Anti Jesuit Books Rare and Out of Print

Historical (1836-1922), Rare, Suppressed Anti-Jesuit Books (Out-of-Print)

and other Documents provided On - line: 

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
    
Several historical, rare, suppressed anti-Jesuit books and other documents (published 1836-1922) obtained and provided via Vatican Assassins, are available on-line here :

[ CCL note: book and document pages may also be printed out in hard copy form for easier reading, copying, and/or hard-copy distribution to others ]


Suppressed Anti-Jesuit Documents (1836-1922)
  

Summary of Books and other Documents provided on-line:

Introduction - Vatican Assassins
The Diabolical Historical of the Society of Jesus

Table of Contents - Vatican Assassins
Suppressed Anti-Jesuit Documents [Online]

____________________________________
____________________________________
    
The History of Romanism
From the Earliest Corruptions of Christianity to the Present Time. (1845)

History of the Jesuits:
Their Origin, Progress, Doctrines, and Designs (1854)

Popery, Puseyism, Jesuitism;
Described in a Series of Letters (1905)

The Engineer Corps of Hell;  [ Introduction ]
or, Rome's Sappers and Miners. (1883)

Secret Instructions of the Jesuits,
Faithfully Translated from the Latin of an Old Genuine London Copy,
with An Historical Sketch, &c. &c. (1857)

The Black Pope.
A History of the Jesuits. (1896)

The Jesuits 
A Complete History of their Open and Secret Proceedings
from the Foundation of the Order to the Present Time (1903)

The Footprints of the Jesuits. (1894)

The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, (1836)

The Thrilling Mysteries of a Convent Revealed ! (published 1800's, precise date unknown)

The Jesuit Conspiracy.
The Secret Plan of the Order. (1848)

The Crisis:
Or, The Enemies of America Unmasked (1855)

Romanism as a World Power (1922)

________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
 
"In the long war on the truth, the most formidable, relentless and deceptive enemy has been Roman Catholicism.

It is an apostate, corrupt, heretical, false Christianity, it is [ a front ] for the kingdom of Satan. The true church of the Lord Jesus Christ has always understood this. And even through the Dark Ages from 400 to 1500, prior to the Reformation, genuine Christian believers set themselves apart from that system, and were brutally punished
and executed for their rejection of that system."  [ CCL: emphasis added ]


Sermon: "The Pope and the Papacy" - Dr. John MacArthur, pastor
Excerpt [ Full Transcript and Audio links available on website of Grace to You Ministry ]

Sermons by Date
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/date

The Pope and the Papacy
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-291/the-pope-and-the-papacy

May 01, 2005
Download (mp3):  High  Low

__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
  
Suppressed Anti-Jesuit Documents (1836-1922)

Excerpts [ emphasis added ]:
  
"Thus have we, at length, arrived at the close of our long journey of sixteen or seventeen centuries, from the dawn of papal corruptions down to the present time.  The result of our examination is the solemn conviction - strengthened the more attentively we study the subject - that the Romish, so far from being the true church, is the bitterest foe of all true churches of Christ - that she possesses no claim to be called a Christian church - but, with the long line of corrupt and wicked men who have worn her triple crown, that she is ANTI-CHRIST ; - the original of that apostate power whose character was sketched eighteen hundred years ago by the pen of inspiration, "whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all deceivableness of unrighteousness," and "whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and destroy with the brightness of his coming."  (2 Thess. ii., 8-10.) ... No !  Popery is not Christianity; it is not the religion of the New Testament; it is as far from it as light from darkness, as heaven from hell, as Christ from anti-Christ."
  
"This identity of papal Rome with anti-Christ was maintained by Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and all the continental reformers; by Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, and all the British reformers: by the illustrious Sir Isaac Newton, Mede, Whiston, Bishop Newton, Lowth, Daubuz, Jurieu, Vitringa, Bedell, and a host of equally pious, illustrious and learned names.  The same testimony has been borne in the authorized doctrinal standards of the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, and other churches both of Europe and America. The same doctrine is still taught in the theological school of Geneva by the illustrious D'Aubigne' and Gaussen, and with but here and there a solitary exception, by all the most learned professors and clergymen of the present day, connected with the various evangelical denominations of protestant Christians." 


The History of Romanism
From the Earliest Corruptions of Christianity to the Present Time.
by Mr. John Dowling, A.M., Pastor of the Berean Church, New York
674 pages, published 1845
[ (digital) pp. 648, 649 ]

_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
    
Suppressed Anti-Jesuit Documents (1836-1922)

Excerpts [ emphasis added ]:

Jesuit president: "You well know that what we aim at is the empire of the world; ..."  (Secret Conference, Sept. 1824)
 
Jesuit rector of Chieri:  "... we are intimately persuaded that the cause of evil, the bad leaven, will remain in the world as long as Protestantism shall exist; that Protestantism  must therefore be utterly abolished,..."(Secret Conference, Sept. 1824)
  
Jesuit from Great Britain:  "... we alone know how to prepare a revolution, compared with which all theirs have been, are, and will be but pigmy insurrections.  In calling us Jesuits they think that they cover us with opprobrium !  They little think that these Jesuits have in store for them the consorship, gags, and flames, and will one day be the masters of their masters !"  (Secret Conference, Sept. 1824)
  
