OUR HERITAGE
 
|HOME PAGE |NEWS | DIOCESES | OUR LEGACY |
Protopriest Peter PEREKRESTOV (SAN FRANCISCO)
 



St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco and
His View of the Russian Church in the 20th Century

A paper presented at the All-Diaspora Pastoral Conference
Holy Virgin Protection Parish, Nyack, New York, December 8-12, 2003


If one was to ask any member of our Russian Church Abroad, or any Orthodox person for that matter, who is the most outstanding representative of our Church, the reply would most likely be Saint John(Maximovitch). In him we see a faithful archpastor of our Church, an ascetic, a theologian and a man of prayer.

When we discuss St. Johnís thoughts on questions concerning the Church, we must take into consideration the fact that his thoughts and views are not simply those of a hierarch with a theological education, of an expert in church history and the canons. These are the views of a Saint who acquired the Holy Spirit. St. Johnís thoughts and views were not only formed intellectually; they were cultivated in his heart by prayer, pastoral experience, carrying on of the spirit handed down to him by his mentors and through the daily celebration of the Divine Liturgy.

What were the main threads that run through all the thoughts expressed by St. John concerning the Church in general and the Russian Church in the 20th century specifically?

1. The Church is universal. “Christianity reveals the meaning of life for all peoples and for all times; for this reason it is only in Christianity that one can find answers to all of the situations and questions that arise in life” [1] said St. John in his talk at the establishment of the “Orthodox Action” Society. St. John inherited a living concept of the universality of the Church not only from reading the Holy Fathers and from the divine services, but also from his mentor, the Most Blessed Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky). In his article “What is the Key to the Spiritual Power of the Most Blessed Metropolitan Anthony?” St. John wrote the following: “He (the Most Blessed Metropolitan of Kiev Anthony) was truly a universal hierarch, who was keenly interested in all questions of the life of the Church in the entire world, who bore all her pains within himself, who literally carried the entire weight of them on his shoulders…With profound faith in the ultimate victory of Truth, at the same time he had deep sorrow over all the afflictions in the Church.” [2]

In one word of instruction given when presenting the staff to a new bishop (I suspect the bishop was Bishop Anthony Bartoshevich), St. John instructs the newly consecrated hierarch with the following words: “Apart from caring for your own flock, you must also spread Christís faith among those who do not yet know Truth. The preaching of Christís teaching and faith in Christ and the Life-creating Trinity is the fulfillment of a duty laid down by Christ on the apostles and the required duty of archpastor and pastors. You must bring the Light of Christ to all who do not believe in Christ, shining with the light of your own example and proclaiming the words of eternal life.

Following Saints Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, offering prayers at the Divine Liturgy for the entire Church, for the entire universe, a bishop must know not only his own territory, but must take to heart all that is transpiring in the entire universal Church. Without interfering in affairs of others and without any pretenses on the authority of other bishops, strive to offer help wherever you can, giving brotherly counsel where necessary, but above all by the example of your own stand for the Truth and defense of it.” [3]

2. The second thread that runs through all the thoughts expressed by St. John concerning the Church in general and the Russian Church in the 20th century in particular is the following: The gates of hell will not overcome the Church, in spite of all heresies and schisms, in spite of the unworthiness and apostasy of many ministers of the Church, even of those in high positions.

“There were times when it seemed that all the powers of hell were bending every effort to destroy the Church. Tens of thousands of martyrs were put to death at the same time; churches were razed to their foundations; holy things were desecrated; the Church was persecuted by heathen rulers, was trampled down by heretics, was torn apart by internal dissentions. But the Church remained invincible and overcame falsehood [4] (“The Church New Year”, 1946).

