Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948:

From Decline to Resurrection (Routledge, 2015)

INTRODUCTION

On 27 July 2013, in an interview on the occasion of the 1125th anniversary of the

Baptism of Kiev Rus’, the Chairman of the Department for External Relations of the
Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Volokolamsk, put forward a
new vision of the ‘canonical territory’ of the Russian Orthodox Church.1 In fact, he
had elaborated on this subject in 2005, during his tenure as Bishop of Vienna and
Austria of the Moscow Patriarchate, when he served as its representative at European
international organizations in Brussels. Then he outlined the canonical territory of the
Russian Orthodox Church as embracing thirteen post-Soviet states, namely the
Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,
Turkmenistan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.2 Only Georgia
and Armenia were not present in this list, because their Orthodox believers belong to
the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Georgia. In his interview of 2013, however,
Metropolitan Hilarion also counted Japan and China as part of the Russian Orthodox
Church’s canonical territory. He justified their inclusion by reference to history: the
first Orthodox missionaries there were Russians. At the same time, the Russian
hierarch pointed to the right of his Church to exercise authority outside this expanded
canonical territory due to the necessity of giving spiritual and ecclesiological
guidance to the dioceses and parishes of its diaspora.

In general, the observers link these concepts of the Moscow Patriarchate with the
ambitions of the contemporary Russian state leaders. In this regard, they also tend to
draw parallels with Stalin’s use of the Orthodox Church for political ends during the
period 1943-1953. This approach, however, is not sufficient to reveal other important
factors that have determined the behavior of the Moscow Patriarchate both then and
now.3 Above all, it neglects the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church is itself a body
of power. As such it has a broad scope of interests that cannot be limited to the
traditional notion of religious liberties, with their focus on the individual rights of
believers. The foremost task of the Russian Church is to preserve its canonical
Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948:
From Decline to Resurrection (Routledge, 2015)

jurisdiction and administrative authority over communities of Orthodox believers and

territories, which is perceived as a kind of historical legacy entrusted to it by God.

In the last century, these particular attributes of the Russian Orthodox Church have
been called into question twice. The first crisis in this direction was caused by the two
Russian revolutions in 1917 and Russia’s defeat in World War I. They almost
destroyed the jurisdiction and authority of the Russian Orthodox Church, not only in
the lands that remained under Soviet control, but also abroad. Although in the course
of World War II and the first postwar years the Moscow Patriarchate had recovered its
losses, the collapse of the Soviet Union again called into question its rights over the
Orthodox communities in the new independent states. From such a perspective, the
roots of the aforementioned concepts of ‘canonical territory’ of the Russian Orthodox
Church and its ‘ecclesiological guidance’ for the diaspora should be sought not only
in contemporary politics, but also in history and Orthodox ecclesiology.

This book purports to shed light on these understudied questions of Russian church
history. It is inspired by a paradox in the experience of the Russian Orthodox Church:
The Soviet regime played a major part not only in its interwar decline, but also in its
resurrection during World War II. In contrast with other studies on this subject,
however, this one is not focused on the Bolshevik antireligious policy and Stalin’s
wartime misuse of religion for political ends. Instead, it analyzes the development of
the Russian Orthodox Church from the prospective of the decline and resurrection of
its canonical jurisdiction and administrative authority. In this regard, the period 1917-
1948 is of primary importance. The start of this period marks a crucial turn in the
jurisdiction and authority of the Russian Orthodox Church. By 1917, i.e. before the
two Russian revolutions and the defeat in World War I, it was the biggest
ecclesiastical organization in the Orthodox world. Its jurisdiction was not limited to
the territory of the Russian Empire, but was also spread over dioceses, missions and
parishes situated in North America, Asia, and Western Europe. In November 1917,
this enormous authority over Orthodox communities in three continents was
confirmed by the Great All-Russian Ecclesiastical Sobor (council), which restored the
patriarchal dignity of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948:
From Decline to Resurrection (Routledge, 2015)