Jesuit from Great Britain:  "It is highly important to us that we should seem to offer large guarantees to every class of society.  To the aristocracy of Protestant lands we should thus address ourselves: - "The Roman hierarchy alone is able to gain you the victory; but this is on condition that she finds an echo in your own souls,  It is by your efforts that the people must be collected into their former fold; [ CCL: i.e., Roman Catholicism ]; ... Call upon all those over whom you have influence to listen, and address them boldly in some such words as these: -  'Protestantism is an aberration.  It has engendered nothing but miseries and innumerable catastrophes.'(Secret Conference, Sept. 1824)
   
Jesuit from Great Britain:  "Then the Bible, that serpent which, with head erect and eyes flashing fire, threatens us with its venom whilst it trails along the ground, shall be changed again into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it; and what wounds will we not inflict with it upon these hardened Pharaohs and their cunning magicians !  what miracles will we not work by its means !  Oh, then, mysterious rod ! we will not again suffer thee to escape from our hands, and fall to the earth !   For you know but too well that, for three centuries past [ CCL: i.e., since the launch of the Reformation by Martin Luther's posting of his 95 theses on October 31, 1517 ], this cruel asp ( crudele aspide ) has left us no repose; you well know with what folds it entwines us, and with what fangs it gnaws us !"  (Secret Conference, Sept. 1824)
   
Jesuit advanced in years: "My brethren, as to the Bible, be advised by me. For our greater good let us avoid - let us carefully avoid this ground.  If I may tell you, openly, what I think of this book, it is not at all for us; it is against us.  Do not at all wonder at the invincible obstinacy it engenders in all those who regard its verses as inspired." ... In the simplicity of youth I fully expected,on opening the New Testament, to find there laid down, totidem literis ( in lettere cubitali ), the authority of a superior chief in the church, and the worship of the Virgin, the source of all grace for mankind.  I sought with the same eagerness for the mass, for purgatory, for relics, &c.  But in every page I found my expectations disappointed; from every reflection that I made resulted doubt.  At last, after having read, at least six times over, that little book which set all my calculations at nought, I was forced to acknowledge to myself that it actually sets forth a system of religion altogether different from that taught in the schools, and thus all my ideas were thrown into confusion ( ne rimasi al sommo scompaginato )."  (Secret Conference, Sept. 1824)
 
Jesuit advanced in years: [ As a young man, to his Roman Catholic priest confessor ]  "I said to him, "I expected to find in the New Testament each of our different dogmas fully developed and dwelt upon in accordance with the value and importance which we are accustomed to attribute to them.  What is my surprise to find there nothing at all like what we deem the most essential in our doctrines."  (Secret Conference, Sept. 1824)
  
Jesuit advanced in years: [ From the false response of his then-Roman Catholic priest superior ]  "Do you think a child in the cradle is equally advanced with a grown man ?  No.  In like manner this book is but the embryo of the church.  Forms, new doctrines, the hierarchy, the power of the popedom, all these great things which have transformed the church into an ocean, as it were, have been the effect of gradual progress, ..."  (Secret Conference, Sept. 1824)
   
Jesuit advanced in years:  "I have related this anecdote, which is entirely personal, merely to put you on your guard against too much confidence in reckoning, like the heretics [ CCL: i.e., what this Jesuit calls Protestants ] upon a book [ CCL: the Bible ] which unfortunately abounds in arms against us, not for us.     Consequently, let us lay down this principle: in public to act as if we had nothing to fear from such a book [ CCL: the Bible ], but rather as if it were favourable for us; in private, to describe it as dangerous and hurtful, or, where this would not be prudent, to declare that it is the germ, of which Catholicism is the complete and majestic development.  We shall thus provide ourselves with an arsenal a thousand times better stored than the biblical arsenal of Protestantism."  (Secret Conference, Sept. 1824)
  
Jesuit advanced in years:  "Should certain of our practices or doctrines be questioned, why then let us heap miracle on miracle, let us repeat the old ones and make new, so as to throw a glittering veil over the pope, the Virgin, purgatory, mass, our ecclesiastical vestments, our medals, our chaplets; let our miracles be like an inexhaustible water-course, keeping up a perpetual motion in each wheel of our immense machine."   (Secret Conference, Sept. 1824)
   
Jesuit president:  "... the two centuries which preceded Hildebrand supplied popes madder than Caligula, and more monstrous than Nero, ... Neither the fourteenth nor the fifteenth century offers a single example of talent and intelligence capable of foreseeing, and consequently of preventing by the abolition of the most flagrant abuses in the church, the horrible outbreak of the sixteenth century [ CCL: i.e., the Reformation, launched by the posting of Martin Luther's 95 Theses on October 31, 1517 ]."  (Secret Conference, Sept. 1824)   
  
