The article explores the failed attempt of the all-Orthodox (Ecumenical) Council in the 1920-1930s through the prism of relations between the Constantinople Patriarchate, the Russian Church, and the Soviet government. In the situation of a strong Church discord in Russia, provoked by anti-religious policy of the Bolsheviks, the Patriarchate of Constantinople claimed the role of mediator between the Russian Church ("Tikhonovskaia") and the Pro-Soviet Renovationist schism. The Ecumenical Patriarchate tried to collaborate with Soviet authorities in attempts to unify "Tikhonites" and renovators so that they could participate at the prospected Ecumenical Council. However, the transition of Russian Western European parishes to Constantinople in 1931 caused strong negative reaction from both the Russian Church and Soviet authorities. Finally, the Soviet leadership did not authorize a united delegation to take part at the Inter-Orthodox PreCouncil meeting (Prosynod). The absence of the Russian Church made both Prosynod and the Ecumenical Council impossible.

Keywords: Pan-Orthodox (Ecumenical) Council, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, renovationist schism, Russian Western parishes, Commission on Cults in the Central Executive Committee, Stalin.

The theme of the Pan-Orthodox Council has repeatedly gained increased relevance over the past hundred years, attracting the interest of religious scholars and historians. In Russian historiography, the greatest attention is paid to the period of revival of inter-Orthodox contacts in the 1960s, when the preparation of the Russian Orthodox Church was completed.

page 333
Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov)led the Russian Orthodox Church's preparations for the Pan-Orthodox Council1. Meanwhile, inter-Orthodox pre-conciliar activity was no less significant in the 1920s and 1930s, but the Russian Church could not take part in it properly at that time. For this reason, if Russian authors have mentioned the preparation of a Pan-Orthodox Council in the interwar period, they have usually only mentioned it in passing, focusing mainly on the post-war period. 2 Such an approach is difficult to recognize as correct, since the Russian factor also played an important role in the events of the 1920s and 1930s, and not least caused the disruption of the council.

The question of a Pan-Orthodox Council was brought to practical attention at the so-called Pan-Orthodox Congress (consisting of nine members) held in Constantinople under the chairmanship of Patriarch Meletios (Metaxakis) in May 1923. The Congress outlined a series of reforms designed to facilitate union with the Church of England, primarily the calendar system. By that time, as a result of the military and political upheavals of the late 1910s and early 1920s (the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, Greece's attempt to significantly expand its territory to the east, and its defeat by the army of Mustafa Kemal), the Ecumenical Patriarchate was on the verge of expulsion from Istanbul, which prompted it to get as close as possible at the same time, it will launch an unprecedented expansion on a global scale in order to fill its honorary title with real content - to become a kind of Eastern Vatican, subjugating all other local Orthodox churches. The Pan-Orthodox (or, as it was soon called, the Ecumenical) Council was to become the instrument of such an elevation of the Phanar 4.

For the Russian Church, the events planned by the Greeks were very untimely. In May 1922, pursuant to the decision

1. See: Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) and Pan-Orthodox Unity / Sost. prot. V. Sorokin, St. Petersburg, 2008.

2. 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 (19). pp. 54-199.

3. Ermilov P. V. Constantinople Orthodox Church [1908-1948] / / Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. 37, Moscow, 2015, pp. 262-263.

4. The district of Constantinople where the Patriarchate is located and by which it is informally referred to.

page 334
Politburo of the RCP (b) it was provoked by the so-called renovationist split. Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow (Bellavin)removed from church power he was preparing to appear as a defendant in a show trial with a virtually predetermined death sentence. However, the party leadership did not dare to go to the execution of the All-Russian patriarch. In June 1923, he was released, but in his work on the administration of the patriarchal Church, and especially in the implementation of inter-church contacts, he was very constrained - in contrast to the Renovationists, who enjoyed tacit patronage from the Soviet government.5
Division in the Russian Church was good for Phanar, as it greatly undermined her position in the Orthodox world and made it easier to implement his plans to assert his power prerogatives. Archimandrite Iakov (Dimopulo), the Moscow representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, immediately showed interest in the Renovationists (in particular, in August 1922, he took part in the congress of the so-called "Living Church"). In their turn, the Renovationists, in return for recognizing them as legitimate representatives of the Russian Church and supporting them in opposing Patriarch Tikhon, were ready to help implement the expansionist program of Constantinople and declared their full submission to the Ecumenical Throne. The level of interaction between Renovationists and Phanariots is already characterized by the fact that Archimandrite Basil (Dimopoulo), the nephew of Archimandrite James, who died in early 1924 and took his place, was a member of the Renovationist synod, took part in all their most important events and performed joint divine services with them.6
In the spring of 1924, the Phanar issued a number of resolutions pleasing to the Renovationists and Bolsheviks. A "special patriarchal commission" was to go from Istanbul to Moscow, and it was specifically stipulated that it "should rely in its work on those local church movements that are loyal to the existing government in Russia." Simultaneously Constantino-

5. On the role of the party-Soviet organs in organizing the Renovationist schism as a means of combating the Orthodox ("Tikhon") Church, see: Pokrovsky N. N. Preface / / Archives of the Kremlin. Politburo and the Church: 1922-1925 In 2 kn. Kn. 1. Novosibirsk-M., 1997. pp. 34-37, 43-51.

6. For more information, see: Mazyrin A.V. Patriarch Tikhon and the Patriarchate of Constantinople: on the issue of the reasons for the actual rupture of relations. Vestnik PSTGU. II: Istoriya. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2015. Issue 6 (67), pp. 9-37.

page 335
Polish Patriarch Gregory VII wished that Patriarch Tikhon "sacrifice himself by immediately withdrawing from the administration of the church" and that the Moscow Patriarchate be abolished altogether, "as it was born in completely abnormal circumstances at the beginning of the civil war and as it is considered a significant obstacle to the restoration of peace and unity." 7
In June 1924, Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky), administrator of the Russian Western European parishes, commented on the actions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate very emphatically, although undiplomatically, in a letter to Archbishop John (Pommer) of Riga:

It is documented that the Tsaregrad Patriarchate acts in contact with the Bolsheviks and with the lively participation of Evdokim [Meshchersky, chairman of the Renovationist Synod - A.m.]. The background is as follows: The Patriarchate is being bullied out of the Const[Antinopoly]; clinging to its place, it wants to rely on the Soviet power, and the latter promises it support under the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church. a condition for the dissolution of our church organization abroad. The broker in this case is Evdokim, who wants to attract the Const [Antinopolitan]Ts [erkov] to fight against Patriarch Tikhon. [ ... ] You see what papist plans are now maturing in Constantinople: they want to subjugate the Russian Church, taking advantage of our timelessness. The footman Evdokim, if only to find a foothold for himself, agrees to everything.

