St. Tikhon’s University Review . Series II: History. Russian Church History

The article contains the analysis of the term «the older women» (πρεσβύτιδες, presbyterae) in the Early Christian Greek-speaking and Latin traditions. In Eastern communities the older women have been honored since apostolic times for their pious life and advanced age, which brought them closer to the position of church widows. Perhaps the old women and widows in general represented one order of women who received material assistance from the Church, catechized young women, prepared them for baptism. The name of the older women «presbytides» did not become, unlike the concepts of «deaconesses» and «widows», the designation of women’s institutional ministry although there was a tendency to this, as it was evidenced by the controversial 11th canon of the Laodicean Council. In the Early Church women’s ministry was considered as a whole one, but in the areas it was called differently as the min-istry of the older women, widows and deaconesses. That is, it was outside the established terminology, also because it was not closely connected with the liturgical functions of women. It is not completely clear what women’s ministry in Western communities was, since in cases which we are talking about older women («presbyterae»), early medieval Western authors have already definitively confirmed that this was either the wife of a presbyter, or a woman of a strict lifestyle, in fact a religious who watched over the order and cleanliness in the church, as well as baked wafers for Communion. The evolution of wom-en’s ministry in the Church, primarily in its western part, demonstrated the impossibility of its further institutionalization and convergence with liturgical ministry.

older women, πρεσβύτιδες, presbyterae, widows, deaconesses, women’s church ministry, Early Church

1. Afanasiev N. (2015) “Presvitidy ili predsedatel′nitsy” [Presbytides, or chairwomen], in: N. Afanasiev, Tserkov′ Bozhiia vo Khriste [God’s church in Christ], Moscow: PSTGU, 2015, pp. 516–528 (in Russian).
2. Afanasiev N. (1952) Trapeza Gospodnia [Lord’s feast]. Paris: Izdanie Religiozno-pedagogicheskogo kabineta pri Pravoslavnom Bogoslovskom institute v Parizhe (in Russian).
3. Back Chr. (2015) Die Witwen in der frühen Kirche. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
4. Bakonina S. (ed.) (2013) Sluzhenie zhenshchin v Tserkvi: Issledovania, Moscow: Izdatel′stvo PSTGU (in Russian).
5. Colson J. (1960) La fonction diaconale aux origines de l’Église. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer.
6. Daniélou J. (1974) The Ministry of Women in the Early Church. London: Faith Press.
7. Eisen U. (1996) “Amtsträgerinnen im frühen Christentum: Epigraphische und literarische Studien“, in: A. Ritter (ed.), Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, 61, Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Rupprecht.
8. Ibáñez M. (2021) Sine Proprio. Estudio histórico-jurídico del voto de pobreza de los religiosos. Madrid: Dykinson.
9. Karras V. (2007) “Priestesses or Priests’ Wives: Presbytera in Early Christianity”. St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 51, 2007, pp. 321–345.
10. Lafontaine P. (1963) Les conditions positives de l’accession aux ordres dans la première législation ecclésiastique (300–492). Ottawa: Éditions de l’Université d’Ottawa.
11. Martimort A.-G. (1982) Les Diaconesses: Essai historique. Roma: Edizioni liturgiche.
12. Posternak A. (2020) “Status vdov v Pervom poslanii apostola Pavla k Timofeiu (1 Tim 5. 3–16)” [Widows’ status in Apostle Paul’s 1st Epistle to Timotheus]. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 1, 2020, pp. 13–36. DOI: 10.24411/2224-5391-2020-10101 (in Russian).
13. Posternak A. (2016) “Zhenshchiny v zapadnykh tserkovnykh obshchinakh v epokhu pozdnei Antichnosti i rannego Srednevekov′ja” [Women in western church communities in the period of Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages], in: G. Zakharov (ed.), Bozhestvennaia vlast′, tserkovnaia ierarkhiia i dukhovnyi avtoritet v rannekhristianskoi latinskoi traditsii [Divine power, church hierarchy, and spiritual authority in Early Christian Latin tradition]. Moscow: Izdatel′stvo PSTGU, 2016, pp. 119–131 (in Russian).
14. Posternak A. (2021) “Vdovy i diakonissy v ierarkhii Drevnei Tserkvi” [Widows and deaconesses in the hierarchy of the Ancient Church]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta, II, 98, 2021, pp. 11–27 (in Russian).
15. Sedano J. (2019) “Conclusion of the Millennium: Gratian’s Synthesis”, in: Sz. Szuromi, N. Á. de las Asturias (edss), Becoming a Priest: Canonical Discipline and Criteria on Suitability for Candidates, Berlin: Frank & Timme, 2019, pp. 123–148.
16. Troitskii S. (2013) “Tserkovnosluzhitel′nitsy v Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi” [Female clergy in the Orthodox church], in: S. Bakonina (ed.), Sluzhenie zhenshhin v Tserkvi: Issledovaniia [Women’s ministry in the church: Studies], Moscow: Izdatel′stvo PSTGU, pp. 25–156 (in Russian).
17. Stark R. (1992) “Women’s Sanctity in the Church: An Historiсаl Overview”, in: N. McLees (ed.), A Cloud of Witness: Women’s Struggle for Sanctity. Talks from an Orthodox Women’s Conference. Igo: The Valaam Society of America, pp. 85–190.
18. Zagano Ph. (ed.) (2016) Women Deacons? Essays with Answers. Collegeville (MT): Liturgical Press.

Posternak Andrey, priest

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 21-011-44125\21 «Latin Ecclesiastical Tradition of the 4th – 7th centuries in the Modern Scientific and Theological Context»

This paper is devoted to the problem of the development of the church organization of the super-provincial level in the Balkan region and to the influence of the Roman and Constantinople Sees on this process. According to the author, the law of emperor Theodosius II, concerning church affairs in Illyricum (421), did not imply the liquidation of the vicariate of Thessalonica created by the Roman see and the transfer of this region to the jurisdiction of Constantinople. It was about endowing the Constantinopolitan see with the function of an alternative judicial instance (along with the see of Thessalonica), which was justified by the status of Constantinople as the New Rome. The protest of Pope Boniface I and the western emperor Honorius against this decision, apparently, led to the fact that the status quo remained in Illyricum. Nevertheless, this law was included in the Code of Theodosius. It is also possible that, along with the diocese of the Orient, Illyricum was meant as the sphere of implementation of the 9th and 17th canons of the Council of Chalcedon (451), which prescribe, in the case of litigation with the participation of the metropolitan, to apply for a trial to the exarch of the diocese or to the Constantinopolitan see. This rule, apparently, was associated with the existence in Constantinople of a "permanent synod", the organization of which did not require significant costs and efforts, in contrast to the synods of dioceses.

church organization, councils, Illyricum, Roman See, See of Constantinople, Vicariate of Thessalonica, Council of Chalcedon.