Jesuit president:  "Two principles - amongst the many we possess - two principles of inexhaustible power and attractiveness ought to hold the first place in our consideration; and this we must continually call to mind.     We must thus argue with men in power, and especially those at court: - Heresy having been the cause of all the
complications which arose precisely when church and state were on the point of entering into a happy alliance, the results of which could not but have been solid and most satisfactory, it is of the highest importance that we should at length realize what three centuries of anarchy have postponed.  As soon, then, as positive conclusions shall have been laid down, the following should be the two leading principles of a new code, devised for the regulation and conservation of the vast interests of the two powers at length united: -

     WHENEVER HERESY SHALL DARE TO DISTURB THE SACRED TRANQUILITY OF THE [ CCL: ROMAN CATHOLIC ] CHURCH, WHATEVER MAY BE THE NATURE OF ITS ASSAULTS, BE THEY SLIGHT OR SERIOUS, THE DUTY OF THE STATE SHALL BE TO PUNISH THEM WITH THE UTMOST RIGOUR, AS POLITICAL CRIMES."
     RECIPROCALLY, WHENEVER REVOLT SHALL DARE TO DISTURB THE SACRED TRANQUILITY OF THE STATE, WHATEVER MAY BE THE NATURE OF ITS ATTACKS, BE THEY SLIGHT OR SERIOUS, THE DUTY OF THE CHURCH SHALL BE TO STIGMATIZE THEM IN THE FACE OF THE NATIONS, AND TO TREAT THEM WITH THE SAME RIGOUR AS HERESY ITSELF, WHICH IS TO BE CRUSHED BY TERRIBLE AND SOLEMN CHASTISEMENTS."  (Secret Conference, Sept. 1824)
  
The Jesuit Conspiracy.
The Secret Plan of the Order.
Detected and Revealed by The Abbate Leone.
320 pages, published 1848
[ (digital) pp. 139, 149, 152, 153, 156-160, 227, 231 ]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
  
CCL Note: The Jesuit Order had been suppressed by Pope Clement XIV in July 1773, and then restored by Pope Pius VII in August 1814.  

                 So this Secret Conference of the Jesuit General and his Jesuit Provincials at Chieri ( Italy ) in September 1824 took place just over 10 years after the official papal restoration of the Jesuit Order.


Suppression of the Society of Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_the_Society_of_Jesus

Excerpt:
 
By the brief Dominus ac Redemptor (21 July 1773) Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Society of Jesus. The Jesuits took refuge in non-Catholic nations, particularly in Prussia and Russia, where the order was ignored or formally rejected. The scholarly Jesuit Society of Bollandists moved from Antwerp to Brussels, where they continued their work in the monastery of the Coudenberg; in 1788, the Bollandist Society was suppressed by the Austrian government of the Low Countries.


Society of Jesus Suppression and restoration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus#Suppression_and_restoration


Excerpt:
 
Pope Pius VII during his captivity in France, had resolved to restore the Jesuits universally; and after his return to Rome he did so with little delay:

on 7 August 1814, by the bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum, he reversed the suppression of the Order and therewith, the then Superior in Russia, another Pole, Thaddeus Brzozowski, who had been elected in 1805, acquired universal jurisdiction.

Pro Islamic Jesuitical Hitler

The Nazis were NOT anti Semitic (a race of people) but were anti Jewish and pro Islamic

http://tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/187128/nazi-romance-with-islam?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=bd3b5aaed5-Thursday_November_27_201411_26_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-bd3b5aaed5-207196961http://tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/187128/nazi-romance-with-islam?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=bd3b5aaed5-Thursday_November_27_201411_26_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-bd3b5aaed5-207196961

By David Mikics

Both Hitler and Himmler had a soft spot for Islam. Hitler several times fantasized that, if the Saracens had not been stopped at the Battle of Tours, Islam would have spread through the European continent—and that would have been a good thing, since “Jewish Christianity” wouldn’t have gone on to poison Europe. Christianity doted on weakness and suffering, while Islam extolled strength, Hitler believed. Himmler in a January 1944 speech called Islam “a practical and attractive religion for soldiers,” with its promise of paradise and beautiful women for brave martyrs after their death. “This is the kind of language a soldier understands,” Himmler gushed.

Surely, the Nazi leaders thought, Muslims would see that the Germans were their blood brothers: loyal, iron-willed, and most important, convinced that Jews were the evil that most plagued the world. “Do you recognize him, the fat, curly-haired Jew who deceives and rules the whole world and who steals the land of the Arabs?” demanded one of the Nazi pamphlets dropped over North Africa (a million copies of it were printed). “The Jew,” the pamphlet explained, was the evil King Dajjal from Islamic tradition, who in the world’s final days was supposed to lead 70,000 Jews from Isfahan in apocalyptic battle against Isa—often identified with Jesus, but according to the Reich Propaganda Ministry none other than Hitler himself. Germany produced reams of leaflets like this one, often quoting the Quran on the subject of Jewish treachery.

It is not surprising, then, that there are those today who draw a direct line between modern Jew-hatred in the Islamic world and the Nazis. A poster currently at Columbus Circle’s subway entrance proclaims loudly that “Jew-hatred is in the Quran.” The poster features a photograph of Hitler with the notoriously anti-Jewish Mufti al-Husaini of Palestine, who is erroneously labeled “the leader of the Muslim world.” The truth is considerably more complex. The mufti made himself useful to the Nazis as a propagandist, but he had little influence in most Muslim regions. Few Muslims believed Nazi claims that Hitler was the protector of Islam, much less the Twelfth Imam, as one Reich pamphlet suggested.

