Религиозная организация
Русская Древлеправославная Церковь


In early March 1947 these two disobedientpriests urged the last renovationist archbishop, Metropolitan of Krutitsy,Filaret (Yatsenko) to join the Ancient Orthodox Church.

On March 17th, 1947, in Moscowpriest Arkhangelskiy in the presence of Sudakov52 performed ointment over Metropolitan Filaretupon which they tried to register him in the Council for Religious Cult Issuesas an Ancient Orthodox bishop. However, religious adventurer Filaret Yatsenkowas very well known by the authorities and he was not registered as an AncientOrthodox metropolitan, thus, the idea of Arkhangelskiy and Sudakov to establisha different religious centre in the Church turned out to be a failure. Afterthat Sudakov with his supporters agreed to an amicable discussion of alldisagreements and for this purpose Archbishop Ioannes came to Moscow in summerof 1947 on the eve of the Holy Trinity festivity.

On the Holy Trinity festivity, on June 2nd,1947, in the Nikolo-Rogozhskiy church after the festivity service a churchcouncil of Moscow Ancient Orthodox community was held which was attended, apartfrom the council members, by the following persons: Archbishop Ioannes, priestIoannes Sudakov, three other priests, laymen, and Metropolitan Filaret.

There were two issues on the agenda:

1.   Concerningcanonicity of ordination of Archbishop Ioannes;

2.   Concerningcorrectness of acceptance of «Metropolitan” Filaret from thenikonian-renovationist church.

Bishop Ioannes presented to the attendeesdocuments confirming correctness of his ordination; having studied thesedocuments even rebellious priest Ioannes Sudakov humbly bowed his head to theArchbishop and fully acknowledged his powers of a primate.

Further, the attendees proceeded to considerthe issue on Metropolitan Filaret. All the documents he presented: autobiography,certificate of baptism, certificate of ordination and other certificates, andthey turned out be quite many, were only copies, without any signatures orseals confirming their authenticity, except for the fact they were printed onofficial letterheads of a primate of the renovationist church AlexanderVvedenskiy who was dead by that time.

The discussion of the issue of acceptance ofMetropolitan Filaret took quite a long time and turned to be a very heateddebate. Priest Sudakov was an ardent defender of Metropolitan Filaret, he madeall possible efforts to prove authenticity of bishop ordination of Yatsenko andsincerity of his points of view concerning salvific nature of the AncientOrthodox faith. By reference to Filaret’s dubious documents Sudakov tried toobtain full and comprehensive acknowledgement of his bishop powers andcorrectness of his acceptance and insisted that he should be allowed withoutany delay to perform bishop services in the Church as a metropolitan. Duringthis debate Sudakov behaved in a quite irritating manner, resorted to personalinsults of those participants of the council who disagreed with him. Naturally,he could not be successful because of such behaviour and it did not add upcredibility to his plan concerning Metropolitan Filaret53.

In the end the council took a unanimousdecision about this issue: „It is ruledto consider the documents presented by the metropolitan during his acceptanceas insufficient and unfounded (thereis no ordination certificate, there is no information about the time ofordination of Metropolitan Pimen who ordained Metropolitan Filaret, beforedivision of the All-Russian Church into the old church and the renovationistchurch and other divisions or after this division, there is no certificate on tripleimmersion baptism, etc.); and for these reasons Metropolitan Filaret is notallowed to perform divine services and to perform any other services until thetime when documents he mentioned are presented and considered by the nextAll-Union Council of our Christians”54.

But Metropolitan Filaret did not live up to thecouncil resolution, “great swindler, oldcrook, and expropriator” as he was called by his contemporaries, died in 1949….

But even before Metropolitan Filaret died hisabettors, priests Ioannes Sudakov and Theodorus Arkhangelskiy, left the AncientOrthodox Church. After the abovementioned decision they fully subordinatedthemselves to Archbishop Ioannes, accepted new assignments to parishes and forsome time they served there without any admonition. It seemed that this issuefinally ended in peace, unfortunately, conspirators returned to their evildeeds as the Holy Scriptures say: „Whoeverhates disguises himself with his lips and harbours deceit in his heart” (Proverbs26:24).

In 1948 Sudakov and Arkhangelskiy entered intonegotiations with new ritual church Metropolitan Krutitskiy and Kolomenskiy,Nicholas (Yarushevich) which ended in their acceptance into the RussianOrthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in December of the same year underthe rules established by old ritual communities which admitted hierarchicjurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. They enticed away with them one morepriest, archpriest of a church in the village of Klimovo of Bryansk Region, FatherSymeon Nefedov.

