The Sergianist Schism of 1927. Documents

DOCUMENTS OF THE CATACOMB CHURCH

THE SERGIANIST SCHISM OF 1927

Of the three kinds of documents that give reliable information on the Catacomb Church in the USSR (see THE ORTHODOX WORD, May-June,. page 145), the most fundamental comprises those that date from 1927-29, chiefly from leading hierarchs of that time, stating the reasons why the Orthodox Church cannot accept the "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius, and breaking off communion with him. The religious and moral authority of these protesting hierarchs was so high, and their arguments so Orthodox and sound, that for the future historian of the Russian Church there can scarcely be any doubt as to the rightness of their position. As for Metropolitan Sergius and his "Synod" (the present "Moscow Patriarchate"), most of these documents characterize them as perpetrators of a neo-renovationist schism in the line of the "Living Church" of the early 1920s – to which schism Metropolitan Sergius had himself belonged. Even before the "Declaration" of 1927 the clairvoyant Elder Nektary of Optina Monastery had said: "Metropolitan Sergius is a Renovationist... He has repented, but the poison is still in him."

As far as is known, all the anti-Sergianist hierarchs of 1927 were either murdered by the Soviets or died in prison or banishment, the sole "crime" of many of them being that they refused to accept Metr. Sergius "Declaration," which was published in the Soviet press and strictly enforced by the Soviet regime and its Political Police. Many of those who today, for various reasons, accept the Moscow Patriarchate as the legitimate Russian Orthodox Church, would like to believe that with the death of these bishops who founded it, the Catacomb Church itself has ceased to exist, and that therefore there is no opposition within the USSR to the Orthodoxy of the Patriarchate. But quite apart from the testimony of the recent Soviet press concerning the uncovering of Catacomb cells of "Tikhonites" or the "True Orthodox Church," the whole history of the Church of Christ has never heard of an apostate body becoming "Orthodox" simply because its Orthodox opposition has been liquidated! Therefore, since the present-day Moscow Patriarchate is the direct continuation and indeed the very creation of the Sergianist policy of 1927, the statements of the truly Orthodox bishops and faithful in 1927-29 remain as true and valid today as ever, and they speak with full force to the present Moscow hierarchy. Indeed, the one thing that shines forth from these documents of some four decades ago is the unchanging TRUTH for which their authors died, and which neither the tyranny and lie of the Communist yoke, nor all its seemingly brilliant successes abroad, can ever blot out. (Texts from the 1964 ST. VLADIMIR RUSSIAN NATIONAL CALENDAR, Jordanville, N.Y.)

1. THE SEPARATION OF HIEROTHEUS, BISHOP OF NIKOLSK
Document of January 12, 1928

TO ALL MY CO-WORKERS in the Lord's Name on the spiritual field, to the clergy and laymen of the Diocese of Ustiug: In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

And grant us with one mouth and one heart to glorify Thy most honorable and majestic Name.

Dear pastors and faithful children of the Orthodox Church: You know that without unity there is no salvation. The organism of the Church is one: Christ is the Head of the Church; the mouth, eyes, hands, and feet are pastors and teachers, the organs of the Church; and the body of the Church is all who believe in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The whole body moves with one spirit and is animated by one heart. A part of the body which is not nourished by the heart's blood falls away and perishes. Thus before our own eyes did the Renovationists fall away from the Church; they did not wish to be in communion with the primary person in the Church, the Most Holy Patriarch, and now they are gradually rotting away, like some useless hand or foot that has been cut off and thrown on the ground.

After the Renovationists of the "Living Church" it was the "Autocephalists" the followers of Archbishop Gregory of Ekaterinburg (Gregorians), who did not acknowledge the Locum Tenens Metropolitan Peter who renounced the unity of the Church. And now the unity of the Church has been broken by Metropolitan Sergius, the Substitute of Metropolitan Peter. As long as he was a faithful guardian of the Patriarchal See which was entrusted to him, the entire Church considered him its guide; but when he has undertaken arbitrary enterprises approved neither by the people of the Church nor by a Council of Bishops, and without the blessing of Metropolitan Peter then no one is obliged to follow the path of his errors.

