In Bose, the deceased Metropolitan of St. Petersburg Anthony and his relations on church affairs with the Orthodox East

Speech delivered at the solemn meeting of the Society for Religious and Moral Education in the spirit of the Orthodox Church on Stremyannaya Street on December 12, 1912. A truly sincere and deeply felt word about the First Hierarch of the Russian Church, His Eminence Metropolitan Anthony, who died in Bose, as a man of a highly humane noble heart and as a talented professor, loved by his colleagues and students, we have now listened with keen interest from the lips of a student and colleague who stood close to him from the student bench until his death and was sincerely devoted to him - His Eminence Exarch of Georgia Archbishop Innocent, and therefore we take the liberty in this highly venerable meeting to touch only on that aspect of his activity that is relatively little known to the general public, but which vividly depicts before us the personality of the deceased hierarch as an enlightened, very thoughtful and extremely cautious leading member of the Holy Synod - about his attitude towards the churches of the Orthodox East. The late Metropolitan Anthony was called to the metropolitan see of the capital and then made the first member of the Holy Synod in an unusual manner, in which few of his ever-memorable predecessors achieved this high hierarchical position in our Russian Church. Almost 13 years (from 1870–1883) of academic-office professorial life as a layman and a happy family man, nine years (from March 4, 1883 to 1892), in the rank of hieromonk, archimandrite and bishop of Vyborg, vicar of the St. Petersburg diocese, scientific and pedagogical service as an inspector and rector of higher theological school, six years (1892–1898) as the archbishop of the new small, but very unique in its structure of church-social life of the Finnish diocese, with the right to permanently reside in St. Petersburg and take an active part in the affairs of the highest church administration as a member of the Holy Synod - and, finally, 14 years (from 1898–1912) as reigning metropolitan hail, and since 1900, i.e. the last 12 years and the first member of the Holy Synod - this is the path along which the ministry of his saint took place. Orthodox Church and theological science. It is quite natural, therefore, that in his person a hierarch with a clear understanding of the urgent needs and demands of our Russian Church in connection with its position among other autocephalous churches of the Orthodox East in particular and the significance of Orthodoxy in the fate of the Church of Christ on earth in general has developed. Hence his persistent desire to establish the most living and unceasing connection and fraternal unity in a union of peace and love between the Russian Church and the churches of the Orthodox modern East. The late Lord had many reasons and reasons for this. First of all, his own was appointed by the Highest Will as the first member of the Holy Synod in 1900. In response to his “filled with true brotherly love” message to the Ecumenical Patriarch Constantine V with a request and “hope for his God-pleasing prayerful intercession before the Supreme Shepherd for the strengthening of his strength to the worthy churches. Following the well-preserved custom, wrote Patriarch Constantine V, of exchanging mutually communicative letters about the personal changes that occur from time to time in the highest administration of the local holy churches of God, as proof of the unity of faith and the union of brotherly love, your most venerable Eminence informed us, dated the 2nd last month in his venerable message, that after the repose in the heavenly monastery of the ever-memorable Metropolitan of Kyiv and Galicia Ioannikis, by the Highest command of the Most Pious and Autocratic Emperor, in place of the First Member of the Holy Rule. Your most venerable and venerable Eminence has been called to the Synod of our sister, the Russian Church. So, having recently listened in the Synod with love and attention to this fraternal message and once again raised in our hearts prayers for the repose and eternal memory of your glorious predecessor, we glorified the All-Good God that in His unceasing Divine providence for the Holy Church He wisely heals and fills the resulting void every time, indicating the most suitable servants for the succession and acceptance of the free lot of ministry and apostleship for the good of the Church. Now, moving forward with joy to the answer, we cordially greet, on the occasion of the favorable correction of affairs, our beloved and honored sister in Christ - the Russian Church and your honored and venerable Eminence - the first because she has a servant most valiant in her administrative dignity, who has acquired with his education, virtues and God-loving character an honorable name among all superiors and subordinates, deservedly enjoying the most honorable glory beyond the boundless borders of the God-protected Russian State in sister churches; and your venerable Eminence (we welcome) because the works and merits of Your Eminence have been so worthily honored so far and your gifts and virtues are usefully brought to the benefit of the Church of the Lord, which He acquired with His blood.” However, Metropolitan Anthony’s sympathies for