal Church after adopting the 1927 Declaration “one of the main cornerstones of the communist regime in USSR acting on Satan’s instigation.”  In his historical research he, while denouncing the Sergians, tries to avoid polemical extremes.

The new anti-Sergians position is close to the one of the latter. For instance, Z. Krakhmalnikova directly connects establishment and development of the Soviet totalitarianism with Moscow Patriarchate’s position.

An important contribution into studying the Russian Orthodoxy was made by foreign researchers, mostly emigrants from Russia. Their works are also considerably influenced by their own church position. For example, Arch-Presbyter Vasily Vinogradov, Arch-Priest Ioann Meyendorf, Metropolitan Eleupherius (Bogoyavlensky) point out the general relevance of Metr. Sergiy’s position. The declaration, in their view, didn’t add anything new to Patriarch Tikhon’s statements on loyalty.

To the contrary, the works by anti-Sergians (M. Polsky, I. Andreyev, V. Stepanov (Rusak), L. Regelson) are dedicated to the resistance movement in the Russian Church in general; the Josephite movement isn’t marked out and is mentioned only as one of the forms of church resistance. These authors are convinced that Metr. Sergiy betrayed the new martyrs languishing in Soviet death camps and made an immeasurably deeper compromise with the authorities than his predecessors, thus betraying Patriarch Tikhon and Acting Patriarch Metr. P¸tr (Poliansky).

Most objective and scientifically weighted stand is taken by Western historians: Dmitry Pospelovsky, Nikita Struve, I. O. Christostomus (Blashkevich), Hans-Dieter Depman et.al. A considerable share of attention was paid to the problems of the so-called church distemper of the late 1920s by D. Pospelovsky. He regarded the Josephite movement in Russia an extreme rightist dissent and believed that Josephites attempted to form a parallel church, often not distinguishing the activities of the Josephite and Catacomb clergy. Pospelovsky claimed that Metr. Sergiy’s declaration was basically continuing the line of Patriarch Tikhon and Deputy Acting Patriarch Metr. P¸tr, however, without attaching due importance to allowing since 1927 the authorities’ control over the Church’s manpower policy (every appointment of a clergymen was to be sanctioned by state bodies).

It is also worth mention that by objective reasons the voluminous foreign historical literature is based on a limited number of sources and uses materials from Russian archives only to a little extent. Major sources for the present paper were materials from the St. Petersburg Central State Archive (SPb CSA). The diocesan archive created only a few years ago contains virtually no materials dated before 1945; therefore the SPb CSA sources are unique. Most of them previously were classified and closed for researchers, while those accessible weren’t involved into scholarly circulation. Working as the archive’s principal research fellow, this author had an opportunity to systematically study necessary inventories and documents. The SPb CSA contains on the subject under discussion mostly materials of state institutions regulating the activities of religious organizations in Leningrad oblast. The largest documents complex is preserved at the Fund of the Leningrad City Executive Committee (f. 7384), in the inventory of the City Commission on Religious Affairs, which in 1931 replaced the Registration Desk for Societies, Unions, and Religious Organizations, inheriting its archives. These are, first, cases on monitoring the activities of Leningrad churches, in part, Josephite ones, including historical references, inventories, questionnaires and lists of the twenties’ members and clergymen, reports on parish meetings, correspondence, etc. Data on closing and demolishing churches, holding religious festivities, arresting and exiling clergymen are also of extreme value. Similar information on oblast scale is preserved at the Fund of the Leningrad Oblast Executive Committee (f. 7179).

Materials of the district inspectors on religious affairs and registration desks did not survive completely. They are best represented at the Petrograd (f. 151), Moscow-Narva (f. 104), and October (f. 4914) district executive committees in Leningrad. Little known about instructions of the higher organs are kept there. A considerable part of similar documents in Vasileostrovsky, Smolny, and a number of other district executive committees are still closed for researchers.

Valuable information was picked up from the Petrograd Province Council Fund (f. 1000), including correspondence between the Leningrad City Executive Committee and District Political Headquarter in the late 1920s – early 1930s. Unfortunately, the correspondence concerning repressive anti-church campaigns of the second half of the 1930s is still classified.

The closing period of our subject, cessation of the last Josephite community’s activities during the World War II, is covered in the materials of the Fund of the Authorized Council on the Russian Orthodox Church Affairs in Leningrad Oblast (f. 9324). Besides, a number of selections of documents on internal church struggle in the 1920s were studied at the Library of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy.