In his article “The Church is the Body of Christ” the Saint writes: “The consequences of sin have not yet been completely expelled from the human race. They act not only on individual persons, but through these persons they manifest themselves also in the worldly activity of entire parts of the Church. Heresies, schisms, and disruptions that tear away a part of the faithful are constantly appearing. Misunderstandings between the local churches or parts of them have disturbed the Church from the most ancient times. Prayers are constantly heard in the divine services for putting an end to them.” [5]

3. The third thread that runs through the thoughts expressed by St. John about the Russian Church in the 20th century in particular reflects his attitude towards Russia.
St. John loved Russia, her history, her Saints and her holy treasures. He was in deep agony over the enslavement of Russia by the atheists and was absolutely irreconcilable to the atheist regime. Yet he believed that if there would be repentance in Russia, then she would rise anew: “Does Holy Russia really no longer exist and will it never exist again?” the Saint wrote in 1938.“Not only in heaven, but here on this sinful earth Holy Russia continues to exist. The Godless regime has simply put her in bondage; it has not destroyed her. The council of the ungodly that has gained control over the Russian people is alien to the people, because it has nothing in common with the essence of Russia… Shake off the sleep of despair and sloth, sons of Russia! Look upon the glory of her sufferings and be purified; wash yourselves of your sins!…” [6]

In his sermon before a memorial service for the Tsar-Martyr the Saint said: “Before us, before the Russian people, the path to a rebirth is the acknowledgement of oneís sin and repentance! For the rebirth of Russia all political agendas and projected alliances are in vain; what Russia needs is the moral renewal of her people.” [7]

As for the Soviet regime, St. John expressed himself especially forcefully in the Prayer of Repentance he composed to be read on the day of the murder of the Royal Family: “Lord God of our fathers… Thou hast handed us over to the hands of lawless, filthy apostates, to men of iniquity more wicked than all the earth.” [8]

Let us then sum up the three threads that bind together St. Johnís thoughts concerning the Church in general and the Russian Church in particular:

1) The Church is universal and one of her primary tasks is to spread Christís faith among those who do not yet know the Truth.

2) The gates of hell shall not overcome the Church, in spite of all heresies and schisms, in spite of the unworthiness and apostasy of many ministers of the Church, even of those in high positions.

3) The council of the ungodly has gained control over Russia, but through repentance and renewal Russia will rise.

Now let us turn to more specific remarks by St. John concerning the Russian Church in the 20th century. We will try to provide answers in St. Johnís own words to a series of questions that are of major concern, I believe, to the participants of our All-Diaspora Pastoral Conference. Did St. John consider the official Church in Russia (i.e. the Moscow Patriarchate) to have completely lapsed? How did St. Johnís regard Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and his Declaration? Are the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate “parts” that originate from a single “Mother Church”? Would it be possible, if only in principle, for St. John to recognize the official Church in Russia and did he ever in fact actually recognize it?

St. John believed that after the establishment of the atheist regime in Russia, the Church was divided into the persecuted Church and the Church in exile; these were like two branches of a single tree. In 1946 he wrote:

“In our days a vicious wave of warfare against the Church has swept over our Fatherland… Many hierarchs and a numberless multitude of clergy have been put to death in various ways. Others remembered the words of the Lord Ďwhen they persecute you in this city, flee to anotherí (Matthew 10: 23) and followed the example of many holy Fathers of antiquity. They left their Homeland and joined together under the spiritual leadership of Russian people who had found a refuge in other lands.” [9]

What comprised the part of the Russian Church outside Russia? “Beyond the boundaries of Russia, Russia Abroad was founded, spiritually nourished by the authority of the Russian Church Abroad. All across the face of the earth Orthodox churches began to be built, uniting the Orthodox people around them, primarily Russians, but along with them other nationalities. In place of the holy treasures destroyed in the Homeland, new ones appeared outside her boundaries.