the Orthodox East arose in his professorial department under the influence of his study of the history of Christian preaching in Byzantium in its golden age and among the Bulgarians in the age of the “flourishing” of writing under Tsar Simeon the Book Lover. The appearance of Vladyka Metropolitan Anthony as an active figure in the highest church government also falls at a time that is very significant in the history of the Eastern churches in many respects. After the short-term administration of the great Church of Constantinople, Anthem VII and the Turkophile Constantine V, the throne of St. John Chrysostom returned on May 26, 1901, after seventeen years of solitude on St. Mount Athos, still in full strength of physical and spiritual strength, a proven and courageously persistent fighter for the rights and privileges of St. Orthodox Church, Patriarch Joachim III. At the pulpit of Evangelist Mark, on August 22, 1899, the life of the very old Patriarch Sophronius IV, who for some time occupied the throne of the Ecumenical Patriarch, quietly burned out, and in 1900, by the unanimous election of the people, the enlightened Patriarch Photius (Peroglu), who is still alive, was elevated to the pulpit, having declared himself with very energetic activity back in Jerusalem as a Philadelphian Archbishop since 1897 and Metropolitan of Nazareth since 1899. The throne of the Apostle James in Jerusalem, after the death of the enlightened Patriarch Gerasim, was occupied in 1897 by the gracious and very kind-hearted Patriarch Damian, who is still alive, although depressed by his venerable years and especially by the sad turmoil that he had to endure recently, when the so-called Arab movement began there, which was far from completely over. In the Patriarchate of Antioch, after the extremely sad reign on the throne of the holy apostles Peter and Paul of the Greek Spyridonius (1891–1897), a movement arose in favor of native Arab church power, which ended with the election of Patriarch Miletius in 1899 and the announcement of a schism on the part of the Orthodox Greek-Eastern Church, which ceased only with the death of Patriarch Meletius and the election in his place of the living Patriarch Gregory V. The turmoil in the Serbian Church under King Milan, the Bulgarian schism, the opening of a new episcopal see in Montenegro, the recent unrest in the Cypriot Church and many other important phenomena in the churches of the Orthodox East, Greek and Slavic, attracted the attention of the enlightened and thoughtful first member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Anthony and forced him to enter into correspondence with eastern hierarchs and even sovereign rulers. Metropolitan Anthony in the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III honored a strict zealot of the Orthodox faith, a courageous fighter for the rights of the Church of Christ and in his personal life a stern ascetic ascetic, who amazed even the Svyatogorsk anchorites with his vigilant all-night vigils and prayers. Patriarch Photius of Alexandria attracted his attention with his amazingly persistent and consistently stubborn character, unshakable willpower and indestructible energy in carrying out his views and convictions in the life of the Orthodox Church in the East in general and in his small Patriarchate of Alexandria in particular. Thanks to his enlightened and outstanding mind and amazing energy, this hierarch in a short time managed to revive church life and spiritual enlightenment not only at the mouth of the Nile, in the cities of Alexandria, Cairo, etc., but also along the entire middle course of this river, almost to Khartoum. In the activities of the Patriarchs of Constantinople Joachim and Photius of Alexandria, M. Anthony found for himself comforting and encouraging living examples of the structure of church parish life, their concerns for the spiritual education of the flock through the creation of schools with a church direction, the development of church preaching and the publication of church magazines and newspapers, efforts to strengthen the fight against Catholic and Protestant propaganda and the desire to establish relations with Old Catholics and Anglicans. Two other patriarchs Meletius of Antioch and Damian of Jerusalem, busy with the arrangement of those internal turmoil that occurred in their patriarchates, aroused deep sympathy and genuine sorrow in the kind heart of Vladyka Metropolitan Anthony. The same should be said about the Slavic churches - Serbian and Bulgarian. Hence, it is not surprising that throughout his life, Metropolitan Anthony tried to maintain a lively connection and constant communication with the Eastern churches, by sending letters of peace and congratulations, even though some of them sometimes remained unanswered... Thus, Patriarch Photius, offended by the ruling Russian spheres during his first election to the throne of the Apostle James and even exiled to the Sinai monastery, under watchful supervision, for seven whole years, deliberately avoided correspondence with Bishop Anthony, for whom he personally always had deep feelings of sympathy, which he expressed in a sympathetic telegram at his death and in the solemn service of the funeral liturgy. But, in addition to the desire to place himself and the Russian Church in a living direct connection with