At the time of the Renovationism of the Living Church all true children of the Church separated themselves from the Renovationist Council of 1923 and from the Living Church Synod, and gradually they united themselves around the Most Holy Patriarch and the bishops who were in ecclesiastical communion with him In the same way now Metropolitans Peter and Cyril, Metropolitans Joseph of Leningrad, Arsenius of Novgorod, and Agathangel of Yaroslavl, Bishop Arsenius Vicar of Moscow (formerly of Serpukhov, now retired), Archbishop Seraphim of Uglich, Archbishop Athanasius of Kiev, Bishops Dmitry of Gdov, Victor of Votkinsk, Seraphim formerly of Dmitriev (Zvezdinsky, retired), Irinarch of Great Ustiug, the Bishops in banishment, and many others, and likewise a group of the clergy of the capital and delegations authorized by communities of believers – all in various forms have declared to Metropolitan Sergius their disagreement with him and their separation from him.

Some of them declare that Sergius has stretched out his hands toward the Patriarchal Throne, striving to overturn it, inasmuch as in his Synod there are persons whom the Church does not trust. Others say that Sergius has introduced a political tendency into Church life (see his Declaration in Izvestia, Aug. 19, 1927). Still others indicate that Metropolitan Sergius has chosen a crooked path of diplomatic doubletalk, agreements, and compromises – as if for the salvation of the Church – and has left the straight but sorrowful path of the Cross, i.e., of patience and firmness.

Finally, he has made use of deceit, calling his Synod Orthodox and Patriarchal, while in reality its organization is a trampling down of the Church's canons: Metropolitan Peter, the Locum Tenens, did not give his approval for such a thing, it having failed to obtain the blessing of the Most Holy Patriarch himself in 1924. What the Renovationists and the Gregoriar.s could not succeed in doing – that Metropolitan Sergius very cunningly did: bound the Church to the civil authority, expressing spiritual submission to it.

The Decree on the Separation of the Church from the Government does not exist for Sergius and his followers. Therefore, for the realization of his plans Metropolitan Sergius, violating the 9th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, even makes use of the non-ecclesiastical power.

As for me, acknowledging my responsibility before God for the flock entrusted to me, I have declared on January 10/23 of this year to Bishop Sophronius, who has been assigned to the See of Great Ustiug by (Sergius') Synod, that my flock and clergy of Nikolsk – except for the cathedral clergy, who have been rejected by the people – cannot accept him because we have separated from Sergius and from his Synod. And on the other hand I have informed Metropolitan Joseph (of Leningrad) that I canonically join to him the clergy and laity of the Diocese of Great Ustiug, in accordance with the blessing of Vladika Irinarch, whose lawful Substitute I am at the present time for the whole Diocese of Great Ustiug.

I have had to suffer much in the way of every kind of slander and offense for my archpastoral labors for the good of the Church. If the Apostolic Canons say that clergy may do nothing without the will of their bishop, then my will expressed in the present epistle, is thereby all the more worthy of every acceptance.

Nevertheless, wishing to hear from you, dear children, that you are one in soul and one in thought with me, and likewise respecting your freedom of self-determination, I propose that my epistle be read and considered at assemblies of the faithful, so that all might know the way the matter stands and freely enter into unity with me, remaining faithful to the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal See, Metropolitan Peter, and to the entire Orthodox Russian Church; concerning which I request you to send me a written statement.

Only the clergy of the Cathedral of the Lord's Meeting in Nikolsk, the priest from the Renovationists Sergius Aranovich (in Kudrilo), and Archpriest John Golubev (in Shango) have openly come out against me, spreading every kind of evil report, slander, and absurdity. They have written unfounded complaints against me to the Synod, and Archpriest Michael Krasov (of Vokhma) personally took these to Moscow; for which they have been prohibited from serving and are in a state of excommunication from me until they shall show sincere repentance in the form established for Renovationists, or until a complete council of bishops shall judge the case of Metr. Sergius and those who are with him (10th Canon of the Holy Apostles).

I place before you these hirelings, who see the wolf approach and flee; do not follow them, my brethren and children, but let us have before us a different example: the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. Amen.

On January 12/25, 1928, I have received the reply of Metropolitan Joseph: "Govern yourselves independently. Our justification: faithfulness to Metropolitan Peter. Joseph."

Hierotheus, Bishop of Nikolsk


2. THE SEPARATION OF ARCHPRIEST VALENTIN SVENTITSKY
Document of December, 1927

To Metropolitan Sergius.

In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

REALIZING ALL MY responsibility before the Lord for my own soul and for the salvation of the souls of the flock entrusted to me, and R with the blessing of Dimitry, Bishop of Gdov, I am breaking off canonical and prayerful communion with You and the council of bishops that has been organized under You, which has illegally appropriated to itself the title of "Patriarchal Synod," as well as with everyone who is in canonical communion with You; and I no longer consider You the Substitute of the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, for the following reasons:

Your Declaration of July 16/29, as well as everything that is generally known of Your governance of the Church from the time of the publication of the Declaration, without any doubt establishes that You are placing the Church in that same dependence on the government in which the first two "Renovations" wished to place it, in defiance of the holy canons of the Church and the decrees of the civil authority itself.