This author also used materials of the repressive bodies.

Investigative cases on the “Buyists,” supporters of Bishop Aleksiy (Buy), trials (1930 and 1932) recently were declassified and passed to the Center for Documenting Contemporary History of the Voronezh Oblast (CDCH VO). They cover the history of the Josephite movement in the Central-Chernozem Oblast in 1928-1932 and contain biographic data of Voronezh-based Josephites, including renowned religious figures like Bish. Aleksiy (Buy), Arch-Priests Ioann Steblin-Kamensky and Nikolai Dulov, Archimandrite Ignaty (Biriukov), and many others (f. 9323, op. 2, c. P-17699, P-24705).

Materials of the case of the “Kazan Branch of the All-Union Center of the True Orthodox Church Counterrevolutionary Religious-Monarchist Organization” (1931) are preserved at the Republic of Tatarstan KGB archive. They contain information on the 33 accused Kazan clergymen and intelligentsia representatives among whom were former professors of the Theological Academy, parish priests, nuns, two bishops – Nectary (Trezvinsky) and Joasaph (Udalov), and others (f. arch. inv. Case, c. 2-18199).

The investigative case of the True Orthodoxy organization of Moscow and Tver Eparchies (1930-1931) is kept at the State Archive of the Russian Federation (SARF). Sixty-three persons were brought into court: Serpukhov and Tver clergymen and laymen, including Bish. Maksim (Zhizhilenko), Arch-Priests Aleksandr Kremyshensky and Aleksandr Levkovsky (f. 10035, op. 1, c.28850). This author studied also cases of the Serpukhov-based Josephites (1928, c. P-51903), The True Orthodoxy organization in the Zagorsk, Klin, and Skhodnia districts of the Moscow Oblast (1931, c. P-60406), Arch-Priest Sergiy Goloshchapov (1937, c. P-32867), and others at the SARF.

The case of the Samara Branch of the True Orthodox Church (1930) from the Archive of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation Samara Administration (f. arch. inv. case, c. P-17773) and also materials from the Center for Documenting Contemporary History of the Kostroma Oblast and Archive of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation Ivanovo Administration considerably extended the idea of the activity of the Non-Commemorators of the Volga Region.

A number of declassified investigative cases of Ukrainian Josephites were examined at the Central State Archive of Public Organizations of Ukraine. A twenty-volume 1932 case there is of utmost interest. It reflects the activities of the True Orthodox Church in all the republic’s regions: Donbas, Podillia, Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, Dnipropetrovsk oblasts. Among the convicts were Bishops Pavel (Kraterov), Joasaph (Popov), Father-Superior Varsonofy (Yurchenko), Arch-Priest Grigory Seletsky (f. 263, op.1, c. 65744). Other cases also deserve special mention: of the Ukrainian Non-Commemorators (1931, c. 66923), Josephite priests of the Kyiv Eparchy: Yevgeny Lukyanov (1931, c. 50566), Andriy Boichuk (1937, c. 60260), and Nikolai Venglinsky (1930 and 1938, cc. 51915, 63334).

Materials of the Archive of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation St. Petersburg and Oblast Administrations were studied particularly thoroughly, including investigative cases of Josephite leaders: Archbishop Dimitry (Liubimov), Bishops Sergiy (Druzhinin), Vasily (Doktorov), Arch-Priests Vasily Veriuzhsky, Viktorin Dobronravov, and others. The case of the Josephite monks (1932) can serve as an example. It involved around 60 persons: inhabitants of the Aleksandro-Nevskaya Laura, nuns of the former St. John, Resurrection, and Novodevichy Monasteries, brethren of the Kyiv-Pechersk Laura Church in Leningrad, Valaam monks, et. al. (f. arch. inv. Case, c. P-75829).

The author expresses his gratitude to Irina Osipova for granting part of the materials on the history of Josephites and Josephite movement in Moscow and Moscow Oblast.

The researched documents and materials allow to cover rather completely the history of the Josephite movement in its major centers. However, this author hopes to proceed with his work on studying the problem, in part, by costs of further research in archives.

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5126
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Part Two: The Origin of Josephitism

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

The Origin of the Josephitism

Leningrad Eparchy

By spring 1927 the Church found itself in a complicated position. The authorities’ policy of liquidating its unified center (the existence of which had not been recognized officially) almost succeeded. However, the influence of the pro-Soviet Synodal (Renovationist) Church* by that time started to fall down: in January 1927 the share of Renovationist parishes was 16.6%.

