Russian Church Research Articles

Нелегальные связи между РПЦЗ и катакомбными общинами в СССР в 1960-е–1980-е гг.

The article analyses the situation of non-conformist Catacomb Orthodox communities in the USSR in the 1960s–1980s. It examines the problems of persecution by the Soviet regime against the church opposition, the loss of hierarchy with canonical apostolic succession in the catacomb communities, the emergence of various currents and groups, and the emergence of self-sanctification and sectarianism. In this context, special attention is paid to the establishment by the catacomb “True Orthodox Christians” (TOC) from the USSR of secret ties with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), as well as to the attempts of the clergy of the Russian Church Abroad to regulate the canonical status of these catacomb communities and thereby prevent the spread of self-sanctification and degeneration into sectarianism in the catacomb environment by means of secret care (following the example of the “experience of the Edinoverie”). The situation of the Catacomb Church in the USSR and the restoration of its episcopate in the 1980s are examined in detail. The article is the first to introduce into scientific circulation previously unknown archival sources and eyewitness testimonies.The author expresses his particular gratitude to Archpriest Serafim Gan, head of the Chancery of the Synod of Bishops and secretary to the First Hierarch of the ROCOR for the opportunity to work with documents from the Archive of the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR in New York.

СТАНОВЛЕННЯ ТА РОЗВИТОК ЦЕРКОВНО-ПАРАФІЯЛЬНОГО ШКІЛЬНИЦТВА НА ВОЛИНІ У ХІХ – НА ПОЧАТКУ ХХ СТОЛІТТЯ

The article analyzes the process of formation and development of church parish schooling in Volyn from the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. It has been proven that two-thirds of the children of the Orthodox faith in the villages and towns of Volyn remained outside the spiritual education of the lower – parish level. The prominent place of law teachers in the educational process of parish schools and their functional connections with local priests are substantiated. The conclusion about the requirement of loyalty, beneficence and religiosity towards legislators from the Russian church and the imperial government is formulated. It was established that diocesan school councils were created to organize and control the activities of parish schools, which, in turn, managed the corresponding county councils, which were responsible for the organization of parish schools in the respective Orthodox parish. It was noted that in order to ensure the educational process in church and parish schools, books in Russian or Church Slavonic were selected for them; historical documents proved that children had a hard time perceiving both educational and literary literature in Russian, did not understand the content of books in Church Slavonic, therefore they did not achieve much success. The opinion is substantiated that the basis of educational activities in parish schools in Volyn were prayer, attendance by students of church schools in the parish and participation in traditional church needs (confession, communion). The main methods of education (encouragement and punishment) were described – praise, awarding books, as well as remarks, instruction, shaming, standing in the classroom during the lesson on your feet, prohibition to participate in children's games during breaks, detention in the classroom after lessons for more than an hour, etc.

Социальное евангелие в России. Православное пастырское движение в условиях голода, войны и революции. Введение

The NLO publishing house is preparing to publish a translation of Daniel Scarborough’s historical study “Russia’s Social Gospel. The Orthodox Pastoral Movement in Famine, War, and Revolution”. The author was a participant in the 2017 conference organized by our magazine within the framework of the RANEPA activities on the topic “Religion and the Russian Revolution”. On the eve of the book’s release, we publish in this issue of our journal “Introduction”, which outlines both the methodological approaches of the author and the content of the study itself. Thus, we continue to cover topics related to the church history of Russia of various periods. In our opinion, this book sheds new light on the processes in the Russian church that preceded the historical breakdown of 1917. We hope that this publication will draw attention to D. Scarborough’s work both among specialists and among a wider audience interested in the historical aspects of Russian Orthodoxy.

