How should we regard the official glorification of Archbishop Luke (Voyno-Yasenetsky) by the Moscow Patriarchate (MP)?
First of all, our Church (Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria) considers how Archbishop Luke is regarded by our Sister Church, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA).1 He was not among the martyrs and confessors glorified by the ROCA in 1981. Likewise, he is not included in our Menology and we do not treat him as an Orthodox saint. The basis for the ROCA’s decision was that Archbishop Luke was unambiguously involved with the church policies of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodskiy) d.1944 implemented to satisfy the Soviet authorities. It is important to explain why the ROCA desisted from glorifying clergymen involved with Sergianism.
We know, from the history of the Russian Church in the period after the 1917 revolution, that the Soviet secret police frequently attempted to initiate schisms in the Church in order to destroy her. At first, the aim of the Bolshevik powers was to uproot all faith in God, to erase the name of God altogether. This ultimate goal was very explicit and was laid out officially in their party programme. The Bolsheviks commenced their war against the Church with ruthless repression against the clergy and the faithful.
However, they soon understood that this approach would not achieve the desired outcome of severing people from the faith. Instead, the repressions forged new confessors and martyrs, from among the clergy and laity, whom the faithful honoured for their struggle for piety, thus increasing the spiritual authority of the Church. The persecution, therefore, did not achieve its objective but rather the opposite.
Consequently, the Bolsheviks attempted to infiltrate the Church hierarchy by promoting collaborators to positions within the Church administration. The secret police instigated the so-called ‘Renovationist' schism by utilising a movement already in existence in the Russian Church before the revolution. This Renovationist movement consisted of people with liberal orientations who were in favour of married bishops, permitting priests to marry a second time, the weakening of the fasts and so on. These impious innovations, however, were rejected by the Church’s faithful. Only a small minority supported the movement. With the help of the authorities, the Renovationists seized control of two-thirds of the churches in Russia, but the faithful would not attend their services, and would only attend churches served by priests loyal to Patriarch Tikhon.2This schism did not succeed, although many priests and bishops did submit to the Renovationist hierarchy from fear of persecution.
The Church became even stronger during this trial, because the weak, fainthearted or liberal-minded transferred to the Renovationists and the Body of the Church shook off those members who would have caused greater decay from within. As the schism was developing, Patriarch Tikhon was arrested and held under strict house arrest for one year. Following his release, and his First Exhortation to the Faithful, priests who had submitted out of fear began to return to the Patriarchal Church en masse and the Renovationist leadership was weakened.
Subsequently, the GPU3 tried to harm the Church in various ways by instigating schismatic movements, such as the Gregorian schism (an attempt to introduce the New Calendar into the Russian Church). These, however, met with failure because the Church hierarchy, which the Soviet authorities appointed and legally registered, did not receive the backing and recognition of the Church’s faithful.
The Orthodox flock rejected the Renovationists precisely because the latter unhesitatingly endorsed and collaborated with the openly atheistic Soviet government. Any faithful member of the Church naturally could not consent to be led by pastors who were collaborators with the secret police (who in turn were endeavouring to destroy the Church).
Of course, the bishops and priests who did not wish to submit to the Renovationist leadership, being unable to appeal openly to the government, reasoned thus: “we cannot accept the Renovationists because they are uncanonical and unlawful in the eyes of the Church.” However, on their part, the Bolsheviks simply changed tactics to achieve their goal. Eugene Tuchkov,4 the head of the GPU department concerned with the destruction of the Church announced the following: “Very well, I will give you your own canonical first hierarch, but after this there will be no mercy for those who don’t submit to him.” The Bolsheviks understood that it wasn’t enough simply to impose an agreeable ecclesiastical leadership that they could control; these leaders would have to be canonical in order for the faithful to accept them.
Patriarch Tikhon reposed in 1925. For the next two years, the government tried, without success, to break the will of those hierarchs who stood at the forefront of the Church’s leadership, or who had a canonical claim to receive the primacy. These were Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) d.1937, Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh) d.1937, Metropolitan Agathangel (Preobrazhensky) d.1928, Archbishop Seraphim (Samoylovich) d.1937 and Metropolitan Cyril (Smirnov) d.1937. These hierarchs were removed, sent into exile, imprisoned or placed under house-arrest.
Eventually, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodskiy) accepted the GPU’s conditions and in the summer of 1927 he published his notorious Declaration of Loyalty to the Soviet government on behalf of the Church. He instigated a new ecclesiastical policy of collaboration with the Bolsheviks. This Church position and policy is known after him as “Sergianism”. It is important to understand what Sergianism is because, together with ecumenism, it is the main reason for our separation from official Orthodoxy. I will give an example to show the level of treachery by this new project of the GPU.
When Tuchkov was trying to corrupt the Metropolitan of Kazan, Cyril, he told him the following: “I will give you a list of people with which you will form a Synod. Additionally, you are to cooperate with us in everything. Then we will allow you to exist legally. And what do we mean by ‘cooperation’? If a certain hierarch is unacceptable to us, we will inform you and you must remove him from his see.” But the “unacceptable” ones were the genuine hierarchs, the real shepherds, who defended the faith and were supported by the faithful. Metropolitan Cyril responded: “Very well, and what am I to do in such an instance? Do I summon him and tell him: ‘Brother, I don’t have anything against you, but the authorities don’t like you, they don’t want you, so I have to replace you.’” Tuchkov exclaimed: “Not like that! You have to find your own ecclesiastical grounds and remove him discretely, as if it were your own idea.” Metropolitan Cyril replied as following: “Eugene Alexandrovich, you are not the cannon and I am not the shell with which you’d like to demolishing the Russian Church.” For this response he immediately received a further three years of exile in Siberia. Using the Church pastors as a tool to destroy the Church is demonic treachery. It buries the spiritual authority of the hierarchy in the eyes of the populace; the people realise that their pastors are starting to cooperate with the persecutors, having compromised their positions. In fact, such treachery breaks the spiritual moral strength of the faithful and crushes their firm resistance – not by depriving them of their hierarchs by slaughtering them as martyrs or sending them into exile as confessors – but through seeing them morally broken and betraying the Church to please the persecutors. As we can see, compared to Renovationism, Sergianism is a much more deceptive and difficult challenge for the clergy and for the entire flock.
Once it became clear that Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod had agreed to play the role the authorities had proposed, the most steadfast hierarchs, clergy and laymen severed communion with him. At one stage, this movement numbered around forty bishops, and these were the best part of the Russian Church. Even the Sergianists themselves admitted that the highest regarded hierarchs had separated from them. The aim of this resistance was to protect the freedom of the Church, because she is only able to truly prosper when she is free from within and when her leadership is not dictated to by external forces that seek her destruction. Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh) blessed the commencement of this movement in Petrograd and his followers become known as “Josephites”; they were also called “Tikhonites” (after Patriarch Tikhon) or “True Orthodox”.5
However, the majority of hierarchs remained in submission to Metropolitan Sergius for a number of different motives. A large remnant stayed in administrative submission although they did not approve of his actions and protested against them. These “non-commemorators” refused to commemorate the Soviet authorities in church services — something which Metropolitan Sergius had ordered in an Ukaz.6 Before, the Tsar had been commemorated in the Church services but now the Sergianist hierarchs were demanding the commemoration of the Soviet government. During the litanies, the faithful would hear the priest praying for the success of the Soviet authorities, who were striving to destroy the Church. Some of the “non-commemorators” would not even commemorate Metropolitan Sergius, but only Metropolitan Peter, the Locum Tenens of Patriarch Tikhon.7 At that time, the authorities had exiled Metropolitan Peter, and Metropolitan Sergius was acting as his Locum Tenens.
Most of the hierarchs continued in submission to Metropolitan Sergius simply because they could not endure the repressions any longer. Father Michael Polsky relates the following concerning a bishop of his acquaintance who had lived through years of exile. He related to Fr Michael: “I know very well that all Sergius is doing is abominable, and I can’t stand him, but I’m exhausted and at long last I want to go home.” He had been sent from exile to exile. Some people felt they could not endure the giant wine-press of persecution any longer.
In addition, Metropolitan Sergius personally initiated aggressive methods against those who did not recognise his authority and who protested against his actions: clergy were prohibited from serving or defrocked, and he even forbade funerals to be served for laity who had separated from him. He did not hesitate to put under ban the most senior hierarchs of the Russian Church, beginning with Cyril Metropolitan of Kazan, appointed by Patriarch Tikhon in his will as first Locum Tenens. By this action, Sergius declared that anyone not in communion with him had fallen away from the Church. Of course, for the steadfast confessors, his sanctions and threats had no authority, but the majority of others stumbled: “Are we really going to fall away from the Church? Of course, what he’s doing is outrageous. However, on the other hand, he is lawful and is not violating the dogmas of the Church. Do we have a legitimate reason for separating from him?” Sergius himself insisted, “You can’t accuse us of anything, we are canonical. We are the legal Church authority, and moreover we aren’t breaking the Church canons or her dogmas. It is you who are separating yourselves from the Church.”
