The article analyses the history of relations between Russian and Antioch Orthodox Churches in the 20th century. The focus is on Bishop (Kotliarov) of Podolsk, the Moscow Patriarchate representative to the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East in 1965-1966. The article draws upon unpublished documents from the State Archive of the Russian Federation, some of which are still classified, and shows extreme conditions of the bishop's ministry in the context of political rivalry between the USSR and the USA in the Middle East. The representative of the Moscow Patriarchate became "hostage" of internal political situation in Syria and of the official post-war policy of engaging the Russian Church as an instrument of Soviet foreign policy. The unprecedented action against the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate prompted some Church leaders to raise the issue of the Church's greater autonomy on international arena.

Keywords. Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarchate of Antioch, Bishop Vladimir (Kotliarov), Middle East.

The article was prepared with the financial support of the Russian State Scientific Foundation. Grant No. 14-01-00377 "Secular power and the evolution of relations between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Orthodox Churches of the Middle East in the second half of the XX-beginning of the XXI centuries".

Chumachenko T. On the issue of declaring Bishop Vladimir (Kotlyarov) persona non grata, representative of the Moscow Patriarchate under the Patriarch of Antioch, in 1966, Gosudarstvo, religiya, tserkva v Rossii i za rubezhom. 2017. N 1. pp. 41-63.

Chumachenko, Tatiana (2017) "The Issue of Declaring Bishop Vladimir Kotliarov, Moscow Patriarchate Representative to the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Persona Non Grata in 1966", Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 35(1): 41-63.

page 41
Since the end of the 20th century, the problem of the foreign policy activity of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet period of Russian history has become one of the priorities of Russian historiography. The removal of the unspoken taboo on many aspects of relations between the Soviet state and the Russian Orthodox Church and the inclusion of previously secret archival documents in the analysis allowed Russian researchers not only to significantly expand the research field of the history of state-church relations, but also to go beyond the politicized conclusions of foreign colleagues.1
The Middle Eastern aspect of the ROC's external activity is reflected both in generalizing studies 2 and in works analyzing the external church activity of the Moscow Patriarchate within a specific chronological stage 3. The nature and peculiarities of the external church activity of the Moscow Patriarchate in the 1940s-1970s are revealed in the works devoted to the heads of the external department of the Moscow Patriarchate-the Department for External Church Relations (hereinafter-DECR): in the article by O. Y. Vasilyeva about Metropolitan Nicholas (Yarushevich)4, in collections of articles and memoirs dedicated to the memory of his successor as DECR Chairman, Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov)5.

1. See, for example: Trubnikov A. G. The Middle East-the Cradle of Orthodoxy. Madrid: Representation of Russian Emigrants in America, 1964. [http://www.plam.ru/hist/blizhnii_vostok_kolybel_pravoslavija/p4.php, accessed 12.07.2014]; Fletcher, W. (1973) Religion and Soviet Foreign Policy. 1945-1970. London: Oxford University Press; Pospelovsky D. V. Metropolitan Nikodim and his time // Seeding. 1979. N 2. pp. 21-26; Pospelovsky D. V. Russkaya pravoslavnaya tserkva v XX veke [Russian Orthodox Church in the XX century]. Moscow: Respublika Publishing House, 1995.

2. Tsypin V., prot. The ninth book. Istoriya Russkoy Tserkva (1917-1997), Moscow: Izdatelstvo Spaso-Preobrazhenskogo Valaam monastery, 1997; Shkarovskiy M. V. Russkaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkva v XX veke (Ch. IV). Moscow: Veche, Lepta, 2010.

3. Vasilyeva O. Yu. Russkaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkva v politike sovetskogo gosudarstva v 1943-1948 gg. [Russian Orthodox Church in the Politics of the Soviet State in 1943-1948] Moscow: Institut Rossiiskoi istorii RAN, 2001; Chumachenko T. A. Sovet po delam ROTS i Moskovskoi patriarhiia v reshenii vneshnepoliticheskikh zadach khrushchevskogo upravleniya. 1953-1958 / / State, religion, Church in Russia and abroad. 2010. N 4. pp. 107-123.

4. Vasilyeva O. Y. Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church of the XX century. 2012 [http://www.pravoslavie.ru/58101.html, accessed on 14.02.2013].

5. See, for example, "A Man of the Church." To the 20th anniversary of the death and 70th anniversary of the birth of Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad and Novgorod (Rotov 1929-1978). Moscow: Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate, 2000; Nikitin Augustin,

page 42
Relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Eastern Patriarchates have become a separate object of analysis only for a small number of studies. These works cover either a limited chronological period in the history of the 20th century, or are devoted to a specific aspect of the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Churches, or to the relationship between the Moscow Patriarchate and one of the Eastern Patriarchates. 6 Brief information about the Churches and their relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church can be found on the pages of the Moscow Patriarchate's multi-volume publication, Orthodox Encyclopedia, as well as in the textbook by V. V. Tolstoy. S. Blokhina 7.

Until now, the relationship of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Eastern Patriarchates, including the Orthodox Church of Antioch, in the context of state foreign policy in the 1960s and 1970s remains beyond the scientific interest of historians.

The second half of the 1940s marked the beginning of a new stage in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church's foreign policy activities. The Moscow Patriarchate actively restored its ties with the Orthodox Churches, which had been severed since the early 1920s. Patriarchs Christopher of Alexandria and Alexander III of Antioch attended the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in January-

Archimandrite. The Captive Church: Metropolitan Nicodemus (1929-1978) and his Era (in the memoirs of contemporaries). St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg University, 2008.

6. See: Skobey G. N. Mezhpravoslavnoe sotrudnichestvo v podgotovke Svyatogo i Velikogo Sobor Vostochnoy Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi [Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church]. 2002. N 2. pp. 54-199; Chumachenko T. A. Relations between the Moscow Patriarchate and Eastern Patriarchates in the context of the evolution of the Middle East policy of the Soviet leadership. 1953-1964 / / Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University. 2015. N 2 (357). History. Issue 62. pp. 117-122; Shkarovsky M. V. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church in the first half of the XX century. Moscow: Indrik, 2014.