According to Metropolitan Evlogy, the Phanar's plan was to " absorb first all the Russian churches abroad, and then subjugate the entire Russian Church. The Bolsheviks and their acolyte Evdokim are doing everything possible to facilitate this - the former in order to bring new turmoil and corruption to the Church, and the latter in order to find support there." "I hope," Metropolitan Eulogius wrote to Archbishop John, "that our people will not follow these crafty and flattering Greeks, especially if they contact Evdokim." 8
The pro-renewal policy of the Phanar has led to the fact that relations between the Constantinople and Moscow Patriarchs have been disrupted.-

7. Letters of the Ecumenical Patriarch / / Church life. 1924. September, No. 2. pp. 1-2.

8. History in Letters: From the archive of the Holy Martyr Archbishop John (Pommer) of Riga. In 2 volumes / Podgot. izd., preface. and comments by Yu. L. Sidyakova. Tver, 2015, vol. 2, pp. 23-25.

page 336
khiyami were actually torn. It is unclear how, in such a situation, the Russian Church could take part in the council organized by the Ecumenical See.

November 25, 1924, eight days after the death of Patriarch Gregory, by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to Archimandrite Basil (Dimopoulo) the act of convocation of the Ecumenical Council in Jerusalem in 1925 was sent, with instructions to "bring this to the attention of the proper ecclesiastical circles there"9. Such" circles " for Dimopulo were primarily renovationists, who received the message about the upcoming council with great enthusiasm and actively began to prepare for participation in it10.

Patriarch Tikhon, who was recognized by the absolute majority of the flock and clergy of the Russian Church, was skeptical of the draft Ecumenical Council, but could not ignore it. I had to think about who would represent the Moscow Patriarchate at this council, if it took place, and what questions the Russian Church would put forward at it. Patriarch Tikhon involved a well-known patrologist, professor of the already closed Moscow Theological Academy I. V. Popov, in this case. However, the OGPU authorities prevented the strengthening of the international activity of the Moscow Patriarchate. Professor Popov was arrested, and Patriarch Tikhon was involved in a new investigation into the case of a "spy organization of churchmen". On March 21, 1925, the patriarch was interrogated, and, according to the protocol, first of all he was asked to whom he entrusted "questions on the preparation for the 8th Ecumenical Council". Patriarch Tikhon replied that he did not consider this council an Ecumenical one, but had thought of sending Professor Popov to it "as a church historian, and therefore instructed him to prepare on all the issues that would be discussed at the Council, in particular on the question of the living Church schism." 11 Soon after, Patriarch Tikhon died, and the "Tikhonites" did not have time for inter-Orthodox meetings for a while.

Not only the Russian Church, but also its main initiators, had difficulties in moving towards the Ecumenical Council. New All-

9. Notification of the Ecumenical Council / / Church Renewal. 1925. 28 Jan. N 2. p. 10.

10. For more information, see: Mazyrin A.V. "The Eighth Ecumenical Council" and the Renovationist Schism in Russia / / XV Annual Theological Conference of St. Petersburg State University, Moscow, 2015. pp. 124-135.

11. Investigative case of Patriarch Tikhon: Collection of doc. based on the materials of the Central Agency of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 2000, p. 400.

page 337
Patriarch Konstantin VI of Lena ruled the Church of Constantinople for a little over a month and was expelled from Turkey in January 1925. Other primates of local churches urged not to hurry with the council. Thus, Patriarch Gregory IV of Antioch wrote in July 1925 to Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Chairman of the Russian Synod Abroad:

I have received a fraternal message from His beloved Beatitude Patriarch Dimitri of Serbia regarding the planned convocation of the Ecumenical Council in Jerusalem in 1925, expressing the opinion of the Holy Orthodox Serbian Church on this issue. The Serbian Church, like our Antiochian Church, feels the need to convene an Ecumenical Council to resolve all the current ecclesiastical issues that concern the minds and hearts of believers, but at the same time finds that the unfavorable circumstances and the straitened situation of some autocephalous Orthodox Churches do not allow them to take a lively, free part in the proposed Ecumenical Council, as well as the fact that Therefore, he considers it necessary, as we do, to postpone the convocation of the Ecumenical Council until a more favorable time.12
In December 1925, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, represented by Patriarch Basil III, set a new date and venue for the Ecumenical Council - Pentecost 1926 on Mount Athos. Archimandrite Vasili (Dimopulo) was once again asked to inform "local church circles"about this decision. 13 Responding to the Phanar's invitation, the plenum of the Renovationist Synod, with the participation of Archimandrite Vasili, formed a 12-person delegation to the Ecumenical Council in April 192614.

However, the Renovationists were disappointed. On April 24, 1926, the Anti-religious Commission of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), having considered the question "on the forthcoming Ecumenical Council in Palestine", decided::

12. From His Holiness Gregory IV, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, June 20, 1925. 1925. N 17-18. P. 4.

13. Notification of the Ecumenical Patriarch Vasily I I I about the convocation of the Ecumenical Council in 1926 / / Bulletin of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Russian Church. 1926. N 8-9 (3-4). P. 2.

14. Acts of the Plenum of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Russian Church from April 16 to April 21, 1926 (in extract) / / Bulletin of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Russian Church. 1926. N 10 (6). pp. 8-10.

page 338
"The sending of delegates from the Russian churches should be considered inappropriate" 15. In fact, the council was planned not in Palestine, but in Greece, but in this case it is not important, but the fact that the party-Soviet curators of church affairs considered any representation from Russia inappropriate. Previously, their attitude to the possibility of a renewal delegation going abroad was more lenient. Thus, in September 1923, the head of the 6th division of the Secret Department of the GPU and concurrently the secretary of the Anti-Religious Commission, E. A. Tuchkov, wrote to the chairman of this commission, E. M. Yaroslavsky, that the Renovationists " intend to gain recognition from the Ecumenical Patriarch in order to strengthen their authority and for this purpose send a delegation to Turkey." At the same time, the word "send" was corrected from the original crossed-out "intend to send"16. This can be understood in such a way that Tuchkov then considered the issue of sending a renewal delegation abroad resolved, there were no obstacles on the part of the GPU. In 1926, the situation seems to have changed.