«Синодское православие»: современники в поисках понятия для устройства Русской церкви в имперскую эпоху

The understanding that Peter I had created an original system of the Church administration which had differed from previous forms (now we usually call it the Synodal system) was not created iimediately. A certain historical distance and the introduction of critical historical analysis were needed to invent a concept. This article analyzes when and how this concept emerged, what were the terms the contemporaries used to shape it until 1917–1918, what were the semantic and stylisitc shades in elaborating the concept. The conditions for recognizing a new period in the history of Russian Church with its special administrative system appeared only by the middle of the 19th century. In historical and canon law researches, publicistic articles, policy briefs of authors of the second half of the 19th — early 20th century, speeches of the 1917–1918 Council of Russian Church’ and its preparatory bodies’ members many variants of naming of the current system of the Church administration were proposed. They had a temporal and qualitative dimension and the majority of them were judgmental. There was no single concept till the revolution. The searching of it did not only reflect the awakened historical consciousness but was also an expression of the ideological struggle in the field of the Church history.

The Tragedy of the confrontation: the religious factor in the Russian Civil War

The article analyzes a collective monograph edited by A. S. Puchenkov and devoted to the consideration of the role and significance of the religious factor during the Civil War in Russia. According to the reviewer, the authors, based on the unique material collected in 22 Russian and foreign archives, were able to show and prove the need to take into account the phenomenon of the religious factor, rightly defining it as «a set of many components affecting the social, socio-political, spiritual, cultural and national life of society, determining the order of functioning of religion and its institutions in the system of relations between the state and society, as well as the influence of religion as a social institution on non-religious forms of public life». According to S. L. Firsov, the authors have made a successful attempt to draw a detailed picture of the state of religious denominations (primarily the Orthodox Russian Church) during the Civil War. In his opinion, the reviewed monograph can be called a kind of encyclopedia of the spiritual life of Russia during the Russian Troubles of the early 20-th century. The authors of the monograph made a worthy contribution to the study of the moral and moral state of Russian society by writing a deep and useful work for all those interested in both the history of the Orthodox Russian Church of the era of Revolution and Civil War, and the history of the Russian Troubles of the early twentieth century as a whole.

Русская Зарубежная Церковь и начало «Свободной Церкви» (1990–1995 гг.)

The article is devoted to the history of the creation of a non–canonical structure by the Russian Church Abroad - the so-called "Russian Orthodox Free Church" (ROSC). The article explores the reasons why the ROCOR in 1990, instead of reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate, went to confrontation, creating dioceses on its canonical territory. The reasons why the Russian Orthodox Church did not become popular in the Orthodox environment and was marginalized at the very beginning of the 1990s are also being investigated. The reasons for the conflict between this structure and the ROCOR leadership are also considered. Based on documents and materials, as well as the periodicals of the ROCOR and the Russian Orthodox Church, it is concluded that the reason for the failure of the "Free Church" was, first of all, the misunderstanding of the leadership of the Church Abroad of Russian realities, groundless confidence that the Russian population will massively move to a new structure. Among other reasons is the impoverishment of the spiritual and intellectual forces of the ROCOR, confident in the success of the new project. The result was an unsuccessful personnel policy, the admission of far from the best representatives of the clergy to the Russian Orthodox Church. In parallel with the problems that began, representatives of the Russian Church Abroad began to understand that its "return" to its homeland should take place not through the creation of a non-canonical parallel "Church", but through dialogue.

Russian Church and State in the 80s of the XX Century

Russian Church and State in the 80s of the XX Century

Социально-экономическая и религиозная проблематика в обращениях российских эмигрантов в Архиерейский Синод Русской зарубежной церкви в 1930-х гг. (по материалам Государственного архива Российской Федерации)

This article examines the correspondence of representatives of the Russian Orthodox emigration with the Synod of Bishops and personally with Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) during the 1930s, preserved in the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). The range of issues reflected in the materials is quite diverse. Primarily, this includes a complex of socio-economic difficulties related to obtaining refugee status or new citizenship, employment, and social assistance. The second most important topic of appeals concerns family issues, particularly the high incidence of divorces, new marriages, and cohabitation deemed unacceptable from a Christian point of view. The actual religious issues are represented by questions about the calendar reform, which gave rise to difficulties in synchronizing the secular and ecclesiastical rhythm of life. In this situation, the Russian Church Abroad represented a unifying center in the lives of emigrants, helping to maintain ties with the motherland, striving to ensure ideological stability, maintaining cultural traditions, giving hope for the future, as well as providing all possible financial assistance.

