This paper examines the problem of identifying the positions regarding political issues of the two major assemblies of the Civil War period which were under heavy pressure by political forces.  Acknowledgments: The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 21-011-44120.
1.The Stavropol Council. 1919
The First All-Diaspora Russian Church Council admitted to its sessions, with voting privileges, participants in a monarchist movement in its extreme form, who influenced the acceptance of an address “to the offspring of the Russian Orthodox Church who are in dispersion and exile” calling for the restoration of the monarchy, and in the form of a specific dynasty — the Romanovs. They could not be restrained by the more moderate Council participants, mainly the clergy, who pointed out that this was not a matter for a church gathering.
The paper demonstrates that such a difference in the outcomes of the two Councils was mainly affected by two personalities. The All-Diaspora Council of 1921 was chaired by Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitskii), a participant in the monarchist movement, who was absent from the 1919 Southwestern Council, while the principal role of casting aside all political forces was played by Protopresbyter G. Shavel’skii, who did not take part in the All-Diaspora Council and had a negative attitude toward Metropolitan Antony’s position.
The participation of clergy in the political processes of contemporary society in Russia’s South was regarded not only totally acceptable but also desirable. And the freedom of political convictions was acknowledged. Extraordinary assemblies of clergy and laity in Russia’s South adopted a resolution on spiritual amnesty based on the Holy Synod Decision no. 2458 of April 28, 1917: “On the restoration of the priestly rank of clergy who had been defrocked for their political convictions.” Rossiiskoe dukhoventsvo i sverzhenie monarkhii v 1917 godu (Materialy i arkhivnye dokumenty po istorii Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserki) [The Russian Clergy and the Overthrow of the Monarchy in 1917 … Continue reading The assemblies decided to expunge any mention in clergy service records of any convictions by diocesan courts. The clergy was freed of all punishments — prohibitions, penances, confinements to monasteries, etc. All members of the clergy who had been defrocked obtained the possibility of having their priestly rank restored.  Donskaia khristianskaia mysl’ [Christian Thought of the Don] 1917, July 16, no. 3, pp. 44-45; Stavropol’skie eparkhial’nye vedomosti [Stavropol Diocesan Bulletin], 1917. no. 19-20, p. 583. The Don Extraordinary Assembly ruled that “the clergy’s participation in the country’s political life as an organ clarifying political issues should be regarded as necessary, even mandatory.” And “The clergy should not be narrowly partisan in its activity and cannot make use of the temple as “place of prayer.”  Eparkhial’nyi s’ezd // Vol’nyi Don. [Diocesan Assembly // Free Don], May 4, no. 4, p. 4. The Kuban clergy took a similar position, acknowledging the principle of nonpartisanship to be appropriate, in order to have the opportunity “to have influence upon the Orthodox members of each party.” And yet the clergy was not forbidden to participate privately in the activities of one or another party, as long as that did not go against the Church’s interests.  Stawropo’skie eparkhial’nye vedomosti [Stavropol Diocesan Bulletin], 1917, no. 32, pp. 1029-1040.
The Southeastern Russian Church Council became a most important event in the church life of Southern Russia in the Civil War period. It took place in Stavropol of the Caucasus from May 19 to 24, 1919, eight months after the conclusion of the third session of the All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918, which had been interrupted by the events of the Revolution. Besides the ruling and vicar bishops, clergy, and laity of the six major dioceses of Southern Russia, famous figures in church and society who found themselves in the southeastern part of Russia took part in the Council. These included members of the All-Russian National Center N. N. Lvov, G. N. and E. N. Trubetskoi, as well as V. V. Musin-Pushkin, Zhurnal zasedaniia obshchego sobraniia no. 26, 26 maia 1917 g. // Vserossiiskii natsional’nyi tsentr / Assots. “Rossiiskaia politicheskaia entsiklopediia, Feder. Arkhiv sluzhba Rossii, Ros. Gos. … Continue reading a Council participant, two representatives from the Volunteer Army, and one representative each from the Don Cossack Host and the Don Ataman. According to the protocols of the Pre-conciliar Commission and the Personnel Commission, one representative each from the Don, Kuban, and Terek Cossack Hosts were to participate in the Council’s work, but only two representatives from the Don Cossack Host took part in the end. Nonetheless, the interests of the Kuban regional administration were still represented by Colonel K. P. Gadenko, who was elected from the laity of the Kuban Diocesan Council, and Colonel P. M. Grabbe of the Kuban Host.