7. The Orthodox Church of Alexandria. XX vek [XX century] / / Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya, Moscow: Tserkvno-nauchnyy tsentr "Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya"(Orthodox Encyclopedia). Volume I. Pp. 588-592; Antiochian Orthodox Church. The newest period / / Orthodox Encyclopedia, Moscow: Church-scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia". Volume II. Pp. 525-529; Jerusalem Orthodox Church. Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya [Orthodox Encyclopedia], Moscow: Tserkovno-nauchnyy tsentr "Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya"(Church and Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia"). Volume XXI. Pp. 491-500; Constantinople Orthodox Church. Istoriya i sovremennost ' [History and Modernity] / / Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya, Moscow: Tserkovno-nauchnogo tsentr "Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya". Vol. XXXVII; P. 271-197; Blokhin V. S. Istoriya Mestnykh Pravoslavnykh Tserkov [History Of Local Orthodox Churches]. Training manual. Yekaterinburg: Inform. - ed. EDS Department, 2014.

page 43
In May 1945, Patriarch Alexy I met with the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch during a pilgrimage to the holy places of the East.9
For the Soviet leadership, the development of relations between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Eastern Patriarchates was of great political importance. During the Cold War, the Middle East region became the object of a struggle for spheres of influence between the United States and the Soviet Union. This region was particularly important from the point of view of natural resources, was an important hub of strategically important communication routes, and occupied a key geopolitical position between the West and the East. In addition, the national liberation movement that developed in the countries of the Middle East after World War II was strongly anti-Western in nature and, of course, was supported by the Soviet Union. This, in turn, led to the emergence in the United States of the doctrine of" containment " of communist expansion and concrete actions to implement it (in particular, the introduction of the US 6th Fleet to the Mediterranean Sea for permanent basing) .10 The clash of US-Soviet interests in the Middle East has become a "regional cold war" - a cold war in the "third world" 11.

In the context of competition with the United States for influence in the Middle East region, inter-church contacts in the Kremlin were given great importance. They were supposed to contribute to the positive development of relations between the USSR and the new, independent governments of the Middle East countries: Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. 12
8. Tsypin V., prot. History of the Russian Church (1917-1997). P. 322.

9. Ibid., p. 353-

10. See: International Relations in the Middle East: A Textbook / ed. academician O. A. Kolobov. Nizhny Novgorod: FMO UNN, 2002, p. 51; Middle East policy of the Great Powers and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Monograph. In 2 volumes / ed. academician O. A. Kolobov. Volume 1. Part 1. Regularities and features. Nizhny Novgorod: ISI UNN; Publishing House of the A. P. Gaidar State Pedagogical Institute, 2008, p. 18, 427.

11.Cit. in: International Relations in the Middle East, p. 51.

12. One of the first countries in the Middle East to gain political independence was Syria and Lebanon in 1946. After the overthrow of the monarchy in 1952, Egypt was finally freed from the protectorate of England. See: History of International Relations: in three volumes: Textbook / ed. by A.V. Torkunov., M. M. Narinsky. Moscow: Aspect-Press 2014. Vol. III. pp. 103, 107.

page 44
At the same time, the chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church (hereinafter referred to as the Council), G. G. Karpov, proposed to proceed from the fact that " a sharp division took place among the Christian Churches on a political principle: one group of churches formed an anti-communist front "supporters of the policy of the imperialist camp", while the other group represented "supporters" of the "peace-loving policy of the USSR "" 13.

Due to the fact that Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople (Spiru) was considered by G. G. Karpov as a "protege of the Anglo-Americans", regarding the actions of the Moscow Patriarchate in the Middle East, the chairman of the Council set the task of developing " active contacts and joint activities with the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, linking them, if possible, to the Russian Orthodox Church by providing material assistance.""14.

The external church activity of the Moscow Patriarchate was the area where dependence on the foreign policy interests of the Soviet state was most felt. 15 The external line of the Moscow Patriarchate was managed by the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, which, in turn, worked in close contact with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Correspondence between the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate and the heads of Churches, centers and parishes abroad was also carried out through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Questions of the Church's activities in the international arena and plans for future events were regularly discussed in the Council during the presidency of the Council by G. G. Karpov (1943-1960) together with the church leadership. The Council, in its reports to the Central Committee of the Party and the government, stressed that the church leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate "always accepted all the recommendations of the Council", "unquestioningly and quite skillfully carried out the proposals of the Council" 16.

13. Plan for the external work of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of Ministers of the USSR for 1949-1950 on August 18, 1948. F. R6991. Op. 1. D. 451. L. 115-119.

14. To the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) T. Malenkov G. M. Reference to the Ecumenical (Constantinople) Patriarch Athenagoras (Spira). November 17, 1949 / / RGASPI. f. 17. Op. 5. d. 132. L. 111.

15. Vasilyeva O. Y. Russkaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkva v politike sovetskogo gosudarstva v 1943-1948 gg. [Russian Orthodox Church in the Politics of the Soviet State in 1943-1948].

16. IN THE USSR Council of Ministers. Report on the work of the Foreign Department of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of Ministers of the USSR for 1952 and 8 months of 1953 / / GA RF. F. R6991. Op. 1. D. 1013. L. 123.

page 45
The relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Antioch were most friendly in the 1940s and 1950s. In May 1946, a parish of the Moscow Patriarchate was opened in Beirut. In July 1948, the Metochion of the Orthodox Church of Antioch in Moscow, which was closed in 1929, resumed its activity; in March 1958, the Representation of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Patriarch of Antioch in Damascus was established.17
Patriarch Alexander III of Antioch and members of the Synod of the Church of Antioch repeatedly visited the Soviet Union not only for official visits, but also for medical treatment and recreation at the residence of Moscow Patriarch Alexy in Odessa.

The Russian Orthodox Church provided substantial material support to the Church of Antioch both in the 1940s and 1950s18. Each year, the patriarch and "clergy in need" were paid 30 thousand US dollars (as income from the metochion in Moscow)19; in 1956, on the recommendation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it was decided "not to prevent the Moscow Patriarchate from providing additional assistance by sending educational and laboratory equipment, as well as medical equipment for the Beirut hospital. St. George, objects of religious worship..."20; in 1957. The Moscow Patriarchate "agreed" to spend an additional $ 50,000 to help the Church of Antioch21.

The pro-Russian sentiments of Patriarch Alexander III and some metropolitans were expressed in support of the ROC's peace initiatives. Thus, in 1948, the representative of the Patriarchate of Antioch, Metropolitan Alexander, participated in the Moscow Conference of 194822; in 1950, the Patriarch, together with two metropolitans (Li-

17. Blokhin V. S. History of Local Orthodox Churches. Training manual. Yekaterinburg: Inform. - ed. EDS Department, 2014, p. 352.

18. Shkarovsky M. V. Russkaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkva v XX veke [Russian Orthodox Church in the twentieth century], pp. 286; 299-300.

19. From a recorded conversation between members of the Russian Orthodox Church Affairs Council and Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia and Metropolitan Nicholas. July 23, 1957 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 1. D. 1441. L. 49.

20. In the Central Committee of the CPSU. G. G. Karpov's report. November 13, 1956 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 1. D. 1333. L. 38.

21. To the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Decision of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU of October 28, 1957 N P122 / 2 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 1. D. 1439. L. 44; Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of October 28, 1957. N 3231rs // GA RF. F. R6991. Op. 1. D. 1439. L. 69.

