Andrei Psarev

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) is known today as one of the most conservative Orthodox Churches in the world, known for its rigid stance in opposition to ecumenism. To demonstrate how the ROCA came to such a position is the task of this investigation. This thesis evaluates the ROCA’s relations with non-Orthodox Christians and the ecumenical movement in light of the Orthodox canonical tradition and pastoral concern. The pre-revolutionary Russian ecclesiology of Evgenii Akvilonov and Aleksei Khomiakov are considered as sources of the ecclesiology of Metropolitan Antonii (Khrapovitskii) and his disciples. Representatives of the ROCA during the first twenty years of its existence consciously participated in ecumenical projects. After World War II the attitude toward the ecumenical movement begun to change due to the rigidly anti-Communist orientation of the ROCA and the problems of the Orthodox witness within the WCC. The conservative stance of the ROCA toward the non-Orthodox enabled it to preserve its flock within Orthodoxy against Roman Catholic proselytism, while not enabling it to recognize the problems of its own ecclesiology, e.g., sacramental oikonomia. The political position of the RCOA had its positive side: the uncovering of the persecution of the faith in the USSR. It also had a negative one: an under-evaluation of the evils of extreme-right nationalistic movements. The present work has assembled all available data concerning the relationship of the ROCA with the ecumenical movement and with non-Orthodox Christians during the primacy of Metropolitans Antonii (1920-1935) and Anastasii (1935-1964) and analyzed the character of these relations. The assembled data is divided by theme. The information within the chapters is presented in chronological order. The data is analyzed in the conclusion of each chapter according to categories contained in the overall conclusions, with an attempt to present an evaluation of the total picture drawn from all individual conclusions. The chapter from the thesis Relations between the ROCOR and the Roman Catholic Church, 1920-1964, can be read here: http://www.rocorstudies.org/articles/2010/02/28/andrei-psarev-relations-between-the-rocor-and-the-roman-catholic-church-1920-1964/

In this paper, I am placing the early ROCOR ecclesiology within the context of the wider Russian ecclesiology. This paper was written in December 2001-January 2002 for Fr. John Erickson's class Church History 472: Orthodoxy and Ecumenism at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary.

The Cold War did not help to merge, but to divide. Although both "White" Russian refugee churches could not subordinate to the Church in Moscow, their different interpretation of the status of the Patriarchate of Constantinople prevented them, as the main reason, to unite.

Discussion of new challenges for teaching canon law in Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary of the Russian Church Abroad in Jordanville, NY. The Russian original of the article has been written for the student magazine Vstrecha of Moscow Theological Academy.

This article  examines the correspondence between the future Patriarch Tikhon and Fr. Evgenii Smirnov, an emigre clergyman serving in England. The correspondence is centered on the brief investigation into the possibility of uniting a group of Old Catholics with the Russian Orthodox Church. Through these letters we can see that some problems of external church relations are no different now than they were in the early twentieth century. Fr. Evgenii himself, in certain respects, bears a strong resemblance to emigre clergymen of the post-revolutionary period.

Paper delivered at the 21st Congress of the Society for the Study of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches in University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari Itlay, Sep. 2013. Published in the yearbook of the society, Kanon 23 (Roman Kovar Verlag: Hennef, 2014)

Presented at St. Tikhon's annual conference in 2008. Published in Вестник ПСТГУ: история Русской Православной Церкви St. Tikhon University for the Humanities, Moscow 29 (II-4, 2008)
Metropolitan Antonii Khrapovitskii (d. 1936) was eminent hierarch of the Russian Church, and a “founding father” of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. The author analyzes the character of his theological and social contacts with Anglicans,
and defi nes Anglican participation in Russian Church aff airs both in the homeland and in the diaspora between the World Wars.