The 1919 Council was also welcomed by representatives of political organizations — the Union of Russian National Communities, the Council of Russia’s Governmental Unification, the All-Russian National Center, and the Central Committee of the People’s Freedom Party. The Council ruled that the request of the Union of Russian National Communities should be relegated for consideration by the section on parishes.  Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-3696, Series 1, File 1, Items 18-21 rev.
The influence of political forces was noticeable already at the 1919 Council’s preparatory stage. The organizational meeting on the problem of establishing a supreme church authority appeared, in essence, as a session of the religious education section of the Council of the Governmental Unification.  Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-3696, Series 2, File 4, Items 17-21 rev. Church and societal figures who did not avoid politics took part in it: Protopresbyter Georgii Shavel’skii, Priest V. Sventitskii, as well as Prince E. N. Trubetskoi, Count V. V. Musin-Pushkin, Archpriest Professor A. P. Rozhdestvenskii, and the famous political figure V. M. Skvortsov, who fulfilled secretarial duties. In addition, representatives of the armed forces were also present — Colonel A. V. Borislavskii, Lieutenant M. Yu. Rodionov, and others.  Ibid., Item 17. Protopresbyter G. Shavel’skii told the gathering about the religious education measures that were proposed in the religious education section of the Council of the Governmental Unification which had to do with Christian education and the activization of pastoral activity.
The political figures N. N. Lvov, G. N. Trubetskoi, V. V. Musin-Pushkin and Major General D. F. Levshin, and Lieutenant General G. M. Vannovskii from A. I. Denikin’s headquarters also took part in the work of the Pre-conciliar Commission. The Union of Russian National Communities made a request of the Pre-conciliar Commission to include its representatives as Council members. However, the Commission, referring to the practice of the All-Russian Local Council, denied this request.  Ibid. Item 9-9 rev.
Protopresbyter G. Shavel’sky did not regard solving problems of governmental significance to be inappropriate for the Church. He noted at the Council that the secular authorities wished to activate the Church’s unifying power to solve the governmental task of creating a single and undivided Russia.  Ibid., Series 1, File 1, Items 18-21 rev. But on the whole the necessity of calling a Council and establishing a Supreme Church Authority was explained by ecclesiastical considerations, which cannot be said about the politicians. In V. M. Skvortsov’s view, the Supreme Church Authority was needed so that the Volunteer Army could, finally, obtain a blessing from the Church and in that way it would become clear ”to the muddled ignorant people” whom the Church supports in resisting the Civil War, and who, accordingly, is a true defender of the faith, lawful order, and freedom.  Ibid., Series 1, File 1.
Let us see how the relations of the Church with its various sections developed.
Various socio-political forces wished to use the authority of the Church, as did the Extraordinary Conference under the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Russia’s South, which could act through the political organizations that were close to it. The minutes of the Extraordinary Conference no. 21 of December 18, 1918, reflected the decision “to intensify verbal agitation by bringing in social groups, clergy, the military to this task… asking the National Center to take steps to establish contact with these groups for this purpose.” Zhurnaly zasedanii Osobogo soveshchaniia pri Glavnokomanduiushchem Vooruzhennymi Silami na Iuge Rossii A. I. Denikine [Minutes of the Sessions of the Extraordinary Conference Under the … Continue reading
The political forces immediately took Protopresbyter G. Shavel’skii as a rather influential figure affiliated with Denikin to whom the ecclesiastical sphere had been entrusted.  Shavel‘skii, op. cit., vol. 2, 324, 329. At the beginning he actually looked closely at the Council of Russia‘s Governmental Unification, and even agreed to become a board member, but after getting to know this milieu better he quickly parted ways with them.  Ibid., 324. It seemed stagnant to him and incapable of reacting adequately to the sociopolitical transformations that were taking place. ”Reconstruction, renewal of life, the removal of rot that had accumulated in the previous period, the reexamination of life’s norms and of governmental procedures and so on — the necessity of all this was felt by just a few and was regarded under suspicion or was totally denied by the majority.”  Minutes of Session no. 26 of the general meeting on May 25, 1919; The All-National Center… 324-326.
M. Skvortsov spoke at the 1919 Council regarding the problem that was being discussed in the church milieu, which in his words was “about politics in the church pulpit.” He proposed differentiation of political issues that were unworthy of the church pulpit, and issues “of the societal — public and governmental — life of the present moment that inescapably require a light to be shone on them by the living word of Gospel truth.”  Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-3696, Series 2, File 4, Item 44 rev. In his opinion parish activity should enhance the unification of those who were split apart ideologically and the ideological building up ”of the new life of our native land.”  Ibid., 45. However, the issue which V. M. Skvortsov posed was not developed further at the Southeastern Russian Church Council.
The Union of Russian National Communities had greater popularity in the circles of Orthodox clergy in Russia’s South. This was one of the major organizations in the White South. The parish (be it canonical or Old Believer) had key significance in its political conception. The Union developed the idea of using parishes and clergy for political aims, in the struggle against socialist ideology, which could be driven out of the public, in his conviction, only by nationalism and religion.  Ibid., Item 76 rev. Bringing in the clergy gave the Union ”prepared and inexpensive agents in villages as a team of priests which will play a tremendous role in the struggle with Social Revolutionaries, whom most of the villagers favor.”  Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-446, Series 2, File 69, Item 85 rev. The idea had prospects, since the Propaganda Section of the Extraordinary Conference noted that ”the population’s sympathies, especially in the regions being liberated from the Reds, are leaning toward the Church’s side.”  Ibid., Item 77.
M. Skvortsov addressed the Southwestern Russian Church Council with thoughts about the state political role of the community. In his view the public had to be united by unions of national communities, which would serve toward the buildup of the state and would prepare it for elections to the Assembly of the People.  Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-3696, Series 2, File 4, Item 45.
In order to bring the national idea into the broad public spectrum, the Union of Russian National Communities strove to establish reliable contact with parish spheres, for which a delegation (including N. N. Lvov, Archpriest N. Rozanov, V. M. Skvortsov, and N. G. Panchenko) was sent to the Council in Stavropol to make a statement of welcome to the Council and to obtain a blessing for the Union’s religious education activity.  Ibid., Item 37 rev. They were not able to fulfill either task.
The All-Russian People’s State Party of V. M. Purishkevich also had its own version of including the parish in governmental political activity, envisioning the parish as a small zemstvo unit, uniting all citizens regardless of religious affiliation for economic purposes, and only the Orthodox for church issues.  Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-3696, Series 2, File 4, Item 45.
The political organizations and Cossack representatives who had addressed the Council received brief welcomes of gratitude which emphasized the need to return to faith and the Church.  Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-3696, Series 2, File 4, Items 26-26 rev. At the same time the Council’s address to Denikin affirmed the leading and uniting role of the commander-in-chief around whom the Cossack host had united as well. Denikin was called a weapon of God’s providence, while the representatives of the Don and Kuban Hosts were called representatives of the Orthodox population.  Ibid., Item 4.
Ivanovskii, the delegate from the Region of the Don Host, proposed that the Southwestern All-Russian Church Council follow the custom that had been established in the Russian Church of blessing various military exploits with icons and, without limiting themselves to a verbal address, to send icons to Generals A. I. Denikin, V. Z. Mai-Makovskii, and P. N. Vrangel, the “liberators of the land,” on behalf of the Council. The proposal was adopted, at the fifth session, however, just before the Council ended, when the decision was being transmitted to the Temporary Supreme Church Authority for implementation with only the name of General A. I. Denikin.