22. Tsypin V., prot. History of the Russian Church (1917-1997). P. 354.

page 46
Ilia of Van and Alexander of Chomsky) signed the Stockholm Proclamation for Peace; [23] in July 1951, Patriarch Alexander III participated in a meeting of the heads of the Churches of Antioch, Georgia, Romania, and Bulgaria in Moscow on peace issues. [24]

Especially active in the mid-1950s - on the insistent recommendations of the USSR Foreign Ministry - were contacts with metropolitans from among the Synod members, the most likely candidates for the patriarchal throne, since Patriarch Alexander III of Antioch was a man of very respectable age. 25
As a result of contacts between the Churches, "during the post - war decades, the course of the Church of Antioch," noted Metropolitan Nicodemus, head of the DECR, " was friendly to the Moscow Patriarchate and to the Soviet Union... This circumstance has always been extremely important in neutralizing the politically and ideologically hostile course usually pursued by the leadership of Greek Orthodox Churches. " 26
Despite the fact that in 1958 Theodosius VI (Aburgeli), who (according to the Council's information) did not belong to the pro-Russian group, was elected Patriarch, relations between the Churches continued to develop positive27, which is largely due to the fact that

23. Later it became known that "Alexander's opponents demanded that he declare his refusal to sign the Stockholm Proclamation" Representatives of the British and US embassies arrived at the Synod meeting to find out how things were going with the signing of documents. The Patriarch firmly adhered to his position: "'our church has always been linked by friendship with the Russian Church, and this friendship will continue in the future' " / Recording of a conversation between G. G. Karpov and Vasily Samakha, rector of the Antioch metochion in Moscow. October 29, 1951 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 1. D. 751. L. 125.

24. The Feast of Church Communion. 1951. N 8. pp. 8-22. At informal meetings after the Meeting, joint actions of Churches "against Anglo-American influence in the Orthodox world" were discussed / Recording of a conversation between G. G. Karpov and Patriarch Alexander III of Antioch at the dacha of Patriarch Alexy in Odessa. August 18, 1951 / / GA RF. F. R.-R6991. Op. 1. D. 751. L. 87-91.

25. Only in 1956, three metropolitans and a 5-member delegation of the clergy of the Church of Antioch visited at different times; in August 1957, Professors Lian Dirani and Shkhadi Khuri, members of the Patriarchal Council of the Church of Antioch, paid a "courtesy visit" (ZHMP. 1956. N 9. pp. 16-21; ZHMP. 1956. N 10. P. 16; ZHMP. 1956. N 11. P. 19-20; ZHMP. 1957. N 8. P. 6.).

26. Metropolitan Nicodemus. To the Council for Religious Affairs. November 14, 1966 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 197.

27. Theodosius VI, who arrived in Moscow at the invitation of the Moscow Patriarch in July 1959, was given a high-level reception by the President of the Russian Orthodox Church.-

page 47
It was promoted by the so - called "pro-Russian party" - supporters of the orientation of the Antiochian Church towards close cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church.

The nature of relations began to change in an unfavorable direction for the Russian Church from the beginning of the 1960s. In 1966," the activity of the Russian Orthodox Church in Antioch "- in the words of Metropolitan Nicodemus - turned out to be"essentially completely paralyzed" 28. This situation was the result of a whole set of circumstances, both objective and subjective.

A special feature of the Church of Antioch was the geographical location of its dioceses on the territory of two states-six dioceses in Syria and six in Lebanon, while the patriarch's residence was located in Damascus. Power in both republics was unstable, and it was under constant influence from both the USSR and the United States. The Syrian government, which proclaimed a course of building socialism in the country, actively developed cooperation with the Soviet Union, while the Lebanese leadership maintained and refused to unite with Syria, which was included together with Egypt in the United Arab Republic. Confessional policies were also different: all the regimes that ruled in Syria were secular in nature, while in Lebanon, in 1943, the principle of proportional and confessional representation in power was established.29
The highest clergy of the Church of Antioch was actually divided into two camps: a group of "left-wing" pro-Russian metropolitans, and a group of "right-wing" metropolitans, who, according to an employee of the Soviet embassy in Lebanon, "pro-American influence was exerted primarily through the Greek embassies in Syria and Lebanon." Patriarch Feo himself-

Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR K. E. Voroshilov, a documentary film was made about the visit, radio programs "to foreign countries" were organized (In the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Council of Ministers of the USSR, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. On the visit to the USSR of the delegation of the Church of Antioch headed by Patriarch Theodosius VI of Antioch and All the East. Information from the Deputy chairman of the SDRPC P. G. Cheryadnyak. August 13, 1959 / / GA RF. F. R6991. Op. 1. D. 1649. L. 141, 143).

28. Metropolitan Nicodemus. To the Council for Religious Affairs. November 14, 1966 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 197.

29. Antiochian Orthodox Church. The newest period, pp. 528-529. International relations in the Middle East. pp. 38-39, 41, 81-82; Trubnikov A. G. The Middle East-the cradle of Orthodoxy. Мадрид. 1964. [http://www.plam.ru/hist/blizhnii_vostok_kolybel_pravoslavija/p4.php, доступ от 12.07.2014];

page 48
dosy VI "won the division, but actively supported the right-wing group" 30.

Representatives of the young clergy and laity in the Church of Antioch were greatly influenced by the Orthodox Youth Movement, which was founded in 1942. At the same time, George Khudr was elected its General Secretary31. In 1945, the Synod of the Church of Antioch officially authorized the Movement to work among Orthodox youth. The movement carried out active missionary work, helped to rejuvenate monasticism, expand the activities of parishes, and generally revitalize the Church of Antioch.32
In contrast, the pro-Russian party, with the support of the Syrian government, created the "Union of Orthodoxy of the Church of Antioch", which had branches in the Syrian and Lebanese dioceses of the Patriarchate. However, the situation within the Union was tense due to the constant conflict between the young leaders of the Union and its Secretary General and at the same time editor of Al-Harek magazine Habib Robeiz.33
Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Antioch, as well as employees of the embassies in Lebanon and Syria, witnessed this intense activity of the Antiochian Church. Since the beginning of 1965, Bishop Vladimir (Kotlyarov) of Podolsk has been the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate in Damascus, and Archpriest Yakov Ilyich has been the rector of the metochion of the Russian Orthodox Church in Beirut (Lebanon) since February 1966.34

30. IN THE Ministry OF Foreign Affairs OF THE USSR. The situation in the Church of Antioch in Lebanon. V. Borisenko, Second Secretary of the USSR Embassy in Lebanon. 1970 / / Collection of the State Administration of the Russian Federation.

31. The movement was initiated by Orthodox students studying at the Faculty of Law of St. Joseph's University in Beirut. During his studies, George Khudr met a group of his young co-religionists who, like him, were concerned about the problem of the marginalization of Orthodox Christians in Lebanese society and their gradual departure from their own religion and roots. This is how the Orthodox Youth Movement was born. Until 1970, Khudr was a parish priest in his hometown of Tripoli. Today-Metropolitan, exarch of the Mountains of Lebanon. See: Kulikova K. E. Antiochian Church: tendencies of ideological search // State, religion, and Church in Russia and abroad. 2010. N 2. p. 24, 31.

32. IN THE Ministry OF Foreign Affairs OF THE USSR. The situation in the Church of Antioch in Lebanon. V. Borisenko, Second Secretary of the USSR Embassy in Lebanon. 1970 / / Collection of the State Administration of the Russian Federation.