In the interwar period, however, the Bolshevik antireligious policy caused serious
losses to the Moscow Patriarchate. As a result, its jurisdiction and authority were
gravely reduced not only in the Soviet Union, but also outside it. By 1939, the
administration of the Moscow Patriarchate de facto had no control over the Russian
Orthodox Church’s communities abroad. Moreover, the Orthodox Church in the
Soviet Union was brought to ‘the brink of complete dissolution’.4 Despite this
desperate state, however, in the course of World War II and the first postwar years,
the Moscow Patriarchate not only restored its jurisdiction over the former Russian
imperial territory, but even expanded it. In this way, during the Moscow Pan-
Orthodox Conference in July 1948, its jurisdiction and international influence reached
a new apogee. All this provides grounds to reconsider the motives of the Russian
Church leaders for concluding a concordat with Stalin in 1943. It points to specific
ecclesiastical motives for the collaboration between the Church and State in the
following years.

Historiography and Sources

The book discusses the decline and resurrection of the canonical jurisdiction and
administrative authority of the Russian Orthodox Church in the period 1917-1948 on
the basis of unpublished and understudied archival documents. In general, this issue
was only rarely touched on by scholars before 1991.5 As a rule, their attention was
concentrated on the political rather than the ecclesiastical aspects of Russian Church
history. On one hand, this focus of research was determined by the uniqueness of
Bolshevik militant atheism, and on the other, by the lack of access to the relevant
Soviet archives. In this way, studies on the post-1917 development of the Russian
Orthodox Church were oriented toward its domestic problems, namely its persecution
in Soviet lands.6 Meanwhile, its international activities were regarded mostly as an
extension of Soviet foreign policy.7

A greater sensitivity to questions about the jurisdiction and authority of the Moscow
Patriarchate was demonstrated by Russian émigrés. Their interest in this issue was
Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948:
From Decline to Resurrection (Routledge, 2015)

especially strong during the interwar period, when the decline of the Russian
Orthodox Church was as its most intense. In the first place, they concentrated their
efforts on defending the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate over its dioceses in
the ‘Near Abroad’, which had moved under the jurisdiction of other Orthodox
patriarchates. After the 1927 Declaration of Metropolitan Sergii (Stragorodskii), part
of the Russian émigrés also contested his rights to act as locum tenens of the Moscow
Patriarchate, i.e. to exercise authority over them. As a result, they published many
works dedicated to the ecclesiastical and canonical problems of Russian Orthodoxy
between the two world wars.8

After the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union (22 June 1941), the émigrés lost control
over the debate on Moscow’s canonical jurisdiction and authority. Meanwhile, the
Kremlin used the alliance between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill to launch a series
of propaganda works which claimed on behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church that
there was freedom of religion in Russia.9 These had a twofold task. On the one hand,
they were to silence the voices against the religious repressions in the Soviet Union,
thus facilitating its military collaboration with the United States and Great Britain. 10
On the other, they had to persuade the Christian world that the Moscow church
administration of Metropolitan Sergii (Stragorodskii) was the only canonical
leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church. In this way, they defended the right of the
Moscow Patriarchate to spread its jurisdiction over all dioceses which used to belong
to the Russian Orthodox Church before 1917, and to claim canonical authority over its
diaspora.

The outbreak of the Cold War revived the interest of western democracies in the
freedom of religion in the Soviet Union. As a result, this issue occupied a central
place in the studies of scholars on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Generally, these
works are concentrated on church-state relations in Soviet times.11 In comparison with
the previous period, however, there were some new developments. Scholars began to
analyze the issue of the Russian Church from the perspectives of human rights and
nationalism.12 In its turn, Soviet propaganda responded with publications that fell far
short of meeting academic standards.13 From this perspective, the representatives of
Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948:
From Decline to Resurrection (Routledge, 2015)

the Karlovci Synod, which was renamed the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia
after the transfer of its headquarters to the United States in the second half of the
1940s, also developed its an own position. During the Cold War, they mostly
published works that contested the right of the Moscow Patriarchate to present itself
as the canonical leader of Russian Orthodoxy.14 In this way, the horizon of Cold War
studies on the Russian Church remained limited to its development within the Soviet
lands. On rare occasions, western observers showed interest in the international
aspects of the activities of the Moscow Patriarchate. This tendency reached its peak in
the mid-1960s, when it joined the World Council of Churches.15

