ARCHDIOCESEOFRUSSIAoftheRussianTrueOrthodoxChurchAUOCA - UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA

The Russian True Orthodox (Catacomb) Church’s appearance is connected with non-acceptance by a part of episcopacy, clergy and laity of Metropolitan Sergiy (Stragorodsky)’s declaration (“The Address to the Pastors and Flock”) of July 29, 1927, calling upon the loyalty toward the civil Communist authorities. The point was not that the TOC episcopacy took the stand of principle and uncompromising opposition to the authorities in general and the then authorities in part, but that hierarch disagreeing with Metropolitan Sergiy believed that, first, his concessions to the authorities were excessive and, second, they were at variance with him on a number of other canonical and theological issues. However, with his declaration Metr. Sergiy extended the argument from the canonical-dogmatic sphere to the political one. P.P. Ivanov wrote about the stand of one of the TOC members, Bishop Pavel (Kratirov), “Bish. Pavel also condemned the fatal consequences of Metropolitan Sergei’s statements, i.e. giving up to Bolsheviks those hierarchs who disagreed with him on the purely church-related issues, thus prophesying their own fate. ‘Assuring the civil authorities of his changing in views upon it and the feelings we mentioned above (Bishop Pavel is speaking there about the Declaration being unacceptable for Christian conscience), he [Metr. Sergiy] thus jeopardized all honest Church servitors who are loyal to the authorities but disapprove his church work… What is this if not a denunciation of and ill-concealed accusation of counter-revolution activity against those hierarch having differences with him on solely church grounds.’” (P. I. Ivanov, New Martyr of the Russian Church Prelate Pavel (Kratirov), Tan Publishers, Kazan, 1992, p.4).

Independent researchers also point to such TOC position. For instance, M. Shkarovsky wrote about TOC biggest branch headed by Metr. Joseph (Petrovykh), “The overwhelming majority of the Josephites primarily tried to observe all Soviet laws. Thus, November 20, 1928 commissioner of the Tikhvin Church Twenty A. V. Sakulina handed in an application to the registration office of the Volodarsky District Council, ‘We have to inform you that the believers… from November 1 of this year officially joined and consolidated in prayer communication with Metr. Joseph in the person of Bish. Dimitry, thus renouncing the dictated to us church authority of Metr. Sergiy. [We] have registered four clergymen, with timely notifying you on this. We request to preserve the number of the Twenty as it was in practice heretofore, to avoid probable slyness on the part of Metr. Serafim (Chichagov).’ (Central State Archive, St. Petersburg, f. 7383, op.1, d.25. l.31).” (Josephitism: a Trend in the Russian Orthodox Church, the Memorial Scientific-cum-Information Center, St. Petersburg, 1999, pp. 22-23). In his introduction to the aforementioned book he also points out, “The goal of the present paper is studying the Josephite movement, an attempt by a part of clergy and laity to find an independent (alternative to both Sergian and catacomb) way of development in the form of legal or half-legal opposition to the Soviet state in the situation of totalitarianism being firmly established… The Josephites chose the way of legal opposition, and their further fate was tragic…” (ibidem, 1999, pp. 3-4).

It is worth mention that a considerable part of the Church in Russia also took the TOC stand at that time. In M. V. Shkarovsky’s view, “primarily around forty archbishops turned down administrative subordination to the Acting Deputy Patriarch,” (ibidem, p.3). By the evidence of Academician Dmitry Likhachiov, “The Solovki clergy was divided into ‘Sergians’ and ‘Josephites,’ supporting Metropolitan Joseph who didn’t recognize the Declaration. Josephites were an overwhelming majority. All young believers were also with the Josephites.” (“From the Newest History of the Russian Church” // Pravoslavnaya Rus’ [The Orthodox Rus’], 1995, No. 14, p. 7). L. Regelson points out “mass returns of the ‘declaration’ to Metr. Sergiy by Orthodox parishes as a sign of their protest. In some eparchies (in the Urals) 90% parishes sent the ‘declaration’ back” (L. Regelson, The Tragedy of the Russian Church, IMKA Press, Paris, 1977, pp. 136, 434). The evidences of Metr. Sergiy’s supporters are also important: “Many of the pastors, proving themselves sound champions of the purity of the Orthodoxy in the years of the fight against Renovation, now opposed Metr. Sergiy.” They have viewed his policies as “direct distortion of the purity of the Orthodoxy and enslavement of the Church by the state (Metropolitan Ioann (Snychev), “The Dissents,” Khristianskoye chteniye [Christian reading], 1991, No. 6, p. 19); “The best pastors have broken away, those standing high above all others in their fight against Renovation,” (Bishop Manuil (Lebedev) in his April 29, 1928, sermon at the St. Petersburg St. Trinity Cathedral; cited by Metropolitan Ioann Snychev, Church Dissents in the Russian Church in 1920s-1930s, Sortavala, 1993).

Thus, we can see that the TOC did not adhere to the stand of averting the authorities in principle and was prepared to reasonably consider its interests. The TOC didn’t intend to be involved into any political relations with the authorities, as well as unambiguously support its opponents. The TOC tried to observe the secular, though obviously unjust, legislation. However, the authorities had already taken their stand in the purely church dispute: its repressive bodies were used to bring the bishops to obedience to Metr. Sergiy. Recall Bishop Pavel (Kratirov)’s case: (In late July – early August 1928 Archbishop Pavel served in the churches of the Izium District. After a complaint from Sergian Bishop Konstantin (Dyakov) he was summoned to the local OGPU department. Later the Kharkiv OGPU demanded that he ceased offering up prayers for Acting Deputy Patriarch Metr. Pitr (Poliansky). After his denial the administrative bodies banned him from long travels and further incorporating parishes.” (M. V. Shkarovsky, the aforementioned opus, p. 101).

Keeping up with its policies of religious prosecutions in USSR, the authorities forced the TOC to resort to illegal position. On account of these reasons, the TOC have never been a single organization, representing an aggregation of self-governed eparchies, parishes, deaneries, and Metropolitan districts, united with a single theological and canonical position. In spite of the repression, TOC communities have existed during the whole Soviet period. In the 1970s-80s many of them have lost their last bishops, with some forced to exist and celebrate cervices according to a special rite in the (more or less prolonged) absence of a priest.

After the change in the political conditions in the country in late 1980s, the TOC started leaving the underground. Various TOC trends solved the question of their further existence in different ways. Some of the communities joined the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which had opened its communities in Russia’s territory; others renewed their episcopacy and clergy, making agreements with other jurisdictions.

The TOC trend renewed the continuity with the help from the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (with no subordination relationship involved).

Along with this trend, there exist a number of others also calling themselves TOC.