33. To Metropolitan Nicodemus. Report No. 2 of Archpriest Ya., Rector of the Beirut Metochion of the Moscow Patriarchate Ilyich. May 1966 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 208-211.

34. Decision of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU of 21.10.1965 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 1. D. 2234. L. 77.

page 49
Bishop Vladimir (Kotlyarov), unlike his predecessors Bishops John (Wendland) and Leontius (Gudimov), not only showed a lively interest in the problems of the internal life of the Church of Antioch, but also actively sought to influence the current circumstances in the interests of a group of "left" pro-Russian metropolitans.

Bishop Vladimir intervened in the conflict between the young bishops-members of the " Union of Orthodoxy "and the General Secretary of the Union and at the same time editor of the magazine" Al Harek " H. Robeiz on the side of the former, which led to a personal conflict between Bishop Vladimir and Robeiz. Despite the recommendations of the Lebanese metropolitans to delay the closure of the magazine, Vladimir actually independently decided to stop funding it, as he wrote to Metropolitan Nicodemus in Moscow: "...we decided to refuse his services. His magazine is as unpopular as he is... " 36

After learning that the Americans, through the Metropolitan of the Church of Antioch in the United States, Anthony Bashir, were giving the leaders of the Youth Movement funds ($250,000) for the construction of a theological institute, Bishop Vladimir did everything to prevent this:

..we have roused all metropolitans and church leaders to their feet... We explained to them that, in principle, we should not object to the help, as we would be accused of interfering. It is only necessary to ensure that assistance goes through the Synod, and the institute is created with the permission of the synod. In the future, the institute should be managed by the synod and the Church, and not by a group of individuals.36
As a result of the discussion of the issue, the metropolitans decided to ask Metropolitan Anthony Bashir to provide assistance only through the Synod, otherwise they will refuse such assistance. "As a result," Bishop Vladimir wrote to Moscow, "the case initiated unilaterally by the leaders of the youth movement was stopped." 37
35. To Metropolitan Nicodemus. Report of Vladimir, Bishop of Podolsk, representative of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Patriarch of Antioch. December 31, 1965 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 24.

36. Ibid., l. 12.

37. To Metropolitan Nicodemus. Report of Vladimir, Bishop of Podolsk, representative of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Patriarch of Antioch. December 31, 1965 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 13.

page 50
Bishop Vladimir has developed "strained" relations with some metropolitans. Metropolitan Ilya Salibi of Beirut complained about Vladimir during a reception (at his request) with the USSR Ambassador to Lebanon Dmitry Nikiforov: "not always consulted..., sometimes does not act as agreed..." 38

Relations between Patriarch Theodosius and the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church from the very beginning of the bishop's ministry in Damascus were formal, sometimes openly conflicting. So, in November 1965. Vladimir frankly told the Patriarch in response, as the bishop wrote, "to the intrigues of Theodosius":

..We are trying to strengthen the Church of Antioch and the Patriarchal See, and in response to this, I have been observing an open campaign against our Representation for the past nine months. This is not very important to me personally, but when I return to Moscow, I will have to say frankly to His Holiness and the Synod what gratitude I saw here for all our benefits.39
The Patriarch of Feodosia was very jealous of the activities of the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate and of his contacts. The Patriarch accused Bishop Vladimir of interfering in the elections to the Damascus Diocesan Council, in the affairs of the Lattakia Metropolia, 40 that the bishop's statements undermined his authority among the metropolitans, and others.

38. Recording of the conversation of the USSR Ambassador to Lebanon D. Nikiforov with Metropolitan Ilya Salibi and Archimandrite Gabriel Salibi. September 1965 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 1. D. 2327. L. 174-175.

39. To Metropolitan Nicodemus. Report of Vladimir, Bishop of Podolsk, representative of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Patriarch of Antioch. December 31, 1965 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 11.

40. With regard to the Archdiocese of Lattakia, Bishop Vladimir took every opportunity to encourage Metropolitan Gabriel (Dumiani) to dissolve the old diocesan council and call for the election of a new composition. The fact is that according to the APC Charter, in the event of the death of the diocesan administrator, it is the diocesan Council that offers the Synod three candidates for nomination, from which the Holy Synod elected the administrator. Metropolitan Gabriel was ill, and in the summer of 1965 he underwent a second operation, and " if, as Vladimir wrote in his report to Moscow, Gabriel dies without changing the diocesan council, the Youth Movement will put its own person there. There is already an anti-Russian nest there, and then it will be even worse. I told the metropolitan that the government would help him hold elections if he included several Ba'athists in the list" (to Metropolitan Nicodemus. Report of Vladimir, Bishop of Podolsk, representative of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Patriarch of Antioch. December 31, 1965 / / GA RF. F. R.-R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 9).

page 51
The events of spring and summer 1966 led to a crisis in the Church of Antioch and the final break between the Patriarchate of Antioch and Bishop Vladimir as the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In April 1966, Metropolitan Gabriel (Dumiani) of Lattakia died. In the last five months, this was the third death of the heads of dioceses of the Church of Antioch (New York, Baghdad, Lattakia). Of course, it was in the interests of both the Syrian government and its supporters in the Antiochian Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church to prevent the appointment of a pro-American candidate to the pulpit in a strategically important area of the country.

Patriarch Theodosius has set an election day for the diocesan council, whose term of office has formally expired. The members of the diocesan Council, including the majority from the Orthodox Youth Movement, nominated three candidates - representatives of this movement. Upon learning of this, Metropolitan Vasily Samakha 41 appealed to the government. He met with the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Minister of Information and the Minister of Social Affairs. The Metropolitan government assured him "that they will not allow the creation of a center for pro-American activities in Lattakia." 42
Representatives of the Syrian Ministry of Internal Affairs came to the Patriarchate and banned elections to the diocesan council. Later, Patriarch Theodosius himself was invited to see Interior Minister Ashaoui and instructed to stop the election. The Minister said that all persons who try to violate this instruction will be arrested. The issue, in view of the turmoil in Latakia, should be resolved by the metropolitans in the Synod. Minister Ashaoui also banned a number of pro-Western clerics from entering Syria from Lebanon.43
However, despite the government ban, the list of candidates was signed by the members of the Diocesan Council of Lata-

41. Metropolitan Vasili (Samakha) was the most consistent advocate of cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church in the Church of Antioch. From 1948 to 1962, he was rector of the metochion of the Church of Antioch in Moscow. In 1958, he was elevated to the episcopal rank, and since 1962 - Metropolitan.

42. Recording of a conversation between the USSR Ambassador to Syria V. Borkovsky and Metropolitan Vasily Samakha. June 29, 1966 / / Collection of the State Administration of the Russian Federation.