1. Alberigo G. (ed.) (2006) Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta, Editio Critica. I: The Oecumenical Councils from Nicaea I to Nicaea II (325–787). Turnhout: Brepols Publishers.
2. Blaudeau Philippe (2012) Le siège de Rome et l’Orient (448–536). Étude géo-ecclésiologique. Rome: École française de Rome.
3. Blaudeau Philippe (2020) “Podgotovka, vospriyatie i zashchita Halkidonskogo sobora so storony Rimskogo papy L’va Velikogo”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, 2020, Iss. 94, pp. 11–30 (in Russian).
4. Dunn Geoff rey D. (2020) “Church and State in the Dispute over the Vicariate of Thessaloniki during the Pontifi cate of Boniface I”. Journal of Early Christian History, 2020, vol. 10, pt. 1, pp. 37–60.
5. Dunn Geoff rey D. (2007) “Innocent I and Anysius of Thessalonica”. Byzantion, 2007, vol. 77, pp. 124–148.
6. Gascou Jean (2012) “L’Égypte byzantine (284–641)”, in C. Morrisson, dir. Le monde byzantin. T. I: L’Empire romain d’Orient (330–641). Paris: PUF, pp. 409–441.
7. Gratsianskiy Mikhail V. (2020) “Tserkovno-administrativnoe soderzhanie termina “ekzarh diotseza” 9-go i 17-go pravil Khalkidonskogo sobora i vopros o podsudnosti del protiv mitropolita”. Antichnaia drevnost′ i srednie veka, 2020, vol. 48, pp. 53–73 (in Russian).
8. Greenslade Stanley L. (1945) “The Illyrian Churches and the Vicariate of Thessalonica, 378–95”. The Journal of Theological Studies, 1945, vol. 46, pp. 17–30.
9. Grumel Venance (1952) “Le Vicariat de Thessalonique et le premier rattachement de l’Illyricum oriental au patriarcat de Constantinople”, in Annuaire de l’École des Législations Religieuses, 1950–1951. Paris, pp. 49–63.
10. Grumel Venance (1964) “Les origines du vicariat apostolique de Thessalonique”, in Actes du XIIe Congrès international d’études byzantines, vol. II. Beograd: Naučno delo, pp. 451–461.
11. Hajjar Joseph (1962) Le synode permanent (σύνοδος QνδημοZσα) dans l’Église byzantine des origines au XIe siècle. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum
12. L′Huillier Petr (2005) Pravila pervykh chetyrekh Vselenskikh soborov. Moscow: Izdatel′stvo Sretenskogo monastyrya (in Russian).
13. Pietri Charles (1976) Roma Christiana. Recherches sur l’Église de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440). Rome: École française de Rome.
14. Streichhan Fritz (1922) “Die Anfänge des Vikariates von Thessalonich”. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung, 1922, vol. 12, pp. 330–384.
15. Price R., Gaddis M. (eds) (2005) The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, vol. III.
16. Zakharov Georgy E. (2020) “Rimskii prestol i Vostochnye Tserkvi v konflikte vokrug sv. Ioanna Zlatousta”. Vestnik drevnei istorii, 2020, vol. 80, iss. 3, pp. 697–711 (in Russian).

Zakharov Georgy

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The article was prepared within the framework of the project "Correlation of the idea of ecumenical primacy with the regional consolidation of the episcopate in the 4th – 6th centuries", carried out with the support of the Living Tradition Foundation.

The study is based on the materials preserved in Fund 16 of the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (RGADA). They indicate the age, property status (number of serf”s souls), geographical location of their estates (in which county were the estates) and the place where they were assigned for service (army, guards, navy, etc.) or in an educational institution. A total of 8,762 noblemen were reckoned. The overwhelming majority of landlords had possessions in only one county. The median value of soul-ownership of all the nobles was 14 souls, for the landlords – 23 souls. More than 20 percent of the nobility had no peasants in their ownership. Landlords (who had over 100 souls) accounted for slightly more than 12 percent of all noblemen and about 16 percent of serf-owners alone. Of all the landlords, less than 1 percent were the descendants of the Duma officials of the Tzardom of Russia. Exactly half of them had the title of kniaz (prince), almost 60 percent were the children of military and civilian generals. They were very rich landlords, 92 percent had more than 500 souls, more than 78 percent owned more than 1,000 souls. Representatives of the titled nobility, namely, princes, numbered a little more than 2 percent of the total mass of landlords. A quarter of them belonged to the large landed gentry. In general, large landlords accounted for 2.5 percent of the total number of nobles, a third part of them were the descendants of the Duma officials. Magnates who owned a thousand souls or more made up just over 1 percent of the total mass of nobles, of which the descendants of Duma officials made up almost 60 percent. The future generals of the undergraduates of 1743–1750 were less than 3 percent, half of them came from families of landowners who owned less than a hundred souls. Of the children of generals (the first three ranks) almost 90 percent may be considered as large landlords, the owners of more than 1 thousand souls were 72 percent. At the same time, of the descendants of non-aristocratic nobles – sons of generals (of the first three ranks), the owners of more than a thousand souls were only 42 percent. These figures clearly show the conjugation of having large quantities of serfs and gentility. To be of noble origin was even more important than to have a rank of a general.

nobility, landowners, general officers, kniazes, boyars, serf-ownership, prosopography

1. Kabuzan V. M., Troitskii S. M. (1971) “Izmeneniia v chislennosti, udel′nom vese i razmeshchenii dvorianstva v Rossii v 1782–1858 gg.” [Changes in the number, percentage, and distribution of the nobility in Russia in 1782–1858]. Istoriia SSSR, 1971, 4, pp. 162–164 (in Russian).
2. Mironov B. N. (2014) Rossiiskaia imperiia: ot traditsii k modernu. T. 1. [The Russian Empire: from tradition to modernity. Vol. 1]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
3. Rubinshtein N. L. (1957) Sel’skoe khoziaistvo Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XVIII v. [Russian agriculture during the 2nd half of the 18th century]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Shepukova N. M. (1964) “Ob izmenenii dushevladeniia pomeshchikov Evropeiskoi Rossii v pervoi chetverti XVIII — pervoi polovine XIX v.” [On the change in the sizes of serf-ownership in the European Russia in the 1st quarter of the 18th — 1st half of the 19th centuries]. Ezhegodnik po agrarnoi istorii Vostochnoi Evropy, 1963. Vil′nius, pp. 402–419 (in Russian).
5. Vediushkin V. A., Korelin A. P., Marasinova E. N., Nazarov V. D. (2007) “Dvorianstvo” [Nobility], in Bol′shaia rossiiskaia entsiklopediia [Russian Encyclopaedia], 8, p. 385 (in Russian).
6. Vodarskii Ia. E. (1977) Naselenie Rossii v kontse XVII — nachale XVIII veka [The population of Russia in the late 17th — early 18th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).