Centrifugal tendencies were increasing in the Patriarchal Church itself after the death of Patriarch Tikhon. Constant arrests of hierarchs able to head the Supreme Church Administration prevented creation of a stable church center. The number of Deputy Patriarchs and their Assistants reached 13, with 12 of them in exile or imprisoned. The last one, Archbishop Serafim (Samoylovich) of Uglich, appeared so little known that part of eparchies never heard about him. Metropolitan Sergiy (Stargorodsky), one of the Assistant Deputy Patriarchs, when in prison**, agreed to negotiations with OGPU. Threatened with liquidation of the whole hierarchy of the Patriarchal Church, he agreed to meet major requirements of the authorities.

*Renovationism – a reformist stream in the Russian Church. Organized in May 1922 by the initiative and with active participation of the authorities. It was heterogeneous in its staff and was led mostly by priests unsatisfied with their position and craving for power in the ROC, who understood that this is possible only with the authorities’ support by discrediting the church hierarchy. However, there were some Renovationists sincerely professing innovative ideas. Most ordinary members of the trend were involved in it by simple logic of the events. After arresting Patriarch Tikhon and his forced renunciation of the ROC leadership on May 12, 1922, Renovationists had been dominating in the church life for over a year, often blatantly cooperating with GPU. However, immediately after discharging Patriarch Tikhon their influence decreased drastically. At that time Renovationism in general appeared deeply erroneous in its attempts to commit a “church revolution.” It violated major ecclesiologic, liturgical, and dogmatic principles of the Orthodoxy. Most believers’ attitude towards Renovationists was hostile, and this proved to be an insurmountable obstacle for them. The trend ceased to exist in 1944-1945.

** From December 8, 1926, till April 12, 1927.

Metropolitan Sergiy chose cooperation with the authorities after long hesitations and attempts to find the way most favorable for the Church to preserve the continuity of the “legal” Orthodoxy.

The situation in the Leningrad eparchy was far from stable, as well as in the country in general. In the fall of 1926 a movement of Metropolitan Joseph’s supporters evolved in Leningrad, who demanded that the authorities returned Metropolitan to his eparchy. Patriarch Joseph (Ivan Semionovich Petrovykh) was appointed Metropolitan of Leningrad in August 1926. However, he spent less that three days in Leningrad*, left to Rostov on September 13 to say goodbye to his former parish, and, having stopped on his way in Moscow, was invited to OGPU. In his conversation with Ye. Tuchkov, head of the church department, Metr. Joseph expressed his negative attitude toward legalizing the Patriarchal Church. As a result, he was banned from leaving Rostov. In December 1926, after Metr. Sergiy was arrested, Metr. Joseph of Leningrad occupied the place of Assistant Deputy Patriarch, but soon was also arrested and exiled to the Moden St. Nicholas Monastery (Ustiug district), being banned from leaving it. Having a significant authority and decisive disposition, Metr. Joseph kept running the eparchy through his vicars, Bishops Dimitry (Liubimov) and Sergiy (Druzhinin).

Important events took place in spring and summer 1927. Metropolitan Sergiy was discharged on March 27, and April 7 Archbishop Serafim of Uglich passed his Deputy Patriarch duties to him.

On becoming Assistant Deputy Patriarch, Metr. Sergiy sent a petition May 10 to NKVD and, receiving an authorization for governing the Church, called a bishops meeting in Moscow May 18, stepping forward with a project for creating a Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod of eight members, including Archbishop Aleksiy (Simansky) of Khutyn.

May 20 Metr. Sergiy received a message from NKVD reading, “There are no obstacles for this institution’s activity pending its ratification” (the Synod was approved in August). The Official PPHS session took place May 25, with a decision released among eparchies the same day offering ruling archbishops to organize provisional eparchy councils (until constant ones are created) and register them with local authorities. It also provided for creating archpriests councils under vicar bishops. Thus a foundation was laid for creating the entire structure of the Moscow Patriarchy on legal basement.

*September 11, Metr. Joseph arrived to Leningrad and September 12, on the day of St. Alexander of Neva, solemn celebration took place in Lavra, attracting thousands of the city residents.