Meanwhile, the other Eastern Patriarchates, driven by their own ecclesiastical-political interests, recognised the Church authority of Metropolitan Sergius. He presented his question to the confessors as follows: “Who are you with? You are outside the Church! And not just because the Synod and I are your ecclesiastical leadership, but because we are in communion with all of the Eastern Patriarchates — Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch — each one of them recognises our ecclesiastical authority.” This proved an enormous trial for the Russian faithful, demanding the highest level of spiritual discernment in order to navigate through such tempestuous times.
At the same time, Metropolitan Sergius declared to western journalists: “There is no persecution of the Church in Russia. It is true that many religious figures — hierarchs and laymen — are imprisoned, but these are not being punished for their faith, but for their political rebellion against the authorities.” Thus the martyrs for the faith were affirmed as political criminals. The confessors who separated themselves from Metropolitan Sergius all declared to him: “You pronounce blasphemies against the confessors and martyrs of the Church. You lay all the blame of persecution on us, on the Church herself, but you excuse the Bolsheviks.”
Despite all this, however, the Metropolitan continued to demand submission, maintaining his position: “The Church canons say that you can only separate yourselves from the church hierarchy if we break the canons and dogmas of the Church, but we haven’t broken them.” See here what the Sergianists consider to be “canonical”. At this time, Joseph, Metropolitan of Petrograd wrote: “who is worse, the heretic or the murderer? The heretic thrusts a knife into the very heart of the Church, he surrenders the Church and her freedom into the hands of the atheists.”
As I have said, the bishops and priests who remained in submission to Metropolitan Sergius had various reasons. Some of them, however, were not simply crushed, broken or confused, but active supporters of Metropolitan Sergius. Unfortunately, Archbishop Luke belongs to this category. He had a very hostile attitude towards the leading martyrs and confessors, and in his opinion they were simply “sectarians.” After the Second World War, Archbishop Luke became an open supporter of Soviet state policies, and he made a series of public announcements praising Soviet foreign policies as “fair”. In current hagiographies these things are passed over in silence. Many incidents which he includes in his autobiography are also not mentioned. For example, he actually renounced his ministry as a hierarch for many years, in order to be permitted to work as a doctor. We read in hagiographies that he too was in a prison camp, he too was persecuted. It is true that he was sent into exile three times and also declared himself against the Renovationist schism. But afterwards he declared himself against the Josephites and against the Catacomb Church, in support of Sergianism, and collaborated with the persecutors of the confessors.
As I have said, the bishops and priests who remained in submission to Metropolitan Sergius had various reasons. Some of them, however, were not simply crushed, broken or confused, but active supporters of Metropolitan Sergius. Unfortunately, Archbishop Luke belongs to this category. He had a very hostile attitude towards the leading martyrs and confessors, and in his opinion they were simply “sectarians.” After the Second World War, Archbishop Luke became an open supporter of Soviet state policies, and he made a series of public announcements praising Soviet foreign policies as “fair”. In current hagiographies these things are passed over in silence. Many incidents which he includes in his autobiography are also not mentioned. For example, he actually renounced his ministry as a hierarch for many years, in order to be permitted to work as a doctor. We read in hagiographies that he too was in a prison camp, he too was persecuted. It is true that he was sent into exile three times and also declared himself against the Renovationist schism. But afterwards he declared himself against the Josephites and against the Catacomb Church, in support of Sergianism, and collaborated with the persecutors of the confessors.
As I said, in the beginning the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy the entire Church, without trace. They had as much dislike for the Sergianists as for the Renovationists; they had no need of any Church whatsoever. Their policy was to “divide and conquer”, using either enticing promises or repressions in order to set one part of the clergy — the Renovationists and the Sergianists — against those prepared to defend the freedom of the Church until the very end. Once the Soviets had dealt with the Josephites (Tikhonites), the Sergianists were next in line. The latter had been hoping that by their submission and collaboration they would receive recognition and be able to exist in a Soviet atheistic state, but those calculations were wrong. Since they no longer had need of the Sergianists, the Bolsheviks submitted them to the same mass oppressions as the genuine Orthodox.