The Church Abroad strove to preserve those spiritual treasures, and as far as was possible the material ones as well, which comprise the wealth of the Russian Church of which she is a branch and with whom she continues to be united.” [10]

St. John bowed down in reverence before the feats of martyrdom and confession of the hierarchs who remained in Russia during the years of the most brutal persecutions. In a sermon on the Feast of All Saints of Russia during the 1960ís, St. John exclaims: “Those who please God are shining forth in our times. How many of them are to be found in our wretched and tormented Homeland! So many Hieromartyrs! So many Martyrs! It is not possible to count them all. So many of our hierarchs were exiled to distant places and died there, leading a life like the Saints who were persecuted by the iconoclasts and other heretics. Peter of Krutitsa and Cyril of Kazan and many others, whose relics, perhaps, will never be found, yet they shine like a brilliant light in the Russian heaven before our eyes. All of them, the Saints who pleased God, those glorified and those not glorified, are praying for us and provide an example for us.” [11] In the writings and letters of St. John I have never come across the actual word “Sergianism”, but he did mention in brief the actions of Metropolitan Sergius. He did not write about the Catacomb Church as such.
How did St. John regard Metropolitan Sergiusí (Stragorodsky) declaration and his usurpation of authority in the Church and in general the political stance of the Church in the Soviet Union?

It was not in St. Johnís character to make harsh judgements regarding the clergy under the crushing burden of godless atheists. St. John hardly mentions Metropolitan Sergius, apart from his well-known brochure entitled: “The Russian Church Abroad”.

St. John held that the last letter in which Metropolitan Sergius freely wrote what he internally believed to be true was his letter of September 12, 1926 to the bishops abroad. In this letter Metropolitan Sergius wrote: “My beloved hierarchs. You ask me to be judge in a matter of which I have no knowledge (the topic is the dissension between the hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad and Metropolitan Eulogius--Protopriest P.P.)… Can the Patriarch of Moscow really be the guide for the church life of Orthodox emigres…It is not likely that we will ever see each other again in this present life, but I hope, that by the mercy of God, we will meet in the life to come.” [12] (our abbreviations ĖFr. P.P.).

Further on, in this same brochure, St. John, without justifying Metropolitan Sergius, writes about him with pity: “Imprisonment, threats not only to him (Metropolitan Sergius--Protopriest P.P.) but also to the entire Russian Church, along with false promises by the Soviet regime, broke him. This letter, so full of love for the hierarchs abroad, serves as his last testament, as it were, before his loss of internal freedom. A few months later Metropolitan Sergius published the Declaration in which he recognized the Soviet regime as a truly legitimate Russian regime that provided for the welfare of the people, Ďwhose joys are our joys and whose sorrows are our sorrowsí (Declaration of July 16/29, 1927). At the same time, keeping his promise to the Soviet regime, Metropolitan Sergius required the clergy abroad to sign pledges of allegiance to the Soviet regime.” [13] St. John felt that for those who were inside Russia and who were enduring such severe sufferings there could be circumstances that mitigated their moral surrender to the brutal regime. But for those living in freedom and relative safety, there could be no mitigating circumstances or justification for signing pledges of allegiance. Quite the opposite Ė this was contradictory to common sense.

With regard to Metropolitansí Peter of Krutitsa, Agafangel of Yaroslav, Cyril of Kazan and Joseph of Petrograd refusal to accept Metropolitan Sergiusís Declaration, St. John felt that Metropolitan Sergius had been in agreement with these hierarchs not long before signing the Declaration. This once again underscores the lack of freedom of Metropolitan Sergiusís actions. St. John did not pass over the fact that certain of these hierarchs broke communion in prayer with Metropolitan Sergius as one who had “lapsed and had entered into alliance with the atheists” [14], but St. John himself has no harsh words for Metropolitan Sergius. In his article he points out:

“Both the hierarchs and flock inside Russia who did not accept Metropolitan Sergiusí Declaration and those in the Diaspora did not cease to be parts of the Russian Church” [15], i.e., they were by no means schismatic and continued to comprise parts of the Russian Church.

St. John, in his brochure on the Church Abroad, draws the conclusion that: “The Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius brought no benefit to the Church. The persecutions not only did not cease; they were intensified. To the other accusations the Soviet regime made against the clergy and lay people was added yet another: refusal to accept the Declaration. At the same time a wave of closing churches swept over all of Russia.” [16]. By the beginning of World War II, “The Russian Church inside Russia was in a state of extreme devastation… At the same time, Metropolitan Sergius, bound by his promise to the Soviet regime, continued to affirm that there was no persecution of the Church in Russia.” [17]

St. John gave an evaluation to the Declaration, a very simple, moral evaluation. Metropolitan Sergius had been broken, and his actions, because the enemies of the Church dictated them, were harmful.