They were accepted by the third rite, via“repentance”. Their acceptance was performed by Bishop Mozhaiskiy, Macarius(Dayev), Curate of the Moscow Patriarchate55.

But God is great in His mysterious Providencefor he even changes the worst into the best! The fact is that priest TheodorusArkhangelskiy was ordained by the new ritual church and just returned where hehad been before, we need to note that priests Sudakov and Nefedov were ordainedas priests by Archbishop Nicholas (Pozdnev), so, the new ritual church by itsvery actions acknowledged lawfulness of ordinations performed by ArchbishopNicholas (Pozdnev). Thus, it became ever more evident that the slanderouscampaign waged against Archbishop Nicholas in 1920s was absolutely dishonest.

In 1955, Archbishop Ioannes resigned havingbecome quite weak because of laborious archbishop’s ministry, accusations ofvarious slanderers and malevolent people, maltreatment by the Sovietauthorities, and because of his health’s condition. And on August 27th,1956, the Archbishop peacefully deceased on the eve of the Day of the Assumption.

Archbishop Ioannes was replaced at the positionof the Primate by Archbishop Epiphanius (Abramov). During the ministry ofArchbishop Epiphanius the primate’s archdiocese under the pressure of thegodless had to be moved to the city of Kuibyshev (Samara). Later, in 1963,during the ministry of Archbishop Jeremiah (Matviyevich), the primate’sarchdiocese was moved to the city of Novozybkov of Bryansk Region.

Since late 1950s the USSR against started anatheist campaign, naturally, it was different from the campaign of 1920-30s byits nature when the authorities tried to root out the religion by physicaldestruction of the faithful people. Unscrupulously devious propaganda took theplace of physical executions. By its efficiency in the fight with the religionthe so called „scientific atheism” was even more dangerous for people who werereligiously illiterate and not quite solid in their faith than physicalviolence. During those years many people lost their faith and departed from theChurch. Some were dazzled by material wealth and a significant position in theSoviet society whish was beyond reach of a faithful person in the USSR. Somewere caught in the net of anti-religious propaganda. Instigated by the devilthe Soviet authorities acted in a devious and purposeful way. They resorted tovarious administrative and even tax tricks to put pressure on the Church. Theso-called commissioners on religious issues fulfilling the ideological ordertried in any possible way to keep the young and middle-aged people away fromthe faith. By destruction of the pious way of life and traditions of peoplecommunists managed to do with the people what the centuries of persecutions failedto, namely: infect several generations of Russian people with deception ofatheistic false doctrines.

Churches which had been opened during the timeswhen the regime somewhat eased up the pressure on the faithful people wereclosed under artificial pretexts. Some of them were destroyed while others wereblasphemously converted into clubs, garages, warehouses. For example, thecathedral church in the city of Kuibyshev was razed to the ground, and, as areplacement, Christians were allocated an underground room which was absolutelyunsuitable for use. In Buryatia, in the village of Novy Zagan, an AncientOrthodox church, the only one at that time in Siberia, was seized away andreconstructed into a fitness club. The same picture could be seen all over thecountry. But Christians did not give up. On the contrary, to the maximum extentallowed by the situation they tried to organise their religious life gettingtogether for a common prayer in private houses and even in the open air just asit was during the time Apostles: “wedeparted and went on our journey, and they all, with wives and children,accompanied us until we were outside the city. And kneeling down on the beach,we prayed” (Acts 21, 5).

The Ancient Orthodox Church, as best it could,tried to withstand this attack of the godless. The number of officiallyregistered parishes was about twenty in those years. But in no way this figurereflected the actual number of Ancient Orthodox Christians, an enormous amountof communities existed under cover avoiding official registration and trying toconceal their activities in all possible ways. The majority of clergymen wereordained as priests without notification and consent of commissioners onreligious issues (the Soviet legislation envisaged this procedure as anobligatory one) which periodically caused conflicts with the authorities.Relatively active parish life in 1960-80s was possible only in some regions ofthe Soviet Union: in Bryansk Region, in Povolzhie regions, and in Georgia.During almost all years of the Soviet power relations with our coreligionistsin Romania and Bulgaria were severed. Ancient Orthodox Christians living inthese countries for several decades had to perform religious services withoutpriests, but, despite such ordeals, they stayed loyal sons of their Church.