Both the "Living Church," which seized the authority of the Patriarch, and "Gregorianism," which seized the authority of the Locum Tenens, and now You, who have abused the latter's trust – are all doing the same general anti-ecclesiastical, renovationist work; but You are the founder of the most dangerous of its forms, because while renouncing ecclesiastical freedom, at the same time You preserve the fiction of canonicity and Orthodoxy. This is worse than the violation of separate canons.

I am not creating a new schism, and I do not break the unity of the Church; I go away from and I lead my flock out of a subtle renovationist trap-lest imperceptibly and little by little we lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, has given us as a free gift by His Own blood (8th Canon of the Third Ecumenical Council).

Remaining a faithful and obedient son of the One Holy Orthodox Church, I recognize as Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne Metropolitan Peter; I recognize also those bishops who, not arbitrarily appropriating to themselves general ecclesiastical authority, have already broken canonical ties with You, following their testimony: "until the judgement of a complete Local council," i.e., a council with the participation of all Orthodox bishops, or until the open and full repentance before the Holy Church of the Metropolitan himself.

Archpriest Valentin Sventitsky

—This document is one of many coming from the Petrograd area. Future issues will present, among others, the protests of Vicar Bp. Dimitry of Gdov and the first real head of the Catacomb Church, Metr. Joseph of Petrograd.


The Epistles of Joseph, Metropolitan of Petrograd

The following are the principal epistles that have come down to us from the first bead of the Catacomb Church, demonstrating his fearless stand against Sergianism at its very outbreak. Brief excerpts from two other of his epistles of this period may be found on pages 14 and 15.

THE SERGIANIST SCHISM OF 1927

3. RESOLUTION ON THE REPORT OF THE PETROGRAD VICARS

Document of December 23, 1927

IN ORDER TO CONDEMN and counteract the latest actions of Metropolitan Sergius, which are contrary to the spirit and the good of the Holy Church of Christ, under present conditions we have no other means apart from a decisive departure from him and an ignoring of his orders. Let these orders be accepted henceforth only by the paper they are written on, which tolerates anything, and by the unfeeling air which contains everything – but not by the living souls of the faithful children of Christ's Church.

In separating from Metropolitan Sergius and his acts, we do not separate from our lawful Chief Hierarch, Metropolitan Peter, nor from the Council, which will meet at some time in the future, of those Orthodox hierarchs who have remained faithful. May this Council, our sole competent judge, not then hold us guilty for our boldness. May it judge us, not as despisers of the sacred canons of the Fathers, but only as fearful to violate them. Even if we have erred, we have erred honestly, out of zeal for the purity of Orthodoxy in the present evil age. And if we turn out to be guilty, then may we be even especially deserving of condescension, and not of deposition.

And so, even if all pastors should leave us, may the Heavenly Pastor not leave us, according to His unfailing promise to remain in His Church to the end of the age.

4. APPEAL TO THE FAITHFUL OF PETROGRAD

Document of early 1928, written from Rostov

THE ARCHPASTORS of the ecclesiastical province of Yaroslavl – Agathangel Metropolitan of Yaroslavl, Seraphim Archbishop of Uglich, former Substitute of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Archbishop Varlaam, formerly of Pskov, now ruling the Dashedovsky Vicariate of the Diocese of Yaroslavl, and Eugene Bishop of Rostov-by a special document have declared their separation from Metropolitan Sergius and their independent governance from now on of the flocks entrusted to them by God. This document, signed on January 27 (February 9), has to such an extent been called forth by the conditions of the times and the attitude of the faithful masses of people, and this separation is so well founded, that I, residing in the Yaroslavl region, have taken part in it and added my own signature to it.

Thus, henceforth all the orders of Metropolitan Sergius have no force for us. This gives me grounds to protest anew my unlawful removal from the flock of Leningrad and to ask for a canonically correct decision on this question at an appropriate trial by Orthodox bishops. And until such a decision I consider myself to have no right to leave the flock entrusted to me (in the sense of the 16th Canon of the First and Second Council) to the arbitrary whim of Church administrators who do not have our confidence; and before the Lord God and my conscience I accept the obligation to take measures to pacify my disturbed and agitated flock. To this end I call first of all upon my vicar bishops to serve the flock of Leningrad in concord with me. To the Right Reverend Bishop of Gdov, Dimitry, I give over the temporary governance of the Diocese of Leningrad. The Right Reverend Gregory I likewise request to continue serving in the St. Alexander Nevsky Lavra as my substitute, in concord with me.