Feofanov Alexander

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The article deals the peasant unrest of 1842–1843, known as the potato riots. The epicenter of the riots of 1842 was in the Trans-Ural uezdes (districts) of the Perm Governorate (Kamyshlovsky and Shadrinsky). The peasants seized the volost boards and churches, demanded from the rural authorities and the clergy to issue them a "sales charter", according to which they were transferred to serfs. Fearing the anger of the crowd, several country authorities fled to the Dalmatov Dormition Monastery to find refuge outside its walls. However, peasants from the surrounding villages began to gather in the town of Dalmatovo, they captured the Dalmatian volost head and the clerk and demanded that they be given a "sales charter" under the threat of torture. At this time, the treasurer of the monastery, Hieromonk Nicholas, ordered the gates of the monastery to be locked and threatened the rebels that he would fire a cannon. Then, as part of a religious procession, he proceeded to the volost administration house and freed the captive country authorities. After that, he, not meeting resistance, returned with them to the monastery. These events were portrayed by some Soviet historians, such as Nicolay Druzhinin, Sergey Tokarev, as a heroic siege of the Dalmatov monastery. However, an analysis of archived and published sources demonstrates that there was no siege in fact, the peasants were not going to seize the monastery and did not interfere with the movement from it, and the firing from the monastery was carried out with blank charges. When the military detachments arrived the next day, most of the peasants fled, several dozen were arrested without resistance and put on trial. Thus, we are dealing with a historiographical myth based on soviet ideology and an uncritical attitude towards the sources and works of other historians.

riots, potato riots, Trans-Urals region, Russian peasantry, Dalmatovo monastery, social psychology, rumours, mentality

1. Druzhinin N. (1958) Gosudarstvennye krest′iane i reforma P. D. Kiseleva. T. 2. Realizatsiia i posledstviia reform [State peasants and the reform of P. D. Kiselyov. Vol. 2. Implementation and implications of the reforms]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Menshchikov I. (2006) Kul′tura Iuzhnogo Zaural′ia vo vtoroi polovine XIX — nachale ХХ veka [Culture of the Southern Trans-Urals in the 2nd half of the 19th — early 20th centuries]. Kurgan (in Russian).
3. Menshchikov I., Pavlutskikh T. (2020) “Sel′skoie dukhovenstvo i kartofel′nyie bunty v Zaural′ie 1842–1843” [Rural clergy and potato riots in the Trans-Urals region in 1842‒1843]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi. 2020, vol. 92, pp. 75–92 (in Russian).
4. Menshchikov I., Pavlutskikh T. (2021) “Kartofel′nye bunty v Zaural′ie kak otrazhenie traditsionnogo soznaniia russkogo krest′ianstva” [Potato riots in the Trans-Urals region as a refl ection of the traditional consciousness of the Russian peasantry]. Vestnik permskogo universiteta. Istoriia. 2021, vol. 54, pp. 48–58 (in Russian).
5. Mironov B. (2019) “Krest′ianskoe dvizhenie v Rossii nakanune emansipatsii kak moment istiny” [The peasant movement in Russia before the emancipation as a moment of truth]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Istoriia, 2019, vol. 64, рp. 817–842 (in Russian).
6. Savich A. (1925) Proshloe Urala: Istoricheskie ocherki [The past of the Urals: historical essays]. Perm′ (in Russian).
7. Savich A. (1931) Ocherki istorii krest′ianskikh volnenii na Urale v XVIII–XX v. [Essays on the history of peasant unrest in the Urals in the 18th — 20th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Tokarev S. (1939) Krestianskie kartofel′nye bunty [Peasants’ potato riots]. Kirov (in Russian).

Menshchikov Igor

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Pavlutckikh Timofei

The article examines the hypothesis on a possible participation of Archpriest Ioann Vostorgov, famous missionary, preacher, journalist and publicist, new martyr, in creating the project "Siberian Patericon", which is a collection of Siberian saints’ biographies appeared in Omsk at the early XX century. This possibility is associated with the events of the solemn canonization of Metropolitan of Tobolsk and All Siberia Ioann Maksimovich (1916). The analysis of sermons delivered during the celebrations and other publicistic works of the Archpriest, diary entries, as well as the presence in the missionary's library of unique hagiographic works published in Siberia, made it possible to reconstruct I. Vostorgov's views on the significance and growth of venerating saints in Russia at the early XX century, reveal special attention of Archpriest to the exploits of the Holy Russia Siberian constituent. Ioann Vostorgov emphasized that holiness manifestation in the region was closely related to the missionary activities of the Siberian clergy; noted that missionary work was an important aspect of the asceticism of the Siberian hierarchs. Moreover, the missionary viewed the preaching of Christianity as a historical mission of the Russian people perceived by them in baptism. He confirmed that preaching by Siberian missionaries clearly demonstrated this side of the historical task of the Russian people. The Archpriest considered St. Ioann canonization significance as a continuation of the canonization process, the Synodal period of the Orthodoxy history in Russia, namely, as a guarantee of these saint help in the conditions of coming trials and challenges facing Russia.Tobolsk celebrations turned out to be a convenient platform for all-Siberian discussion of the patericon. St. Ioann sermons included both historiosophical discourses on the Orthodoxy role in forming the peculiarities of Russian history, and formulated tasks of the of hagiography development taking into account developing events. Unpublished "Notes related to the trip to Siberia" by the Archpriest made him during Tobolsk celebrations found lists of Siberian saints including a significant group of missionaries, an aphoristic formulation of the missionary feat - "missionary is being driven primarily by holiness" - and, possibly, mentioning the "Siberian patericon".