The Nazis’ anti-Jewish propaganda no doubt attracted many Muslims, as historian Jeffrey Herf has documented, but they balked at believing that Hitler would be their savior or liberator. Instead, they sensed correctly that the Nazis wanted Muslims to fight and die for Germany. As Rommel approached Cairo, Egyptians started to get nervous. They knew that the Germans were not coming to liberate them, but instead wanted to make the Muslim world part of their own burgeoning empire. In the end, more Muslims wound up fighting for the Allies than for the Axis.

Hitler’s failed effort to put Muslim boots on the ground still stands as the most far-reaching Western attempt to use Islam to win a war. Such is the judgment of David Motadel, the author of a new, authoritative book, Islam and Nazi Germany’s War. Motadel’s detailed and fascinating explanation of how and why the Nazis failed to get Muslims on their side is a must-read for serious students of World War II, and it has an important message as well for our own policy in the Middle East.
***

Catholics In Action Stopped I-95 From Passing Near Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

to stop something that JFK began promoting about 1 year prior to his assassination and which was then and subsequently botched-
DC I-95 alongside the railroad next to Catholic University of America

http://endrtimes.blogspot.com/2014/11/today-in-history.html


http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/one-of-reasons.html

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-most-telling-selection-of-style-of.html


http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2012/01/crafted-controversy-scuttling-of-jfks-b.html

Overly Hyped Religious Leaders as the 'Dalai Lama', Roman Popes and the Archbishop of Canterbury

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/james-snell/dalai-lama-criticism_b_4421553.html

The Dalai Lama Deserves Criticism, Not Adulation

by James Snell

There is no greater demonstration of our passivity as a culture than the honorifics we attach to unworthy people. The Pope is always 'His Holiness', regardless of whether or not he knew about - and subsequently covered up - child abuse amongst the priesthood. The limp, insipid Archbishop of Canterbury is always 'His Grace', regardless of his cowardly abuse of power to block the legalisation same sex marriage for Anglicans and that most wonderful of things - equality [CCR note- that focus is jesuitical considering the question what has ANY of these religious leaders said about freedom of medicine and diet and the people unjustly persecuted under the pharmacratic inquisition which is the main thing responsible for imprisoning people?!]. Every terror-happy Islamist commander is 'Sheikh', and every gay-bashing evangelical 'Reverend'.

The Dalai Lama (who is always referred to by his title) is the prime example of the way in which the media and political figures bend over backwards to accommodate those who have certain reputations. These popular perceptions often supersede substance, but what else could we expect from the team of twenty-four hour news channel obsessed media studies graduates who 'advise' our political leaders? The Dalai Lama is a comfortable face, like a dozy kitten, which means that politicians can drop in for a quick meet and great, and appear well meaning by doing so. The reputation in question is also useful for attracting the slight superficial whiff of rebellion in going against the supposed wishes of the Chinese government (anti-Chinese feeling is certainly useful - see Mitt Romney's liberal use of trade-war hysteria in the 2012 US Presidential Election campaign if an example is needed). And nothing gets your average idealistic idiot on the street more interested than China, man.

I am under no illusions here: I know that the Chinese government is not nice, as both Peter Oborne and Hugo Rifkind have eloquently demonstrated, in a blog and a column respectively, in recent days. The Dalai Lama, you see, used to run Tibet, before being overthrown by the Chinese - lending him instant, unquestionable kudos in the minds of some. But Chinese nastiness does not mean that every twopenny 'dissenter' should be given an endless reserve of screen-time and a bottomless wellspring of respect. This is even more pertinent when considering the sort of Tibetan system to which the Chinese government have put an end. It has been convincingly argued; in a number of places, that the Chinese invaders (while cruel and dogmatic - of that there is little doubt) were on parity with the Tibetan lama priestly classes before the annexation. There are plenty of tales of cruel and unusual punishments enacted in the domain of the Lama: his theocratic fiefdom was well stocked with serfs - under the control of their oppressive feudal masters on the one hand, and shaped by their eternal karmic struggles on the other.

The Dalai Lama has become a televisual fixture because he is willing to grace the most mundane topics with his pseudo-divine presence. We've seen him on lovingly depicted on The Simpsons, and we've seen him on Masterchef Australia. It's all just a bit cheap, isn't it? Would he rather be debating the issues? Hell no! He is far more at home basking in the creation of animated schlock or wandering aimlessly around the set of a food cooking thingy.

Oh, and he's a Marxist as well. Just thought I'd mention it: not that I support clichéd rapid-fire anti-commie sentiment at the very mention at the term, but it is worth pointing out that as a political actor, the Dalai Lama is hardly neutral.

The Dalai Lama also came to the defense of India when it developed its thermonuclear weapons stockpile in 1998, in an area of immense cultural and political tension, giving the government a moral defense of its newfound ability to slaughter and self-immolate simultaneously. This intervention of course, was in no way related to the fact that he operates his 'government in exile' in India, and at the behest, and tacit support, of its government. No sir, nothing morally questionable about that.