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the declassification of its secret archives,
especially of the records of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox
Church, expanded the scope of research in this field. Although the emphasis on
domestic developments mentioned above still dominates studies on the Soviet past of
the Russian Church, scholarly interest in the foreign affairs of the Moscow
Patriarchate is growing.16 However, the new studies have kept the old periodization,
which regards the 1943 ‘concordat’ between Stalin and Metropolitan Sergii
(Stragorodskii) as the starting point of the international activities of the Moscow
Patriarchate. The view of this Church as a passive tool of Soviet domestic and foreign
policy also continues to persist in historiography. In a similar way, the active support
of the Church’s leaders for Soviet wartime policy is explained mostly by referencing
their patriotism.17 There are, however, some new insights. More sensitive to specific
church interests, Rev. Vladislav Tsypin uses canonical arguments to defend
Moscow’s jurisdiction over the Baltic eparchies or over the Ukrainian Uniates. In
general, however, the ecclesiastical motives of the Moscow Patriarchate for its
collaboration with Stalin remain unexplored.

Post-Soviet historiography is also characterized by a differentiation between Russian

and non-Russian scholars exploring the Soviet period of Russian church history. As a
rule, Russian scholars pass over in silence the issue of the experience of Orthodox
communities in the western borderlands during the first Soviet occupation (1939-
1940). They also avoid elaborating on the canonical aspects of the ‘reunion’ acts that
Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948:
From Decline to Resurrection (Routledge, 2015)

the Moscow Patriarchate initiated in Eastern Poland and the Baltic States in this short
period. The general approach of Russian scholars to these developments is to treat
them as something domestic: The Russian Orthodox Church simply restored its
canonical authority over areas that had belonged to it for centuries.

Meanwhile, their foreign colleagues have developed a different approach, which is

more sensitive to the religious dimensions of the discussed ‘reunions’. The fact that
research on this subject is still scarce is mostly due to recent lack of access to archival
sources. At the same time, foreign historiography discusses the church ‘reunions’ of
1939 and 1940 from the perspective of the political sovereignty of the non-Russian
nations, i.e. they are treated as international rather than domestic affairs. 18 In this way,
it implicitly indicates that the collaboration between Stalin and the administration of
the Moscow locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergii (Stragorodskii), was mutually
beneficial: the Soviet regime expanded its political power, while the Moscow
Patriarchate restored its jurisdiction over dioceses and believers in the western
borderlands. All this calls for more detailed study of the activities of the Moscow
Patriarchate in these areas during their first Soviet occupation.

Finally, part of the problem in post-Soviet studies on Russian church history stems
from the restricted access to archival sources. Scholars use mostly archival documents
of the Soviet government and Communist Party, but have no access to those of the
Moscow Patriarchate. As a result, research on the activities of this patriarchate has
concentrated on their political dimensions, while the ecclesiastical dimensions remain
understudied. To overcome this weakness, this book uses archival documents kept in
foreign church archives. Thanks to them, it reveals some new facts about the Russian
Orthodox Church, and particularly about its attempt to maintain its unity and
canonical jurisdiction despite the changes in the political map of Europe after World
War I and the aggressive antireligious policy of the Soviet regime in the period 1917-
1938. It also gives publicity to archival documents that reveal an early collaboration
between Stalin and the Sergian church administration in the international sphere, i.e.
before the ‘concordat’ of 1943.
Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948:
From Decline to Resurrection (Routledge, 2015)

The Soviet sources used in this book include documents from the Council for the
Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, kept in the State Archive of the Russian
Federation (GARF), and from the Department of Propaganda and Agitation at the
Central Committee of the All-Soviet Communist Party (Bolsheviks), kept in the
Russian State Archive for Socio-Political History (RGASPI). The research presented
has also benefited from several recently published volumes of documents from the
Russian state archives.19 At the same time, part of this research was conducted in non-
Russian archives, which reveal different perspectives on its subject. One of these is
the Archive and Library of the Keston Institute, which keeps materials about the
Karlovci Synod, a leading center of the Russian emigration.20 The most significant
non-Russian sources for the study of the international activities of the Moscow
Patriarchate in the first half of the twentieth century, however, were found in the
Lambeth Palace Library (London). In this regard, especially valuable were the papers
of several archbishops of Canterbury, namely Cosmo Lang (1928-1942), William
Temple (1942-1945) and Geoffrey Francis Fisher (1945-1961), as well as the files of
Canon John Albert Douglas, the general secretary of the Church of England Council
on Foreign Relations (1933-1945). These not only offer a different perspective on the
international activities of the Moscow Patriarchate in the 1940s, but also contain
important information about the Russian churches outside the Soviet Union between
the two world wars.

Another important source of information for this research was the Open Society
Archive (OSA). Especially valuable in this regard was the documents from Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which discuss various aspects of the history of the
Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union. Finally, the book also uses documents from the
Archive of the Institute for Church History (ATsIAI) at the Bulgarian Patriarchate and
the Bulgarian State Archives (TsDA). These keep the files of the Bulgarian Orthodox
Church, the Bulgarian Communist Party and the Directorate of Religious Affairs at
the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. These resources shed light on the
mechanisms used by the Moscow Patriarchate and Stalin’s government to include the
Orthodox churches in the Balkans within the Soviet sphere of influence.
Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948:
From Decline to Resurrection (Routledge, 2015)

Book Structure and Hypotheses

The book is organized in nine chapters outlining the major stages and changes in
canonical jurisdiction and administrative authority of the Russian Orthodox Church in
the period 1917-1948. More specifically, it reveals the metamorphoses through which
the Russian Orthodox Church passed in the first part of the twentieth century, as well
as the attempts of its Moscow leadership to save the Church’s imperial legacy despite
the political changes in Russia and the world. It also pays attention to such external
factors as the Soviet government and the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople,
which played decisive roles in this process. In this way, the book points to the
interplay of politics and ecclesiology in shaping the contemporary vision of the
Russian Orthodox Church of its rights to exercise supreme authority over the
communities of believers not only within the former Soviet territories but also in other
parts of the world. The size of each chapter varies in accordance with the state of
research in this field and the accessibility to archival sources.

The first chapter outlines the dissolution of the Russian Orthodox Church between the
two world wars, a process that affected its structures not only in the Soviet Union but
also abroad. It pays special attention to the establishment of successor churches in
Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, most of which left the bosom of the
Russian mother church and moved under the jurisdiction of the ecumenical
Patriarchate of Constantinople. It also traces the attempts of Russian hierarchs-in-
exile to create a Church Abroad, beneath which it could unite all the Russian
Church’s structures outside the interwar Soviet borders, and which would take
pastoral care of these structures until the collapse of the Soviet regime and the
restoration of normal relations with the mother church in Moscow. In this regard, the
book reflects on the harmful effects of the decrees of the Moscow church leadership
over the Russian Church’s diaspora. More specifically, it sheds light on the conflicts
that these documents have provoked between Metropolitan Antonii (Khrapovitskii),
the chairman of the Karlovci Synod in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians;
Metropolitan Evlogii (Georgievskii) in Paris, who initiated the establishment of the
Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948:
From Decline to Resurrection (Routledge, 2015)

Western European Russian Orthodox Exarchate; and Metropolitan Platon

(Rozhdestvenskii), who headed the North American Metropolia.

The next chapter explores the activities of the church administration of the Moscow
locum tenens Metropolitan Sergii (Stragorodskii) in the western borderlands (Western
Ukraine, Western Belarus, Bessarabia, North Bukovina and the Baltic States) during
their first Soviet occupation (September 1939 - June 1941). Having been part of the
Russian Empire for centuries, they were also regarded as the inheritance of its
Orthodox Church. Moreover, the latter preserved its jurisdiction over the Orthodox
believers who had remained outside the interwar Soviet borders, i.e. the establishment
of new sovereign states on the former Russian imperial territory was not followed by
similar changes in the ecclesiastical sphere. The main modification was the granting
of internal autonomy to those communities whose citizenship was changed between
1918 and 1921. At the same time, the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate refused
to recognize the later move of the Finnish, Estonian and Latvian Orthodox churches
under the jurisdiction of the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. It also
rejected the autocephaly that Constantinople granted to the Polish Orthodox Church.
On these grounds, the Sergian church administration restored its authority over the
western borderlands after their annexation to the Soviet Union in 1939-1940. In this
regard, the chapter discusses in detail the procedures which the Moscow Patriarchate
used in this endeavor.