Russian emigrants also did not remain indifferent to the Ecumenical Council. Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who headed the Russian Church Abroad, 17 sent a letter to the primates of the local churches in March 1926, in which he wrote::

We do not seek the participation of our hierarchs abroad in this Council, because, above all, we consider the convocation of an Ecumenical Council to be untimely at the present time. But in my episcopal conscience, it is my duty to inform Your Holiness that the Living Church and Renovationists, as well as the Ukrainian autocephalists, are false bishops. They broke away from the Mother Church of Russia, changed the sacred canons, and perverted the holy teaching and tradition of the Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox people do not recognize them, do not follow them, and will never follow them. [...] What kind of Council and what kind of church reforms can we talk about at the present time, when the Russian Church, which is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church?

15. Minutes of the Commission for the Separation of Church and State under the Central Committee of the RCP (b) - VKP(b) (Anti-religious Commission). 1922-1929 / Comp. by V. V. Lobanov, Moscow, 2014, p. 184.

16. RGASPI. F. 89. Op. 4. D. 118. L. 5.

17. It is also called "Karlovac" after the seat of its synod in Sremski Karlovci, Serbia.

page 339
90% of the entire Orthodox world suffers so much, and its true servants are persecuted and persecuted?18

However, contrary to the fears of "Karlov residents", the Ecumenical Council did not take place in 1926. It was obstructed by the Turkish government, which was completely unsympathetic to the Ecumenical Patriarchate's plans to strengthen its international standing. According to the Russian emigrant press, "the Turkish authorities, having forbidden the convocation of a Council in Constantinople, declared to the Ecumenical Patriarch that he would not be allowed to participate in any meetings within the borders of a foreign country, and in the event of his and other Greek bishops' departure from Constantinople, none of them would be allowed to return."19
In 1927, there was a significant change in the position of the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), who headed it as deputy patriarchal locum tenens, declared his political solidarity with the Soviet government and managed to get some kind of legalization of the synod established by him. Until then, the Phanar had actually ignored the Patriarchal Church in Russia due to its lack of legality and preferred to maintain official contacts with the Renovationist synod. After the transition of Metropolitan Sergius to pro-Soviet positions, the Ecumenical See became uncomfortable to continue such a line, and he appealed to the Moscow Patriarchate to unite with the renovationists. "Since, by the grace of God, a single spirit now permeates everyone in both orientations [...] and there is no longer an external obstacle after legalization by the State Authorities and your position, we truly do not see what other insurmountable obstacle can be created for general consideration and decision at a general council," Patriarch Vasily wrote to the Metropolitan. St. Sergius in December 1927 20. The Moscow Patriarchate, however, did not see renovationism as an equal church " orien-

18. Letter of the Chairman of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia to His Holiness the Patriarchs and other heads of Orthodox Autocephalous Churches dated March 17/30 this year. 1926. N 7-8. P. 2-3.

19. Makharoblidze Ye. On the question of the convocation of the "8th Ecumenical Council". 1926. N 7-8. P. 11.

20. Official part // Bulletin of the Holy Synod of Orthodox Churches in the USSR, 1928, No. 2 (25), pp. 2-3.

page 340
Rather, it was a graceless schism, whose adherents were required to make public repentance 21.

Patriarch Basil died in September 1929, having failed to hold not only the Ecumenical Council, but also the Pre-Conciliar Meeting (Prosynod) that preceded it. The new Patriarch Photios II stepped up preparations for the council, which was facilitated by a temporary easing of Turkey's policy towards the Patriarchate of Constantinople.22 He immediately entered into correspondence with the Renovationists, who wished him to complete in the coming year 1930 "the great work of his predecessor" - "to convene an Ecumenical Council, which is so necessary for the authoritative solution of urgent primary issues of church life." 23
On Easter Day, 1930, the Renovationists sent Patriarch Photius another message of congratulations, expressing their gratitude that he had not taken part in the campaign in defense of the Russian Church that had recently taken place in the West. The Synod is deeply grateful to Your All-Holiness for not adding your authoritative voice to this concert of protests." Regarding the situation of the Orthodox Church in the USSR, the Renovationists informed the Ecumenical Patriarch that "it receives from the Soviet Government the opportunity both for its external organization and for internal identification, development, growth and renewal." 24
In June 1930, a meeting of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission was held on Mount Athos without the participation of representatives from Russia. The "Russian question" became almost central to it. Bishop Nicholas of Ohrid explicitly stated that his Serbian church

21. Patriarch Tikhon, in his message of July 15, 1923, wrote about the Renovationists that "all actions and sacraments performed by bishops and priests who have fallen away from the Church are graceless, and believers who participate in prayer and the sacraments with them not only do not receive sanctification, but are condemned for participating in their sin" (Acts of the Orthodox Church, vol. His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the supreme church authority, 1917-1943 / Comp. by M. E. Gubonin, Moscow, 1994, p. 291). Similar views were expressed by Patriarch Tikhon's successor, Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Peter (see: Ibid., p. 420).

22. See: Ermilov P. V. Constantinople Orthodox Church / / Orthodox Encyclopedia, Vol. 37, P. 269.

23. Letter of the Holy Synod on the territory of the USSR to Ecumenical Patriarch Photius II // Bulletin of the Holy Synod of Orthodox Churches in the USSR, 1930, N 3-4 (46-47), P.4.

24. Letter of the Holy Synod to His All-Holiness Patriarch Photius II, Archbishop of Constantinople // Bulletin of the Holy Synod of Orthodox Churches in the USSR, 1930, N 3-4 (46-47), P.3.

page 341
the Church took a "different line from the Ecumenical Patriarchate". In response to the Phanariots ' idea to invite "both groups" ("Tikhonites" and Renovationists), the Serbian bishop, pointing out that it was impossible to unite them, suggested calling the Russian emigrant metropolitans Anthony and Evlogy. The representative of the Romanian Church, Bishop Titus of Targoviste, said: "We know positively that the' Living Church ' is not Orthodox, and if it could arrive, it would have to be present not as an equal to us, but as an accused person." The work of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission resulted in the compilation of a catalog of topics for discussion at the upcoming Pro-Synod, the first of which was the question of the Russian Church. The Commission urged the Ecumenical Patriarch "to do everything possible to ensure that representatives of the Russian Church, whether from Russia itself or from abroad, can be present in any way before the Pre - Council is convened."25
Patriarch Photios tried to solve the task set for him not by calling on the Moscow Patriarchate to unite with the Renovationists. It became even more difficult for him to achieve the desired result due to the new aggravation of relations with the Russian Church as a result of the case of Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky), which passed into the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople in February 1931. This step was prompted by the conflict with the Moscow Patriarchate, which, at the request of the Soviet authorities, announced his dismissal. Unwilling to give up his position as administrator of Western European parishes and supported in this by his clergy and flock, Metropolitan Evlogy turned to Constantinople for support. The Ecumenical Throne, which sought to subjugate the Russian diaspora, did not miss an opportunity. Patriarch Photius and his synod decided that "all Russian Orthodox parishes in Europe [ ... ] should henceforth be considered as forming temporarily a single special exarchate of the Holy Patriarchal Ecumenical See on the territory of Europe, directly dependent on it, under its patronage and in ecclesiastical relation."-

25. 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 (19). P. 67.

page 342
26. At the same time, the re-subordination of Russian Western European parishes was not agreed with the Moscow Patriarchate.

