In the course of its entire history on earth the Church of Christ has been surrounded by dark forces. This is the reason for it being called
militant, as distinct from the triumphant Church in Heaven, which it will join at the end of times. As it often happened, the persecuted Church having the form of a servant, like Christ Himself (Phil. 2,7), would come out victorious. The Church Tradition confirms that God's
"strength is made perfect in weakness" (2 Cor. 12,9).
After the fall of the Orthodox Russian Empire in 1917, all kinds of its enemies took up arms against the Orthodox Christianity. This was not only the most cruel persecution of Christians in the history of the Church by the Bolshevik government, but also an onslaught of pseudo-Orthodox and essentially God-defying forces.
At the time when alongside the Bolshevik executioners the adherents of the "Living Church" and Renovationists oppressed the much-suffering Russian Church within the country, the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria together with Chrysostom the Metropolitan of Athens inflicted harm upon it from without. One cannot help feeling pain when reading the Circular Epistle of the Holy Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. It was written in exile, in Sremsky Karlovtsy on 24th of August/6th September of 1927 in connection with the discord caused by Metropolitan Yevlogy, who had torn the West-European diocese away from the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and joined the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
In view of the utmost significance of this historical document, and for the better understanding of many aspects of the contemporary apostasy, we find it necessary to quote a considerable part of its text:
«By far not all the hierarchs responded to Metropolitan Yevlogy's address, not wishing to interfere in the internal matters of our Church. But some hierarchs felt like interfering and commented in favor of Metropolitan Yevlogy. This gave him and his supporters the occasion to celebrate victory over their brothers -- the Russian bishops -- over the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.
Who are these hierarchs who offered their support to Metropolitan Yevlogy, and what are they like? They are Vasileus the Patriarch of Constantinople, Meletius the Patriarch of Alexandria and Chrysostom the Metropolitan of Athens, together with their respective Synods. But what can be said about the Patriarchate of Constantinople of the last seven years? To our profound regret we must note that in the days of its suffering under the yoke of the Bolshevik rule, our Russian Church suffered persecution and oppression from the Patriarchate of Constantinople not less than, from the "Living Church," from Renovationists and other schismatics. We, Russian bishops, had always looked with reverence at the Apostolic Patriarchal see of Constantinople as a true guardian of Orthodoxy. We hoped that this Patriarchal see would offer brotherly love and assistance to our holy Church in her days of distress, but, alas, we saw something else instead. In an obvious violation of the holy canons, without any communication with the All Russian Church Authority and even contrary to the protests of our hierarchs, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has seized many regions of our Church -- Polish, Finnish, Estonian; it has attempted to take away Russian dioceses in America and in Western Europe; it has given its blessing to Polish, Ukrainian and Georgian Churches to separate from our Church and acquire an autocephalous status. But even much more horrible than that was the following: when such schismatic communities as the "Living Church", Renovationists and others appeared in the bosom of our Church, the Patriarchate of Constantinople entered into relations with these henchmen of the atheistic Soviet regime, acknowledged the schismatic Council of 1923, which condemned the holy Patriarch Tikhon suggesting that he be defrocked and deprived of monastic rank; it agreed to send its representative to Moscow in order to interfere in the affairs of our Church and even suggested that our Patriarch should leave his see and abolish the very office of Patriarch.
The Patriarchate forbade our archbishops in Constantinople, Anastasy and Alexander, to serve there, to commemorate the holy Patriarch Tikhon and to communicate with the Supreme Church Authority in Russia and abroad; in Finland it unlawfully removed Archbishop Seraphim from his post, made Estonian Archpriest Herman Aava, with renovationist leanings, a bishop and subsequently appointed him as an Archbishop. In 1923 the Patriarchate of Constantinople summoned the "Inter-Church Conference" where it tried to pass resolutions in the spirit of Renovationists -- on married bishops, on a second marriage of clergy, on the new calendar, on civil clothing for clergy, on shortening of fasts, etc. Although not all the Orthodox Churches were represented at this Conference, it was named the "Pan-Orthodox Assembly" [109].
