Moscow Patriarchate Politics

The Stavropol Council of 1919 and the Origins of an Independent Church Body in the South of Russia

St. Andrew Cathedral in Stavropol

An insight on the foundation of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority of the South of Russia, preceding the foundation of Temporary Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority Abroad in Constantinople in 1920.

This article is a reflection on issues raised by the Pre-conciliar Commission and the Council itself, as well as on arguments that have been adduced by both proponents and opponents of the convening of the Council. The article addresses the Supreme Church Governance in the South-east of Russia such as was created at the Council, the activities of the same, and Patriarch Tikhon’s stance on it. The activities of the Supreme Church Governance in the South-east of Russia with respect to the center of church life in Moscow prefigured those of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops.

The Civil War, whose frontlines divided Russia, was the reason why communication was broken off between Patriarch Tikhon, the head of the Russian Church, and dioceses in territories occupied by White armies. This situation gave rise to a whole host of problems in various localities since the number of issues concerning church life that required approval by the supreme church authorities was growing ever greater by the day.

This is the reason why Church Councils were convened in the territories occupied by White forces in order to resolve the issue of governance going forward. In November 1918, such a Council took place in Tomsk, and another one was held in Stavropol in May 1919. It was precisely this Council in Stavropol that formed the Temporary Supreme Church Governance (Vremennoe Vysshee Tserkovnoe Upravlenie, VVTsU) in the South-east of Russia, which remained in operation until November 1920. The Supreme Church Governance subsequently transferred its activities outside Russia and served as the foundation for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). The Stavropol Council was thus in a sense the origin of the ROCOR, which was out of communion with the Moscow Patriarchate for 80 years and was not reunified with it until 2007.

The Stavropol Council has not yet been the subject of dedicated research, though particular aspects of its history have been covered in a handful of scholarly works[1]Beliaeva, A. Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov′ za granitsei 1919–1926: Dissertatsiia na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk [The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia from … Continue reading, which are based above all on the reminiscences of contemporaries of the Council.

Nevertheless, there are documents that we can use to reconstruct the history of the Temporary Supreme Church Governance in the South-east of Russia and the Stavropol Council of 1919, which gave the license for this governing body to be constituted. These are to be found in Russian State Archive Fonds 3969, “The Temporary Supreme Church Governance in the South-east of Russia”. Moreover, it has proven possible to gain some insight into the circumstances surrounding the Stavropol Council from various documents in Fonds 6343, “The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia”, of the same Archive. Another important source for the present work is the newspaper Tserkovnye Vedomosti [Church Bulletin], printed in Taganrog in 1919, as well as the émigré press organs Tserkovnye Vedomosti and Tserkovnoe Obozrenie [Church Review]. One can also be greatly helped to this end by memoirs, such as, first and foremost, the Reminiscences of Protopresbyter Georgii Shavel⁠′skii, who led Russia’s military chaplaincy through 1917 and subsequently that of the Volunteer Army.

And so, in February 1919,[2]All dates unless otherwise noted are according to the Old Calendar., Protopresbyter Georgii Shavel⁠′skii, the main initiator of the convening of the Council[3]Makharoblidze E. “20-letie Rossiiskoi tserkovnoi «konstitutsii»” [“On the 20th  Anniversary of the ‘Constitution’ of the Russian Church”], Tserkovnoe obozrenie 11–12, Belgrade: 1940, … Continue reading, addressed General Anton Denikin saying that it was necessary to organize a governing body for the Church in territories free from Bolshevik control. Protopresbyter Georgii’s initiative met with sympathy and preparations for a Council commenced in May of that same year; it was planned to be a Local Council of dioceses in the South of Russia and was supposed to resolve a number of issues in church life in that region that had been accumulating. An important task of the Council was to organize a system of ecclesiastical government for Russia’s southern provinces.

According to Protoprebyter Georgii’s testimony, many bishops were not enthusiastic about convening a Council. Although Protopresbyter Georgii explains this in terms of the bishops’ self-interest, the official explanation given by the latter for their hesitation was that the Council was to be convened without Patriarch Tikhon’s blessing.[4]Protopresbyter G. Shavel⁠′skii. Vospominaniia poslednego protopresvitera russkoi armii i flota [Reminiscences of the Last Protopresbyter of the Russian Army and Navy]. Moscow: Krutitskoe … Continue reading However, Protopresbyter Georgii was able to convince an array of hierarchs that it was in fact necessary to convene this Council. A Pre-conciliar Commission was formed, consisting of Shavel⁠′skii, Archpriest A. P. Rozhdestvenskii, Archpriest N. Ivanov (Rector of Stavropol Seminary), Priest G. P. Lomako, Priest V. Sventsitskii, Prince G. N. Trubetskoi, Count V. V. Musin-Pushkin, Generals V. V. Vannovskii and D. F. Liovshin, I. N. Tereshchenko (a member of the Kuban  Diocesan Council), and E. I. Makharoblidze.[5]Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, Item 1, ff. 3r–5v.