An acerbic discussion developed at a session of the Council regarding the “Message to the Offspring of the Orthodox Russian Church.” Priest V. Vostokov, E. N. Trubetskoi, and Archbishop Dimitrii all had something to say. Vostokov asserted that the Message is the most important action by the Council, but that it was too mild, that the Church had not yet publicly reprimanded the Revolution and the anti-Christian nature of socialism, etc, E. N. Trubetskoi voiced a protest against Vostokov’s accusations. Priest V. Vostokov, who represented nationalistic views of the extreme right, was denied a voice.  Zhizn’ [Life], no. 34 (June 4 ).
On May 23, 1919, the Council discussed the message to the Red Army. The Priest V. Sventitskii informed the Council of the message’s content. It was fully adopted and handed over to the Editing Committee, which was to consider Priest V. Vostokov’s correction involving a request for the Red Army to remove the masonic star from their caps. However, this item is absent from the message’s text. The bylaws of the Brotherhood of the Life-Giving Cross, which Priest V. Vostokov had founded, were presented for consideration and were handed over to the Section on the Temporary Supreme Church Authority.  Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-3969, Series 2, File 4, Items 29-32. There was no reading of the “Filial Address to the Southwestern Russian Church Council by the Offspring of the Orthodox Church Living in Ekaterinodar“ which he had written and which mentioned judeo-masonry, and the Brotherhood of the Live-Giving Cross, which had an extremely rightist nationalistic nature, received no blessing after all.
Thus, despite the participation of representatives of political organizations who leaned toward political rhetoric, the Council as a whole took a reserved political stance and did not give support to the actual political forces in order not to “destroy the fragile peace between the representatives of the various parties that were represented in the White forces.” A. A. Kostriukov, ”Stavropol’skii Sobor 1919 g. i nachalo nezavisimoi tserkovnoi struktury na iuge Rossii [The Stavropol Council of 1919 and the Beginning of an Independent Church Structure in … Continue reading The basic political slogan of the White Movement regarding the ”non-predetermined” form of government gave the Church the opportunity to remain above the political battle. The Council did not allow any socio-political forces, or even the official authorities, to use the Church’s authority. Its messages contain an evaluation of ongoing socio-political changes, but this evaluation wasn’t based on politics but on religious morality. They condemned Bolshevism from the moral viewpoint, which was missionary activity rather than political struggle. The Council supported the Volunteer Army as a Christ-loving military body, but only as long as it remained as such, and it warned about the great mission laid upon it and about the danger of losing God’s blessing. As Patriarch Tikhon also noted in his message of September 25 (October 8, 1919), this could happen if the army submits to the temptation of retribution, wallowing in fratricidal internecine warfare, and its warriors cease being faithful sons of God’s Church. The 1919 Council turned out to be in tune with the patriarch’s call to stay above and outside political interests, while at the same time supporting the traditional link with legitimate governmental authority in the person of Denikin, which presented itself as the Church’s ally in the fight against godlessness and persecution of believers. The Council saw its role as being exclusively spiritual — if all social forces returned to belief and the Church, Russia would be saved as well.
It can be noted that the key role, both in preparing the Council and in disregarding all of the representatives of political organizations, belongs to Protopresbyter G. Shavel’skii. The consistent rejection of all attempts by socio-political organizations to enlist the Church’s support and blessing took place not without the protopresbyter’s participation. In the resolution in response to the message of the Union of Russian National Communities Shavel’skii noted that “addresses by all kinds of deputations must be limited” at the Council.  State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), Fonds R-3696, Series 2, File 4, Item 10.
The same was noted by Fr. V. Vostokov in his memorandum to Metropolitan Antonii (Khrapovitskii) of December 19, 1922: “The Southwestern Russian Council held in May 1919 in Stavropol, under Archbishop Mitrofan’s chairmanship with the exclusively active participation of Protobresbyter Shavel’skii, who was working then in concert with Chief-of-Staff General Romanovskii, was silencing its members who would attempt to speak out definitively regarding “bloodless socialism” and internationalist executioners. And they were afraid of the word “tsar” as if it were fire. Only in Crimea did the South Russian Church Authority openly condemn the tsar’s murder and call upon the public to repent of this terrible sin, but it didn’t resolve to call the Crimean Church Authority to what is most valuable in repentance — bringing forth its fruits — in this case, to the restoration of the Russian Orthodox legitimate tsar.” Dokladnaia zapiska protoierieiia Vladimira Vostokova Ego Preosviashchenstvu Vysokopreosviashcheneishomu Antoniiu, Mitropolitu Kievskomu i Galitskomu, 19 dekabriia 1922 g. [Archpriest Vladimir … Continue reading
2. The Karlovci Council. 1921
Makhoroblidze’s report of August 19 (September 1) 1922 to the Holy Bishops’ Council and the Supreme Russian Church Authority Abroad in Sremski Karlovci spoke of the significance of the 1919 South Russian Council, specifying that it laid the foundation for the autonomy and conciliarity of the Church Abroad. Svishchennomu Arkhiereiskomu Soboru, Vysshemu Russkomu Tserkovnomu Upravlenniiu zagranitsei sekretaria onogo E. Makhoroblidze doklad 19 avg. (1 sent.) 1922 g. [E. I. Makhoroblidze’s report of … Continue reading The Supreme Church Authority, organized at the First Russian All-Diaspora Church Council of 1921, was actually the successor to the Supreme Church Authority, established by the Southeastern Russian Church Council, with the transfer of the entire fulness of the Patriarch’s and the Synod’s Church authority.  Ibid., item 49.
One of the most controversial documents adopted by the First Russian All-Diaspora Church Council of 1921 was the famous address “To the Offspring of the Russian Orthodox Church in Dispersion and Exile,” in which Russian refugees were called to prayer for the return of the Orthodox tsar from the House of Romanov to the All-Russian throne. A. Kostriukov, Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov’ v pervoi polovine 1920-kh godov. Organizatsiia tserkovnogo upravleniia v emigratsii i ego otnosheniia s Moskovskoi Patriarkhiei pri zhizni Patriarkha … Continue reading That council had wide representation by lay leaders of the monarchist movement, N. E. Markov and A. F. Trepov, and of the extreme right-wing, T. V. Lokot’ and P. V. Skarzhinskii.  Ibid., 58. The influence of this group upon the Council is eloquently witnessed to by the fact that A. F. Trepov, leader of the Supreme Monarchist Council, managed to keep the former chairman of the Fourth State Duma, M. V. Rodzianko, who came as a member of the Local Council, from participating in the Council, since Trepov regarded him to be guilty of the monarchy being overthrown.  P. N. Nikitin, Karlovatskii Sobor // Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [The Karlovci Council. Orthodox Encyclopedia] https: www. pravenc.ru/text/1681087 html (accessed on Apr. 4, 2021).
Debates ensued regarding the address’s content. Most of the clergy were against mentioning the Romanov Dynasty in the address, including Archbishops Evlogii (Georgievskii) and Anastasii (Gribanovskii), and Bishop Veniamin (Fedchenkov). Bishop Veniamin said that the position expressed in the address was definitely political, bringing schism into the Church’s gathering, and he felt that the Church must be very cautious with such issues. In his opinion, the Church should support the monarchy, but he considered it wrong no name a specific dynasty, imposing it upon the people’s will, and justly noted that the expression of the viewpoint of an insignificant minority of refugees does not represent the voice of the whole Church.  Kostriukov, op. cit., 63. “We wish to defend the ecclesiastic nature of our gathering since the Church cannot be a political weapon,“ he wrote.  Ibid., 64. He also noted that the monarchist forces represented in the Council see only the political solution to the problem of Russia’s rebirth, while the clergy sees a spiritual and ecclesiastic one. By the way, he referred to Patriarch Tikhon. Metropolitan Veniamin’s view of the political problem at the Church Council corresponded to the spirit of the Southeastern Russian Church Council. Metropolitan Evlogii (Georgievskii) held a similar position. He felt that the idea of monarchy can be treated from the Church’s point of view, but the issue of a dynasty does not have a Church character, and a council considering such an issue is no different from political gatherings.  Ibid., 64-65.
Metropolitan Antonii (Khrapovitskii) came out in favor of the text of the address with the part about the dynasty since he didn’t regard such a position as political.  Ibid., 65. A similar position was held by Archpriest V. Vostokov, who condemned the indecisiveness, in his opinion, of the All-Russian Local Council and the Southeastern Russian Church Council, and the half-heartedness of the patriarch, the Temporary Supreme Church Authority, Kolchak, Denikin, Wrangel, and Dieterichs. As he wrote to Metropolitan Antonii, ”And only at the Karlovci Council (in November 1921) were the separate Russian voices able to flow together into one healthy word regarding the salvation of crucified Russia. The Karlovci Council condemned the vile rebellion of March 1917, called socialism a satanic bait in the hands of the leaders of the Revolution for catching the popular masses in their nets and called upon Russia to bring forth the fruits of repentance for its sin, to pray for the Lord to give an Orthodox and legitimate tsar for salvation from the international yoke…”  Dokladnaia Zapiska… 166-168.
Two-thirds of the Council’s members were laymen, and most of them expressed favor of mentioning the House of Romanov, and so prevailed in the voting.  Kostriukov, op. cit., 58.
The members of the Southeastern Russian Church Council who voted in favor included Bishops Mikhail (Kosmodem’ianskii), and Gavriil (Chepur), Archpriest V. Vostokov, P. N. Grabbe, P. N. Apraksin, A. I. Ivanovskii, as well as E. P. Makharoblidze and V. M. Skvortsov. Those against were Bishop Sergii (Petrov), Archpriest P. Belovidov, Archpriest M. Konograi, and N. N. Lvov from the laity, as well as I. V. Nikonorov, who had participated in the Council without being a member. And the monarchist V. M. Skvortsov, who was not a voting member at the Southeastern Church Council, was an active participant in the First All-Diaspora Church Council, having been a comrade of the Chairman of the Missionary Section.
Most of the clergy spoke against involving the Church into politics. At the Council’s beginning, in the third session, the clergy tried to set up a Council of Presbyters, which could have controlled which issues would be presented for discussion and resisted the politicized majority of laymen.  Ibid., 60. Such an organ was envisaged by the Mandate to the All-Diaspora Council.  Nikitin, op. cit. However, a discussion developed on this issue. Some of the delegates, referring to the necessity of fulfilling the behests of the 1917-1918 Local Council, objected to the singling out of clergy into a special group. P. N. Apraksin introduced a motion to repeal the existing items in the Mandate which violate conciliarity, according to the Council’s opponents. As a result of the vote the establishment of the Council was put aside due to a slight majority of votes. Political figures predominated in the group that voted against this. As. N. M. Zernov wrote in his diary, the invited political figures were victorious.  Ibid.
Why did the 1921 Council allow the side favoring political pronouncements to gain the upper hand? The reasons lie in the shortcomings of the way in which the Council was called, including hasty preparation and procedural violations. A united group of monarchists was admitted to the Council, and Metropolitan Antonii played the principal role in this.  Kostriukov, op. cit., 67. Although the Council Abroad spoke about being a successor to the Local Council, it thought of itself to great measure as a totally independent gathering, due to the basically different conditions in which it was conducted.