What we see here is the truth: that this whiter-than-white demigod is a human being, with all of the inherent flaws and complications that humanity brings. My issue is that this imperfect primate sees it as his right to travel the world with lapdog celebrities and a fundraising bandwagon in tow, and to preach about how he deserves to have an entire nation state - which used to be his personal possession - restored to private control.

It is a great insult to the collective intelligence and goodwill of humanity that a man who claims to be the fourteenth reincarnation of a virtually prehistoric Nepalese princeling is granted the attention that he is. Maybe the Dalai Lama should stick to his platitudinous advice-spewing (for him, Buddhism is no more than a collection of vaguely mystical aphorisms anyway), and the rest of us should get on with our lives. Perhaps he could restrict his sphere of activity to writing forwards to potboilers about meditation and self-help and the political and cultural establishment could stop deferring to an outstandingly successful fantasist and conman on such an elaborately bended knee.

James Snell is Contributing Editor for The Libertarian.

The Eastern Roman Empire National Church

The Russian Orthodox Church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church

The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC; Russian: Русская Православная Церковь, tr. Russkaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkov), alternatively legally known as the Moscow Patriarchate (Russian: Московский Патриархат, Moskovskiy Patriarkhat^[2]), also known in English as the Orthodox Christian Church of Russia, is one of the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches, in communion with other Eastern Orthodox churches. The Primate of the ROC is the Patriarch of Moscow. The ROC officially ranks fifth - right under the ancient Greek Patriarchates of: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.^[3]

It currently claims its exclusive jurisdiction over the Orthodox Christians living in the former member republics of the USSR, excluding Georgia and Armenia, although this claim is disputed in such states as Estonia and Moldova and consequently parallel canonical Orthodox jurisdictions exist in those countries (Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church and Metropolis of Bessarabia, respectively). It also exercises ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the autonomous Church of Japan and the Orthodox Christians resident in the People's Republic of China. The Moscow-based administration of the ROC has exceedingly limited powers over the ROC's constituent semi-autonomous church structures in such countries as Ukraine and Belarus, where, along with the Russian Federation, it enjoys the position of numerically dominant religious organisation.

The ROC should not be confused with the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), another autocephalous (since 1970, albeit not universally recognised in this status) Orthodox Church, that traces its existence in North America to the time of the Russian missionaries in Alaska (then part of the Russian Empire) in the late 18th century, and still largely adheres to the ROC liturgical tradition.
The ROC should also not be confused with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (also known as the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, or ROCOR), headquartered in New York. The ROCOR was instituted in the 1920s by Russian communities outside then Communist Russia, which refused to recognize the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate then de facto headed by Metropolitan Sergius Stragorodsky. The two Churches reconciled on May 17, 2007; the ROCOR is now a self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church.

History

Main article: History of the Russian Orthodox Church

The Christian community that became the Russian Orthodox Church is traditionally said to have been founded by the Apostle Andrew, who is thought to have visited Scythia and Greek colonies along the northern coast of the Black Sea. According to one of the legends, Andrew reached the future location of Kiev and foretold the foundation of a great Christian city.^[4][5] The spot where he reportedly erected a cross is now marked by St. Andrew's Cathedral.

By the end of the first millennium AD, eastern Slavic lands started to come under the cultural influence of the Eastern Roman Empire. In 863–69, Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius translated parts of the Bible into Old Church Slavonic language for the first time, paving the way for the Christianization of the Slavs. There is evidence that the first Christian bishop was sent to Novgorod from Constantinople either by Patriarch Photius or Patriarch Ignatios, circa 866–67 AD.
By the mid-10th century, there was already a Christian community among Kievan nobility, under the leadership of Byzantine priests, although paganism remained the dominant religion. Princess Olga of Kiev was the first ruler of Kievan Rus to convert to Christianity, either in 945 or 957. Her grandson, Vladimir the Great, made Kievan Rus' a Christian state.

As a result of the Christianization of Kievan Rus' in 988, Prince Vladimir I of Kiev officially adopted Byzantine Rite Christianity — the religion of the Eastern Roman Empire — as the state religion of Kievan Rus'. This date is often considered the official birthday of the Russian Orthodox Church. Thus, in 1988, the Church celebrated its millennial anniversary. It therefore traces its apostolic succession through the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Kievan church was originally a Metropolitanate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Byzantine patriarch appointed the metropolitan who governed the Church of Rus'. The Metropolitan's residence was originally located in Kiev. As Kiev was losing its political, cultural, and economical significance due to the Mongol invasion, Metropolitan Maximus moved to Vladimir in 1299; his successor, Metropolitan Peter moved the residence to Moscow in 1325.

Monastic reform of St. Sergius and its aftermath

Following the tribulations of the Mongol invasion, the Russian Church was pivotal in the survival and life of the Russian state. Despite the politically motivated murders of Mikhail of Chernigov and Mikhail of Tver, the Mongols were generally tolerant and even granted tax exemption to the Church. Such holy figures as Sergius of Radonezh and Metropolitan Alexis helped the country to withstand years of Tatar oppression, and to expand both economically and spiritually.