43. Ibid.

page 52
cues at home 44. According to representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, Bishop Vladimir and Archpriest Ilyich, the metropolitans - "our friends" - protested against this decision, while Patriarch Theodosius declared it legitimate. Bishop Vladimir wrote to Moscow:

A pro-Greek group is seeking the appointment of Bishop Ignatius Hazim to the Lattakia see. Most of the metropolitans and common people - Archimandrite Antoine Chendraoui. Both sides understand that their future depends on Lattakia. If our friends win, there will be a strong defender of our position in the Synod. If the youth movement wins, they will gain a foothold in the Synod, strengthen their influence in the Patriarchate and throughout Syria.45
To resolve the issue of election to metropolitan sees, Patriarch Theodosius appointed the convocation of the Holy Synod for May 24, 1966.On May 23, 1966, 10 metropolitans out of 13 arrived in Damascus: Metropolitan Ilya Karam of the Mountains of Lebanon, who represented a group of "left" metropolitans, went to the hospital the day before. 46
However, the opening of the Synod did not take place. The pro - Greek group-Metropolitans Ilya (Maoad), Ignatius (Hreike), Ilya (Kurban), Pavel (Khuri) - realizing that they were in the minority, left the patriarch's office. After some time, they sent a letter to Patriarch Theodosius, in which they wrote that they would protest against any decision if he opened the Synod.47
Six metropolitans: Niphon (Saba), Ilya (Salibi), Epiphanius (Zayat), Alexander (Zheha), Vasily (Samakha) and Mikhail (Shagin) you couldn't convince the patriarch to announce the beginning of the Synod meeting. "Having tried," Bishop Vladimir wrote, "all means to influence the patriarch," they opened the meeting without him. It was decided to sign a pre-prepared decree: to appoint Archimandrite Antoine Chedraoui as Metropolitan of Latakia; to appoint Bishop Sergius Samna as Metropolitan of Baghdad; and to elevate Archimandrite Gabriel Salibi to the rank of bishop

44. To Metropolitan Nicodemus. Report No. 2 of Archpriest Ya., Rector of the Beirut Metochion of the Moscow Patriarchate Ilyich. May 1966 / / GA RF. F. R.-R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 201-202.

45. To Metropolitan Nicodemus. Report of Vladimir, Bishop of Podolsk, representative of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Patriarch of Antioch. May 26, 1966 / / GA RF. F. R.-R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 67.

46. Ibid., l. 70.

47. Ibid., l. 71.

page 53
and appoint the Metropolitan of Beirut as vicar and assistant; Bishop Ignatius Hazim as Metropolitan of New York. Without announcing the decision to the Patriarch, Metropolitans Niphon and Epiphanius went to the Syrian Interior Minister, announced the Synod's decision to him, and "asked him to support Shedraoui, describing him as a progressive and democratically minded person." 48
The decision made by the metropolitans remained on paper. In early July 1966, Patriarch Theodosius scheduled a Synod meeting for July 26, but in Lebanon - under the pretext that the Syrian government interfered in the internal affairs of the Church. Patriarch Theodosius counted on the support of the Lebanese government, as well as the American and Greek embassies. And with good reason. According to the Soviet Embassy in Lebanon, one of the leaders of the Orthodox Youth Movement, Zh. Laham worked as a lawyer in the consular section of the American Embassy in Beirut; Adib Fyrzli, a member of the Beirut Diocesan Council, was Deputy Chairman of the Lebanese Parliament; and finally, the brother of Patriarch Theodosius, Georges Abourceli, worked in the Greek Embassy of Lebanon.49
Patriarch Theodosius opened the Synod and announced the agenda on August 2. The synod, consisting of 12 metropolitans out of 13 (Metropolitan Ilya Karam of the Mountains of Lebanon said he was ill and did not come), was divided exactly in half. Given the patriarch's vote in the voting, it was clear that the decisions would be in favor of the "right party". A group of" left-wing " metropolitans, led by Metropolitan Niphon, left the Synod, hoping that the lack of a quorum would not allow them to make unacceptable decisions. However, in the afternoon of the same day, Metropolitan Ilya Salibi brought Metropolitan Ilya Karam to the Synod meeting. Thus, seven members of the Synod formed a quorum, and as a result, decisions were made in the interests of the Patriarch and the pro-Greek group of metropolitans. In particular, Bishop Ignatius Khazim was appointed to the Latakia see, with his simultaneous elevation to the rank of Metropolitan.50
48. Ibid., l. 72.

49. IN THE Ministry OF Foreign Affairs OF THE USSR. The situation in the Church of Antioch. Embassy of the USSR in Lebanon. Second Secretary of the Embassy V. Borisenko / / Collection of the State Administration of the Russian Federation.

50. Ibid. Metropolitan Ignatius (1920-2012) was elected Patriarch of Antioch and All the East in 1979 // The Orthodox Church of Antioch, P. 529.

page 54
Upon learning of this decision, Metropolitans Niphon, Epiphanius, Paul, Basil and Alexander left for Syria. Upon arrival, the metropolitans visited the Interior Minister and informed him that, despite the request of the Syrian government, the Patriarch "dragged" Ignatius Hazim to the Latakia see. According to Bishop Vladimir's report, the Syrian government informed the metropolitans after the meeting that " Latakia remains with Anthony Shedraoui, and Ignatius will not be allowed to enter Syria at all." In response to this decision, one of the Lebanese newspapers allegedly published a remark by Patriarch Theodosius: "Ignatius Hazim will live in Lebanon until the next government coup in Syria, after which he will take up his pulpit." 51
The metropolitans of the left-wing group in Damascus have openly opposed the patriarch. Under their influence, the diocesan council of Damascus sent a telegram of protest to the Patriarch; the Orthodox community of the capital and Latakia was agitated by the "illegal actions of the Patriarch and the Synod"52. The threat of a schism in the Church of Antioch was becoming a reality.

The situation in the Church was closely monitored by representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and employees of the Soviet embassies in Syria and Lebanon. Bishop Vladimir informed the head of the DECR of the Moscow Patriarchate in detail about the events in his reports. Metropolitan Nicodemus himself, during his visit to Beirut in the spring of 1966 on the occasion of the solemn consecration of St. George's Hospital, received direct information about the situation in the Church of Antioch.53
Bishop Vladimir (Kotlyarov) took an active part in the unfolding conflict on the side of the "friends of the Russian Church". The metropolitans of the" left group " kept in constant contact with Vladimir, they felt his support, listened to his advice. The bishop, trying not to advertise his contacts with the metropolitans - "in order to avoid accusations of interference" - met with them "either on the way to Beirut", "or in a deserted cafe". He was able to convince the oldest Metropolitan of the Patriarchate of Antioch, Niphon, "to become a real leader."

54. To Metropolitan Nicodemus. Report of Vladimir, Bishop of Podolsk. December 31, 1965; May 26, August 23, 1966 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 6. d. 59. l. 12; l. 76; l. 91.

55. To Metropolitan Nicodemus. Report of Vladimir, Bishop of Podolsk. August 23, 1966 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 96.

56. Metropolitan Nicodemus. To the Council for Religious Affairs. November 14, 1966 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 195.