The third chapter examines the ‘Holy War’ of the Sergian Church in the period from
the Nazi invasion in the Soviet Union (22 June 1941) to the election of Sergii as
Patriarch of Moscow (8 September 1943). During these most arduous months of the
war, the Moscow locum tenens Sergii and his supporters created an image of their
organization as a patriotic church that defended its native people and fought for its
own territorial and canonical integrity. The chapter presents a detailed analysis of the
proclamations issued by the Sergian Church. It reveals the ways in which the ‘holy
war’ theme was elaborated by church hierarchs in their epistles and sermons. It also
outlines the transformations in the ecclesiastical organization of the Orthodox
communities in Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and Transnistria under German
Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948:
From Decline to Resurrection (Routledge, 2015)

and Romanian occupation (1941-1944). Finally, the chapter discusses the appeals of
Metropolitan Sergii to the Orthodox Christians in the Balkans and to the Christians
abroad who also suffered the same Nazi evil.

The fourth chapter sheds light on the relations between the Sergian Church and
Western Christianity during the World War II. It is based on previously unexplored
archival materials about the wartime relations between the Sergian church
administration and the leadership of the Church of England. Their analysis sheds light
on the initial phase of the diplomacy of the Moscow Patriarchate (1942-1943) and
particularly on the efforts of its leaders to gain international recognition. The chapter
also points to specific ecclesiastical motives of the locum tenens Sergii
(Stragorodskii) that justified his collaboration with Stalin on the international scene.

The fifth chapter analyzes the election of Sergii (Stragorodskii) as Patriarch of

Moscow and All Russia and his short tenure. It pays particular attention to the
Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was established as an
instrument of control over the patriarchal administration. In this regard, the analysis
highlights those areas in which the Church’s domestic and international interests were
in harmony with those of the Soviet State. With the Kremlin’s assistance, Patriarch
Sergii brought to an end the Renovationist, Georgian and Estonian schisms and
consolidated the Orthodox Church in the Soviet territories. In parallel, he gained
international recognition not only from the Church of England and various Russian
émigré church organizations, but also from the most ancient Orthodox patriarchates of
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. After Sergii’s death in May 1944, his policy was
continued by Metropolitan Alexii (Simanskii), who was elected as Patriarch of
Moscow on 2 February 1945.

The sixth chapter deals with the growth of Moscow’s jurisdiction in the first postwar
years. It traces the expansion of the administrative and canonical authority of the
Russian Orthodox Church under Patriarch Alexii. Within the Soviet territories, this
policy was aimed at getting rid of the Greek rite Catholics, known as ‘Uniates’ in
Soviet historiography. The chapter points to the specific methods of ‘reunion’ of the
Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948:
From Decline to Resurrection (Routledge, 2015)

Uniates used by the Soviet state and church authorities in the cases of Western
Ukraine (1946) and Transcarpathia (1949). It also reveals the way in which Patriarch
Alexii spread his authority over Russian and non-Russian Orthodox communities
situated outside the postwar Soviet borders, namely in Czechoslovakia and Central
Europe. Finally, the chapter discusses the failure of the Moscow Patriarchate to
restore its jurisdiction over the Orthodox community in Finland, which remained
under the jurisdiction of the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The seventh chapter explores postwar developments connected with the Russian
émigré churches beyond the territories under the Red Amy’s control. It traces the
attempts of Patriarch Alexii to place under his jurisdiction the Russian émigré
churches there. Its analysis begins with the Karlovci Synod, the Russian church center
abroad which had demonstrated firm and systematic opposition to the Soviet regime
and the Sergian Church since 1927. The chapter also discusses the negotiations of the
Moscow Patriarchate with the other two major Russian church bodies abroad – the
Western European Orthodox Russian Exarchate in Paris and the Russian Metropolia
in North America. During the war, under the wartime alliance of Stalin with
Roosevelt and Churchill, they established contact with the Sergian church
administration and even started negotiating their return under Moscow’s jurisdiction.
Although Patriarch Alexii failed to achieve this goal, he succeeded in establishing
several exarchates abroad, thus expanding the influence of his Church outside the
Soviet camp.