This unfriendly action of the Ecumenical See towards Moscow also caused confusion among the representatives of the Soviet authorities, as they made clear to Archimandrite Vasily (Dimopulo), who had previously assured them for many years that his Patriarchate was in favor of the USSR. So, in October 1927, he wrote to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee:

The Ecumenical Patriarchate, having recognized the current State system in Russia and taken a number of energetic measures against the clergy who emigrated from Russia and against the activities of the latter that are harmful to the USSR, has reason to hope that the Russian Government will show it proper attention and by accepting the request of the Patriarchate [to return its former property in Moscow] will strengthen existing sympathy the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the working people of the East 27.

To explain the actions of his Patriarchate, Archimandrite Vasily sent two consecutive letters to the chairman of the Commission on Cults at the All-Russian Central Executive Committee P. G. Smidovich-on March 17 and 23, 1931 (he wrote to Metropolitan Sergius on the same issue on March 18, 28). Dimopulo wrote to Smidovich:

The events of the recent past have called for a particularly vigorous intervention on the part of the Great Church of Christ, as the Mother of the entire Russian Church, represented by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to prevent the recent increase and aggravation of unrest in Russian emigrant Orthodox circles abroad, due to the fact that Russian Orthodox parishes did not want to submit canonically to any of those sent by Metropolitan Sergius Bishops. From this state of affairs, very dangerous and terrible and terrible things threatened to happen.

26.Cit. po: The Path of my life: Memoirs of Metropolitan Evlogy, based on his stories by T. Manukhina. Paris, 1947. p. 626.

27. GA RF. f. R1235. Op. 63. d. 397. L. 514 ob.

28. See: Kostryukov A. A. Russkaya Zarubezhnaya Tserkva v 1925-1938 gg.: Jurisdictional conflicts and Relations with the Moscow Church Authorities, Moscow, 2011, p. 230.

page 343
in the form of increased non-Orthodox propaganda and renewed anti-canonical attempts from Karlowitz to subjugate Russian Orthodox refugees to their harmful influence, both ecclesiastical and political, to the detriment of the Soviet Union.29
Following Patriarch Photius, Archimandrite Basil stated that " on the basis of canonical rules, any Diocese located outside the borders of one or another Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Europe is obliged to recognize the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch."30
In the second letter, Dimopulo wrote to Smidovich about the assignment of Patriarch Photius to " appeal to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and express the feeling of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's unwavering respect and friendship for the Soviet Government and testify once again that all the actions of the Patriarchate are aimed at paralyzing harmful foreign influences and stopping all politicking in parts of the Russian Orthodox Church located abroad. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has no doubt that the Soviet Authorities will resolve the issue of the arrival of a special Commission of the Patriarchate in a positive sense and in the shortest possible time, which will personally express to the Soviet Government feelings of sincere devotion and has the need to personally make a report on certain issues."31 However, the representatives of this Commission expressed "the feeling of unwavering respect and friendship of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for the Soviet Government". they did not believe the authorities themselves and did not rush to allow the arrival of the "special Commission of the Patriarchate".

On June 25, 1931, Patriarch Photius sent a letter to Metropolitan Sergius explaining his actions in relation to the Evlogians, and at the same time touched upon the topic of the Pre-Council and the unification of the Moscow Patriarchate with the Renovationists:

We must strive for the convocation of a General All-Russian Council, representing the entire body of the Holy Russian Church and lovingly caring for the restoration of a single canonical government.

29. RGANI. F. 3. Op. 60. D. 27. L. 59-59 vol. The author expresses deep gratitude to A. L. Beglov, who pointed out to him a set of documents of Patriarch Photius and Archimandrite Basil, sent in 1931 by P. G. Smidovich to I. V. Stalin. The documents were found in the Archive of the President of the Russian Federation and are now kept in the Russian State Archive of Modern History.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid., pp. 58-58 vol.

page 344
And to achieve this God-loving goal [... We are ready to cooperate in a brotherly way, appealing to the call and advice of the Mother Church to all church groups there [ ... ]. Both the convocation of a General Council and the restoration of church unity through it are all the more necessary as soon as possible, because soon, with the help of God, on June 19, 1932, a General Council is being convened with the participation of all Orthodox Churches. The Orthodox Pre-Council, where the presence of the beloved great sister of the Russian Church is so necessary and desired by all, and, on the contrary, there will be great general sorrow if she fails to present herself again.32
Metropolitan Eleutherius of Lithuania (Bogoyavlensky), in a letter to Metropolitan Sergius dated August 3, 1931, very emphatically commented on this advice of Patriarch Photius ("wisdom", as he sarcastically called it) to hold a unification council with the Renovationists as soon as possible:

Wisdom knows perfectly well that we cannot have a Council before this time, nor can any general and appropriate measures be taken to eliminate the spontaneous separations that have taken place; nevertheless, when the largest part of the Orthodox Body is ill, it sees nothing active but meaningless words, sympathy and all possible canonical help from the Orthodox Church. For some reason, "wisdom" is in a hurry to create a pre-conciliar (presence) conference, as if it does not want our Church to attend it in its proper position, as if it is afraid that decorated with martyrdom, rich in confessions and filled with ascetic sighs, It may appear at the timely convened Ecumenical Council in its own state. befitting greatness.

"Wisdom" is in a hurry to raise its authority by making at least a small attempt, even in words, to give its pulpit a preeminent significance no longer in honor, but in power.33
32. From the correspondence of the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod, with His Holiness Patriarch Photius II of Constantinople and Metropolitan Eleutherius (Bogoyavlensky) of Lithuania and Vilna, administrator of the Western European parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church: Documents from the archive of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations // Church and time. 2002. N 2 (19). P. 249.