Archpriest Ioann Vostorgov, missionary work, saints, prelate, hagiography, biography, life, feat, missionary movement, asceticism, Holy Russia, Siberian Patericon, Metropolitan Ioann Maksimovich, canonization, Tobolsk

1. Аndronik (Trubachev) (ed.) (2009) Sviashchennik Pavel Florenskii. Predpolagaemoe gosudarstvennoe ustroistvo v budushchem: sbornik arkhivnykh materialov i statei [Priest Pavel Frorensky: Possible state organisation in the future: collection of archive materials and articles]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Chernyshova N. (2019) “Sviashchennomuchenik prot. I. I. Vostorgov i pravoslavnaia knizhnost′ Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka v nachale XX v.”, in Nauka, tekhnologii i informatsiia v bibliotekakh. Novosibirsk, p. 219 (in Russian).
3. Feodosii (Protsiuk) (2006) “V vere li vy? Zhitie i trudy sviashchennomuchenika Sil′vestra, arkhiepiskopa Omskogo” [Do you believe? Life and work of Hieromartyr Silvestr, Archbishop of Omsk]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Fomin S. (2003) “Poslednii tsarskii sviatoi sviatitel′ Ioann (Maksimovich), mitropolit Tobol′skii, sibirskii chudotvorets. Zhitie. Chudesa. Proslavlenie. Sluzhba. Akafi st” [The last tsar’s saint Ioann Maksimovich, Metropolitan of Tobolsk, Siberian wonderworker. Life. Miracles. Veneration. Service in his honour. Akathist]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
5. Grebeniuk T. (2014) Vladel′cheskie knizhnye znaki v Otdele redkikh knig Rossiiskoi gosudarstvennoi biblioteki: katalog. Kn. 4: Vavilov–Viazemskii [Owners book signs in the Department of Rare Books, Russian State Library: catalogue. Book 4]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Gumerov A. (ed.) (2004) Zhitie sviashchennomuchenika Ioanna Vostorgova [Life of Hieromartyr Ioann Vostorgov]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Makarii (Bulgakov) (1994) Istoriia russkoi tserkvi [History of Russian church]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Pavlova R. (ed.) (2004–2005) Svodnyi katalog sibirskoi i dal′nevostochnoi knigi 1790–1917 gg. [Integrated catalogue of the Siberian and Far-East book of the 1790s — 1917]. Novosibirsk (in Russian).
9. Polishchuk E. Istoriia Zhurnala Moskovskoi Patriarkhii [History of the Journal of Moscow Patriarchate], available at http:\\patriarchia.ru/db/text/5306940.html (accessed 05.02.2022) (in Russian).
10. Vinogradov A., Surguladze M., Anokhina T., Loseva O. (2000) “Andrei Pervozvannyi” [Andrew the First-Called], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox encyclopaedia]. Moscow, vol. 2, pp. 370–376 (in Russian).

Chernyshova Nadezhda

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

This article deals with the issue of the relationship between the party "Union of October 17" and the Moscow "Commission on Church and Religious Issues” in 1905-1907. The research is based on various sources: official documents, secular and church periodicals, writings of “Commission’s” members and the Octobrists. The author throws light upon the events of the conflict between liberal-minded members of the Society of Worshipers of Spiritual Enlightenment and the Moscow church hierarchy. The article touches on the reasons for establishing of the "Commission", as well as the circumstances that led to its rapprochement with the party "October 17 Union". On the one hand, the “Commission” sought to find material assistance from the party, and on the other hand, the Octobrists needed to develop an ecclesiastic issue with their program using the knowledge and experience of the Orthodox clergy. The author gives a vivid description of institutional changes of the "Commission" that related to the Octobrists’ influence. Besides, the collection of the articles of the "Commission" is published with the financial support of the party. The "Commission" under impact of the party expanded its program. The author gives an insight into the reasons for the decline of the activities of the "Commission" under the "Union of October 17". They consisted in the postponement of a church council, as well as in a reorganization of "Union of October 17». The article shows how the experience of interaction between the "Commission" and the "Union of October 17" influenced the subsequent work of the Octobrists on an ecclesiastic issue in the II and III State Dumas.

A.I. Guchkov, Moscow "Commission on Church and Religious Issues”, the Society of Worshipers of Spiritual Enlightenment, Church reform movement, Church council, church reform, the States Duma

1. Balakshina Iu. (2014) Bratstvo revnitelei tserkovnogo obnovleniia (gruppa |32-kh″ peterburgskikh svyashchennikov). 1903–1907: Dokumentalnaia istoriia i kulturnyi kontekst [Brotherhood of Supporters of church renovation (the group of 32 St. Petersburg priests). 1903–1907: Documented history and the cultural context]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Firsov S. (2002) Russkaia tserkov′ nakanune peremen (konets 1890-kh — 1918 gg.) [Russian church before the changes (late 1890s — 1918]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Gaida F. (2014) “Sovet ministrov o problemakh Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi (1906–1914)” [The council of ministers and the problems of Russian Orthodox church (1906–1914)”. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2014, 2 (57), pp. 23–37 (in Russian).
4. Golovushkin D. (2009) Fenomen obnovlenchestva v russkom pravoslavii pervoi poloviny XX veka [The phenomenon of renovationism in the Russian Orthodoxy of the 1st half of the 20th century]. St. Retersburg (in Russian).
5. Izvekov N. (2013) Istoricheskii ocherk poluvekovoi zhizni i deiatel′nosti Moskovskogo obshchestva liubitelei dukhovnogo prosveshcheniia (1863–1913 gg.) [Historical outline of the 50 years of work Moscow Society for Church Enlightenment (1864–1913)]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Kara-Murza A. (ed.) (2018) Rossiiskii liberalizm. Idei i liudi [Russian liberalism. Ideas and the people]. Vol. 2. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Khristoforov I. (2005) Ot samoderzhaviia k dumskoi monarkhii. Pervaia revoliutsiia v Rossii: vzgliad cherez stoletie [From tsardom to Duma’s monarchy. The fi rst revolution in Russia: a glance through the century]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Kopylova E. (2016) Moskovskoe obshchestvo liubitelei dukhovnogo prosveshchenij a: stanovlenie i traditsii dukhovnogo prosveshcheniia v Rossii v period serediny XIX — nachala XX v. [Moscow Society for Church Enlightenment: formation and traditions of spiritual enlightenment in Russia in the mid-19th — early 20th cc.]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Kozlov V. (2015) Eparkhial′nyi dom v Moskve: khronika zhizni doma i Kniaz′-Vladimirskogo khrama. 1902–1918 gg. [The Diocese House in Moscow: a chronicle of the House and of Prince Vladimir’s church]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Orekhanov G. (2002) Na puti k Soboru. Tserkovnye reformy i pervaia russkaia revoliutsij a [On the way to the council. Church reforms and the fi rst Russian revolution]. Moscow (in Russian).
11. Pavlov D., Shelokhaev V. (eds) (2000) “Soiuz 17 oktiabria” [The Union of October 17], in Politicheskie partii Rossii: istoriia i sovremennost′ [Political parties in Russian: history and the present day]. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Rozanov N. (2000) Vtoroe soslovie. Moi vospominaniia o zhizni moskovskogo dukhovenstva v poslednee piatidesiatiletie pered revoliutsiei [The second estate. My memoirs on the life of Moscow clergy in the last 50 years before the revolution], in M. Odintsov (ed.) Uchenye zapiski. 2000, vol. 6. Tserkovnaja istoriia XX veka i obnovlencheskaia smuta [Church history of the 20th century and the renovationist tumult]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Rozhkov V. (2004) Tserkovnye voprosy v Gosudarstvennoi Dume [Church-related issues in the State Duma]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Vorontsova I. (2007) “K istorii õmoskovskoi tserkovnoi revoliutsii″ v Obshchestve liubitelei dukhovnogo prosveshcheniia” [A history of “Moscow church revolution” in the Society for Church Enlightenment]. Tserkov′ i vremia, 2007, 2 (30), pp. 128–147 (in Russian).
15. Zosima (Davydov) (2005) “Moskovskaia tserkovnaia revoliutsiia, ili deiatel′nost′ Moskovskogo obshchestva liubitelei dukhovnogo prosveshheniia v 1905–1908 gg” [Moscow church revolution, or the activities of Moscow Society for Church Enlightenment in 1905–1908]. Ezhegodnaia bogoslovskaia konferentsiia Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo bogoslovskogo instituta: Materialy [Annual theological conference of St. Tikhon Orthodox Institute: Proceedings]. Moscow, pp. 308–409 (in Russian).