Invoking God's blessing upon the shepherds and all the faithful, I request and beg you to trust our leadership and our archpastoral concern, peacefully and quietly continuing the work of prayer, salvation of the soul, and Divine service, humbly submitting to the civil authority, which for the time being has not found it possible to permit my unworthiness to come into immediate communion in prayer with the flock entrusted to me. Being far away, I shall nonetheless be in constant prayerful remembrance of and concern for you, requesting that my name be pronounced at Divine services in the customary way. May the Lord hear our common lamentation, and may He bless with peace and quiet our much-suffering Church.

5. EPISTLE TO AN ARCHIMANDRITE OF PETROGRAD (1928)

DEAR FATHER: Until lately I thought that my dispute wiith Metropolitan Sergius was finished and that, refusing to offer myself as a sacrifice to the crude politics, intrigues, and pursuits of the enemies and betrayers of the Church, I could peacefully go off to the side, voluntarily offering myself as a sacrifice of protest and warfare against this foul politics and arbitrariness. And I was entirely sincere when I thought and said that "I am not starting any kind of schism," and I will submit to the unlawful punishment against me – all the way to interdict and excommunication – hoping in God's justice alone.

But it turned out that ecclesiastical life does not stand at freezing point, but bubbles and foams above the normal boiling point. My "small case" soon turned out to be only a small part of such a monstrous arbitrariness, flattery of men, and betrayal of the Church to the interests of atheism and the destruction of this Church, that it remained for me henceforth to wonder not only at my own calmness and patience, but now as well at the indifference and blindness of those others who still suppose that those who have allowed and done this hideous thing are doing the work of God, are "saving" the Church, are governing and not crudely injuring Her, mocking Her, numbering themselves among Her enemies, cutting themselves off from Her for it is not they who are cutting off those who cannot bear any longer this bacchanalia, this crude coercion and hideously blasphemous politics.

Perhaps I could have borne even this. I could have assumed that it was none of my business, just as my affair now is none of yours. But, dear Father, I suddenly with particular pain began to feel myself to a significant degree responsible for the Church's misfortune. After all, as you know, I am one of the Substitutes of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, who is obliged by an obligation of suffering not only to take the place of my arrested predecessor, but also to be for him, even when he is free, a precaution, ready to take his place in case he should spiritually fall. To be sure, such a spiritual fall should be, in the normal conditions of ecclesiastical life, accompanied by a trial and a conciliar decision. But what kind of trial and conciliar decision are possible now, under present conditions? And by what kind of trial and conciliar decision was there administered to me a punishment which is permissible according to the canons only for a great sin on my part? Why is it that, demanding a trial and conciliar decision in one instance you allow their absence in another?

Such an argument can be no more than material for a section on incongruities in a textbook on logic. Just wait; the time will come, we hope, when we shall speak of our events also at a trial. And there is still a great question as to who will then be the more accused. But for the time being the matter stands thus: We will not give the Church as a sacrifice over to the mercy of the betrayers and foul politicians and agents of atheism and destruction. And by this protest we do not cut ourselves off from Her, but we cut them off from us and boldly say: not only have we not gone away, do not go away, and will never go away from the bosom of the true Orthodox Church, but those who are not with us and for us, but against us, we consider Her enemies, betrayers, and murderers. It is not we who go into schism by not submitting to Metropolitan Sergius, but rather you who are obedient to him go with him into the abyss of the Church's condemnation. We call upon you and fortify your powers for battle for the independence of the Church, only not at all in the way you suppose is required: not by agreement with the enslavers of this Church and the murderers of Her holy independence, which is manifested now in Her holy rightlessness, but rather by a loud and decisive protest against every acquiescence, against hypocritical and lying compromises and against the betrayal of Her interests to the interests of godless satanis;n and a bitter warfare against Christ and His Church.

Do you really not see the contradiction and incongruity, which are not compatible with anything, in your dilemma? (You say:) "Will you take away our obedience to you by going into schism, or, by submitting to Metropolitan Sergius, fortify our powers for the battle for the independence of the Holy Church?" I am going into schism?! Submission to Sergius is a battle for the independence of the Church?! My dear! Any old lady in Leningrad will laugh that out of town!