During practically all after-war years theinternal life of the Ancient Orthodox Church was concealed from the godlessSoviet authorities. In their turn, bodies of the Soviet control treated the AncientOrthodox Church with great suspicion and dislike. Describing Ancient OrthodoxChristians in their atheistic published guidelines Soviet ideologists wrote: „the difference between priest-free believersand Belaya Krynitsa believers is that pries-free believers are more fanatical. Despite their few numbers there are morefanatical and radical people among them”. And from another “AtheistReference Book”: „The church management(the Ancient Orthodox Church) still abides by the tactics of fighting allnew and progressive things”.

After Archbishop Jeremiah (Matviyevich) whodeparted to God on June 17th, 1969, Archbishop Pavel (Mashinin)became the Primate of the Church. In July 1977 Archbishop Pavel retired due tothe state of his health. He deceased on September 26th, 1980.

Bishop of Kursk, Barsanuphius (Ovsyannikov),ruled the Ancient Orthodox Church as Locum Tenens until September 1979. In 1983Archbishop Barsanuphius accepted tonsure to great schema monk and took the nameof Babylas.

Archbishop Gennady (Antonov) stood at the helmof the church management on September 23rd, 1979. During his rulethe Ancient Orthodox Church stepped on the path of active missionary activitiesopenly declaring spiritual values of the Ancient Orthodox faith to the outsideworld. In 1982 the Church’s publishing department resumed its operations.Thanks to a church journal-calendar published annually and other spiritual,educational, and liturgical books relations between Christians all over thecountry severed during the years of persecutions were restored, many peoplefrom other confessions started to join the Ancient Orthodox faith. ArchbishopGennady studiously cared about ordination of new priests, restoration of historicalparishes and establishment of new ones. The Supreme Ancient Orthodox ReligiousSchool was opened upon his blessing in the city of Novozybkov in 1990 to solvethese issues. Liturgical relations with Ancient Orthodox Christians of Romaniawhich had been severed for over 70 years at the fault of the godless were alsorestored at that time. Despite his quite advanced age Archbishop Gennadyconstantly visited church communities all over Russia and abroad: performedDivine Liturgies, communicated with the faithful, helped parishes to solveissues of religious and parochial life.

Unfortunately, the years of bishop service ofArchbishop Gennady were not absolutely trouble-free for the Church. In 1988 disagreementsoccurred between Archbishop Gennady and Bishop of Perm, Leontius (Krechetov),and Bishop of Moscow, Flavian (Vdovin), concerning some issue of the churchlife. These disagreements resulted in severance of relations between hierarchs.Nevertheless, Bishop Flavian soon restored relations with the Archbishopric, andin 1993 Bishop Leontius together with clergymen who had supported him alsoapplied to the Consecrated Council with a request to restore communication.

But this division did not disappear entirelyafter their return. During the conflict with Archbishop Gennady Bishop Leontiusfor his supporters in Georgia ordained two bishops: Bishop of Poti, Filaret(Goncharov), and Bishop of Tbilisi, Ioannes (Chakhava). In their turn they alsoordained several bishops and priests for the Georgian Ancient Orthodox Churchwhich was restored in this way.

But even in this seemingly sorrowful eventremarkable Providence of God about the Church, Russian and Georgian Christians,would be identified! We shall speak about it at length below.

By late 80s of the XX century the religiousoppression against the faithful in the USSR eased up a little bit at first tobe changed later into a favourable attitude to the religion by the mercy of God.

The hierarchy of the Ancient Orthodox Churchheaded by Archbishop Gennady did not waste the time of freedom, all effortswere made to restore the church life all over the country. Literally in a fewyears in Siberia, Povolzhie, and the central regions of the country dozens offormerly under cover Ancient Orthodox communities were registered, and severalabsolutely new communities were also established. Churches which were returnedto Christians started to be restored, new churches were built, young and activeclergymen were ordained to these reviving parishes. Our Romanian brothers werenot forgotten. For the first time in many years priests were ordained forAncient Orthodox Christians in Romania, a newly established archdiocese of Tulceaand entire Romania was headed by Bishop Eumenius (Tit) who was chosen to beordained from local Christians.

This new time of freedom in the country’s lifebrought about some radical changes in perceptions of “the Soviet person”. Godturned to dust all false atheistic and neo-pagan doctrines of the atheistic authoritiesconcerning the world order and many of Russian people returned to the religionin search of spiritual consolation. According to God’s providence thisspiritual search brought many people to the Ancient Orthodox Church from otherconfessions. The Church blessed by God obtained many new children in this was.

