Приложение

I. Russian Church Abroad 594 † JOHN, Archbishop of Brussels and Western Europe The Russian Church Abroad is a part of the Russian Church, located outside the borders of the Russian state and currently headed by the First Hierarch and the Synod of Bishops, elected by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Abroad. The Russian Church has had its Foreign part for about two centuries. The preaching of Christianity to the pagan tribes of Asia led to the creation of missions, which over time became dioceses, in China and Japan. The continuation of preaching in Asia was the spread of Orthodoxy among the pagan population in the Aleutian Islands and Alaska and the creation of a mission for North America and then a diocese. In Western Europe, starting from the 18th century, churches were built, first at Russian embassies, and then separately from them in places visited by Russians when traveling abroad. All these churches were considered to be in the diocese of the Metropolitan of Petrograd and in the last time before the revolution were under the direct supervision of his vicar, the Bishop of Kronstadt. None of the Eastern Patriarchs, whose authority was highly revered by the Russian people, nor any of the other heads of the Orthodox Churches, ever objected to such a spread of the Russian Church. If, according to church canons, thirty years ago is sufficient for a church or place to be considered belonging to the diocese that owned it during those years, then all the more must we recognize as indisputable the right of the Russian Church to those places that have been cared for by it for many decades. We can say with confidence that this question would never have been raised if the Russian Empire, and with it the Russian Church, had remained in their former strength and glory and had not a disaster befall them. After the collapse of the monarchy, the Russian Church continued to enjoy its former rights inside and outside Russia. But this did not last long. Soon persecution began against her. The communist government that came to power set itself the goal of eradicating all religion, which, according to Marxist teaching, is prejudice and superstition. The main blow was directed at the Orthodox Church, to which the vast majority of the Russian people belonged and which had inspired them for centuries since their baptism. Closings of churches, persecution and murder of clergy began, which then turned into a systematic struggle against the Church with the aim of destroying it. Foreseeing the possibility of depriving the supreme power of the Russian Church of freedom and the impossibility for certain parts of the Russian Church to communicate with it, Patriarch Tikhon, who then headed it, gave orders that temporary church administrations should be created in parts separate from the central administration under the leadership of the oldest hierarchs located there. At that time, church administrations had already been created in places that had no relations with Moscow during the Civil War within Russia itself (in the south of Russia and Serbia). When the Great Exodus of Russians from their Fatherland followed after the defeat of the troops fighting the communist regime, then the Supreme Church Administration of the South of Russia, headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), known to the entire Orthodox world, also found itself abroad. The hierarchs who arrived in Constantinople immediately turned to the locum tenens of the Ecumenical Throne of blessed memory, Metropolitan Dorotheus of Brus, with a request to allow them to continue to care for their Russian flock. Permission was given to them by an act of December 29, 1920. At the beginning of the next year, 1921, at the invitation of the Serbian Patriarch Dimitri, Metropolitan Anthony moved to Serbia, and the Supreme Administration of the Russian Church Outside of Russia moved there. All the Russian bishops of the Russian Church, all parts of the Russian Church outside the borders of the Russian state, united around him then. The churches, which were in the possession of the vicar of the Petrograd Metropolitan, were entrusted to Archbishop Eulogius, first by the Temporary Higher Church Administration, and then by Patriarch Tikhon. Spiritual missions in the Far East (China and Japan), as well as bishops who moved from Russia to Manchuria, recognized themselves as subordinate to the resulting Church Administration Abroad. According to the wishes of Patriarch Tikhon, the same Office appointed one of the bishops who arrived from the south of Russia to Constantinople (Metropolitan Platon) to America. Our Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem and the Protopresbyter in Argentina also submitted to the Higher Church Administration. The Supreme Church Administration, which originated in the south of Russia in regions then free from Soviet power, corresponding to the later decree of Patriarch Tikhon of November 7/20, 1920, confirmed by the locum tenens of the Ecumenical Throne, Metropolitan Dorofey and fraternally accepted by Patriarch Dimitri of Serbia, became truly the highest ecclesiastical authority for all Russian churches located outside the borders of Russia. The Higher Church Administration, which at first, in addition to bishops, also included representatives of the clergy and laity, recognized Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow as its supreme kiierarch and considered its forced separation from him as temporary and considered itself responsible to the future All-Russian Council for the liberation of Russia from godless power. Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow recognized the appointments made by the Supreme Church Administration Abroad. He even gave him instructions, for example, on the appointment of Metropolitan Platon as diocesan bishop of North America, on the execution of an audit [of the activities of the temporary administrator of the Aleutian and North American diocese, Bishop Alexander (Niemolovsky)] ordained in Belgrade by the rector of the church in Copenhagen, Bishop Anthony [Dashkevich]. In November 1921, the first Foreign Council took place in Sremski Karlovci, Yugoslavia, in which, in addition to 24 bishops, representatives of the clergy and laity took part. Being thus the voice of all Russians who managed to escape from Soviet power, the Council considered itself obliged to speak out about the situation in Russia, where the rest of the Russian population was languishing under the yoke of that power. The Council addressed the Genoa Conference with a request not to support Bolshevik power and to help the Russian people free themselves from it. The Bolshevik government, seeing this as a threat to itself, decided to put pressure on the Russians abroad through the church authorities. Under strong pressure from the Soviet government, Patriarch Tikhon signed a decree banning the Higher Church Administration, instructing Metropolitan Evlogii [Georgievsky] to take care of the formation of a new administration. After this, Patriarch Tikhon was immediately arrested. Guided by his previous order of November 7/20, 1920, foreign bishops met on August 31, 1922 and decided to elect a Synod of Bishops instead of the Supreme Church Administration. Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev [Khrapovitsky] was elected its chairman, as the senior in rank, who occupied the oldest Russian department and was the only permanent member of the Russian Synod, besides the Patriarch. All Russian churches submitted to the Synod of Bishops, as before the Supreme Church Administration, and the elected Synod of Bishops became the recognized church authority abroad. The Synod of Bishops and the Council continued to consider themselves and the churches under their jurisdiction an inextricable part of the Russian Church. According to Russian custom, in all Russian churches abroad the name of Patriarch Tikhon was exalted during divine services, and after him the name of the head of the Church abroad, Metropolitan Anthony. The Chairman of the Abroad Synod of Bishops, Metropolitan Anthony, who after the arrest of Patriarch Tikhon remained the eldest Russian hierarch among those at large, stood up in defense of the persecuted Russian Church. In his messages to His Holiness the Patriarchs and to those in power who were heterodox, he explained the true position of the Russian Church, which often reached them in a distorted form. His appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury resulted in the intervention of the English government in the fate of Patriarch Tikhon, and he was released from prison when his trial was already scheduled and an indictment was drawn up with the aim of sentencing him to death. After the death of Patriarch Tikhon in 1925, the Russian Church Abroad recognized Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsky as locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, but he was soon arrested and exiled by the Soviet authorities for his firmness and unwillingness to make concessions to the godless authorities. The Church in Russia and abroad continued to consider him its head, and his name was exalted during divine services in all churches. Metropolitan Sergius [Stragorodsky] became the deputy. By this time, some disagreements had arisen among the Russian hierarchs abroad, and an appeal was made to Metropolitan Sergius with a request to make a decision. This allowed Metropolitan Sergius to express his view on the situation of the foreign part of the Russian Church. Addressing a general letter to bishops who were abroad on September 12, 1926, he writes: “My dear saints. You are asking me to be a judge in a case that I do not know at all... Can the Moscow Patriarch even be the leader of the church life of Orthodox emigrants?.. The benefit of the church work itself requires that you, by common consent, create for yourself a central body of church government, authoritative enough to resolve all misunderstandings and disagreements and having the power to suppress misunderstandings and all disobedience, without resorting to our support...” In a letter filled with love for his brothers abroad, he says: “It is unlikely that we will see each other again in this life, but, I hope, by the grace of God we will see each other in the life to come.” That was the last letter of Metropolitan Sergius, in which he freely wrote what he internally knew to be true. Imprisonment, threats against not only him, but the entire Russian Church and the false promises of the Soviet government broke him: a few months after his loving letter to foreign hierarchs, which was, as it were, a testament before the loss of internal