It seems likewise significant that the lack of permission from the head of the Church of Russia to constitute a Pre-conciliar Commission was not the sole obstacle to convening a Council. A problem of no lesser importance was the impossibility of holding elections for the Council. This was due to the conception of Church governance as a representative structure that had taken shape after 1917. For instance, at the first meeting of the Commission, which took place in May 3, 1919, Priest G. Lomako expressed his concern that “due to the lack of elections, this Local Council may not be recognized initially by some and the Supreme Church Governance established by it may not have any authority.”[6]Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, Item 1. However, Protopresbyter Georgii Shavel′⁠skii dispelled Lomako’s doubts by stating that “the convening of this Local Council in the exceptional circumstance of our time will be entirely legal, since at present one cannot even think of organizing elections, whereas the Council will be attended by all bishops in the South of Russia within the [territories controlled by] the Volunteer Army. The Diocesan Councils and laity will be represented, and, lastly, there will be members of the Holy Church Council whom the people have entrusted with deciding on the fate of the Church of Russia”.[7]Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, Item 1, 1v–2r. Indeed, according to the Resolution of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia on the prerogatives of the members of the 1917–1918 Council, of September 18, 1918, the latter were to retain their prerogatives until the Patriarch issued an encyclical convening a new Council. The members of the 1917–1918 Council had the right to “take part in the assemblies of their local Dioceses, Districts, Provinces, and Deaneries with a casting vote as fully-fledged members of these same assemblies.”[8]Sobranie opredelenii i postanovlenii Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918 gg. [Collected Resolutions and Decisions of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia, … Continue reading As concerns the Supreme Church Governance that was to be organized at this Council, it was conceived as temporary and was to cease to exist “after the restoration of proper communications with His Holiness the Patriarch and the Holy Synod of the Church of Russia”.[9]Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, Item 2.

The Pre-Conciliar Commission regarded the Tomsk Council, which took place in 1918 and organized a Supreme Church Governance for Siberia and the Far East, as an example for its own work. Even though Protopresbyter Georgii Shavel⁠′skii states in his memoirs that news of the Tomsk Council reached the South of Russia only in July 1919, that is, after the Stavropol Council was adjourned,[10]Protopresbyter G. Shavel⁠′skii. Vospominaniia poslednego protopresvitera russkoi armii i flota [Reminiscences of the Last Protopresbyter of the Russian Army and Navy]. Moscow: Krutitskoe … Continue reading documents from the Pre-Conciliar Commission show this not to have been the case. For instance, at a meeting of the Pre-conciliar Commission on May 9, 1919, Protopresbyter Georgii Shavel⁠′skii, with reference to newspaper reports, introduced a motion to bring the makeup of the future Supreme Church Governance into accordance with the norms of the Church Governance of Siberia[11]Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, Item 3..

The Stavropol Council was attended by representatives of Southern Russian dioceses, members of the All-Russian Church Council of 1917–1918, members of the military clergy, Denikin’s Volunteer Army, and the military district of the Grand Don Army. It is difficult to comprehend why, apart from bishops, there were initially no monastics in the lists of Council members. The sole monk, Polikhronii, was included in the lists last of all on the basis that this was the practice of the 1917–1918 Moscow Council.

The Council, which took place from May 19–24, 1919, in Stavropol in the Caucasus, was attended by the following bishops:

  1. Archbishop Mitrophan (Simashkevich) of the Don and Novocherkassk
  2. Archbishop Agafador (Preobrazhenskii) of the Caucasus and Stavropol
  3. Archbishop Dimitrii (Abashidze) of Tavria and Simferopol
  4. Archbishop Agapit (Vishnevskii) of Ekaterinoslav and Mariupol
  5. Archbishop Makarii (Pavlov) of Vladikavkaz and Mozdok
  6. Bishop Arsenii (Smolenets) of Priazovia and Taganrog
  7. Bishop Ioann (Levitskii) of the Kuban and Ekaterinodar
  8. Bishop Germogen (Maksimov) of Aksai
  9. Bishop Mikhail (Kosmodamianskii) of Aleksandrovsk
  10. Bishop Sergii (Petrov) of Sukhumi
  11. Bishop Gavrill (Chepur) of Cheliabinsk and Troitsk