Perhaps, I do not dispute, "there are more of you, presently, than of us." And let it be that "the great mass is not for me," as you say. But I will never consider myself a schismatic, even if I were to remain absolutely alone, as one of the holy confessors once was. The matter is not at all one of quantity, do not forget that for a minute: the Son of God, when He cometh, shall He find faith on the earth? (St. Luke 18:8.) And perhaps the last "rebels" against the betrayers of the Church and the accomplices of Her ruin will be, not only not bishops and not archpriests, but the simplest mortals, just as at the Cross of Christ His last gasp of suffering was heard by a few simple souls who were close to Him.

And so, dear Father, do not judge me severely, especially by means of your Balsamon. I reckon that he is quite far from being the same thing that the very authors of the holy canons wrote in a sense understandable to everyone even without commentaries, and that in any case this Balsamon cannot be an authoritative and faithful commentary of our circumstances, which were not foreseen by any commentaries and canons at all.

Do not judge me so severely, and clearly understand the following:

1. I am not at all a schismatic, and I call not to a schism, but to the purification of the Church from those who sow real schism and provoke it.

2. To indicate to another his errors and wrongs is not schism but, to speak simply, it is putting an unbridled horse back into harness.

3. The refusal to accept sound reproaches and directives is in reality a schism and a trampling on the truth.

4. In the construction of ecclesiastical life the participants are not only those at the head, but the whole body of the Church, and a schismatic is he who assumes to himself rights which exceed his authority and in the name of the Church presumes to say that which is not shared by his colleagues.

5. Metropolitan Sergius has shown himself to be such a schismatic, for he has far exceeded his authority and has rejected and scorned the voice of many hierarchs, in whose midst the pure truth has been preserved.

You remark incidentally that among the number of ways to truth, "Christ indicated to us yet another new path: that ye love one another"; About this I only remind you, Father, of the marvellous conclusion of Merropolitan Philaret in his sermon on love for one's enemies: "And so, despise the enemies of God, strike the enemies of the fatherland, love your enemies! Amen." (Vol. I, p. 285. See also the Apostle of love, II John 1: 10, 11.)

The defenders of Sergius say that the canons allow one to separate oneself from a bishop only for heresy which has been condemned by a council. Against this one may reply that the deeds of Metropolitan Sergius may be sufficiently placed in this category as well, if one has in view such an open violation by him of the freedom and dignity of the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

But beyond this, the canons themselves could not foresee many things. And can one dispute that it is even worse and more harmful than any heresy when one plunges a knife into the Church's very heart – Her  freedom and dignity? Which is more harmful-a heretic or a murderer (of the Church)?

...Lest imperceptibly and little by little we lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, has given us as a free gift by His Own blood (8th Canon of the Third Ecumenical Council).

SOURCES. "Documents" and Urusova (p. 17), from Protopresbyter M. Polsky, RUSSIA'S NEW MARTYRS, vol. 2, Jordanville, N.Y., 1957. pp. 1-10; writings of Metr. Joseph: DUSHEPOLYEZNOYE CHTENIYE, 1901, 1905, 1906; address on consecration (p. 11): Appendix to TSERKOVNIE VEDOMOSTI, C. 1909, no. 13-14, pp. 601ff; Yuly Daniel (Nikolai Arzhak), IsKUPLENIYE, Inter-Language Literary Associates, N.Y., 1964, p. 17.

6. AN INTERVIEW WITH METROPOLITAN SERGIUS
Recorded by Prof. I. M. Andreev

THE INFAMOUS DECLARATION of Metropolitan Sergius, issued on July 16 29, 1927, gave a profound shock to the entire Russian Orthodox world. From every corner of the Russian land there resounded the voices of protest of clergy and laymen. A mass of "Epistles" was sent to Metropolitan Sergius, and copies of them were sent throughout the land. The authors of these "Epistles" implored Metropolitan Sergius to renounce the ruinous path he had chosen.

After a whole torrent of such "Epistles" of protest, an unending file of delegations began to stream to Metropolitan Sergius in Moscow.

One of such countless delegations was the historic Delegation of the Petrograd Diocese, which came to Moscow on November 27, 1927, being composed of the following members: His Grace Dimitry Liubimov, Bishop of Gdov (Vicar of the Petrograd Diocese), Archpriest Victorin Dobronravov, Prof. I. M. Andreev (myself), and C. A. Alexeev. Bishop Dimitry represented Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd and had with him a long letter that had been signed by seven bishops who were in Petrograd (among whom, besides Metropolitan Joseph and Bishop Dimitry, were Bp. Gabriel, Bp. Stephen, and. Bp. Sergius of Narva). Archpriest Dobronravov represented a numerous group of Petrograd clergy and had with him a letter from them, which was signed by Archpriest Professor F. K. Andreev. I represented the academic circles and brought a letter from a group of academicians and professors of the Academy of Sciences, the University, and other higher institutions of learning; the letter had been composed by Professor S. S. Abramovich-Baranovsky (formerly of the Academy of Military Jurisprudence) and Professor M. A. Novoselovy (the well-known publisher and editor of the "Library of Religion and Morals," who was then secretly living in Petrograd and Moscow). S. A. Alexeev represented the broad masses of the people.

Despite the fact that the Petrograd Delegation came to Moscow after many other delegations that had come with the same purpose, it was received without waiting its turn. The Delegation's interview with Metropolitan Sergius lasted for two hours.

After going in to Metropolitan Sergius, all members of the Delegation went up to him to receive his blessing, introduced themselves and testified that they had come as faithful children of the Orthodox Church.

When Metropolitan Sergius had finished reading the letters that had been brought to him (from the episcopate, from the clergy, and from the laity), Bishop Dimitry – who was 70 years old – fell to his knees before him and exclaimed in tears: "Vladika! Listen to us, in the name of Christ!"

Metropolitan Sergius immediately raised him up from his knees, seated him in an armchair, and said in a firm and somewhat irritated voice: "What is there to listen to? Everything you have written has been written by others earlier, and to all this I have already replied many times clearly and definitely. What remains unclear to you?!"

"Vladika!" began Bishop Dimitry in a trembling voice with copious tears – "At the time of my consecration you told me that I should be faithful to the Orthodox Church and, in case of necessity, that I should be prepared to lay down my own life as well for Christ. And now such a time of confession has come and I wish to suffer for Christ; but you, by your Declaration, instead of a path to Golgotha propose that we stand on the path of collaboration with a God-fighting regime that persecutes and blasphemes Christ; you propose that we rejoice with its joys and sorrow with its sorrows... Our rulers strive to annihilate religion and the Church and rejoice at the destruction of churches, rejoice at the successes of their anti-religious propaganda. This joy of theirs is the source of our sorrow. You propose that we thank the Soviet government for its attention to the needs of the Orthodox population. But how is this attention expressed? In the murder of hundreds of bishops, thousands of priests, and millions of faithful. In the defilement of holy things, the mockery of relics, in the destruction of an immense number of churches and the annihilation of all monasteries. Surely it would be better if they did not give us such 'attention'!"

"Our government" – Metropolitan Sergius suddenly interrupted Bp. Dimitry "has persecuted the clergy only for political crimes."

"That is a slander!" Bishop Dimitry cried out heatedly.

"We wish to obtain a reconciliation of the Orthodox Church with the governing regime," Metropolitan Sergius continued with irritation, "while you are striving to underline the counter-revolutionary character of the Church... Consequently, you are counter-revolutionaries, whereas we are entirely loyal to the Soviet regime!"

"That is not true!" exclaimed Bishop Dimitry heatedly. "That is another slander against the confessors, martyrs, those who have been shot and those who are languishing in concentration camps and in banishment... What counter-revolutionary act did the executed Metropolitan Benjamin perform? In what lies the 'counter-revolution' in the position of Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsk?!"

"And the Sobor of Karlovtsy,1 in your opinion, also did not have a political character?" Metropolitan Sergius interrupted him again.

___
1 On this Sobor, see page 64 of this issue.


"There was no Sobor of Karlovtsy in Russia," Bishop Dimitry replied quietly, "and many martyrs in the concentration camps knew nothing of this Sobor."

"I personally," continued Bishop Dimitry, "am a completely apolitical man, and if I myself had to accuse myself to the GPU, I couldn't imagine anything of which I am guilty before the Soviet regime. I only sorrow and grieve, seeing the persecution against religion and the Church. We pastors are forbidden to speak of this, and we are silent. But to the question whether there is any persecution against religion and the Church in the USSR, I could not reply otherwise than affirmatively. When they proposed to you, Vladika, to write your Declaration, why did you not reply like Metropolitan Peter, that you can keep silence, but cannot say what is untrue?"

"And where is the untruth?" exclaimed Metropolitan Sergius.

"In the fact," replied Bishop Dimitry, "that persecution against religion, the 'opium of the people' according to the Marxist dogma, not only exists among us, but in its cruelty, cynicism, and blasphemy has passed all limits!"

"Well, we are fighting with this," remarked Metropolitan Sergius, "but we are fighting legally, and not like counter-revolutionaries... And when we shall have demonstrated our completely loyal position with regard to the Soviet regime, the results will be even more noticeable. Probably we will be able, as a counterbalance to the Atheist, to publish our own little religious journal..."

"You have forgotten, Vladika," remarked Archpriest Dobronravov, "that the Church is the Body of Christ, and not a consistory with a 'little journal' under the censorship of an atheist regime!"

"It is not our political, but our religious conscience that does not permit us to join ourselves to your Declaration," I noted.

"I wish to suffer for Christ, and you propose that we renounce Him," said C. A. Alexeev with bitterness.

"And so you want a schism?!" Metropolitan Sergius asked threateningly. "Do not forget that the sin of schism is not washed away even by the blood of martyrdom! The majority is in agreement with me," he added authoritatively.

"Voices must be weighed, not counted, Vladika," I objected. "After all, Metropolitan Peter, the lawful Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, is not in agreement with you; nor are Metropolitans Agathangel, Cyril, and Joseph; nor such lamps as Metropolitan Arsenius, Archbishop Seraphim of Uglich, Archbishop Pachomius, Bishops Victor, Damaskin, Avercius, and many others; nor the Elders of Optina, nor the prisoners of Solovki..."

"Truth is not always where the majority is," remarked Archpriest Dobronravov; "otherwise the Saviour would not have spoken of the 'little flock.' And the head of a Church has not always turned out to be on the side of Truth. It is sufficient to recall the time of Maximus the Confessor."

"By my new church policy I am saving the Church," Metropolitan Sergius replied deliberately.

"What are you saying, Vladika!" all members of the Delegation exclaimed with one voice. "The Church does not have need of salvation," added Archpriest Dobronravov; "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. You yourself, Vladika, have need of salvation through the Church."

"I meant that in a different sense," replied Metropolitan Sergius, somewhat disconcerted.

"And why, Vladika, did you order that a prayer for the regime be introduced into the Liturgy, while at the same time you forbade prayer for 'those in prisons and in banishment'?" I asked.

"Do I really have to remind you of the well-known text of the Apostle Paul concerning the authorities?" Metropolitan Sergius asked with irony. "And as for the prayer for 'those in banishment,' many deacons make a demonstration out of this."

"And when, Vladika, will you change the Beatitudes in the Liturgy?" I again objected; "after all, one can make a demonstration out of them, too."

"I am not altering the Liturgy," Metropolitan Sergius said drily.

"And who needs the prayer for the regime? Certainly the atheist Soviet regime does not need it. And believers could pray only in the sense of the entreaty 'for the softening of the hard hearts of our rulers,' or 'for the enlightenment of those in error.' But to pray for an anti-Christian regime is impossible."

"Really! – What kind of Antichrist do you find here?" replied Metr. Sergius with a disdainful gesture of the hand.

"But the spirit is precisely that of Antichrist," I insisted. "And what called forth this prayer? Did they force you to introduce this petition?"

"Well, I myself found it necessary."

"No, Vladika, answer as before God, from the depths of your archpastoral conscience: did they force you to do this, as with much else in your 'new church policy,' or not?"

This question had to be repeated stubbornly and persistently many times, before Metr. Sergius finally replied: "Well, so they press one, and force but I myself think that way, too," he concluded hastily and fearfully.

"And why, Vladika, did you order that right after the name of Metr. Peter your own name be commemorated? We have heard that this also was ordered from higher up, with the intention of soon omitting the name of Metr. Peter altogether." Metr. Sergius did not reply to this. (In 1936 the commemoration of Metr. Peter, who died in 1937 or 1938, was prohibited.)

"And who appointed your 'Temporary Patriarchal Synod'? And who has occupied himself with the appointment and transference of bishops? Why was Metr. Joseph (of Petrograd) removed against the wishes of his flock? We know, Vladika, that all this is done by the unofficial 'ober-procurator' of your Synod, the Communist secret police agent Tuchkov, against your wishes."

"Where did you take all that from?" Metr. Sergius asked, somewhat disconcerted.

"Everyone knows it, Vladika."

"And with whom have you surrounded yourself, Vladika?" added Archpriest Dobronravov. "The very name of Bishop (later 'Patriarch') Alexei Simansky is enough to discredit your whole Synod."

Metropolitan Sergius stood up and said that he would think about everything we had said and give a short written reply in three days. The audience was finished. In three days Metr. Sergius gave a written reply, repeating in general and nebulous expressions the theses of his Declaration.