After this Conference, contrary to the truth of the matter, the Patriarchate of Constantinople began spreading deliberately false information alleging that the whole Orthodox Church has adopted the new calendar, and thus deceived the holy Patriarch Tikhon and Archbishop Seraphim of Finland. Under an increasing pressure from the Patriarchate of Constantinople many Orthodox Churches began a forcible introduction of the new calendar causing terrible discord and divisions amongst believers everywhere. The Patriarchate of Constantinople went even further, when contrary to the holy canons (Ap. 7 and Antioch. 1) and practice of the Church, it decided in favor of general and compulsory introduction of the new Paschalia in Finland, arousing new discords in the Church there and subjected monastics faithful to Orthodoxy to prohibitions and expulsions accomplished by the local church authorities headed by Herman Aava. In October or November of this year a schismatic Council of Renovationists was to be held in Moscow. Vasileus the Patriarch of Constantinople and Meletius of Alexandria agreed to participate in this gathering which is devoid of grace. Thus the Patriarchate of Constantinople is a staunch supporter of the "Living Church" and Renovationists in Russia, violator of the holy canons on Pascha, and the initiator of discords and schisms in all Orthodox Churches. Non-Orthodox governments, Renovationists, members of the "Living Church", groups of Protestant clergy, masonic organizations striving to deprive Orthodoxy of its individuality and to distort it -- they all have now found their strong support in the Patriarchate of Constantinople.»
[110]
The history of the Church discord of 1926 and of the creation of the Theological Institute in Paris are tightly interlaced; they are also linked to the frame of mind and activity of the theologizing intelligentsia which we discussed in the previous chapter. Unfortunately, ideas, especially those of destructive nature, are characterized by their ability to captivate minds and inspire evil deeds and events.
Theological studies began in the Sergievo Podvor'e on the 17th/30th April of 1925 in the newly-formed Theological School which later adopted the name of the Theological Institute.
In its Epistle (of 18th/31st March of 1927) the Bishops' Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad noted that this Institute "was established by Metropolitan Yevlogy without the knowledge and blessing of the Synod and the Council. It was established in accordance with the program disapproved by the Synod and the Council, and persons who had not received higher theological education, or
whose Orthodoxy was regarded by the Synod and the Council as rather dubious, were invited to teach there" [111].
Who were these teachers? Nearly all of them were members of the "Brotherhood of St. Sophia, the Wisdom of God", headed by Fr. Sergei Bulgakov. N.D. Talberg named the following as members of the Brotherhood: Fr. Sergei Bulgakov A.V. Kartashev, S.S. Bezobrazov, N.A. Berdyaev, V.V. Vysheslavtsev, S.L. Frank, V.V. Zenkovsky, Prince G.N. Trubetskoy, P.V. Struve. None of these men have ever refuted Talberg's publication, thus confirming its truthfulness" [112].
Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) quotes some information on the statutes of the Brotherhood which became known thanks to the publication of Prince N.S. Trubetskoy's letters to Fr. Sergei Bulgakov, who had suggested that he join the Brotherhood. Prince N.S. Trubetskoy, having familiarized himself with the statutes of the Brotherhood of St. Sophia, replied as follows: "We are dealing not with a usual type of Orthodox brotherhood, but with an organization unprecedented in the Orthodox practice. Strictly speaking, it is rather reminiscent of a monastic community with distinct monastic degrees and headed by a hegumen... Such an extra-monastic community, consisting of laymen and clergy, would deserve to be called an order, rather than a brotherhood" [113].
Here, Prince Trubetskoy, a layman, points out to Bulgakov, a bearer of the clerical rank, that the statutes of the Brotherhood of St. Sophia, while envisaging its particular hierarchy consisting of a "spiritual head" and three degrees of brothers, is in violation of the Church canons: "theoretically the situation is conceivable where a bishop finds himself in spiritual subordination to a priest (as a spiritual head of the Brotherhood), which is canonically inadmissible" [114].
Moreover, Prince Trubetskoy's letters reveal another dubious aspect of the Brotherhood's activity, namely -- the rites of admission into membership envisaged by the statutes, "which are bound with the sacraments of Confession and Communion" (paragraph 12), thus imparting the semblance of ordination. "In this manner", writes Prince Trubetskoy, "the Brotherhood creates a special hierarchy and the coexistence of this special hierarchy of the Brotherhood with the canonical hierarchy, which is absolutely inadmissible from the Orthodox point of view" [115].