Titova Ekaterina

The article examines the problem of the status of the clergy of the southern dioceses of Russia, traces its change in connection with the revolutionary events of 1917, transformations in the field of state-church relations and changes in public consciousness. The forms in which the attitude of the laity to the clergy was expressed and the factors by which it was determined are considered. The main sources for the analysis were the materials of the public-church discussion of the problem of the situation and material support of the clergy of the periodical press. The materials of the congresses of the clergy and laity and the records of the Provisional Supreme Church Administration in the South of Russia are also involved. The author comes to the conclusion that the most important component of the reforms of this period was the inclusion of laypeople in the church administration bodies of different levels, in the solution of all categories of issues — managerial, legal and financial, which occurred at the initiative of the clergy as a whole. However, the economic dependence of the clergy on the laity, who often fell under the influence of secular authorities, against the background of the growth of individualistic sentiments, the fading of the communal spirit and the rapid flowering of the people, further aggravated the situation of the clergy, who saw a way out of the situation in a radical change in the system of material support for pastoral activities. They outlined some programs for overcoming the crisis.

orthodox clergy, parishioners, laity, ecclesiasticism, religiosity, church formation, revolution

1. Ageev E. (2019) Pravoslavnaia Tserkov′ na Srednem Donu v sobornyi i poslesobornyi periody (1917–1930) [Orthodox Cnurch in the Middle Don and the council and post-council periods (1917–1930)]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Ageev E. (2015) “Dokumenty Osoboi komissii po rassledovaniiu deistvii bol′shevikov pri GK VSYUR (1919 g.) v GARF kak istochnik po istorii prikhodskih khramov i monastyrei sovremennoi Volgogradskoi mitropolii v gody Grazhdanskoi voiny” [Documents of the Special Commission to investigate the Bolsheviks’ activity (1919) as a source for the history of parish churches and monasteries of the present-day Volgograd diocese during the Civil War]. Vestnik arkhivista, 2015, vol. 4, pp. 52–65 (in Russian).
3. Aksenov V. (2015) “Vera i massovoe soznanie: rastserkovlenie rossiian v 1907–1917 gg.” [Religion and mass consciousness: antireligious propaganda in Russia in 1907–1917]. Istoriia, 2015, vol. 6 (39), available at: www.sfi.ru/statja/sovremennye-problemy-metodologii-religiovedenija (25. 06. 2021) (in Russian).
4. Aksenov V. (2019) “Narodnaia religioznost′ i obrazy dukhovenstva v gody Pervoi mirovoi voiny i revoliutsii” [Folk religiosity and profiles of the clergy during the First World War and revolution]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov′ v Rossii i za rubezhom, 2019, vol. 1–2 (37), pp. 272–303 (in Russian).
5. Beglov A. (2017) “Rossiiskaia revoliutsiia i Sviashchennyi Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918 gg.: ot |tserkovnoi revoliutsii″ — k |kanonicheskoi restavratsii″” [Russian revolution and the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917–1918: from the “church revolution” to “canonical restoration”]. Khristianos, Riga, vol. XXVI, pp. 24–51 (in Russian).
6. Belonogova Yu. (2007) “Sluzhba i material′noe obespechenie prikhodskogo dukhovenstva Moskovskoi eparkhii v nachale XX v.” [Service and fi nancial support of the parish clergy of Moscow diocese in the early 20th century]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: «Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi», 2007, vol. 24, pp. 54–78 (in Russian).
7. Belonogova Yu. (2008) “Vzaimootnoshenie prikhodskogo sel′skogo dukhovenstva s prikhozhanami” [Relationships between the parish rural clergy and church-goers], in Istoriia ne uchitel′nitsa [History is not a teacher], Moscow, pp. 133–153 (in Russian).
8. Buldakov V., Leont′eva T. (2017) “Revoliutsiia, religiia, kul′tura: vzaimodeistvie tsentra i periferii v 1917–1918 gg.” [Revolution, religion, culture: interaction between the centre and the periphery in 1917–1918], in Revoliutsionnaia Sibir′: istoki, protsessy, nasledie [Revolutionary Siberia: origins, processes, legacy], pp. 175–190 (in Russian).
9. Kiyashko N. (2014) “Prikhodskoe dukhovenstvo v sotsial′noi strukture naseleniia Rossiiskoi imperii: shtrikhi k portretu” [Parish clergy in the social structure of the population of the Russian Empire: several considerations]. Vestnik arkhivista Kubani, 2014, vol. 9, pp. 83–89 (in Russian).
10. Kiyashko N. (2016) “Sistema tserkovnogo upravleniia i polozhenie dukhovenstva na Iuge Rossii v 1918–1919 gg.” [System of church administration and the position of the clergy in the South of Russia in 1918–1919], in Materialy VIII Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnobogoslovskoi konferentsii studentov SPbDA [8th International Conference of Students of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy: proceedings], pp. 226–233 (in Russian).
11. Kiyashko N. (2018) “Vliianie Fevral′skogo perevorota 1917 goda na tserkovnuiu zhizn′ i dukhovenstvo Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi na Kubani” [The impact of the February coup of 1917 on church life and the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Kuban region], in Gumanitarnye chteniia RGGU, Moscow, pp. 202–206 (in Russian).
12. Leont′eva T. (2007) “Pravoslavnoe dukhovenstvo i revoliutsiia” [Orthodox clergy and the revolution], in K istorii russkikh revoliutsii. Sobytiia. Mneniia. Otsenki. Pamiati I. I. Mintsa [On the history of Russian revolutions. Events. Opinions. Evaluations. In memoriam I. I. Mints], Moscow, pp. 582–602 (in Russian).
13. Leont′eva T. (2017) “Revoliutsiia. Dukhovenstvo. Prikhod” [Revolution. Clergy. Oarish], in Velikaia rossiiskaia revoliutsiia, 1917: sto let izucheniia: materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii [Great Russian revolution, 1917. A hundred years of study. Proceedings of the International conference], pp. 420–426 (in Russian).
14. Leont′eva T. (2018) “Grazhdanskaia voina, Pravoslavnaia Tserkov′, sviashchennik” [Civil War, Ortodox Church, the Priest], in Grazhdanskaia voina i rossiiskaia provintsiia: sovremennoe vospriiatie, podhody i otsenka [Civil War and the Russian provinces: current views, approaches and evaluations: Conference proceedings], pp. 57–65 (In Russian).
15. Rosloff E. (2002) Red Priests: renovationism, Russian Orthodoxy, and Revolutions, 1905–1946. Indiana University Press.
16. Silano F. (2019) “Kanonicheskoe pravo v zale bol’shevistskogo suda: Russkaia revoliutsiia kak revoliutsiia tserkovnogo prava [Canon law in the chamber of Bolshevists’ court of justice: Russian revolution as a revolution of church law]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov′ v Rossii i za rubezhom. Rossiiskaia revoliutsiia [State, religion, church in Russia and abroad. Russian revolution], 2019, vol. 1–2 (37), pp. 153–181 (in Russian).
17. Scarborough D. (2019) “Moskovskaia eparkhial′naia revoliutsiia” [Moscow diocese revolution]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov′ v Rossii i za rubezhom. Rossiiskaia revoliutsiia [State, religion, church in Russia and abroad. Russian revolution], 2019, vol. 1–2 (37), pp. 104–126 (in Russian).