On February 2nd, 1996, being 93years of age and after 17 years of the primate’s service, Bishop Gennadydeceased. Bishop of Moscow, Aristarchus (Kalinin) was elected by the Council asthe Primate of the Church. Bishop Aristarchus (archpriest Athanasius beforeordination as monk) brought his entire life to the altar of God. His only carewas the wellbeing of the Ancient Orthodox Church. The only property that wasleft by Bishop Aristarchus was an excellent and quite versatile library ofvarious books concerning religion. Since 1940s of the XX century he activelyparticipated in the Church life, he served the Church for a half a century as apriest. Until now many hundreds of spiritual children remember their kindpastor with respect and gratitude. He was open and accessible to all and anytime, in the apostolic manner he was amiable and in the father-like mannercaring with all people. The Bishop had a sharp mind and a gift of eloquence,his memory was remarkable, he could easily quote whole passages from patristicbooks, and when his eyesight became poor due to his old age he performedliturgical services by heart amazing everybody present with his immaculateknowledge of liturgical texts. The Bishop was also engaged in teaching, hetaught such sophisticated subjects as church canons, church law in the SupremeReligious School. Without regard to his very advanced age Bishop Aristarchusevery day until his death held extensive correspondence with very many peoplewho applied to him with their problems, needs, and sorrows. Like a true pastorof the Church of Christ he found the words of consolation for everybody, he readilyshared a part of his time and a part of his soul with any person.

Having served for 4 years as the Archbishop Aristarchuspeacefully died on May 4th, 2000, on the Bright Thursday being 94years of age.

On May 9th, 2000, the primate’s rod passedover to Bishop of Moscow, Alexander (Kalinin). A relatively young and energeticArchbishop with even greater success carried on the case of his predecessors.During several years of his primacy he increased ever more the number ofAncient Orthodox communities and priests. He skilfully overcame internalproblems and disorders which had occurred in the Church during the last year ofthe life of Archbishop Aristarchus.

The primacy of Bishop Alexander was marked byseveral events which were quite decisive for the Ancient Orthodox Church.

The Holy Council which was held on 16-19 August2000 ruled to return the office of the primate of the Ancient Orthodox Churchto Moscow. Since that time the Primate’s title was the Ancient OrthodoxArchbishop of Moscow and entire Russia.

The Council which was held in the city ofNovozybkov from 28 February to 3 March 2002 restored the rank of the Patriarchin the Ancient Orthodox Church which had been lost by it through fall away frompatristic godliness by Patriarch Nikon and his advocates and followers. TheCouncil elected Archbishop Alexander the Ancient Orthodox Church Patriarch ofMoscow and entire Russia for the first time during the last three and a halfcenturies.

Studious works of Bishop Alexander as apeacemaker brought glorious and affluent fruit: after over 20 years of divisionand four years of a dialogue, with God’s help, Russian and Georgian Christiansfinally reached agreement.

On 9-10 May 2009, in the Georgian city of Poti,final negotiations between the Primates of the Russian Ancient Orthodox Churchand the Georgian Orthodox Church were held, Ancient Orthodox Patriarch ofMoscow and entire Russia Alexander and Bishop of Tbilisi Pavel (Khorava). Otherbishops, clergymen, and laymen of both Churches also participated in thenegotiations. All acute problems which had been the source of worries ofAncient Orthodox Christians and disagreements caused by such problems being thereason of ill-fated division were discussed and solved during this meeting.

On May 16th, 2009, a joint documentwas signed which cancelled all previous disagreements, proclaimed peace andunification of Russian and Georgian Ancient Orthodox Christians as well as autocephalyof the Georgian Ancient Orthodox Church. This document, the Certificate ofChurch Unification, was signed by Primates of the Churches and their bishops onbehalf of the Russian Ancient Orthodox Church and the Georgian Ancient OrthodoxChurch.

On May 17th, 2009, on the Sunday ofthe Samaritan Women, His Holiness Alexander Patriarch of Moscow and entireRussia together with Eminent Bishops after the Divine Liturgy performed the riteof reconciliation. After signing of „Christ is Risen” and reading of beginningprayers and penitential troparions “Have mercy upon us, O Lord, have mercy uponus” His Holiness read two prayers: „Make Peace after Enmity” and “For Love”. Theywere followed by signing of hymns „The Grace of the Holy Spirit Brought UsTogether Today”, “Strengthen Those Who Have Hope for You” and „By EstablishingMe on the Rock of Faith”. The same rite was performed by Eminent Bishops of theGeorgian Ancient Orthodox Church.