The question arises, why should the people who are united by their common intellectual interest and who are, presumably, pursuing a scholarly enlightening objective, envelop their organization in a veil of mystery? Why should they create statutes envisaging three degrees of brothers, "a spiritual head", its own hierarchy? How can one explain the fact that the Brotherhood of St. Sophia never speaks on its own behalf? [116].
An attentive reader of S. Bulgakov will hardly be surprised by all these questions. Having read at least one of his Sophianist books, even only superficially, as for instance, his "Quiet Thoughts", and having come across discussions on "astral flirtings" (p. 112), the "holy erotic ecstasy" (p. 111), or on the "Ninth article of the Creed in A. Schmidt's exposition" [i.e. on the Church as a female person, and then on the Seventh article, also in her exposition (i.e. on Christ's incarnation in Vl. Soloviev)]", and Bulgakov's hint at a certain admissibility of this thought (pp. 108-109) and similar "thoughts", every Orthodox person will understand what kind of an author in sheep's clothing he is dealing with.
It is possible to answer the above questions, and to assess the tasks set by the Brotherhood of St. Sophia only through an assessment of the activity of its members, because of the lack of documented evidence (since the work of Brotherhood and its membership are kept secret). Bishop Gregory, who wrote an interesting article on this problem in 1927, came to the conclusion that the Brotherhood's structure testified to the fact that "it was created for a definite and conspiratorial struggle, which may be carried on only when facing some kind of specific purpose" [117]. Besides, one must bear in mind "the work of Brotherhood which has been manifested until now, namely, the development of the teaching on Sophia, as applicable to theology and spreading of this teaching not only by means of published works, but also by means of the usurpation of the leading influence upon the affairs of the Russian Church, for the time being, of course, only upon its part outside of Russia" [118]. It should be noted that in the course of 70 years Sophianism has become one of the predominant teachings of the Moscow Patriarchate and other "Orthodox" and non-Orthodox ecumenical churches, having found its logical completion in the zeal of feminists (see Chapter 6).
As to the so called "Paris School" with its Theological Institute, one may doubt that its task was, indeed, to "offer true spiritual nourishment to our youth in emigration, who are looking for religious enlightenment and are anxious to sacrifice their energy to the service of the Church" [119]. Indeed, would the teachers -- Sophianists, the ecclesiastical reformers and workers of the YMCA provide their pupils with a "truly spiritual" Orthodox nourishment?
"One of the main reasons why the Russian Bishops' Synod of the Church Abroad could not agree with the direction of the Church life in the West-European metropolia was Metropolitan Yevlogy's close collaboration with the American organization of the YMCA, which was in charge of the youth's upbringing" [120].
The negative attitude which the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad had towards the YMCA was explained by the fact that this Association, while uniting under its banner young people, i.e. the most impressionable age group, was propagandizing equality of all religions and sects and thus developing a complete confessional indifference in them. Besides, having amongst its members sectarian youths imbued with the general spirit of propaganda, the Association introduced the most diverse heresies, including the Nestorian heresy which rejects the Divinity of Jesus Christ and which has seriously infected the contemporary Protestantism. More than dubious appears also the YMCA's rejection of the generally Christian emblem -- the cross, the sign of the Son of Man and of His redeeming sacrifice. This rejection of the Cross, i.e. of Christ's suffering and death, cannot but leave its mark on the ideology of a person who, due to the force circumstances, has to come into contact with the Association in the sphere of ideas" [121].
However, Metropolitan Yevlogy and the Theological Institute communicated with the YMCA not only in the sphere of ideas. This institution was founded using rather dubious resources. Metr. Yevlogy himself wrote: "The Chairman of the World Committee of the YMCA, Dr. Mott was quick to respond to our project and gave us a
large subsidy for the establishment of the new institution
(Theological Institute in Paris - L.P.) [122]. Besides, the YMCA financed, to a significant extent, and supported also the Russian Christian Student Movement (analogous to the YMCA). "As before, we place our main hope on Dr. Mott", admitted S. Bezobrazov [123].
The Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad of 1926 passed a resolution which, among other things, expressed "its wish that the Theological Institute should be freed from financial assistance offered by masons". It was also decided by the Council that "both the former and the present version of the text of the statutes of the Brotherhood of St. Sophia" should be supplied to it. [124]
"Metropolitan Yevlogy did not comply with this resolution of the Bishops' Council, and acted independently with regard to the Theological Institute" [125].