Biryukova Yulia

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 21-011-44120 «Orthodox clergy in the South of Russia during the wars and revolutions of the early XX century».

This article is devoted to the analysis of the relationship between employees of the state security organs (NKVD, NKGB, MGB of the USSR) with members and authorizeds of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church in the first ten years from the beginning of the Council's existence. The study of this problem was carried out on the basis of the archival documents of the Council for the specified period and made it possible to show the process of forming state policy in relation to the ROC, implemented through the two above-mentioned departments, as well as the difference in the approaches of these departments to church policy. Various types of interaction between employees of the two departments and the stages of development of state policy in relation to the Church in the designated period are revealed. Such periods were the initial period of the Council's work until the Local Council of 1945, when the church policy of the state, carried out through the Council, was perceived as a temporary phenomenon, and there was a division of spheres of influence between the Council and the state security organs in the church issue. The next period ended with a change in the leadership of the MGB in 1946 and was characterized by the implementation of the planned church policy of the state through the Council, whose head G.G. Karpov was formally subordinate to the head of the MGB V.N. Merkulov. After the appointment to the post of Minister V.S. Abakumov and the dismissal of Karpov from the MGB in 1947, the stage of the formation of a new, tougher line in the policy of the state towards the Church began, in which the state security organs played the main role. The events of the "Saratov baptistery" at the beginning of 1949 became an obvious moment of the change in state policy on the church issue. From that moment on, the fourth stage of the tightening of state policy towards the Church began, which continued, despite the arrest of Abakumov and the death of Stalin, until the end of the period under review.

Council for the ROC, Karpov, state security organs, NKVD, NKGB, MGB, church-state policy

1. Berman A., Skakun R. (2020) “Obespechivat′ proverennoi agenturoi iz chisla dukhovenstva″. Direktivy NKGB SSSR o Pomestnykh soborakh Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi. Iz arkhiva sluzhby bezopasnosti Ukrainy” [“It should be supported by the reliable agents from the clergy”. Orders of the People’s Commissariat for Internal Aff airs as to the Local Coucils of the Russian Orthodox Church]. Tserkovno-istoricheskii vestnik, 24–35, 2017–2018. Moscow, 2020, pp. 247–258 (in Russian).
2. Donenko N., Filimonov S. (eds) (2010) Krymskaia eparkhiia pod nachalom sviatitelia Luki (Voino-Iaseneckogo): sbornik dokumentov [Crimean diocese during the period of St. Luka Voino-Yasenetsky: collection of documents]. Simferopol (in Russian).
3. Kurliandskii I. (2011) Stalin, vlast′, religiia (religioznyi i tserkovnyi faktory vo vnutrennei politike sovetskogo gosudarstva v 1922–1953 gg.) [Stalin, power, religion (religious and church-related factors in the internal policy of the Soviet state in 1922–1953)]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Chumachenko T. (1999) Gosudarstvo, pravoslavnaia tserkov′, veruiushchie. 1941–1961 gg. [State, Orthodox Church, believers. 1941–1961]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Pis′ma Patriarkha Aleksiia I v Sovet po delam Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi pri Sovete Narodnykh Komissarov — Sovete Ministrov SSSR 1945–1970 gg. [Letters of Patriarch Alexy I to the Council for the Aff airs of the Russian Orthodox Church at the Council of People’s Commissars — Council of Ministers of the USSR, 1945–1970], vol. 1 (2009). Moscow (in Russian).
6. Shkarovskii M. (1999) Russkaia Pravoslavnaia tserkov′ pri Staline i Khrushcheve (gosudarstvennotserkovnye otnosheniia v SSSR v 1939–1964 godakh) [Russian Orthodox Church in Stalin’s and Khrushchev’s periods (state-church relations in the USSR in 1939–1964)]. Moscow (in Russian).

Bartenev Grigory

This article is devoted to the study of one of the least studied groups of historical sources - the personal files of clergy. The archive of the Smolensk diocesan administration was used as a representative material. Based on the causal method, it was possible to consider a number of personal affairs of clergymen and, on their basis, identify those thematic blocks, the study of which contributes to a fuller and deeper immersion in the historical realities of the existence of the Russian Orthodox Church through the prism of the life and work of the clergy. The documents of the diocesan archives are able to shed light on certain circumstances of the life of a clergyman of the Soviet period and see his true portrait thanks to the testimonies that have been preserved in personal files - service records, autobiographies, complaints, clippings from periodicals, etc. The determining factor in the objectivity of consideration of this kind of documents involves the use of an integrated approach that can fill those gaps that are inevitable in office work. In this regard, when studying the personal files of clergymen of the Soviet period, it is necessary to take into account the factor of verification of the information contained in them due to political realities and the subjectivity of decisions of one bishop or another, or employees of the diocesan administration. This work does not claim to be exhausted. On the contrary, this attempt at research is aimed, firstly, at drawing attention to the problem of the lack of knowledge of the designated kind of sources. Secondly, it seems important to pay attention to the safety and accessibility for researchers of diocesan archives. The latter requires special attention, and the fate of a significant layer of history not only of the Church, its ministers, but also of our state depends on the resolution of these issues

archival fund of the Russian Federation, Smolensk diocesan administration, office work, personal affairs of clergymen, track record, autobiography, feuilleton, sources on the history of the Russian Church, complaints about priests