July 29, Metr. Sergiy together with Synod members issued the Address to Pastors and Parish (the 1927 Declaration): “… We need to prove it by not words but deeds that not only those indifferent to the Orthodoxy, not only its betrayers can be loyal citizens of the Soviet Union but also its most fervent adherents for whom it is as dear as the truth and life with all its dogmas and traditions, all its canonical and service ways. We want to be Orthodox and simultaneously view the Soviet Union as our civil fatherland, whose joys and achievements are our joys and achievements and failures are our failures…”

Scholarly literature sometimes claims that precisely the Declaration was among the reasons for mass discontent of the clergy and believers. However, this text had no substantial differences with Patriarch Tikhon’s similar addresses of 1923-1925. Metr. Sergiy’s Declaration, composed on the highest level of church diplomacy, looked over-loyal but in fact had nothing fundamentally new in it.

If the recesses were limited by issuing the Declaration, the opposition against Metr. Sergiy would probably be not as significant, though discontent with its text aroused immediately after its publishing. Thus, the September message of the archbishops imprisoned in Solovki read, “…The idea of subordinating the Church to civil establishment is expressed in such categorical and unquestioning form that it can easily be understood as complete interlacing of the Church and state…”

Displeasure with Metr. Sergiy’s address was also displayed by one of the country’s most important eparchies, Leningrad. In mid-August Bish. Dimitry (Liubimov) of Gdov, Archpriest Aleksandr Sovietov, schema-nun  Anastasiya (Kulikova), and other clergy members sent an address to Metr. Joseph of Leningrad exiled to the Moden Monastery (Novgorod guberniya), expressing their discontent with the policy of Assistant Deputy Patriarch.

Perhaps on the urgent request of OGPU, September 13, 1927, Metr. Sergiy and the Synod passed a decision on transferring Archbishop of Leningrad to Odessa. However, September 28 Metr. Joseph wrote on his denial to obey the order as non-canonical, adopted under the influence of exterior factors, and thus perniciously affecting the church organization. This decision was in many ways caused by influence of his Leningrad supporters taking an irreconcilable stand. October 3, acting eparchy administrator Bish. Nikolai (Yarushevsky) of Petergof reported the Synod on city residents’ dissatisfaction in connection with transferring Bish. Joseph.

A resolution was passed based on this report ratifying the previous order. Vicars were prescribed to stop offering prayers for Metr. Joseph and submit to Bishop Nikolai.

The situation aggravated with Sergiy’s October 21 order on praying for the authorities by the formula, “For our country saved by God, its authorities and army, and let us lead quite and peaceful life in piety and purity,” and on canceling praying for the exiled eparchial archpriests. Now not only Metr. Joseph’s supporters but also a number of other bishops started to express their doubts of the righteousness of Metr. Sergiy’s stand.

The main reason for this resentment was the fact that Assistant Deputy Patriarch tolerated civil authorities’ interference in cadre policy, bishops consecration by agreement with state institutions, removing archbishops by political motifs (over 40 archpriests were removed in a few months), appointing acting archbishops in place of convicted ones, etc.

The legalization of the Patriarchal Church in Leningrad started with organizing an eparchial council in the Superior’s Rooms of the Resurrection Novodevichy Monastery, registered by the oblast executive committee on November 14. Archpriest Leonid Bogoyavlensky, Dean of the Trinity Cathedral, was elected its chairman, with two unconditional supporters of Metr. Sergiy, Bishops Nikolai (Yarushecsky) of Petergof and Sergiy (Zenkevich) of Detskoye Selo imposed October 31, 1927 in Moscow, and a number of other priests as its members.

Soon, in view of the grave circumstances, Metr. Sergiy temporarily took over governing the eparchy, which could perhaps relax the conflict aggravating in the city.

In late October, after a liturgy performed at the Christ Resurrection Cathedral by Bishops Nikolai (Yarushevich) and Sergiy (Zenkevich), it was announced that Assistant Deputy Patriarch takes over guiding the eparchy and that he would arrive to Leningrad on December 6 (on death anniversary of St. Alexander of the Neva) and perform liturgy at the Lavra. Bishop Nikolai finished his speech with the words, “Today I will give an instruction that instead of me as acting administrator of the Leningrad eparchy prayers were offered for our Lord, His Eminence Metropolitan Sergiy.” However, OGPU obviously underestimated the scale of possible resistance to Metr. Sergiy’s pro-Soviet church policy, and he did not obtain a permission to come to Leningrad.

October 30, Metr. Joseph sent a new message in reply to October 12 Holy Synod decision, refusing to leave the Leningrad Chair and explaining  “that the differences inside the eparchy were caused by the secretly announced… order on his removing, that his ties with the Leningrad congregation was far from artificial but based on the flock’s true love to him… and, finally, that he is not going to obey the ‘church authorities,’ since the latter themselves are ‘in servitude.’”