Metropolitan Antonii (Khrapovitskii), who chaired the Russian All-Diaspora Council of 1921 had not participated in the Southeastern Russian Church Council. He was elected as honorary chairman of the Supreme Monarchist Council at the monarchist gathering which took place in May-June 1921 in Bad Reichenhall, Germany.  Nikitin, op. cit. Protopresbyter G. Shavel‘skii, who had played a key role in keeping political forces from influencing the Southeastern Russian Church Council had an inimical position toward Metropolitan Antonii (Khrapovirtskii), the principal figure 1921 Council. He also did not support the Karlovci Synod, nor did he attend the 1921 Council.  Kostriukov, op. cit., 32.
Consequently, the result of the Council’s work turned out to be quite contradictory.
Two months after the 1921 Council, in February 1922, the famous “Message to the World Conference on behalf of the Russian All-Diaspora Council,” which called upon the Genoa Conference to condemn Bolshevism, noting that the Communist regime in Russia does not represent the Russian people. That message was initiated by the Supreme Church Authority Abroad, and no one yet knew about the Conference while the Council was in session.  Nikitin., op. cit.
Andrei A. Kostriukov, “The Stavropol Council of 1919 and the Origins of an Independent Church Body in the South of Russia;”
Yulia A. Birukova, “Did the South-Eastern Council of 1919 Implement the Directives of the Local Council of 1917-1918?”
Yulia A. Birukova, “The Position of the Southeast Russian Church Council of 1919 in the Political Resistance During the Civil War”
Nicholas Zernov, “The First Council of The Russian Church Abroad in Sremski Karlovtsi (21 Nov.-2 Dec. 1921): The Notes of One of the Participants”
|↵1||Acknowledgments: The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 21-011-44120.|
|↵2||Rossiiskoe dukhoventsvo i sverzhenie monarkhii v 1917 godu (Materialy i arkhivnye dokumenty po istorii Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserki) [The Russian Clergy and the Overthrow of the Monarchy in 1917 (Materials and Archival Documents on the History of the Russian Orthodox Church)], Compiled by M. A. Babkin, author of the introduction and commentary, (Moscow: Indrik, 2006), 44-45.|
|↵3||Donskaia khristianskaia mysl’ [Christian Thought of the Don] 1917, July 16, no. 3, pp. 44-45; Stavropol’skie eparkhial’nye vedomosti [Stavropol Diocesan Bulletin], 1917. no. 19-20, p. 583.|
|↵4||Eparkhial’nyi s’ezd // Vol’nyi Don. [Diocesan Assembly // Free Don], May 4, no. 4, p. 4.|
|↵5||Stawropo’skie eparkhial’nye vedomosti [Stavropol Diocesan Bulletin], 1917, no. 32, pp. 1029-1040.|
|↵6||Zhurnal zasedaniia obshchego sobraniia no. 26, 26 maia 1917 g. // Vserossiiskii natsional’nyi tsentr / Assots. “Rossiiskaia politicheskaia entsiklopediia, Feder. Arkhiv sluzhba Rossii, Ros. Gos. Arkhiv sots-polit. Istorii, Gos. Arkhiv Rosiiskoi Federatsii. Tsentr. Arkhiv Feder. Sluzhby bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii, sost. i avtorkomment. N. I. Kanishcheva, avtor vved. i otv. Red. V. V. Shelokahev [Journal of the Session of the General Meeting no. 26, May 25, 1917 // All-Russian National Center / The “Russian Political Encyclopedia” Center. Federal Archival Service of Russia. Russian State Archive of Social and Political History. State Archive of the Russian Federation. Central Archive of the Security Service of the Russian Federation, N. I. Kanishcheva, compiler and author, V. V. Shelokhaev, author of the introduction and chief editor. (Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia, 2001), 608 pp., 215-216.|
|↵7||Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-3696, Series 1, File 1, Items 18-21 rev.|