Entitled ‘The Moscow Patriarchate and the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches

outside the Soviet Union (1944-1948)’, the eighth chapter analyzes one of the most
canonically sensitive aspects of the foreign policy of the Moscow Patriarchate – its
relations with the autocephalous Orthodox churches, i.e. with bodies that enjoyed
equal rights and independence in their ecclesiastical affairs. This analysis reveals the
religious and political mechanisms used to redirect the development of the Romanian,
Bulgarian, Serbian, and Albanian Orthodox churches in conformity with postwar
Soviet geopolitics. It also discusses the attempts to establish a unified Orthodox
Church in Hungary, where most Balkan churches had had their own religious parishes
Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948:
From Decline to Resurrection (Routledge, 2015)

for centuries. In the end, the chapter presents a review of the negotiations of the
Moscow Patriarchate with the ancient Orthodox patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch
and Jerusalem, which were expected to assist in Stalin’s plan to transform the
Moscow Patriarchate into an ‘Orthodox Vatican’.

The last chapter explores the postwar Soviet attempts to organize an ‘Eighth
Ecumenical Council’. It traces the adaptation of Stalin’s ‘Orthodox Vatican’ project to
postwar geo-political realities. It points to the factors that induced the Kremlin to give
up its ambitious plan for a World Congress of Churches embracing all branches of
Christianity under the aegis of the Moscow Patriarchate. It also reveals the failure of
the idea of the Soviet church hierarchy to convoke an Eight Ecumenical Council with
the participation of all Orthodox churches. In this regard, the chapter discusses the
canonical framework in which such enterprises can take place. Finally, it analyzes the
organization of the so-called Pan-Orthodox Conference (1948), which was attended
only by Orthodox churches from the so-called people’s democracies. It reveals how
this forum was used by the Moscow Patriarchate and the Soviet government to
strengthen their positions in those Eastern European countries where communist
parties came to power.

Note on the Transliteration of the Slavonic Names

The book contains many Slavonic names. In general, their Cyrillic versions are
transliterated in accordance with The Chicago Manual of Style. In the case of
quotations, however, the names follow the spelling in the original document. In
addition, the names of Russian hierarchs of Greek origin are transliterated
accordingly, e.g. the Russian name Feofil is written as ‘Theophil’. Finally, the
Slavonic names of clerics who lived and worked in Anglo-Saxon countries are not
transliterated but used in the form by which they were known there, e.g. Benjamin
instead of the Russian ‘Veniamin’.

Another important specificity is the use of brackets for the family names of the
Russian Orthodox bishops, e.g. Sergii (Stragorodskii). The names of some authors are
Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948:
From Decline to Resurrection (Routledge, 2015)

also specific in the case of Orthodox monks whose family names are often unknown.
As a rule, they are presented by the name they adopted as monks and sometimes with
their title, e.g. Photius, Bishop of Triaditsa.