The monastic reform of St. Sergius, which culminated in the foundation of the monastery known as Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra near Moscow, was one of the defining events of medieval Russian history. The monastery became the setting for the unprecedented flourishing of transcendent, spiritual art, exemplified by the work of Andrey Rublev, among others. The followers of Sergius founded four hundred monasteries, thus greatly extending the geographical extent of his influence and authority.
The spiritual resurgence of the late 14th century, associated with the names of St. Sergius, the missionary Stephen of Perm and the writer Epiphanius the Wise, contributed to the consolidation of the Russian nation. Lev Gumilev has observed that, having received the blessing of St. Sergius to make a stand against the Tatars, "the Suzdalians, Vladimirians, Rostovians, Pskovians went to the Kulikovo Field as representatives of their principalities but returned after the victory as Russians, although living in different towns",^[6] a dictum which has been endorsed by modern church functionaries.^[7]

At the Council of Florence (1439), a group of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church leaders agreed upon terms of reunification of the two branches of Christianity. The Russian Prince Basil II of Moscow, however, rejected the concessions to the Catholic Church and forbade the proclamation of the acts of the Council in Russia in 1452, after a short-lived East-West reunion. Metropolitan Isidore was in the same year expelled from his position as an apostate.

In 1448, the Patriarchate of Moscow (the Russian Church) became independent from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Metropolitan Jonas, installed by the Council of Russian bishops in 1448, was given the title of Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia. This was just five years before the fall of Constantinople in 1453. From this point onward the Russian Orthodox Church saw Moscow as the Third Rome, legitimate successor to Constantinople, and the Primate of Moscow as head of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Consolidation and codification

The reign of Ivan III and his successor was plagued by numerous heresies and controversies. One party, led by Nil Sorsky and Vassian Kosoy, called for the secularisation of monastic properties. They were opposed by the influential Joseph of Volotsk, who defended ecclesiastical ownership of land and property. The sovereign's position fluctuated, but eventually he threw his support to Joseph. New sects sprang up, some of which showed a tendency to revert to Mosaic law: for instance, the archpriest Aleksei converted to Judaism after meeting a certain Zechariah the Jew.

Monastic life flourished in Russia, focusing on prayer and spiritual growth. The disciples of St. Sergius left the Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra to found hundreds of monasteries across Russia. Some of the most famous monasteries were located in the Russian North, even as far north as Pechenga, in order to demonstrate how faith could flourish even in countries that weren't too hospitable. The richest landowners of medieval Russia included Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery, Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery and the Solovetsky Monastery. In the 18th century, the three greatest monasteries were recognized as lavras, while those subordinated directly to the Synod were labelled stauropegic.

In the 1540s, Metropolitan Macarius codified Russian hagiography and convened a number of church synods, which culminated in the Hundred Chapter Synod of 1551. This assembly unified Church ceremonies and duties in the whole territory of Russia. At the demand of the Church hierarchy the government canceled the tsar's jurisdiction over ecclesiastics. Reinforced by these reforms, the Church felt strong enough to challenge the policies of the tsar. Philip of Moscow, in particular, decried many abuses of Ivan the Terrible, who eventually engineered his defrocking and murder.

Autocephaly and schism

During the reign of Tsar Fyodor I his brother-in-law Boris Godunov contacted the Ecumenical Patriarch, who "was much embarrassed for want of funds,"^[8] with a view to establishing a patriarchal see in Moscow. As a result of Godunov's efforts, Metropolitan Job of Moscow became in 1589 the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', making the Russian Church autocephalous. The four other patriarchs have recognized the Moscow Patriarchate as one of the five honourable Patriarchates. During the next half a century, when the tsardom was weak, the patriarchs (notably Hermogenes and Philaret) would help run the state along with (and sometimes instead of) the tsars.

At the urging of the Zealots of Piety, in 1652 Patriarch Nikon resolved to centralize power that had been distributed locally, while conforming Russian Orthodox rites and rituals to those of the Greek Orthodox Church, as interpreted by pundits from the Kiev Ecclesiastical Academy. For instance he insisted that Russian Christians cross themselves with three fingers, rather than the then-traditional two. This aroused antipathy among a substantial section of believers, who saw the changed rites as heresy, although the extent to which these changes can be regarded as minor or major ritual significance remains open to debate. After the implementation of these innovations at the church council of 1666–1667, the Church anathematized and suppressed those who acted contrary to them with the support of Muscovite state power. These traditionalists became known as "Old Believers" or "Old Ritualists".

Although Nikon's far-flung ambitions of steering the country to a theocratic form of government precipitated his defrocking and exile, Tsar Aleksey deemed it reasonable to uphold many of his innovations. During the Schism of the Russian Church, the Old Ritualists were separated from the main body of the Orthodox Church. Archpriest Avvakum Petrov and many other opponents of the church reforms were burned at the stake, either forcibly or voluntarily. Another prominent figure within the Old Ritualists' movement, Boyarynya Morozova, was starved to death in 1675. Others escaped from the government persecutions to Siberia and other inhospitable lands, where they would live in semi-seclusion until modern times.^[vague]

Peter the First

Main article: Church reform of Peter I

With the ascension of Emperor Peter the Great to the throne of Russia (1682–1725), with his radical modernization of Russian government, army, dress and manners, Russia became a formidable political power.