|↵8||Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-3696, Series 2, File 4, Items 17-21 rev.|
|↵9||Ibid., Item 17.|
|↵10||Ibid. Item 9-9 rev.|
|↵11||Ibid., Series 1, File 1, Items 18-21 rev.|
|↵12||Ibid., Series 1, File 1.|
|↵13||Zhurnaly zasedanii Osobogo soveshchaniia pri Glavnokomanduiushchem Vooruzhennymi Silami na Iuge Rossii A. I. Denikine [Minutes of the Sessions of the Extraordinary Conference Under the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Russia’s South A. I. Denikin], B. F. Dodonov, ed., compiled by V. M. Osin, L. N. Petrusheva, E. G. Prokof’eva, V. M. Khurstaliov, (Russian Political Encyclopedia: 2008), 87.|
|↵14||Shavel‘skii, op. cit., vol. 2, 324, 329.|
|↵16||Minutes of Session no. 26 of the general meeting on May 25, 1919; The All-National Center… 324-326.|
|↵17||Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-3696, Series 2, File 4, Item 44 rev.|
|↵19||Ibid., Item 76 rev.|
|↵20||Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-446, Series 2, File 69, Item 85 rev.|
|↵21||Ibid., Item 77.|
|↵22||Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-3696, Series 2, File 4, Item 45.|
|↵23||Ibid., Item 37 rev.|
|↵24||Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-3696, Series 2, File 4, Item 45.|
|↵25||Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-3696, Series 2, File 4, Items 26-26 rev.|
|↵26||Ibid., Item 4.|
|↵27||Zhizn’ [Life], no. 34 (June 4 ).|
|↵28||Russian State Archive (GARF), Fonds R-3969, Series 2, File 4, Items 29-32.|
|↵29||A. A. Kostriukov, ”Stavropol’skii Sobor 1919 g. i nachalo nezavisimoi tserkovnoi struktury na iuge Rossii [The Stavropol Council of 1919 and the Beginning of an Independent Church Structure in Russia’s South], Ural’skii istoricheskii vestnik [Ural Historical Messenger], no. 4 (2008): 71-75, 73.|
|↵30||State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), Fonds R-3696, Series 2, File 4, Item 10.|
|↵31||Dokladnaia zapiska protoierieiia Vladimira Vostokova Ego Preosviashchenstvu Vysokopreosviashcheneishomu Antoniiu, Mitropolitu Kievskomu i Galitskomu, 19 dekabriia 1922 g. [Archpriest Vladimir Vostokov’s Memorandum to His Preeminence, the Preeminent Antonii, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia, December 1922], State Archive of the Russia Federation (GARF), Fonds 6343, Series 1, File 4, Items 165-165 rev.|
|↵32||Svishchennomu Arkhiereiskomu Soboru, Vysshemu Russkomu Tserkovnomu Upravlenniiu zagranitsei sekretaria onogo E. Makhoroblidze doklad 19 avg. (1 sent.) 1922 g. [E. I. Makhoroblidze’s report of August 19 (September 1) 1922 to the Holy Bishops’ Council and the Supreme Russian Church Authority Abroad], Sremski Karlovci // State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF) Fonds 6363, Series 1, File 4, Item 56.|
|↵33||Ibid., item 49.|
|↵34||A. Kostriukov, Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkov’ v pervoi polovine 1920-kh godov. Organizatsiia tserkovnogo upravleniia v emigratsii i ego otnosheniia s Moskovskoi Patriarkhiei pri zhizni Patriarkha Tikhona [The Russian Church Abroad in the First Half of the 1920’s. The Organization of Church Authority in the Emigration and Its Relations with the Moscow Patriarchate During Patriarch Tikhon’s Life] (Moscow: PSTGU, 2007), 57.|
|↵36||P. N. Nikitin, Karlovatskii Sobor // Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [The Karlovci Council. Orthodox Encyclopedia] https: www. pravenc.ru/text/1681087 html (accessed on Apr. 4, 2021).|
|↵37||Kostriukov, op. cit., 63.|
|↵41||Dokladnaia Zapiska… 166-168.|
|↵42||Kostriukov, op. cit., 58.|
|↵44||Nikitin, op. cit.|
|↵46||Kostriukov, op. cit., 67.|
|↵47||Nikitin, op. cit.|
|↵48||Kostriukov, op. cit., 32.|
|↵49||Nikitin., op. cit.|
Leave a Comment