 

Archbishop Mitrofan (Simashkevich) was elected President of the Council, and Archbishop Agafador (Preobrazhenskii) Honorary President. The President’s deputies were Archbishop Dimitrii (Abashidze), Protopresbyter Georgii Shavel⁠′skii, and Prince G. N. Trubetskoi. According to the list kept in the Russian State Archive, the Council was also attended by 22 priests, 1 monk, and 20 laymen.[12]Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, ff. 89r–91v. It was resolved to call the Council the “Southeastern Russian Church Council”.

One of the Council’s main tasks was to organize a Temporary Supreme Church Governance for South-east Russia. In accordance with the Resolution on the Temporary Supreme Church Governance in South-east Russia, which was ratified on May 22, 1919, the latter was entrusted with ecclesiastical authority in the territories occupied by Denikin. It was intended to maintain this state of affairs until normal communications with the Patriarch could be restored.[13]Tsekovnye vedomosti 1/1919, p. 19.

The members of the Council saw grounds for creating a Temporary Supreme Church Governance not only in the fact that such a body was needed to resolve practical issues, but also in the realm of ideology. “Russia is fragmented,” Protopresbyter Georgii Shavel⁠′skii said at the council, “and is splintered into many parts; these parts need to be united on a civic and spiritual level, and in this regard, a Supreme Church Governance could perform a great service by uniting the disparate parts of Russia in one mind and under one authority.[14]Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, File 1, Series 1, Item 20..

Protopresbyter Georgii was convinced that the creation of a Supreme Church Governance would be acceptable for the Patriarch. “Our good Patriarch,” he wrote, “as a father who cares for the good of the Church, could not be upset and look unfavorably upon the installation of this temporary church authority, which would give up its prerogatives as soon as communication with the Patriarch is restored.”[15]Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, Item 20.

The organization of the Supreme Church Governance did not go smoothly. For instance, Count P. Grabbe came out in opposition to the creation of this body, as he considered that all matters ought to be resolved not by a governing body restricted to a small circle of individuals, but by a “large” Council. To this, Protopresbyter Georgii objected that church governing bodies consisting of bishops, priests, and laity had been established in the Ukraine and in Siberia, and this with Patriarch Tikhon’s knowledge. Priest Vladimir Vostokov insisted that the church in the South of Russia should be governed not by a collegiate body, but by one person: the bishop with the greatest degree of authority. However, this proposal was likewise not adopted, since, in the view of the members of the council, it would have led to a dictatorship of one individual.[16]Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, ff. 20r–20v.

In accordance with the resolution adopted by the Council, the Tempoary Supreme Church Governance was constituted by three bishops (including the Chair), two priests, and two laymen.

The President of the Temporary Supreme Church Governance was Mitrofan (Simashkevich), his Deputy was Archbishop Dimitrii (Abashidze), and the other members were Bishop Arsenii (Smolenets), Protopresbyter G. Shavel⁠′skii, Archpriest A. Rozhdestvenskii, V. V. Musin-Pushkin, and P. V. Verkhovskoi.[17]Tserkovnye vedomosti 1/1919, p. 21. As decided by the Stavropol Council, the Supreme Church Governance did not have a fixed location; this was to be determined by the Commander-in-Chief, though the President had the right to convene sessions in other places, too.[18]Protopresbyter G. Shavel⁠′skii. Vospominaniia poslednego protopresvitera russkoi armii i flota [Reminiscences of the Last Protopresbyter of the Russian Army and Navy]. Moscow: Krutitskoe … Continue reading This body, which was formed in the South-East of Russia and subsequently moved to the South-west, was thus often called the Temporary Supreme Church Governance in the South of Russia, or the Crimean Temporary Supreme Church Governance in the final months of its existence.

However, doubts as to whether the body formed in Stavropol was legitimate obviously bothered many bishops. Some of them posited, not without reason, that one of the most authoritative Russian hierarchs, Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitskii) of Kiev and Galicia, who had been released from Polish captivity and arrived in Taganrog on August 28, 1919,[19]Tserkovnye vedomosti 1/1919, p. 17, where the Temporary Supreme Church Governance was located at that time, would not recognize it as a canonical body[20]Makharoblidze, E. “Popravka spravok” [“An Emendation to Information”], in: Tserkovnye Vedomosti 17–18/1926, p. 20. These concerns were not without reason. “As subsequently became known,” Protopresbyter Shavel′⁠skii wrote, “when he was approaching Rostov, Metropolitan Antony toyed with the idea of ignoring the Temporary Supreme Church Governance as a non-canonical body”.[21]Shavel⁠′skii, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 382 However, Metropolitan Antony adopted a merciful stance vis-à-vis the new body. Protopresbyter Georgii Shavel⁠′skii explained this in terms of several factors: the beneficent influence of General Denikin, the proposal for Metropolitan Antony to become Honorary President of the Temporary Supreme Church Governance, and lastly, that he did not find anything illegitimate in its activity.[22]Shavel⁠′skii, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 383.

It is highly significant that while the Stavropol Council was convened without the permission of Patriarch Tikhon, the head of the Orthodox Church of Russia, it was nonetheless recognized by him.  E. I. Makharoblidze, referring to a letter from one of his “colleagues from the chancellery of the Supreme Church Governance in the South-east of Russia,” who had returned to Moscow from Ekaterinburg, stated that the organization of the Stavropol Council and the Temporary Supreme Church Governance were the reason why Patriarch Tikhon issued Ukase No. 362 of November 7/20, 1921.[23]Makharoblidze E. “20-letie Rossiiskoi tserkovnoi «konstitutsii»”, Tserkovnoe obozrenie 11–12, Belgrade: 1940, p. 10. Patriarch Tikhon’s Ukase No. 362 allowed bishops whose communications … Continue reading Makharoblidze wrote that S. N. Trubetskoi and V. V. Musin-Pushkin also had confirmation of the Patriarch’s approval of the Stavropol Council.[24]Makharoblidze E. “20-letie Rossiiskoi tserkovnoi «konstitutsii»”, Tserkovnoe obozrenie 11–12, Belgrade: 1940, p. 10.

As Makharoblidze subsequently wrote, Patriarch Tikhon also recognized all the decisions of the Supreme Church Governance in the South-east of Russia. He wrote that he could provide documentary proof concerning some of these decisions. Among them he named the following: the appointment of Bishop Germogen (Maksimov) to the See of Ekaterinoslav,[25]Makharoblidze, “Popravka spravok”, in: Tserkovnye vedomosti 17–18/1926, p. 19; the consecration of Bishop Andrei (Murin) of Mariupol⁠′, Vicar of Ekaterinoslav Diocese; the consecration of Bishop Seraphim (Sobolev) as Bishop of Lubny, Vicar of Poltava Diocese; retirement of Bishop Ioann of Kuban; reception of Bishop Sergii (Lavrov) back into the Church after he had become an Anglican, and his appointment as Ruling Bishop of the Black Sea Diocese; the establishment of a separate Diocese of Tsaritsyn; and the dismissal of Archbishop Agapit (Vishnevskii) of Ekaterinoslav in accordance with the verdict of an ecclesiastical court for his ceasing to commemorate Patriarch Tikhon (subsequently, through the mediation of Archbishop Dimitrii Abashidze, President of the Supreme Church Governance, the Patriarch pardoned Archbishop Agapit and restored him to the See of Ekaterinoslav).[26]Makharoblidze E. “20-letie Rossiiskoi tserkovnoi «konstitutsii»”, Tserkovnoe obozrenie 11–12, Belgrade: 1940, p. 10.

Both the Stavropol Council and the Temporary Supreme Church Governance it created attempted to maintain a moderate political position. While coming out against the Bolshevik dictatorship, the leadership of the Church in the South of Russia distanced themselves from the monarchy and attempted to uphold democratic principles. In order not to breach the fragile peace among the representatives of the various parties represented in the White forces, the Council and the Temporary Supreme Church governance tried to refrain from condemning even overtly criminal political organizations. Recalling this period, Archpriest Vladimir Vostokov wrote in 1922: “In May 1919, the Southern Russian Council under the presidency of Archbishop Mitrofan with active involvement on the part of Protopresbyter Shavel⁠′skii, who was at that time working in agreement with the Chief of Staff, General Romanovskii, silenced any members of the Council who sought to make definitive statements concerning […] “socialism” and “internationalist tyrants”. The Council avoided the word “Tsar” like the plague.[27]Russian State Archive. Fonds 6343, Series 1, File 4, f. 165. Nonetheless, it should not be forgotten that Archpriest V. Vostokov served a Te deum (Service of Thanksgiving) for the February … Continue reading.

According to testimony from Archpriest Vladimir Vostokov, open condemnation of regicide and  calls for the people to repent of this sin can first be seen in the period when the Temporary Supreme Church Governance was already in Crimea. However, “even the Crimean Church Governance did not resolve to call for” the restoration of the monarchy.[28]Russian State Archive. Fonds 6343, Series 1, File 4, f. 165.

It is important to note that both the Stavropol Council and the Supreme Church Governance in South East Russia, while still in Russia, conducted activities that were subsequently taken up by the Supreme Church Governance of the Church Abroad. The Russian State Archive, for instance, has preserved a copy of a letter from the Stavropol Council to the Archbishop of Canterbury:

“The trials that God has sent upon our country and the Holy Orthodox Church are beyond measure,” the missive reads. “History knows no analogue to them. The basic principles of human life have been violated among us. Our churches are being violated and those who serve at the altar are being subjected to persecution unheard of since the times of the Roman Emperors. Family homes have been destroyed and given over to mockery. Liberty is trampled under foot and the Russian people are groaning under the oppression of usurpers who have seized power over the people through violence and treachery. […] The Council cannot but remember the great aid that the people of England continue to bestow upon the people of Russia to this day. Yet the road to final victory is still long. Many grievous trials still await us; therefore, apart from aid through military force, we are above all in need of moral aid. We hope that the Anglican Church, which for more than half a century has maintained continuous brotherly relations with the Orthodox Church, will provide the Russian people with this moral support. This Local Council requests Your Eminence to pass on our greetings and brotherly love to Your flock, and to inform the entire Church of England of our sorrows and trials. We believe that the Anglican church will grieve along with us when it finds out about the affronts in our country to the holy things common to all mankind: faith, family, and freedom.”[29]Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, Item 97r–97v.

Subsequently, the Supreme Temporary Church Governance in the South-east of Russia continued the course of action of the Council of Stavropol in resolving matters concerning external church relations. For instance, in August 1920, the Temporary Supreme Church Governance sent Archbishop Evlogii Georgievskii to the World Congress of Representatives of Christian Communities and Churches in the Struggle against Atheism.[30]Metropolitan Evlogii Georgievskii. Put⁠′ moei zhizni [My Life’s Journey]. Moscow: Moskovskii rabochii, 1994, p. 337; Zhilinskii, N. “Neobkhodimoe dopolnenie” [“A Necessary Addendum”], … Continue reading and made an array of appointments to foreign sees and parishes. For example, Archbishop Evlogii (Georgievskii) was appointed to govern the Russian parishes in Southern Europe, and Archbishop Anastasii (Gribanovskii) those in Constantinople.[31]E. Makharoblidze, “Popravka spravok”, Tserkovnye vedomosti 17–18/1926, p. 20.

In conclusion, one might note that the convening of the Stavropol Council during the Russian Civil War comes across as justified and necessary. There was a precedent for the convening of this Council in the holding of a similar one in Tomsk. In creating a Temporary Supreme Church Governance for the South-east of Russia, the Stavropol Council was guided above all by the decisions of the Tomsk Council. It is important that the resolutions of the Stavropol Council were recognized by Patriarch Tikhon. Moreover, the Temporary Supreme Church Governance for the South of Russia created by the Stavropol Council, while still in Russia, took steps to organize church life in the diaspora, where it would eventually move.’

Translated by Walker Thompson 

 

 

 

 