the universal Orthodox Church, the late Metropolitan Vladyka had motives of a purely academic professorial nature. In scientific excursions into the field of his favorite specialty and research into the history of Christian preaching among the Bulgarians, he was methodologically forced to test himself and his conclusions through constant excursions into the field of Eastern Byzantine church literature, which, with its wealth and the brilliant names of its great representatives, awakened in him feelings of deep respect and the most lively interest in the Greek East. Having torn himself away from the academic department and exchanging it for a soft, gilded chair in the meeting room of the Holy Synod, he continued to live by ideas, thoughts and even habits acquired through long academic service. The peculiar new and very small in volume Finnish diocese is deprived of that provincial petty everyday bustle that sucks in our diocesan bishops, sometimes very talented and energetic, various diocesan squabbles and slander, as well as that obsequious Pharisaical admiration for the bishop, in which the most limited little by little begin to forget themselves so much that they set the measure of their actions and decisions only the classic “Sic volo, sic jubco - that’s what I want, that’s what I order.” Permanent residence in St. Petersburg, among people of thought and labor, maintained in Metropolitan Anthony a keen interest in the Orthodox East, in testing himself as before through comparisons with the Orthodox East, in resolving all the most important church issues that were discussed with his participation in the Holy Synod. The responsible post of the first-present member of the Holy Synod, and then some requests presented by life to our highest church administration regarding the convening of a local council, the establishment of a patriarchate in our country, the relationship between church and state, the organization of parish life, and religious tolerance. regulation of church liturgical practice, marriage law, marriages of widowed priests, etc. - all these issues, which were simultaneously being developed in the churches of the Orthodox East, - especially in the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Alexandria, aroused on the part of the thoughtful, academically minded Bishop a natural desire to know how the same issues are being put into practice in the churches of the Orthodox East - in Patriarchates of Constantinople and Alexandria, and what results they give in practice. A special motivation for this for the late Metropolitan was the question of convening a local council in connection with the question of an ecumenical council, which the late Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III was keenly and seriously interested in in Bose, which was troubling the Russian church and which Metropolitan Anthony took to heart. Finally, there were quite a few questions of a general church nature that went far beyond the immediate urgent needs of the local Russian church: about Old Catholicism and its aspirations to unite with the Orthodox Church, about the Anglican Church and the recognition of its hierarchy of apostolic roots, about the reform of the church calendar, the fight against Catholic and Protestant propaganda, the Bulgarian and Arab schisms, first in Antioch patriarchate, and then in Jerusalem - all these are important and deeply interesting questions, and they were developed simultaneously both here in our Holy Synod and in the Orthodox East in the patriarchal synods. Again, it was quite natural for the first member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Anthony, cautious in his judgments and decisions and very thoughtful, to be keenly interested in the opinions and decisions on all these issues of the churches of the Orthodox East. But since the exchange on all these issues with the eastern autocephalous churches through letters and letters could not be considered exhaustive and completely satisfactory, in view of the official nature of this kind of documents, the inquisitive and cautious first member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Anthony, considered it more useful for himself on many issues of church life in the Orthodox East to communicate directly with representatives of the Russian church in Jerusalem, Constantinople and Athens, subordinate to him in diocesan terms, and from them to receive detailed reports from time to time. In the papers of the late Metropolitan Bishop, after his death, there are extensive and numerous reports from the archimandrites of Jerusalem, Athens and Constantinople. The Archimandrite Jonah of Constantinople was especially prolific in this regard, and from his reports he compiled a book in three editions entitled: “Light from the East.” In these issues, he talks about “what the Orthodox East is in church terms,” about its significance for the church life of the Russian people, about Russian figures in the Orthodox East, about Russian Athos, about Latin propaganda, about the Mytilene Treaty, about the relationship of the Anglican Church to the Eastern Church, about Latin and Protestant schools in the Orthodox East and about the economic state of churches in the Greek East. In the posthumous archive of the Metropolitan “not for publication” there is his extensive report under