33. From the correspondence of the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod, Metropolitan Eleutherius (Bogoyavlensky) of Lithuania and Vilna, administrator of the Western European parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church, and Bishop Veniamin (Fedchenkov), former Sevasto-

page 345
Seeing that Metropolitan Sergius was not going to unite with the Renovationists, and realizing that this threatened to disrupt the planned Pro-Synod - and, as a result, the Ecumenical Council - the Patriarch of Constantinople went to the Bolsheviks for assistance. Archimandrite Vasily was instructed to " ask the Soviet Authorities for permission to come to Moscow for representatives of the four Patriarchal Sees of the East to confer with Russian church circles on the restoration of the administrative unity of the Russian Church and on the participation of the fraternal Russian Church in the Pan-Orthodox Prosynod that is about to meet [ ... ]." Patriarch Photios wrote to Archimandrite Basil on August 1, 1931:

We have learned from Your Eminence's report that the Soviet authorities, having quite unexpectedly misinterpreted the orders of the Holy Patriarchal Ecumenical See concerning the Russian Orthodox parishes in Europe and Metropolitan Evlogia, saw in them a spirit of unfriendliness on our part towards the welfare of the entire Russian Church and even towards the State Authorities, to such an extent that even suspected a change in the Ecumenical Patriarchate's sincere attitude to church affairs abroad until the very last moment.34
When sending the translation of the letter to Fotiy Smidovich, Dimopulo added::

The Ecumenical Patriarch resolutely rejects the suggestion that the Ecumenical Patriarchate's attitude towards the Soviet Government may change for the worse. In fact, this attitude has always been, is, and will always be not only loyal, but also decidedly benevolent and sympathetic, with a constant willingness to detect this particular mood in appropriate actions and orders. In particular, the Ecumenical Patriarchate's orders on the provisional ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate over Russian refugee parishes in Western Europe had in mind exclusively the pacification and reassurance of Russian Orthodox refugees, in order to prevent the possibility of subordination

Polish: Documents from the Archive of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate // Church and time. 2001. N 3 (16). pp. 284-285.

34. RGANI. F. 3. Op. 60. D. 27. L. 56.

page 346
their influence and the jurisdiction of the Pope, who seeks to achieve union not only with Russian refugees abroad (up to about 6 million), but also with Orthodox Christians located within the USSR - which, of course, is not so much religious as political goals, to the obvious detriment of the Soviet Union.35
Patriarch Photius himself also described how he resisted attempts to persuade the Russian diaspora to convert to Catholicism, which was allegedly his main motivation for accepting the Evlogian into his jurisdiction. In particular, referring to the newspaper "Figaro", he pointed to the construction of "a large Uniate church in Paris for Russians" and then continued:

These explanations and assurances will, we hope, convince everyone in Russia that nothing has been done by the Patriarchate in relation to the Russian Church that affects or detracts from its rights, nor has there been any change in the sincere attitude of the Patriarchate towards the Soviet Government, which was revealed from the very beginning. As a result, the Patriarchate is convinced that not only will the suspicions that have arisen from an obvious misunderstanding cease, but also that the Soviet Government, which perfectly appreciates the full respect and sincerity of the Orthodox Church's attitude towards it, which has clearly manifested itself both in the activities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in relation to the Soviet Government, and on the part of all church circles, Russia, since all these circles declared their full political loyalty, - that the Soviet Government, taking all this into account, will deign in each case to treat favorably the ecclesiastical issues of the Orthodox Church and fulfill the fervent requests that the Russian Orthodox Church may have an organized and solid Representation in the upcoming Orthodox Pro-Synod.36
The last words - underlined, apparently, by Smidovich-expressed the main interest of the Patriarchate of Constantinople at that time.

Soon another reason for Phanar's interest in the Russian Church was identified. In addition to the Ecumenical Council, the most important goal of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in those years was to conclude a union with the Anglicans. August 18, 1931 Patriarch of the Far Eastern Federal District-

35. RGANI. F. 3. Op. 60. D. 27. L. 55.

36. Ibid., l. 57.

page 347
thius wrote to Archimandrite Basil that an "Orthodox Dogmatic Commission" was meeting in London on October 15 to "meet and work together with the Commission of the Anglican Church, composed of the most authoritative hierarchs and theologians of the Anglican Church, on the issue of dogmatic differences separating the two Churches, in order to prepare for the rapprochement and unification of these Churches" (Basil Dimopoulo I sent the Russian translation of the letter to Smidovich, who, apparently, owns the underscores). Photius II further reported:

All the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches have already elected one special representative to this Orthodox Dogmatic Commission. In view of the necessity and desirability of representation from the fraternal Russian Church, there was an opinion and desire that the matter should be settled [...] by inviting one of the Russian refugee Bishops who were abroad.

However, since it is necessary for a representative of the Russian Church to represent the real Great Russian Church, while fully respecting its authority, we hasten to suggest to Your Eminence that you address the leaders of the two great church divisions there, the Patriarchal and Synodal, and express our desire and request in accordance with your opinion and desire as well as other fraternal Churches, so that 1) or by a common fraternal agreement of both named ecclesiastical parts, one common representative of the entire Russian Church may be elected jointly by both of them as soon as possible [ ... ] 2) or, if this is not possible, one special representative may be elected separately from each of the two ecclesiastical parts, and We must also receive immediate notification of the election of two representatives of the Russian Church, as an exception instead of one, or (3)finally, if this is not possible, each of the two ecclesiastical divisions has assigned representation in this commission to our representative in this commission, or to a representative of the other fraternal Church. 37
Archimandrite Vasily, understanding where the decision to send the Russian delegation to England would be made, appealed not only to the "leaders of the two great ecclesiastical divisions", but also to Smidovich with a request "not to refuse permission for the Orthodox Church in the USSR to establish its representation in London, in order to support the Russian Orthodox Church."-

37. RGANI. F. 3. Op. 60. d. 27. L. 51-51 ob.

page 348
The latter argument , but it was not decisive. On September 16, 1931, the commission headed by him at the All-Russian Central Executive Committee decided:: "To take note of the report of com. Tuchkova on the refusal of the Patriarchal and Synodal Churches to participate in the London Dogmatic Commission " 39.

The reasons for the refusal of the Russian Church to participate in the "Dogmatic Commission" were described in detail by Metropolitan Sergius in a letter to Archimandrite Vasily dated September 30, 1931 (later published in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate).:

Dogmatic Commission [... It is far from being the first, but rather one of the last, if not directly the final step of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the way to union with the Anglican Church. This work has been going on for many years, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate (as well as some other autocephalous Orthodox Churches) has made very important decisions in order to unite them. We are aware, for example,of the recognition of the Anglican hierarchy. Meanwhile, the Russian Orthodox Church was not only not invited to express its opinion on this or that dogmatic-canonical issue under discussion, but was also not informed in due time and in due completeness about the decisions already taken. [ ... ] It would seem that our Russian Church, both in terms of the number of its pastors and in terms of its significance in the Orthodox world, deserved in this case, a more attentive attitude on the part of the Mother Church of Constantinople, and the voice of our Russian Church, listened to in a timely manner, would hardly have been superfluous in resolving such an important issue. [...] Now we are invited, but we can no longer and do not consider it convenient to accept this invitation, so that later we will not be faced with some unexpected fact that has happened to us and will not be responsible for a decision that we will not share in our conscience 40.

38. RGANI. F. 3. Op. 60. D. 27. L. 50.

39. Ibid., l. 54.

40. The Deputy's response to the invitation to participate in the London Dogmatic Commission and in the Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Assembly (PROSYNOD) / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1932, N 7-8, p. 6.

page 349
Metropolitan Sergius expressed his fear that the result "will not be a genuine unity of Anglicans with the Church, but only an external, so to speak, diplomatic union covering up internal differences." Although the refusal of the Russian Church to unite with the Anglicans was in the interests of the Soviet authorities, Metropolitan Sergius 'reply to Archimandrite Vasili was obviously motivated not only by politics but also by religion, based on the conviction that "only our Orthodox Church, which has survived in the East, is the Church of Christ", and for this reason "the question of uniting the churches requires the greatest due diligence"41.

In a letter to Patriarch Photius himself dated October 15, 1931, in response to calls for peace with the Renovationists, Metropolitan Sergius reasonably remarked that "the path chosen to establish peace can hardly be considered expedient. To neglect the authority of the local church authorities and systematically "protect" only those who are self-willed means not to establish peace in the autocephalous church, but to diligently destroy it. " 42 Metropolitan Eleutherius then sent letters to the primates of the local Orthodox churches, in particular the Serbian Patriarch Barnabas, explaining these words of Metropolitan Sergius:

The facts of this" systematic protection " are well known to all - the patronage of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the living Church and renovationists in Russia, up to the offer of Blessed Memory to its Patriarch Tikhon to please them to give up power and give it to these unauthorized people, the consolidation of the separation of the dioceses of Finland and Estonia from the Russian Church, the granting of autocephaly to the Polish Church , appropriation, albeit temporary, of its Western European parishes 43.

Meanwhile, preparations for the Prosynod were progressing as usual. Patriarch Photios still hoped to see the renovationists at it, but at the same time he did not find support from all the primates

41. Response of the Deputy to the invitation to participate in the London Dogmatic Commission and in the Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Assembly (PROSYNOD), pp. 6-7.

42. Epistle of the Deputy to the Patriarch of Constantinople / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1932. N 7-8. P. 2.

43. To His Holiness, Archbishop of Pec, Metropolitan of Belgrade-Karlovac, and Patriarch Cyrus Barnabas of Serbia / / Voice of the Lithuanian Orthodox Diocese, 1932, No. 2, Pp. 32-33.

page 350
orthodox churches. Thus, Patriarch Barnabas of Serbia wrote to Metropolitan Eleutherius on February 14, 1932:

According to random information that has come down to us, the Ecumenical Patriarch intends to invite representatives of the so-called "Living Church"to participate in the upcoming Pro-Synod, regardless of the representatives of the Tikhonite Church... But we and our God-loving archpastors consider the "living churchmen"to be violators of the holy canons and apostates from the purity of true Orthodoxy. 44
Of course, neither the Moscow Patriarchate nor the Renovationist Synod could decide on their own whether or not to go to Mount Athos in Soviet conditions. This issue was considered by the Commission on Cults under the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. While the commission rejected the Russian delegation's trip to London unconditionally, it was not so clear about Prosynod. For this reason, it was decided to request the highest party authority. In September 1931, P. G. Smidovich submitted a detailed report on this subject to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) I. V. Stalin, accompanied by documents (mainly letters from Archimandrite Vasily and Patriarch Photius).45. First of all, Smidovich informed Stalin about the refusal of the Russian Church to unite with the Anglicans as an "exhausted question":

It is quite obvious that the Soviet government is interested in ensuring that such a rapprochement and unification does not take place. The absence of delegates from the Russian Orthodox Churches thwarts this attempt. Measures had to be taken to ensure that the absence of delegates was properly arranged. In view of the fact that the invitation to participate in the "Dogmatic Commission" was simultaneously sent to the leaders of the Old Church and Renovationists, measures were taken to ensure that these leaders, on their own behalf, rejected the offer in due form. This was achieved in a timely manner.

The second point of Smidovich's report to Stalin concerned precisely the question of Prosynode. It began with a small but remarkable introduction: "Moscow is a permanent resident of the official

44. To His Eminence, Metropolitan Eleutherius of Lithuania and Vilna / / Voice of the Lithuanian Orthodox Diocese, 1932, No. 2, P. 30.

45. The report is partially published (see: Kurlyandsky I. A. Stalin, power, Religion, Moscow, 2011, pp. 627-628), but with significant inaccuracies, and therefore it is quoted here from the original archive.

page 351
representative of the" Ecumenical Patriarch " Archimandrite DIMOPULO. This connection is being used to good effect." Apparently, earlier Stalin was not informed how" useful for the cause " Archimandrite Vasily was. Smidovich continued:

However, during all these years, neither representatives of the Orthodox Churches were allowed to visit the Patriarch, nor other representatives of the Patriarch were allowed to enter the USSR, which the patriarch repeatedly sought. The Patriarch tries in every possible way to keep in touch with the Soviet government and with the Orthodox churches, and these efforts lead to the fact that he does not openly pursue the anti-Soviet line and does not participate in "crusades", although at the same time he is connected with the emigrant Orthodox clergy, plays his own game, undermining the influence and significance abroad of Metropolitan Sergius, locum tenens of the Patriarchal throne in Moscow, which harms our line.

The Pro-Synod session aims to fully cover the situation of Orthodox Churches in the USSR, restore the "administrative unity of the Russian Church" (reuniting Old Church members with Renovationists), and regulate relations between Orthodox churches inside and outside the USSR. The Pro-Synod session will also be held without representatives of the"Russian Orthodox Churches". Proper representation would, in our view, lead to a favorable course of work for the session. However, it is very difficult to organize such representation under the current conditions. The lack of representation would have completely removed the work in Constantinople from our influence and could have put the Ecumenical Patriarch on an anti-Soviet path. In view of the approaching date of the Prosynod convocation, this issue must be resolved now. The Commission on Cults asks the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) to give a directive on this issue in the near future. In the event of a positive decision, it is necessary to have sufficient time to properly organize the representation of the Orthodox Churches at the session of the pro-synod 46.

The logic of Smidovich's proposal is clear: in fact, responding to the call of Patriarch Photius, he asked Stalin to authorize the administrative association of "Old churchmen and renovationists"so that they would jointly organize a "proper representation" on Prosinoda for its passage in the manner necessary for the Soviet authorities. There are no resolutions of Stalin's in the report, and this is not the case.