References

References
1 Beliaeva, A. Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov′ za granitsei 1919–1926: Dissertatsiia na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk [The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia from 1919–1926. Doctoral Dissertation]. Yaroslavl: 1998. Manuscript; Kashevarov, A. Pravoslavnaia Rossiiskaia Tserkov′ i sovetskoe gosudarstvo (1917–1922) [The Orthodox Church of Russia and the Soviet State (1917–1922)]. Moscow: Krutitskoe podvor⁠′e, 2005; Traskovskii, A. “Istoriia Russkoi Zarubezhnoi Tserkvi 1921–1939” [“The History of the Russian Church Abroad from 1921–1939”], in: Pravoslavnyi put⁠’ (Prilozhenie k zhurnalu «Pravoslavnaia Rus’» za 1995 god) [The Orthodoxy Way: Appendix to the Journal Orthodox Russia, 1995], New York/Jordanville: 1995, pp. 11–60; Archpriest V. Tsypin. Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi 1917–1997 [The History of the Russian Church, 1917–1997]. Moscow: Valaam Monastery Press, 1997. Seide, G. Gescichte der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche im Ausland von der Gründung bis in die Gegenwart. Wiesbaden: 1983.
2 All dates unless otherwise noted are according to the Old Calendar.
3 Makharoblidze E. “20-letie Rossiiskoi tserkovnoi «konstitutsii»” [“On the 20th  Anniversary of the ‘Constitution’ of the Russian Church”], Tserkovnoe obozrenie 11–12, Belgrade: 1940, p. 10.
4 Protopresbyter G. Shavel⁠′skii. Vospominaniia poslednego protopresvitera russkoi armii i flota [Reminiscences of the Last Protopresbyter of the Russian Army and Navy]. Moscow: Krutitskoe patriarshee podvor⁠′e, 1996. Vol. 2, p. 337.
5 Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, Item 1, ff. 3r–5v
6 Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, Item 1.
7 Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, Item 1, 1v–2r.
8 Sobranie opredelenii i postanovlenii Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918 gg. [Collected Resolutions and Decisions of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia, 1917–1918, 4 (3), p. 9.
9 Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, Item 2.
10 Protopresbyter G. Shavel⁠′skii. Vospominaniia poslednego protopresvitera russkoi armii i flota [Reminiscences of the Last Protopresbyter of the Russian Army and Navy]. Moscow: Krutitskoe patriarshee podvor⁠′e, 1996. Vol. 2, p. 341.
11 Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, Item 3.
12 Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, ff. 89r–91v.
13 Tsekovnye vedomosti 1/1919, p. 19.
14 Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, File 1, Series 1, Item 20.
15 Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, Item 20.
16 Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, ff. 20r–20v.
17 Tserkovnye vedomosti 1/1919, p. 21.
18 Protopresbyter G. Shavel⁠′skii. Vospominaniia poslednego protopresvitera russkoi armii i flota [Reminiscences of the Last Protopresbyter of the Russian Army and Navy]. Moscow: Krutitskoe patriarshee podvor⁠′e, 1996. Vol. 2, p. 337.
19 Tserkovnye vedomosti 1/1919, p. 17
20 Makharoblidze, E. “Popravka spravok” [“An Emendation to Information”], in: Tserkovnye Vedomosti 17–18/1926, p. 20.
21 Shavel⁠′skii, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 382
22 Shavel⁠′skii, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 383.
23 Makharoblidze E. “20-letie Rossiiskoi tserkovnoi «konstitutsii»”, Tserkovnoe obozrenie 11–12, Belgrade: 1940, p. 10. Patriarch Tikhon’s Ukase No. 362 allowed bishops whose communications with the church authorities in Moscow had been cut off to organize temporary independent church districts under the presidency of the most senior bishop. This ukase became the basis for the organization of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, cf. Tserkovnye vedomosti 17–18/1926, p. 6-7.
24 Makharoblidze E. “20-letie Rossiiskoi tserkovnoi «konstitutsii»”, Tserkovnoe obozrenie 11–12, Belgrade: 1940, p. 10.
25 Makharoblidze, “Popravka spravok”, in: Tserkovnye vedomosti 17–18/1926, p. 19
26 Makharoblidze E. “20-letie Rossiiskoi tserkovnoi «konstitutsii»”, Tserkovnoe obozrenie 11–12, Belgrade: 1940, p. 10.
27 Russian State Archive. Fonds 6343, Series 1, File 4, f. 165. Nonetheless, it should not be forgotten that Archpriest V. Vostokov served a Te deum (Service of Thanksgiving) for the February Revolution on Red Square in red Paschal vestments despite the fact that it was Lent and Lenten vestments are traditionally meant to be black. Cf.: Fomin, S., ed., Strazh doma Gospodnia, Patriarkh Moskovskii i vseia Rusi Sergii (Stargorodskii) [A Watchman over the House of the Lord: Patriarch Sergius of Moscow and All Russia], Moscow: Pravilo very, 2003, p. 138
28 Russian State Archive. Fonds 6343, Series 1, File 4, f. 165.
29 Russian State Archive. Fonds 3696, Series 1, File 1, Item 97r–97v
30 Metropolitan Evlogii Georgievskii. Put⁠′ moei zhizni [My Life’s Journey]. Moscow: Moskovskii rabochii, 1994, p. 337; Zhilinskii, N. “Neobkhodimoe dopolnenie” [“A Necessary Addendum”], in: Vera i Rodina [Faith and Fatherland] 8–9/1924, p. 174.
31 E. Makharoblidze, “Popravka spravok”, Tserkovnye vedomosti 17–18/1926, p. 20.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.