the title: “Russian diplomacy and church affairs of the Orthodox East over the last decade (1899-1909).” We saw here his second “off-the-record” report: “Russian Kelliots of the Holy Mount Athos and some other Russian figures in the Middle East.” Often for the same purpose - a comprehensive acquaintance with the practice of the modern Orthodox East or for the study of important issues planned for consideration in the Holy Synod, in the synodal decisions of the patriarchates, the late Metropolitan Vladyka assigned instructions to the professors of the academy who traveled to the Orthodox East, to make references for him in the patriarchal archives and libraries and to give him reports on these trips to the Orthodox East. The posthumous archive contains the following reports dated October 21, 1902 from the teacher (now professor) of the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary I. I. Sokolov “on some features in modern church and liturgical practice in the Greek East”, dated October 28, 1910 “on scientific studies in the archives and libraries of Constantinople, Athens and Alexandria” and a former associate professor of the same academy ex-archimandrite (false bishop) Mikhail (Semyonov) under the title: “A widower wishes to marry the cousin of his late wife.” The nature and content of the latest special report is clear. As for the reports of Professor I.I. Sokolov, then in them he concerns not only the liturgical practice of the modern Greek Church in the Orthodox East, but also such a particular issue as the rite in the week of Orthodoxy. In view of the judgments about this rite that arose in our Holy Synod, and in particular the question of when the observance of the Sunday of Orthodoxy “with anathematisms” fell out of use in the practice of the Greek Church, I. I. Sokolov gives the answer that this rite was allegedly abolished before the Sevastopol War (in 1854), at the insistence of the cunning and arrogant English envoy Stratford Canning, to whom the Armenians allegedly inspired the idea that the anathematism in it concerns not only them - the Armenian Monophysites, but Catholics and Protestants. In another report from 1910, Professor I. I. Sokolov proposes a project for a new special scientific church-theological journal dedicated exclusively to the Orthodox East, periodic congresses of Greek and Russian hierarchs to resolve matters of international character and significance, as well as Orthodox theologians, professors and scientists - for the exchange of opinions and judgments on subjects of general church and scientific-theological content - depicts the difficult situation of the Greek Orthodox Church in Turkey since the proclamation of the constitution in 1908, according to which the Turks, as is known, demanded the conversion of stavriots and spafiots to Islam, restrictions on bishops in their canonical visits to their dioceses, subordination of bishops and clergy to the civil court, deprivation of personal freedom of clergy without prior communication with the church authorities, invasion of patriarchal schools, confiscation of church property, etc. etc., and expresses the wish on behalf of the universal church that the Russian government actively contribute to the restoration of the status quo in the position of the Orthodox Church in Turkey, and that the Holy All-Russian Synod provides moral support to the patriarch and his synod with a fraternal sympathetic message and material assistance for the patriarchal schools, aimed at distracting the Orthodox from attending non-Orthodox schools in order to study foreign languages, and for the theological Khalkin school, which hitherto received a subsidy only in 2,000 rubles, granting an allowance of 25,000 rubles from income from the Bessarabian estates worshiped by St. places of the East. Regarding the Patriarchate of Alexandria, I. I. Sokolov, depicting in the brightest colors the amazingly energetic activity of the Patriarchate of Photius, expressed in the formation of St. synod of five metropolitans, in the creation of churches and schools, in raising and revitalizing church preaching and publishing church-scientific and popular magazines “Church Lighthouse” and “Panten”, near which he grouped a circle of talented, young and hardworking representatives of scientific and theological thought, sets out the needs of this patriarchate in view of his intentions to open the necessary theological and missionary school for the possible unification of the Coptic Church with Orthodox and to counter the energetic onslaught on it from heterodox propaganda, the fight against which is an urgent need. Here, the energetic head of the church, Patriarch Photius, just as in Constantinople, rebels against the Orthodox enthusiasm for French, English and German schools and opens his own schools with new languages. He also needs the help of Russia in order to lead this church out of its extremely difficult economic needs. The Metropolitan Bishop received information about the situation of Orthodoxy in the Christian East and its needs directly and in private letters from patriarchs, metropolitans, and Russian resident ministers and consuls. In the posthumous archive of the Bishop there remained letters dated June 11, 1912, No. 5550, in Bose from the deceased Patriarch of Constantinople Joachim III with a request for