As the subsequent events showed, Metropolitan Yevlogy was not free to act independently. We have already mentioned the statutes of the Brotherhood of St. Sophia, the compliance with which, in Prince N.S. Trubetskoy's opinion, might result in a canonically inadmissible situation where a bishop would find himself subordinated to a priest, a spiritual head of the Brotherhood.
Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) thinks that this is exactly what happened: "Metropolitan Yevlogy had to break with the Council under any pretext, because otherwise the Council would prove to be deadly for the activities of the Brotherhood of St. Sophia. The extent of his subordination to the influence of the Brotherhood became particularly obvious after the first reconciliatory attempt of Archbishop Anastasy [126]. During their meeting before Easter in Paris Metropolitan Yevlogy agreed to attend the Bishops' Synod. But later on, having received Archbishop Anastasy's telegram imploring him to come to Karlovtsy, Metropolitan Yevlogy sent his refusal alleging that his flock would not let him go... "The flock", wrote Bishop Gregory, "should be understood to mean Metropolitan Yevlogy's immediate surrounding, i.e. that same Brotherhood of St. Sophia, since a genuine flock could not possibly voice its will. What sort of power should be exercised over an Orthodox bishop in order to keep him from attending discussions, with his brothers in Christ's service, on reconciliation within the Church!" [127]. Under the pressure of that same Brotherhood Metropolitan Yevlogy left the Council of 1926, since its agenda envisaged discussions on the Christian Student Movement and the Theological Institute.
All this shows the true reason for Metropolitan Yevlogy's leaving the Church Abroad and for the violation of its unity at the time of its grave trials. Apparently the reason lies not only in Metropolitan Yevlogy's personal vanity and his inclination towards betrayals, both ecclesiastical and political: in September of 1944 he easily left the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and having repented to Patriarch Alexy, he joined the Moscow Patriarchy and even accepted the Soviet passport. Having received no consent for this change from Constantinople Metropolitan Yevlogy remained the whole year in both (!) jurisdictions simultaneously and during the services commemorated both the Patriarch of Moscow and Ecumenical Patriarch (of Constantinople) [128].
Although some of West European parishes remained faithful to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, nevertheless the harm done by Metropolitan Yevlogy is great. It was caused not only by Metropolitan Yevlogy's traits of character and his personal motives. In his work, specifically dedicated to this problem, Bishop Gregory showed that "the roots of the Church discord" (the title of the article) went much deeper: they were to be found in various theological tendencies and groups of people such as S. Bulgakov, N. Berdyaev [129], A. Kartashev, and others who surrounded Metropolitan Yevlogy and who sought "new revelations" and reassessment of the entire doctrine of the Church. Bishop Gregory called "the Brotherhood of St. Sophia the center of the reformist movement" [130].
"Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood" (Ps. 7,14). These words of the holy Psalmist adequately characterize "the school of Paris". Its teachers, predominantly members of the Brotherhood of St. Sophia, Renovationists, Eurasians, "mystical anarchists" (as N. Berdyaev defined himself), or simply Sophianists, created an "Orthodox" laboratory of false teachings and heresies. This was done with a distant objective in mind. For seven decades this "laboratory" has been attracting young people who sincerely loved Orthodoxy, thus poisoning the conscience of these future priests and theologians with the false wisdom of Sophianism and ecclesiastical modernism. This influence has not been limited to Paris. It has taken root "in the minds of the future Russian Church community spreading in the Russian Church, moving from there to the Ecumenical Church and reforming it slower but more effectively than all kinds of "Pan-Orthodox Congresses" (referring, probably, to the Congress of 1923 summoned by Patriarch Meletius IV
/Metaxakis -- L.P./), organized by hierarchs-renovationists" [131].
All these -- berdyaevs, bulgakovs, shmemans and meyendorfs were, and still are, persistently bringing spiritual damage into the Orthodox world. In an ineradicable pride of mind and submitting to the spirit of antichristian apostasy they keep preaching on the "ecclesiastical" and "doctrinal" freedom in all its impetuosity and destructiveness. It is not for nothing that their unrepentant schismatic, Avva Yevlogy, declared shortly before his death: "The most tenacious struggle of my entire life was for the freedom of the Church" [132]. Freedom from Whom and what?! From dogmas, canons and obedience to the Holy Church? Or, maybe, from its Head Himself?!
"While they promise them liberty, they themselves are servants of corruption" (2 Peter 2,19).