After the Declaration, did the Church in the Soviet Union become “devoid of grace” in the eyes of St. John?

Among the Saintís papers we found a carbon copy of a text in which St. John sets out his thoughts regarding the expression “Soviet Church.” Itís possible that this is the first draft of a letter. It is dated 1963. Saint John writes: “…if someone began to talk about Ďimproper actions of the Churchí in the presence of Metropolitan Anthony, he would stop him by pointing out that the actions of the hierarchy cannot be attributed to the Church, that the hierarchy is not the entire church, even though it speaks in her name. The Patriarchate of Constantinople was occupied by Paul the Confessor, Macedonius, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Nestorius, Proclus, Flavian, Germanus. Some of them shone with sanctity and Orthodoxy, while others were heresiarchs. But the Church remained Orthodox. During the days of Iconoclasm, after the deposition of Severinus, Nicephorus and others, not only their cathedra but also the majority of the episcopal sees were occupied by Arians. Other Churches did not have any communion with her, because they did not want to have communion with the Iconoclasts, according to St. Paul who left the heresy and his cathedra. But still the Church of Constantinopleremained Orthodox, even though a portion of the people, especially the military and bureaucracy, were drawn into Iconoclasm.

And so now, one can understand why people who have a poor knowledge of the language of the Church use the expression ĎSoviet Churchí. However, this is not suitable for serious theological discussions. When the entire hierarchy of South-Western Russia went over to the Unia, the Church continued to exist in the person of the faithful Orthodox people, who after long sufferings restored their hierarchy.

For this reason it is more correct to speak not about the ĎSoviet Churchí--which is something the ĎChurchí cannot be in the proper sense of the word--but about the hierarchy that plays the role of serving the Soviet regime. Oneís attitude to this hierarchy can be the same as to the other representatives of this regime. [18]

St. John clearly explained and set forth the primary reason that makes communion between the Church Abroad and the Patriarchate of Moscow impossible: the Church in the Soviet Union is not free; she is enslaved; she cannot express her own true will. St. John could not believe that she was in such a condition primarily of her own free will and not due to force and coercion.

St. John was of the opinion that there were no deviations in matters of Faith sufficiently serious to make the official Church in Russia illegitimate. A clear witness to this is his Explanatory Address to the Flock of Shanghai dated August 2, 1946.

I donít have time to give a detailed account of the course of events in the Church in Shanghai in 1945-1946. Suffice it to say that due to war conditions, communications from the Far East with the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad had been broken since 1941. The situation in Shanghai was chaotic. The Russian emigres were stateless. The Soviets were conducting intense propaganda summoning all Russians to return to their “renewed homeland”, where a Patriarch had now been elected, churches were being opened and all Russians would be granted an amnesty. There was a kind of euphoria after the allied victory… [19] In Shanghai some 10,000 Russians received Soviet passports. In July of 1945 the Bishopís Council in Harbin decided to submit to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow. It was amid these circumstances that St. John followed this decision and on August 24, 1945 published his Ukaz 650 concerning the commemoration of the name of Patriarch Alexis (Simansky) at the divine services.
About a month later St. John received a telegram from Geneva from the First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad with the message that the Synod is functioning. Then St. John restored the commemoration of his legitimate church authority in the person of Metropolitan Anastassy. I think he did this not without the support of many of his closest associates. At the same time, it seems to us, he realized that he had made a hasty decision in submitting to Patriarch Alexis. In his Explanatory Address to the Flock of Shanghai, Archbishop John clearly explains his reason for first commemorating the name of Patriarch Alexis at the divine services and then for restoring commemoration of his own hierarchy: “After the defeat of Germany there was no information about the Synod Abroad. Various rumors were spread about.

At the end of July last year we received news that the hierarchs in Harbin had decided to ask His Holiness Patriarch Alexis to receive them under his jurisdiction.