freedom, Metropolitan Sergius issued a Declaration in which he recognized the Soviet government as a truly legitimate Russian government, caring for the welfare of the people, “whose joys are our joys and sorrows are ours.” sorrows" (Declaration of July 16/29, 1927). At the same time, in accordance with the promise he made to the Soviet government, Metropolitan Sergius demanded that the foreign clergy sign a pledge of loyalty to the Soviet government. This decree was in complete contradiction with the view expressed 9 months earlier that the Moscow Patriarchate could not lead the church life of emigrants. If for those in Russia who had suffered severe suffering there could have been mitigating circumstances for their moral surrender to cruel power, just as church canons during persecution mitigated the penances of those who renounced Christ after severe suffering, then for those who were free and in comparative safety there were no mitigating circumstances or justifications and even common sense in such a subscription. Metropolitan Sergius himself hardly expected that anyone abroad would obey his decree, and he did this clearly in order to fulfill the demands of the Soviet government and thereby relieve himself of responsibility. However, this turned out to be Metropolitan Evlogy with his vicars and Bishop of Sevastopol Veniamin [Fedchenkov]. Meanwhile, in Russia itself there were courageous confessors from among the prisoners and those at large, who declared to Metropolitan Sergius that they did not recognize the agreement with the godless government - the persecutor of the Church. Many of them even interrupted prayerful communication with Metropolitan Sergius, as “fallen” and having entered into an alliance with atheists, and they were followed by part of the clergy and laity in Russia. The godless Soviet government brutally persecuted such staunch hierarchs and their followers. Having failed to fulfill her promises to Metropolitan Sergius, which prompted him to come to an agreement with her, she at the same time imprisoned, exiled and even executed many who did not recognize Metropolitan Sergius’s Declaration. Among the persons who did not recognize the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius on allegiance to Soviet power were the locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter [Polyansky], whose deputy was Metropolitan Sergius, Metropolitans of Yaroslavl Agafangel [Preobrazhensky] and Kazan Kirill [Smirnov], indicated by Patriarch Tikhon as possible locums of that throne (if if Peter had not stepped on it), Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd [Petrovykh] and many other famous hierarchs. And Metropolitan Sergius himself was of the same mind with them long before the signing of the Declaration for the reasons stated above. The declaration of Metropolitan Sergius did not bring any benefit to the Church. The persecution not only did not stop, but sharply intensified. To the number of other accusations brought by the Soviet authorities against clergy and laity, one more was added - non-recognition of the Declaration. At the same time, a wave of church closures swept across Russia. Over the course of several years, almost all the churches were destroyed or taken for various needs. Entire regions were left without a single church. Concentration camps and places of forced labor contained thousands of clergy, a significant part of whom were never released, having been executed there or died from backbreaking labor and deprivation. Even the children of priests and all lay believers were persecuted. The Russian Church Abroad was spiritually with these persecuted. Apart from several of the hierarchs already mentioned, all the others, led by Metropolitan Anthony, flatly refused to sign their loyalty to the Soviet regime and made a blatant denunciation. In addition, Metropolitan Anthony, who loved Metropolitan Sergius very much and was internally suffering for his beloved student and friend, wrote a letter of exhortation on his own behalf, which probably did not reach him, in any case, could no longer influence his actions. Just as the hierarchs and flock within Russia who did not recognize the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, so the foreign part of it never left the Russian Church. All of them were still in spiritual unity with the locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter, who was languishing in a deserted place in the Far North. His name was exalted in all the churches of the Russian Abroad. In all its churches, prayers were offered for the brothers suffering in the Fatherland, for its deliverance from godless power and the repose of those tortured by it. Meanwhile, Metropolitan Evlogy, who had given the signature required by Metropolitan Sergius on loyalty to the Soviet government, was invited to a prayer organized in England for the suffering Russian Church and took part in it. This was seen as a speech against Soviet power, and he was banned from the priesthood by Metropolitan Sergius. Not wanting to obey this decree, but at the same time not wanting to admit his guilt before the Russian Synod Abroad, Metropolitan Eulogius then asked the Patriarch of Constantinople to temporarily accept him and his flock under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which he did. Despite his and Metropolitan Plato’s departure from the Church Abroad and, one might say, from the Russian Church in general, the Russian Church Abroad represents a free part of the Russian Church. She enjoyed the attention of His Holiness the Patriarchs and other hierarchs of the fraternal Orthodox Churches. The Serbian Patriarch Varnava showed special attention and care for her, who tried to return to the Russian Church Abroad the bishops who had broken away from it (Metropolitan Eulogius, Metropolitan Platon with their vicars), and also to act as a mediator between her and Metropolitan Sergius, whom he honored and loved as the rector of his Academy. However, he soon had to become convinced that Metropolitan Sergius was in the hands of enemies of the Church and his actions were harmful to it, which the Patriarch directly wrote to him about. Patriarch Varnava addressed the Russian Abroad on July 9/22, 1930, during a service in the Russian Trinity Church, with a word in which he said: “Know that the fanatics persecuting the Church not only torment it, but are trying to split it, separate it and in every possible way extend their criminal hands to you, who are outside your fatherland. You, faithful sons of Russia, must remember that you are the only support of the great Russian people... The church strife sown by the enemies of your Motherland must stop at all costs. Among you is the great hierarch, Metropolitan Anthony, who is an adornment of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church. This is a high mind, which is similar to the first hierarchs of the Church of Christ at the beginning of Christianity. This is where the truth of the Church lies, and those who have moved away must return to it. All of you, not only those living in our Yugoslavia, but also those located in America, in Asia, in all countries of the world, must, led by your great archpastor, Metropolitan Anthony, form a single indestructible whole, not succumbing to attacks and provocations of the enemies of the Church. I, as the Serbian Patriarch, now your own brother, fervently pray to God that He will unite the Russian people who are abroad into a single whole, so that Russia will grow as it was under the leadership of the Orthodox autocratic tsar, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and all His saints I bless you with the patriarchal blessing.” Patriarch Varnava took an active part in the affairs of the Russian Church Abroad, convening, under his chairmanship, meetings of representatives of various foreign church regions with the aim of ending disagreements, ending the schism and returning those who had left it to the Church Abroad. With his participation and under his chairmanship, in 1935, the “Regulations on the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad” were developed, signed by him and the Russian hierarchs and which became the basis for the management of the Russian Church Abroad. The same loving attitude towards the Russian Church Abroad was demonstrated by Patriarch Gregory of Antioch, who always supported it and donated funds for the publication of the Orthodox catechism compiled by Metropolitan Anthony. His Holiness the Patriarch of Alexandria has always been in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, providing it with fraternal support and addressing its first hierarchs as its legitimate leaders. The Blessed Patriarch of Jerusalem also not only allowed the actions of the Russian Church within the boundaries of its Patriarchate, but also called on it to participate in the affairs of the Patriarchate. Thus, having a need for the ordination of new bishops, he invited Archbishop Anastassy, ​​the current metropolitan and First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, who was in Jerusalem, to concelebrate with him. Blessed Patriarch Timothy was one of the bishops consecrated jointly by Patriarch Damian and Metropolitan Anastasius. The Archbishop of Mount Sinai was always in communion with the Russian Church Abroad. The Bulgarian Church was in fraternal unity with her. Within the Local Churches, the Russian Church Abroad cared for its spiritual children in agreement with the hierarchy of those Churches and acted within the boundaries granted to it, completely independently, continuing to exercise the rights of the Russian Church previously granted to it. In 1935, the 50th anniversary of the priesthood of the head of the Russian Church Abroad, Metropolitan Anthony, was celebrated. The celebration of this anniversary took on the character of a great triumph of the Orthodox Church. Not only the Serbian Church, within which he lived, took an active part in it, but representatives from various Churches arrived in Belgrade. Metropolitan Elijah of Lebanon arrived from the Antioch Church. Representatives arrived from different parts of the globe. The following year, 1936, the First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, Metropolitan Anthony, died. His successor was Metropolitan Anastassy, ​​who had been ordained even earlier and was soon elected by the Council of Russian Foreign Bishops. At first, that change did not bring changes to the position of the Russian Church Abroad. It continued to exist and operate as before, guided by the “Regulations” adopted under the chairmanship of Patriarch Barnabas, and enjoying the same rights everywhere. In 1937, the locum tenens of