material assistance for the restoration of the ancient church in Nicaea, where the first ecumenical council met, and for the necessary excavations near it; from the Russian consul in Damascus, Prince B.N. Shakhovsky, dated July 20, 1908, a petition for assistance to the Aleppo and Harouan metropolises for 500 rubles. for each, for the maintenance of Orthodox schools not included in the area of ​​​​activity of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society. From the report of the Russian resident minister in Abyssinia dated June 22, 1902, Metropolitan Anthony draws information about the organization of church power among the Abyssinians and about the personality of Metropolitan Abuna Mateos of Abyssinia, sent by Emperor Menelik II to Russia in a special embassy. The eastern patriarchates - Antioch and Jerusalem, thanks to the turmoil and disagreements that have recently occurred in them, evoked a sincere and deep feeling of sorrow in the kind, sensitive heart of the deceased ruler. It is not surprising that the heads of these churches, in the most sorrowful and difficult moments of the events they experienced, as well as on the joyful and significant days of the Church of Christ, such as Easter and Christmas, always received the warmest cordial greetings from St. Petersburg from the deceased metropolitan. For innocent sufferers, these sympathies not only served as a ray of light, but also as encouragement in their enduring sorrows, and sometimes as a touching testimony to tears of brotherly love in powerful Orthodox Russia. We spoke in detail about the relations of the late Metropolitan Anthony to the South Slavs in general and Montenegrins and Bulgarians in particular in another place and on another occasion 1 . Now, in addition to what was said there, we consider it appropriate to cite here, very interesting for characterizing the personality of Bishop Metropolitan Anthony, his correspondence with Prince (now King) of Montenegro Nicholas and Metropolitan Mitrofan of Montenegro, regarding the consecration in 1909 in St. Petersburg of Archimandrite Vasile-Ostrovsky Monastery Kirill Mitrovich as bishop Zakholma-Ras diocese: Telegram from His Royal Highness, Prince Nicholas of Montenegro, from Cetinje, received on May 31, 1909: "To His Eminence, Metropolitan Anthony. Petersburg". “Following the example of my ancestors, who from time immemorial considered the close unity with Russia of not only their state, but also its church, to be of paramount importance, the consent of the Holy Synod was sought for the ordination in Russia of Archimandrite Kirill Mitrovich to the rank of bishop. On the occasion of the ordination of Father Kirill, please accept, along with my sincere gratitude, the gratitude of my people to the Holy Orthodox Church and its shepherds. I ask for your blessing and entrust myself to your holy prayers.” This telegram was received by Metropolitan Anthony in response to his telegram to the Prince of Montenegro with the following content: “For a long time, from ancient times, feelings of love, spiritual unity and kinship, strengthened by our common mother, the Orthodox Church, connected us, Russians, with our Slavic brothers into one family, into one Slavic brotherhood. They were born by the holy First Teachers of the Slavs, they were raised by the entire history of the Slavs. With these feelings of brotherhood, friendship, unity of faith, a host of twelve bishops, led by me, surrounded Father Cyril as their own brother, with prayer, according to apostolic tradition, laid their hands on him and now elevated him to the rank of Bishop. – We rejoice over the new bishop of the Montenegrin Church with your joy and send a blessing to Your Highness, your entire House and the glorious people of Montenegro, and to Vladyka Mitrofan, our fraternal greetings. We pray that the Lord will strengthen your rule for the good of the Black Mountain and for the joy of your beloved people.” Simultaneously with this telegram to Prince Nicholas, Metropolitan Anthony on June 11, 1909 sent a letter on the same occasion to Mitrofan, Metropolitan of Montenegro and Berdsk: Your Eminence, Your Eminence Vladyka, Most beloved brother and co-servant in Christ. From the darkness of centuries, the ongoing tribal kinship of the Slavic peoples at the dawn of their history was sealed by ties of spiritual kinship. The sermon of the holy First Teachers of the Slavs laid the foundation for this kinship; the common mother, the Orthodox Church, has carried it to the present day. The unity of faith, the unity of liturgical rites, the commonality of church language, which makes it possible for an Orthodox Slav in every corner of the Orthodox Slavic world to feel at home in relation to his religious needs and skills, turns the Orthodox Slavs into one family, into one brotherhood. But just as in a family brothers, equally bound by a feeling of mutual love, are not all equally close to each other, so in the history of relations between the Slavic peoples, a special closeness has manifested itself between the Russian and Montenegrin peoples. Those forced to apply for the consecration of their archpastors outside the Principality of Montenegro, bypassing the churches closest to them, are looking for a source of saving grace for their rulers in distant Russia, and the Holy Synod of Russia readily