Церковная дипломатия и межправославные отношения в эпоху гонений: опыт святого Патриарха Тихона

Article on the views and actions of Patriarch Tikhon (Bellavin) of Moscow and All Russia in the field of Inter-Orthodox relations in 1917–1925. It is shown that this direction was not a priority for His Holiness Tikhon in the context of full-scale persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church, especially since he had minimal opportunities to maintain contacts with other Local Churches. Unlike the leaders of a number of other Churches (Constantinople, Romanian, etc.), St. Tikhon in his ministry was guided not by political or nationalist motives, but by spiritual, moral and pastoral ones, adhering to the evangelical and canonical norms of the Orthodox Church. He sought to resolve controversial issues peacefully and amicably (for example, in the case of Georgian autocephaly), but did not always meet with a reciprocal desire to act in the same way. He was alien to any kind of jurisdictional selfishness. The main thing for him was the preservation of loyalty to Orthodoxy on the part of the multinational flock of the Russian Church. This, in particular, determined his rejection of the idea of Polish autocephaly. The warmest relations under Patriarch Tikhon were with the Serbian and Antiochian Orthodox Churches. Most of all, problems arose in the Constantinople direction, due to the extreme politicization of the Fanar and its special tendency to trample on the moral and canonical norms of the Orthodox Church.

«Слово о законе и благодати»: анализ христологии литературного памятника

This article is a theological analysis of the work "Word on Law and Grace" through the prism of the Christology of the OrthodoX Church. The Old Russian monument was created in the context of St. Hilarion of Kiev’s activity in catechizing believers and conveying the fundamentals of Christian doctrine through poetic and rhetorical forms. The author attaches importance to Christology as a central element in understanding the historical process. St. Hilarion also enters into a polemic with heterodoX views. He emphasizes the divine-human nature of the Savior and the role of oikonomia in the process of human history, which are the key themes in his theological reflections and arguments. In addition, the author builds a coherent argumentation around New Testament subjects, establishing a connection with the prophecies of the Old Testament and the historical event of the Baptism of Rus’. On the one hand, the saint succeeded in creating an original concept of the divine election of the Russian people with an appeal to the text of Holy Scripture, and on the other hand, he succeeded in conveying the foundations of OrthodoX Christology to the believers of the Russian Church.

The Creative Heritage of Maksim Grek and the Formation of Spiritually Significant Texts for the Old Believers

This article deals with the formation of the canon of sacred texts among the Old Believers, which determined their system of book authorities. The relevance of the topic is connected with the need to get a more comprehensive idea of the formation of the religious and social movement that received the name “Old Believers”. The author pays attention to an important aspect of the study of the Old Believer ideology, which was determined by the system of book authorities. The defenders of Old Belief followed the traditions of the scribes of Old Rus and maintained a special attitude to the text, bordering on its sacralisation. From the first steps of the reform, they turned to manuscripts and early printed books to find evidence of the illegality of introducing innovations into the liturgical practice of the Russian Church. The Story of How to Make the Sign of the Cross by Maksim Grek was cited by opponents of the church reform as an argument in defence of the negative view of the introduction of the three-fingered sign of the cross by Patriarch Nikon. It is shown that the Solovetsky monks largely determined the attitude to this work. They not only copied it, but also began to defend the authority of Maksim Grek when the representatives of the official Church expressed doubts about the sincerity of the author’s opinion on the twofingered sign of the cross. The next generations of the Old Believers continued to search for evidence of the veneration of this Athos monk by the Patriarchs and the Russian Church, in order to convince readers of his holiness. The analysis of the collections of the Old Believers helps get an idea of a completely scholarly approach to the search, which allowed the Old Believers already at the beginning of the eighteenth century to gain access to a fairly complete circle of sources on the life and work of Maksim Grek in Russia, even according to the ideas of researchers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, to copy them and make them known to other Old Believers. The works of Maksim Grek were of particular importance, and their study made it possible to include them in the canon of sacred texts. It is concluded that the authors of the essays and the compilers of the collections did a lot of work to strengthen the authority of Maksim Grek among the Old Believers, and the writings of the Athos monk were included in their system of book authorities.