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Ecumencial Movement: 1920-1948,
Published in Tserkov i Vremia (1, 2003), Department for the External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. Presented at conference on history on Russian Church in 20th century, Moscow, Nov. 2002

Metropolitan Antonii Khrapovitskii (d. 1936) was eminent hierarch of the Russian Church, and a “founding father” of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. The author analyzes the character of his theological and social contacts with Anglicans, and defines Anglican participation in Russian Church affairs both in the homeland and
in the diaspora between the World Wars.

"Sacramental oikonomia" refers to the teaching that exists with¬in the Orthodox Church that, while all non-Orthodox Christians who are seeking to enter the Orthodox Church need to be baptized (because all mysteries performed outside the Orthodox Church are void of grace), when circumstances made the baptism of converts impossible, the Orthodox Church may receive converts through another form, for instance through chrismation alone, and, in doing so, the empty, graceless form of the heterodox baptism would be filled with grace. It was essential, however, that the previous baptisms of converts had been per-formed in accordance with the praxis of the Orthodox Church (i.e., done by immersion and in the name of the Holy Trinity).
In this paper, I consider how sacramental oikonomia is consistent with the Orthodox canonical tradition, reviewing an array of texts and authorities in various regions of Eastern Christianity, ranging from late antiquity to the first half of the 20th century. The main focus of this research concerns the pseudo-epigraphic "19th Canonical Answer of Timothy of Alexandria,"2 since it is the only canonical text that is comprehensive in its treatment of sacramental oikonomia.
The view of the Orthodox Church on the reception of converts takes as its point of departure two ecclesiological approaches from late antiquity. The first, that of St. Cyprian of Carthage, held that there is only one Church; that schismatics, being outside her canonical boundaries, do not have any power to confer the grace of the Holy Spirit; and that heterodox bap-tism therefore does not wash away sins. Blessed Augustine, on the other hand, took the position that Christian baptism also exists in schism, since baptism belongs to the Church—not to the schism itself.
My research leads me to conclude that, although in practice the Church tends to follow the understanding of Augustine, not Cyprian, on receiving converts, Cyprian's views—that there are no mysteries outside the Church—was never refuted by the Orthodox Church,3 and that the attempt to reconcile Cyprian's ecclesiology with conversion by sacramental oikonomia, was only partially explored by the Church Fathers (St. Basil the Great, Matthew Blastares, St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite).
I was not able to find evidence that any of the Fathers held the position that, in recognizing the baptism of converts per-formed outside the Orthodox Church, only the external form was accepted and that this form might be filled by grace at the m-ment of reception. Nevertheless, this theory enjoyed a place within the main body of law of the Russian and Romanian Orthodox Churches and was shared by noted authorities of Orthodox theology. In sum, baptism outside the Orthodox Church is either accepted as an entry into some kind of Christian life, one that requires a further rite of reconciliation with the Church, or it is not recognized at all, in which case the one seeking to join the Orthodox Church would be received by baptism.

Presented at The First Conference of the Association for the Study of Eastern Christian History and Culture; Columbus, OH, October 2005

In 1920 the Russian refugee bishops established the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), also known as the Russian Church Abroad. In 1927 this church renounced subordination to the Church in Russia (also known as the Moscow Patriarchate). On May 17, 2007,  representatives of both churches concelebrated Divine Liturgy in the Moscow Christ Savior Cathedral. The process of reconciliation between the Moscow Patriarchate and the ROCOR became a rare example of true ecumenical dialogue, helping the two estranged branches identify common ontological grounds.

The author sketches the historical antecedents of the ROCOR's relations with the Moscow Patriarchate and analyzes the ROCOR's conciliar pronouncements and other representative documents from the period of estrangement. This paper demonstrates that the ROCOR ecclesiology of the studied period had been struggling to avoid the perils of isolationism. The history of the Orthodox Church teaches us that ecclesiastical divisions tend to be most persistent  when one of the estranged factions believes that the separation is predicated on doctrine. Despite the ROCOR's occasional reference to doctrinal reasons underlying the estrangement, this division was in fact a result of political considerations and therefore was easier to
overcome than, for instance, in the case of the Old Believers.