the Moscow Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa, died in exile, and, apparently, shortly before or shortly after him, also in exile, Metropolitan Kirill of Kazan, who was supposed to become a locum tenens after Metropolitan Peter, died in exile. The Patriarchal Moscow Synod, composed of bishops invited to it by Metropolitan Sergius, approved the latter as locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. At that time, the Russian Church inside Russia was in a state of extreme devastation. There were only 20 bishops at large; most of the churches were closed, destroyed or converted to other places. Entire regions and vast spaces did not have a single church. The relics and miraculous icons were taken to museums. Most of the remaining clergy were in exile, in forced labor, or lived in hiding their rank, earning a pitiful living through some kind of labor and only secretly performing divine services with the faithful laity. At the same time, Metropolitan Sergius, bound by his promise to the Soviet authorities, continued to assert that there was no persecution of the Church in Russia. The Church Abroad, no longer subordinate to Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod, remained in the same relationship to him, feeling herself spiritually united with the suffering Mother Church and still offering prayers for her and her suffering brothers. In 1939, World War II began, in which Russia, ruled by Soviet power, was also drawn into it. The people expected the war to bring liberation from Soviet rule, and at the beginning of the war they surrendered in droves, unwilling to defend their oppressor. However, when the people realized that there was a struggle against Russia, which the Germans wanted to conquer, they rose to defend the Fatherland. The Soviet government took advantage of the people's impulse. Seeing that the faith hidden among the people during the war began to break through uncontrollably, that there was no way to keep it, since it was still the main internal strength of millions of Russians, the Soviet government decided to temporarily make concessions and pay attention to the Church, to make the people its ally in a difficult struggle in which it could easily be crushed without popular support. Some closed churches were opened, and some of the relics taken to museums were returned. This was only a small part of the shrines and church property seized by the Soviet government, and yet many saw this as a change in the attitude of the Soviet government towards the Church. The Soviet government allowed the election of the patriarch and allowed the apparent freedom of the Church, but, in essence, did not at all ease the situation of the Church. The Patriarch and his Synod were under the strict supervision of the authorities and could not do anything without the knowledge of the representative of the Soviet government - the Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Orthodox Church and had to follow his instructions. There is no resemblance to the position of the Holy Synod in tsarist times. The Russian Tsar and his government were Orthodox and strove for the good of the Church, and if even then there were cases when representatives of the authorities, chief prosecutors, misunderstood the interests of the Church and their actions were harmful to it, however, these were isolated episodes, harmful, but did not represent the systematic destruction of the Church. Now the Soviet government is communist, godless in its basis and idea, which has set itself the goal of destroying all religion as superstition and inculcating atheism. There may be temporary concessions, there may be different tactics, but the main goal remains unchanged. Using ecclesiastical power and the Church to achieve its political goals, the Soviet government is preparing in advance to strike the Church when it finds it possible and convenient. We see evidence and examples of such flexibility of Soviet policy in all areas. The Soviet government, when it needed it, made extensive use of the patriotism of the Russian people and showed itself as a truly Russian government, but before the war was over, Russian patriotic slogans were discarded, the government put international politics and the goals of communism in the first place, although it has not yet completely abandoned the Russian historical goals that are now beneficial for it. Having allowed the influence of the army and its commanders to increase during the war, the Soviet government dealt with the now popular military leaders and sent many distinguished soldiers into exile, declaring that the entire success of the war should be attributed to the Communist Party. Having established friendly relations with various foreign governments, the Soviet leaders then changed abruptly and began to throw mud at those who embraced them. Calling during the war to support the integrity and glory of the Fatherland, after the war the Soviet government put to death many prominent Russian patriots. The same applies to the Church: the communist government, contrary to its basic worldview, supported the Church, intending to destroy everything that was allowed to it and the Church itself when it no longer needed it. Why, at the present time, does the Soviet government sometimes show the appearance of benevolence towards the Church? Firstly, it does not yet feel strong enough to in all cases enter into a direct struggle with the believing people inside Russia and enter into a conflict with them open to the whole world, especially in view of the possibility of international complications. Secondly, for now it needs to cover up its real goals and uses the clergy to create a good opinion of itself among free peoples. Thirdly, through the clergy subordinate to it, the Soviet government wants to influence the Russian Abroad and control the Russian emigration. Knowing that Russians are predominantly united around the Church, it, not having the power to destroy the Church now, wants through it to have influence on those not subject to it: by holding the clergy in its hands, it thereby expects to influence the flock. Hence the demand, through the obedient head of the Church, for all clergy to sign up for loyalty to the Soviet regime. Is such a requirement legal and feasible? Russians abroad are not subjects of Soviet power. While remaining faithful to our Fatherland, we do not recognize as legitimate a government that goes against the thousand-year-old worldview of our people, and we went abroad so as not to obey it. Why should bishops and other clergy promise loyalty to him? Does the Archbishop of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarch, demand loyalty to the Turkish government from his Greek and other flocks in America and other parts of the world? Does the Patriarch of Antioch, whose Patriarchate embraces Syria and Lebanon, demand loyalty to one or another government from people not subject to them? Did the Russian Holy Synod demand loyalty to the Russian government and even to the most pious emperor from Orthodox Christians who were citizens of America or who were subjects of other states? During the Russo-Japanese War, the enlightener of Japan, Russian Archbishop Nicholas, while remaining in Japan, blessed the Orthodox Japanese soldiers who went to war to fight for their fatherland. Although he himself did not personally perform divine services, since he could not pray for victory over his native Russia, he allowed the Japanese clergy subordinate to him to do so. At the end of the war, he was awarded by the Russian Holy Synod and the Russian Tsar himself for fulfilling his pastoral duty. If the pious king and the Holy Governing Synod acted this way, then does anyone have the right and is there any moral truth in this - from people fighting against the godless government, through their spiritual shepherds, demand obedience to it? When the Serbian Patriarch Arseny III, and after him Arseny IV with his flock, left their Fatherland, which had been under the rule of the Turks since the 14th century, and moved to another country, the archpastors and shepherds of the resettled Serbs no longer obeyed the new patriarchs of Serbia, enslaved by the Turks, in order to be free. Didn't something similar happen in Greece? Why did the Greek Church arise and exist as an autocephalous Church, although its region from time immemorial was part of the Constantinople (Ecumenical) Patriarchate? When there was a Greek uprising against the Turks in 1819–1820, the Turkish government demanded that the patriarch excommunicate the rebel Greeks, and the patriarch complied with this. Although the Greeks knew well that he only outwardly fulfilled what was demanded of him, remaining in soul and heart with them, however, having declared his repressions invalid, they began to be governed by the church independently of him, and with the formation of the Hellenic state, an independent Hellenic Church was established. For about 30 years, the Archbishop of Constantinople and the Greek Synod had no communication with each other, until relations were established between the Patriarchal and Greek Churches as independent Churches. Until recently, Greeks living in other countries were nourished by the clergy of the Greek Church, and only after the First World War, when Turkey was dilapidated and weakened, did the Greeks in the diaspora once again become the spiritual flock of the Ecumenical Patriarch. However, the Greek Church still remains autocephalous, and even after the Balkan and two world wars, new regions annexed to Greece, which had long belonged to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, entered into it, and the Archbishop of Athens received the title of His Beatitude. It is obvious that only when Constantinople again becomes the capital of the Greek kingdom, if by the grace of God, will those two Greek Churches merge again, just as all the disparate parts of the Serbian Church united when all the Serbian regions were liberated and united into one state. If the desire to preserve spiritual freedom and protect oneself from any influence of the authorities, although not Christian, but still revered God in their own way and, although they limited the freedom of Christians, but allowed open persecution only at times, was the reason for the external separation of parts of the Church from the Mother Church, then it is all the more just, permissible and necessary to protect believers from any pressure from the authorities, which openly set itself the goal of fighting religion as superstition, and systematically striving to destroy it. “The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church” (see: Matt. 16:18). The Church experienced