Священномученик Анатолий, пресвитер Марийский: творчество и судьба

This article is a description of the life path of the Holy Martyr Anatoly Ivanovsky (1863-1918), presbyter of Mari. It attempts to show this new martyr of the Russian Church as a musician, singer and church composer. Therefore, the article pays special attention to the facts of the biography of Priest Anatoly, related to this particular creative side of his life.The article covers the period of his life, and this is the end of the XIX – beginning of the XX century. Historical events, the mood of the society of that time – all this was reflected in the destinies of people, in the fate of a rural priest, a man musically gifted by nature. Having grown up in a pious family of a priest, who loved church singing from childhood and had a wonderful voice, he did not abandon clerical obedience throughout his childhood and youth, right up to his marriage and ordination. Further, Father Anatoly set an example of a zealous and caring pastor, a hard worker, a talented teacher and leader, the father of a large family of gifted children like him, as well as a musician, a connoisseur and connoisseur of church singing.The beginning of the XX century is a time of deep upheavals of the entire Russian society. The terrible persecutions inflicted on the Russian Orthodox Church revealed to the world the true ascetics of piety. In the atmosphere of betrayal and denunciation that engulfed people, they had to make a difficult choice: stay with Christ, faithful to death to Him, or break down under the pressure of the Bolsheviks. The steadfastness shown by priest Anatoly in the most difficult events of his fate showed the world the holiness of this simple village priest, who currently, standing before the Throne of God, is the intercessor and prayer book of all those who turn to him for help.

Новые данные о новгородце Иване Шушерине – авторе биографии патриарха Никона

The article deals with the biography of Ivan Shusherin, the author of the “Life” of Patriarch Nikon. Based on new archival data, it was established the previously unknown circumstances of Ivan Shusherin’s ten-year stay in exile in Novgorod and his own letters, written in extremely beautiful handwriting are discovered. Analysis of the text of the “Life” allowed the author to clarify the dating of the “Life” and the intent of this work – the most important source on the history of the Russian church in the second half of the 17th century.

Монастирі та чернецтво Київської єпархії синодального періоду: регламентація діяльності в системі російського церковного законодавства

The article aims to specify the status of Orthodox monasteries and monasticism in the Kyiv eparchy between the 19th and early 20th centuries within the framework of the then-existing Russian church legislation. Research methodology is grounded in the principles of historicism and scientific objectivity, using critical, systematic and comparative analysis of sources. These methods and principles have enabled a comprehensive study of various phenomena in their dynamics and totality, taking into account all conflicting factors. By employing these diverse methods, the study has traced the impact of Russian church legislation on events and processes regulating the activities of monasteries and monasticism in the Kyiv eparchy during the synodal period. Conclusions. The 18th-century reforms in the Russian Empire’s ecclesiastical sphere designated the Holy Governing Synod as the legislative authority over the Orthodox Church, fully subordinating it to the Russian imperial government. During this century, church legislation was established, which, with minor modifications and additions, remained in effect throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries and applied to Ukrainian Orthodox eparchies. The 18th century marked a period of profound and comprehensive transformations in the history of monasteries and monasticism, characterized by strict regulation of monastic life, daily routines and the rights of the inhabitants. The primary feature of church-state relations in the 19th and early 20th centuries was the state’s total control over the Church’s affairs. The Holy Synod controlled matters such as the establishment of new monasteries, granting them status, accepting individuals into monasticism and determining the number of monastics. The monasteries of the Kyiv eparchy during this period were managed by the eparchial bishop and were entitled to elect an abbot, who was then approved by the Holy Synod through its decree. Monasteries, both male and female, were classified into three categories, either communal or non-communal, with a clearly defined monastic staff determined by the Synod.