The current Moscow Patriarchate (MP), the direct descendent of the Sergianist Church, today very cunningly erases any distinction, mixing truth with falsehood. It erases the difference between the steadfast and leading confessors and those who suffered as a consequence of communist repressions, whilst remaining under Metropolitan Sergius. The MP has glorified many of the hierarchs who opposed Metropolitan Sergius, ranking them together with Sergianists who suffered persecution. The position of the MP is currently as follows: “Yes, at that time the two sides had their differences, but now, looking back we can say that both one and the other were right: One group took one path, and the other group took a different path; both paths earned them a crown as a confessor for the Orthodox Faith.”
However, when glorifying the New Martyrs in 1981, the ROCA did differentiate between the two categories. She did not glorify those who embraced Sergianism because they had been used by the atheist government to repress the martyrs and confessors who, until their end, championed the freedom of the Church and her innate purity. This is the reason that she did not glorify Archbishop Luke.
Here we need to clarify that the ROCA did not judge Archbishop Luke or proclaim how someone like him stands in the sight of God. God alone knows. By refusing to venerate him as a saint she demonstrated that the Church cannot promote his actions as exemplary for faithful Christians, i.e. he cannot be a role model for us. The position of Archbishop Luke is unacceptable in the eyes of the Church. Venerating him together with the saints signifies exactly the opposite: it means that he is offered to Orthodox Christians as an example to follow in our lives.
What about his miracles?
Whenever we consider contemporary testimonies of miracles we must be very careful. Generally speaking, there is a lot of mythology in current hagiography. On reading accounts of miracles, the faithful are initially easily inclined to trust in them, and psychologically that is understandable and even natural. The very notion that an account of a miracle could be made up seems monstrous to the sincerely-believing Christian; this would be a horrible blasphemy and completely unthinkable. But the facts are staring at us; many things have simply been invented and a vast number of these incidents are now well known. In the 1990’s, after the collapse of Communism, Orthodox literature began to be published and a multitude of miraculous accounts emerged from the time of the Second World War.
We have read how, before the Battle of Kaliningrad, Marshal Zhukov ordered the Kazan icon of the Mother of God to be brought to the army’s headquarters and a moleben to be served before it. Subsequently, as the fighting commenced, all the guns on the German side were silenced periodically, and many German war prisoners later testified that they saw the Mother of God in the sky above the attacking Soviet forces. This story, which was publicised very broadly throughout the 1990’s, turned out to be false from beginning to end.
Another popular legend, regarding Metropolitan Elias of the Antiochean Patriarchate, which was widely disseminated is also now known to be fictitious. Those who have read it will recall the story of how, during the war, Metropolitan Elias secluded himself in a cave, and after having prayed and fasted for three days the ceiling of the cave opened up and the Most holy Theotokos appeared to him. She supposedly ordered him to tell Stalin that he is to re-open all the churches, that he must release from prison and return from the front line all priests, giving them freedom to serve in the churches. Only with the fulfilment of her stipulations would they be victorious over the Germans. Apparently, Metropolitan Elias managed to deliver the message to Stalin. Stalin put his faith in this directive: his obedience to it and its subsequent fulfilment allegedly resulted in Germany’s defeat. Now it is very well known that these, and similar stories, are fairytales.
In the light of this, it behooves us to deal very cautiously with evidence of miracles, especially if we perceive in them some agenda. Having the aforesaid stories in mind, we naturally ask ourselves: why is it necessary to concoct miracles? Who gains from it? Is a particular motive being pursued by the admission and circulation of such legends? It is not hard to see, in my opinion, with these two legends, and a great deal many more like them, that there is an attempt to unify the mind of the Church with Soviet patriotism. Perhaps this is a consciously developed agenda aiming to manipulate the faithful?
To many it may seem conspiratorial to even pose such a question. But let us remind ourselves of a real, documented and proven story from Soviet times in relation to Fr. Vsevolod Schpiller and his spiritual children, among whom are Archpriest Vladimir Vorobyov, the current rector of the St. Tikhon university in Moscow, the infamous Muscovite Priest Dimitrii Smirnov, the representative of the department of the Moscow Patriarchate for relations with the armed forces, and other well known archpriests and hierarchs.
At the beginning of the 1970’s, Archpriest Vsevolod Schpiller, and many Muscovite Church intelligentsia and young people with him, entered correspondence by letter with Priestmonk Paul (Troytski). He had suffered a great deal, having endured Soviet camps, prisons and exiles. At this time he was in hiding, about 100km from Moscow. A woman who had been through exile with Fr. Paul and who had taken care of him for many years delivered the letters to and fro. The letters from Fr. Paul arrived frequently over a period of twenty years until his death at the end of the 1980’s, so nearly twenty years. Apparently, he was clairvoyant and in some of his letters he would relate to Fr. Vsevolod how he was present in the church in spirit while Fr Vsevolod was celebrating the divine services; he would relate specific incidents, which only a person who was there at the time could know.
Today, many of these then-young people hold positions of archpriests and even hierarchs. All of these testify how, through these letters, their elder guided them from a distance, in spiritual and even in practical matters; he counselled them when to accept ordination to the priesthood, what kind of home to buy, who to marry, with whom to associate, from whom to steer clear. He would also comment on Church affairs and give instructions on the correct attitude towards the Church dissidents of the times such as Fr. Dimitri Dudko and others, and political dissidents like the well-known Alexander Solzhenitzyn. His spiritual children, to this day, treasure his letters, many of them having been published, but none of them saw Fr. Paul in person. Contact was only made through the aforementioned woman whose name was Agripina. Bishop Panteleimon (Shatov) — a spiritual child of Fr. Paul — relates what occurred after they were notified of their elder’s death by Agripina in 1990. Based on the descriptions the elder had given in his letters, Fr. Vladimir Vorobyov and Bishop Panteleimon went to that village in which they deduced that the elder had lived. They did not find anything there: neither the house in which he had lived, nor any registration in the local council, nor a grave, nor anyone who had known a similar person, not even by a different name.
Shortly after this, Agripina announced that Fr. Paul had actually reposed before the end of the Second World War. The spiritual children of the “elder” plummeted into deep confusion. They questioned her on many occasions, but up until her death in 1991 she stuck to her story. They however, did not want to believe her. They buried her with much ceremony, having held her highly in honour as their eldress.
Afterwards they began uncovering records. The archives were opened in the 1990’s and among the camp documents was a record of the death of Priestmonk Paul (Troytski) in 1944; this was a huge shock for the elder’s spiritual children. After some time, however, the spiritual children of the “elder” — particularly Archpriest Vorobyov — started to propose a whole series of events, explaining the confusion, which they defend up until today.
Apparently, Priestmonk Paul had escaped from the concentration camp in 1944 and a different man was buried under his name; no doubt his relatives had bribed the camp administration so that he could be released in secret, or perhaps he was released simply from his sufferings owing to his ill-health, and so on. Archpriest Vladimir Vorobyov, who, by the way, is a member of the Canonisations Commission of the MP, more than once insisted on the glorification of Priestmonk Paul, but the Commission decided that that would not be possible.
The majority of contemporary researchers, amongst them being Abbot Damascene (Orlovsky) — a leading figure in the Commission of Canonisation and author of a large volume of Lives of New Martyrs —are of the opinion that everything indicates that the entire Priestmonk Paul story was a large scale operation by the secret police to establish control over the church dissident circles in Moscow during the 1970’s and 80’s. The letters of the “elder” were written by the collaborators with the KGB and through these letters the secret police not only monitored, but directed, to its advantage, the affairs of a very large circle of church figures. Hence, for example, in 1974, Fr. Vsevolod Schpiller sharply condemned the renowned author and dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn in an interview. (Solzhenytsin had actually belonged to the parish where Fr. Vsevolod served.) The authorities circulated the interview widely, particularly for the benefit of the West. There are also extant letters of the “elder” in which he would vehemently and haphazardly attack those who who criticised the shortcomings of the MP, for instance Fr. Dimitri Dudko.
Of course, I do not wish to say that the pseudo-miracles are fabricated solely by the secret police. In order to create a legend around a certain individual, it is necessary, above all else, for there to exist an unhealthy spiritual environment: a hunger for elders, for miracles, for saints. In other words, an inclination towards unhealthy mysticism, as Fr Seraphim (Alexiev) expresses it in his book Unhealthy and Healthy Mysticism. An unhealthy spiritual environment alone, without external influences, spontaneously generates myths and legends. In the presence of such phenomena there will always be found someone who cleverly takes advantage of them.
Among today’s official Orthodoxy, we observe the spread of a similar unhealthy spiritual life, unrestrained and uncorrected by the hierarchy. Sadly it is sometimes even encouraged. This, too, has to be considered in the case of Archbishop Luke. Of course, sufficient trustworthy information would be needed for one to evaluate every single witness account. However, on the internet you can see a vast number of videos in which certain people talk about miracles worked through the prayers of Archbishop Luke. I would say that, at first glance, many of these accounts are dubious. It is immediately very clear that we are talking about an entirely unhealthy spirituality. When a person really strongly wants to see something, he will see it. The logic behind superstition and prelest (spiritual deception) is impenetrable.
Again I will give an example from the story of Fr. Schpiller and his mythical “elder”. When “Fr. Paul” gave his blessing for someone to have an operation, and it was successful, this was received as proof of his clairvoyance. But in 1980, the imaginary “Fr Paul” counselled Fr. Schpillar to undergo eye surgery with the outcome that he lost his sight. Despite this, as his son testifies, Fr. Schpiller undoubtedly and unwaveringly trusted in “Fr. Paul” until the very end of his life.
There is one final important point concerning the glorification of Archbishop Luke which needs to be considered, even if only briefly. For a hierarch to be glorified as a saint, it is imperative for his Orthodox faith to be without reproach. Unfortunately, this cannot be said about Archbishop Luke. Now we are no longer on the uncertain territory of hard-to-verify testimonies. Archbishop Luke laid down his theological viewpoints in two of his works: “Spirit, Soul and Body” and “Religion and Science”, which are still in print. In 2013, his book “Spirit, Soul and Body” was even translated into Bulgarian. Upon close examination we discover that this book promotes completely unOrthodox ideas about human nature. The ideas of Archbishop Luke differ substantially from the teachings of the Holy Fathers about human nature — about the spirit, about the soul, about the body, and the relationship between them. His analysis contains completely worldly and philosophical teachings inspired by the science of his time. These concepts and ideas are totally unChristian and are not acceptable from a Christian point of view. The credibility with which he treats the testimonies of the miracles worked in the “holy town of Lourdes” is very disturbing. The small town of Lourdes, situated in France near the Spanish border, is a famous pilgrimage centre of the Roman Catholic Church. In the 19th century, in Lourdes, a fourteen year old girl called Bernadette Soubirous supposedly received numerous visions of the holy Mother of God. According to her testimony, during a period of several months, the Mother of God appeared to her eighteen times. In contrast we will recall that one of the greatest saints of the Russian Church, the venerable Seraphim of Sarov, of whom the very Mother of God testifies “this one is of our kind”, throughout his lengthy ascetical life had twelve divine revelations. In Lourdes, there have been over seven thousand witness accounts of miraculous healing but even the Roman Catholic Church disregards almost all of them and accepts only sixty-nine as genuine. Nevertheless, this does not sway the faith that Archbishop Luke has in the miracles which occur in “the holy town of Lourdes”. Perhaps, in this regard, the Archbishop’s background filters through; he was, as he states in his autobiography, of Polish extraction and his father was a devout Roman Catholic. It is also quite disturbing how Archbishop Luke seems to trust the credibility of spiritual sciences (occult practices of various forms), now referred to as ‘pseudoscience,’ which in the late 19th and early 20th century were very fashionable. Archbishop Luke regards mainstream scientists who dabble in the spiritual sciences as having an indisputable authority. But all this is another large topic that would require a more in-depth study.
1 In 2007, the majority of ROCA bishops submitted to the MP. Today, the Bulgarian Old Calendar Church is in communion with that part of the ROCA which did not unite with the MP.
2St Tikhon (Bellavin) d.1925 was the 11th and last genuine Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia. His feast day falls on the Great Feast of the Annunciation.
3 Secret police, forerunner of the NKVD
4Eugene Alexandrovich Tuchkov was a Soviet state security officer and the head of the anti-religious department of the Soviet OGPU.
5 All these groups comprise what is commonly referred to as the Russian Catacomb Church. The ancient Christians under persecution by the pagan Roman Empire were restrained to worship underground in secret conditions. ‘Catacombs’ are a series of underground passages and rooms where, in the past, bodies were buried.
6 Ukaz - a proclamation of the tsar, government, or patriarch that has the force of law.
7 Locum Tenens - a person filling an office for a time or temporarily taking the place of another. Tikhon, foreseeing the impossibility of a Church Council being summoned to elect a new patriarch, designated three leading hierarchs, one of which (whoever was not in prison or banishment) should become Locum Tenens (of the Patriarchal Throne upon his own death to safeguard the external unity of the Church.