In this way Lord the Peacemaker once againshowed His love for and attention about the Ancient Orthodox Church havingreconciled the quarrelling people and by doing so humbled the cause of anydisagreements, the devil. Thus, spiritual brothers once again gained each other.And thus the Russian Local Church gained its spiritual sister, the GeorgianLocal Church.

Besides, this event is also quite instructivefor the outside people. It is very symbolic that the church unity was achievedat the time when the relations between Russia and Georgia at the level ofstates leave much to be desired. Political games seed discord between peoplewhile Christ brings peace and unity! Thank God for all these achievements.

Finishing off this brief story on the historyof the Ancient Orthodox Church with the current events we cannot but raise ourspirit and thank God for those to whom we are obliged for these currentbeneficial completions. Let us never forget our fathers who invariably kept thetraditions of the Church of Christ during the times of the most horribleordeals, who during various misfortunes planted and watered the vineyard of theChurch which now brings such kind and affluent fruit!

The Ancient Orthodox Church, being a single andindivisible entity with the Ancient Church, unites in itself all Christians whoacknowledge it as the True Church of Christ without any division by national,social or territorial criteria.

Based upon apostolic and patristic heritage,treating godly spiritual and liturgical experience of all ancient OrthodoxLocal Churches with respect, the Russian Ancient Orthodox Church invariably andcarefully tries to keep the Liturgical Rite and godliness of Holy Russia. Gloryto Our Lord, both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen!

1 “De sacroaltaris misterio”, II. 45 // Uspenskiy B. A. The Cross and the Circle: From theHistory of the Christian Symbolism. Moscow: Languages of the Slavic Cultures,2006, p. 26.

2 Acts of Ecumenical Councils. Volume7. Kazan, 1909, p. 295.

3 Fedotov G. P. Collected Works in 12 Volumes. Volume 3:St. Philipp,Metropolitan of Moscow // Appendix: The Life and the Actsof Philipp, Metropolitan of Moscow and entireRussia. Moscow: Martis, 2000, p. 213.

4 The full text of 12 articles was published.

5 The Departmentof Manuscripts of the Russian State Library. F. 246. K. 208. Unified storage 1.L. 110-111 ob.

6 Reverend Theodore the Studite. Epistles. Book 1. — Moscow,2003. pp. 180-185.

7 Epistle to the Unknown // Borozdin A.K. Archpriest Avvacum: Sketches from the History of the Intellectual Life ofthe Russian Society in the XVII Century. Appendix. Saint Petersburg: A. S. Suvorin,1900, p. 14-15.

8 Answers of Deacon Alexander (at theKerzhenets) to Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod Pitirim in 1719 // Free appendix to»Staroobryadets” Journal. Moscow, 1906, p. 207.

9 Ibid. p. 276

10 Pomor Answers. Reprinted edition. Moscow: PublishingHouse of P.P. Ryabushinskiy. 1911, pp. 4-5.

11 LuthardtChristophe Ernst. The Apology of Christianity. Translated from the Germanlanguage by A.P. Lopukhin. Saint Petersburg, 1892, p. 671.

12 The Acts ofthe Iryum Council of 1723, the 3rd discussion // Memorials ofLiterature and Written Languages of Peasants beyond the Urals, volume I, issue 2,pp. 86-88.

13 Canon 12 ofSaint Peter of Alexandria // Book of Canons. Sergiyev Posad, 1992, p. 285.

14 Speech ofCatherine the Great at the joint conference of the Senate and the Synod onSeptember 15th, 1763 // Karlovich V.M. Historical Studies to Justifythe Old Ritualists. Volume III. Chernovtsy, 1886.

15 Report of Metropolitan Platon tothe Synod concerning the Request of Moscow New Ritualists // Lysogorskiy N.V. Metropolitanof Moscow Platon as Anti-Schism Advocate. Rostov-on-Don, 1905, p. 537.

16 Zvezdinskiy M.I. The Opinion ofFilaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, Concerning Coreligionists and His Attitude toThem. Moscow, 1900, p. 9.

17 Ibid. p. 3.

18 Malinovtsev F.A. Two Trips to the East of ChapelPriest-Free Christian Malinovtsev F.A. Moscow, 1910, p. 3.

19 Ibid.

20 History ofPries-Free Christians, part II. // Complete Set of Works by P.I. Melnikov (AndreyPechorskiy). Volume 14. Saint Petersburg, 1898, p. 24.

1 Subbotin N.I. The History of Belaya Krynitsa Hierarchy.Volume 1. Moscow, 1874, p. 71.

22 Ibid. p. 57.

23 History of Pries-Free Christians, part II. // Complete Set of Works byP.I. Melnikov (Andrey Pechorskiy). Volume 14. Saint Petersburg, 1898, p. 27.

24 Ibid, p. 91.

25 Ibid, p. 27.

26 From the Testimony of Gerontius on June 22nd,1847 // Subbotin N.I. The History of Belaya Krynitsa Hierarchy. Appendix. Volume1. Moscow 1874, p. 80.

27 Subbotin N.I. The History of Belaya KrynitsaHierarchy. Volume 1. Moscow, 1874, p. 71.

28 Ibid, p. 87.

29 Ibid, p.  88.

30 Saint Diadochos of Photiki. Self-Sacrificing Epistle// Philokalia. The 2nd edition. Volume 3. — Moscow, 1900, p. 27.

31 Saint Abba Isaiah. Miterikon. Moscow, 1891, p. 216.

32 The Guide to Spiritual Life in Answers to Questions ofDisciples by Saint Barsanuphius the Great and Saint John. Answer 415. SaintPetersburg, 1905, p. 279-280.

33 Saint John Climacus. The Ladder. Epistle3:28. The 6th edition. Moscow, 1901, p. 19.

34 Subbotin N.I. The History of Belaya KrynitsaHierarchy. Volume 1. Moscow, 1874. p. 106.

35 Subbotin N.I. The History of Belaya KrynitsaHierarchy. Volume 1. Moscow, 1874. p. 292.

36 Pavlov A. Nomocan for the Great Service Book. Moscow,1897, p. 349

37 Bishop Shvetsov Arsenius. The Lifeand Acts of Antonius, Old Ritualist Archbishop of Moscow and Vladimir. Moscow, 2003.

38 Documents about Old Ritualists of Our Time. Report byI.G. Moscow, 1869, p. 11.

39 Ibid. P. 6.1

40 Ibid. P. 36.

41 The authoritative canonical book by SebastosConstantinus Harmenopulus says about dilution of the consecration oil: "If there is not enough myrrh to perform holybaptism or to consecration of a church, or for other needs, it is allowed tomix the remaining myrrh with anointing oil (oil) to make it enough to performthe necessary sacraments” (Answers of John, Bishop of Cyprus, to KonstantinKavasila, Archbishop of Durrese // Sebastos Harmenopulus. Book V. Balakhna.1908. L. 193 ob.

42 Sedov A.V., PhD. Political Favours of N.A.Bugrov // Birzha, 2001. No. 23.

43 Brotherhood.Moscow, 1917. No. 1, p. 3.

44 Now it is called the city ofFrolovo of Volgograd Region.

45 Brotherhood. Moscow, 1917. No. 1, p. 3.

46 One may read in greater detail about acceptance of ArchbishopNicholas in a book «In Search of Truth” published by the Publishing Department ofthe Russian Ancient Orthodox Church.

47 Collection. Pochayevskaya Publishing House, 1782. L.120 ob.

48 Saint Augustineof Hippo. The City of God. Book 18. Chapter XXIX. Minsk: Harvest, Moscow: AST,2000, pp. 941-943.

49 From theletter of priest Feodor Bykadorov to Gerontius (Lakomkin), Bishop of BelayaKrynitsa hierarchy. March 1947.

50 From the letter of Archbishop Meletiy of March 20th,1929. No. 2672 // Our Contemporary. 2007. No. 1, p. 227.

51 The RussianAncient Orthodox Church consecrated Bishop Stephan as Holy Martyr (commemoratedon 2 September) and Pansophius (commemorated on 21 December).

52 Priest Sudakov having obeyed Archbishop Ioannes’ decreeon banning did not participate in the rite of acceptance, he was only presentthere, this fact is stated in a letter (June 1947) to priest Feodor Bykadorovwritten by reader Climent Ivanovich Dontsov.

53 A letter by reader C.I. Dontsov topriest Feodor Bykadorov, June 1947.

54 Epistle to Church by Archbishop Ioannes on June 5th,1947.

55 Journal ofthe Moscow Patriarchate No. 6 (June), Moscow: the Publishing Department of theMoscow Patriarchate, 1950, p. 40.

Нашли ошибку?
Дорогие читатели, если вы увидели ошибку или опечатку, помогите нам ее исправить! Выделите ошибку и нажмите одновременно клавиши «Ctrl» и «Enter». Мы узнаем о неточности и как можно скорее ее исправим.