57. IN THE Ministry OF Foreign Affairs OF THE USSR. The situation in the Church of Antioch. Embassy of the USSR in Lebanon. Second Secretary of the Embassy V. Borisenko.

page 55
A few days before the start of the Synod in Beirut, the bishop made a special visit to Metropolitan Ilya Karam: "... I asked him not to go to the Synod. If his presence is necessary, I myself promised to come to him, bring him the "medicine" and tell him what to do. " 54 From 1 to 5 August, Bishop Vladimir was secretly in Beirut and "within an hour or two already knew what was going on at the Synod." 55
During a break in the work of the Synod, at the end of August 1966, Bishop Vladimir insisted on coming to Beirut to see Patriarch Theodosius. The Patriarch allowed, but on condition not to raise the topic of the Synod's decisions. It seems that the conversation during this visit was sharp. Bishop Vladimir used various arguments to "put pressure" on Patriarch Theodosius, including the threat of the Russian Orthodox Church cutting off financial assistance to the Church of Antioch.56 It was probably this visit and conversation that provoked the discussion at the newly opened meeting of the Synod of the Church of Antioch on August 30, 1966, about the Representation of the Moscow Patriarchate and Bishop Vladimir personally. While the proposals to reduce the status of a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to the level of an archimandrite were not supported, the Synod members decided to declare Bishop Vladimir "persona non grata" 57.

On September 1, 1966, Patriarch Theodosius of Antioch telegraphed Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia that "the representative of the Patriarch of Moscow to the Patriarch of Antioch, Bishop Podolsky, was declared by him, Patriarch Theodosius, persona non grata". On September 9, 1966, Patriarch Theodosius sent a special message to Patriarch Alexy outlining the reasons why he, the Patriarch, and the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch made a "unanimous decision to request through our mediation, Your Holy Beatitude, to be pleased to recall Your representative to the Russian Orthodox Church."-

54. To Metropolitan Nicodemus. Report of Vladimir, Bishop of Podolsk. December 31, 1965; May 26, August 23, 1966 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 6. d. 59. l. 12; l. 76; l. 91.

55. To Metropolitan Nicodemus. Report of Vladimir, Bishop of Podolsk. August 23, 1966 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 96.

56. Metropolitan Nicodemus. To the Council for Religious Affairs. November 14, 1966 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 195.

57. IN THE Ministry OF Foreign Affairs OF THE USSR. The situation in the Church of Antioch. Embassy of the USSR in Lebanon. Second Secretary of the Embassy V. Borisenko.

page 56
Saint, Bishop Vladimir, who became... persona non grata and therefore unable to continue the noble mission entrusted to him. " 58
At the same time, Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia received a letter signed by Metropolitans Alexander (Zhekha), Epiphanius (Zayet), Pavel (Khuri), and Vasily (Samakha) with the request::

We ask you, Your Holiness, not to pay attention to what will come to your attention in this case and to put into oblivion their fabrications and slander against His Grace Vladimir, because we have condemned this deliberate self-government and categorically demanded that His Beatitude Patriarch Theodosius reconsider his decision at the first meeting of the Synod. He responded to our request, but an unexpected illness prevented him from calling a meeting. We ask you not to take any action on this issue until His Beatitude Patriarch Theodosius recovers and the Synod convenes 59.

There was no reaction from the Moscow Patriarchate either in September or October 1966. The Moscow Patriarchate delayed the decision to recall Metropolitan Vladimir. It seems that this was largely influenced by the position of the secular authorities.

The interested power structures of the USSR had hopes that the Moscow Patriarchate would still be able to somehow exert the "necessary" influence on the course of affairs in the Patriarchate of Antioch, primarily in the Latakia issue. For the Soviet side, this area of Syria was of important strategic interest. Latakia was the only port through which Soviet economic and military aid came to Syria, and negotiations were already underway with the Syrian government on the possibility of building a Soviet naval base in Latakia. 60 It was necessary to exclude any channel through which American influence could be exercised in this region.

58. Metropolitan Nicodemus. To the Council for Religious Affairs. November 14, 1966 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 194.

59. To His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia / / GA RF. F. R6991. Op. 6. D. 59. L. 153-154.

60. International Relations in the Middle East, p. 55.

page 57
These hopes, in our view, were fueled, firstly, by the Syrian government's firm position to deny entry to the country to both the Patriarch of the Church of Antioch and the elected head of the Latakia Metropolitan Area, Metropolitan Ignatius Hazim; secondly, by the possibility of a change in the policy of the church leadership itself in connection with the illness of Patriarch Theodosius 61.

However, on October 31, 1966, Patriarch Theodosius sent a telegram to the Patriarch of Moscow again raising the issue of recalling Bishop Vladimir, emphasizing in his telegram: "... Bishop Vladimir continues his interference, thus violating the most sacred rights, freedom and sovereignty of the Church of Antioch. " 62
On November 14, 1966, Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov), Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations, sent a letter to the Council for Religious Affairs, in which he clearly and convincingly argued for the need to resolve the issue of recalling Bishop Vladimir from Damascus as soon as possible.63
The Metropolitan noted:

..The delay in recalling Bishop Vladimir strikes a blow at the present and future relations between the Antiochian and Russian Churches, as the dissatisfaction on the part of Patriarch Theodosius and a group of Antiochian metropolitans with the activities of Bishop Vladimir personally turns into dissatisfaction with the corresponding course of the entire Russian Orthodox Church, giving rich food for propaganda against the activities of the Moscow Patriarchate as a whole...64

The prolonged reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church to the demands of Patriarch Theodosius and the Synod of the Church of Antioch, according to Metropolitan Nicodemus:

61. According to an employee of the Soviet Embassy in Beirut, "a stroke of paralysis after the Lattakia events finally put Patriarch Theodosius to bed ..." / In the USSR Foreign Ministry. The situation in the Church of Antioch. Embassy of the USSR in Lebanon. Second Secretary of the Embassy V. Borisenko. // Collection of the State Administration of the Russian Federation..

62. Metropolitan Nicodemus. To the Council for Religious Affairs. November 14, 1966 / / GA RF. f. RR6991. Op. 6. d. 59. L. 196.

63.The fact is that all appointments made by the Moscow Patriarchate's external staff were usually subject to a lengthy procedure of approval by the authorities and were approved, at a minimum, by a decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU Secretariat.

64. Metropolitan Nicodemus. To the Council for Religious Affairs. November 14, 1966

page 58
It calls into question, in the eyes of reactionary circles abroad, the freedom of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority of the Moscow Patriarchate to act, and gives rise to the view that the Patriarch and the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church are bound by civil authority in their decisions.65
In Nicodemus 'view, Bishop Vladimir needs an urgent new "and honorable" appointment ("which would show that the Moscow Patriarchate does not consider him guilty of anything"), and at the same time, a new representative of the Patriarch of Moscow in the episcopal rank should be appointed to Damascus.66
Awareness of the serious consequences of the current situation finally forced the authorities to take decisive and rapid measures. Five days later, on November 19, 1966, Bishop Vladimir was appointed Bishop of Kirov and Sloboda by the decision of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.67
On November 25, 1966, the Synod appointed Archimandrite Hermogenes (Orekhov), head of the RDM in Jerusalem, as the Representative of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Patriarch of Antioch, and elevated him to the rank of Bishop of Podolsk, vicar of the Moscow Diocese.68
The Latakia situation in Syria and the unprecedented decision in the entire history of relations between the Russian and Antiochian Churches to declare the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East "persona non grata"revealed the political rivalry of the great powers in the Middle East region. In the specific political situation in Syria and Lebanon in the mid-1960s, Bishop Vladimir's desire to support the clergy friendly to the Russian Church, thereby strengthening the position of the Russian Orthodox Church, resulted in the fact that

65. Ibid.

66. Ibid., l. 195-196.

67. Decision of the Holy Synod of 1966.11.19. To appoint as Bishop of Kirov and Sloboda the Bishop of Podolsk, representative of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East / / ZHMP. 1967. N 1. P. 3.