Expansion

In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, the Russian Orthodox Church experienced a vast geographic expansion. In the following two centuries, missionary efforts stretched out across Siberia into Alaska, then into California, which would become part of the United States. Eminent people on that missionary effort included St. Innocent of Irkutsk and St. Herman of Alaska. In emulation of Stephen of Perm, they learned local languages and translated gospels and hymns. Sometimes those translations required the invention of new systems of transcription.

In the aftermath of the Treaty of Pereyaslav, the Ottomans (supposedly acting on behalf of the Russian regent Sophia Alekseyevna) pressured the Patriarch of Constantinople into transferring the Metropoly of Kiev from the jurisdiction of Constantinople to that of Moscow. The controversial transfer brought millions of faithful and half a dozen dioceses under the pastoral and administrative care of the Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus', leading to the significant Ukrainian domination of the Russian Orthodox Church, which continued well into the 18th century, with Theophanes Prokopovich, Epiphanius Slavinetsky, Stephen Yavorsky and Demetrius of Rostov being among the most notable representatives of this trend.^[9]

In 1700, after Patriarch Adrian's death, Peter the Great prevented a successor from being named, and in 1721, following the advice of Feofan Prokopovich, Archbishop of Pskov, the Holy and Supreme Synod was established under Archbishop Stephen Yavorsky to govern the church instead of a single primate. This was the situation until shortly after the Russian Revolution of 1917, at which time the Local Council (more than half of its members being lay persons) adopted the decision to restore the Patriarchy. On November 5 (according to the Julian calendar) a new patriarch, Tikhon, was named through casting lots.

The late 18th century saw the rise of starchestvo under Paisiy Velichkovsky and his disciples at the Optina Monastery. This marked a beginning of a significant spiritual revival in the Russian Church after a lengthy period of modernization, personified by such figures as Demetrius of Rostov and Platon of Moscow. Aleksey Khomyakov, Ivan Kireevsky and other lay theologians with Slavophile leanings elaborated some key concepts of the renovated Orthodox doctrine, including that of sobornost. The resurgence of Eastern Orthodoxy was reflected in Russian literature, an example is the figure of Starets Zosima in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov.

Fin-de-siècle religious renaissance

During the final decades of the imperial order in Russia many educated Russians sought to return to the church and tried to bring their faith back to life. No less evident were non-conformist paths of spiritual searching known as "God-Seeking". Writers, artists and intellectuals in large numbers were drawn to private prayer, mysticism, spiritualism, theosophy and Eastern religions. A fascination with primitive feeling, with the unconscious and the mythic was apparent, along with visions of coming catastrophes and redemption.

In 1909, a volume of essays appeared under the title Vekhi ("Centuries" or "Landmarks"), authored by a group of leading left-wing intellectuals, including Sergei Bulgakov, Peter Struve and former Marxists. They bluntly repudiated the materialism and atheism that had dominated the thought of the intelligentsia for generations as leading inevitably to failure and moral disaster. The essays created a sensation.

It is possible to see a similarly renewed vigor and variety in religious life and spirituality among the lower classes, especially after the upheavals of 1905. Among the peasantry there was widespread interest in spiritual-ethical literature and non-conformist moral-spiritual movements, an upsurge in pilgrimage and other devotions to sacred spaces and objects (especially icons), persistent beliefs in the presence and power of the supernatural (apparitions, possession, walking-dead, demons, spirits, miracles and magic), the renewed vitality of local "ecclesial communities" actively shaping their own ritual and spiritual lives, sometimes in the absence of clergy, and defining their own sacred places and forms of piety. Also apparent was the proliferation of what the Orthodox establishment branded as "sectarianism", including both non-Orthodox Christian denominations, notably Baptists, and various forms of popular Orthodoxy and mysticism.^[10]

Russian revolution

In 1914 there were 55,173 Russian Orthodox churches and 29,593 chapels, 112,629 priests and deacons, 550 monasteries and 475 convents with a total of 95,259 monks and nuns in Russia.^{[citation needed]}

The year 1917 was a major turning point in Russian history, and also the Russian Orthodox Church.^[11] The Russian empire was dissolved and the Tsarist government - which had granted the Church numerous privileges - was overthrown. After a few months of political turmoil, the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917 and declared a separation of church and state. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church found itself without official state backing for the first time in its history. One of the first decrees of the new Communist government (issued in January 1918) declared freedom from "religious and anti-religious propaganda". This led to a marked decline in the power and influence of the Church. The Church was also caught in the crossfire of the Russian Civil War that began later the same year, and many leaders of the Church supported what would ultimately turn out to be the losing side (the White movement).

The Russian Orthodox Church supported the White Army in the Russian Civil War (see White movement) after the October Revolution. This may have further strengthened the Bolshevik antipathy against the church. Actually as early as 1905, Lenin, leader of the Bolshevik party, berated religion in Novaya Zhizn in 1905 "... Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man..."
Even before the end of the civil war and the establishment of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church came under pressure from the secular Communist government. The Soviet government stood on a platform of antireligion, viewing the church as a "counter-revolutionary" organization and an independent voice with a great influence in society. While the Soviet Union officially claimed religious tolerance, in practice the government discouraged organized religion and did much to remove religious influence from Soviet society.