As early as November the same year, some parishes ceased offering prayers for Metr. Sergiy, inviting Bish. Nikolai as supporter of Sergiy’s policies, and channeling money for eparchy leadership’s maintenance. “Many of the pastors who in the years of the fight against Renovation proved themselves steadfast defenders of the purity of Orthodoxy now opposed Metr. Sergiy.” In his policies “hey saw direct distortion of the purity of Orthodoxy and enslaving the Church by the state.”

A part of the Leningrad clergy turned to Archbish. Feodor (Pozdeyevsky), who did not mention Metr. Sergiy in his prayers, on his arrival to Leningrad with a request to step forward with a protest on behalf of the entire clergy.

In the opinion of Metr. Ioann (Snychiov), the Patriarchal Synod made a serious tactical mistake by implementing the new church policy too hastily, without considering the level of the believers’ preparedness to it.

A group of Leningrad clergy and laity, in the hope to prevent the coming dissent and make Metr. Sergiy change his course, sent a special address in early December composed by Dean of the cathedral Father Vassily Veriuzhsky, “… 1. Turn down the outlining course on Church’s enslavement by the state. 2. Turn down removing and appointing bishops without consent from the congregation and bishops themselves. 3. To put the Provisional Patriarchal Synod on the place designated for it at its foundation as a deliberative body. 4. Remove the vexed [пререкаемых ?] persons from the Synod. 5. While organizing Eparchy Administrations, the canons of the Orthodox Church, decisions of the 1917-1918 Placed Local Ecumenical Church Council, and the episcopate authority should be protected in every way possible. 6. Return the Leningrad Chair to Metr. Joseph (Petrovykh). 7. Cancel offering prayers for the Deputy Patriarch. 8. Cancel the decision on not mentioning the exiled bishops in prayers and on praying for the civil authorities.”

According to the transcript of f. Vassily Veriuzhsky interrogation (April 20 and May 8, 1931), an important milestone in organizing the Josephite movement was a November 24, 1927 meeting at Archpr. Feodor Andreyev’s. In addition to the latter, there were present Bish. Dimitry (Liubimov), Archb. Vassily Veriuzhsky, secret bishop Mark (M. A. Novosiolov) from Moscow, and Father Superior of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery of the Caves Archimandrite Yermogen (Golubev). It was decided to send a number of addresses to the Assistant Deputy Patriarch. In a few days one of them, composed by Archb. Feodor Andreyev and Bish. Mark (M. A. Novosiolov) and containing the idea of a possible formal rupture with Metr. Sergiy, was read out at Bish. Dimitry’s.

Even before the answer to Father Vassily Veriuzhsky’s address was received, on December 12 a delegation of representatives from Leningrad clergy and laity including Bish. Dimitry (Liubimov), Archbish. Viktorin (Dobronravov), and laymen I. M. Andreyevsky and S. A. Alekseyev (Askoldov) passed another three letters of protest to Metr. Sergiy. One of them was written by professor of the Military and Law Academy S. S. Abramovich-Baranovsky on behalf of the scholars of the Academy of Sciences and professors of Leningrad colleges, while another was signed by six members of higher orders of clergy: Archbishop Gavriil (Volodin) and Bishops Dimitry (Liubimov), Sergiy (Druzhinin), Grigory (Lebedev), Stefan (Bekh), and Serafim (Protopopov). There was also a letter from a group of clergy and laymen dated December 9-11, 1927, and composed by M.A. in theology Archbish. Feodor Andreyev. Metr. Sergiy received the delegation.

Dean of the Leningrad University I. M. Andreyevsky later described a very remarkable discussion they had in course of the negotiations on the possibility for identifying the Soviet power with antichrist.

“’What’s so strange in our praying for the authorities?’ Metropolitan Sergiy said. ‘Since we recognized it, it’s only natural that we pray for it. They used to pray for the tsar, for Nero, etc., didn’t they?’

‘Can we pray for antichrist?’ we asked him.

‘No, you can’t.’

‘Are you sure this is not antichrist’s power?’

‘Yes, I am. Antichrist is supposed to rule for three years and a half, and these ones last for already a decade.’

‘But still, isn’t this antichrist’s spirit denying Christ coming in flesh?’

‘Such moods existed since Christ’s times till our days. If this is antichrist why I don’t recognize him?’

‘Excuse us, Your Holiness, only an elder can say, I don’t recognize him. So, since there exists a chance this is antichrist, we don’t pray for it.’”

*21a, Litovsky Alley

By evidence of I. M. Andreyevsky, “Metr. Sergiy tried to persuade the representative to agree with him and, almost jumping across the room, said, ‘OK, they press us and we retreat! But in this way we will the preserve Church unity!’ The representative came to a conclusion that it was impossible to come to terms with him.”

The document passed by Metr. Sergiy read, “1. Renounce the church policy I believe right and compulsory for every Christian and answering the needs of the Church would be not only recklessness but a crime for my part. 2. Removing the bishops is a temporary phenomenon caused mostly by the fact that the attitude of our church organization towards civil authorities remained unclear until recently… 3. The Synod is in its place exactly as an administrative body. This is the way it was in the times of Patriarch, in spite of the fact that then it also consisted of invited persons…” December 14 Metr. Sergiy delivered his reply to Father Vassily Veriuzhsky’s address to one of the delegation members saying that “if one of the parts of the church organism goes to schism, this would be less painful for the Church than breaking up the whole body of the Russian Orthodox Church as a result of its illegal position in the Soviet state.”

After the delegation returned to Leningrad, Bishops Dimitry of Gdov and Sergiy of Narva took up the initiative of signing the Statement on breaking up with Metr. Sergiy (December 13/26). The statement was read out at the Resurrection Cathedral. “Not out of pride, let us be spared of it, but for peaceful conscience we renounce the person and deeds of our former advocate who illegally and immeasurably exceeded his authority, causing great dissension… Therefore, remaining, by God’s mercy, obedient children of the Holy Conciliar and Apostle Church, preserving the apostolic continuity through Deputy Patriarch Pёtr, Metropolitan of Krutitsy, and being blessed by our legal Eparchial Metropolitan we cease the canonic relations with Metropolitan Sergiy and everybody he heads henceforth to the court of the “local absolute council,” i.e. with the participance of all Orthodox bishops, or Metropolitan Sergiy’s open and complete penance before the Holy Church…” In January 1928, Bish. Dimitry announced Metr. Sergiy devoid of grace  and demanded immediate severance of prayer communication with him.

In response, December 30 Assistant Deputy Patriarch and the Synod passed a decision on prohibiting in church service of the diverged Leningrad Bishops Dimitry (Liubimov) and Sergiy (Druzhinin), read out in Nikolskoye Epiphany Cathedral by Bish. Nikolai (Yarushevich). Since then the official Church considered the contumacious clergymen schismatic.

Though the Leningrad vicars’ decision to digress from Metr. Sergiy was taken by them independently, Metr. Joseph sanctified the rapture even before it was officially announced. In late December he wrote to Bish. Dimitry, “Dear Archbishop, Having learnt from M. A. about your decision, I consider, after familiarizing myself with all materials, that there is no option. I approve your step, endorse it, but, of course I am deprived of any possibility to offer you some more essential support.” Metr. Joseph himself remained in prayer and canonic communication with Assistant Deputy Patriarch until February 1928.

January 7 Metr. Joseph in his letter to Leningrad approved his vicars’ actions once again: “… To condemn and neutralize the recent actions of Metr. Sergiy (Stargorodsky), adverse to the spirit and welfare of the Saint Church of Christ, we, under the present conditions, possess no other means than a decisive rupture with him and ignoring his orders…”

Suffice it to recall that from the very beginning the Patriarch had not been a real head of the movement named after him. To quote from the transcripts of his interrogations (September 22 and 30 and October 9, 1930), “After my appointment to the Odesa Chair first I was going to retire, but a group of clergy headed by Bishop Dimitry Liubimov, Sergiy Druzhinin (I refuse to name other priests) and mostly numerous believers appeared in Leningrad at that time, who asked me to stay and demanded me to remain their head, Metropolitan of Leningrad, promising that they won’t disturb me, that I’ll stay in my exile at the Moden Monastery and only be their spiritual leader. Primarily it had been that way… Gradually I found myself involved into the church vortex, and I had to react to the events around the newly formed church group in one way or another. The case I’m instituted is, in my view, based on the idea of me as a leader of a special trend appearing in our church four years ago in connection with Metr. Sergiy’s declaration, which, in the believers view, brutally violated the deepest foundations of the church life and administration.”

Probably Metr. Agathangel (Preobrazhensky)

Post Reply