1. Shkarovskii M. (2010) Russkaia Pravoslavnia Tserkov′ v XX veke [Russian Orthodox Church in the 20s Century]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Starostin E. (2005) “Arkhivnoe nasledie Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi: puti razvitiia” [Archival legacy of the Russian Orthodox Church: directions of development]. Vestnik PSTGU, 2005, vol. 1, pp. 161–170 (in Russian).
3. Uvarov S., deacon (2017) “Uchastie arkhiepiskopa Mikhaila (Chuba) vo vneshnikh tserkovnykh sviaziakh Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi v 1950–1960-e gody” [Participation of Archbishop Mikhail (Chub) in external relations of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1950s — 1960s]. Tserkov’ i vremia, 2017, vol. 1 (78), pp. 196–224 (in Russian).

Burdukov Ilya, priest

This work includes a translation from Latin of the epistle of Pope Sixtus (Xistus) III to Archbishop Proclus of Constantinople (437), as well as an introductory article and historical and philological commentaries. There is an information about the author and the addressee of the epistle at the beginning of the article; then its analysis is given. The epistle sheds light on the relationships between the Roman See and the See of Constantinople and the See of Thessalonica in the 430s, and also provides a better understanding of the role of the Vicariate of Thessalonica in its relationship with the Churches of Rome and Constantinople. The text was probably written as a reaction to the appeal of the Illyrian bishops to the see of Constantinople, bypassing Anastasius of Thessalonica. Turning to Proclus, Sixtus defends the jurisdictional rights of the Archbishop of Thessalonica as papal vicar in Illyricum. At the same time, Illyricum is considered by Sixtus as a region subordinate to the See of Thessalonica, as the Pope stated in his other letters. The work emphasizes the connection of the epistle with other letters of Pope Sixtus (among them Si quantum, Gratulari potius and Doctor gentium). Sixtus reminds Proclus about an incident with bishop Idduas of Smyrna as well as about his support for the judgment of the Primate of Constantinople. It seems that by this Sixtus hoped to induce Proclus to act similarly in such situations when the Illyrian bishops could turn to Constantinople looking for its support. Sixtus calls on Proclus to support Anastasius in his rights and not to accept the bishops of his region without official letters (formatae).

Pope Sixtus (Xistus) III, Archbishop Proclus of Constantinople, Anastasius of Thessalonica, Eastern Illyricum, Apostolic Vicariate, early Christianity, church organisation

1. Brown Peter (1968) “Pelagius and his Supporters”. Journal of Theological Studies, 1968, vol. 19 (1), pp. 93–114.
2. Cavalcanti Elena (2020) “Sisto III, santo”, in Enciclopedia dei Papi, 2000, available at: https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/santo-sisto-iii_%28Enciclopedia-dei-Papi%29/ (06.12.2021).
3. Frangulian Liliya R., Shtefan Vladislava V. (2020) “Enkomii v chest′ 24 startsev Prokla Kizicheskogo (М. 591 f. 1r–11v)”. Orientalistica, 2020, vol. 3 (5), pp. 1379–1396 (in Russian).
4. Kampert Otmar (2002) “Sixtus III. von Rom”, in Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur. Freiburg im Breisgau, Basel, Wien: Herder, pp. 645–646.
5. Kötter Jan-Markus (2012) “Autonomie der illyrischen Kirche? Die Sixtus-Briefe der Collectio Thessalonicensis und der Streit um das kirchliche Illyricum”. Millennium (Jahrbuch zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr.), 2012, vol. 9 (1), 2012, pp. 163–186.
6. Sieben Hermann-Josef (ed.) (2015) Vetustissimae epistulae Romanorum pontifi cum (Die ältesten Papstbriefe), Bd. 3, Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder.
7. Silva-Tarouca Сarlos (ed.) (1937) Epistularum Romanorum Pontifi cum ad vicarios per Illyricum aliosque episcopos Сollectio Thessalonicensis. Romae: Apud aedes Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae.
8. Suchla Beate Regina (2002) “Proclus von Konstantinopel”, in Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur. Freiburg im Breisgau, Basel, Wien: Herder, pp. 591–592.
9. Zaitsev Daniil V. (2015) “Ioann II”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopedija, Moscow, vol. 23, pp. 526–527 (in Russian).
10. Zakharov Georgy E., Anashkin Anton V. (eds) (2022) Ekkleziologicheskaia traditsij a i tserkovnaia organizatsiia Illirika v kontse IV — pervoi polovine V v.: Issledovaniia i perevody [Ecclesiological tradition and church structure of Illiricum in the late 4th — first half of the 5th cc.: Studies and translations]. Moscow: PSTGU (in Russian).

Anashkin Anton

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

This article makes public an extremely important document of the first (according to the will of Holy Patriarch Tikhon) candidate for the position of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Hieromartyr Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov). It was written in April 1934 and summarised his understanding of the current state of aff airs in the church together with possible ways of overcoming the situation created by the policy of Patriarchal Locum Tenens Sergiy (Stragorodsky). Hieromartyr Kirill was firmly committed to the legacy of the Council of 1917–1918 and to the Patriarchal Administration established by the Council. The most important canonical acts which, in his opinion, should have been used in the current circumstances, were the Resolution of the Supreme Church Administration under Patriarch Tikhon of November 20, 1920 and the Patriarchal testamentary decree of January 7, 1925. Metropolitan Kirill’s associate was Hieromartyr Bishop Damaskin (Tsedik). He convincingly supported their position using the letters of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Petr (Polyansky) of 1929–1930. These clearly showed that Metropolitan Sergiy signifi cantly exceeded his authority and appropriated rights that he had not been endowed with. The publication also includes a document most likely compiled by Bishop Damaskin, based on the opinions of Metropolitans Kirill and Petr. Both documents are cited according to the same source, i.e. the notebook of Bishop Damaskin, seized from him during his arrest in 1934, and now kept in Jordanville, the spiritual center of the Russian Church Abroad.

Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov), Bishop Damaskin (Tsedrik), Patriarch Tikhon (Bellavin), Metropolitan Petr (Polyansky), Metropolitan Sergiy (Stragorodsky), higher church administration, usurpation of church authority, church controversy, canon law, ecclesiology

1. Gubonin M. (1994) Akty Sviateishego Tikhona, Patriarkha Moskovskogo i vseia Rossii, pozdneishie dokumenty i perepiska o kanonicheskom preemstve vysshei tserkovnoi vlasti, 1917–1943 [Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the supreme church authority, 1917–1943] Moscow: PSTBI (in Russian).
2. Khailova O. (2019) “Avvo moi rodnoi!”: Zhizneopisanie, izbrannye trudy i perepiska prepodobnomuchenika Neofita (Osipova) [“Abba my dearest!”: Biography, selected works and correspondence of St. Neofit (Osipov)]. Moscow: PSTGU (in Russian).
3. Kosik O. (2009) Istinnyi voin Khristov: Kniga o sviashchennomuchenike episkope Damaskine (Tsedrike) [The true warrior of Christ: a book about the Holy Martyr Bishop Damaskin (Tsedrik)]. Moscow: PSTGU (in Russian).
4. Krivosheeva N., Mazyrin A. (2001) “Eto est′ skorb′ dlia Tserkvi, no ne smert′ ee…″: Iz materialov sledstvennogo dela sviashchennomuchenika mitropolita Kirilla Kazanskogo (1930) [“This is sorrow for the Church, but not its death...”: From the materials of the investigative case of the Holy Martyr Metropolitan Kirill of Kazan (1930)]. Bogoslovskii sbornik, 2001, vol. 8, pp. 326–351 (in Russian).
5. Mazyrin A. (2012) “Podvig pervosviatitel′skogo sluzheniia Patriarshego Mestobliustitelia sviashchennomuchenika Petra, mitropolita Krutitskogo” [The feat of the fi rst hierarch’s ministry of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Holy Martyr Petr, Metropolitan Krutitsky], in Kifa — Patriarshii Mestobliustitel′ sviashchennomuchenik Petr, mitropolit Krutitskii (1862–1937) [Kifa, Patriarchal Locum Tenens Holy Martyr Petr, Metropolitan Krutitsky (1862–1937)]. Moscow: PSTGU, pp. 343–714 (in Russian).
6. Nikolaev S. (2019) “õDeianie″ arkhiepiskopa Serafi ma (Samoilovicha) i polemika otnositel′no ego pozitsii v krugu blizkikh emu lits v 1933–1934 gg.” [The “act” of Archbishop Seraphim (Samoilovich) and the controversy regarding his position in the circle of people close to him in 1933–1934]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. II, 2019, vol. 90, pp. 117–148 (in Russian).
7. Nikolaev S. (2015) “Obzor arkhivnogo fonda sviashchennomuchenika arkhiepiskopa Serafi ma (Samoilovicha) i ispovednitsy Iraidy Tikhovoi” [Review of the archival fund of Hieromartyr Archbishop Seraphim (Samoilovich) and confessor Iraida Tikhova], in XXV Ezhegodnaia bogoslovskaia konferentsiia PSTGU [25th Annual Theological Conference of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities]. Moscow: PSTGU, pp. 144–148 (in Russian).
8. Petrova T. (2010) Poslednee sledstvennoe delo arkhiepiskopa Feodora (Pozdeevskogo) [The last investigative case of Archbishop Feodor (Pozdeevsky)]. Moscow: Danilovskii blagovestnik (in Russian).
9. Vorobyov V., Kosik O. (2009) “Slovo Mestobliustitelia: Pisúma Mestobliustitelia sviashchennomuchenika mitropolita Petra (Polianskogo) k mitropolitu Sergiiu (Stragorodskomu) iz Tobolúskoi ssylki i liudi, posluzhivshie poiavleniiu etikh dokumentov” [The message of the Locum Tenens: Letters of the Locum Tenens Holy Martyr Metropolitan Petr (Polyansky) to Metropolitan Sergiy (Stragorodsky) from Tobolsk exile and the people due to whom these documents originated]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. II, 2009, vol. 3 (32), pp. 37–69 (in Russian).
10. Vorobyov V., Mazyrin A., Khailova O., Shchelkachev A., Kazakov I. (2014) "Avvo moi rodnoi!" Pisúma sviashchennomuchenika mitropolita Kirilla (Smirnova) prepodobnomucheniku arkhimandritu Neofi tu (Osipovu) 1933–1934 gg. [“Abba my dearest!”: Letters of Holy Martyr Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov) to Martyr Archimandrite Neofi t (Osipov) of 1933–1934]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. II, 2014, vol. 2 (57), pp. 117–142 (in Russian).

Vorobjev Vladimir, archpriest

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Mazyrin Alexander, priest

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Kosik Olga

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

This article makes public the letters of Revd. Vladimir Rodzianko (Hieromonk Vasily) to Protopresbyter Georgy Grabbe. Both the sender and the addressee are wellknown. The former is the future bishop and a long-term prsenter of Orthodox programmes on BBC Radio. The former also became a bishop, and for many years was the secretary of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad having a great infl uence on its policy. The letters were written in the early 1979 in the moment of great changes in the life of their author. The fi rst letter was prepared when he was Protopriest Vladimir, the second soon after his becoming a monk as Hieromonk Vasily. The reason for the letters were the attacks of the administration of the Russian Church Abroad against Moscow Patriarchate as well as the idea, popular in the Russian Orthodox Church, that there is no holy grace at all in any communities not belonging to the Orthodox Church. This idea was put forward by Protopresbyter G. Grabbe in the article Acribeia and Oeconomy. This approach was aggravated by the fact that the administration of the Russian Church Abroad regarded as apostate the clergy of Moscow Patriarchate. The consequence was an idea about their gracelessness. Hieromonk Vasily (Rodzianko) thought that this was erroneous and dangerous. Using certain historical evidence and an opinion of St. Ioann (Maksimovich), he claimed that the Orthodox gaith and the Eucharist are supreme over the jurisdictional controversies and that the temporary discord does not aff ect grace. The letters contain interesting facts as to relations between the Russian Church Abroad and the Serbian Church in the 1920s — 1940s, describe little-known details between the Russian Church Abroad and other branches of Russian church in exile.

Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Serbian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Filaret (Voznesensky), St. Ioann (Maksimovich), Bishop Vasily (Rodzianko), Bishop Georgy (Grabbe)

1. Antonii (Khrapovitskii), metropolitan (1994) Pastyrskoe bogoslovie. Sviato-Uspenskii Pskovo-Pecherskii monastyr′, 1994 (in Russian).
2. Kartashov A. (2002) Vselenskie Sobory [Ecumenical councils]. St. Petersburg, 2002 (in Russian).
3. Kostryukov A. (2012) Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov′ v 1925–1939 gg. Iurisdiktsionnye konflikty i otnosheniia s moskovskoi tserkovnoi vlast′yu [Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in 1925–1939. Jurisdictional confl icts and relations with Moscow church authorities]. Moscow: PSTGU (in Russian).

Kostryukov Andrey

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.