46. RGANI. F. 3. Op. 60. D. 27. L. 45-48.

page 352
it can be understood that they were not sanctioned for the participation of the Russian delegation in Prosynod, which had far-reaching consequences.

For the Moscow Patriarchate, Stalin's tacit "veto" of the Ecumenical Council was a much more favorable outcome than if it had been forced to urgently unite with the Renovationists and then pursue a pro-Soviet line in Prosynod, which would only discredit the Russian Church in front of other local churches and would have contributed to strengthening the Phanar dominance. Officially, Metropolitan Sergius stated the position of the Moscow Patriarchate in a letter dated April 12, 1932, addressed to Archimandrite Vasily as follows::

The conditions for the election of deputies proposed to us put our Church in a completely uncomfortable position on Prosynod. [ ... ] It pleases His Holiness [Photius - A.M.] to consider our Church as an unorganized church mass that does not have a canonical head. [ ... ] At best, our deputies may find themselves in the position of some petitioners, and in the future they may find themselves in the position of petitioners. at worst, even the defendants or the accused. Neither of these things is acceptable or acceptable to us. Moreover, without having a decisive vote, and with this the ability to legally influence the decisions of the Pro-Synod, our deputation, by its presence at the Pro-Synod, can create the impression that the decisions of the Pro-Synod were adopted with the participation of our Russian Church.

Later in the same letter, the Deputy Locum Tenens also spoke about the inclusion of the issue of divisions in the Russian Church in the Pro-Synod program.:

The Russian question is first of all our domestic and internal question, and must be resolved first of all by the Russian Church itself. [ ... ] When it recognizes that the question exceeds its strength, it will turn to the Orthodox Sister Churches for help and submit such a question to their conciliar reasoning. But these internal ecclesiastical questions can be submitted to the Council only on the initiative and decision of the Local Church itself, and by no means apart from its own initiative.

Thus, Patriarch Photios was unable to fulfill the task given to him by the Inter - Orthodox Commission-to ensure proper functioning of the Church.

47. Letter of the Deputy Representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the USSR to Archimandrite Vasily Dimopulo / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1932, No. 9-10, Pp. 1-2.

page 353
participation in the Pro-Synod of the Russian Church - even with the help of the Soviet authorities. The pre-meeting did not take place, and was canceled at the very last moment (six days before the start of the meetings). On June 30, 1932, Archimandrite Basil informed Metropolitan Sergius that " the opening of the sessions of the Pro-Synod, which was supposed to take place on June 19 this year on Mount Athos, is being postponed at the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This postponement is caused by the urgent need for the presence of representatives of all autocephalous churches on Prosynod, which has not yet been possible. " 48
Metropolitan Eleutherius also commented on the postponement of Prosynod in a letter to Metropolitan Sergius dated July 6, 1932: "From some foreign sources, it turned out that the main reason for the failure with the Prosynod was the refusal of the Russian Church to participate in it; the Serbian, Romanian, Cypriot and Greek (Hellenic) Churches refused to participate in it." The Lithuanian Metropolitan regarded the failure of Prosynod as "the first (probably) good fruit" of Metropolitan Sergius ' activity "already for the entire Orthodox Universal Church" and wrote to him:

I think that you will refuse to represent your Church if the Patriarch of Constantinople takes it into his head to repeat his decision to convene a Synod in the autumn, even if this time he did not make the same mistake of presenting the Russian Church as a mass of churches without its canonical leadership, for this will hardly change his unfriendly feelings towards the Russian Church, Unfortunately, they show themselves to her from the side of Constantinople, even if we did not want to see them as unfriendly, but only an excuse to show their megalomania inopportunely.49
It is noteworthy that this letter of Metropolitan Eleutherius - more personal than official, written far from in the most politically correct tone in relation to the Phanar-was published in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. Thus, Metropolitan Sergius made it clear that he fully shares the position of the Metropolitan of Lithuania and does not sympathize with the" megalomania " of the phanariots.

48. Resolutions of the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens and the Provisional Patriarchal Synod attached to Him / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1932, N 11-12, p. 2.

49. Ibid., pp. 2-3.

page 354
The result of all the above twists and turns is quite paradoxical. The Patriarchate of Constantinople, in its expansionist policy, tried to rely, among other things, on the Soviet authorities, but as a result it turned the Bolshevik leadership against itself, which indirectly led to the disruption of inter-Orthodox and ecumenical forums organized by Phanar in the 1930s. The Russian Church, which was placed in an extremely straitened position by the atheist authorities and was unable to be properly represented at the planned Ecumenical Council, did not find itself in the awkward position of "either a petitioner or an accused"due to the absence of Stalin's sanction for its participation in the Pro-Synod. The Russian factor, despite the attempts of the Greeks to level it, has fully manifested itself. It was not possible to establish the mechanism of Constantinople's hegemony through a new Ecumenical Council.

Bibliography / References

Archive materials

State Archive of the Russian Federation (GA RF).

F. R1235-All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets of Workers', Peasants ' and Red Army Deputies (VTSIK).

Russian State Archive of Modern History (RGANI).

F. 3-Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee (1952-1990)

Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI).

F. 89-Emelyan Mikhailovich Yaroslavsky (1878-1943).

Literature

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 / Comp. by M. E. Gubonin, Moscow, 1994.

Ermilov P. V. Constantinople Orthodox Church [1908-1948] / / Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. 37, Moscow, 2015, pp. 256-275.

From the correspondence of the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhny Novgorod (Stragorodsky), Metropolitan Eleutherius of Lithuania and Vilna (Bogoyavlensky), Administrator of the Western European parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church, and Bishop Veniamin (Fedchenkov), formerly of Sevastopol: Documents from the archive of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate // Church and time. 2001. N 3 (16). pp. 271-300.

From the correspondence of the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod, with His Holiness Patriarch Photius II of Constantinople and Metropolitan Eleutherius (Bogoyavlensky) of Lithuania and Vilna, Administrator of the Western European parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church: Documents from the archive of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations // Church and time. 2002. N 2 (19). pp. 229-262.

page 355
History in letters: From the archive of the Holy Martyr Archbishop John (Pommer) of Riga. In 2 vols. / Podgot. izd., preface and commentary by Yu. L. Sidyakova. Tver, 2015.

Kostryukov A. A. The Russian Church Abroad in 1925-1938: Jurisdictional Conflicts and Relations with the Moscow Church Authorities. Moscow, 2011.

Kurlandskiy I. A. Stalin, power, religion, Moscow, 2011.