The Violation of the Law and Religious Freedom in the Context of the Case of the Russian Church in Sofia—A Real Legal, Political and Canonical Issue

For more than a century, in the center of Sofia, the capital of the Republic of Bulgaria, there is and functions the church of St. Nikolai Mirlikiyski the Wonderworker, known as the Russian church. The church was built at the beginning of the 20th century with the idea of being part of the complex of the Russian imperial diplomatic body in Sofia and to serve the Russian diplomats, their families and the Orthodox Russian citizens living permanently or temporarily in the Bulgarian capital. However, after its consecration in 1914, disputes began, both regarding the ownership of the church building and the canonical jurisdiction of the church—of the Metropolitan of Sofia or the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow. This dispute culminated in September 2023, with the expulsion from Bulgaria of several Russian and Belarusian clergies serving in the Russian church on charges of espionage in favor of the Russian Federation. The subsequent closure of the church by the Russian ambassador Mitrofanova led to internal and external political tension and ecclesiological chaos in the country. The Russian side violated the Bulgarian Law on Religions, known as the Confessions Act 2002, and directly infringed the Statute of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. This article provides expert answers to the public law, property rights and canonical issues concerning the case of the Russian church in Sofia, based on the relevant sources of law (ecclesiastical and civil).

The Model of the Higher Church Administration of the Russian Church as of the Local Council 1917–1918 Decisions

Abstract The author of this article reviews the reforms of the higher administration of the Russian Church that were carried out by the All-Russian Local Council in 1917–1918. These reforms decisively changed the system of government of one of the largest Orthodox Churches in the world. The model included the regular holding of Local Councils of various types, the leadership of the Church by the Patriarch, the work of permanent bodies of church power – the Synod and the Supreme Church Council (with the participation of not only bishops but also clergy and laity), the creation of church districts on the territory of the former Russian Empire. New managing mechanisms began their work, but after a few years they were curtailed due to repressions against Russian Orthodoxy, but at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first centuries they were not resumed for other, even though also political, reasons.

The Early Uniate Concept of the History of the Russian Church

The Early Uniate Concept of the History of the Russian Church

Moscow-the Third Rome Concept and the Russian Orthodox Church

Russians in 988, under the leadership of Kinyaz Viladimer, they accepted Christianity through the Patriarchate of Constantinople and entered a new phase in their history. With Christianity, the Russians were introduced to writing and, most importantly, to religious texts. At the same time, this change of religion also led to the acceptance of the belief of chosenness, which had spread to Christianity from Judaism. Nestor, a Russian priest who lived in the 12th century, wrote in his work that although Russians were the last community to accept Christianity, they would undertake important missions in the future. He also attributed a mission to the Russian society by referring to the biblical passage that the feet will be the head and the head will be the feet. However, in the mentioned centuries, the Eastern Roman Empire was still the centre of Orthodoxy. For this reason, the Russian Orthodox Church would remain for many years as a Metropolitanate under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. However, the increasing Ottoman pressure on Constantinople from the 1400s onwards created several historical opportunities for the Russians. In particular, the Byzantine agreement with the Pope of Rome in Florence in 1439 mobilised the Russian Church. Using this agreement as a pretext, Moscow severed its relations with Constantinople. In 1453, the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, the centre of the Orthodox world, opened a new page in Russian Theo-politics. Russian priests believed that Nestor's prophecy had been fulfilled and Moscow developed the concept of the Third Rome. Appearing in the 16th century, the Moscow-Third Rome concept soon became the ideological basis for the formation of the Moscow kingdom. In this article, the concept of Moscow Third Rome, which is one of the important turning points in Russian history, is analysed through an analytical method. The background of the concept, the conditions that led to its emergence, its historical development and its reflections on the present day are emphasised.