terrible persecution and endured it, crowned with a host of new martyrs. But the Church never desired persecution and prayed for deliverance from them and from temptations. She prayed for the failure of the persecutors, and it is known that Julian the Apostate died when St. Basil the Great prayed for the preservation of the Church from him. Who needs the destruction of the Russian Church Abroad? Are they Russian refugees, Russian Abroad? But it is the Church Abroad that gives him spiritual strength, unites him, and protects him from complete disappearance with the loss of the Orthodox faith, and together with the entire Russian culture created by Orthodoxy. Only enemies of Russia and the Russian people can wish for this. Is it necessary, is it useful for the Russian Church within Russia to destroy the Church Abroad and join the Patriarchate? The Russian Church Abroad is not spiritually separated from the suffering Mother. She offers prayers for her, preserves her spiritual and material wealth, and in due time will unite with Her, when the reasons that separated them disappear. There is no doubt that within Russia many hierarchs, clergy and laity themselves would be glad to do as we do, if they could. The cessation of the separate existence of the Church Abroad is necessary and beneficial only for the Soviet government. Through the clergy she wants to have control and influence over emigration. The emigrants who did not want to be under the spiritual guidance of shepherds dependent on the Soviets, left without the Church, would scatter and no longer become dangerous to the Soviet regime. The clergy in Russia, especially the hierarchy, will be a hostage for emigration. If when there was no reason to make Patriarch Tikhon responsible for the actions of the foreign hierarchy, he was accused of that, then upon subordination, the patriarch will bear full responsibility. When Russian emigrants speak out against Soviet power, she will not hesitate to hang the patriarch on the Kremlin gates, just as the Turks hung Patriarch Gregory V on the gates of the Patriarchate. Having no visible relations with its Church in the Fatherland, the Russian Church Abroad is in spiritual communion with all those who suffer and are persecuted, languishing in chains and exile. We believe and know that the Orthodox faith is strong in Russia. The Lord God, who preserved seven thousand men who did not bend the knee to Baal in the days of Elijah, and now has many of His servants, secretly serving and praying to Him throughout the entire expanse of the Russian land. And among the bishops, outwardly submissive to the Soviet regime, many are tormented internally and, when the opportunity arises, will follow the example of those who, at the Council of Chalcedon, declared with tears that they were forced to give their signatures at the “Robber” Council, following the example of St. Patriarch Paul, oppressed by his conscience and accepted the schema in the consciousness of his weakness under the iconoclasts. This is evidenced by the many who left their homeland during the Second World War. The Soviets also know this and keep everyone, especially those temporarily released abroad, under open and secret supervision. But at the same time, there are also opposite phenomena. Recently, the professor of the Theological Academy, Archpriest Osipov, who a few days before occupied a prominent position in the clergy, attacked God and the faith of Christ with terrible blasphemy. Some other clergy also agreed with him; by the resolution of the Moscow Patriarchal Synod of December 30, 1959, they were defrocked and deprived of all church communion. They left us, but they were not ours, says the decree in the words of Holy Scripture (1 John 2:19). Undoubtedly, in addition to these who have already been revealed, there are also other secret enemies of the Church, who for the time being pretend to be her faithful sons in order to then bring shame to her. Under the rule of the atheists there is a spiritual winter, during which it is impossible to recognize trees deprived of their leaves (see: “The Shepherd” of Hermas). There the words of the prophet Micah are fully fulfilled: Do not trust a friend, do not rely on a friend... a man’s enemies are his own household (Micah 7:5–6). Russian refugees, scattered all over the world, often in difficult conditions, are waiting for that bright day when the Fatherland will be freed from the power of the atheists who torment the soul and body of their brothers, and they will be able to unite with it. The Russian Church Abroad bears with them the heavy cross of exile. Without betraying Orthodoxy in any way, preserving the traditions and customs of the Russian Church and its material wealth located abroad, she, according to her strength, nourishes her flock, keeps them in Orthodoxy, educates new generations in them and spreads Orthodoxy among the peoples among whom she is located. In foreign churches, prayers are always proclaimed for the suffering Fatherland, for the persecuted Church, for the tortured and killed, for whom they do not dare to openly pray there, for the salvation of the Fatherland and deliverance from the cruel government, for the restoration of orthodoxy and piety. All those prayers are possible only with independence from those who are in the hands of that same cruel power and submit to it. The Church Abroad, headed by the Council of Bishops, most of whom were already consecrated abroad and pledged by the bishop's oath to obey its ecclesiastical authority, has over 20 bishops in different countries. It has male and female monasteries, some of which have existed since tsarist times (in Palestine), others began in Russia (Lesninsky in France, Mother of God of Vladimir in California and Canada), and the rest were created already in the days of our disasters, in the bowels of the Russian Church Abroad (such as the Holy Trinity, St. Job of Pochaev, Novo-Diveevo, New Root Hermitage and others). The Russian Church Abroad has its own seminary (standing in the rank of higher educational institutions according to local laws), its own secondary educational institutions and schools, in which children growing up abroad receive Orthodox teaching and perceive Russian culture. Parishes and church communities of the Russian Church Abroad are scattered all over the world, both in large cities of global importance and in deserted places where there are a handful of Russians. They are cared for by priests, who are often forced to travel long distances to visit parishioners living at great distances. Others must earn their living by some kind of labor, since their poor flock cannot provide for them. The archpastors and pastors of the Church Abroad share with their flock all the mental and material hardships that are inevitably associated with being in refugee, and fulfill their duty of service to the Orthodox, in particular the Russian, Church and the dictates of their conscience in relation to their earthly fatherland Russia and their brothers. But they are not burdened so much by deprivation as by a lack of understanding of their brothers, representatives of other Orthodox Churches. While the Church Abroad is following the same path that the first hierarchs of the entire Orthodox Church blessed it with in their time, the attitude of their successors has changed significantly. Restrictions are placed on her and demands are made on her hierarchy and clergy that are not fulfilled by the duty of conscience and pastoral duties. When Russia was prosperous, it provided every possible support to its Orthodox brethren who were in worse conditions, especially those enslaved by infidels. Not only did the state direct all aspirations towards this, but the entire people took part in this. Prayers for them were offered in churches and in homes. All evening prayers, printed in complete prayer books, ended with the petition: “Overthrow the blasphemous Hagaryan kingdom and subjugate the Orthodox Tsar, establish the orthodoxy and lift up the horn of Orthodox Christians.” This was published both in church books and in prayer books for the people - everyone can check it. This prayer was read daily by many Russian people in all corners of Russia until recently. Isn’t it necessary now for everyone to pray even more for the overthrow of not only the blasphemous, but the God-fighting government, which has taken up arms not only against Orthodoxy, but in general against faith in God? And if prayers are often offered for this in churches of other Christian denominations, isn’t it the first duty of the Orthodox, especially the sons of enslaved Russia, who are outside it, to pray for this? He who is in captivity and who is free will give an answer in due time to the Great Bishop, the All-Righteous Judge. May He then say: You have been faithful for a little while... enter into the joy of your Lord (Matthew 25:21). II. Act of the commission for the examination of the remains of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. In connection with the upcoming glorification of Archbishop John of Shanghai and San Francisco in July 1994, with the blessing of Archbishop Anthony of Western America and San Francisco, the tomb of Bishop John was opened in his tomb under the Cathedral of the Most Holy Theotokos Joy of All Who Sorrow in San Francisco. Before opening the coffin and examining the honorable remains of the late Bishop John in Bose, preparation was required, both spiritual and practical. In practice, it was necessary to find out how difficult it is to open the sarcophagus in which the ruler’s coffin is located, what condition the coffin is in, and whether there is free access to it. This work was carried out on September 17, the day of remembrance of the holy martyrs Faith, Nadezhda, Lyubov and their mother Sophia. In the evening of this day, Archbishop Anthony, priest Georgy Kurtov, Protodeacon Nikolai Porshnikov, reader Vladimir Krasovsky and B.M. The Trojans went down to the tomb and, after Vladyka Anthony served the litany, began work. In two hours they managed to remove the lid of the sarcophagus and lower it to the floor. The lid weighed about 400 pounds. Opening the lid, the first thing they saw was the robe, shining like new. Under the mantle stood the coffin of Vladika John. There was no smell. There were several stains on the coffin lid - rust. After examining the coffin, the sarcophagus was closed pending examination of the remains of Vladika John. On September 28, the day of remembrance of the Venerable Chariton the Confessor, a member of the Commission for Preparation for the upcoming canonizations, approved by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, His Grace Laurus, Archbishop