meets these appeals. Seeing now in the request of His Royal Highness Prince Nicholas and Your Eminence for the consecration of the Most Venerable Archimandrite Kirill in St. Petersburg a manifestation of the same trusting brotherly love and the same commitment to Russia that animated the Montenegrins in the past in their appeals to Russia with similar petitions, the Holy Synod hastened with joy to fulfill this request. With the highest permission of our Most Pious Sovereign, Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, on May 28 last at the Holy Synod, Archimandrite Kirill was named Bishop of Zakholm-Rash, and on the 31st of the same month, a host of twelve saints, at a solemn service in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, with prayer according to apostolic tradition, laid on him hands and installed him as Bishop. Notifying you of this, “may your joy be filled,” and I myself rejoice in your joy. On my own behalf and on behalf of the Most Reverend Bishops, my co-celebrants at the consecration of Archimandrite Kirill, I send fraternal greetings to Your Most Reverend Eminence and the Holy Synod of Montenegro and I pray to the All-Good God that He will strengthen you and the newly consecrated Bishop in your common labors for the good and prosperity of the Church of Montenegro 2. With complete respect and brotherly love for Christ I remain Your Eminence Anthony, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg.” In response to his letter, Vladyka Anthony received a heartfelt and deeply meaningful message from Metropolitan Mitrofan of Montenegro on August 25 with the following content: Your Eminence, Most Reverend Master, Dearest brother and co-servant in Christ! “Valuable message from Your Eminence dated June 11th. No. 8623 deeply touched me, especially since you deigned to touch upon those historical facts that testify to the continuous connection that has been established since ancient times between Russia and Montenegro. Although the distance separating Montenegro from the Slavic center - powerful Russia - is enormous, this distance did not in the least prevent it from going for more than two centuries, in the matter of spiritual unity, hand in hand with its same faith and same tribal elder sister - Great Russia. The circumstances in which Montenegro has found itself over the past two centuries have been very critical and dangerous. The strong Ottoman Empire, the treacherous Roman missionaries and the dangerously subtle Austrian diplomacy never missed a single favorable moment for them to subjugate Montenegro - this Serbian Ararat. But all the attempts of our strong and crafty enemies, thanks to the Great God, were unsuccessful. If Montenegro, in the days of its difficult trials, did not fall in an unequal struggle with a strong enemy, then it owes, first of all, to the holy Orthodox faith, the wise rule and dedication of its glorious Sovereigns from the August House of Petrovich-Njegos, and most importantly to the fact that the founder of this House was the first to establish relations between Montenegro and Russia. Hope in God and in the strong protection of Russia has always served as the best guarantee for Montenegro - for this small piece of Slavic land. The material assistance that Montenegro has received and is receiving from Russia is useful and great for it, but purely moral support is incomparably more important for it. Starting from the time of Peter the Great, all Russian Sovereigns provided powerful patronage to Montenegro. But the benevolent attitude of great Russia towards Montenegro was best expressed in that significant toast in which the late Emperor Alexander III in Bose called His Royal Highness, the now safely reigning Prince of Montenegro Nicholas I, “the only friend of Russia.” On the other hand, the now safely reigning All-Russian Autocrat Nikolai Alexandrovich, following the example of his August Parent, generously and comprehensively shows his high favor to both the Sovereign of Montenegro and His people, for which both the Sovereign of Montenegro and his brave people will always remain highly grateful and grateful, both to the Most August Emperor and to His powerful Empire. To further strengthen the spiritual connection that has existed for centuries between the two Slavic lands, the Montenegrin Sovereigns, in agreement with the Metropolitans, sent worthy persons, canonically chosen by the Montenegrin Holy Synod, to St. Petersburg for ordination to the episcopacy. Two months ago, for the same purpose, the highly worthy Kirill, Archimandrite of the Ostrog Monastery, was sent to St. Petersburg, who, by Your Eminence, in the concelebration of the Most Reverend Bishops, members of the Holy All-Russian Synod, at the request of my August Sovereign, at my request and by the Highest permission of the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, was consecrated in the Cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra May 31st to the rank of Bishop of Zakholmsko-Rashsky. My dear brother in Christ, the Most Reverend Bishop Kirill, upon his arrival from St. Petersburg, conveyed to His Royal Highness Prince Nicholas, His Most August House, my humility and my flock the blessing of Your Eminence and other hierarchs, members of the Holy All-Russian Synod, which blessing we consider to be a special joy and spiritual consolation. I humbly beg Your Eminence, as the first member of the Most Holy All-Russian Synod, to graciously deign to be the interpreter, both for me personally and for the members of the Montenegrin Holy Synod, of the deep respect and brotherly love for the Lord that we sincerely and heartily nourish for you and the Most Reverend Bishops, members of your Holy Synod. Committing myself to your holy prayers, I humbly ask Your Eminence to accept the assurance of my deep respect and devotion. I have the honor to be, Your Eminence in Christ, the brother and most humble servant of Metropolitan Mitrofan of Montenegro, Berdsk and Primorsky." In the posthumous archive of the Metropolitan there is a letter from Cetinje dated November 29, 1903 from Lazar F. Perrovic, who begs the Bishop to assist the Ducal artist Popovich to enter one of the painting schools in Russia or, as he puts it, “to some iconographic institution.” This letter begins with the following significant words: “Your ever-present, purely paternal disposition towards me during my time at the alma-mother of golden St. Petersburg... inspires me with the courage to dare to disturb you, Gracious Master, with the following most humble request,” and ends like this: “Obeying the voice of my heart, I cannot help but remember my burning desire to see my lord-benefactor at least once again, to accept it from him It’s a blessing to hear his truly instructive edification while walking difficultly up the difficult stairs of life.” Among the papers in the posthumous archive of the Bishop there is a copy of the dispatch of the Imperial Russian Envoy in Romania to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated November 28, 1909, No. 88, regarding the consecration of the Russian Church of the Imperial Mission in Bucharest by Bishop Vladimir of Kronstadt, November 26; Moreover, the not devoid of interest fact is reported about the imminent possibility of a clash between two diocesan authorities, the local - Ugrovlahian metropolitan - Primate Afenaly and the Russian Bishop Vladimir, to whose jurisdiction foreign Russian churches were subordinated. Although the civil and spiritual authorities of Romania, such as Sturdza and Bratiano and the deceased primate, Metropolitan Joseph, who was located in Russia, promised “not to raise any fundamental difficulties in the said clash of two hierarchical authorities,” the now ruling metropolitan, Primate Athanasius, refused the intention to consecrate and concelebrate Bishop Vladimir, but only after asking his blessing for three Romanian priests, to whose services the Imperial Mission constantly turned before the construction of the church, to participate in the sacred service and to invite him to be present “as an honored guest” in the altar during the consecration, relented. The happy resolution of the conflict and the elimination of any shadow of displeasure on the part of the Metropolitan Primate was greatly helped by the tact and resourcefulness of Bishop Vladimir, who at the liturgy commemorated, behind the Russian Royal House, the Romanian royal family, Metropolitan Athanasius and the Romanian Synod, and after the liturgy he personally put the mantle on the Metropolitan and presented him his pastoral staff, giving him the honor of ending church celebrations in a Russian church. This incident is of particular interest to us in view of possible conflicts in Bulgaria and Sofia in the near future, with the upcoming consecration of the Russian church built there in the name of St. Alexander Nevsky. Now we already have in the letter of the Slavic Metropolitan Gervasius dated November 9 addressed to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod clear evidence that the southern Slavs ardently mourn this heavy loss suffered by our church, since in the person of Metropolitan Anthony “the Slavs, especially the Bulgarians, are losing their benefactor” 3 . This is what a thoughtful, serious and experienced helmsman the Russian Church has lost in the person of the late Metropolitan Anthony in Bose, and the Greek and South Slavic Orthodox East - a benevolent, cordial and always responsive to their needs and sorrows benefactor and true friend. Speech at a Slavic charitable society on the topic: “The deceased Metropolitan of St. Petersburg Anthony and his Slavophile views were in Bose” (Church. Ved. No. 47, 1912, pp. 1910–1920). A curious version of this letter was written by Vladyka Anthony in his own hand and was not sent to its intended destination. “By the will of God, Black Mountain is destined to stand guard over holy Orthodoxy. For centuries, under the leadership of its courageous rulers, it was an indestructible bulwark of Orthodoxy against the stormy onslaught of Islam. Now Montenegro is entering a new period of history. Open to the influence of the heterodox West, it becomes an object of desire for the Latin Church and its ambitious high priests. The silent streams of Western heterodoxy and unbelief are more dangerous than the violent surf of the Muslim sea. We pray to the Lord that He will strengthen the Church of Montenegro on the path of its new trials and may it give it strength, under the leadership of its wise archpastors, to stand as firmly and unshakably on the “Crete of Honor” and its native Orthodoxy as it has hitherto. Church Ved. No. 48–49, 1912, p. 1963.