68. Decision of the Holy Synod of 1966.11.25-To appoint Archimandrite Hermogenes (Orekhov), head of the Russian Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, as the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate to His Beatitude Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, with his elevation to the rank of Bishop of Podolsk, vicar of the Moscow Diocese. (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1967, No. 1, p. 3).

page 59
the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Patriarch of Antioch was on the side of the opposition to the primate of the Church of Antioch. The actions of Bishop Vladimir, on the one hand, and the desire of the pro-Russian metropolitans to prevent the supporters of the "right-wing" group from being installed in the Syrian metropolitans, on the other hand, led to their defeat, despite the support of the Syrian authorities. "With the death of Patriarch Theodosius in 1970 and the election to the patriarchal throne of a representative of the right - wing group, Metropolitan Elijah (Maoad)," Bishop Hermogenes (Orekhov), Bishop Vladimir's successor, wrote to Moscow, " the situation in the Church of Antioch was finally determined: the former patriarchal party won."69. These events marked the beginning of the process of overcoming the schism within the Patriarchate of Antioch, and overcoming the crisis in relations between the Russian and Antiochian Orthodox Churches.

Bibliography / References

Archived sources

State Archive of the Russian Federation (GA RF).

F. P6991. - Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR:

Inventory 1. D. 1649; 2327. Letters, information to the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Council of Ministers of the USSR, correspondence with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR.

Inventory 5. Correspondence of the Council for Religious Affairs with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR.

Inventory 6. d. 59. Materials on the Orthodox Church of Antioch. 1966

Inventory 6. D. 523. Materials on the Orthodox Church of Antioch. 1972

Literature

Alexandrian Orthodox Church. XX vek // Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya, Moscow: Tserkovno-nauchnyy tsentr "Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya"[Orthodox Encyclopedia]. Volume I. pp. 588-592.

Antiochian Orthodox Church. The newest period / / Orthodox Encyclopedia, Moscow: Church-scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia". Volume II. pp. 525-529.

Middle East policy of the Great Powers and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Monograph. In 2 volumes / under the general editorship. academician O. A. Kolobov. Nizhny Novgorod: ISI UNN; Publishing House of A. P. Gaidar AGPI, 2008. Volume 1. Regularities and features.

69. To Metropolitan Nicodemus. Report of Bishop Hermogenes of Vilnius and Lithuania on the work of the Representation of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East for the period from February 1967 to February 1972 / / GA RF. f. R6991. Op. 6. D. 523.40. In the same report, Hermogenes writes: "there were rumors" that the defeat of " the pro-Russian metropolitans in the Church of Antioch is the defeat of the Russian Church in its Antiochian policy."

page 60
Blokhin V. S. History of Local Orthodox Churches. Training manual. Yekaterinburg: Inform. - ed. EDS Department, 2014.

Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) in the History of the Russian Orthodox Church of the XX century. 2012. [].

Russkaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkva v politike sovetskogo gosudarstva v 1943-1948 gg. [Russian Orthodox Church in the Politics of the Soviet state in 1943-1948].

Delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate in Lebanon and Syria / / ZHMP. 1966. N 7. pp. 7-8.

Jerusalem Orthodox Church. Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya [Orthodox Encyclopedia], Moscow: Tserkovno-nauchnyy tsentr "Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya"(Church and Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia"). Volume XXI. pp. 491-500.

Istoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy: V trekh tomakh: uchebnik [History of International Relations: In three volumes: textbook].

The Orthodox Church of Constantinople. Istoriya i sovremennost ' [History and Modernity] / / Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya, Moscow: Tserkovno-nauchnyy tsentr "Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya". Volume XXXVII. pp. 271-297.

Kulikova K. E. Antiochian Church: tendencies of ideological search // State, religion, and Church in Russia and abroad. 2010. N 2. pp. 23-32.

International Relations in the Middle East: a textbook. Academician O. A. Kolobov: Nizhny Novgorod: FMO UNN, 2002.

Nikitin Augustine, Archimandrite of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Captive Church: (1929-1978) and its Epoch (in the memoirs of contemporaries). St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg University, 2008.

Definition of the Holy Synod from 1966.11.19; from 1966.11.25. / / ZHMP. 1967. N 1.

Pir-Budagova E. P. Istoriya Syrie [History of Syria]. XX century. Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies, 2015.

Pospelovsky D. V. Mitropolit Nikodim i ego vremya [Metropolitan Nikodim and his time]. 1979. N 2. pp. 21-26.

Pospelovsky D. V. Russkaya pravoslavnaya tserkva v XX veke [Russian Orthodox Church in the twentieth Century]. Moscow: Respublika Publishing House, 1995.

Scobey G. N. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church // Church and time. 2002. N 2. pp. 54-199.

Trubnikov A. G. The Middle East-the cradle of Orthodoxy. Madrid: Representation of Russian Emigrants in America, 1964. [http://www.plam.ru/hist/blizhnii_vostok_kolybel_pravoslavija/p4.php, accessed from 12.07.2014].

Tsypin V., prot. The ninth book. Istoriya Russkoy Tserkva (1917-1997), Istoriya Russkoy Tserkva v 9 tomakh [History of the Russian Church (1917-1997), History of the Russian Church in 9 volumes]. Moscow: Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery Publishing House, 1997.

"A Man of the Church". To the 20th anniversary of the Death and 70th anniversary of the birth of Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad and Novgorod (Rotov 1929-1978), Moscow: Moscow Patriarchate Publishing House, 2000.

Chumachenko T. A. Relations between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Eastern Patriarchates in the context of the Evolution of the Middle East policy of the Soviet leadership. 1953-1964 / / Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University. 2015. N 2 (357). History. Issue 62, pp. 117-122.

Chumachenko T. A. Council for the Russian Orthodox Church and the Moscow Patriarchate in solving foreign policy problems of the Khrushchev leadership. 1953-1958 / / State, religion, Church in Russia and abroad. 2010. N 4. pp. 107-123.

Shkarovsky M. V. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church in the first half of the XX century. Moscow: Indrik, 2014.

Shkarovsky M. V. Russkaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkva v XX veke [Russian Orthodox Church in the twentieth Century]. Moscow: Veche, Lepta, 2010.

page 61
Archival sources

State Archive of the Russian Federation (GA RF).