of Syracuse and Trinity, arrived in San Francisco. Another member of the Commission, Archbishop Alypius, was unable to arrive due to two patronal feast days in his diocese. The Commission included (by position as vicar) His Eminence Kirill, Bishop of Seattle [Seattle]. Several clergy from the Diocesan Council and the clergy of the cathedral were also appointed to participate in the examination (they will be listed below). In total, three [clergy] in the rank of bishop, seven in the priesthood, three in the diaconate, one reader and one layman took part in the examination. All participants in this holy cause observed strict fasting on this day. Some prepared for this task with the Sacrament of Confession, while others on this day celebrated the Divine Liturgy and received the Holy Mysteries of Christ. After Vespers and Matins in the cathedral, the participants in the examination of the relics gradually began to descend into the crypt with the tomb of Bishop John. Participants: Archbishop Anthony, Archbishop Laurus, Bishop Kirill, Archpriest. Stefan Pavlenko, prot. Peter Perekrestov, priest. Georgy Kurtov, priest. Sergius Kotar, priest. Alexander Krasovsky, hieromonk Peter (Lukyanov), priest. Pavel Ivashevich, protodeacon. Nikolai Porshnikov, deacon Alexy Kotar, hierodeacon. Andronik (Taratukhin), reader Vladimir Krasovsky and caretaker of the tomb Boris Mikhailovich Troyan. All the archpastors and priests took turns reading the Holy Gospel at the tomb. Exactly at 9 o'clock in the evening, the Reverends celebrated a memorial service for Bishop John. After the funeral service, Archbishop Anthony spoke a short word, calling on all participants in this holy cause to be reconciled, and then, bowing to the ground, asked everyone for forgiveness. With reverence, dressed in stoles, while singing the troparions “Have mercy on us, Lord, have mercy on us,” they began to open the sarcophagus. Priest Georgy Kurtov made a wooden coffin in advance, which was brought to the tomb. Thanks to the preparatory work on September 17, the sarcophagus lid was removed without any difficulty. Having threaded the ribbons under the coffin, the clergy took it out and placed it on a board placed on the sarcophagus. It turned out that in many places the coffin was completely rusty, including the bottom. Hieromonk Peter took out the key to the coffin of Bishop John, which he had kept for 27 years, but due to rust he was unable to open the coffin. There was an attempt to unscrew the hinges on the side of the coffin opposite the lock, but the screws also rusted. Not wanting to carry out such a holy deed with brute force, the clergy slowly tried to open the lid. Vladyka Anthony, seeing that there were difficulties, sang “No other help for the imams...”, and almost immediately the lock was opened. Everyone moved aside, letting Archbishop Anthony through to the open lid of the coffin. At 10:10 pm, Bishop Anthony, with trembling and fear of God, opened the coffin with the honorable remains of the ever-memorable Archbishop John. It should be noted that with the exception of Bishop Kirill, who participated in the opening of the relics of the newly venerable martyrs Prince. Elizabeth and nun Barbara in Jerusalem, none of those present witnessed the opening of the relics, and this further aggravated the reverent awe with which the tomb of Bishop John was surrounded. Vladyka John’s face was covered, and everyone’s first attention was drawn to his bright, imperishable hands. The white vestment and miter of Bishop John turned green. Having crossed himself and reading the 50th Psalm, Bishop Anthony removed the air from the face of Bishop John, and everyone saw the imperishable face of the ever-memorable hierarch. The skin on the ruler's face is light 595. The beard is completely preserved. There are small holes in place of the eyes, but this is barely noticeable, since the miter on the head of Bishop John sits very low. The ruler's vestment has almost completely decayed, and his legs are visible - they are dark; It is known that Vladyka John had very sick legs and even during his lifetime they were dark from wounds. There is a noticeable stain on the ruler’s leg - the place where there was a bloody wound. There was no fragrance or unpleasant smell, but there was a slight smell of dampness - either earth or rust. After the discovery of Vladika John’s face, there was extraordinary silence, then everyone began to carefully examine the holy remains and in quiet voices note the condition of both the remains and the vestments, the cross... One by one, everyone venerated the incorruptible remains of Vladika John. It was decided to transfer the relics to a new wooden coffin. The clergy did not know how fragile the body was, and therefore they placed a shroud under it and only then transferred it to a new coffin while singing the irmos of the Great Canon “Patron Helpers... On the immovable, Christ, stone...”. Already in the new coffin, the clergy began to cleanse the remains of Vladika John from the decayed lining (and pillow) of the coffin. The body of Vladyka John, raised high, turned out to be quite light in weight and ossified, and not flexible or fragile, as expected. It should be noted in what state the participants in the examination of the relics were: after the discovery of the face of Bishop John, a kind of extraordinary spiritual calm, an extraordinary reverent silence was felt. No one was surprised, no one spoke, but everyone felt so good, so blessed to stand at the relics of the Bishop. There was no rush, no fuss - no one wanted to leave the relics, but simply stand by them, pray and touch them. Having cleared the relics from the lining of the coffin and from the earth poured at the end of the funeral service for Bishop John, the clergy again lowered the relics into a wooden coffin, and Archbishop Anthony, while reading the kontakion of the Great Canon “My soul, arise...” covered the face of the ever-memorable Archbishop John with new air, and the body was covered with a veil. Then Bishop Anthony told everyone that one clergyman of the diocese, priest Yaroslav Belikov, had a two-year-old son who was very sick and that he was waiting with his son near the cathedral to venerate the relics. They sent for Father Yaroslav, and soon he, with the baby in his arms, went down to the tomb and placed his son Vsevolod in the imperishable hands of Bishop John. The wooden coffin was carried and lowered into a sarcophagus cleaned of rust, closed, sealed and covered with a mantle. The lid of the sarcophagus was brought in and installed in its original place. The clergy sang the holy troparion “Orthodoxy teacher, teacher piety and purity...”. A funeral litany was served. Everyone venerated the tomb of Bishop John and were anointed with oil from the lamp on the tomb. At 11:15 pm everyone began to disperse, thanking the Lord God for His mercy towards us, shown by the incorruption of the remains of the ever-memorable Saint John, which all of us, the undersigned, witnessed. † ANTONY, Archbishop of Western America and San Francisco † LAUR, Archbishop of Syracuse and Trinity † KIRILL, Bishop of Seattle [Seattle] (signatures of all participants in the examination follow) San Francisco, California September 28 (October 11), 1993 III. A look at the Russian Church in the twentieth century by St. John, the Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco. Archpriest Peter Perekrestov Report at the All-Diaspora Pastoral Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Church of the Intercession, Nyack, December 8–12, 2003 If you ask a question to any member of our Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and indeed to any Orthodox who is the most outstanding representative of our Church, the answer will probably be: St. John (Maximovich). In him we see a faithful archpastor of our Church, an ascetic, a theologian, and a man of prayer. When the report offered to you today talks about the thoughts of Bishop John, about his views on church issues, we should take into account that his thoughts, his views are not just the thoughts and views of a theologically educated hierarch, an excellent expert on church history and church canons, but also a saint who has acquired the Holy Spirit. Saint John's thoughts and views were not only formulated intellectually, but were borne in his heart through prayer, pastoral experience, the continuity of the spirit of his mentors and the daily celebration of the liturgy. What are the main threads running through all the thoughts expressed by Saint John on the issue of the Church in general and the Russian Church in the 20th century in particular? 1. The Church is universal. “Christianity reveals the meaning of life to all people and for all times, and therefore only in it can one find answers to all phenomena and questions of life,” says St. John in a word at the opening of the Society “Orthodox Cause” 596. Saint John inherited a real perception of the universality of the Church not only from the reading of the Holy Fathers of the Church, from divine services, but also from his Abba, His Beatitude Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky). In his article “What is the spiritual strength of His Beatitude Metropolitan Anthony?” Bishop John wrote the following: “He (His Beatitude Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev) was truly an ecumenical saint, delving into all the issues of church life throughout the universe, bearing within himself all its illnesses, as if he had lifted the whole weight of them onto his own shoulders... Deeply believing in the final victory of the Truth, he at the same time deeply suffers from all the adversities [happening] in the Church" 597 . Such was Metropolitan Anthony, and such was St. John. In his speech when presenting the staff to the new bishop (presumably Bishop Anthony Bartoshevich), Bishop John edifies the newly consecrated one with the following words: “In addition to caring for our flock, we must also spread the faith of Christ among those who have not yet known the Truth. Preaching Christ's teaching and faith in Christ and in the Life-Giving Trinity is the fulfillment of the duty commanded by Christ to the apostles and the inalienable duty of archpastors and shepherds. You must bring the Light of Christ to all those who do not believe in Christ, shining with the light of your life and proclaiming the words of eternal life. Following Saints Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, offering prayer during the Divine Liturgy for the entire Church, for the entire universe, the bishop must know not only his area, but take to heart everything that happens in the entire Church of the Universal Church. Without interfering in matters that are not your responsibility, and without encroaching on the authority of other bishops, try to be useful wherever you can, fraternally helping with your advice where necessary, and especially with your example of standing in the truth and defending it.”598 2. The second thread running through all the thoughts expressed by Saint John on the issue of the Church in general and the Russian Church in the 20th century in particular is the following: the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, despite all the heresies, schisms, despite the unworthiness and apostasy of many even high-ranking ministers of the Church. “There were times when it seemed that all the forces of hell were straining to destroy the Church. Tens of thousands of martyrs were simultaneously put to death, churches were destroyed to the ground, shrines were desecrated, the Church was persecuted by pagan rulers, trampled upon by heretics, and torn apart by internal discord. But the Church remained invincible and defeated untruth” 599. In the article “The Church is the Body of Christ,” the saint writes: “The consequences of sin, which has not yet been completely expelled from the human race, act not only in individual people, but through them they also manifest themselves in the earthly activities of entire parts of the Church. Heresies, schisms, and disturbances constantly appear, alienating some of the faithful. Misunderstandings between Local Churches or parts of them have troubled the Church since ancient times, and prayers for its cessation are constantly heard in divine services” 600 . 3. The third thread running through the thoughts expressed by Saint John specifically on the issue of the Russian Church in the 20th century concerns the saint’s attitude towards Russia. Saint John was imbued with love for Russia, its history, its saints, its shrines. He deeply felt the enslavement of Russia by atheists and was completely irreconcilable with the godless government, but he believed that if there was repentance in Rus', it would rise. “Is there really not and will no longer be Holy Rus'?” the saint wrote in 1938. “Not only in heaven, but also here, on sinful earth, Holy Rus' continues to exist. The power of the God-fighters only enslaved, but did not destroy it. The wicked advice that has taken possession of the Russian people is alien to them, for it has nothing in common with the essence of Russia... Shake off the sleep of despondency and laziness, sons of Russia! Behold the glory of her suffering and be cleansed, washed from your sins!” 601. In the “Sermon before the memorial service for the Tsar-Martyr,” the bishop says: “Before us, before the Russian people, the path of rebellion is the path of consciousness of sin and repentance. For the revival of Russia, all political and programmatic associations are in vain: Russia needs a moral renewal of the Russian people” 602. And with regard to the Soviet government, it is especially strongly said in the prayer of repentance compiled by St. John, read on the day of the murder of the royal family: “Lord God of our fathers... thou hast delivered us into the hands of lawless, vile apostates and an unrighteous and wicked man more than all the earth” 603. So, let us list the three main provisions that permeate the thoughts of St. John regarding the Church in general and the Russian Church in particular: 1) The Church is universal, and one of its main tasks is to spread the faith of Christ among those who have not yet known the Truth; 2) the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, despite all the heresies, schisms, despite the unworthiness and apostasy of many, even high-ranking ministers of the Church; 3) The council of the wicked has taken possession of Russia, but through repentance and renewal it will rise. Now let's move on to more specific statements by St. John about the Russian Church in the 20th century. We will try, in the words of the Bishop, to answer a number of questions that are especially important, as it seems to me, for the participants of the current All-Diaspora Pastoral Conference. Did St. John consider the official Church in Russia (i.e., the Moscow Patriarchate) to have completely fallen away? What was the attitude of Saint John towards Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and his Declaration? Are the Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate “parts” that have their origins in one “Mother Church”? Was it possible, at least in principle, for Saint John to recognize the official Church in Russia, and was there such recognition in practice? Saint John believed that after the establishment of godless power in Russia, the Church was divided into the persecuted Church and the Church in exile, as if two branches of one tree were formed. In 1946, he wrote: “A cruel wave of struggle against the Church has passed in our days in our Fatherland... Many hierarchs and countless clergy were killed in various ways. Others, remembering the words of the Lord: Whenever you are persecuted in this city, flee to another (Matthew 10:23) and following the example of many holy fathers of antiquity, they then left their homeland and united under their spiritual leadership the Russian people who had found refuge in other countries” 604. What was the Foreign part of the Russian Church like? “Overseas Russia, Rus' Abroad was created, spiritually nourished by the Russian Church Abroad; Orthodox churches began to be established across the globe, uniting Orthodox people around themselves, mostly Russians, but also other nationalities. Instead of shrines being destroyed in the Motherland, new ones appeared abroad. The Church Abroad sought to preserve those spiritual and, if possible, material values ​​that constituted the wealth of the Russian Church, of which it is a branch and with which it continues to be one” 605. Saint John admired the martyrdom and confessional feat of the hierarchs who remained in Russia during the years of severe persecution. In his sermon on the Day of All Saints, those who shone in the Russian land, delivered in the 60s, St. John exclaims: “The saints of God shine in our time. And how many of them there are in our unfortunate, exhausted Motherland! How many holy martyrs are there! How many martyrs are there! There are no numbers for them. How many of our saints were exiled in various places, who died and whose lives are similar to those saints who were persecuted during iconoclasm and other heresies. And Peter Krutitsky, and Kirill Kazansky, and many others who died somewhere in obscurity, whose relics will never be found, perhaps, shine like a bright light before our spiritual eyes in the Russian sky. All of them, the holy saints of God, glorified and unglorified, pray for us, show us an example” 606. In the works and letters of Saint John, I did not come across the word “Sergianism” itself, but he briefly mentioned the actions of Metropolitan Sergius. He did not write about the Catacomb Church as such. What was St. John’s attitude to the Declaration and the usurpation of church power by Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and, in general, to the policy of the Church in the Soviet Union? It was not typical for Vladyka John to express harsh judgments regarding the clergy, who were under the yoke of atheists. Saint John hardly mentions Metropolitan Sergius, except in his famous brochure entitled: “The Russian Church Abroad.” Vladyka John believed that the last letter in which Metropolitan Sergius freely wrote what he internally knew to be true was a letter dated September 12, 1926 to bishops who were abroad. In it, Metropolitan Sergius wrote: “My dear saints! You are asking me to be a judge in a matter that I do not know at all (we are talking about a disagreement between the Russian hierarchs abroad and Metropolitan Eulogius. - Prot. P.)... Can the Moscow Patriarch even be the leader of the church life of Orthodox emigrants? Prot. P.). Further in the same brochure, Saint John, without justifying Metropolitan Sergius, writes with pity about him: “Imprisonment, threats against not only him (Metropolitan Sergius - Archpriest P.), but also the entire Russian Church and the false promises of the Soviet government broke him: a few months after his loving letter to foreign hierarchs, which was, as it were, a testament before the loss of internal freedom, Metropolitan Sergius issued a declaration in which he recognized the Soviet government as a truly legitimate Russian government, caring for the welfare of the people, “whose joys are our joys and its sorrows are our sorrows” (Declaration of July 16/29, 1927). At the same time, in accordance with the promise he made to the Soviet government, Metropolitan Sergius demanded that the foreign clergy sign up for loyalty to the Soviet government” 608. Saint John believed that if for those who were in Russia and had suffered severe suffering there could be mitigating circumstances for their moral surrender to cruel power, then for those who were free and in comparative safety in relation to signing up for loyalty there were no mitigating circumstances or justifications, but on the contrary, this would contradict common sense. As for the non-recognition of the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius by Metropolitans Peter of Krutitsky, Agafangel of Yaroslavl, Kirill of Kazan and Joseph of Petrograd, St. John was of the opinion that Metropolitan Sergius was of the same mind with these hierarchs shortly before signing the Declaration - this once again emphasizes the lack of freedom of action of Metropolitan Sergius. The Bishop does not keep silent about the fact that some of these hierarchs interrupted prayerful communication with Metropolitan Sergius as someone who had “fallen and entered into an alliance with the atheists,” 609 but Saint John himself does not have harsh words addressed to Metropolitan Sergius. He further emphasizes in his article: “Just as the hierarchs and flock within Russia who did not recognize the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, so its foreign part did not leave the Russian Church” 610, i.e. they were in no way schismatics, but continued to form parts of the Russian Church. St. John, in his brochure on the Church Abroad, concludes: “The declaration of Metropolitan Sergius did not bring any benefit to the Church. The persecution not only did not stop, but even intensified. To the number of other accusations made by the Soviet authorities against clergy and laity, another one was added - non-recognition of the Declaration. At the same time, a wave of church closures swept across all of Russia” 611, and by the time of the Patriotic War, “the Russian Church within Russia was in a state of extreme devastation... At the same time, Metropolitan Sergius, bound by the promise given to the Soviet authorities, continued to assert that there was no persecution of the Church in Russia” 612. Vladyka John gave an assessment of the Declaration, a simple assessment, an assessment of its moral character. Metropolitan Sergius was broken, and his actions, since they were dictated by the enemies of the Church, were harmful. Did the Church in the Soviet Union after the Declaration become “graceless” in the eyes of the saint of God? Among the saint's papers we found a typewritten text, or rather a carbon copy, in which the bishop expresses his thoughts on the expression “Soviet church.” It is possible that this text is the original draft of the letter. The year of the letter is 1963. The saint writes: “...when under Metropolitan Anthony they began to talk about “wrong actions of the Church,” he stopped, pointing out that the actions of the hierarchy cannot be attributed to the Church, because the hierarchy is not the entire Church, although it speaks on its behalf. At the see of Constantinople, Paul the Confessor, Macedonius, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Nestorius, Proclus, Flavian, Germanus - some shone with holiness, Orthodoxy, others were heretical leaders, but the Church remained Orthodox. During the iconoclasm after the exile of St. Herman, Nicephorus and others, not only their sees, but also the majority of episcopal ones were replaced by Arians, other Churches did not even communicate with her, according to the testimony of the one who abandoned heresy and the throne of St. Paul, who did not want to communicate through the iconoclasts, but still the Church of Constantinople remained Orthodox, although part of the people and especially the guard and officials were carried away into iconoclasm. So it is now understandable when the expression “Soviet Church” is used by ordinary people who are new to church language, but it is not suitable for responsible and theological conversations. When the entire hierarchy of Southwestern Russia converted to Uniateism, the Church continued to exist in the person of the believing Orthodox people, who, after much suffering, restored their hierarchy. Therefore, it is more correct to speak not about the “Soviet Church,” which in the correct understanding of the word “Church” cannot exist, but about the hierarchy that is in the service of the Soviet government” 613. The main reason, consistently stated by Bishop John, for the impossibility of communication between the Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate was that the Church in the Soviet Union is not free, that it is enslaved and that it cannot express its real will. Vladyka John could not help but believe that she was in this position, mostly not of her own free will, but due to coercion and violence. Saint John believed that there are no doctrinal deviations that are significant enough to consider the official Church in Russia illegal. This is especially clearly evidenced by the explanatory Address to the Shanghai flock of August 2, 1946. It is not possible today to describe in detail the entire course of church events in Shanghai in 1945–1946. Suffice it to say that due to military circumstances, since 1941 in the Far East, communication with the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was interrupted. The situation in Shanghai was chaotic. Russian emigrants did not have any citizenship, the Soviets carried out strong propaganda calling on all Russians to return to the “renewed homeland”, where a patriarch was elected, churches were opened and all Russians would be given amnesty, a certain euphoria reigned about the victory of the allied forces 614. In Shanghai, about 10 thousand Russians took Soviet passports. In July 1945, the Episcopal Council in Harbin decided to become subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate. In this situation, Saint John makes a decision and issues Decree No. 650 of August 24, 1945 on raising the name of Patriarch Alexy (Simansky) during divine services. On September 28, 1945, Bishop John received a telegram from Geneva from the First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad that the Synod was operating. Then Vladyka John, it seems, not without the support of many from his inner circle, and also realizing that, as it seems to us, he made a hasty decision to submit to Patriarch Alexy, returns to the commemoration of his legitimate church authority in the person of Metropolitan Anastasy. In an explanatory Address to the Shanghai flock, Bishop John clearly explains the reason that prompted him to first raise the name of Patriarch Alexy during divine services, and then return to the commemoration of his clergy: “...After the defeat of Germany there were no reports about the fate of the Foreign Synod, and various rumors circulated about it. At the end of July last year, we received news that the Harbin hierarchs decided to ask His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow to accept them under his jurisdiction. We immediately wrote to Archbishop Victor that, having no information about the fate of the Synod Abroad and not having the right to remain outside the subordination of the Supreme Church Authority, we must also enter into communication with His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and, in the absence of obstacles, submit to him... After the Exaltation of the Cross, we received a radiogram from Geneva from Metropolitan Anastasius notifying that the Synod was in effect. ...We, realizing the need to submit to the Supreme Church Authority, resumed our previous relations with the Foreign Synod, receiving from it individual instructions and orders and implementing them. ...we can come under the jurisdiction of another church authority only if an order is made to us by the church authority to which we now submit, since otherwise we would be violators of church canons...” 615. The Shanghai Chinese clergy were distrustful and disapproving of both the Soviet government and the Moscow hierarchy. Some representatives of the Russian clergy and parishioners believed that Bishop John listened too much to the voice of his Chinese clergy and, in general, as if to the detriment of the Russian cause, zealously supported missionary work among the Chinese. In response to this, Bishop John, in his explanatory Address, once again emphasizes the universality of his perception of the Church and its mission in the modern world: “The doors of Shanghai churches have always been wide open for all Orthodox Christians. Uniting mainly Russian people, our church life has always especially strongly reflected everything connected with our Motherland and expressed the feelings and aspirations of its devoted children. At the same time, every other nation that preserved Orthodoxy could consider our churches theirs... Each individual, without distinction of nationality, could and can equally receive satisfaction of his spiritual needs in the Church and take part in church life, obeying the established rules. In the Church of Christ “there is no Greek, no Jew, no barbarian and no Scythian,” all are equally children of the Church, if the teaching of Christ and the laws of the Church are above all teachings and laws” 616. In the second half of this explanatory Address, Saint John sets out his view of the Church in Russia and the Church abroad: “By striving for a single common goal and acting separately depending on the conditions in which each of them finds itself, the Churches within Russia and abroad can more successfully achieve both the general and their own special tasks that each of them has until the possibility of their complete unification arises. At present, the Church within Russia must heal the wounds inflicted on it by militant atheism and free itself from the bonds that hinder the internal and external fullness of its activity. The task of the Church Abroad is to protect the children of the Russian Orthodox Church from scattering and preserve the spiritual values ​​they brought from their homeland, as well as the spread of Orthodoxy in the countries in which they live” 617. Saint John has repeatedly emphasized that the Church in Russia is not free, that it is precisely her lack of freedom that prevents communication between parts of the Russian Church: “Being part of the Russian Church, we cannot communicate with church authorities, subordinate and enslaved authorities, hostile Churches... Church authorities in Russia are in such a position that we cannot separate and understand what is done by it freely and what by force. Church power in Russia is an image of captivity and spiritual impotence: there is neither free will nor free manifestation. We have no one to communicate with: there is no free church authority!” 618. And the main reason for the existence of the Foreign part of the Russian Church is its freedom: “In the name of the freedom of the Church, the Foreign part of the Russian Church began its independent existence and will continue it as long as the reasons that caused it exist” 619. The saint speaks of reasons in the plural, but does not list them. Let us summarize the main views of St. John on the Russian Church in the years of hard times: 1. The Church in Russia (Moscow Patriarchate) and the Russian Church abroad are two parts of the Russian Church that have a common goal, but act separately depending on conditions. 2. Metropolitan Sergius was broken, and his activities did not benefit the Church. 3. The main reason, consistently stated by St. John, preventing the unity of the two parts of the Russian Church, is the lack of freedom of the Church in Russia. In all the sermons, articles, letters and written statements of St. John that came into my hands, I never once encountered the words “graceless” or “heretical” addressed to any Local Church. Vladika John did not use these words. Saint John's attitude even towards those who had fallen away and lost was merciful. In the above-mentioned address to the newly installed bishop, St. John said: “Most of all, you must have compassion for those who are sick with sins, those who are ignorant and erring, with compassion and love, drawing them out of the ditch of destruction and leading them onto the path of salvation” 620. The Bishop was irreconcilable with innovations, with renovationism, and with apostasies in the Local Churches. In 1938, in his report “The Situation of the Orthodox Church after the War,” Bishop John believed that “we (the faithful of the Russian Church Abroad - Archpriest P.) must stand firmly on the basis of church canons and not be with those who deviate from them. In the past, in order to expose the canonical irregularities of the Local Church, canonical communication with it was interrupted. The Russian Church Abroad cannot act in this way, because... her position was not completely determined. Therefore, it should not interrupt communication with other Churches unless they are the first to take this step. But even while maintaining communication, she should not remain silent about violations of church truth...” 621. The question of violation of the issue of church truth worried St. John. In the above quotation, the saint, on the one hand, says that one cannot be with those who deviate from church canons, and on the other hand, that one should not interrupt communication with other Churches. Shortly before his death, Bishop John was preoccupied with some new trends in the world of Orthodoxy. Until his last breath, he was irreconcilable with innovation, with deviations and modernism, but was devoid of any manifestations of narrowness and fanaticism. In December 1965, Saint John responded to a survey of the Eminences of the Church Abroad about the desirability of convening the Third All-Diaspora Council with the following: “Concerning the convening of a Council with the participation of clergy and laity... I believe that such a Council is desirable and extremely necessary... [At it] the voice of the Abroad should sound loudly against the continuation of persecution of the faith, it is necessary to express sympathy and spiritual unity to our brothers and women who are suffering there for the faith and sisters... It should also be revealed the attitude towards the new trends being undertaken by the Vatican, towards the ecumenical movement and the firm standing of the Church Abroad in Orthodoxy and the Patristic Traditions... It is advisable, before and after, to make attempts to restore the unity of the Russian Church abroad, in any case, having previously softened relations with the parts that have broken away from it..." 622. Did the great ascetic of the 20th century wish and believe that there should be a unification of the two parts of the Russian Church? Yes, he expected this and believed that it would come, but he did not indicate a time frame. “The Russian Church Abroad is not spiritually separated from the suffering Mother. She offers prayers for her, preserves her spiritual and material wealth, and in due time will unite with her, when the reasons that separated them disappear” 623. It should be taken into account that, with all his views and actions, Saint John acted conciliarly and in obedience to the Supreme Church authority, even if he did not completely agree with any of its decisions and actions. In his speech when presenting the staff to Bishop John (Kovalevsky) of Saint-Denis, Bishop John warns him: “In this (bishopric – Archpriest P.) service, do not rely unduly on your own strengths and on your knowledge, but use the advice of older and more experienced hierarchs... Remember the promises you have made now and maintain obedience to the church authority standing over you” 624. Saint John wrote that when the hour comes for the return (in 1946 he spoke specifically about the return, and not about reunification or unification) of the hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad to their homeland, “the hierarchs of the Abroad should not act separately, and the entire Church Abroad together must present to the All-Russian Council their deeds committed during the forced separation” 625. Saint John believed that the question of the divided parts of the Russian Church could be resolved no other way than at the All-Russian Council. So, from the above we can conclude that when talking about the possible unity of the two parts of the Russian Church, according to St. John, four mandatory conditions must be met in the bowels of the Russian Church Abroad: 1. The foreign part of the Russian Church must preserve the most important thing that caused its existence - freedom and not forget about the task of spreading Orthodoxy in the heterodox world. 2. The Russian Church Abroad must combine compassion and love with a firm stand in the truth. 3. Any decision concerning the fate of the Russian Church must be made not separately, but together, unanimously. 4. The issue of unity must be resolved specifically at the All-Russian Council. Saint John, his prayers and his views on the Russian Church in the 20th century can be the key, the guideline that will lead to an ecclesiastical, canonical and godly resolution of the issue that worries all the true children of the Russian Church, and, as both Metropolitan Anthony and Saint John believed, despite all the adversities in the Church, Truth will prevail. IV. From the service of St. John, the Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco Your care for your flock on their journey, / this is the prototype of your prayers, ever offered up for the whole world: / so we believe, having known your love, to the saint and wonderworker John! / All of God is sanctified by the sacred rites of the most pure Mysteries / in the image we strengthen forever, / you hastened to the suffering, the most joyful healer. / Hasten now to help us, who honor with all our hearts cha. Thy heart spread to all, / who pray with love to Saint John, / who remember the feat of all your arduous life, / your painless and easy repose, / faithful servant of the Most Pure Hodegetria. Prayer to our holy father John, Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco, miracle worker O wonderful Saint John, you have expanded your heart so much, as if it comfortably accommodates the multitude of people who worship you from various tribes and peoples, look at the wretchedness of our words, both brought to you out of love, and help us, servant of God, from now on to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, working for the Lord with fear and rejoicing in Him with in awe. And what will we reward you for this joy, even as you feel it, seeing your holy relics in the holy church and glorifying your memory? Truly, there is no recompense for the imams, but if we begin to correct ourselves, there will be something new instead of something old. Sowing the grace of renewal, be our intercessor, Saint John, help us in our weaknesses, heal our illnesses, help us in everyday and family matters, quench church discord, heal passions with your prayers. Reposed from this time into another eternal life, the Most Pure Lady, Hodegetria of the Russian Dispersion, instructed you in this way, with Her miraculous icon of Korennokursk, whose companion you appeared on the day of your repose, rejoicing now in the face of the saints glorifying the One in the Trinity glorified God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. Reprinted from: John (Maksimovich), Archbishop. Russian Church Abroad. Ed. 2nd. Montreal, 1979. During the second discovery of the relics of Bishop John on December 1/14, 1993, they were washed and re-robed. After washing, the relics turned out to be dark brown in color, like the relics in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra and in the East. What previously gave the relics a light color was washed away during the washing of the relics. – Note. ed. Bulletin of Orthodox Affairs. Geneva, 1959. No. 1. P. 4. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Words. San Francisco, 1994, p. 272. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Word when presenting the rod N. Typescript // Archive of the Western American Diocese. L. 62B. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. For the Church New Year // Parish leaflet. Shanghai, 1946. No. 726. P.1. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Words. P. 137. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. 950th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus' // Ibid. pp. 211–213. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Word before the memorial service for the martyr king // Ibid. P. 234. Additional Breviary. Jordanville, 1961. P. 2 John (Maksimovich), archbishop. For the Church New Year // Parish leaflet. Shanghai, 1946. No. 726. P.2. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. For the church new year... John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Words. pp. 187–188. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Russian Church Abroad. Ed. 2nd. Montreal, 1979. P. 7. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Russian Church Abroad. Ed. 2nd. Montreal, 1979. P. 9. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Typescript. L. 58 A // Archive of the “Russian Shepherd”. John the Wonderworker in Russia. M.: Blago, 2002. P. 14. In the memoirs of Oleg Danilovich Araturov, a native of Shanghai, he talks about the reasons why many Russians left Shanghai for the Soviet Union: “There was Soviet propaganda in China: “Ogonyok” was released, Soviet films, the Soviet government consults with the people, a secure old age, a pension for everyone (this did not exist in China), friendship and kindness of the Soviet people, rich feasts with a pig, hospitality. Before leaving, they threw away all their old things so that they would not be ashamed to go to the Union. At first, the Soviets cunningly took the children out, arranged them well and encouraged them to write to their parents and praise life in the Union...” John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Grace and peace from the Holy Life-Giving Trinity to the Orthodox flock of Shanghai! (Published as a separate brochure.) John (Maksimovich), archbishop. To the Orthodox flock of Shanghai... P. 6. Word of His Eminence Archbishop John (Maksimovich) // Bulletin of Orthodox Affairs. Geneva, 1960. No. 4. P. 5. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Address at the opening of the Diocesan Congress of the Western European Diocese (1960) // John (Maksimovich), Archbishop. Words. P. 251. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Word when presenting the staff of N. John, bishop Shanghai. The situation of the Orthodox Church after the war // Acts of the Second All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Belgrade, 1939, p. 400. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Review to the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. December 1/14, 1965 // Archives of the Western American Diocese. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Russian Church Abroad. P. 18. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Word at the presentation of the staff to Bishop John of Saint-Denis // Russian Shepherd. San Francisco, 2000. No. 37–38. pp. 8–9. John (Maksimovich), archbishop. Grace and peace to the Orthodox flock of Shanghai... P. 8.