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) is known today as one of the most conservative Orthodox Churches in the world, known for its rigid stance in opposition to ecumenism. To demonstrate how the ROCA came to such a position is the task of this investigation. This thesis evaluates the ROCA’s relations with non-Orthodox Christians and the ecumenical movement in light of the Orthodox canonical tradition and pastoral concern. The pre-revolutionary Russian ecclesiology of Evgenii Akvilonov and Aleksei Khomiakov are considered as sources of the ecclesiology of Metropolitan Antonii (Khrapovitskii) and his disciples. Representatives of the ROCA during the first twenty years of its existence consciously participated in ecumenical projects. After World War II the attitude toward the ecumenical movement begun to change due to the rigidly anti-Communist orientation of the ROCA and the problems of the Orthodox witness within the WCC. The conservative stance of the ROCA toward the non-Orthodox enabled it to preserve its flock within Orthodoxy against Roman Catholic proselytism, while not enabling it to recognize the problems of its own ecclesiology, e.g., sacramental oikonomia. The political position of the RCOA had its positive side: the uncovering of the persecution of the faith in the USSR. It also had a negative one: an under-evaluation of the evils of extreme-right nationalistic movements. The present work has assembled all available data concerning the relationship of the ROCA with the ecumenical movement and with non-Orthodox Christians during the primacy of Metropolitans Antonii (1920-1935) and Anastasii (1935-1964) and analyzed the character of these relations. The assembled data is divided by theme. The information within the chapters is presented in chronological order. The data is analyzed in the conclusion of each chapter according to categories contained in the overall conclusions, with an attempt to present an evaluation of the total picture drawn from all individual conclusions.

The chapter from the thesis Relations between the ROCOR and the Roman Catholic Church, 1920-1964, can be read here: http://www.rocorstudies.org/articles/2010/02/28/andrei-psarev-relations-between-the-rocor-and-the-roman-catholic-church-1920-1964/

This is the presentation to the paper for the 25th Congress of the Society of Law of the Eastern Churches, delivered in Belgrade on September 29, 2022. I argue that the regulations of punishments for clergy defend them from abuses and continue in the steps of canons.

The origins of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) are linked with the events of the Russian Civil War and the forced emigration of eminent members of Russian society, who became bishops, clergymen, and parishioners in the ROCOR. Owing to the totalitarian regime that existed in Russia at the time, a great number of them became political refugees. The completely new conditions of existence for the Russian Church both in Russia and abroad posed questions about how to apply the resolutions of the All-Russian Local Church Council in these novel circumstances: Should the Church maintain a centralized form of administration, or enact a decentralized form of autonomous administration for individual ecclesiastical districts? The polemics on what way of the structuring of church life in the diaspora was most Orthodox did not subside throughout the entire 20th century. One of the most productive forms this assumed was the debate among Protopresbyter Michael Polsky, Father Alexander Schmemann, Father George (Bishop Gregory) Grabbe, and others, about whether church life in the diaspora ought to be organized along territorial or national lines.
Since Perestroika, interest in the ROCOR among Russian scholars has been increasing. From the early 21st century, thanks to the work of commissions on restoring canonical communion between the ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate as well as to conferences held in this connection, the work of professional historians has found recognition within the ROCOR. This constructive work is the prologue to the ROCOR Studies project, an Internet hub on historical issues concerning the Russian Church Abroad. The latter is to be developed further by the present conference, which will be held with the blessing of His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion of Eastern America and New York, First Hierarch of the ROCOR.
On August 31, 1921, the Bishop Council of the Serbian Orthodox Church decided to host on its canonical territory the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority Abroad. To mark this groundbreaking event the conference is being held in collaboration with the Archive of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Professional historians, and all those who are engaged in research on one of the conference topics that meet academic standards, are invited to participate.
The aim of the conference is to make sense of processes connecting the past and present of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.
Working languages of the conference: English and Russian
Speaking time: 40 minutes
Full versions will be published on the ROCOR Studies Internet hub.
Applications for participation (up to 200 words) should be sent to rocorstudies@gmail.com by May 2, 2021. Participants will be selected by the organizing committee.
It is proposed that the conference will take place in person, in a hybrid (in-person/distance), or distance format (depending on the pandemic situation).
Proposed dates: November 22–26, 2021

