The “Аct” of archbishop Serafim (Samoilovich) and polemic in the circle of his intimates in 1933‒1934 concerning his stance

Disapproving metropolitan Sergiy’s activity, archbiship Serafi m acutely felt his responsibility for the fate of the church as a former Patriarch’s Locum Tenens who handed over the rights of the Deputy to metropolitan Sergiy “with no conditions”. Having received relative freedom of action on arrival...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Sergey Nikolaev
Format: Article
Language:Russian
Published: St. Tikhon's Orthodox University 2019-12-01
Series:Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета: Серия ИИ. История, история Русской Православной Церкви
Subjects:
Online Access:http://periodical.pstgu.ru/ru/pdf/article/6983
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850253792194330624
author Sergey Nikolaev
author_facet Sergey Nikolaev
author_sort Sergey Nikolaev
collection DOAJ
description Disapproving metropolitan Sergiy’s activity, archbiship Serafi m acutely felt his responsibility for the fate of the church as a former Patriarch’s Locum Tenens who handed over the rights of the Deputy to metropolitan Sergiy “with no conditions”. Having received relative freedom of action on arrival in Arkhangelsk exile in the summer of 1933, he considered himself obliged to step out with the next, more strict, accusation of metropolitan Sergiy and to dissociate himself from the latter, thus clearing conscience of those disagreeing with his activity. Having prepared the relevant “Act”, archbishop Serafi m did not release it in open circulation immediately, but gave it over to his spiritual preceptor archmandrite Neofi t (Osipov) and to his faithful fl ock in Uglich. Substantiating his stance in the corresponence, archbishop Serafi m put emphasis on Sergiy’s falling into heresy and on vapidity of Sergiy’s sacraments. Archmandrite Neofi t advised that he should wait with making the “Act” public, while among the residents of Uglich, whose opinions were more moderate as to metropolitan Sergiy, the “Act” provoked anxiety and accusations of being self-important. Amidst this discussion, archbishop Serafi m entered into correspondence with metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov). Metropolitan Kirill informed him that it was impossible to become head of the church without prior arrangement and without a decision of Locum Tenens metropolitan Petr. He emphasises not the doctrine of metropolitan Sergiy, but the problem of usurping the power that does not belong to him and points to the way of overcoming this by addressing the statute of Holy Patriarch Tikhon of 20 November 1920. This opinion of metropolitan Kirill confused archbishop Serafi m, who came to be even more assured of the necessity to “establish precision in mutual relations” with metropolitan Sergiy and make the “Act” public. Archmandrite Neofi t again persuades him not to hurry. The imminent arrest of archbishop Serafi m fi nally made it impossible to make the “Act” public. The “urges” of archbishop Serafi m helped metropolitan Kirill to defi ne his attitude to church administration in the current situation more precisely and to express it in a clear formula.
format Article
id doaj-art-570662d4194e44ffbfbb1cb2693a3fd1
institution OA Journals
issn 1991-6434
2409-4811
language Russian
publishDate 2019-12-01
publisher St. Tikhon's Orthodox University
record_format Article
series Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета: Серия ИИ. История, история Русской Православной Церкви
spelling doaj-art-570662d4194e44ffbfbb1cb2693a3fd12025-08-20T01:57:16ZrusSt. Tikhon's Orthodox UniversityВестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета: Серия ИИ. История, история Русской Православной Церкви1991-64342409-48112019-12-019090117148http://dx.doi.org/10.15382/sturII201990.117-1487The “Аct” of archbishop Serafim (Samoilovich) and polemic in the circle of his intimates in 1933‒1934 concerning his stanceSergey Nikolaev0St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow, 127051, Russian Federation; Centre for the Study of Modern History of Russian Orthodox ChurchDisapproving metropolitan Sergiy’s activity, archbiship Serafi m acutely felt his responsibility for the fate of the church as a former Patriarch’s Locum Tenens who handed over the rights of the Deputy to metropolitan Sergiy “with no conditions”. Having received relative freedom of action on arrival in Arkhangelsk exile in the summer of 1933, he considered himself obliged to step out with the next, more strict, accusation of metropolitan Sergiy and to dissociate himself from the latter, thus clearing conscience of those disagreeing with his activity. Having prepared the relevant “Act”, archbishop Serafi m did not release it in open circulation immediately, but gave it over to his spiritual preceptor archmandrite Neofi t (Osipov) and to his faithful fl ock in Uglich. Substantiating his stance in the corresponence, archbishop Serafi m put emphasis on Sergiy’s falling into heresy and on vapidity of Sergiy’s sacraments. Archmandrite Neofi t advised that he should wait with making the “Act” public, while among the residents of Uglich, whose opinions were more moderate as to metropolitan Sergiy, the “Act” provoked anxiety and accusations of being self-important. Amidst this discussion, archbishop Serafi m entered into correspondence with metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov). Metropolitan Kirill informed him that it was impossible to become head of the church without prior arrangement and without a decision of Locum Tenens metropolitan Petr. He emphasises not the doctrine of metropolitan Sergiy, but the problem of usurping the power that does not belong to him and points to the way of overcoming this by addressing the statute of Holy Patriarch Tikhon of 20 November 1920. This opinion of metropolitan Kirill confused archbishop Serafi m, who came to be even more assured of the necessity to “establish precision in mutual relations” with metropolitan Sergiy and make the “Act” public. Archmandrite Neofi t again persuades him not to hurry. The imminent arrest of archbishop Serafi m fi nally made it impossible to make the “Act” public. The “urges” of archbishop Serafi m helped metropolitan Kirill to defi ne his attitude to church administration in the current situation more precisely and to express it in a clear formula.http://periodical.pstgu.ru/ru/pdf/article/6983непоминающие архиепископ серафим (самойлович) митрополит кирилл (смирнов) архимандрит неофит (осипов) переписка «деяние» угличская епархия архангельск
spellingShingle Sergey Nikolaev
The “Аct” of archbishop Serafim (Samoilovich) and polemic in the circle of his intimates in 1933‒1934 concerning his stance
Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета: Серия ИИ. История, история Русской Православной Церкви
непоминающие
архиепископ серафим (самойлович)
митрополит кирилл (смирнов)
архимандрит неофит (осипов)
переписка
«деяние»
угличская епархия
архангельск
title The “Аct” of archbishop Serafim (Samoilovich) and polemic in the circle of his intimates in 1933‒1934 concerning his stance
title_full The “Аct” of archbishop Serafim (Samoilovich) and polemic in the circle of his intimates in 1933‒1934 concerning his stance
title_fullStr The “Аct” of archbishop Serafim (Samoilovich) and polemic in the circle of his intimates in 1933‒1934 concerning his stance
title_full_unstemmed The “Аct” of archbishop Serafim (Samoilovich) and polemic in the circle of his intimates in 1933‒1934 concerning his stance
title_short The “Аct” of archbishop Serafim (Samoilovich) and polemic in the circle of his intimates in 1933‒1934 concerning his stance
title_sort аct of archbishop serafim samoilovich and polemic in the circle of his intimates in 1933 1934 concerning his stance
topic непоминающие
архиепископ серафим (самойлович)
митрополит кирилл (смирнов)
архимандрит неофит (осипов)
переписка
«деяние»
угличская епархия
архангельск
url http://periodical.pstgu.ru/ru/pdf/article/6983
work_keys_str_mv AT sergeynikolaev theactofarchbishopserafimsamoilovichandpolemicinthecircleofhisintimatesin19331934concerninghisstance
AT sergeynikolaev actofarchbishopserafimsamoilovichandpolemicinthecircleofhisintimatesin19331934concerninghisstance