We immediately wrote to Archbishop Victor that, since we do not have any information about the fate of the Synod Abroad and since we donít have the right to remain outside submission to a higher church authority, we also must enter into contact with His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and should there be no impediments [pri otsutstvii prepyatsviy] submit to him… After the Exaltation of the Cross we received a radiogram from Geneva from Metropolitan Anastassy with news that the Synod is functioning… Aware of the necessity of submitting to a higher church authority, we renewed our previous relations with the Synod Abroad. We received separate instructions and directives from the Synod}, which we put into effect…We can go over to the jurisdiction of another church authority only if we have a directive to do so from the church authority to which we currently submit, for otherwise we would be acting in violation of the Churchís canons…” [20]

Shanghaiís Chinese Orthodox clergy did not trust or approve of either the Soviet regime or the Moscow hierarchy. Some of the representatives of the Russian clergy and parishioners felt that St. John was paying too much attention to his Chinese clergy and that, in general, he was supporting missionary work among the Chinese at the expense of the Russian cause. In reply to this, in his Explanatory Address, St. John once again underscores the universality of his understanding of the Church and her mission in the contemporary world:

“The doors of the churches in Shanghai have always been wide open for all Orthodox Christians. Because it primarily unites Russian people, our Churchís life has always reflected with particular emphasis all that is connected with our Homeland and expressed the feelings and hopes of all of our Homelandís children. At the same time, every other nationality that holds to Orthodoxy could consider our churches its own…Every individual, regardless of nationality, had and has one and the same opportunity to satisfy his spiritual needs in the Church and to participate in the Churchís life while submitting to the established canons. In the Church of Christ Ďthere is neither Greek nor Jew, barbarian or Scythian.í All alike are children of the Church, if the teaching of Christ and the laws of the Church are above all teachings and laws.” [21]

In the latter part of this Explanatory Address, St. John sets out his view on the Church in Russia and on the Church in Diaspora: “By striving for the same common goal, the Church inside Russia and {that} in the Diaspora can more successfully accomplish both their common as well as their individual tasks by acting separately according to the conditions in which each finds itself, until the time when their complete union become possible.

At the present time the Church inside Russia must treat the wounds afflicted upon her by militant atheism and free herself from the bonds that impede the fullness of her internal and external activity.

The task of the Church Abroad is to preserve the children of the Orthodox Russian Church from being dispersed, to maintain the spiritual values they brought from the Homeland, and likewise to spread Orthodoxy in the lands where they live.” [22]

Saint John consistently emphasized that the Church in Russia is not free and that it is this deprivation of freedom that prevents communion between the parts of the Russian Church.

“Being a part of the Russian Church, we cannot have communion with a church authority that is in submission and enslavement to a regime hostile to the Church… The church authority in Russia is in such a condition that we cannot distinguish and discern what it does freely and what it is forced to do.

The church authority in Russia is an image of captivity and spiritual impotence. There is no free will or any possibility for taking any initiative [svobodnago proyavlenia].
There is no one for us to commune with: there is no free church authority!” [23]

The primary reason for the existence of the part of the Russian Church outside Russia is her freedom: “In the name of the freedom of the Church, the part of the Russian Church that is outside Russiabegan its independent existence and will continue to do so as long as the reasons for this continue to apply.” [24] St. John mentions reasons in the plural, but does not elaborate.

Let us then summarize St. Johnís views on the Russian Church during the years of persecution in Russia:

1) The Church in Russia (the Moscow Patriarchate) and the Russian Church Abroad constitute two parts of the Russian Church, which have a common goal, but act separately because of different conditions.

2) Metropolitan Sergius was broken and his actions brought no benefit to the Church.

3) St. John consistently states, that the main reason which prevents the two parts of the Russian Church uniting is the lack of freedom of the Church in Russia.