1
‘Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk: The Baptism of Kiev Rus’ predestinated the further
development of our history’, An interview of Konstantin Eggert with Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev),
broadcasted in the program ‘Church and World’ of the TV-channel “Rossia-24” on July 27, 2013.
Available in: https://mospat.ru/ru/2013/07/28/news89479/. (last access on 3 January 2014)
2
Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), ‘Printsip “kanonicheskoy territorii” v pravoslavnoy traditsii’ (The
Principle of ‘canonical territory’ in the Orthodox tradition), Tserkov’ i vremya, 2005, vol. 31 (1), p. 54,
(43-61).
3
There are two terms in Russian, Patriarkhat and Patriarkhiya, which are translated in English as
‘Patriarchate’. According to the official English translation of the Statute of the Russian Orthodox
Church, Patriarkhat is a synonym of the term ‘Russian Orthodox Church’. See Statute’s Section I
‘General Provisions’, Article 2 in: https://mospat.ru/en/documents/ustav/i/. Meanwhile, the term
Patriarkhiya means ‘an institution of the Russian Orthodox Church, uniting the structures, which are
supervised directly by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia’. See Section VI ‘The Moscow
Patriarchate and the Synodal Institutions’, Article 1 in: https://mospat.ru/en/documents/ustav/vi/. (last
access on 3 January 2014)
4
W. C. Fletcher, Religion and Soviet Foreign Policy 1945-1970, London: Oxford University Press,
1973, p. 5.
5
W. Alexeev, The Foreign Policy of the Moscow Patriarchate 1939-1953, New York: Research
Program on the U.S.S.R., 1955; W. Stroyen, Communist Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church,
1943-1962, Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1967; Fletcher, Op. cit. The
international activities of the Moscow Patriarchate are also discussed in H. Fireside, Icon and Swastika:
The Russian Orthodox Church under Nazi and Soviet Control, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1971, and D. Dunn, The Catholic Church and the Soviet Government, 1939-1949, East European
Quarterly, New York: Boulder, 1977.
6
A. Valentinov, Chernaya kniga (“Shturm nebes”), Paris: 1925; N. Timasheff, Religion in Soviet
Russia, 1917-1942, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1942; P. Anderson, People, Church and State in
Modern Russia, New York: Macmillan, 1944; etc.
7
Fletcher, Op. cit.
8
Vozbuditeli Raskola, Paris: 1927; Yu. Grabbe, Korni tserkovnoy smuty, Belgrade: 1927;
Kanonicheskoe polozhenie Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi zagranitsey, Paris: Eparchial administration
of the West European Metropolitan District, 1927; Deyaniya Russkago Vsezarubezhnago
Tserkovnago Sobora, sostoyavshgosya 8-20 noyabrya 1921 goda (21 noyabrya – dekabrya) v
Sremskikh Karlovtsakh v Korolevstve S., Kh., i S., Sremski Karlovci: [Karlovci Synod], 1922;
Deyaniya Vtorogo Vsezarubezhnago. Sobora Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi zagranitsey, Belgrade:
[Karlovci Synod], 1939; etc. Articles on this issue were also published in the Russian émigré media:
Vestnik Russkogo Studentcheskogo Christianskogo Dvizheniya (Newspaper of the Russian Student
Christian Movement), Paris; Put’ (Road), Paris; Pravoslavnaya Rus’ (Orthodox Russia), New York;
Tserkovniye vedomosti (Church News), Sremski Karlovci; Tserkovnaya zhizn’ (Church Life), Sremski
Karlovci, etc.
9
Pravda o religii v Rossii, Moscow: 1942; Russkaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkov’ i Velikaya
Otechestvennay voyna, Moscow: 1943.
10
On this issue see S. M. Miner, Stalin’s Holy War: Religion, Nationalism and Alliance Politics, 1941-
1945. Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003.
11
J. Curtis, The Russian Church and the Soviet State, 1917-1950, Boston: Little Brown, 1953; V.
Gsovski (ed.), Church and State behind the Iron Curtain, New York: Frederic A. Praeger, 1955; W.
Fletcher, A Study in Survival: the Church in Russia, 1927-1943, New York: Macmillan, 1965; L.
Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1948:
From Decline to Resurrection (Routledge, 2015)

Regel’son, Tragediya Russkoy Tsekvi, 1917-1945, Paris: YMCA Press, 1977; P. Ramet, Cross and
Commissar: the Politics of Religion in Eastern Europe and the USSR, Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1987.
12
M. Bourdeaux, Patriarch and Prophets: Persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church Today, New
York: Praeger, 1970; Ibid., Religious Liberty in the Soviet Union: WCC and the SSSR: a Post Nairobi
Documentation, Keston, UK: Keston College: 1976; P. Ramet (ed.), Eastern Christianity and Politics
in the Twentieth Century, Durham: Duke University Press, 1988; Ibid. (ed.), Religion and Nationalism
in Soviet and Eastern European Politics, Durham: Duke University Press, 1989; J. Ellis, The Russian
Orthodox Church: Conformity and Dissent, London: Routledge, 1990.
13
Patriarkh Sergii i ego dukhovnoe nastledstvo, Moscow: 1947, G. Karpov, Russkata pravoslavna
tsarkva v Savetskiya sayuz (The Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union), Moscow: 1947; V.
Kuroedov, Savetskata darzhava i tsarkvata (The Soviet State and the Church), Sofia: 1978.
14
The main protagonist of this idea was G. Grabbe, the author of such polemical and canonical works
as Pravda o Russkoy tserkvi na rodine i zarubezhom, G. Grabbe (ed.), Jordanville, N.Y.: Holy Trinity
Monastery, 1962; Zavet Svyatogo Patriarkha, Moscow: Unknown publishing house, 1996. See also M.
Nazarov, Missiya russkoy emigratsii, Moscow: Rodnik, 1994.
15
The international activities of the Moscow Patriarchate entered in the scope of research of such
scholars as W. Fletcher, A Study in Survival: The Church in Russia, 1927-1943, London: SPCK, 1965,
and W. Stroyen, Op. cit.
16
D. Pospelovskii, Russkaya pravoslavnaya tserkov’ v XX veke, Moscow: Respublika, 1993; M.
Shkarovskii, Russkaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkov’ i Sovetskoe gosudarstvo v 1943-1964 godakh: Ot
“peremiriya” k novoy voyne, St. Petersburg: DEAA & ADIA, 1995; Ibid., Russkaya Pravoslavnaya
Tserkov’ pri Staline i Khrusheve: Gosudarstvenno-tserkovnye otnoshenia v SSSR v 1939-1964 godakh,
Moscow: Krutitskoe podvorye, 1999; V. Tsypin, Istoriya Russkoy Tserkvi, 1917-1997, Moscow:
Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaamsky Monastyr’, 1997; O. Vasil’eva, Russkaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkov’ v
politike Sovetskogo gosudarstva v 1943-1948 gg., Moscow: IRI RAN, 1999; T. A. Chumachenko,
Church and State in Soviet Russia: Russian Orthodoxy from World War II to the Khrushchev Years,
New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2002; T. Volokitina, G. Murashko and A. Noskova (eds.), Moskva i
Vostochnaya Evropa: Vlast’ i tserkov’ v period obshetsvennykh transformatsiy, 40-50 godov XX veka,
Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2008.
17
See N. Krivova (ed.), ‘Introduction’ in Pis’ma Patriarkha Alekseya I v Sovet po Delam Russkoy
Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi pri Sovete Narodnykh Komissarov – Sovete Ministrov SSSR, 1945-1953 gg., vol.
1, complied by Yu. Orlova, O. Lavinskaya, K. Lyashenko, Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2009, pp. 6-8.
18
Before the collapse of the Soviet Union the activities of the Moscow Patriarchate in the Baltic States,
North Bukovina, Bessarabia and the western parts of Byelorussia and Ukraine was studied by W.
Alexeev and T. Stavrou, The Great Revival, Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co., 1976; B. Bociurkiw
and J. Strong (eds.), Religion and Atheism in the USSR and Eastern Europe, Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1975; A. Chernev, The Latvian Orthodox Church, Welshpool, UK: Stylite Publishing,
1985. After 1991, new light on these issues is shed by studies based declassified Soviet archival
documents. For the post-Soviet period see: A. Gavrilin (ed.), Pravoslavie v Latvii: istoricheskie
ocherki, Riga: Besprybil’naya organizatsiya ‘Blagovest’, 1997, 2 vols.; S. Fomin, Krov’yu ubelennye:
Mucheniki i ispovedniki Severo-Zapada Rossii i Pribaltiki (1940-1955), Moscow: Palomnik, 1999; A.
Golikov, Martirolog pravoslavnykh sveshtenosluzhiteley i tserkovnosluzhiteley Latvii,
repressirovannykh v 1940-1952 gg., Moscow: Palomnik, 1999.
19
T. Volokitina, G. Murasko, A. Noskova, and D. Nokhotovich (eds.), Vlast’ i tserkov’ v Vostochnoy
Evrope, 1944-1953. Dokumenty Rossiskikh Arkhivov, vol. 1 (1944-1948), Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2009;
N. Krivova (ed.), Pis’ma Patriarkha Alekseya I v Sovet po Delam Russkoy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi pri
Sovete Narodnykh Komissarov – Sovete Ministrov SSSR, 1945-1953 gg., vol. 1, Moscow: ROSSPEN,
2009.
20
Today the Archives and library of the Keston Institute is situated in Baylor University, Texas, USA.