This is a significantly revised translation of the posted earlier an analytical note written in Russian for the canon law commission of the Inter Council Assembly of the Russian Church. The author poses questions about different ecclesiological models and the extent to which canonical prohibition to pray with heterodox may apply to honest ecumenical dialogue.

Начало XX века было ознаменовано трагическими событиями для России, в целом, и Российской Православной Церкви, в частности. Одним из испытаний, выпавшим на долю Русского Православия, стало разделение Церкви в Отечестве и Церкви Заграницей. Автор статьи предлагает подробную хронологию событий и анализирует изменение динамики отношений между РПЦЗ и Московским Патриархатом. Вступление История Православной Церкви учит нас, что церковные разделения наиболее трудно преодолеваются в случае, когда одна из сторон убеждена, что разделение имеет догматическое обоснование. Без того, чтобы углубляться в древнюю историю, достаточно вспомнить разделения, связанные со старообрядцами в XVII веке или греческими старостильниками в XX. Разделения, происшедшие из­за так называемых политических причин, сравнительно легче исправить. Под «политическими причинами» я понимаю разделения, ставшие реакцией на внешние обстоятельства, такие как политические конфликты. Даже если в течении времени разделенные общности и пытаются наделить разделение догматическими различиями, подлинные политические причины этого разделения облегчают восстановление общения. Ярким тому примером служит восстановление общения в 1992 году между ветвями Сербской Православной Церкви в отечестве и рассеянии. Состоявшееся 17 мая 2007 года примирение между Московским Патриархатом и Русской Православной Церковью Заграницей (РПЦЗ) дает нам возможность исследовать наиболее близкую к нам по времени модель примирения двух церковных общин, разделенных политическими факторами. В настоящей статье[1] я исследую экклезиологию РПЦЗ в отношении Московского Патриархата чтобы понять, какие позиции затрудняли сближение и что может послужить будущему единой Русской Церкви. Чтобы объяснить недавнее восприятие Московского Патриархата в Русской Зарубежной Церкви, я кратко обозначу исторические этапы, влиявшие на воззрения РПЦЗ. Помимо этого я также рассмотрю соборные постановления РПЦЗ и другие представительные документы с 1923­го до 2006 года. Экклезилогические направления РПЦЗ явились отражением конкретных политических процессов, происходивших на родине: теория децентрализации имела место в ответ на попытки советской власти установить контроль над Православной Церковью; тактика руководства Московского Патриархата, направленная на сохранение высшего церковного управления посредством компромисса с советскими властями, послужила причиной того, что РПЦЗ воспринимала его архиереев как «плененных»; представители всех церковных ветвей чаяли Всероссийского поместного собора, находящегося в преемстве с собором 1917­18 гг., должного подвести итог советском периоду истории Русской Церкви. Церковь в изгнании и Церковь на родине (1920–1959) В 1919 году Южно­Русский церковный собор основал в Ставрополе Высшее Церковное управление на юге России (ВЦУЮР). Во время Гражданской войны председатель этого ВЦУ архиепископ Таврический Димитрий (преподобноисповедник, схиепископ Антоний Абашидзе, +1942) с большинством своих архиереев не последовал в эмиграцию, из Крыма в Стамбул. В Стамбуле эмигрировавшие члены ВЦУЮР были возглавлены старейшим среди беженцев архиереем — митрополитом Киевским и Галицким Антонием (Храповицким).