F. R6991. - Council for Religious Affairs of the USSR.

Inventory 1. D. 1649; 2327. Letters of information to the Central Committee in the USSR, correspondence with the Foreign Ministry.

Inventory 5. Correspondence of the Council for Religious Affairs with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR.

Inventory 6. D. 59. Materials on the Antioch Orthodox Church. 1966.

Inventory 6. D. 523. Materials on the Antioch Orthodox Church. 1972.

Literature

"Aleksandriiskaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov'. XX vek" ["Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Twentieth Century"], in Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya, Vol. I. pp. 588-592. M.: Tserkovno-nauchnyi tsentr "Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia".

"Antiokhiiskaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov'. Noveishii period" ["Antioch Orthodox Church. Contemporary history"], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Vol. II. pp. 525-529. M.: Tserkovno-nauchnyi tsentr "Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia".

Blokhin, V.S. (2014) Istoriia Pomestnykh Pravoslavnykh Tserkvei. Uchebnoe posobie [History of the Local Orthodox Churches. Textbook]. Ekaterinburg: Inform.-izd. otdel EDS.

"Chelovek Tserkvi". K 20-letiiu so dnia konchiny i 70-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia mitropolita Leningradskogo i Novgorodskogo Nikodima (Rotova, 1929-1978) ["Man of the Church". For the 20th anniversary of the demise and the 70th anniversary of the birth of Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod Nikodim (Rotov, 1929-1978)] (2000). M.: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskoy Patriarkhii.

Chumachenko, T.A. (2010) "Sovet po delam RPTs i Moskovskaia patriarkhiia v reshenii vneshnepoliticheskikh zadach khrushchevskogo rukovodstva. 1953-1958 gg." ["ROC Affairs Council and the Moscow Patriarchate in addressing Khrushchev's leadership foreign policy problems. 1953-1958"], Gosudarstvo, religiya, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 4: 107-123.

Chumachenko, T.A. (2015) "Otnosheniia Moskovskoi patriarkhii i Vostochnykh patriarkhatov v kontekste evoliutsii blizhnevostochnoi politiki sovetskogo rukovodstva 1953-1964 gg." ["Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Eastern patriarchates in the context of the evolution of the Soviet Government's Middle East policy. 1953-1964"], Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istoriya 62: 117-122.

"Delegatsiia Moskovskogo patriarkhata v Livane i Sirii" [The delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate in Lebanon and Syria] (1966), ZhMP. 7: 7-8.

Dubinin, Y.A., Martynov, B.F., Narinskiy, M.M., Yur'yeva (2014) "Ialtinsko-Potsdamskaia Sistema" ["Yalta-Potsdam system"], in Istoriia mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii: V trekh tomakh: Uchebnik. M.: Aspekt-Press. Vol. III.

Fletcher, W. (1973) Religion and Soviet Foreign Policy. 1945-1970. London: Oxford University Press.

"Ierusalimskaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov'. XX nachalo XXI w." ["Jerusalem Orthodox Church. XX - beginning of the XXI century"], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia. M.: Tserkovno-nauchnyi tsentr "Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia". Vol. XXI. pp. 491-500.

Kolobov, O.A. (2008) Blizhnevostochnaia politika velikikh derzhav i arabo- izrail'skii konflikt. Monografiia. V2-kh t. Tom 1. Zakonomernosti i osobennosti [Middle East

page 62
policy of the great powers and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Monograph in two volumes. Volume 1. Patterns and specifics]. Nizhnii Novgorod: ISI NNGU; Izd-vo AGPI im. A.P. Gaydara.

Kolobov, O.A. (ed.) (2002) Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia na Blizhnem Vostoke: Uchebnoe posobie [International relations in the Middle East: Textbook]. Nizhnii Novgorod: FMO NNGU.

"Konstantinopol'skaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov'. Istoriia i sovremennost'" ["Orthodox Church of Constantinople. History and Modern"], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia. M.: Tserkovno-nauchnyi tsentr "Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia". Vol. XXXVII. pp. 271-297.

Kulikova, K.E. (2010) "Antiokhiiskaia Tserkov': tendentsii ideinogo poiska" ["Antioch Church: trends of ideological search"], Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov'v Rossii i za rubezhom 2: 23-32.

Nikitin Avgustin, arkhim. (2008) Tserkov' plenennaia: Mitropolit Nikodim (1929-1978) i ego epokha (v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov) [Church the captive: Metropolitan Nikodim (1929-1978) and his era (in memories of his contemporaries)] SPb.: Izd-vo SPb. un-ta.

"Opredelenie Sviashchennogo Sinoda ot 1966.11.19; ot 1966.11.25" ["The decision of the Holy Synod of 1966.11.19; of 1966.11.25"] (1967), in Zhurnal Moskovskoi patriarkhii 1.

Pir-Budagova, E.P. (2015) Istoriia Sirii. XX vek [History of Syria. The twentieth century]. M.: Institut vostokovedeniya.

Pospelovskiy, D.V. (1979) "Mitropolit Nikodim i ego vremia" ["Metropolitan Nikodim and his times"], Posev 2: 21-26.

Pospelovskiy, D.V. (1995) Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov' v XX veke [Russian Orthodox Church in the twentieth century]. M.: Izdatel'stvo "Respublika".

Shkarovskiy, M.V. (2010) Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov' v XX veke [Russian Orthodox Church in the twentieth century (Chapter IV)]. M.: Veche, Lepta.

Shkarovskiy, M.V. (2014) Konstantinopol'skii Patriarkhat i Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov' v pervoi polovine XX veka [Constantinople Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church in the first half of the XX century]. M.: Indrik.

Skobey, G.N. (2002) "Mezhpravoslavnoe sotrudnichestvo v podgotovke Sviatogo i Velikogo Sobora Vostochnoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi" ["Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church"], Tserkov'i vremya 2: 54-199.

Trubnikov, A.G. (1964) "Blizhnii Vostok - kolybel' Pravoslaviia" [Middle East - the cradle of the Orthodox], Plam [http://www.plam.ru/hist/blizhnii_vostok_kolybel_pravoslavija/p4.php, accessed on 12.07.2014].

Tsypin, V., prot. (1997) Kniga deviataia. Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi (1917-1997), Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi v g tomakh [Book nine. History of the Russian Church (1917-1997), History of Russian Church in 9 volumes]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Spaso-Preobrazhenskogo Valaamskogo monastyria.

Vasil'yeva, O.Y. (2001) Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov' v politike sovetskogo gosudarstvo v 1943-1948 gg. [Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet state politics in the 1943-1948]. M.: Institut Rossiiskoi istorii RAN.

Vasil'yeva, O.Y. (2012) "Mitropolit Nikolai (Iarushevich) v istorii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserki XX veka" [Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) in the history of twentieth-century Russian Orthodox Church], in Pravoslavie [http://www.pravoslavie.ru/58101.html, accessed on 14.02.2013].

page 63

Permanent link to this publication: