A Rejoinder Regarding St. John of Shanghai on the Moscow Patriarchate

Subdeacon Nektarios Harrison, who was made subdeacon in ROCOR, but subsequently has become a Greek Old Calendarist and a popular apologist for them, has written a rebuttal to my article "St. John of Shanghai, the Moscow Patriarchate, and Other Local Orthodox Churches." While he characterized my article as being "amateur historiography and proof-texting," he essentially confirms the basic thesis of my article, which was that St. John did not consider the Moscow Patriarchate or other local Orthodox Churches to be either graceless or pseudo-churches. He begins his article by going into a subject that was not addressed in my article, and then goes on to bring up everything but the kitchen sink, but I want to begin my response with his concession that what I said in my article was correct:

"When we consider Saint John, we must acknowledge the truth plainly: he was indeed pastoral and more lenient in his approach toward those in the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate, the Metropolia, the Paris Jurisdiction, and World Orthodoxy at large. This is indisputable [Emphasis added]."

So since Nektarios (MA, History) agrees that the thesis of my article is indisputable, one might ask why he went on to dispute it anyway. The reason is that St. John is a universally venerated saint of the Church, and so this is an inconvenient truth for those who wish to maintain the extreme ecclesiology that those of like mind with Nektarios wish to promote.

It is interesting that Nektarios never engages the quotes my article provided, and that is because they indisputably prove what my article was all about.

"At the very outset of his article, Whiteford dismissively brands those who rejected the false union with the Soviet-created Moscow Patriarchate as “people in ROCOR who took more extreme views.” What he will not admit is that these supposed extremists, according to this Moscow Patriarchate apologist, were none other than Saint Philaret of New York, Saint Vitaly (Ustinov), Archbishop Averky, Bishop Gregory, and the remnant of ROCOR who refused to betray the legacy of the Catacomb Church and ROCOR by submitting to Moscow."

I never denied that these bishops had views at odds with those of St. John, in fact I specifically cited Metropolitan Philaret as saying that this was the case. But while Metropolitan Philaret may well be numbered among the saints, and is considered to be one by Old Calendarists, he is not officially recognized as a saint by the Orthodox Church as a whole, and is certainly not on the same level as St. John. My primary point was that those who like to throw around labels like "New ROCOR," as if the views ROCOR holds today are at odds with "Old ROCOR," are demonstrably incorrect, and St. John is indisputable evidence that this is so.

"This polemic comes in the wake of my own recent article, The False Shepherd: Moses McPherson’s War Against the True Orthodox Church, wherein I laid out definitively the historical stance of the Russian Church Abroad toward the Old Calendarist Orthodox Christians. There I demonstrated beyond doubt that ROCOR always recognized the Old Calendarist Orthodox Church—not as schismatic, as the deceitful clergy of the new ROCOR-MP now assert—but as true confessors of Orthodoxy. Saint John, Saint Philaret, Saint Vitaly, Archbishop Averky (Taushev) of Jordanville, Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), together with a host of other towering hierarchs, consistently affirmed them as faithful and canonical Orthodox Christians."

My article was written and published in January of 2025, and so was not written in response to anything Nektarios has written since then, and if you read my article, you will see that it did not discuss St. John's view of the Greek Old Calendarists. The history of ROCOR's relationship with the Greek Old Calendarists is complex, but if we stick to the facts on the question of St. John's view of the Old Calendarists, it is fair to say that he was sympathetic to them. He also, along with the rest of the Synod of Bishops declared the consecrations of the Old Calendarist bishops to be invalid. In Nektarios' book "The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad & the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece: A History," he attempts to argue that most of the bishops did not actually agree with this decision, but to substantiate this, he quotes several bishops who argued that Archbishop Leonty of Chile (who had just performed one of these consecrations a few days prior to this Synod meeting) should be treated leniently. No doubt, some of the bishops supported what he did, but St. John is only quoted as saying that Archbishop Leonty's explanation for his actions should be accepted. He did not, however, reject the decision... at least not according to any document that I have seen. Nektarios' only proof that he rejected this decision is a letter he signed with other bishops, thanking Bishop Petros (one of the Greek Old Calendarist bishops in question) for his hospitality (The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad & the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece: A History," p. 26f). Apparently, the fact that this letter referred to him as a bishop is taken for proof of this, but that is a pretty big leap, and a very thin reed to lean on. St. John was a trained lawyer, an expert in the canons of the Church, and it is highly unlikely that he would not have taken the decision of the Synod of Bishops on this question seriously. St. John was a very kind man, he did seem to have a warm relationship with Bishop Petros, but there is no evidence that he ever concelebrated with him.

It is true that after St. John's repose, ROCOR reversed this decision, recognized these consecrations as valid, and briefly entered into communion with the Old Calendarists, but the extremism of many Old Calendarists (particularly their declaration that the Church of Greece was without grace, and their subsequent schisms and infighting) eventually led to ROCOR severing communion with them. A second attempt at communion with the Old Calendarists began in 1994, and for a couple of years there were a lot concelebrations with them, but relations quickly began to cool. The relationship remained intact officially, until 2007, when that Synod severed communion because of our reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate, and refused to even discuss the possibility of a reconciliation with their mother Church of Greece -- which was a disappointment to me, because I well remember Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna saying that they were willing to talk to the Church of Greece anytime, but it was they who refused to talk, but here a golden opportunity was presented to them, and they refused to take it. Had they engaged in talks, and found the terms unacceptable, it would have at least been consistent with their principles, but they showed no interest in talking with them on any terms.

The group ROCOR went into communion with (the "Synod in Resistance" under Metropolitan Cyprianos) was chosen precisely because it took a moderate stance when it came to other local churches -- it did not consider them to be without grace, but only ailing. This was also true of Bishop Petros, by the way, who actually joined ROCOR as a retired bishop before his repose. Back in 1994, many in ROCOR saw this group as having a similar mindset to our own, but as happened in the previous attempt at communion with the Old Calendarists, it became clear that we actually did not see things as closely as we thought. This attempted union happened under Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov), by the way, who was not a supporter of St. John, and who took a much dimmer of view of the Moscow Patriarchate then did he.

Even Metropolitan Philaret was not as extreme as many of those in the Greek Old Calendarist movement today. In fact, his actual position on the Moscow Patriarchate was attacked as heretical by more extreme elements who were then in ROCOR (especially by those who later joined the Panteleimonite schism, which left ROCOR to protect a sexual predator -- see The Response to Elder Tavrion). And when they actually went into schism with ROCOR, to protect this sexual predator, Metropolitan Vitaly, whom they had always supported, suddenly became a modernist and an ecumenist.

Nektarios wants to argue that St. John agreeing to enter into communion with Patriarch Alexei I, while Joseph Stalin was running the Soviet Union tells us nothing about what he would have thought with regard to entering into communion with Patriarch Alexei II, while Vladimir Putin was the president of Russia, after the persecution of the Church in Russia had ceased, after the Russian Church had glorified the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, and after they issued statements which condemned what we define as Sergianism and Ecumenism. He is free to think so, but that is preposterous on the face of it. Things are not perfect in the Russian Church, but they were far less perfect when St. John actually did enter into communion with it (see Status Quo ROCOR?).

Nektarios goes on to cite a source which affirms that St. John, when he learned that ROCOR was still in existence, ceased commemorating Patriarch Alexei I, and resumed commemorating only Metropolitan Anastasy. This is to argue a point that is not in dispute. However, St. John wrote about why he did this, and it was not because he discovered that the Moscow Patriarchate was actually a graceless pseudo-church -- he stated clearly that he did this out of obedience to his oath he gave at his consecration as a bishop, but that he hoped to see all of ROCOR eventually reconcile with the Moscow Patriarchate, and he continued to commemorate Patriarch Alexei I at the proskomedia:

"Every day at the proskomedia I commemorate Patriarch Alexy. He is the Patriarch. And our prayer still remains. By force of circumstances, we were cut off, but liturgically we are united. The Russian Church, like the entire Orthodox Church, is united in the Eucharist, and we are with her and in her. And administratively, for the sake of our flock and for the sake of certain principles, we have to follow this path, but this in no way violates our mysterious unity of the entire Church" (About Vladyka John, by Bishop Basil Rodzianko).

Nektarios raises the issue of the Moscow Patriarchate's membership in the World Council of Churches, and in the Ecumenical movement in general. The fact is that what is allowed to happen in the Russian Church today is far less objectionable than many things that were allowed prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, and even things that were allowed in ROCOR prior to the repose of St. John of Shanghai.

For example, when Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) was consecrated as a bishop, this was done with a vested Anglican Bishop standing on the kliros.

St. Tikhon of Moscow attended the consecration of an Anglican bishop wearing his mantia:

Archbishop Leonty of Chile was sent by ROCOR as an observer to Vatican II.

Sending a representative to Vatican II was, as a matter of fact, supported by the future Metropolitan Vitaly:

"Archbishop Vitalii felt that an opportunity existed to speak about Orthodoxy, on the situation in the Orthodox world, and about the persecution of the Church in Russia. If they leave, Moscow will stay" (A chapter from Psarev’s Masters thesis, “The Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad toward Non-Orthodox Christians and the Ecumenical Movement (1920-1964): A Historical Evaluation”).

ROCOR in fact sent many representatives to meetings of the World Council of Churches as well, and only stopped doing so after the Moscow Patriarchate began sending their own representatives. In my opinion, the arguments against participating in the World Council of Churches are now outweighed by the arguments against it, but it is a fact that the ecumenical atrocities that took place at WCC gatherings in the 90's were stopped due to the efforts of the Moscow Patriarchate to reform it, which put at an end to inter-religious worship services, and also forced the WCC to no longer issue statements that were not agreed to unanimously -- which effectively gives the Moscow Patriarchate a veto over such things. The Russian Church has stated that it would withdraw from the WCC, if all the other local churches did as well, and there is a concern about ceding the floor of the WCC to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which could then present itself as the voice of the Orthodox Church there. I know Nektarios doesn't find that a compelling case for staying in the WCC, but I think it is an understandable position, even though I personally don't agree with it. But this is a debatable question, and not a question of apostasy, as Nektarios would like to suggest.

Nektarios brings up the fact that in 1969, the Moscow Patriarchate approved communing Roman Catholics in extremis -- a decision that was set aside in 1986. While I agree that this was a bad decision, the fact is that it was not without precedence. In 1847, Tsar Nicholas I agreed to a treaty that made similar provisions for Roman Catholics (see Decision of the ROC Synod in 1969). 

Along these lines, Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin) recounts:

"I had a minor experience, which I will now dare to relate. In 1952, I had a parish in Bradford, England. There were many refugees in this industrial city that had their own churches: Russians, Poles, Ukrainians and others. There was a substantial community of Galician Ukrainians here, who were Uniats. I was told that they were quite hostile towards us Russians. Once, at night, I had a call from the local hospital telling me that a woman “of your religion” was near death. Taking the Holy Gifts I hurried to the hospital. The night was not only dark but a heavy fog covered everything. One had to walk from one streetlight to another. I reached the hospital and was shown the ward where the seriously ill woman was laying in an oxygen tent. Here I learned that she was not Orthodox but a Galician Uniat. Her husband was sitting next to her, crying. I told him that she was not Orthodox but belonged to the Roman Catholic faith. It was urgent that any Roman Catholic priest be called. At the same time I assured the husband that I will not allow her to die without Communion, and if the Catholic priest could not come or does not come in time, I will give her Communion myself. The Catholic priest arrived quickly. He was an Englishman and did not know Russian or Ukrainian. I offered my help. I asked the sick woman if she repents of her sins and does she want to receive Communion. She answered, “Yes, Father” in her Ukrainian accent. I related her words for the priest and he gave her Communion. I was at the hospital several days later and was overjoyed to see that the sick woman was recovering quickly, and she was happy to see me. After this, I was walking on the street past a Galician club and was pleasantly surprised when all those who were outside the building doffed their hats and greeted me, a Russian priest, warmly. I told of this to our great hierarch, Archbishop John [Maksimovich] and said to him that I would have given Communion to the dying woman even though she was a Uniat. After this I was ready to accept any punishment that the Holy Orthodox Church would give me. Archbishop John’s reply was worthy of his sanctity and love towards people: “No punishment would have been given to you”" (On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches).

If I was in Fr. Ambrose's situation, and had a Roman Catholic priest not been available, I would not have done what he said he would have done, but his actions were not driven by adherence to the heresy of ecumenism, but by compassion for human beings who were in a desperate situation, and evidently St. John didn't see it as a grave sin. 

On a Synodal level, ROCOR discussed something similar on October 26/November 8, 1962:

"Archbishop Nikon noted that we are giving communion to Uniats for missionary purposes. Archbishop Vitalii [the future Metropolitan of ROCOR] argued that this is so because in the Carpathians people never knew that they were not Orthodox and they continue to live as in olden times. Their bishops were recognized by the Pope, but the people still think they are Orthodox. Archbishop Afanasii noted that it all depends on how to understand membership in the Orthodox Church. If a person goes to an Orthodox church for communion then he is Orthodox. Ruthenians by the thousands took communion in the Pochaev Lavra, and nobody ever questioned if they were Orthodox, because they were such in spirit. Archbishop Averkii [of Jordanville] confirmed that simple Carpatho-Russian people never suspected that they were not Orthodox; the intelligentsia, however, needed to be received through the special rite" (A chapter from Psarev’s Masters thesis, “The Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad toward Non-Orthodox Christians and the Ecumenical Movement (1920-1964): A Historical Evaluation.”)

Archbishop Leonty of Chile, the same bishop who consecrated the original Old Calendar bishops that constituted the various Old Calendar synods that exist today, had views on this that run somewhat counter to those of the Old Calendarists:

"Igor’ Andruskiewitsch, secretary to Archbishop Leontii when he lived in Buenos Aires, recalled at a meeting with the author, that he once asked the archbishop if it would be permissible to call for a Catholic priest if he were in an accident. Archbishop Leontii replied:

I do not know how I would have answered you before Vatican II, but now, after Vatican II, I will not answer you. When the moment comes, our Lord and Savior will tell you what to do. You will be able to decide without me. Because after Vatican II, I have my doubts. They changed the canon of the Eucharistic liturgy again, which had been changed earlier. Therefore I do not know whether their Eucharist is valid.

Andruskiewitsch mentioned that Archbishop Leontii used to say that before Vatican II Roman Catholic Communion was of benefit to faithful Catholics" (A chapter from Psarev’s Masters thesis, “The Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad toward Non-Orthodox Christians and the Ecumenical Movement (1920-1964): A Historical Evaluation”).

I do not cite these facts because I think these things were good. I simply cite them as evidence that Church History is more complicated than Old Calendarists would like their people to believe. And the fact is, the views of the bishops of ROCOR today are far more conservative than the views of many of the bishops of "Old ROCOR" or the prerevolutionary Russian Church were.

And on the question of communion with New Calendar Churches, we have this:

"[In] A letter dated September 27, 1961, from the Synod of Bishops of the True Orthodox Church of Greece, a copy of which was sent to Archbishop Iakovos, states:

"Our Church adheres to the old calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar a grave mistake. However, its policy has always been to maintain spiritual communion with the Orthodox Churches that have adopted the new calendar, as long as they celebrate Easter in accordance with the decision of the First Ecumenical Council. Our Church has never declared the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America to be schismatic, nor has it severed spiritual communion with them" (Machine translation of Икуменически възгледи и контакти на Руската Задгранична Църква (РЗЦ) [Ecumenical views and contacts of the Russian Church Abroad (ROCA)]).

Concelebrations with other local Churches continued throughout the time leading up to reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate. I was present (as a laymen at the time) at the glorification of St. John of Shanghai and well remember that a Serbian priest concelebrated with the assembled clergy. Nektarios interviewed Fr. Andrew Kencis who tried to dismiss this by saying that he asked Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) about it, and Metropolitan Vitaly reportedly replied, "That is on Vladika Anthony's neck" -- who was the ruling bishop of the ROCOR Diocese of Western America, and in whose cathedral this glorification took place. Had Archbishop Anthony allowed a Roman Catholic priest to concelebrate, does anyone think Metropolitan Vitaly would merely have said "That is on Vladika Anthony's neck"? He would have put his foot down, and this would not have been allowed to happen. The fact that he did not put his foot down in this case is evidence that he did not think this priest was a graceless heretic.

I also know that concelebrations like this happened prior to 2007, because as a deacon, and later as a priest, I often concelebrated with Serbian clergy, and always did so with the blessing of my bishop.

And when it comes to the current stance of the Moscow Patriarchate when it comes to praying with the heterodox, I would invite those interested to compare the following documents:

In 1974, under the leadership of Metropolitan Philaret, the Synod of bishops sent out a document entitled "Regarding the Behavior of an Orthodox Priest towards Heterodox." 

The draft document "On Issues Concerning Prayer with Non-Orthodox Christians,” which will likely approved at the next All-Russian Council.

These two documents are remarkably similar.

It is certainly true that prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a wide range of opinions about the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Anastasy and St. John were on the more charitable end of the spectrum. Metropolitan Philaret and Metropolitan Vitaly were closer to the other end of the spectrum. It would be dishonest to pretend that either views were not part of "Old ROCOR." But as for myself, I feel very comfortable aligning myself with those on the end of the spectrum with St. John of Shanghai.

For more information, see:

Stump the Priest: Old Calendarism

"Anti-Patristic: The Stance of the Zealot Old Calendarists, by Monk Basil of the Holy Monastery of Saint Gregory (Grigoriou), Mount Athos.

A Rejoinder to Hieromonk Patapios’ “A Reply to Patrick Barnes: The Deficient Scholarship of Monk Basil’s Comments on the Allegedly Anti-Patristic Stand of the So-Called “Old Calendarist Zealots”

St. John of Shanghai, the Moscow Patriarchate, and Other Local Orthodox Churches

I recently participated in a discussion with an Old Calendarist, and several issues came up that I was not able to fully respond to in the course of the discussion. I intend to write a series of responses on various issues that were raised, but the first one I want to cover is the question of how St. John of Shanghai viewed the Moscow Patriarchate, and other local Orthodox Churches.

The reason why this matters is that those who have gone into schism with the various "True Orthodox" groups try to argue that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) today has changed its positions on the key issues that resulted in ROCOR being functionally independent during the time of the Soviet Union. However, the evidence shows that the position that ROCOR takes today is the same position that St. John of Shanghai took. And St. John of Shanghai is not just a guy with an opinion. He was a very prominent bishop of ROCOR during his lifetime, and he is now universally venerated as a Saint by everyone who is Orthodox. Now, it is certainly true that there were people in ROCOR who took more extreme views, but unless someone wants to argue that St. John was a modernist, ecumenist, or a Sergianist, they cannot credibly argue that the positions he took were betrayals of ROCOR.

St. John was a monarchist, he was very conservative, and was a staunch defender of the Faith and Traditions of the Church, but unlike the extremists, he was not a sectarian or schismatic. He consistently took a charitable stance when it came to the various parts of the Russian Church which became separated by their differing responses to the Soviet attempts to destroy the Church. He likewise maintained good relations with other Orthodox local Churches.

During my roughly 35 years in ROCOR, I have had the opportunity to get to know three people who knew St. John well, and none of them separated from ROCOR when it reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate, nor did they hold the extreme views these folks are advocating.

St. John was one of several Russian Bishops who were in China during and after World War II. At the end of the war, not having had any communications with ROCOR's central authority for a very long time, and having been led to believe that ROCOR had ceased to function, St. John, along with the other bishops in China, agreed to come under the authority of the newly elected Patriarch Alexei I of Moscow. Obviously, had he believed the Moscow Patriarchate was a graceless Church, he would never have done this. 

Here is what St. John had to say about this at the time, as quoted in the article The Russian Church Abroad in Hong Kong, by Archpriest Dionysy Pozdnyaev:

"The Diocese of Peking had to resolve the question of its jurisdictional status independently. Saint John of Shanghai, Vicar Bishop of the Diocese of Peking, and a lawyer by training and expert in canon law, convinced Archbishop Victor, his ruling bishop, to adopt the new jurisdiction. On July 31, 1945, he wrote to him:

“[…] Following the decision of the Diocese of Harbin, and in view of the absence, for a number of years, of information about the Synod of the Church Abroad, any other solution would make our diocese entirely independent and autocephalous. There is no canonical foundation for this type of independence since there are no doubts as to the canonicity of the newly recognized Patriarch. Relations with the [Moscow –tr.] church hierarchy are also possible, with the result that the Decree of November 7, 1920 is not applicable. At present, there are no grounds for us to remain a self-governing diocese, and we ought to follow the same course as the Diocese of Harbin. The name of the Chair of the Synod of the Church Abroad ought still to be commemorated at services, since, according to the 14th Canon of the First-Second Local Council, one may not arbitrarily cease commemorating the name of his Metropolitan Bishop. The commemoration of the name of the Patriarch, however, […] must be immediately introduced throughout the whole diocese by a Decree of yours.”

Archbishop Victor agreed with Saint John’s proposal and, in August 1945, he sent a request by telegram to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow asking to receive him and Bishop John into his jurisdiction. The Hong Kong Deanery followed its ruling bishop in adopting the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate."

For some historical context, it should be noted that the leader of the Soviet Union at this time was no less than Joseph Stalin, who had severely persecuted the Church, and murdered millions for their faith in the attempt to remove all religion from the USSR, although World War II forced him to reverse course, and after the war, the Church was given a level of freedom it had not had in a long time.

St. John began immediately to commemorate Patriarch Alexei I, but a response by the Patriarch to Archbishop Victor's petition was delayed by the effects of the war. And in the meantime, St. John received a telegram informing him that ROCOR had not ceased to exist, and so he alone, among all the bishops in China decided to resume commemorating Metropolitan Anastasy of ROCOR as his primate, as had been the previous practice.

He explained his change in decision to his flock as follows:

“The governing authorities of the Church Abroad have seen fit that the Church should continue to take responsibility for our pastoral care, and has notified us of this fact as well as informing His Eminence the Head of the Mission of it. Consequently, we do not consider it possible to take any decisions in relation to this question without the instruction and approval of the authorities of the Russian Church Abroad. As late as the Council of 1938, in which we took part, it was decreed that when the time will come for us to return to our native land, the hierarchs of the Church Abroad should not act separately, but rather the entire Church Abroad should present an account to an All-Russian Council of the acts it has performed while living in forced separation. Communications concerning the restoration of full canonical communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, received by Archbishop Victor on Great Saturday in response to his request to His Holiness Patriarch Alexis last August (1945), were a cause of sincere joy for us, since they allowed us a glimpse of the beginnings of mutual understanding between two parts of the Russian Church divided by a border, and of the possibility of mutual support of two centers that gather the Russian people together as one, inside and outside our Fatherland. If they can strive together towards a single common goal and act separately according to the conditions in which each finds itself, the Church inside Russia and the Church abroad will be better able to achieve both their common aims and the particular ones that each has, up to the point when a complete reunion will be made possible. At present, the Church inside Russia has to heal the wounds that militant atheism has inflicted upon it and free itself from the bonds that are impeding the fullness of its internal and external functioning. The goal of the Church Abroad is to prevent the children of the Russian Orthodox Church from becoming dispersed, and to preserve the spiritual values that they have brought with them from their homeland, as well as to spread Orthodoxy in the countries where they are living. This was indeed the purpose of the acts of the Synod of Hierarchs of the Church Abroad that took place in the city Munich, under Allied occupation, on the anniversary of the defeat of Germany” (Quoted in "The Russian Church Abroad in Hong Kong," Emphasis added).

Archbishop Victor issued a decree relieving St. John of his duties, but St. John announced in a sermon that he had no intention of abiding by that decree. He took seriously his oath of obedience to the Synod of ROCOR at the time of his consecration as a bishop, and so said:

“I will submit to this decree only if it can be demonstrated to me, by way of Sacred Scripture and the law of any one country, that oath-breaking is a virtue and keeping one’s oath is a grave sin.”

So he did not take this action because he came to realize that the Moscow Patriarchate was a pseudo-Church. In fact, he stated just the opposite, but he was obliged to not enter into union with the Moscow Patriarchate, apart from the Synod he had pledged his obedience to.

The extremists argue that St. John was isolated in China, and so he was unaware of the crimes of the Soviets and the actions of the Moscow Patriarchate. This seems rather unlikely, since he was living near the central headquarters of ROCOR until he was consecrated a bishop in 1934 and sent to China. But in any case, he had many years to learn whatever he might not have known about these issues before he wrote his "History of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad," in 1960, and in that text, he doesn't even use the words "Sergianism" or "Sergianist." In fact, Fr. Peter Perekrestov noted he never used those words in any of his writings:

“In no article, no homily that has come down to us, no letter of which we are aware, did Holy Hierarch St John (Maximovitch) ever use the term “Sergianists"” ("The Church's Helmsman, Both Then and Now, is the Almighty Spirit of God," by Archpriest Peter Perekrestov).

What we find instead are the most charitable interpretations of the actions of Metropolitan Sergius. Here are all the paragraphs in that text in which he mentions Metropolitan Sergius:

After the death of Patriarch Tikhon, the Russian Church Abroad acknowledged the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsk; however, he was soon arrested and banished by the Soviet regime for his firmness and his unwillingness to make concessions to the atheist regime. The Church in Russia and abroad continued to regard him as her head and his name was commemorated at Divine services in all churches. Then Metropolitan Sergius became his Substitute. At this time certain differences arose among the Russian hierarchs abroad, and an appeal was made to Metropolitan Sergius with the request that he make a decision on them. This allowed Metropolitan Sergius to express his view on the situation of the part of the Russian Church that was abroad. Addressing himself in a general letter to the bishops abroad on September 12, 1926, he wrote:

"My dear hierarchs, you ask me to be a judge in a matter of which I am entirely unaware... Can the Moscow Patriarch, as a general principle, be the leader of the ecclesiastical life of Orthodox emigrants?... The good of church affairs themselves demands that you, by a common consent, should establish for yourselves a central organ of church administration which is sufficiently authoritative to resolve all misunderstandings and differences and which has the power to put a stop to any misunderstanding and every disobedience without appealing for our support..." In this letter, which is filled with love for his fellow bishops abroad, he says: "We shall scarcely see each other again in the present life, but I may hope by God's mercy that we shall see each other in the future life."

This was the last letter of Metropolitan Sergius in which he freely wrote that which within himself he acknowledged as true. Imprisonment, threats with regard not only to himself but to the entire Russian Church as well, and the false promises of the Soviet regime broke him: within a few months after his letter, so full of love, to the hierarchs abroad, which was as it were his testament before his loss of inner freedom, Metropolitan Sergius issued a Declaration in which he recognized the Soviet regime as a genuinely lawful Russian regime which was concerned for the people's good, a regime "whose joys are our joys, and whose sorrows are our sorrows" (Declaration of July 16/29, 1927). At the same time, in accordance with the promise he had given the Soviet regime, Metropolitan Sergius demanded of the clergy abroad their signatures of loyalty to the Soviet regime.

This document was in complete contradiction with his view expressed nine months before this, that the Moscow Patriarchate could not direct the ecclesiastical life of emigrants. If for those in Russia who were undergoing terrible sufferings there might be conditions that would mitigate their moral capitulation to the cruel regime — just as the church canons at the time of the [ancient] persecutions mitigated the penances of those who renounced Christ after terrible sufferings — nonetheless, for those who were in freedom and comparative safety there were no mitigating circumstances or justification or even meaning at all in such a signature. It can hardly be that Metropolitan Sergius himself believed that anyone abroad would submit to his Ukase, and he did this clearly in order to fulfill the demand of the Soviet regime and thus remove responsibility from himself.

However, Metropolitan Evlogy with his vicars and Bishop Benjamin of Sebastopol did indeed submit to the Ukase. Meanwhile, in Russia itself there were courageous confessors from among the imprisoned bishops and likewise among those who remained in freedom, who declared to Metropolitan Sergius that they did not accept the concordat with the atheist regime that was persecuting the Church. Many of them even broke off communion in prayer with Metropolitan Sergius as one who had "fallen" and had entered into league with the atheists, and a part of the clergy and laity in Russia followed them. The atheist Soviet regime cruelly persecuted such steadfast hierarchs and their followers. The Soviet regime, while not fulfilling the promises to Metropolitan Sergius which had caused him to make the concordat with it, at the same time deprived of freedom, banished, and even executed many of those who did not recognize the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius.

Among those who did not recognize Metropolitan Sergius' Declaration of loyalty to the Soviet regime were the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter (whose Substitute Metropolitan Sergius was), Metropolitans Agathangel of Yaroslavl and Cyril of Kazan (who had been indicated by Patriarch Tikhon as possible Locum Tenenses of the Patriarchal Throne in case Peter should be unable to exercise his office), Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd, and many other well-known hierarchs. Indeed, Metropolitan Sergius himself had thought exactly like them not long before his signing of the Declaration for the reasons already mentioned.

The Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius brought no benefit to the Church. The persecutions not only did not cease, but they even increased. To the other accusations which the Soviet regime made against clergy and laymen was added yet one more — not recognizing the Declaration. At the same time churches without number were closed throughout Russia. Within a few years almost all churches were destroyed or put to various other uses. Whole provinces remained without a single church. Concentration camps and places of forced labor held thousands of clergy, a significant part of which never regained freedom, being executed there or dying from excessive labors and deprivations. Even the children of priests and all believing laymen were persecuted.

The Russian Church Outside of Russia was spiritually one with these persecuted believers. Except for the several hierarchs already mentioned, all the rest, headed by Metropolitan Anthony, flatly refused to give signatures of loyalty to the Soviet regime, and they came out with an open denunciation. Moreover, Metropolitan Anthony, who very much loved Metropolitan Sergius and inwardly suffered for his beloved disciple and friend, wrote him personally a letter of admonition, which probably never reached him or in any case was no longer able now to influence his behavior.

Like the bishops and faithful inside Russia who did not recognize the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, so too the part of the Russian Church that was abroad did not cease to belong to the Russian Church. They all, just as before, remained in spiritual union with the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter, who was languishing in a desert place in the far north. His name was commemorated in all Russian churches abroad. In all these churches there were also prayers for the suffering brethren in the Homeland, for their deliverance from the atheist regime, and for the repose of those who had been martyred by the regime. Meanwhile, Metropolitan Evlogy, who had given the signature of loyalty to the Soviet regime which had been demanded by Metropolitan Sergius, was invited to a service of prayer in England for the suffering Russian Church, and he took part in it. This was interpreted as an act against the Soviet regime, and he was forbidden to serve by Metropolitan Sergius. Not wishing to submit to this decree, but at the same time not wishing to acknowledge his guilt before the Russian Synod Abroad, Metropolitan Evlogy asked the Patriarch of Constantinople to receive him and his flock temporarily into the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which was done.

Notwithstanding the departure from the Church Abroad — and, one may say, from the Russian Church altogether — of Metropolitans Evlogy and Platon with their followers, the Russian Orthdox Church Outside of Russia remains the free part of the Russian Church. She has enjoyed the attention of the Most Holy Patriarchs and the other hierarchs of her sister Orthodox Churches. Patriarch Varnava of Serbia showed special attention to her and strove to return to the Russian Church Abroad those bishops who had separated from her, and he was likewise an intermediary between her and Metropolitan Sergius, whom he respected and loved as the rector of his days in the Academy. However, soon he had to become convinced that Metropolitan Sergius was in the hands of the Church's enemies and that his actions were harmful to her, concerning which he wrote to him directly.

...At first this change did not bring any alterations in the situation of the Russian Church Abroad. She continued to exist and act as before, being governed by the "Decree" which had been accepted under the chairmanship of Patriarch Varnava, and everywhere she enjoyed externally all her former rights. In 1937, the Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsk, died in banishment, and apparently not long before this, or soon afterwards, Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan, who was supposed to become Locum Tenens after Metropolitan Peter, likewise died in banishment. The Patriarchal Synod of Moscow, composed of bishops invited by Metropolitan Sergius, confirmed the latter as Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. At this time the Russian Church inside Russia was in a state of total desolation. There were only twenty bishops in freedom, and the majority of churches were closed, destroyed, or turned to some other use. Whole provinces and vast expanses had not a single church. Relics and wonderworking icons were taken to museums. The majority of the clergy that remained were in banishment, at forced labor, or lived concealing their rank, earning for themselves a pitiful living by any kind of work and only secretly celebrating services at the homes of faithful laymen.

At the same time Metropolitan Sergius, bound by his promise given to the Soviet regime, continued to affirm that there was no persecution against the Church in Russia. The Church Abroad, which was no longer subject to Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod, remained in her previous relationship to him, feeling herself to be spiritually one with the suffering Mother Church, and as before offering prayer for her and her suffering brethren" (Emphasis added).

There is one other letter by St. John that we have in English that addresses the question, from September 13, 1963:

If someone began to talk in Metropolitan Anthony’s  [First Hierarch of the ROCOR, Khrapovitskii] presence about “wrong actions by the Church,” he would stop them, pointing out that the actions of the hierarchy cannot be attributed to the Church, since the hierarchy is not the whole Church, even though it speaks on its behalf. On the See of Constantinople, [there sat] Paul the Confessor, Makedonios, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Nestorios, Proclus, Flavian, Germanos. Some [of them] shone with holiness and Orthodoxy, others were heresiarchs, yet the Church remained Orthodox. During Iconoclasm, after the expulsion of Severinus, Nikephoros and others, not only their sees, but also the majority of episcopal ones were replaced by Arians. Other Churches did not even have communion with [the Byzantine Church], according to the testimony of the St. Paul, who abandoned heresy and the [patriarchal] throne, not wanting to have communion with the iconoclasts, but still the Church of Constantinople remained Orthodox, although part of the people and especially the guardsmen and officials were carried away into iconoclasm.

So, it is now understandable when the expression “Soviet Church” is used by ordinary people who are less familiar with church language, but it is not suitable for responsible and theological conversations. When the entire hierarchy of Southwestern Rusʹ embraced Uniatism [after the Brest union of 1596], the Church continued to exist in the person of the faithful Orthodox people, who, after much suffering, restored their hierarchy. Therefore, it is more correct to speak not of a “Soviet Church,” which cannot exist in the correct understanding of the word “Church,” but about the hierarchy that is in the service of the Soviet government. The attitude toward this hierarchy may be the same as toward other representatives of that government. Their rank gives them the opportunity to act with great authority and replace the voice of the suffering Russian Church and misleads those who think to learn from them about the actual position of the Church in Russia. Of course, among them there are also conscious traitors, and those who simply do not find the strength to fight the surrounding environment and went with the flow: this is a matter of their personal responsibility, but in general, it is the apparatus of the theomachist Soviet regime. While there is only one hierarchy in the liturgical area, for Grace acts independently of personal dignity, in the socio-political area this hierarchy serves is a cover for Soviet atheistic activities. Therefore, those abroad and those who join its ranks become deliberate accomplices of that power. ("Did the Byzantine Church Cease to be the Church During Iconoclasm?" Emphasis added).

It is clear from this letter that St. John did not think people in the west should voluntarily join the Moscow Patriarchate, under the circumstances of the time, but it is also clear that he did not think the Russian Church that the bishops of the MP headed was a false Church. The bishops of the MP had varying degrees of responsibility, for which they would have to account to God, but that the grace of the Church was not dependent on the worthiness of the bishops. To say otherwise is to espouse the heresy of Donatism.

The Donatist controversy arose at the end of the last Roman persecution. There was a bishop in North Africa that the Donatists accused of being a traditor, which was a person who handed books or sacred vessels over to the Romans to be destroyed. The bishop in question denied this charge, but the Church determined that it was heretical to question the sacraments of a bishop in good standing, even if he in fact was guilty of such sins, and lied about them to boot, because the grace of the Sacraments do not depend on the worthiness of those who perform them -- it depends on the Church having authorized them to perform them. Were this not the case, one could never be sure that they ever received grace-filled Sacraments, because they could never know what secret sins a bishop or priest might be harboring within themselves. And so, until and unless a bishop is deposed from office, as long as he is acting on behalf of the Church, his sacraments have the grace of the Holy Spirit.

I have also come across two bishops who knew St. John, who both gave testimony to St. John's views on the Moscow Patriarchate:

Archbishop Anthony of Geneva:

"As far as the Moscow Patriarchate was concerned, Vladyka avoided extreme positions, witnessed by his letter to Fr Dimitri Dudko: “The late Archbishop John, whom we all respected and loved, would say ‘the official Church in Russia, of course, possesses grace, though one bishop or another might conduct themselves poorly.’” (Quoted in "A Brief Biography of Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich, +1993) of Geneva and Western Europe," by Bernard le Caro).

Bishop Basil Rodzianko:

"I thought that I would remain forever cut off from my parents and that I would be behind the Iron Curtain and never meet them, but then I suddenly left for Paris, after I had been released from a communist Yugoslav prison and, one might say, "advised" in quotation marks to leave Yugoslavia (this was after Tito had quarreled with Stalin). and in Paris itself he left the station - where? - to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and there I was offered to serve. And the first thing I said after the first meeting, the first tears of mutual tears, I said openly and directly to Vladyka John, that I could not in my conscience throw a stone at the Russian Orthodox Church, as many did in the Diaspora, its Patriarch and its hierarchs. Do you know what he told me? He told me: "Every day at the proskomedia I commemorate Patriarch Alexy. He is the Patriarch. And our prayer still remains. By force of circumstances, we were cut off, but liturgically we are united. The Russian Church, like the entire Orthodox Church, is united in the Eucharist, and we are with her and in her. And administratively, for the sake of our flock and for the sake of certain principles, we have to follow this path, but this in no way violates our mysterious unity of the entire Church. Therefore, as a Serbian cleric, you can serve wherever you want – in the canonical Churches, of course – and come and serve with me." This is how the unforgettable Vladyka John Maximovich acted with me in his holiness, in his truly authentic blessed vision" (Machine translation of "About Vladyka John," by Bishop Basil Rodzianko, Emphasis added).

When it comes to how St. John viewed other local Orthodox Churches, we likewise see that he was always guided by charity. I know from Archbishop Peter (Loukianoff) of blessed memory that St. John had the practice on Holy Saturday, of visiting every Orthodox parish in San Francisco and venerating the Epitaphios (Plashchanitsa) that would have been in the center of every Church on that day. He clearly did not see these other jurisdictions, even ones with a checkered history with ROCOR (like the American Metropolia (which became the Orthodox Church in America), as false Churches.

While in France, Archbishop Peter told us the story of an elderly Russian couple that had met late in life, and had only one son, who was in the French Army, and had foolishly killed himself, playing Russian roulette. The parents were of course devastated. They attended a parish that was under the "Evlogians" (the Russian Exarchate), which had once been part of ROCOR, but went into schism, and joined the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Many in ROCOR considered them to be graceless schismatics. In any case, no sooner had the parents received the telegram with this devastating news, they heard a knock on the door, and St. John was there to console them. They never knew how he could have found out, because they had only just found out themselves, but St. John had spiritual insight that didn't require a telegram (see "Remembrances of St. John of Shanghai," by Archbishop Peter (Loukianoff), around the 42 minute mark).

We know that St. John held such views about the "Evlogians" from no less than Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), who held very different views on them, as well as on the Moscow Patriarchate, and the OCA):

"And I do not understand the position adopted in this matter by the late Vladyka John [St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco -ed.], a true servant and man of God. Why did he not “dot the i’s”  from the very beginning and explain to the Evlogians all the unrighteousness of their path and position!" ("A Letter of Met. Philaret to Mother Magdalina," Emphasis added).

Contrary to the extremists, St. John was not in favor of breaking off communion with other local Churches, even when they were plagued by serious theological or canonical problems:

"In 1939, in his report "The Status of the Orthodox Church after the War", St. John considered that: "We (the faithful of the Russian Church Abroad – Protopriest P.P.) must stand firmly on the foundation of the Church’s canons and not with those who are straying from them. In former times for the exposure of canonical irregularities in a Local Church canonical communion was broken with her. The Russian Church Abroad cannot act in this way, in so far as her status has not been clearly defined. For this reason she must not break communion with the other Churches, if they do not take this step first. But, while maintaining communion, {the Church Abroad} must not remain silent over violations against the righteousness of the Church" (Bishop John of Shanghai, "The State of the Orthodox Church After the War," Acts of the Second All-Diaspora Council, Belgrade, 1939, p. 400. Quoted in "St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco and His View of the Russian Church in the 20th Century," by Archpriest Peter Perekrestov).

The problems the Russian Church faced were in many ways unprecedented, and not everyone in the Russian Church agreed on how to respond. And divisions were intentionally stoked by the Soviets who wanted to divide the Russian Church, so it could more easily destroy it. In Russia itself, you had the official Church under the Moscow Patriarchate, the Catacomb Church, which largely considered the MP to be traitors, and thus without grace, and then you had those who took a middle road -- not accepting the policies of the MP, but also not condemning it entirely. The Catacomb Church blamed the MP for their persecution. Many in the MP, who were also suffering under persecution, had animosity towards those in the Catacomb Church. Outside of Russia, there were a couple of periods in which most Russian bishops were united, but we ended up with at least four groups: Those under the MP, ROCOR, the Paris Exarchate, and the American Metropolia (which became the OCA). Unfortunately, there was a lot of animosity between all of these groups -- and again, this was exactly what the Soviets wanted.

St. John of Shanghai was one of those people who was able to view people that he disagreed with charitably. He recognized that most were trying to do what they thought best, under the circumstances, and so was not quick to condemn. It is understandable, that people like Metropolitan Philaret, whose father died in a Soviet gulag would have a hard time taking a charitable view of the Moscow Patriarchate (even though his father was himself a bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate). But on the feast of the Transfiguration this year we will mark 34 years since the Soviet Union came to an end. Most of the extremists I see getting worked up about condemning the Moscow Patriarchate are converts with no family who were murdered by the Communists, and most are not even old enough to remember when the Soviet Union was still in existence. 

I am old enough to remember the Soviet Union, and my wife has many family members who were murdered by Communists (which nearly included her father) -- though not in the Soviet Union -- they were murdered by the Chinese Communists, and not because of religious issues. This, however, goes to show that Communists didn't need "Sergianists" to enable them to engage in mass murder. This is what Communists do when they take power. 

After more than three decades, it is time for us to try to view what happened during the Soviet period with some historical perspective and dispassion, but also with Christian charity, as did St. John. The Soviets tried to destroy the Church. They failed.

See Also: A Rejoinder Regarding St. John of Shanghai on the Moscow Patriarchate

О которых не молится ни один из верующих

Original English Text

Прерванная традиция

Мы с женой православные уже 34 года, но мы оба из неправославных семей, и поскольку за эти годы мы потеряли родственников, мы стали часто использовать Акафист за упокой усопших. Этот Акафист возносится за всех умерших, как православных, так и неправославных, христиан и нехристиан. Он особенно возносится за тех, кто умер при трагических обстоятельствах, таких как самоубийство. За тех, кто умер без покаяния, тех, кто умер в юном возрасте и т. д. Я нашёл в нём большой источник утешения.

Но есть в этом Акафисте одна строка, которая напоминает трагедию иного рода. Заключительная молитва начинается так: «Боже духов и всякия плоти, смерть поправый и диавола упразднивый, и живот миру Твоему даровавый! Сам Господи, упокой души усопших рабов Твоих...» И далее следует длинный список категорий усопших, о которых молятся, и среди них мы молимся «о всех, кто повелел и просил нас молиться о них, о которых нет молящегося из верующих...»

Когда я молюсь этими словами, я не могу не думать о многих пожилых россиянах, которых я знал на протяжении многих лет, у которых нет потомков, которые были бы активными членами Православной Церкви. Хотя они и происходили из семей, которые сохраняли веру на протяжении многих веков, эта длинная череда верных христиан пришла к трагическому концу, когда они не смогли передать веру своим собственным детям и внукам.

Как это происходит?

В случаях, которые я наблюдал на протяжении многих лет, проблема, как правило, заключалась не в том, что родители не пытались передать им Веру. Они водили своих детей в Церковь. Они пытались научить их Вере так, как они сами ее получили от своих родителей. Проблема была в основном в двух вещах. Во-первых, я думаю, что они недооценили некоторые токсичные аспекты американской культуры, особенно в том, что касается государственного образования в Соединенных Штатах. И эта проблема свойственна не только русским, но иммигранты в целом более склонны считать, что наши школы на самом деле нацелены на предоставление хорошего образования, и они часто не осознают, насколько враждебно школы стали относиться ко всему, что хоть отдаленно напоминает традиционное христианское мировоззрение. Но другая проблема — это неспособность понять, что их дети, как правило, вырастут, не понимая русский язык так же хорошо, как их родители, а следующее поколение, как правило, вырастет, вообще не понимая русского языка. Не говоря уже о церковнославянском, который даже носителям русского языка трудно понять, если они выросли, не посещая богослужений.

Когда русские отправились в Китай после большевистской революции, они смогли основать русские колонии, которые в значительной степени воспроизвели лучшие аспекты русской культуры, но это стало возможным благодаря тому факту, что ни один китаец не считал их или их детей китайцами, даже если они родились там и могли говорить по-китайски как местные жители. Америка, с другой стороны, является очень гостеприимной культурой, и к людям, которые являются иммигрантами, но становятся гражданами и принимают Америку, уже относятся как к американцам. И их дети, следовательно, вырастают, считая себя американцами, и все остальные тоже думают о них как об американцах. Но вместе с этой гостеприимной чертой американской культуры присутствует много тонкого давления, направленного на ассимиляцию. Хотя страны Западной Европы более гостеприимны к иммигрантам, чем раньше, у них нет ничего похожего на ту динамику, которая есть у нас здесь. Следствием всего этого является то, что семье очень трудно поддерживать использование языка, отличного от английского. Я не против семей, пытающихся сохранить передать своим новым поколениям второй язык. Мы делали это в моей семье. Моя жена китаянка. Наши дети выросли, говоря на китайском языке. Мои внуки также растут, говоря на китайском языке. Однако моя младшая дочь не говорит на китайском так же хорошо, как моя старшая дочь, и мои внуки вряд ли будут говорить на нем так же хорошо, как их родители.

Я, конечно же, надеюсь, что они будут говорить на китайском так же хорошо или лучше, и я думаю, что стоит приложить усилия, чтобы плыть против течения и воспитывать детей, говорящих на втором языке, потому что это значительно облегчит им изучение любого другого языка в будущем. Но реальность такова, что это требует больших усилий, и большинство семей вообще не будут прилагать усилий, необходимых для передачи второго языка. Не говоря уже о том, чтобы вырастить детей, которые понимают этот второй язык так же хорошо, как носитель языка.

Когда я стал православным, я состоял в приходе, где говорили по-английски, за исключением редких ектений или праздничных тропарей на славянском. Но когда мы с женой вернулись в Хьюстон, где мы и встретились, единственным приходом РПЦЗ во всем штате Техас в то время был приход Св. Владимира, где в Литургии в основном использовался славянский язык. Если бы это был первый приход, который я посетил до того, как стал православным, не уверен, что я бы обратился. Просто потому, что было бы трудно следить за службами на языке, которого я не знал. 

Но, приняв веру, мы пошли туда, и в какой-то момент я преподавал в классе воскресной школы. К тому времени я немного выучил славянский и подумал, что будет полезно научить детей некоторым основным славянским фразам из служб. Я начал с того, что спросил их: «Знает ли кто-нибудь, что означает «Господи, помилуй»? Никто из них не знал. А если вы не знаете, что означает «Господи, помилуй» (что значит «Господи, помилуй»), то вы, скорее всего, ничего не знаете по-славянски.

Моя семья посещала церковь Святого Владимира около шести лет, и за это время я начал замечать закономерность. Дети добросовестно приходили со своими родителями, но когда они становились подростками, я начинал видеть их только изредка, если вообще видел. Очевидно, они становились достаточно взрослыми, чтобы сопротивляться посещениям церкви, и их родители в конце концов уставали и переставали заставлять их ходить. Я знаю семьи, которые ходили в церковь не пропуская служб, и во многих случаях их дети также добросовестно посещали церковь, но их внуков, как правило, мы уже не видели в храме. Были некоторые исключения, но эти исключения были редки.

Вот, собственно, почему я так упорно стремился основать приход с преподаванием на английском языке. У меня были собственные дети, о которых нужно было заботиться, и я отказывался смотреть, как мои дети растут, не понимая служб, и увидеть, как они уходят из Церкви, когда я больше не смогу заставить их ходить в Церковь. А так, слава Богу, все мои потомки — активные православные христиане, и я сделаю все возможное, чтобы так и оставалось.

Это верно, что проблема токсичной антихристианской культуры, которая стала доминировать в Америке, может быть причиной отпадения некоторых детей от Веры, потому что вы можете наблюдать, как это происходит по всему религиозному спектру в стране. Но когда вы видите, что к третьему поколению от церкви отходят почти 100% детей, то проблема заключается не только в токсичной культуре. Я думаю, это можно объяснить только тем, что многие из наших приходов не смогли перейти на использование английского в качестве основного языка на богослужениях.

Что нам с этим делать?

Проблема иммигрантских церквей и языка не является уникальной для православия. Когда я встретил свою жену, она посещала китайскую баптистскую церковь. И китайские баптистские церкви столкнулись с теми же проблемами. Они существуют, потому что есть китайцы, которые не говорят на английском как на своем родном языке, и поэтому, естественно, хотят ходить в церкви, где службы проходят на их языке. Но эти церкви пришли к пониманию того, что второе и третье поколения их членов не будут хорошо понимать китайский язык, и если они хотят выжить, им придется начать переходить на английский (см. «Этнические церкви добавляют английский для 2-го и 3-го поколений», Baptist Press, 2019).

Русская Православная Церковь Заграницей, членом которой я являюсь уже более трех десятилетий, достигла большого прогресса в использовании английского языка за то время, что я в ней нахожусь, — большего прогресса, чем я мог бы надеяться в 90-х годах. Но у нас все еще есть приходы, которые упорно продолжают использовать исключительно славянский язык, и это проблема. Это проблема не только потому, что это препятствие для людей, которые могут захотеть обратиться в веру, как это сделал я, но это проблема даже если бы единственной нашей целью было удержать детей русских в вере их родителей. Я не думаю, что каждый приход должен быть в первую очередь сосредоточен на привлечении новообращённых, хотя считаю, что все они должны быть приветливы к ним. Однако самой первой целью каждого прихода должно быть передать веру своим собственным детям. И если бы РПЦЗ удалось сохранить хотя бы половину детей, которые родились в ней после Второй мировой войны, мы были бы гораздо более большей церковью, чем сегодня. На самом деле, если бы не новая иммиграция, многие наши приходы давно бы закрылись.

Как минимум, я думаю, что каждый приход должен проводить половину служб на английском языке. Другое решение этой проблемы — проводить параллельные службы, одну на английском и одну на славянском. Те приходы, которые это делают, также проводят объединенные службы, и поэтому дети, растущие в таких приходах, будут слышать службы на английском языке, по крайней мере иногда, и, таким образом, по крайней мере, будут знать, что есть возможность проводить службы на их родном языке. 

Наш приход был основан как англоязычный, но поскольку у нас сейчас много русских и украинцев, мы проводим славянскую литургию раз в месяц по субботам. Если бы не было другого прихода РПЦЗ в зоне досягаемости, я бы, вероятно, чувствовал себя обязанным хотя бы немного использовать славянский язык в наших регулярных службах. Я полностью понимаю желание русских молиться на языке своих сердец, и христианская любовь должна побуждать нас стараться быть уступчивыми друг другу, но любовь к нашим детям также должна побуждать нас подходить к этим вопросам такими способами, которые, скорее всего, действительно сработают как в сохранении веры наших детей, так и в общении с теми, кто еще не является православным вокруг нас.

Я не виню приезжающих сюда русских иммигрантов-мирян за то, что они не понимают необходимости использования английского языка на наших богослужениях, но те из нас, кто прожил здесь достаточно долго, чтобы увидеть, к чему это привело за последние 75 лет, должны начать поступать иначе, чем мы делали раньше. Потому что мы уже знаем, что приходы, использующие исключительно славянский язык, — это верный путь к потере наших детей для Веры. И нет ничего важнее, чем предотвратить это, не повторяя ошибок прошлого в будущем и наблюдая, как лучшая часть еще одного или двух поколений наших детей уходит из Церкви. 

Обновление: Обновление: Кто-то прислал мне текст проповеди святителя Николая (Велимировича), которая имеет отношение к вопросам, затронутым выше. Эта проповедь была произнесена где-то между 1946 годом (когда он прибыл в Соединенные Штаты) и 1956 годом (когда он скончался), и поэтому он сказал эти вещи по крайней мере 68 лет назад, но они показывают, что даже тогда эти проблемы возникали и нуждались в решении. Вот, в частности, что он говорит ранних иммигрантах, которые принесли Православие в Соединенные Штаты:

«Увы, последнее из этих старых православных поколений быстро уходит. Их сыновья и внуки, их дочери и внучки теперь выходят на поле. И это новое поколение родилось в Америке. Они хорошо говорят по-английски, но мало или совсем не говорят по-гречески, по-сербски, по-русски, по-румынски, по-сирийски или по-албански. И неудивительно: они учились в американских школах, многие из них служили в армии США, они выросли в соответствии с американскими стандартами жизни, их сердца не разделены между двумя странами. Они по природе американцы и намерены оставаться американцами. Соответственно, у них есть некоторые требования по отношению к Церкви своих отцов.

Они хотят, чтобы английский заменил национальные языки в церковных службах. Они желают слышать проповеди на английском языке. Это законное желание. Наши мудрые священники каждой национальной православной церкви в этой стране уже проповедуют как на английском, так и на своем национальном языке. Они находятся в трудном положении в настоящее время, поскольку они должны, с одной стороны, быть внимательными к пожилым людям (старым поколениям мам и пап), которые плохо понимают английский, а с другой стороны, они готовы отвечать желаниям и нуждам молодых поколений. В этом вопросе я думаю, что эволюция лучше революции, поскольку Церковь является матерью и старых, и молодых» (Святитель Николай Велимирович о Православии в Америке и его будущем).

None Among the Believing

Русский перевод

Failed Handoff

My wife and I have been Orthodox for 34 years now, but we both come from families that were not Orthodox, and so as we have lost family members over the years, we have come to use the Akathist for the Repose of the Departed a lot. This Akathist prays for all who have died, both Orthodox and Non-Orthodox, Christian and Non-Christian. It specifically prays for those who have died under tragic circumstances, such as suicide, those who died without repentance, those who died in their youth, etc. I have found it to be a great source of consolation.

But there is one line in this Akathist that brings to mind a tragedy of a different kind. The final prayer begins: "O God of spirits and of all flesh, Who hast trampled down death and overthrown the devil and given life to Thy world!  Do Thou Thyself, O Lord, give rest to the souls of Thy departed servants...." And then it runs through a long list of categories of the departed that are being prayed for, and among them, we pray "for all who enjoined and asked us to pray for them, for whom there is none among the believing to pray for them..."

When I pray these words I cannot but think of many elderly Russians I have known over the years who have no descendants who are still active members of the Orthodox Church. Though they came from families that maintained the faith for many centuries, that long line of faithful Christians came to a tragic end when they failed to successfully pass on the faith to their own children and grandchildren.

How Does This Happen?

In the cases that I have observed over the years, the problem has not generally been that the parents made no attempt to pass on the Faith. They took their children to Church. They tried to teach them the Faith as they had received it from their own parents. The problem has been primarily two things. First, I think they have underestimated some of the toxic aspects of American culture, particularly as it has affected public education in the United States -- and that is a problem that is not unique to Russians, but immigrants are more prone to assume our schools are actually focused on providing a good education, and they are often unaware of how hostile they have become to anything remotely like a traditional Christian worldview. But the other problem is a failure to understand that their children will generally grow up not understanding Russian as well as their parents, and the next generation will generally grow up without understanding Russian at all -- not to mention Church Slavonic, which is difficult for even native speaking Russians to understand if they did not grow up attending the services.

When Russians went to China after the Bolshevik Revolution, they were able to establish Russian colonies that largely reproduced the best aspects of Russian culture, but this was made possible by the fact that no Chinese would think of them or their children as Chinese, even if they were born there and could speak Chinese like a native. America, on the other hand is a very welcoming culture, and people who are immigrants, but who become citizens and embrace America are already treated as being Americans, and their children consequently grow up thinking of themselves as American, and with everyone else thinking of them as Americans too. But along with this welcoming feature of American culture comes a lot of subtle pressure to assimilate. Though western European countries are more welcoming than they used to be to immigrants, they do not have anything like the same dynamic that we have here. The consequence of all of this is that it is very difficult for a family to maintain the use of a language other than English.

I am not opposed to families trying to pass on a second language. We have done that in my family. My wife is Chinese. Our children grew up speaking Chinese. My grandchildren also have been growing up speaking Chinese. However, my younger daughter doesn't speak Chinese as well as my older daughter, and my grandchildren are not likely to speak it as well as their parents. I hope they do as well or better, and I think it is worth the effort to swim upstream, so to speak, and raise children to speak a second language because it makes it a lot easier for them to learn any other language down the road. But the reality is that this takes a lot of effort, and most families are not going to put forth the effort necessary to pass on a second language at all, much less are they likely to raise children who understand that second language as well as a native speaker.

When I became Orthodox, it was in a parish that used English aside from doing an occasional litany or festal troparion in Slavonic. But when my wife and I moved back to Houston, where we met, the only ROCOR parish in the entire state of Texas, at the time, was St. Vladimir, which used mostly Slavonic in the Liturgy. Had that been the first parish I visited before I became Orthodox, I am not sure that I would have converted... simply because it would have been hard to follow the services in a language I did not know. But having embraced the Faith, we went there, and at one point I taught a Sunday School class. I had learned some Slavonic by this time, and I thought it would be helpful to teach the children some basic Slavonic phrases from the services. I began by asking them "Does anyone know what "Gospodi pomiluj [Господи, помилуй]" means? None of them knew. And if you don't know what "Gospodi pomiluj" means (which is "Lord, have mercy"), you most likely don't know anything in Slavonic.

My family attended St. Vladimir for about six years, and during that time, I began to see a pattern. Children would faithfully come with their parents, but when they hit their teens, I would begin to see them only infrequently, if at all. Evidently, they got old enough to fight going to Church, and their parents would finally be worn down and stop making them go. I know of families that were in Church without fail, and in many cases, their children likewise were faithful in their attendance, but their grandchildren were generally nowhere to be seen. There were some exceptions, but those exceptions were rare.

This was, as a matter of fact, why I pushed as hard as I did to establish an English language parish. I had my own children to be concerned with, and I refused to watch my children grow up without understanding the services, and to see them walk away from the Church when I was no longer able to make them to go to Church. As it is, thanks be to God, all of my descendants are active Orthodox Christians, and as long as I have anything to say about it, I will do what I can to keep it that way.

While it is true that the problem of the toxic antichristian culture that has come to dominate America can be blamed for some of the children who fall away from the Faith -- because you can see this happen across the religious spectrum in this country. But when you see something close to 100% of the children falling away by the third generation, that is not just the toxic culture that is the problem. I think this can only be explained by the failure of so many of our parishes to transition into using English as a primary language in the services.

What Should We Do About It?

The problem of immigrant churches and language is not unique to Orthodoxy. When I met my wife, she was attending a Chinese Baptist church. And Chinese Baptist churches have had to navigate the same issues. They exist, because there are Chinese people who do not speak English as their primary language, and so naturally want to go to churches that have services in their language. But these Churches have come to realize that the second and third generations of their members will not understand Chinese well, and if they want to survive, they have to begin transitioning into English (See "Ethnic churches add English for 2nd & 3rd generations," Baptist Press, 2019).

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which I have been a member of for more than three decades now, has made a lot of progress, when it comes to using English, during the time I have been in it -- more progress than I would have dared to hope for back in the 90's. But we still have parishes that persist in using Slavonic exclusively, and this is a problem. It is not just a problem because it is a barrier to people who might want to convert to the Faith like I did, but it is a problem if the only goal we had was to keep the children of Russians in the Faith. I don't think every parish needs to be primarily focused on reaching new converts, though I think they should all be welcoming to them, but the very first goal of every parish should be to pass the faith on to their own children. And if ROCOR had managed to keep even half of the children that were born into it since World War II, we would be a much larger jurisdiction than we are today. In fact, were it not for new immigration, many or our parishes would have closed a long time ago.

At a minimum, I think every parish should be doing half of the services in English. Another solution to this problem is having parallel services, one in English and one in Slavonic. Those parishes that do this also have combined services, and so children growing up in parishes like that would hear the services in English at least some of the time, and so would at least know that there was an option for having the services in their primary language. 

Our parish was established as an English language parish, but since we have a lot of Russians and Ukrainians now, we do a Slavonic Liturgy once a month on a Saturday. Were there not another ROCOR parish within a reasonable drive, I would probably feel obligated to do at least some Slavonic in our regular services. I completely understand the desire for Russians to want to pray in the language of their hearts, and Christian love should compel us to try to be accommodating of one another, but love for our children should also compel us to approach these questions in ways that are most likely to actually work in both preserving the faith our children, and reaching out to those who are not already Orthodox around us.

I don't blame Russian immigrant laymen who come here for not understanding the need for using English in our services, but those of us who have lived here long enough to see how this has played out over the past 75 years should start doing something different than we have been doing, because we know that parishes using Slavonic exclusively is a recipe for losing our children to the Faith, and there is nothing more important than preventing that by not repeating the mistakes of the past into the future, and seeing the better part of another generation or two of our children walk away from the Church. 

Update: Someone sent me the text of a sermon by St. Nikolai (Velimirovich) that is pertinent to the issues addressed above. This sermon was delivered sometime between 1946 (when he arrived in the United States) and 1956 (when he reposed), and so he said these things at least 68 years ago, but they do show that even back then, these issues were emerging, and were in need of being addressed. He says in part, speaking of the earlier immigrants who brought Orthodoxy to the United States:

"Alas, the last of these old Orthodox generations is rapidly passing away. Their sons and grandsons, and their daughters and granddaughters are now coming to the field. And this new generation is American born. They speak good English but little or no Greek, Serbian, Russian, Rumanian, Syrian or Albanian. And no wonder: They attended American schools, many of them served in the US army, they have grown in conformity with the American standard of living, their hearts are not divided between two countries. They are naturally Americans, and they intend to remain American. Accordingly, they have some demands respecting the Church of their fathers.

They want English to replace national languages in church services. They desire to hear sermons in English. This is a legitimate desire. Our wise priests of every national Orthodox Church in this country are already preaching in both English and in their respective national tongue. They are in a difficult position at present, for they have on one hand to be considerate of the elderly (elderly generations of Moms and Pops) who do not understand English well, and on the other hand they are willing to respond to the desire and need of the younger generations. In this matter I think evolution is better than revolution, for the Church is the mother of both the old and the young" (St Nikolai Velimirovich on Orthodoxy in America & Its Future).

Stump the Priest: ROCOR's Future

Metropolitan Laurus and Patriarch Alexei II at the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion, in Christ the Savior Cathedral, May 17th, 2007

Question: "Since the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), and the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) have reconciled, why is it that we still have three jurisdictions of Russian origin in the US. We still have ROCOR, we have parishes that are still part of the MP, and we have the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) which was granted a Tomos of Autocephaly by the MP. Aside from all of the historical past disagreements and associated negative “reasons" for why these jurisdictions came into being, is anything being done to unite these three jurisdictions?"

To understand why these three jurisdictions are not already united into one jurisdiction, you do need to understand the history of why we ended up with three Russian jurisdictions in the first place. Prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, there was only one united jurisdiction in North America. The Bolshevik Revolution put militant atheists in a position to cause divisions in the Church, and they did not fail to take advantage of that power.

Foreseeing the difficulties the Russian Church would be facing under a militant atheist regime, Patriarch Tikhon did two things to enable the Church to continue to function. He issued Ukaz 362, which allowed for bishops separated from communication with the Mother Church to form their own temporary ecclesiastical authorities to govern the Church. He also appointed three locum tenentes (temporary administrators, pending the election of a new Patriarch) who were to take his place, because he feared that the Church might not be able to appoint a locum tenens when the time came, and he appointed three so that if the first one was not able to take office, the second one would, and if he was unable, the third one would. To make a long story short, the Soviets imprisoned all of the locum tenentes, and we ended up with a deputy locum tenens in charge, Metropolitan Sergius. So we had an unprecedented situation, with two other unprecedented solutions piled on top.

The acting head of the Russian Church, Metropolitan Sergius, was forced by the Soviets to issue a declaration of loyalty to the Soviet Union, which even clergy outside of Russia were expected to consent to. Most of those clergy did not go along with this, however. At first the bishops outside of Russia were all united under the auspices of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, but disagreements about how to proceed, and how those outside of Russia should be related to the Church inside of Russia, under Metropolitan Sergius, led to divisions. There is a fairly well done, but brief, history of the relationship between ROCOR and what became the OCA (originally known as the American Metropolia) here: https://orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA But to sum it up, there were two periods of time when ROCOR and the American Metropolia were united: first 1921-1926, and then again from 1935-1946. In the late 60's, they almost united united a third time, but the Moscow Patriarchate offered the American Metropolia a Tomos of Autocephaly, which brought those discussions to an end.

During these years, there were also a number of parishes in North America that came under the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate directly, and were neither ROCOR nor OCA, though the number was always the smaller of the three by far.

One important thing to understand about the Tomos of Autocephaly given to the OCA is that it specifically stated that this Tomos did not invalidate any other Orthodox jurisdiction (such as the Antiochian and Greek Archdioceses) in North America, and provided for the continued separate existence of Moscow Patriarchal parishes that did not want to be part of the OCA. And so this Tomos is clearly not a Tomos of Autocephaly in the usual sense, because normally, an Autocephalous Church has exclusive jurisdiction over their own territory, by definition. And so in reality, what this Tomos did was it allowed the OCA and the MP to reconcile, without the OCA having to submit to the MP at a time when the MP was still under severe persecution by the Soviets, and as such, were subject to manipulation by the Soviets (which is why the OCA did not reconcile sooner, when that would have meant becoming a part of the MP). You could also say that the Tomos had the hope that eventually all the other jurisdictions in North America would come together, and make the OCA a truly united and autocephalous Church in the usual sense of the term.

So when ROCOR and the MP reconciled in 2007, it certainly was a topic of some discussion about whether the three Russian jurisdictions in North America would unite, but I think most people understood that this was not possible at the time. The practical pastoral issue is that for many decades, the relationships between these jurisdictions have often been strained. You also had clergy and whole parishes that went from one jurisdiction to the other, and not always because of reasons of principle, but simply because of problems with particular bishops. We are now able to have cordial relations with each other, and there has been a growing level of cooperation between the jurisdictions, but there are issues that remain.

There were some hopes that the Assembly of Bishops might not only bring these three jurisdictions together, but all the others in North America as well, but any such hopes of that happening in the foreseeable future have been dashed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate's recognition of the schismatics in Ukraine. So it is more likely that there would be some merger of these three jurisdictions before there would be anything on the larger scale, but even this has obstacles.

I think it is likely that down the road there will be a unification of MP parishes in Western Europe with ROCOR. I could see there being a Metropolitan of Australia and New Zealand, and that becoming its own entity. And it is certainly possible that some merger could happen in North America, but while there are parts of the OCA that are very close to ROCOR in terms of their ethos, there are also elements that have embraced a modernist spirit that is quite foreign to us, and so I think the OCA would need to deal with that before any serious talk of a merger in North America would be possible. The OCA does have many positive things going for it, and many things it does well, and ROCOR is certainly not without its own problems. We don't know what the future holds. Future developments may help bring us all together. There is much upheaval in society today, as well as in the Church, and we can pray that as God shakes things up around us, that He will lead us all closer to Him, which would inevitably bring us all together.

For More Information, See:

ROCOR and the Assembly of Bishops

Voices of Reason (a collection of articles in response to those who objected to the reconciliation of ROCOR with the MP in 2007)