Within the Byzantine Church, the serious step of rejecting the authority of the patriarch, denying obedience owed to him and breaking communion with him, needs to be justified with reference to the canonical tradition. Canon 15 of the First and Second Council in Constantinople of 861 is the only canon in the corpus canonum of the Orthodox Church that bears on both the rejection of episcopal authority and also on the obedience due to a canonical superior. Canon 15 has a long and varied history within Orthodox tradition and continues to be regularly invoked.

This paper addresses the following three questions:

1) Why did the Fathers promulgate Canon 15?
2) Why did the Byzantines refer to this canon?
3) Why did Canon 15 become so influential?

In answering Question #1 I reconstruct the historical context of the council using both primary sources, including the ecclesiastical (so called anti-Photian collection), chroniclers (Genesios, Theophanes Continuatus) as well as secondary sources.

To answer Question #2, I review the three following case studies, also using both primary and secondary sources:
a) the Tetragamy controversy surrounding the fourth marriage of Emperor Leo VI (X c.);
b) the Arsenite crisis, following the usurpation of the throne by Michael VIII Paleologos (1258-1282); and
c) the rejection of union between the Byzantine and Roman Catholic Churches at the Council of Lyon (1274) by some Byzantine clergy and faithful based on their understanding of Byzantine doctrinal Orthodoxy.

In answering Question #3, I document the chronology of the incorporation of Canon 15 into Byzantine canonical tradition, and I discuss how the canon was interpreted from the twelfth to fourteenth centuries by contemporary Byzantine legal professionals (Aristinos, Zonaras, Balsamon, Blastares and Chomatinos).

By way of conclusion, I explain the significance of Canon 15 in seeking to understand the ethos of the Byzantine Church. This fascinating canon undercuts a military-style hierarchical ecclesiastical discipline to give way to a rule of individual Christian conscience. To appreciate its unique significance, one need only imagine a statute in civil law that includes provision for civil disobedience.

Emperor Leo VI the Wise wanted the application of special consideration (oikonomia) for his status. He was a widower whose previous three marriages had not produced a male heir. A son was born as a result of his fourth marriage, but the marriage itself had yet to be recognized by the Church in order to secure the succession rights of Leo’s son, Constantine VII Porphyrogennitos. Since Byzantine canon law permits a maximum of three marriages, the ‘oikonomist’ attitude of first Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos (d. 925) and subsequently the Patriarch Euthymios (d. 917) elicted opposition from the two groups of ‘akribeists’, creating a new rupture of ecclesiastical communion between them and the patriarchate. 

In order to justify breaking communion, each party had to prove that the other had ceased to conform to Orthodox opinions in matters of faith. Both parties employed the rationale of Canon 15, but without referring to it directly. Thus, this proves my hypothesis that this canon reflects a profound theological truth: in order to cease communion with a superior, one has to be pronounced a heretic.

Although the activism of historians is admirable it should not reflect on the quality of their analysis. Pre-Byzantine experience of the Church may be an adequate point of reference for Orthodox Christian than the imperial past. It seems that now Orthodox Churches in Ukraine and diaspora have swapped places.

I am collecting extra funds to cover my time and care for my family's needs.

Summer is the only time when I do not teach at Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary and, therefore, I can research and write. On June 10 I am leaving for the University of Illinois Urbana-Champagne to work with the archives of Paul B. Anderson who spent his 48-year career working with the YMCA’s International Committee. He lived in Russia during the
overthrow of the Tsar and subsequent attempts to establish a democratic government. Paul Anderson also exchanged correspondence with the ROCOR’s leading figures of the 1920’s.

Then I would like to prepare a class on Russian Church history which will be offered through the St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology.

Later this June, I will begin teaching a ROCOR History and Identity class offered through the Pastoral School of Chicago and Mid-America Diocese of the Russian Church Abroad.