All these teachers of the "Paris school" in their lectures, papers and publications have persistently and under the guise of "spiritual creativity" disseminated throughout the world that which the Bishops' Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad defined as an "impious novelty" [133]. How true were the Apostle's words:
"Be not many masters" (James 3,1)!
For several decades Sergievo Podvorie has been the hot-house of all the most "fearless", i.e. without the fear of God, theologumena and simply heresies passed as the ultimate word in theological quest and "dogmatic creativity". As if creativity were admissible in dogmas! Apart from confessing ecumenism, this Institute has advocated Sophianism, euphemistically called "sophiology", the deification of the name of God (Russ. imiabozhnichestvo) also called glorification of the name (Russ. imiaslavie), as well as all kinds of renovationism.
Participation in ecumenism requires unprecedented concessions from Orthodox Christians. Thus, already in 1933, Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov wrote the following when preparing ground for involving Orthodox Christians in the Ecumenical Movement. "Disassociation in prayer... became consolidated and firmly established in Church canons which, although they were laid down in the 4th-5th cc., have until now the power of the law in force, and although not repealed formally, they are not observed in practice... We cannot unite in prayer with our brothers in everything -- continued S. Bulgakov, -- in particular, we cannot offer a prayer to the Mother of God and saints together with Protestants...
For the sake of unity in prayer with them Orthodoxy has to disparage itself, as it were; of course, in as much as it is done out of love and condescension, for the sake of the Church "economy", this may be permitted as a sacrifice of love, as an absence of inexorable maximalism in accordance with Apostle Paul's way "to be everything for all" [134].
Thus, ecumenical condescension calls on Orthodox Christians to sacrifice not only Church canons, allegedly obsolete and "abolished in practice", but also prayers to the Mother of God and saints. The father of lies speaking through such conciliators as Sergei Bulgakov, passes these blasphemous concessions for "self-disparagement" and "sacrifice of love". On the contrary, St. Mark of Ephesus, the Orthodox luminary, wrote that "works of faith do not permit economy" [135].
The most tempting aspect of the "Paris School" is the falsification of Orthodox teaching under the guise of a creative theological-philosophical quest. The spiritual climate of the Paris Institute, with its altar turned facing the
westerly direction, is imbued with haughty western pseudo-wisdom and gnosticism. It is sufficient enough to attend lectures at this Institute to become convinced of the spiritual lightheartedness and the plain hereticism of its teachers. Besides their teaching activity, these "Orthodox"
maîtres de pensée publish their sophisms widely, in particular throughout the spiritually awakening Russia. Most frequently, these works are the Sophianist fabrications of S. Bulgakov and P. Florensky and their popularizers.
The falsity of intellectual artful contrivances of Paris "teachers", their incompatibility with the true Orthodoxy, unfortunately, often remains unnoticed not only by the non-Orthodox, but also by many Orthodox people without a sufficient theological, and primarily Patristic, training. Obviously, the "Paris School" is of poor service to heterodox people who are sincerely inclined towards Orthodoxy. At the same time, the Paris "teachers" who have left the Church boundaries, give the religious renovationists and ecumenists the chance to advocate the deliberately distorted theoretical "Orthodox" basis for a religious convergence, i.e. dilution of the Orthodox truth with all the untruths of heretics.
When the Optina elder, St. Nektary was asked to comment on the Theological Institute in Paris, he expressed apprehension about the heretical nature of this institution. With regard to the YMCA and N. Berdyaev's lectures presented at its Second Congress, St. Nektary said: "Such associations (as the Christian Movement) develop a philosophy unacceptable to the spirit of Orthodoxy" [136]. These words of the sagacious elder have come true. |
[109] This "Pan-Orthodox Assembly" was summoned by Meletius IV (Metaxakis), the then Patriarch of Constantinople. Provoked by his innovations the Greek Orthodox population of Constantinople raided the patriarchal residence and having burst into it they "physically assaulted him" (i.e. pulled his beard and beat him) and expelled him from Constantinople. This did not prevent him from shortly becoming the Patriarch of Alexandria (he is mentioned in the document quoted). On the expulsion of Meletius IV from Constantinople see Tserkovnyia vedomosti (The Church News), Nos. 19 and 20, publ. by the Bishops' Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, 1923.