The delegation returned to Petrograd. And in a short time a schism occurred. To those who broke off communion with Metr. Sergius, the latter replied by interdictions; the organs of the secret police cynically helped him.

The members of the Petrograd Delegation were soon arrested and suffered terribly. The aged Bp. Dimitry was put in the Yaroslavl political isolation ward for ten years, and then was shot. Archpriest Dobronravov was sent to a Siberian concentration camp for ten years, and then was sentenced to ten more years, without right of correspondence. I was sent to the concentration camp at Solovki. S. A. Alexeev, after becoming a priest, was shot.

The true Russian Orthodox Church went into the catacombs, where it remains to the present day as an invisible city of Kitezh, preserving itself as the unspotted Bride of Christ.

7. THE SEPARATION OF BISHOP DIMITRY OF GDOV AND THE FAITHFUL OF PETROGRAD

Document of December 14 (27), 1927

In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

THIS IS the testimony of our conscience (II Cor. 1:12): It is no longer permissible for us, without sinning against the canons of the Holy Orthodox Church, to remain in ecclesiastical communion with the Substitute of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens – Sergius, Metropolitan of Nizhegorod, and his Synod, and with all who think as they do. It is not out of pride – let  this never be – but for the sake of peace of conscience that we disavow the person and the deeds of our former head, who has unlawfully and immoderately gone beyond his rights and has introduced great disturbance and the "smoky arrogance of the world" into the Church of Christ, whose duty is to bring to those who desire to see God the light of simplicity and the tribute of wisdom in humility (from the Epistle of the African Council to Pope Celestine.

And we decide upon this only after we have received testimony from the hands of Metropolitan Sergius himself that the new direction and orientation of Russian ecclesiastical life which he has undertaken is not subject to any change.

Therefore, remaining by God's mercy in everything the obedient children of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and preserving the Apostolic succession through the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Peter, Metropolitan of Krutitsk, we break off canonical communion with Metropolitan Sergius and with all who are under him; and until the judgement of a "complete Local council," i.e., with the participation of all Orthodox bishops, or until the open and complete repentance of the Metropolitan himself before the Holy Church, we preserve communion in prayer only with those who watch lest the canons of the Fathers be transgressed... and lest imperceptibly and little by little we lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, has given us as a free gift by His Own Blood (8th Canon of the Third Ecumenical Council). Amen.

Dimitry, Bishop of Gdov

8. LETTER OF BISHOP DIMITRY OF GDOV, TEMPORARY HEAD OF THE PETROGRAD DIOCESE, TO THE PRIESTS OF THE DIOCESE

Document of January 4 (17), 1928

Dear Fathers in the Lord,

IN ANSWER TO your petition of December 30, OS, which was addressed to my unworthiness, I reply that with love I accept you into communion in prayer with myself and under my archpastoral leadership, and I earnestly beg your holy prayers for me, a sinner, that the Lord God, in the wealth of His grace, may grant us to remain faithful to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, accepting as our head in the order of the earthly ecclesiastical hierarchy the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Peter, Metropolitan of Krutitsk, until such time as a complete Local Council of the Russian Church, at which there will be represented the entire active episcopate – i.e., the present exiles-confessors – shall justify by its conciliar authority our way of acting, or until such time as Metropolitan Sergius will come to himself and repent of his sins not only against the canonical order of the Church, but also dogmatically against her person (blaspheming the sanctity of the exploit of her confessors by casting doubt on the purity of their Christian convictions, as if they were mixed up with politics), against her conciliarity (by his and his Synod's acts of coercion), against her apostolicity (by subjecting the Church to worldly rules and by his inner break-while preserving a false unity – with Metropolitan Peter, who did not give Metropolitan Sergius authorization for his latest acts, beginning with the epistle (Declaration) of July 16/29, 1927). Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions (II Thes. 2:15).

Dimitry, Bishop of Gdov

SOURCES: "Interview": ST. VLADIMIR RUSSIAN NATIONAL CALENDAR, 1960; Epistles of Bp. Dimitry: no. 7, IBID., 1964; no. 8, Protopresbyter M. Polsky, RUSSIA'S NEW MARTYRS, vol. 2, p. 9. The material on Bp. Dimitry, etc., in the following article is by Prof. S. Nesterov (Alexei Rostov), parts of which have appeared in RUSSIA'S NEW MARTYRS, pp. 138-44, and in the VESTNIK of the Canadian Archdiocese, Easter, 1971.