Also, I need to prepare materials from last year’s Belgrade Conference on the history of the ROCOR for publication in a thematic volume in English.

Additionally, I need to prepare a questionnaire, which the Fund for Assistance to the Russian Church Abroad will send to the ROCOR’s parishes.

I also would like to prepare a chapter on the Inter-Council Assembly of the Russian Church for a handbook on Conciliarity/Sobornost, edited by Dr. Irina Paert who is Senior Researcher at the School of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Tartu, Estonia.

I may also write a paper for a canon law congress in Belgrade this September.

And, of course, I shall be setting up my classes for the next teaching year.
DONATE here:
https://www.gofundme.com/manage/help-me-to-carry-on-my-academic-work-this-summer/edit/story

Dr. Troyanov shares insights on Russian political emigration and church life in Serbia and Switzerland. He also reflects on Russian Empire and his second cousin Fr. Alexander Schmemann. The interview has been posted on the website www.rocorstudies.org

This article was written in response to the transfer of ROCOR property in Hebron (1997) and Jericho (2000) to the Russian Orthodox Church (MP) by the Palestinian Authority. It was published in Pravoslavnaia Rus' [Orthodox Russia] No. 18 (September 15/28, 2000). Despite its apologetic thrust, inadequate citing of sources, "biased" vocabulary, and propagandistic character, one can derive value from the article as an attempt to get a feel for the pastoral aspect of what it means to exist canonically in the modern circumstances

When, in 1995, I began teaching Russian Church History at Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville I found myself faced with the lack of a suitable textbook. Ivan Mikhailovich Andreev's work Kratkii obzor istorii russkoi tserkvi ot revoliutsii do nashikh dnei [A Brief History of the Russian Church from the Revolution to the Present Day] was indeed brief (at 180 pages) and was unable to account for the new historical information that had become available in the 1990s. Thus, in summer 1999, a new, bulky, 480-page-long “reader,” comparable with the learning materials used in colleges, was prepared for the students. The article below is a chapter from this book. This text is still readable 20 years later, which cannot be said of all of my articles published in Pravoslavnaia Rus’ [Orthodox Russia]. In addition, I would mention, in the section on Metropolitan Sergius' first term, the friendly letter he sent to the ROCOR hierarchs in 1926, which was indiscreetly published abroad.  Metropolitan Sergius' circumstances during his second period of imprisonment have still not been clarified, and the materials from his case file from early 1927 up to his release in spring of the same year are still not available to researchers. The article is being published as is, without any edits; hence the insufficient citing of sources without page numbers and use of the indecorous turn of phrases like “servants of the Moscow Patriarchate”.

Analyzing the only specific disciplinary measure undertaken by His Holiness the Patriarch against the Russian Church Abroad, the author argues that Patriarch Tikhon remained a defender of the Russian Church both in the homeland and diaspora.

Русский первод статьи  The 19th Canonical Answer of Timothy of Alexandria: on the History of Sacramental Oikonomia. Автор исследует происхождение и соответствие православному богословию учение о том, что пустые формы инославного таинства наполняются содержанием в чине принятия лица приходящего в церковь.

The Inter-Council Presence is a permanent consulting body, members of which have been appointed by the Holy Synod of the Russian Church to draft and discuss position papers on diverse aspects of theology and praxis. Conventional wisdom has it that Orthodox Christians of the "First World" have little to learn about the organization of church life from the Orthodox in Russia. Explaining the history, structure, and significance of ICP, I challenge the triumphalistic myth of the superiority of the Orthodox in the west over their Russian counterparts. This paper was presented in September of 2017 at the 23rd Congress of the Society for Study the Law of Eastern Churches in Debrecen, Hungary.

1917-1918 гг. как критерий соборности в русской церковной эмиграции Основные центры Решения Всероссийского поместного собора, имевшие значение для зарубежья Св. патриарх, Св. Синод, Высший церковный совет (клирики и миряне) ПОМЕСТНЫЙ СОБОР 7 дек., 1917 Еп. Совет в составе еп. архиерея, клириков и мирян (муж. и жен. ЗДЕСЬ ПОМЕЩЕНА ВИДЕОЗАПИСЬ ВЫСТУПЛЕНИЯ. Худож. оформление Д.В.Тихомиров

В презентации прослеживается сохранение соборного наследия на территориях, контролируемых белыми и за тем в эмиграции, главным образом на опыте РПЦЗ. Художественное оформление презентации: Д.В.Тихомиров. Презентация сопровождала доклады представленные на конференции Столетие русского исхода (МДА,  16 окт. 2020 г.) и Русская эмиграция: церковная жизнь и богословско-философское наследие (ПСТГУ, 12 марта 2021).

The Inter-Conciliar Assembly of the Russian Orthodox Church (ICA) was established in 2009. It is a permanent think-tank, inspired by the pre-conciliar work of 1906-1912 and the all-Russian local council of 1917-18, and continues the work of its 22 commissions.  Similarly, with it, the ICA is organized in commissions and drafts position papers that are subject to the Bishop Council’s approval. Besides bishops, the ICA includes clergy and both male and female laity. The graphic design of this paper by Dmitry Tikhomirov.

The editors the senior continuing ecclesiastical periodical of the Russian diaspora interviewed faculty from St. Serge (Paris), Holy Trinity (Jordanville), St. Vladimir's (Crestwood) and St. Philaret's (Moscow) regarding significance to them of the All-Russia Council of 1917-1918.
Citation: Vestnik RKhD, 207 (2018): 110-116

This is my revised presentation for an intensive course on the history of the Russian Church Abroad that is offered this September via St. Cyril and Methodius Orthodox Institute in Australia, which is a part of Adelaide College of Divinity. Art design by Dmitry Tikhomirov.

This is my presentation for the four and fifth ectures of an intensive course on the history of the Russian Church Abroad that is offered this September via St. Cyril and Methodius Orthodox Institute in Australia, which is a part of Adelaide College of Divinity. Art design by Dmitry Tikhomirov.

This is my presentation for the third lecture of an intensive course on the history of the Russian Church Abroad that is offered this September via St. Cyril and Methodius Orthodox Institute in Australia, which is a part of Adelaide College of Divinity. Art design by Dmitry Tikhomirov.

This is my presentation for the second lecture of an intensive course on the history of the Russian Church Abroad that is offered this September via St. Cyril and Methodius Orthodox Institute in Australia, which is a part of Adelaide College of Divinity. Art design by Dmitry Tikhomirov.

This is my revised presentation for an intensive course on the history of the Russian Church Abroad that is offered this September via St. Cyril and Methodius Orthodox Institute in Australia, which is a part of Adelaide College of Divinity. Art design by Dmitry Tikhomirov.

Начав в 1995-ом году преподавать историю Русской Церкви в
Свято-Троицкой духовной семинарии, я столкнулся с отсутствием
адекватного учебника. Труд И.М. Андреева, Краткий обзор истории
русской церкви от революции до наших дней, выпущенный в 1951 г. был действительно кратким (180 стр.) и не мог учитывать новые исторические данные, ставшие доступными в 1990-ые годы. Таким образом летом 1999-го года появился увесистый учебник, сопоставимый с пособиями для колледжей, объемом в 480 стр. Предлагаемая Вашему вниманию статья является главой из этого пособия. Двадцать лет спустя текст читается,
чего нельзя сказать о всех моих статьях опубликованых в Православной Руси. Обстоятельства пребывания митрополита Сергия во второй период его заключения до сих пор не выяснены, а материалы следственного дела, относящиеся к началу 1927-го года и до его особождения весной того же года до сих не доступны для исследователя. Статья публикуется без какой либо редактуры - отсюда и неадекватное цитирование источников, без указания страниц и неприличное выражение "служители Московской
Патриархии".