[110] Archbishop Nikon (Rklitsky), "Zhizneopisanie Blazhenneishago Antoniia, Mitropolita Kievskago i Galitskago" (Life of the Blessed Anthony, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia), publ. by the Diocese of the North America and Canada, 1961, vol. YII, pp. 204-206.
[111] Ibid., p. 173
[112] N.D. Talberg, Dvuglavyi Orel (The Double-headed Eagle) No. 4, pp. 7-8; "Vozbuditeli Raskola", (The Instigators of Schism), pp. 12-13, publ. by Doloi zlo (Away with Evil), Paris, 1927. (Quoted from: Bp. Gregory Grabbe, "The Church and its Teaching in Life", Jordanville, 1992, v. 3, p. 947.)
[113] Ibid., p. 93.
[114] Ibid., p. 93.
[115] Ibid., p. 93.
[116] Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), op. cit., p. 93.
[117] Ibid., p. 92.
[118] Ibid., p. 92
[119] S. Bezobrazov, Put', (The Path), Russian Orthodox Institute in Paris, No. 1, Sept. 1925, p. 104.
[120] Archbishop Nikon, op. cit., p. 63.
[121] Archbishop Methodius, "Khleb Nebesnyi" (The Bread of Heaven), quoted from Archbishop Nikon, op. cit., p. 64.
[122] Metropolitan Yevlogy, "Put' moei zhizni. Vospominaniia" (The Way of My Life. Recollections. YMCA-Press, Paris, 1947, p.447. Metr. Yevlogy received "brotherly assistance" also from a "church community" of England and America (ibid., p. 447).
[123] S. Bezobrazov, op. cit., p.106.
[124] Archbishop Nikon (Rklitsky), op. cit., p. 159.
[125] Ibid., p. 160.
[126] Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), op. cit., p. 95.
[127] Ibid., p. 95.
[128] "Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov' Zagranitsei (1918-1968)" (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad), publ. by Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, 1968, v. 1, pp. 49-50.
[129] The first Russian emigration is well familiar with a certain fact which Berdyaev's followers and admirers prefer not to mention. All Berdyaev's listeners were witnesses to his very specific ailment: the philosopher's long tongue would periodically fall out of his mouth and right there, in the presence of his audience, he would push it back.
Viewing illnesses, according to the Orthodox tradition, as a salutary grief, and taking into account its spiritual meaning, we reflect also on Fr. S. Bulgakov's muteness following a throat operation (he died from throat cancer). Unwittingly one recalls King Herod's death who was eaten alive by worms, Arius' disgraceful death, and more recent strange death of Patriarch Meletius IV (Metaxakis) 27.7.1935. This malicious renovationist, a Freemason (see a comment on his death in the Masonic journal "Pythagore-Equerre", v.IV, part 7-8, 1935) was found lying under a bed with his tongue out... Indeed, "evil shall slay the wicked" (Ps. 34,21).
[130] Bishop Gregory (Grabbe). Op. cit., p.75.
[131] Ibid., p.98 (Bishop Gregory wrote this in 1927). "2 Metropolitan Yevlogy, op. cit., p.653. "Epistle of the Bishops' Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad "O sushchnosti tserkovnoi smuty"/On the Essence of the Church Discord/, No. 341 of 18/31.3.1927. Quoted from: Archbishop Nikon (Rklitsky), op. cit., p.176.
[134] Cited in: "Deianiia Soveshchaniia glav a predstavitelei Avtokefalnykh Pravoslavnykh Tserkvei v sviazi s prazdnovaniem 500-leta avtokefalii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi" (The Acts of the Conference of the Heads and the Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of the 500 Years of the Autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church). M., 1949, vol.2, p.148. See also: Protopriest S. Bulgakov, "U kladezia Iakovlia" (At the Well of Jacob) in the collection Khristianskoe vozsoedinenie. Ekumenicheskaia problems v pravoslavnom soznanji (The Christian Reunification. The Ecumenical Problem in the Orthodox Consciousness), YMCA-Press, Paris, 1933.
[135] Archimandrite Amvrosy, "Sviatoi Mark Efesskii i Florentiiskaia Unia" (St. Mark of Ephesus and the Florentine Union), Jordanville, 1963, p.226.
[136] I. Kontzevich, "Optina Pustyn' i ee vremja" (The Optina Hermitage and Its Times), Jordanville, 1970, p.516. |