In all the sermons, articles, letters and written documents of St. John that I have come across, I have never seen the words “deprived of grace” or “heretic” applied to any Local Church. St. John did not use these words. St. John had was merciful even towards those who had fallen away or who had gone astray. In his instruction to a newly consecrated bishop quoted above, St. John said: “In particular you must suffer with those afflicted with sins, with those who are in ignorance and who have gone astray, and with compassion and love draw them out of the pit of perdition and lead them up the path of salvation.” [25[

The Saint was irreconcilable in regards to modernism, innovations and deviations in the Local Churches. In 1939, in his report “The Status of the Orthodox Church after the War”, St. John considered that: “We (the faithful of the Russian Church Abroad Ė Protopriest P.P.) must stand firmly on the foundation of the Churchís canons and not with those who are straying from them. In former times for the exposure of canonical irregularities in a Local Church canonical communion was broken with her. The Russian Church Abroad cannot act in this way, in so far as her status has not been clearly defined. For this reason she must not break communion with the other Churches, if they do not take this step first. But, while maintaining communion, {the Church Abroad} must not remain silent over violations against the righteousness of the Church…” [26]

The issue of violating the righteousness of the Church disquieted St. John. In the above quote the Saint, on the one hand, says that we cannot be together with those who are straying from the canons of the Church. On the other hand communion with the other Churches should not be broken.

Not long before his death St. John was very concerned with the new winds that had started blowing in the Orthodox world. To his very last breath he was uncomprising in his stance regarding innovations, deviations and modernism. At the same time he did not show any trace of narrow-mindedness or fanaticism.

In December of 1965, St. John replied as follows to an inquiry sent to all the bishops of the Church Abroad concerning the desirability of a Third All-Diaspora Council:
“Concerning a Council with the participation of the clergy and laity…I feel that such a Council is desirable and very necessary… {At this Council} the voice of the Diaspora must sound forth strongly against the persecutions of the faith. Compassion and spiritual solidarity must be shown to our brothers and sisters suffering for the faith… Likewise {our} position must be clarified regarding the new trends initiated by the Vatican and the ecumenical movement. The Church Abroad must remain firm in Orthodoxy and patristic Tradition… Both before and after this {Council} attempts should be made to restore the unity of the Russian Church in the diaspora, or in any case, preparatory step should be taken to improve relations with the parts that have cut themselves off from Her (the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia Ė Protopriest P.P.).” [27]

Did this great ascetic of the 20th century wish and believe that the union of the two parts of the Russian Church must come about? Yes, he was waiting for this and believed that it would come about, but he did not specify when.

“The Russian Church Abroad is not spiritually separated from her suffering Mother. She offers prayers for her, preserves her spiritual and material wealth and in time she will be united with Her, when the reasons separating them disappear.” [28]

One must bear in mind that in all his views and actions, St. John acted in a conciliar manner (soborno) and in obedience to the higher church authority, even when he was not in total agreement with one of its decisions or actions. In his words of instruction on entrusting the episcopal staff to Bishop Jean (Kovalevsky) of St. Denis, St. John pointed out to him: “In this (episcopal Ė Protopriest P.P.) ministry do not rely too much on your own strength and knowledge, but make use of the advice of older hierarchs made wise by experience… Remember the promises you have just made and remain in obedience to the church authority that stands over you.” [29]

When St. John wrote about the hour of return (in 1946 he spoke specifically about a return and not reunion or unification) of the hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad to the homeland, then “…The hierarchs of the Diaspora must not act each in his own way. The entire Church Abroad together must present to the All-Russian Council her actions during the period of forced separation.” [30] St. Johnassumed that the issue of the separated parts of the Russian Church can only be resolved at an All-Russian Council.
And thus, according to Saint John four conditions must be considered when dealing with the issue of the possible unity of the two parts of the Russian Church:

1) The part of the Russian Church outside of Russia must preserve that which brought about itís formation Ė itís freedom, and not forget about the task of spreading Orthodoxy in the lands it finds itself

2) The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia must combine compassion and love with a firm stand in the Truth.

3) Any decision concerning the destiny of the Russian Church must be made together, not individually, with one mind.

4) The issue of church unity has to de dealt with at an All-Russia Church Council.
St. John, his prayers and his views on the Russian Church in the 20th century can serve as the key and compass that will lead to an ecclesiastical, canonical and God-pleasing resolution of the question that pains all the true children of the Russian Church. In spite of all the tribulations and difficulties in the Church, as both Metropolitan Anthony and St. John believed, the Truth will prevail.

†FOOTNOTES:

†[1] Archbishop John, “Opening Remarks on the Occasion of the Opening of the Orthodox Action Society”, Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Dela 11, Geneva, 1959, p. 4.
†[2] Saint John, “What is the Key to the Spiritual Power of the Most Blessed Metropolitan Anthony?” Slova, San Francisco, 1994, p. 272.
†[3] Archbishop John, A Word of Instruction Given When Presenting the Staff to a New Bishop N, manuscript, Western American Diocese archives.
†[4] Archbishop John, “The Church New Year”, Shanghai Newsletter 1726, Shanghai, 1946, p. 1.
†[5] Saint John, “The Church is the Body of Christ”, Slova, San Francisco, 1994, p. 137.
†[6] Saint John, “The 950th Anniversary of the Baptism of Russia”, Slova, San Francisco, 1994, p. 211-213.
†[7] Saint John, “A Sermon Before the Panikhida for the Czar-Martyr”, Slova, San Francisco, 1994, p. 234.
†[8] Supplemental Trebnik, Prayer of Repentance to be read on the Day of the Murder of the Royal Family, Jordanville, 1961, p. 579.
†[9] Archbishop John, “The Church New Year”, p. 2.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Saint John, “Sermon of the Feast of All Saints of Russia”, Slova, San Francisco, 1994, p. 187-188.
[12] Archbishop John, The Russian Church Abroad, 2nd Edition, Montreal, 1979, p. 7.
[13] Ibid. p. 8
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid. p. 9.
[17] Ibid. p. 13.
[18] Archbishop John, manuscript, Russkiy Pastyr Archive.
[19] Saint John the Wonderworker in Russia, Moscow, 2002, p. 14. The memoirs of a man raised in Shanghai, Oleg Daniilovitch Abaturov, speak of the reasons why many Russians from Shanghaireturned to the Soviet Union: “There was Soviet propaganda in China. The Soviet magazine Ogonyok was readily available and there were Soviet films shown. They showed how the Soviet government takes into account the needs of the people, how old people are taken care of, each ones receives a pension (in China this did not exist), how friendly and kind Soviet people are, how hospitable people there are and their tables full of food. Before our departure for the Soviet Union we threw out our old clothes, so we wouldnít look embarrassed there. At first the Soviets would bring the children to the Soviet Union, set them up well and then agitate the children to write their parents how good life is in the Soviet Union...”
[20] Archbishop John, May the Grace and Peace of the Holy Lifegiving Trinity be Upon the Orthodox Flock of Shanghai (pamphlet), Shanghai, August 2, 1946.
[21] Ibid. p. 6.
[22] Ibid. p. 4-5.
[23] Archbishop John (Maximovitch), “A Word by Archbishop John”, Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Dela 14, Geneva, 1960, p. 5.
[24] Saint John, “Opening Remarks on the Occasion of the Diocesan of the Diocese of Western Europe (1960 ň.)”, Slova, San Francisco, 1994, p. 251.
[25] A Word of Instruction Given When Presenting the Staff to a New Bishop N.
[26] Bishop John of Shanghai, “The State of the Orthodox Church After the War”, Acts of the Second All-Diaspora Council, Belgrade, 1939, p. 400.
[27] Archbishop John, A response to the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, December 1/14, 1965, Western American Diocese Archive.
[28] The Russian Church Abroad, p. 18.
[29] Archbishop John, “Words of Instruction on Entrusting the Episcopal Staff to Bishop Jean of St. Denis”, Russkiy Pastyr 137-38, San Francisco, 2000, p 8-9.
[30] May the Grace and Peace of the Holy Lifegiving Trinity be Upon the Orthodox Flock of Shanghai, p. 8.

|HOME PAGE | NEWS | DIOCESES | OUR LEGACY |