Sergius (Stragorodsky), Archbishop of Finland and Vyborg — features of pastoral service in political and sociocultural contexts

The article is devoted to the analysis of the “Finnish period” of the pastoral service of Sergius (Stragorodsky), future Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. The period covers the years 1905–1917, during which there was an exacerbation of Russian-Finnish relations. In Finnish historiography, these years are referred to as another period of russification (1908–1917), while in Russian historiography, they are marked by attempts to Finnize and Lutheranize Russian Karelia. Formed in 1892 as the vicariate of the St. Petersburg diocese, the Vyborgand Finnish diocese of the Orthodox Russian Church united the parishes of the Grand Duchy of Finland, to which the Vyborg province (Old Finland) belonged, annexed to the Grand Duchy by Alexander I in 1811. In 1913, the Serdobolsk vicariate was established in the diocese for Karelian parishes. Archbishop Sergius was tasked with countering “pan-Finnish propaganda” in Karelia and defending the interests of the Russian Church in the Grand Duchy, the vast majority of whose population adhered to Lutheranism. The Karelians inhabited the eastern part of the Grand Duchy of Finland, Olonets and Belomorsk Karelia. Through joint efforts of church and provincial authorities in these regions, the process of Lutheranization of Karelians directed by Finnish nationalists was stopped. However, Archbishop Sergius policy in the Grand Duchy caused rejection from local elites and church figures. Relations with Russian politicians were also complicated for the Archbishop of Finland. This was largely due to the exacerbation of Finnish and Karelian issues. The article analyzes the political and socio-cultural contexts of the pastoral service of Archbishop Sergius, emphasizes important facts of his biography that help understand the logic of his decisions, presents preliminary conclusions based on a review of the modern historiography of the issue, which has not received sufficient attention from Russian researchers to date.

“The Patriarchal Authority Always Remains Present in the Church in its Entirety”: Patriarch Tikhon, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and the Ideas of Church Democracy

The sharp criticism expressed by opponents towards Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) was not so much related to their complimentary statements towards the Soviet government (Patriarch Tikhon’s such statements have been known since 1923), but rather to their methods of governance. Opponents believed that Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Sergius were dismantling the established church democracy that had emerged as a result of the Local Council of 1917–1918. In the early 20th century, such democracy was called conciliarity, which implied church representation, a system of elections from the bottom up with a periodicity of several years. The ideas of intrachurch republicanism were actively developing throughout the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The system of representative church institutions established after the spiritualschool reform at the deanery and diocesan levels served as a school of democracy for the Russian clergy for half a century. Republican ideas were still strong at the Local Council of 1917–1918. They were the main basis for opposing the plans to introduce patriarchy. The ordinations of married priests to bishops without taking monastic vows by the renewalists, and then the recognition of a married episcopate at the so-called Second All-Russian Local Council of 1923, led the R.O.C. (Russian Orthodox Church) of the renewalists beyond the canonical field, which the renewalists were well aware of. Therefore, they sought to superimpose the church democratic system that had formed within their structures after the “abolition” of patriarchy in 1923 to a universal level. Together with the Greeks, the renewalists developed plans for the periodic regular holding of representative assemblies of Local Churches, which they called Universal Councils. These councils were envisaged as a radical transformation of both the canonical structure and, subsequently, the dogmatic teachings of the Orthodox Church. Thus, under favorable historical circumstances, the development of Russian church republicanism could fundamentally undermine the foundations of Universal Orthodoxy. However, patriarchal authority in post-revolutionary Russia stood in the way of these plans. Such actions by the patriarchal authority require a closer look at the perception of the Moscow metropolitan, and then the patriarch in the Russian church consciousness of the 15th-17th centuries, where the fact of repeated episcopal ordination indicates that the Head of the Church was not simply one of the bishops.