Mazyrin A.V. Patriarch Tikhon and the Patriarchate of Constantinople: on the issue of the reasons for the actual rupture of relations. Vestnik PSTGU. II: Istoriya. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2015. Issue 6 (67), pp. 9-37.

Mazyrin A.V. "The Eighth Ecumenical Council" and the Renovationist Schism in Russia / / XV Annual Theological Conference of St. Petersburg State University, Moscow, 2015, pp. 124-135.

Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) and Pan-Orthodox unity / Comp. prot. V. Sorokin, St. Petersburg, 2008.

Pokrovsky N. N. Predislovie [Preface] / / Archives of the Kremlin. Politburo and the Church: 1922-1925 In 2 kn. Kn. 1. Novosibirsk-M., 1997. pp. 7-109.

Minutes of the Commission for the Separation of Church and State under the Central Committee of the RCP (b) - VKP(b) (Anti-religious Commission). 1922-1929 / Comp. by V. V. Lobanov, Moscow, 2014.

The Path of My Life: Memoirs of Metropolitan Evlogy, based on his stories by T. Manukhina. Paris, 1947.

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 (19). pp. 54-199.

Investigative case of Patriarch Tikhon: Collection of doc. based on the materials of the Central Agency of the FSB of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 2000.

Archival Materials

The State Archive of the Russian Federation (GA RF).

F. R1235 - All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets of workers', peasants' and red army deputies (VTSIK).

The Russian State Archive of contemporary history (RGANI).

F. 3 - The Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU (1952-1990.)

The Russian State Archive of socio-political history (RGASPI).

F. 89 - Yemelyan Mikhailovich Yaroslavsky (1878-1943).

Literature

Ermilov, P.V. (2015) "Konstantinopol'skaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov', 1908-1948 gg.]" [Constantinople Orthodox Church, 1908-1948], Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia 37: 256-275.

Gubonin, M.E. (1994) Akty Sviateishego Tikhona, Patriarkha Moskovskogo i vseia Rossii, pozdneishie dokumenty i perepiska o kanonicheskom preemstve vysshei tserkovnoi vlasti, 1917-1943 [The Acts of his Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, latest documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the highest Church authorities, 1917-1943]. Moscow.

"Iz perepiski Zamestitelia Patriarshego Mestobliustitelia mitropolita Nizhegorodskogo Sergiia (Stragorodskogo), mitropolita Litovskogo i Vilenskogo Elevferiia (Bogoiavlenskogo), upravliaiushchego zapadnoevropeiskimi prikhodami Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi i episkopa Veniamina (Fedchenkova), byvshego Sevastopol'skogo: Dokumenty iz arkhiva Otdela vneshnikh tserkovnykh snoshenii Moskovskogo Patriarkhata" ["From the correspondence of the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergius

page 356
of Nizhny Novgorod (Stragorodsky), Metropolitan of Lithuania and Vilna Elevfery (Epiphany), Western European control of the Russian Orthodox Church and Bishop Benjamin (Fedchenkova), former Sevastopol: documents from the archives of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate"] (2001), Tserkov' i vremia 3(16): 271-300.

"Iz perepiski Zamestitelia Patriarshego Mestobliustitelia mitropolita Nizhegorodskogo Sergiia (Stragorodskogo) so Sviateishim Patriarkhom Konstantinopol'skim Fotiem II i mitropolitom Litovskim i Vilenskim Elevferiem (Bogoiavlenskim), upravliaiushchim zapadnoevropeiskimi prikhodami Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi: Dokumenty iz arkhiva Otdela vneshnikh tserkovnykh sviazei Moskovskogo Patriarkhata" ["From the correspondence of the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhny Novgorod (Stragorodsky) with the Patriarch of Constantinople Photios II and Metropolitan of Lithuania and Vilna Eleutherius (Epiphany), manager of the Western European parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church: Documents from the archives of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate"] (2002), Tserkov' i vremia 2(19): 229-262.

Kostriukov, A.A. (2011) Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov' v 1925-1938 gg.: Iurisdiktsionnye konflikty i otnosheniia s moskovskoi tserkovnoi vlast'iu. [Russian Orthodox Church in 1925-1938 gg.: Jurisdictional conflicts and relations with the Moscow church authority]. Moscow.

Kurlandskij, I.A. (2011) Stalin, vlast', religiia [Stalin, power, religion]. Moscow.

Lobanov, V.V. (2014) Protokoly Komissii po provedeniiu otdeleniia tserkvi ot gosudarstva pri TsK RKP(b)-VKP(b) (Antireligioznoi komissii). 1922-1929 gg. [The protocols of the Commission of the execution of the separation of Church and state under the Central Committee of the RCP(b)-VKP(b) (Anti-Religious Commission). 1922-1929]. Moscow.

Mazyrin, A.V. (2015) ""Vos'moi Vselenskii Sobor" i obnovlencheskii raskol v Rossii", ["Eighth Ecumenical Council "and renovationist split in Russia"], in XXV Ezhegodnaia Bogoslovskaia konferentsiia PSTGU, pp. 124-135. Moscow.

Mazyrin, A.V. (2015) "Patriarkh Tikhon i Konstantinopol'skaia Patriarkhiia: k voprosu o prichinakh fakticheskogo razryva otnoshenii" ["Patriarch Tikhon and the Patriarchate of Constantinople: to the question of the causes of actual rupture of relations"], Vestnik PSTGU II. 6 (67): 9-37.

Pokrovskii, N.N. (1997) "Predislovie" ["Foreword"], in Arkhivy Kremlia. Politbiuro i Tserkov': 1922-1925 gg. V 2 kn. Kn. 1. Novosibirsk-Moscow.

T. Manukhinoi Put' moei zhizni: Vospominaniia Mitropolita Evlogiia, izlozhennye po ego rasskazam (1947) [The path of my life: Memoirs of Metropolitan Eulogius, outlined in his stories by T. Manukhina]. Parizh.

Sidiakov, Y.L. (2015) Istoriia v pis'makh: Iz arkhiva sviashchennomuchenika arkhiepiskopa Rizhskogo Ioanna (Pommera). [History in letters: From the archives of the Holy Martyr Archbishop of Riga John (Pommer)]. Tver.

Skobei, 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 vremia 2 (19): 54-199.

Sledstvennoe delo Patriarkha Tihona: Sb. dok. po materialam TsA FSB RF [Investigation case of Patriarch Tikhon: Coll. Doc. Materials CA FSB] (2000). Moscow.

Sorokin, V. (2008) Mitropolit Nikodim (Rotov) i vsepravoslavnoe edinstvo [Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) and the Pan-Orthodox unity]. S.-Petersburg.

page 357

Permanent link to this publication: