The Orthodox Word No. 37

THE ORTHODOX WORD

A Bimonthly Periodical
OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF SAINT HERMAN OF ALASKA

Established with the blessing of His Eminence the late John (Maximovitch), Archbishop of Western America and San Francisco, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia PLATINA, CALIFORNIA 96076

1971, Vol. 7, no. 2 (37)
March - April

CONTENTS

51 Blessed John Maximovitch

53 1. Archbishop John: Man of God

56 2. Archbishop John: Apostle to the West

60 3. Archbishop John: Fearless Champion of True Orthodoxy

62 The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia by Archbishop John Maximovitch

71 The Orthodox Spiritual Life: The Counsels of the Elder Nazarius (III)

84 Documents of the Catacomb Church: An Interview with Metropolitan Sergius

91 Martyrology of the Communist Yoke: Archbishop Dimitry and His Priest, Nicholas Prozorov

Copyright 1971 by Orthodox Christian Books & Icons.

Published bimonthly by Orthodox Christian Books & Icons. Second-class postage paid at Platina, California.

Yearly subscription $5, two years $9, three years $12; individual copies 90 cents.

All inquiries should be directed to:

THE ORTHODOX WORD, PLATINA, CALIFORNIA 96076

Office of Publication: Beegum Gorge Road, Platina, California


Blessed John Maximovitch


ARCHBISHOP JOHN MAXIMOVITCH
(While Bishop of Shanghai)


FIVE YEARS AGO, on June 19 July 2, 1966, Archbishop John Maximovitch departed to the Lord and to the reward of an extraordinary and holy life as a leading hierarch of the Church of Christ, a theologian and defender of the Orthodox Faith, a severe ascetic who never lay down to rest, a helper of all in need, a man of God who worked miracles by his prayer and saw the future, a missionary and apostle in both East and West, a fool for Christ. Revered as a saint in his own lifetime, he nonetheless has not even begun to reveal the fullness of his significance and his intercession for the Orthodox faithful of these dark times.

A short life of Archbishop John has already appeared in English (The Orthodox Word, Nov.-Dec., 1966). The following pages offer new material in English giving a glimpse into three of the many aspects of his grace-abounding life in Christ: his prayer that worked miracles; his apostolic fervor that literally refounded Western Orthodoxy and restored to the Orthodox calendar the forgotten saints of the West; and his zeal for the purity of Orthodoxy that made him a champion of the last free citadel of genuine, untampered Orthodoxy in the world today – the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

In 1934 Hieromonk John of the Milkov Monastery in Yugoslavia was consecrated bishop and sent to head the flock of Russian exiles in Shanghai. Here he soon became known as a loving pastor who gave himself entirely to bis flock, refusing help to no one, and as a holy man whose prayer worked miracles. Later, with the approach of the Communists, by his intercessions with several governments and by his unceasing prayers, he rescued almost his entire flock, leading it out through the Philippines to America and freedom. To this day most Russians who knew him remember him as "Vladika John of Shanghai." The following are but a few of the many accounts that relate to this period of his life, and that demonstrate beyond any doubt the power of his prayer with God.


1. Archbishop John: Man of God

I

ONCE IN SHANGHAI Vladika John was asked to the bed of a dying child, whose case had been called hopeless by the physicians. Entering the apartment, Vladika John went straight to the room in which the sick boy lay, although no one had managed yet to show him where this was. Without examining the child, Vladika immediately 'fell down' in front of the icon in the corner, which was very characteristic of him, and prayed for a long time. Then, assuring the relatives that the child would recover, he quickly left. And in fact the child became better towards morning and he soon recovered, so that a physician was no longer needed. An eyewitness, Colonel N. N. Nikolaev, confirms this account in all details."

Dr. A. F. Baranov (Erie, Pennsylvania)

II

IN THE PHILIPPINES, "being leader of the church region where the church was located and where the priests, nuns, and Vladika lived, I sometimes accompanied Vladika to the city of Guyan, where in a Philippine hospital there were seriously ill Russians whom Vladika visited, handing out pocket-size Gospels and small icons. On one such trip, on entering the Russian ward we heard terrible screams coming to us from afar. To Vladika's question as to the reason for these screams, the Russian nurse replied that they came from a hopelessly sick woman who, since she disturbed the patients with her screaming, had been placed in the former American military hospital which adjoined this building. Vladika immediately decided to go to the sick woman, but the Russian nurse advised him not to go, as a sickening smell came from her. "That doesn't mean anything, Vladika said, and with quick strides he went to the sick woman in the next building. I followed him. In fact there was an unpleasant odor coming from the sick woman. Going up to her, Vladika put a cross on her head and began to pray. I went out. Vladika prayed for a long time and then confessed the sick woman and gave her Holy Communion. When we left, she was no longer screaming, but only groaning softly. Some time passed. On another such trip to the hospital, we had hardly entered the courtyard in a jeep, when a woman came running out of the hospital and threw herself at Vladika's feet. It was the 'hopelessly' sick woman for whom Vladika had prayed."

G. Larin (Sydney, Australia)

III

IN 1968 THERE CAME to our Brotherhood of Father Herman in San Francisco a woman who informed us that her name was Anna Petrovna Lushnikova and, hearing that we were collecting information about Vladika John, she insisted that we immediately, without any delay, write down the following. She related that she was by profession a singing teacher and that she had once helped Archbishop Dimitry in China very much by her advice on breathing properly while pronouncing words, when his physicians had been powerless to help him. When Vladika John came to the Far East his unclear diction was noticed immediately by everyone. It was said that he was a stutterer from birth, that he had been wounded in the mouth, etc. But she immeddiately guessed what was wrong and came to him and offered to help. According to her, Vladika's whole organism was in a state of exhaustion. From weakness his lower jaw was hanging down and prevented him from pronouncing words clearly. She showed him how to breathe properly, to articulate, and so forth. He began regularly to come to her for exercises, sitting humbly and pronouncing "ooo," "aaa," etc. Out of gratitude he paid her, always leaving an American 20-dollar bill. Vladika's speech improved, but whenever a fast would come the defect would again make itself known, and again he would come to her. She tried to help him as much as she could, and seeing in him a man of God, she came to have a great love for him and became his spiritual daughter.

"In Shanghai in 1945," Anna Petrovna told us, "I was wounded during the war, and I was dying in the French hospital. I knew that I was dying and I begged people to tell Vladika, so that he would come and give me Holy Communion. It was about 10 or 11 at night, and there was a storm outside with wind and rain. I was in agony and was suffering terribly. At my cries to call Vladika the doctors and nurses came and said that it was out of the question, as it was wartime and the hospital was locked up for the night, and I would have to wait until morning. I didn't listen to anything but only continued to shout: 'Vladika, come! Vladika, come! And no one could tell him of my wish. Suddenly, in the midst of this storm, I saw in the ark of the door of the ward that Vladika had appeared, all wet, and was coming toward me. Since his arrival was something in the nature of a miracle, I began to feel him to see if he were real, and I asked, 'or is it your spirit?' He smiled quietly and said, 'Real,' and gave me Holy Communion. Here I fell asleep and slept after this for 18 hours. In the same ward with me there was another patient. She also saw Vladika giving me Holy Communion. After I woke up from my 18 hour sleep, I felt well and said that this was because Vladika had come and given me Holy Communion. But no one believed me and they said that Vladika couldn't possibly have entered the locked hospital in such a night. I asked my neighbor in the ward, and she confirmed that Vladika had been there, but all the same they didn't believe us. But the fact was apparent – I was alive and felt well. At this time the nurse who didn't believe me was making my bed and she discovered, as if to authenticate what I had said that there was a 20-dollar bill under the pillow, left there by Vladika! He knew that I owed the hospital a great deal and that I was already in need before that, and so he put the bill there. Later he confirmed that he had put the bill there. From that time on I got better. Later, in 1961, after a terrible automobile accident he again gave me Holy Communion in the hospital and healed me."

With this Anna Petrovna finished her story and left, saying how she wished that she could have been buried by Vladika John when she died. And her wish, even after the death of Vladika himself, was in fact fulfilled. Some time passed after our meeting. Coming home after the All-night Vigil for the Transfiguration of the Lord, Anna Petrovna died at night from gas fumes in her apartment. On the same night of the Transfiguration Olga I. Semenyuk, who had been close to Vladika in Shanghai, saw in a dream that Anna Petrovna, dead, was lying in a highly-raised coffin in the new cathedral in San Francisco, and Vladika John in his mantle was going around her censing and serving her funeral, to triumphal choral singing. In the morning all found out about her sudden death. And then we understood why the Lord had given her the idea to come to us and urgently insist that we write down her testimony of the clairvoyance and wonderworking of Vladika John, who already in that other transfigured world, on the day of the Transfiguration, celebrated her funeral.


2. Archbishop John: Apostle to the West

IN 1951 Archbishop John was assigned as ruling hierarch of the Western European Archdiocese of the Russian Church Outside of Russia. Here his missionary fervor, firmly grounded on his life of constant prayer and purity of Orthodox doctrine, brought forth abundant fruits.

In summing up the meaning of the Russian Diaspora, Vladika John wrote in 1938: "In chastising the Russian people, the Lord at the same time showed it the path to salvation, by making it a preacher of Orthodoxy throughout the entire world" (Report to Sobor of 1938, Yugoslavia). But Vladika John himself went far beyond the "unconscious preaching of Orthodoxy' that characterizes most of the Russian Diaspora, to become a conscious apostle to the Western lands which, once enlightened by the Christian Faith, had now for centuries lain in the darkness of papalism, protestantism, and their even darker offshoots.

Vladika showed special concern for the several young movements of return to Orthodoxy from Western error, with results that it is yet too early to calculate. For now it may be said that the only Western Church with its own bishop and monasteries (the Netherlands Orthodox Church) regards Archbishop John as its founder; the genuine French Orthodox Church is today within the enclosure of the Russian Church Outside of Russia because of his patronage; the only Spanish Orthodox priest (Madrid Mission) was ordained by him; and as for America – another story in itself – whether in Boston or New York, in Seattle or San Francisco, one finds an ever-increasing realization of Archbishop John as a virtual patron saint of authentic American Orthodoxy.

Of the great services which the Blessed Archbishop John has rendered to the Orthodoxy of the West, one of the most important concerns the veneration of those early Western saints whose names, owing to the later apostasy of the Church of Rome, were never included in Orthodox calendars. Out of his great love for all the Church's saints, Vladika collected the lives and icons or portraits of the Western saints also; and when by God's Providence he was appointed ruling Archbishop of Western Europe, one of his first acts was to establish the proper ecclesiastical foundation for the veneration of these saints in the Orthodox Church. The list of 1952 given below must be understood as a preliminary and very incomplete one, and it will be supplemented from other sources in future issues of THE ORTHODOX WORD. (Text from ORTHODOX RUSSIA, 1952, no. 13.)


THE VENERATION OF LOCAL SAINTS

Resolution on the question of the veneration of Western saints made by the Bishops of the Western European Archdiocese of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, under the presidency of Archbishop John Maximovitch

THE QUESTION of the veneration of local saints was considered at the conference of bishops which was held in Geneva on September 16-17 (OS), 1952, with Archbishop John presiding.

At the last Sobor of Bishops (of the entire Russian Church Outside of Russia) in 1950, in connection with the question of giving permission for the veneration of St. Anschar, Enlightener of Denmark and Sweden, the Sobor decreed that it should be left up to the local bishops to clarify the question of each local saint separately. With this as a basis the conference took up this question. Archbishop John related briefly the biography of St. Anschar, who had his See in Hamburg and Bremen; and from this it is evident that there are no reasons to doubt the sanctity of his life, his apostolic labors, and the miracles from his relics. If the Lord Himself has glorified him, it would be brazenness on our part not to revere him as a saint. Vladika considers it essential to acknowledge that St. Anschar is, in actuality, a God-pleasing saint, who was glorified by the Orthodox Church in the West before its falling away from the Catholic Church, and therefore he should be glorified equally with other saints. His memory is celebrated on February 3 (d. 865). The name of St. ANSCHAR should henceforth be introduced into church calendars as a hierarch of the Church.

There are a number of other saints in the West who should likewise be glorified equally with those saints who have been glorified by the Orthodox Church in the East, since their veneration was established in profound antiquity. Among such saints are:1

———
1 The information within parentheses has been supplied by the translators.


1. St. VICTOR, Martyr of Marseilles, d. 304. (July 21. St. John Cassian built a monastery over his tomb in the 5th century.)

2. St. POTHINUS, predecessor of St. Iren;us as Bishop of Lyons. (Martyr, d. 177, June 2.)

3. Martyrs of Lyons: Sts. ALEXANDER (Apr. 24) and EPIPODIUS (Apr. 22). (Companions, martyred shortly after St. Pothinus; their relics were long kept together with those of St. Iren;us); and St. BLANDINA and others (June 2, martyred with St. Pothinus in 177).

4. St. FELICIAN (Bishop of Foligno in Umbria, Italy; martyred 252, Jan. 24).

5. St. GENEVIEVE, d. 512, Jan. 3. (Virgin, consecrated to Christ by St. Germanus of Auxerre, renowned for miracles; patroness of Paris.)

6. St. GERMANUS of Auxerre, d. 448, July 31. (Bishop, died in Ravenna; freed Britain from the Pelagian heresy.)

7. St. LUPUS of Troyes, d. 479, July 29. (Bishop and Confessor; went with St. Germanus to Britain to combat the Pelagian heresy; Bishop of Troyes for 52 years.)

8. St. GERMANUS of Paris, d. 576, May 28. (First an abbot, then Bishop of Paris.)

9. St. CLOUD (Clodoald), d. 560, Sept. 7. (Priest and Confessor; established a monastery near Paris.)

10. Preachers in Ireland, then in France, Switzerland, Italy, etc.: St. COLUMBAN (d. 615, Nov. 21; Abbot, founded many monasteries, including Luxeuil in France and Bobbio in Italy, where he died); St. FRIDOLIN (became a monk at Poitiers and spread the veneration of St. Hilary; then a missionary in Switzerland and on the Upper Rhine; d. 7th century, Mar. 6); and St. GALL (a disciple of St. Columban, a hermit in Switzerland; d. 646, Oct. 16).

11. St. CLOTILDE, Queen of France, d. 545. (June 3; by her prayers her husband, Clovis, King of the Franks, received the faith of Christ.)

12. St. HILARY of Poitiers. (Bishop and Confessor; led the battle against Arianism in the West; d. 368, Jan. 13.)

13. St. HONORATUS of Lerins. (Founder of the Monastery of Lerins, then Archbishop of Arles; d. 429, Jan. 16.)

14. St. VINCENT of Lerins, Teacher of the Church. (Priest, author of the Commonitorium; d. c. 450, May 24.)

15. St. PATRICK, Enlightener of Ireland. (Bishop and Confessor, ordained bishop by St. Germanus of Auxerre; first to preach Christ in Ireland; d. c. 461, Mar. 17.)


Archbishop John with Bishop Leonty of Geneva and nuns at the Lesnin Convent in France in the 1950's


The following resolution was made concerning the question of the veneration of Western saints: Revering the memory of the saints who have pleased God, and finding in the places of our Diaspora missionaries and ascetics of antiquity whose names were not known to us, we glorify the Lord, wondrous in His saints, and venerate those who have pleased Him, extolling their sufferings and ascetic labors and calling upon them to be our intercessors and intermediaries with God. In view of this we establish that the abovenamed righteous ones are revered by the entire Orthodox Church, and we call upon pastors and flock to revere these saints and to hasten to their inter cession of prayer.


3. Archbishop John: Fearless Champion of True Orthodoxy


One of the last photographs of Archbishop John, taken in his office in San Francisco


THE INNER LIFE of Christian asceticism and virtue must needs, in God's own time, be put to outward test, both so that the genuineness of the ascetic's spirituality may be proved, and so that the Orthodox faithful may be benefited. Such a test came to Archbishop John at the end of the Second World War. In 1944 and 1945 the tyrant Stalin, both in order to pacify his subjects at home and to destroy the free Russian Church abroad and thus subjugate the Russian exiles, commanded the election of a "Patriarch" of his puppet church, and then sent his emissaries throughout the world to gain recognition for him. Nowhere was his campaign more thorough than in the Far East. A film was shown of the election of "Patriarch" Alexy; glorious tales were spread of the completely changed situation in the USSR, especially as regards religious freedom; Russian patriotism was fully played upon; and full advantage was taken of the remoteness of Metropolitan Anastassy and the Synod of Bishops Abroad (in Western Europe), with whom the Far East had had no contact during all the war years. And so it was that many thousands of ordinary Russians and, sad to say, five out of the six hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad in the Far East, were caught on Stalin's hook: they submitted to the Moscow Patriarchate and applied for Soviet passports; a great many (including four of the hierarchs) returned to the Soviet Union – and few were ever heard of again.

Vladika John, however, despite intense pressures, threats of violence, and attempts to poison him, alone refused to take any decisive step until he had heard from Metropolitan Anastassy. Late in 1945 he did hear from him, learned that the Synod of Bishops Abroad still existed, and saw for himself the film on the election of "Patriarch" Alexy. As a result, he announced his faithfulness to the Synod to which he had given his oath of loyalty as bishop, and declared the "election" as presented in the film to be clearly uncanonical. With this Vladika's situation became even more tense, causing the Orthodox youth to form a special guard which secretly followed Vladika everywhere and frustrated the known plan of the Soviets to kidnap him and place him aboard a Soviet ship. Finally, in the spring of 1946, Vladika's immediate superior, Archbishop Victor of Peking, "removed" him from the See of Shanghai and forbade him to serve. Undaunted, upon hearing of his "interdiction" Vladika John went to the Shanghai Cathedral, mounted the ambo, and announced: "I will obey this ukase only in case I be shown by Holy Scripture and by the laws of any country, that oath-breaking is a virtue and faithfulness to one's oath is a terrible sin"; and he served the Divine Liturgy in defiance of the interdiction of the uncanonical authority. The faithful rallied behind him, and thus, proving by his confession the genuineness of his personal sanctity, he singlehandedly saved 6000 believers from Soviet concentration camps and from the subtle deceit and soul-destroying error of "Sergianism." Thus he earned the bitter hatred of the Moscow Patriarchate, whose "Journal" labelled his courageous stand for truth "the schism of vicar bishop John Maximovitch" – thus placing him in the glorious line of Metr. Joseph and the confessors of 1927!

The following account of the much-slandered Church which Archbp. John has championed at the risk of his own life, and which now is celebrating the 50th anniversary of her independent existence, first appeared in Russian in 1960 (Edition of "Orthodox Action," Geneva), and thus it does not cover the important events of the past decade, in particular the renewed persecution in the USSR beginning about 1959 – which Vladika John, however, in principle clearly foresaw.


THE INNER LIFE of Christian asceticism and virtue must needs, in God's own time, be put to outward test, both so that the genuineness of the ascetic's spirituality may be proved, and so that the Orthodox faithful may be benefited. Such a test came to Archbishop John at the end of the Second World War. In 1944 and 1945 the tyrant Stalin, both in order to pacify his subjects at home and to destroy the free Russian Church abroad and thus subjugate the Russian exiles, commanded the election of a "Patriarch" of his puppet church, and then sent his emissaries throughout the world to gain recognition for him. Nowhere was his campaign more thorough than in the Far East. A film was shown of the election of "Patriarch" Alexy; glorious tales were spread of the completely changed situation in the USSR, especially as regards religious freedom; Russian patriotism was fully played upon; and full advantage was taken of the remoteness of Metropolitan Anastassy and the Synod of Bishops Abroad (in Western Europe), with whom the Far East had had no contact during all the war years. And so it was that many thousands of ordinary Russians and, sad to say, five out of the six hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad in the Far East, were caught on Stalin's hook: they submitted to the Moscow Patriarchate and applied for Soviet passports; a great many (including four of the hierarchs) returned to the Soviet Union – and few were ever heard of again.

Vladika John, however, despite intense pressures, threats of violence, and attempts to poison him, alone refused to take any decisive step until he had heard from Metropolitan Anastassy. Late in 1945 he did hear from him, learned that the Synod of Bishops Abroad still existed, and saw for himself the film on the election of "Patriarch" Alexy. As a result, he announced his faithfulness to the Synod to which he had given his oath of loyalty as bishop, and declared the "election" as presented in the film to be clearly uncanonical. With this Vladika's situation became even more tense, causing the Orthodox youth to form a special guard which secretly followed Vladika everywhere and frustrated the known plan of the Soviets to kidnap him and place him aboard a Soviet ship. Finally, in the spring of 1946, Vladika's immediate superior, Archbishop Victor of Peking, "removed" him from the See of Shanghai and forbade him to serve. Undaunted, upon hearing of his "interdiction" Vladika John went to the Shanghai Cathedral, mounted the ambo, and announced: "I will obey this ukase only in case I be shown by Holy Scripture and by the laws of any country, that oath-breaking is a virtue and faithfulness to one's oath is a terrible sin"; and he served the Divine Liturgy in defiance of the interdiction of the uncanonical authority. The faithful rallied behind him, and thus, proving by his confession the genuineness of his personal sanctity, he singlehandedly saved 6000 believers from Soviet concentration camps and from the subtle deceit and soul-destroying error of "Sergianism." Thus he earned the bitter hatred of the Moscow Patriarchate, whose "Journal" labelled his courageous stand for truth "the schism of vicar bishop John Maximovitch" – thus placing him in the glorious line of Metr. Joseph and the confessors of 1927!

The following account of the much-slandered Church which Archbp. John has championed at the risk of his own life, and which now is celebrating the 50th anniversary of her independent existence, first appeared in Russian in 1960 (Edition of "Orthodox Action," Geneva), and thus it does not cover the important events of the past decade, in particular the renewed persecution in the USSR beginning about 1959 – which Vladika John, however, in principle clearly foresaw.


The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

BY ARCHBISHOP JOHN MAXIMOVITCH

THE RUSSIAN CHURCH Outside of Russia is that part of the Russian Church which is outside the boundaries of the Russian State and at the present time is headed by a Chief Hierarch and a Synod of Bishops which are chosen by the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Diaspora.

The Russian Church has had a part outside of Russia for about two centuries. The preaching of Christianity to the pagan tribes of Asia involved the founding of missions which became in the course of time dioceses in China and Japan. The spreading of Orthodoxy among the pagan population of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska and the establishment of the Mission and then dioceses for North America, were a continuation of the preaching in Asia. In Western Europe beginning with the 18th century churches were built at first at the Russian embassies and then separately from them in those places which were visited by Russians in their trips abroad. All these churches were considered to be in the diocese of the Metropolitan of Petrograd and most recently they were directly dependent on his vicar, the Bishop of Kronstadt. None of the Eastern Patriarchs, whose authority has been highly respected by the Russian people, and likewise none of the other heads of the Orthodox Churches, ever protested against such a spreading of the Russian Church. If according to the Church canons a duration of thirty years is sufficient to cause a church or a place to belong to that diocese which in the course of those years was in possession of it, then all the more must one recognize as undisputed the right of the Russian Church to those places which have been cared for by her for many decades. One may say quite certainly that this question would never have been raised if the Russian Empire and with it the Russian Church had remained in its former power and glory and if no misfortune had befallen them.

After the collapse of the monarchy, at first the Russian Church continued both within and without Russia to enjoy her former rights. But this did not last long. Soon persecution began. The Communist regime which soon came to power set as its aim the uprooting of all religion, which according to Marxist teaching is prejudice and superstition. The chief blow was directed against the Orthodox Church, to which belonged the overwhelming majority of the Russian people and which had inspired them over the centuries from the very Baptism of Russia. Churches began to be closed, clergy were persecuted and murdered, and this turned later into a systematic battle against the Church with the aim of exterminating it.

Foreseeing the possibility that the Higher Authority of the Russian Church would be deprived of freedom and that it would become impossible for separate parts of the Russian Church to have contact with it, Patriarch Tikhon, who was then head of the Church, gave an instruction that in those regions which were separated from the Church Administration temporary church administrations should be established under the leadership of the eldest of the hierarchs in that region. At that time church administrations had already been established in places which had no contact with Moscow at the time of the civil war within Russia itself (in the south of Russia and in Siberia). And when there followed the great exodus of Russians from their homeland after the defeat of the troops that were fighting against the Communist regime, the Higher Church Administration of South Russia headed by Metropolitan Anthony, who was known to the entire Orthodox world, found itself outside of Russia.

The hierarchs who arrived in Constantinople immediately appealed to the Locum Tenens of the Ecumenical Throne, Metropolitan Dorotheos of Prusa of blessed memory, with a request to permit them to continue to take care of their Russian flock. This permission was given them by an act of December 29, 1920. At the beginning of the next year, 1921, at the invitation of the Serbian Patriarch Dimitry, Metropolitan Anthony moved to Serbia, and the Higher Administration of the Russian Church abroad moved there also. Around him all the hierarchs of the Russian Church and all parts of the Russian Church outside the boundaries of the Russian state then united. The churches which had been in the jurisdiction of the vicar of the Metropolitan of Petrograd were entrusted to Archbishop Evlogy, at first by the Temporary Higher Church Administration, and then by Patriarch Tikhon. The ecclesiastical missions in the Far East (China and Japan), and likewise those bishops who had emigrated from Russia to Manchuria, acknowledged themselves as subject to the Church Administration Abroad which had just been formed. In accordance with the desire of Patriarch Tikhon, one of the bishops who had arrived in Constantinople from the south of Russia (Metropolitan Platon) was assigned to America by the same Administration. To this Administration there were likewise subject the ecclesiastical mission in Jerusalem and a protopresbyter in Argentina.

The Higher Church Administration which originated in southern Russia in the areas that were then free from Soviet authority, in harmony with the later Ukase of Patriarch Tikhon of November 7, 1920, was confirmed by the Locum Tenens of the Ecumenical Throne, Metropolitan Dorotheos, and was received in a brotherly way by Patriarch Dimitry of Serbia, and it became in actual fact the higher Church authority for all Russian churches that were outside the boundaries of Russia.

The Higher Church Administration, in which at first, besides bishops, there were included likewise representatives of the clergy and laity, acknowledged as its supreme chief hierarch Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, and it viewed its separation from him as temporary and considered itself to be responsible before a future All-Russian Sobor after the liberation of Russia from the atheist regime. Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow recognized the assignments made by the Higher Church Administration abroad. He even gave it orders, for example, concerning the assignment of Metropolitan Platon as diocesan bishop of North America and the conducting of an investigation of Bishop Anthony, former priest of the church in Copenhagen, who had been consecrated bishop in Belgrade.

IN NOVEMBER of 1921 in Sremsky-Karlovtsy in Yugoslavia the first Sobor abroad was held, in which in addition to 24 bishops, representatives of the clergy and laity took part. Being thus the voice of all Russians who had succeeded in leaving the Soviet authority, the Sobor considered itself obligated to express its opinion regarding the situation in Russia, where all the rest of the population of Russia was languishing under the oppression of that authority. The Sobor appealed to the Genoa Conference with the request not to support the Bolshevik regime and to help the Russian people to become free of it.

The Bolshevik regime, seeing in this a threat against itself, decided to exert pressure on the Russians abroad through the Church authorities. Under the strong pressure of the Soviet government, Patriarch Tikhon signed an ukase concerning the suppression of the Higher Church Administration, entrusting to Metropolitan Evlogy the responsibility for organizing a new one. After this, Patriarch Tikhon was immediately arrested.

Being guided by the Patriarch's previous decree of November 7/20, 1920, the hierarchs abroad assembled in a Sobor on August 31, 1922, and decreed that in place of the Higher Church Administration a Synod of Bishops should be chosen. As chairman of it there was elected the hierarch eldest in rank, who had occupied the oldest Russian see and had been, besides the Patriarch, the only permanent member of the Russian Synod – Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev.

All Russian churches submitted to the Synod of Bishops, as earlier they had to the Higher Church Administration, and the Synod of Bishops which was elected became recognized as the Church authority abroad. The Synod and Sobor of Bishops continued to consider themselves and the churches in their jurisdiction as an inseparable part of the Russian Church. In accordance with the Russian custom, in all Russian churches abroad at Divine services the name of Patriarch Tikhon was commemorated, and after him the name of the head of the Church abroad, Metropolitan Anthony.

The Chairman of the Synod of Bishops abroad, Metropolitan Anthony, who after the arrest of Patriarch Tikhon was the eldest Russian hierarch still in freedom, rose up in defense of the persecuted Russian Church. In his epistles to the Most Holy Patriarchs, and to those non-Orthodox in positions of authority, he explained the true situation of the Russian Church, a situation which often was transmitted to them in a distorted form. His appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury had as a consequence the interference of the English government in the fate of Patriarch Tikhon, and the latter was freed from prison when a trial against him had already been set and an accusation had been composed with the aim of obtaining the death penalty for him.

AFTER THE DEATH of Patriarch Tikhon, the Russian Church Abroad acknowledged the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsk; however, he was soon arrested and banished by the Soviet regime for his firmness and his unwillingness to make concessions to the atheist regime. The Church in Russia and abroad continued to regard him as her head and his name was commemorated at Divine services in all churches. Then Metropolitan Sergius became his Substitute. At this time certain differences arose among the Russian hierarchs abroad, and an appeal was made to Metropolitan Sergius with the request that he make a decision on them. This allowed Metropolitan Sergius to express his view on the situation of the part of the Russian Church that was abroad. Addressing himself in a general letter to the bishops abroad on September 12, 1926, he wrote:

"My dear hierarchs, you ask me to be a judge in a matter of which I am entirely unaware... Can the Moscow Patriarch, as a general principle, be the leader of the ecclesiastical life of Orthodox emigrants?... The good of church affairs themselves demands that you, by a common consent, should establish for yourselves a central organ of church administration which is sufficiently authoritative to resolve all misunderstandings and differences and which has the power to put a stop to any misunderstanding and every disobedience without appealing for our support..." In this letter, which is filled with love for his fellow bishops abroad, he says: "We shall scarcely see each other again in the present life, but I may hope by God's mercy that we shall see each other in the future life."

This was the last letter of Metropolitan Sergius in which he freely wrote that which within himself he acknowledged as true. Imprisonment, threats with regard not only to himself but to the entire Russian Church as well, and the false promises of the Soviet regime broke him: within a few months after his letter, so full of love, to the hierarchs abroad, which was as it were his testament before his loss of inner freedom, Metropolitan Sergius issued a Declaration in which he recognized the Soviet regime as a genuinely lawful Russian regime which was concerned for the people's good, a regime "whose joys are our joys, and whose sorrows are our sorrows" (Declaration of July 16 29, 1927). At the same time, in accordance with the promise he had given the Soviet regime, Metropolitan Sergius demanded of the clergy abroad their signatures of loyalty to the Soviet regime.

This document was in complete contradiction with his view expressed nine months before this, that the Moscow Patriarchate could not direct the ecclesiastical life of emigrants. If for those in Russia who were undergoing terrible sufferings there might be conditions that would mitigate their moral capitulation to the cruel regime, – just as the church canons at the time of the persecutions mitigated the penances of those who renounced Christ after terrible sufferings – nonetheless, for those who were in freedom and comparative safety there were no mitigating circumstances or justification or even meaning at all in such a signature. It can hardly be that Metropolitan Sergius himself believed that anyone abroad would submit to his Ukase, and he did this clearly in order to fulfill the demand of the Soviet regime and thus to remove responsibility from himself.

However, Metropolitan Evlogy with his vicars and Bishop Benjamin of Sebastopol did indeed submit to the Ukase. Meanwhile, in Russia itself there were courageous confessors from among the imprisoned bishops and likewise among those who remained in freedom, who declared to Metropolitan Sergius that they did not accept the concordat with the atheist regime that was persecuting the Church, Many of them even broke off communion in prayer with Metropolitan Sergius as one who had "fallen" and had entered into league with the atheists, and a part of the clergy and laity in Russia followed them. The atheist Soviet regime cruelly persecuted such steadfast hierarchs and their followers. The Soviet regime, while not fulfilling the promises to Metropolitan Sergius which had caused him to make the concordat with it, at the same time deprived of freedom, banished, and even executed many of those who did not recognize the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius.

Among those who did not recognize Metropolitan Sergius' Declaration of loyalty to the Soviet regime were the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter (whose Substitute Metropolitan Sergius was), Metropolitans Agathangel of Yaroslavl and Cyril of Kazan (who had been indicated by Patriarch Tikhon as possible Locum Tenenses of the Patriarchal Throne in case Peter should be unable to exercise his office), Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd, and many other well-known hierarchs. Indeed, Metropolitan Sergius himself had thought exactly like them not long before his signing of the Declaration for the reasons already mentioned.

THE DECLARATION of Metropolitan Sergius brought no benefit to the Church. The persecutions not only did not cease, but they even increased. To the other accusations which the Soviet regime made against clergy and laymen was added yet one more – not recognizing the Declaration. At the same time churches without number were closed throughout Russia. Within a few years almost all churches were destroyed or put to various other uses. Whole provinces remained without a single church. Concentration camps and places of forced labor held thousands of clergy, a significant part of which never regained freedom, being executed there or dying from excessive labors and deprivations. Even the children of priests and all believing laymen were persecuted.

The Russian Church Outside of Russia was spiritually one with these persecuted believers. Except for the several hierarchs already mentioned, all the rest, headed by Metropolitan Anthony, flatly refused to give signatures of loyalty to the Soviet regime, and they came out with an open denunciation. Moreover, Metropolitan Anthony, who very much loved Metropolitan Sergius and inwardly suffered for his beloved disciple and friend, wrote him personally a letter of admonition, which probably never reached him or in any case was no longer able now to influence his behavior.

Like the bishops and faithful inside Russia who did not recognize the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, so too the part of the Russian Church that was abroad did not cease to belong to the Russian Church. They all, just as before, remained in spiritual union with the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter, who was languishing in a desert place in the far north. His name was commemorated in all Russian churches abroad. In all these churches there were also prayers for the suffering brethren in the Homeland, for their deliverance from the atheist regime, and for the repose of those who had been martyred by the regime. Meanwhile, Metropolitan Evlogy, who had given the signature of loyalty to the Soviet regime which had been demanded by Metropolitan Sergius, was invited to a service of prayer in England for the suffering Russian Church, and he took part in it. This was interpreted as an act against the Soviet regime, and he was forbidden to serve by Metropolitan Sergius. Not wishing to submit to this decree, but at the same time not wishing to acknowledge his guilt before the Russian Synod Abroad, Metropolitan Evlogy asked the Patriarch of Constantinople to receive him and his flock temporarily into the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which was done.

NOTWITHSTANDING the departure from the Church Abroad and, one may say, from the Russian Church altogether – of Metropolitans Evlogy and Platon with their followers, the Russian Church Outside of Russia remains the free part of the Russian Church. She has enjoyed the attention of the Most Holy Patriarchs and the other hierarchs of her sister Orthodox Churches. Patriarch Varnava of Serbia showed special attention to her and strove to return to the Russian Church Abroad those bishops who had separated from her, and he was likewise an intermediary between her and Metropolitan Sergius, whom he respected and loved as the rector of his days in the Academy. However, soon he had to become convinced that Metropolitan Sergius was in the hands of the Church's enemies and that his actions were harmful to her, concerning which he wrote to him directly.

Patriarch Varnava addressed himself directly to the Russian Diaspora with a sermon on July 9/22, 1930, during a service in the Holy Trinity Russian Church, when he said:

"You should know that the fanatics who are persecuting the Church are not only torturing her, but they strive also to divide her, to disunite her, and by every means they stretch out their criminal hands to you who are outside of your homeland. You, the loyal sons of Russia, should remember that you are the only support of the great Russian people.... The ecclesiastical dissensions which have been sown by the enemies of your homeland should at any cost come to an end. In your midst there is a great hierarch, Metropolitan Anthony, who is an adornment of the universal Orthodox Church. His is a great mind which is like to the first hierarchs of the Church of Christ at the beginning of Christianity. Church truth is to be found in him and those who have separated should return to him. All of you, not only those who live in our Yugoslavia, but also those who are in America, in Asia, in all countries of the world, should form, under the headship of this great archpastor Metropolitan Anthony, a single invincible whole, which will not give in to the attacks and provocations of the Church's enemies. I, as the Serbian Patriarch, and now your brother by blood, fervently pray to God that He will unite the Russian people abroad into a single whole so that Russia might arise the same as she was when the Orthodox Tsar was at her head, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and all His saints, I bless you with my Patriarchal blessing."

Patriarch Varnava took an active part in the activities of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, convoking under his chairmanship conferences of the representatives of the various church provinces abroad, with the aim of putting an end to differences and schism and restoring to the Church Abroad those who had left her. With his participation and under his chairmanship there was worked out in 1935 a "Decree on the Russian Church Abroad," which was signed by him and by the Russian hierarchs and became the foundation for the administration of the Russian Church Outside of Russia.

The same relationship of complete love for the Russian Church Outside of Russia was manifested by Patriarch Gregory of Antioch, who always gave her his support. The Most Holy Patriarch of Alexandria was always in communion with the Russian Church Outside of Russia, and he showed her brotherly support and addressed her chief hierarch as her lawful head. The Most Blessed Patriarch of Jerusalem likewise not only permitted the activities of the Russian Church Abroad within the bounds of his Patriarchate, but even called upon her to participate in the activities of the Patriarchate. Thus, having need, because of certain difficulties which had arisen, to consecrate new bishops, he invited to concelebrate with him Archbishop Anastassy, who was then in Jerusalem and was later to become Metropolitan and Chief Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad. The Most Blessed Patriarch Timothy was one of the bishops consecrated jointly by Patriarch Damian and Metropolitan Anastassy. The Archbishop of Mount Sinai was always in communion with the Russian Church Abroad. The Church of Bulgaria was in brotherly union with her. Within the boundaries of the Local Churches the Russian Church Abroad took care of her spiritual children in accordance with the sacred principles of those Churches and acted completely independently within the boundaries which were established for her, continuing to realize the rights which had formerly been given to the Russian Church.

In 1935 there was celebrated the 50th anniversary jubilee in sacred orders of the head of the Russian Church Abroad, Metropolitan Anthony. The celebration of this jubilee assumed the character of a great triumph of the Orthodox Church. An active part was taken in it not only by the Serbian Church, within whose boundaries it took place, but there came also to Belgrade representatives of various other Churches. From the Church of Antioch there came Metropolitan Elias of Lebanon. Other representatives came from all corners of the earth.

In the next year, 1936, Metropolitan Anthony reposed. His successor was Metropolitan Anastassy, who had been chosen beforehand and was quickly elected by the Sobor of Russian Bishops Abroad.

At first this change did not bring any alterations in the situation of the Russian Church Abroad. She continued to exist and act as before, being governed by the "Decree" which had been accepted under the chairmanship of Patriarch Varnava, and everywhere she enjoyed externally all her former rights. In 1937, the Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsk, died in banishment, and apparently not long before this, or soon afterwards, Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan, who was supposed to become Locum Tenens after Metropolitan Peter, likewise died in banishment. The Patriarchal Synod of Moscow, composed of bishops invited by Metropolitan Sergius, confirmed the latter as Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. At this time the Russian Church inside Russia was in a state of total desolation. There were only twenty bishops in freedom, and the majority of churches were closed, destroyed, or turned to some other use. Whole provinces and vast expanses had not a single church. Relics and wonderworking icons were taken to museums. The majority of the clergy that remained were in banishment, at forced labor, or lived concealing their rank, earning for themselves a pitiful living by any kind of work and only secretly celebrating services at the homes of faithful laymen.

At the same time Metropolitan Sergius, bound by his promise given to the Soviet regime, continued to affirm that there was no persecution against the Church in Russia. The Church Abroad, which was no longer subject to Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod, remained in her previous relationship to him, feeling herself to be spiritually one with the suffering Mother Church, and as before offering prayer for her and her suffering brethren.

IN 1939 the Second World War began, into which Russia, governed by the Soviet regime, was also drawn. The people expected that the war would bring liberation from the Soviet regime, and at the beginning of the war whole divisions surrendered, not wishing to defend their oppressor. However, when the people understood that war was being waged against Russia, which the Germans wished to subject to themselves, they rose up in defense of the homeland. The Soviet regime took advantage of the popular feeling. Seeing that the faith which lay hidden in the people began in war time to burst out uncontrollably and that there was no possibility of holding it back, – because it was still, just as before, the chief inner strength of millions of Russians – the Soviet regime decided to give concessions for the time being, and, by showing concern for the Church, to make the people its ally in the diffi cult war in which it could easily be defeated without their support. Some closed churches were re-opened, and a part of the relics that had been taken to museums was returned. Only a small part of the holy objects and church property which the Soviet regime had seized was involved, but in this people saw a change in the relationship of the Soviet regime to the Church.

The Soviet regime allowed the election of a patriarch and an outward freedom to the Church, but in essence it did not alleviate the situation of the Church in the least. The Patriarch and his Synod were under the strict supervision of the regime and they could do nothing without the knowledge of the representative of the Soviet regime – the Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Orthodox Church – and they had to follow his instructions. In this there is no resemblance whatever to the situation of the Holy Synod in the times of the Tsars. The Russian Tsar and his government were Orthodox and strove for the good of the Church; and if, even then, there were instances when the representatives of the regime, the Ober-procurators, did not correctly understand the interest of the Church and their actions were harmful for her – nonetheless, these were separate episodes, harmful in themselves, but not representing any systematic destruction of the Church.

Now, however, the Soviet government is Communist, atheistic in its foundation and idea, and it has set for itself the aim of exterminating every religion as superstition and implanting atheism. There can be temporary concessions, there can be various tactical approaches, but the fundamental aim remains unaltered. Making use of the Church authority and the Church for the attainment of its own different political aims, the Soviet government is preparing beforehand a blow to be delivered to the Church when it shall find this possible and convenient. We see proofs and examples of such flexibility of Soviet politics in every sphere. The Soviet government when it was necessary took broad advantage of the patriotism of the Russian people and put itself forth as an authentically Russian government; but the war had not even been finished when the Russian patriotic slogans were thrown out, the government put in the first place the international politics and aims of Communism, although for the time being it did not completely renounce historical Russian aims which were useful for it at that time. Again, permitting an increase in the influence of the army and its officers during the war, the Soviet government later separated itself from the generals who had become popular and sent into exile many outstanding soldiers, declaring that the whole success of the war should be ascribed to the Communist Party. Yet again, having entered into friendly relations with various governments, the Soviet leaders subsequently turned abruptly about and began to cover with dirt those with whom they had embraced. While during the war it had called people to support the wholeness and glory of the homeland, after the war the Soviet government gave over to death many distinguished Russian patriots.

So also in its relationship to the Church, the Communist government, in contradiction to its fundamental world-view, supports the Church, having in mind to destroy everything that is now permitted her as well as the very Church herself, when she shall cease to be useful to it.

WHY, AT THE PRESENT time (1960), does the Soviet regime give the appearance of favoring the Church? Firstly, because it does not feel itself to be sufficiently strong as yet to engage in battle with the believing people inside Russia and enter into conflict with them, especially in view of the possibility of international complications. Secondly, because for the time being it needs a cover for its present aims and it uses the clergy in order to create a good opinion of itself among free peoples. Thirdly, because through the clergy under its control the Soviet government wishes to exert influence on the Russian Diaspora and keep the Russian emigration in its hands. Knowing that Russians unite themselves primarily around the Church, the Soviet government, not having the power now to destroy the Church, wishes for the time being to have influence through her on those who are not subject to it: holding the clergy in its hands, by this very fact it calculates on beginning to act on the flock as well. From this comes the demand, through the head of the Church which is subject to it, of a signature of loyalty to the Soviet regime on the part of all clergy. Is such a demand lawful, and can it be fulfilled?

Russians who live outside of Russia are not subjects of the Soviet regime. Remaining faithful to our Homeland, we do not acknowledge as lawful a government which goes against the thousand-year world-view of our people, and we have gone abroad in order not to submit to it. Why, then, should hierarchs and other clergy promise loyalty to it? Does the Archbishop of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarch, demand loyalty to the Turkish government from his flock of Greek and other descent who are in America and other parts of the world? Does the Patriarch of Antioch, whose Patriarchate embraces Syria and Lebanon, demand loyalty to one or the other government from the people subject to him? Did the Holy Synod of Russia demand loyalty to the Russian Government, or even to the Most Pious Emperor himself, from the Orthodox faithful who were citizens of America or were subjects of other governments?

At the time of the Russo-Japanese War, the enlightener of Japan, the Russian Archbishop Nicholas, who remained in Japan, blessed the Orthodox Japanese soldiers who went to war to fight for their own homeland. Although he himself did not celebrate services, since he could not pray for victory over his native Russia, he nonetheless permitted the Japanese clergy who were subject to him to do so. After the end of the war, for the fulfillment of his pastoral duty he was decorated by the Russian Holy Synod and by the Russian Tsar himself. If the Most Pious Tsar and the Holy Governing Synod acted in this way, does anyone have the right, and is there any moral justice therein, to demand from people who are fighting against an atheist regime, through their spiritual pastors, submission to this regime?

When the Serbian Patriarch Arsenius III, and after him Arsenius IV, together with their flock left their homeland, which was under the rule of the Turks, and settled in another country, the archpastors and pastors of the resettled Serbs did not submit themselves any more to the patriarchs of Serbia, which was enslaved by the Turks, in order to be free.

Did not a similar thing occur in Greece? Why did the Church of Greece arise and why does it exist as an autocephalous Church, whereas its territory from antiquity was a part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople? When in 1819-20 there was a rebellion of the Greeks against the Turks, the Turkish government demanded of the Patriarch the excommunication of the rebellious Greeks, and the Patriarch fulfilled this. Although the Greeks well knew that he was only outwardly fulfilling what was demanded of him, remaining heart and soul with them, nonetheless, declaring his interdicts invalid, they began to govern themselves ecclesiastically independently of him; and when a government of Greece was formed, an independent Church of Greece was established. For about 30 years the Archbishop of Constantinople and the Synod of Greece had no communion with each other, until a relationship was established between the Churches of the Patriarchate and of Greece as between independent Churches. Until recently the Greeks living in other countries were cared for by the Church of Greece, and only after the First World War, when Turkey was half destroyed and became weak, did the Greeks in the diaspora become again the spiritual flock of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Church of Greece, however, up to now remains autocephalous and, after the Balkan and two World Wars, there have even entered into her new territories, annexed to Greece, which from of old belonged to the Patriarchate of Constantinople; while the Archbishop of Athens has received the title of Most Blessed. Evidently, only when Constantinople will again become the capital of the Greek Kingdom-if by God's mercy this will be – will the two Greek Churches come together again, just as the two separated parts of the Serbian Church were united when all Serbian territories had been liberated and united in one government.

If attempts to preserve spiritual freedom and to guard oneself from every influence of regimes which, even if non-Christian, nonetheless believed in God in their own way, and which, although they limited the freedom of Christians, permitted an open persecution only at times, – if such attempts were the cause of an outward separation of parts of the Church from the Mother Churches, then it is all the more just, permissible, and essential to preserve the faithful from every pressure of a regime which has openly set itself the aim of fighting against religion as superstition and systematically striving to annihilate it.

The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. The Church has experienced terrible persecutions and has endured them, being crowned by a choir of new martyrs. But the Church has never desired persecutions and has prayed for deliverance from them and from temptations. She has prayed for the failure of the persecutors, and it is well known that Julian the Apostate perished while St. Basil the Great was praying for the preservation of the Church from him.

WHO NEEDS the annihilation of the Russian Church Outside of Russia?

Russian exiles, the Russian Diaspora? But it is precisely the Church Outside of Russia that gives them spiritual power, that unites and preserves them from complete extinction with the loss of Orthodox faith and together with it of the whole of Russian culture, which was formed by Orthodoxy. Only the enemies of Russia and of the Russian people can desire this.

Does the Russian Church inside Russia need, would she benefit from, the annihilation of the Church Outside of Russia and her annexation to the Patriarchate? The Russian Church Outside of Russia spiritually is not separated from her suffering Mother. She offers up prayers for her, preserves her spiritual and material wealth, and in due time she will unite with her, when the reasons for their disunity shall have vanished. And there is no doubt that within Russia also many hierarchs, clergy, and laymen are with us and would themselves be happy to act as we do if they were able.

The cessation of the separate existence of the Church Outside of Russia is needful and would be profitable only to the Soviet regime. Through the clergy the latter desires to have control over the emigration and influence on it. Those emigrants who would not desire to be under the spiritual leadership of pastors dependent on the Soviets, being left without a Church would be scattered and would no longer be dangerous for the Soviet regime. The clergy in Russia, especially the hierarchy, are hostages for the emigration. If, when there was no basis at all for making Patriarch Tikhon responsible for the activities of the Hierarchy of the Diaspora, he was nonetheless accused of this, then if that Hierarchy were subject to the Patriarch, he now would bear full responsibility for it. Then, when Russian emigrants would make statements against the Soviet regime, the latter would not hesitate to hang the Patriarch from the gates of the Kremlin, just as the Turks hanged Patriarch Gregory V from the gates of the Patriarchate.

WITHOUT HAVING visible contacts with her Church in the Homeland, the Russian Church Outside of Russia is in spiritual communion with all there who suffer and are persecuted, who languish in confinement and banishment.

We believe and know that Orthodox faith in Russia is strong.

The Lord God, Who preserved seven thousand men who did not bend the knee before Baal in the days of Elijah, today also has a multitude of His servants who secretly serve and pray to Him throughout the whole expanse of the Russian Land. Even among the hierarchs outwardly subject to the Soviet regime, many are inwardly tormented by this and when the opportunity will come, they will act according to the example of those at the Council of Chalcedon who declared with tears that they had given their signatures at the Robber Council under coercion, and according to the example of the Most Holy Patriarch Paul, who was tortured by his conscience and took the Schema in recognition of his weakness under the Iconoclasts. Of this there is the testimony of many who left the Homeland at the time of the Second World War. The Soviets know this also and they hold all of them under both open and secret supervision, especially those who are temporarily allowed abroad.

But at the same time there are manifestations of the opposite case. Just recently a professor of the Theological Academy, Archpriest Osipov, who several days before this had occupied a prominent position in the clergy, attacked God and Christian faith in print with frightful blasphemy. It turned out that in agreement with him were several other members of the clergy, who by a decree of the Patriarchal Synod of Moscow on December 30, 1959, were deposed from their rank and deprived of all ecclesiastical communion. They went out from us, but they were not of us, states the decree in the words of Holy Scripture (I John 2:19). Without doubt, besides these that have already been uncovered, there are also other secret enemies of the Church who until the proper time pretend to be her loyal sons in order then to bring disgrace upon her. Under the regime of the godless there is a spiritual winter, during which it is impossible to distinguish trees that are deprived of their leaves (the "Shepherd" of Hermas). There the words of the Prophet Micah are completely fulfilled: Trust ye not each other, put ye not confidence in a friend; a man's enemies are the men of his own house (Micah 7:5-6).

Russian emigrants, dispersed through the whole world, finding themselves often in difficult circumstances, await that radiant day when the Homeland will be liberated from the power of the godless ones who tear to pieces the soul and body of their brethren, and when they will be able to unite with the latter. The Russian Church Outside of Russia bears with them the heavy cross of banishment. Without having altered Orthodoxy in any respect, preserving the traditions and customs of the Russian Church and her material possessions which are located abroad, she cares for her flock according to her strength, retains it in Orthodoxy and raises new generations in it and spreads Orthodoxy to the peoples in whose midst she finds herself. In the churches of the Diaspora prayers are constantly raised up for the suffering Homeland, for the persecuted Church, for the tortured and murdered for whom prayer cannot openly be offered there, for the salvation of the Homeland and its deliverance from the cruel regime, for the restoration of right belief and piety. All these prayers are possible only under independence from those who are in the hands of that same cruel regime and submit to it.

THE RUSSIAN CHURCH Outside of Russia, headed by a Sobor of Bishops, most of whom have been consecrated in the Diaspora and by their episcopal oath have promised to obey her ecclesiastical authority, has more than twenty bishops in various countries. She has monasteries for men and women, of which some have existed since the times of the Tsars (in Palestine), others received their beginning in Russia (Lesna Convent in France, Vladimir Mother of God Convents in California and Canada), and the remainder were founded in the days of our misfortunes, in the bosom of the Russian Church Outside of Russia (such as Holy Trinity Monastery at Jordanville, the Monastery of St. Job of Pochaev in Munich, Novo-Diveevo Convent at Spring Valley, N.Y., the New Kursk Hermitage at Mahopac, N.Y., and others.

The Russian Church Outside of Russia has her own Seminary (which stands in the ranks of higher educational institutions in accordance with local laws), its own secondary educational institutions and schools, in which children growing up abroad learn Orthodox doctrine and receive Russian culture.

The parishes and church communities of the Russian Church Outside of Russia are scattered throughout the world; they are to be found in great cities which have international significance, and in desert places where there is only a handful of Russians. They are cared for by priests who are often compelled to undertake great journeys to visit parishioners who live great distances apart. Others have to earn their living by some other work, because their poor flock cannot provide for them.

The archpastors and pastors of the Church Outside of Russia share with their flock all the spiritual and material burdens that are inescapably bound up with being in exile, and they fulfill their duty of service to the Orthodox, in particular the Russian, Church and the commandments of their conscience with regard to their earthly Homeland, Russia, and to their brethren.

But deprivations do not weigh upon them as much as the misunderstanding and the relationship to them of their brothers, the representatives of the other Orthodox Churches. While the Church Outside of Russia goes on the same path to which at one time the Chief Hierarchs of the entire Orthodox Church gave their blessing, the relationship on the part of their successors has significantly changed. Restrictions are placed upon the Church Outside of Russia, and demands are presented to her Hierarchy and clergy that cannot be fulfilled for reasons of conscience and pastoral care.

WHEN RUSSIA was in her days of prosperity, she gave every support to her Orthodox brethren who were in worse circumstances, especially to those who had been subjugated by non-Orthodox rulers. It was not only the Government that directed all its efforts to this end, but the whole people took part in it as well. Prayers for them were offered both in churches and in homes. All the evening prayers, as printed in the complete prayer books, ended with the petition: "Cast down the blaspheming kingdom of the Hagarenes and subject it to Orthodox kings; confirm in right belief and raise up the horn of Orthodox Christians." This was printed both in church service books and in prayer books for the people – anyone can verify it. The multitude of Russian people read this prayer daily in every corner of Russia right up to recent times.

Do we not all need to pray now even more for the casting down of a regime that is not merely blaspheming, but God-fighting, that has taken up arms not only against Orthodoxy, but against any kind of faith in God at all?, And if prayers for this are frequently offered in the churches of other Christian confessions, should it not be the primary duty of Orthodox Christians to pray for this, and especially the sons of enslaved Russia who are outside her borders?1

———
1 Trans, note: At every Divine Liturgy celebrated by the clergy of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, the following prayer, written by Metropoli-, tan Anthony Khrapovitsky, is appointed to be read aloud by the priest before the Litany of the Catechumens: "Deliver our Homeland from the cruel atheists and their authority. Hear the painful lamentation of us Thy faithful servants, who cry out to Thee in distress and sorrow day and night, O most merciful God, and lead their lives out of corruption. Grant peace and quiet, love and confirmation and speedy reconciliation to Thy people, whom Thou hast redeemed by Thy most honorable Blood; but be Thou manifest even unto those who have gone away from Thee and seek Thee not, that not one of them may perish, but that they all may be saved and come to knowledge of the truth, that all with unanimity of mind and unceasing love may glorify Thy most honorable name, O meek and patient Lord, unto the ages of ages!"

Another prayer, approved by the Synod Abroad for the faithful to read daily at home, is: "O Lord Jesus Christ our God, forgive us our transgressions, and by the prayers of Thy Most Pure Mother save the suffering Russian people from the yoke of the godless authority. Amen."


He who is in captivity and he who is in freedom will give in due time an answer to the Great Hierarch, the All-Just Judge.

May He then say: Thou hast been faithful over a few things... enter thou into the joy of thy Lord (St. Matt. 25:23).


THE ORTHODOX SPIRITUAL LIFE

The Counsels of the Elder Nazarius

III
ON MONASTICISM

EXAMINE FURTHER with care what commandment Christ the Saviour gives. He says: If any man will come after Me, he must unfailingly deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me (St. Matt. 16:24). This following must be nothing other than a complete departure from the world. Isaiah the Prophet cries out: Go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing (Ps. 52:2). And Jeremiah speaks of the same thing: Flee out of the midst of Babylon (Jer. 51:6). And David cries out: Lo, then would I wander far off, and remain in the wilderness, for I have seen violence and strife in the city day and night (Ps. 54: 8, 10).

Know that the Son of God came down to earth not in order to ruin human souls, but to instruct us in the true path. He, by the example of His life and not by words alone, taught us to despise the world. The Lord had no place of repose in the world, and those who followed Him He commanded to flee it. Beguiling and deceptive is the life of the world, fruitless its labor, perilous its delight, poor its riches, delusive its honors, inconstant, insignificant; and woe to those who hope in its seeming goods: because of this many die without repentance. Blessed and most blessed are those who depart from the world and its desires.

Run, O beloved, run to the peaceful and most glorious monastic life; put on the praiseworthy yoke which the Son of God Himself named His easy yoke and light burden. The holy Apostles loved this yoke and handed it down to the faithful; the God-bearing and God-inspired Fathers, aided by the grace of God and by skill, prospered in this way of life, and they advise us how we also should labor in it.

Behold, O beloved, and know that the monastic life is founded Divine commandment, in accordance with the teaching of the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles. Of it the Lord has said: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (St. Matt. 19:12). It is to it also that the words of the Apostle apply: I would that all men were even as I myself (I Cor. 7:7). Even before the Law of Moses the ascetic life shone out in Enoch and Melchisedec, under the Law in Elijah and John the Baptist, and in the times of grace in whole congregations and legions of monks.

Behold with diligence, how many are those who, having lived wellpleasing in the monastic form of life, have gone to God and dwell now with angels. And if even you, O beloved, desire the silent and good monastic life, then choose for yourself the good part.

Know, then, that by the monastic vow you must force yourself in everything to cut off your own will. Submit yourself to the Lord, walk with love on the path of your fathers without going astray, without dozing, but keep vigil diligently. You must unfailingly acquire virtues; and so seek them day and night and, having come to know them, learn and labor in them. Be a true Christian, who, having given vows to God and raising in your heart a dwelling place for virtue, fulfills them without friction.

Guard yourself, lest you appear empty before God. If you bear something good with you, do not praise yourself for this; but rather prosper in the doing of good and, according to the measure of your God-pleasing works, manifest yourself as new, right, and well-tried in everything.

Offer to God as a gift and sacrifice not whole burnt offerings of irrational beasts; rather, as the most worthy offering sacrifice your own self every day, even as all the saints mortified themselves for the sake of Christ. But how did they mortify themselves? They loved not the world nor what is in it. Therefore, do you also imitate them in this. You wish to be a monk: this means to leave the old and make yourself new. Yesterday you were in the image of the world; but now you have put on a different one; and think thus differently, speak differently, look differently, walk differently, act differently: and everything will be new.

Reflect that you are a monk; and you should be a monk not only in name, but you should be "different"1 also in life, as against worldly life. St. John of the Ladder, in his first chapter on renunciation of the world, writes that not everyone who is baptized will be saved, but he who does the works of God. He said nothing about monks; but we see that through this he speaks also to monks: not everyone who is tonsured will be saved, but he who keeps the monastic vows; and that not all in a monastery are monks, but only those are monks who do the works of monks.

___
1 The Slavonic word for monk, inok, signifies "different" (from the world).


Christ the Saviour with His most pure lips uttered: Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doesh the will of My Father which is in heaven. And again He said: Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I projess unto them: depart from Me, for I never knew you (St. Matt. 7:21-23). And in another place He says: Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become humble as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (18:3). And again: Jesus saw how His disciples prevented children from coming to Him, and He was much displeased, and said unto them: Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven (St. Mark 10:14). And again: Why call ye Me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? (St. Luke 6:46.) Or do you not know that blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it (St. Luke 11:28).

The holy Apostle James writes: But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only; for if any be a hearer only, and not a doer, he deceives himself, and beholds his face as if in a mirror, and then forgets what he was (St. James 1: 22-24). Consequently, only he who fulfills the law is saved. Nof the bearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified (Rom. 2: 13).

Believe the words of God, on which the Prophets and all the laws of God are confirmed. The Saviour says: It is easier for everything to perish or for heaven and earth to be transformed, than for one tittle of the law to fail. (St. Luke 16: 17). And again: Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away (St. Matt. 24:35).

And now let us examine in what consists the offering in sacrifice of one's own self.

It is not irrational beasts, which God does not desire, that one must offer in sacrifice; rather, we must mortify ourselves every day, just as all the saints mortified themselves for the sake of Him Who died for us. They loved not the world nor what is in it, but brought a gift pleasing to God from a pure heart, and for this they were called the sons of God. Do even as they, if you wish to be called a son of the Holy One.

Behold and hasten to appropriate holy sonship, in which condition you must be. Monasticism is nothing other than sonship to God, from beginning to end.

A monk must unfailingly be a doer of all the Lord's commandments, an emulator of the state and order of the bodiless ones, a knower of God and of all love toward Him and his neighbor.

A monk must in everything hold to God's words, and not in the least attend to the voice of feelings and passions.

A monk must have his mind illumined from above, his body undefiled, his mouth inclined to silence, his tongue pure.

A monk must have in heart and soul unceasing sorrow for his sins, frequent tears and sighs, an ever-present memory of death and of the Last Judgement, a renunciation of himself in everything, estrangement from the world, disdain for his own body and for everything pleasant to the senses; that is, he must willingly take up hatred against himself, the old man, and for the purification and renewal of himself he must subject himself to cruel, narrow, difficult, sorrowful ascetic labor, while at the same time having unmurmuring patience and love with thanksgiving.

A monk should be without anger, not cunning, not proud, lowly in everything, not acquisitive, without self-love; he should have a meekness that tends to keep silent, profound humility, submission and obedience to all who live in good order. In his body he should be as a stranger, and, so to speak, dead; while his spirit he should prepare as a dwelling for the Holy Spirit. Rejoicing and singing, he should remain unceasingly in prayer and the reading of Divine books. Such is what a monk should be, and such is the foundation he should place for the fulfilling of his vows, so that he may offer to God not only gifts of visible labors, but also sacrifices of soul and spirit.

Attend diligently to what Christ the Saviour said in Matthew (St. Matthew 5:20): Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven That is, if you wish to enter into the kingdom of heaven, you must unfailingly surpass by far in virtues the sinners who live on the earth, and live like an angel on earth; for the kingdom of heaven is in Christ. In another place it is said: The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force (St. Matt. 11:12). That is, one must suffer privation in labors of body and soul. As Christ endured, and His disciples, and as all the saints labored and renounced the world, their desires, inclinations, and all worldly desires, preserving Christ's commandments with all zeal and fervent love so too, if you also desire to obtain the needful heavenly kingdom, you should also endure privations and put on your neck the yoke of Christ's work. This yoke burdens the body, but it transports the soul to the heavens. Therefore, do not murmur when you find yourself in fastings, in vigils, in submission, in solitude and silence of soul, in hymnody, in prayers, in tears, in handiwork, in the bearing of every tribulation that comes to you from demons and men.

If you will live thus like an angel, you will obtain within yourself the kingdom of heaven; for Christ says: The kingdom of heaven is within you (St. Luke 17:21). Then in your soul nothing worldly can sustain itself; then you will know that you are Christ's obedient novice, that you have taken up His cross – that is, tribulations, labors, and virtues – and that you are fleeing from the midst of this world, and are abandoning all its beguilements, its works, and are approaching the Jerusalem on high. Then from the sacred Scripture you will receive clear and tried evidence that without perfect renunciation of the world you cannot be a perfect monk. And that is why it is not easy to receive the kingdom of heaven. However, enter into yourself and seek. Strive, O beloved, as well as you can, to cast away everything worldly and fleshly. Obey this my profitable offering, accept my counsel with zeal and fervent love, and behold what kind of a beginning of renunciation you must make.

In order to know the true path, in the beginning you must unfailingly attend to these saving words: (1) Christ says: No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God (St. Luke 9:62); (2) the holy Apostle Peter says: It had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn back; but it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again (II Peter 2:21, 22).

And so, know that he who for God's sake renounces the world and all that is in it, must unfailingly fulfill his vow and ever diligently strive as quickly as possible to draw near to God and most sincerely cling to Him. And if, entering deeply within yourself, you will carefully test yourself in this, you will find that you have not in the least removed yourself from the world as yet and have not freed yourself from all worldly desires; and therefore you must unfailingly, with your whole heart and mind, take great care over renouncing the world and mortifying the flesh, and you must dispose yourself to this practice exactly as if you were learning the most excellent of arts for there is no art on the earth more full of wisdom or excellence than thisin order that you may come to know with precision all the passions which ceaselessly make war within you, and that you may gain the wisdom to conquer them by means of fasting, i.e., continence. Strive in all respects to accustom yourself to a virtuous life, so that your leaving the world will not be in vain.

Take this brief instruction as your rule and go by it, until the grace of Christ shall visit you and enlighten you and raise you up into the image of a perfect man who fulfills the commandments of Christ. From the beginning you must unfailingly have for the monastic life great zeal, fervent love, and the warmest disposition toward it; then you must search into the Holy Scripture and believe all the traditions of the Holy Fathers concerning what kind of life must be led by the beginner, by the advanced, and by the perfect, who desire to be clothed in the form of monasticism, and concerning how one must force oneself to these conditions and confirm oneself in them, and how one must act to purify oneself from sins and to receive the kingdom of heaven.


DOCUMENTS OF THE CATACOMB CHURCH

An Interview with Metropolitan Sergius

THE HISTORIC PETROGRAD DELEGATION OF 1927

THE SERGIANIST SCHISM OF 1927

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.


MARTYROLOGY OF THE COMMUNIST YOKE

Archbishop Dimitry of Gdov
AND HIS PRIEST, NICHOLAS PROZOROV

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
St. John 8:32

SON OF Gabriel Liubimov, the future hierarch-martyr Dimitry was a native of Petersburgh. He graduated from the St. Petersburgh Theological Academy in 1883 and was appointed Psalmist at the Russian church in Stuttgart. The next year he taught at the Theological School in Rostov. In 1886 he was ordained priest and appointed to St. Michael's church in Oranienbaum, and two years later was transferred to St. Petersburgh to the big parish church of the Protection of the Mother of God, where he served for over 30 years. This church conducted a wide range of charitable works. it ran an orphanage, old age homes, schools, etc. It was located near Senniy marketplace in a neighborhood that was made famous by Dostoyevsky's writings, where the poor and outcasts of society were to be found. Fr. Dimitry had great love for the poor and unfortunate people of this parish, and this love and his unselfish labors for them well justified his surname Liubimov, "beloved."

After the Revolution Fr. Dimitry became a widower, but the trying times of the Russian Golgotha did not cause his faith to waver. On the contrary he became an ardent defender of the truth of Christ, now as a bishop. The shocking execution of the Metropolitan of Petersburgh, Benjamin, in August, 1922, was followed by the arrest of all four of his vicar bishops, and the old capital remained for four years without a chief hierarch. In 1926 Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsk, himself already arrested, appointed, as a successor to the martyred Metropolitan Benjamin, Archbishop Joseph (Petrovykh), raising him to the rank of Metropolitan. Two other bishops were released from prison, and several new episcopal consecrations followed immediately, one of them being that of Father Dimitry. He was tonsured a monk bearing the same name of Dimitry, but with a new patron saint, and was made vicar of the Petersburgh diocese.

To the joy of the faithful in August, 1926, the new Metropolitan, Joseph, was to arrive at his See and serve with his vicars the vigil service for the feast of the capital's patron, St. Alexander Nevsky. I shall never forget – writes Alexei Rostov, an eyewitness of the events of this period and a member of the Catacomb Church for many years, who has supplied all the information that follows – that vigil service on August 29 in the Cathedral Church of the St. Alexander Nevsky Lavra, when seven vicar bishops served with Metropolitan Joseph. The akathist was sung by all the bishops and the people with a single heart and soul before an icon of St. Alexander which contained a small part of his relics. We had not had such a solemn service in Petrograd since 1917. But soon great trials were to engulf us, caused by the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius.

Metropolitan Joseph did not rceognize the Declaration and was followed by Bishop Dimitry and a group of bishops, clergy, and laymen. One of the priests in this group, a future co-martyr with Bishop Dimitry, was the ardent young Fr. Nicholas Prozorov. After the historic Petrograd Delegation (see page 84) Metropolitan Joseph, then already banished, raised Bp. Dimitry to the rank of Archbishop and temporary head of the Petrograd Diocese. Metropolitan Sergius thereupon placed Archbishop Dimitry under interdict, and in his ukase concerning this on January 17, 1928, he showed his mercilessness to the confessors of genuine Orthodoxy, stating that for insubordination "our Church threatens direct excommunication and anathema, depriving those guilty of even the right to appeal to a conciliar judgement," saying further that "no sacraments may be received from them nor any private services, for anyone who enters into ecclesiastical communion with the excommunicated and interdicted and prays with them, even at home, is likewise declared to be excommunicated."

Archbishop Dimitry, fearlessly following in the footsteps of Metropolitan Joseph, refused to accept this or any other decrees coming from Metropolitan Sergius, recognizing that by his "adaptation to atheism" he had placed himself in schism from the Russian Church. The GPU (secret police), seeking to increase strife within the Church, at first took no action against the "Josephites"; but soon the first blow fell with the arrest in 1928 of the young and gifted theologian, Professor Father Theodore Andreev, who after suffering in prison died in April, 1929. Archbp. Dimitry, who had called him an "adamant of Orthodoxy" for his righteous criticism of Bulgakov, Berdyaev, and other pseudo-Orthodox thinkers, celebrated his solemn funeral service. In November, 1929, he was himself arrested together with Fr. Nicholas Prozorov and other clergy and laymen for refusing to recognize the "Declaration." I was myself a member of this group and was held in cell no. 9 in the "House of Preliminary Confinement" at 25 Voinova (Shpalernaya) St. in Leningrad.


CATACOMB BISHOP
Archbishop Dimitry, Hieromartyr of the Catacomb Church.
An iconographic depiction by a venerator of Russia's New Martyrs.


On April 10, 1930, four of us were moved to another prison cell, no. 21, where there were 20 cots and 80 to 100 prisoners to share them, whereas in the previous cell there had been 14 cots to 35 or 45 men. Here I met the young priest, Fr. Nicholas Prozorov. There was also another priest, Fr. John, as well as Fr. Nicholas Zagorovsky, a holy man of 75 who had been brought from Kharkov also in connection with the Declaration of Metr. Sergius.

At this time Archbishop Dimitry was also in this prison, in solitary confinement, and once I chanced to see him while we were carrying out a very heavy box filled with garbage. A guard accompanied us. As we came out into the prison courtyard, Vladika Dimitry was returning from his ten-minute walk, also accompanied by a guard. It was a warm July evening, and I could see him clearly. He was a tall, husky old man in a rasson with a thick white beard, slightly pink cheeks, and blue eyes. He did not wear a panagia in the prison. Here was a true confessor of our much-suffering Catacomb Church!

The priests who had spent the longest time in this cell occupied a corner near the grating, separated by a cardboard partition from the rest of the cell; this was called the "holy corner," and here they slept side by side, and in the morning they would serve the Typica, and in the evening Vespers – or, before a feast, the All-night Vigil. They would sit in a row on stools, two or three laymen would join them, and they would listen to the whole service, which was read from memory in a low voice. The other prisoners pretended not to notice anything. Here I spent my first Pascha in prison. Although I was warned by a good friend of mine not to go to the holy corner,' for which I could easily get some years added to my sentence, I still could not resist, and I went there when Fr. Nicholas began to sing the opening Paschal hymn: Thy Resurrection, O Christ Saviour, angels hymn in heaven; vouchsafe to us on earth with pure heart to glorify Thee. Other priests seconded him, and thus we had the whole joyous service. As I returned to my mattress I saw how many of the prisoners were still crossing themselves, tears streaming down their unshaven cheeks. Everyone in the cell had carefully followed our service in silence.

Here in the cell I learned the "life" of my fellow inmate, Fr. Nicholas. He was of medium height, dark skinned, with rather crude features, dark eyes and hair, and a small beard. He was a simple man, not a learned intellectual, but with a deep faith and firm in his confession; and thus he believed that in joyfully accepting martyrdom, he thereby opened for himself entry into the kingdom of heaven. He was born in 1896 and went to a seminary, but in 1915 he quit and, just 18 years old, went as a volunteer to the front. The Revolution found him a sub-lieutenant. After returning from the front to his native Voronezh, he was arrested and accused together with others of a "conspiracy" during the frightful years of the civil war, and he was condemned to be shot. Finding himself in a common cell with a group of condemned officers, he proposed to the believers that they read aloud the akathist to St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, the defender of the unjustly condemned. By chance he had a copy of the akathist with him. Some of the officers agreed and went aside and quietly sang the akathist. Another group, evidently those officers who were unbelievers or were not devout, took no part in this prayer. And an extraodrinary miracle occurred that shook the soul of the young officer Prozorov to its foundations: in the morning, all who had read the akathist were saved from execution and given instead various terms of imprisonment, while the other officers were all shot. Prozorov gave a vow to become a priest as soon as he should get out of prison, and finding himself freed before too long, he fulfilled his vow. He was ordained by Archbishop John (Pommer), who was later bestially murdered by Bolshevik terrorists in Riga on October 12, 1934.

The GPU, however, forbade Fr. Nicholas to remain in Voronezh, and he went to Petrograd, where he served in the small church of St. Alexander Oshenevsky on the outskirts of the city near the Piskareva railway station.

Once one of the leading communists of Leningrad came to him and asked him to marry him and a girl who refused to live with him without a Church marriage. "Your church is in the forest, no one will find out," he said, since as a communist he would be excluded from the Party for having a Church marriage. Fr. Nicholas agreed and told him to prepare for Holy Communion in advance. The communist became angry and said: "I'll indulge a girl's whim, but I don't recognize any confession. Marry us right away! I'll pay whatever you want, more than you earn in a year. While I am alive, no one will arrest you. After all, I'm a member of the Central Committee of the Party!" Thus did the Party member, whose name was known throughout Russia, threaten Fr. Nicholas. But the latter refused, and thus remained in need wth his family, depriving himself of an opportunity to obtain a powerful defender with weight in the Kremlin.

In the morning of August 4, many in our cell were called out, as even to the corridor, and we were told to sign that we had read our sentences: some received five years, some ten. Only Fr. Nicholas was not called out to hear his sentence. The next morning during the exercise period we found. out by a complicated set of signs that Archbishop Dimitry, at the age of 75, had received ten years in the isolation prison. I never saw him again.

The next day all those who had been sentenced were summoned to the station and bade farewell to us. Fr. Nicholas did not know whether to rejoice or be sad. If he had been acquitted, most likely he would have been freed. But everything soon became clearer: there was another reason why he had been as it were forgotten until his friends had been sent off.

The whole day of August 5/18, the eve of the Transfiguration, I tried not to leave Fr. Nicholas, who immediately felt himself alone with the departure of his friends.

Out of the hundreds of prisoners, most of them did not know what it was all about, and others thought that it was an indication that he was to be freed. He alone read, from memory, the All-night Vigil for the Transfiguration, and I listened; other laymen who usually listened had already been sent off to concentration camps – the people in a cell are always being changed. He took out of the pocket of his cassock a photograph of his three daughters, aged 6, 4, and 2; and, fondly looking at them, he said to me: "I believe that the Lord will not forsake these orphans in the terrible Bolshevik world."

The usual preparations for the night began about 9 p.m. The eldest in time spent in the cell lay down on cots, the rest on tables and on benches formed of stools, and newcomers under the tables and cots. My cot was by the window, and Fr. Nicholas' was by the grating which separated us from the corridor. When all had lain down, the officer on duty appeared and stood in the corridor at the door of the grating: "Prozorov – here?"

"Yes-that's me"; Fr. Nicholas jumped up from his bed.

"Name and patronymic?" the officer asked, checking with his list.

"Nicholas Kiriakovich," Batushka answered, getting dressed.

"Get ready with your things."

Fr. Nicholas understood everything. Many times we had observed together how the officer on duty would summon people for execution.

Fr. Nicholas began to get dressed quickly and to pack a straw box with his prison "property." I lay at the other end of the cell and could not get to him through the room, which was blocked with tables, benches, cots, and with bodies lying everywhere. But from the lighted corner where he was packing, I could clearly see his courageous, black-bearded face, which was shining from some unearthly joy. He was 33 years old, like the Saviour when he mounted Golgotha. The whole room became quiet and everyone watched Fr. Nicholas. On the other side of the grating the officer did not take his eyes off him. Fr. Nicholas with a joyful smile looked at all of us and quickly went to the grating, which the officer opened for him. On the threshhold he turned to us and said loudly: "The Lord is calling me to Him, and now I will be with Him."

In silence, shaken by the greatness of soul of this modest pastor, we all looked and saw how the grating shut after him, and how with a quick gait he went in front of the officer, who followed him. We all began to speak of Fr. Nicholas in a whisper, with great feeling. Not only believers, but atheists as well – Trotskyites, Mensheviks, bandits, and just plain Soviet rogues – were inspired with reverence and deep feeling by his firm faith.

On the next visiting day, the prisoners who returned from meeting their relatives told us that the priests' wives had been informed of the sentences against their husbands. And then we found out that Fr. Nicholas had been shot on that eve of the Transfiguration, August 6, 1930.

The fate of Bishop Dimitry was similar, although we do not know the date on which he received his martyr's crown. After eight years of solitary confinement in the Yaroslavl isolation prison he was shot in 1938.

The holy martyrs who died for Christ by the hundreds and thousands in ancient times were glorified by the Church without any special procedure of canonization. Likewise today, when countless sufferers are being crowned with the glory of martyrs, no one need hesitate to recognize them as glorified saints, our intercessors before God. May they strengthen us now as the terrible hour of trial of our faithfulness to Christ draws near.

O holy Martyrs Dimitry and Nicholas, together with all the countless heavenly host of the sufferers of the new catacombs, pray to God for us!