Under Communist rule

Further information: Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union

After the October Revolution of November 7, 1917, the officially proclaimed objective of the Soviet Union was to unite all of the people of the world in a communist state free of "capitalist exploitation" (see Communist International). With such a view of the world any ethnic heritage closely tied to traditional religion and its clergy was targeted by Soviet authorities.^[12][13]

The Soviet Union was the first state to have elimination of religion as an ideological objective. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. Orthodox priests and believers were variously tortured, sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals, and executed.^[14][15] Many Orthodox (along with people of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions.^[16][17]

Thousands of churches and monasteries were taken over by the government and either destroyed or converted to secular use. It was impossible to build new churches. Practising Orthodox Christians were restricted from prominent careers and membership in communist organizations (the party, the Komsomol). Anti-religious propaganda was openly sponsored and encouraged by the government, which the Church was not given an opportunity to publicly respond to. The government youth organization, the Komsomol, encouraged its members to vandalize Orthodox Churches and harass worshippers. Seminaries were closed down, and the church was restricted from using the press.
The history of Orthodoxy (and other religions) under Communism was not limited to this story of repression and secularization. Bolshevik policies toward religious belief and practice tended to vacillate over time between, on the one hand, a utopian determination to substitute secular rationalism for what they considered to be an unmodern, "superstitious" worldview and, on the other, pragmatic acceptance of the tenaciousness of religious faith and institutions. In any case, religious beliefs and practices did persist, not only in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.^[18]

In November 1917, following the collapse of the tsarist government, a council of the Russian Orthodox church reestablished the patriarchate and elected the metropolitan Tikhon, the former Metropolitan of All America and Canada, as patriarch. But the new Soviet government soon declared the separation of church and state and also nationalized all church-held lands. These administrative measures were followed by brutal state-sanctioned persecutions that included the wholesale destruction of churches, as well as the arrest and execution of many clerics. The Russian Orthodox church was further weakened in 1922, when the Renovated Church, a reform movement supported by the Soviet government, seceded from Patriarch Tikhon's church (also see the Josephites and the Russian True Orthodox Church), restored a Holy Synod to power, and brought division among clergy and faithful.

In the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed.^[19]

Stalin era

The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest congregation. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.

The sixth sector of the OGPU, led by Yevgeny Tuchkov, began aggressively arresting and executing bishops, priests, and devout worshippers, such as Metropolitan Veniamin in Petrograd in 1922 for refusing to accede to the demand to hand in church valuables (including sacred relics). In the time between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500. Between 1917 and 1935, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested. Of these, 95,000 were put to death. Many thousands of victims of persecution became recognized in a special canon of saints known as the "new martyrs and confessors of Russia".

In January 1918 Patriarch Tikhon proclaimed anathema to the Bolsheviks (without explicitly naming them),^[20] which further antagonized relations. When Tikhon died in 1925, Soviet authorities forbade patriarchal elections to be held. Patriarchal locum tenens (acting Patriarch) Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky, 1887–1944), going against the opinion of a major part of the church's parishes, in 1927 issued a declaration accepting the Soviet authority over the church as legitimate, pledging the church's cooperation with the government and condemning political dissent within the church. By this declaration Sergius granted himself authority that he, being a deputy of imprisoned Metropolitan Peter and acting against his will, had no right to assume according to the XXXIV Apostolic canon, which led to a split with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia abroad and the Russian True Orthodox Church (Russian Catacomb Church) within the Soviet Union, as they allegedly remained faithful to the Canons of the Apostles, declaring the part of the church led by Metropolitan Sergius schism, sometimes coined Sergianism. Due to this canonical disagreement it is disputed which church has been the legitimate successor to the Russian Orthodox Church that had existed before 1925.^{[21][22][23][24]}

With aid from the Methodist Church, two Russian Orthodox seminaries were reopened.^[25] Moreover, in the 1929 elections, the Orthodox Church attempted to formulate itself as a full-scale opposition group to the Communist Party, and attempted to run candidates of its own against the Communist candidates. Article 124 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution officially allowed for freedom of religion within the Soviet Union, and along with initial statements of it being a multi-candidate election, the Church again attempted to run its own religious candidates in the 1937 elections. However the support of multicandidate elections was retracted several months before the elections were held and in neither 1929 nor 1937 were any candidates of the Orthodox Church elected.^[26]

After Nazi Germany's attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. On September 4, 1943, Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolay had a meeting with Stalin and received a permission to convene a council on September 8, 1943, which elected Sergius Patriarch of Moscow and all the Rus'.

This is considered by some as violation of the XXX Apostolic canon, as no church hierarch could be consecrated by secular authorities.^[21] A new patriarch was elected, theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. The Moscow Theological Academy Seminary, which had been closed since 1918, was re-opened.

Between 1945 and 1959 the official organization of the church was greatly expanded, although individual members of the clergy were occasionally arrested and exiled. The number of open churches reached 25,000. By 1957 about 22,000 Russian Orthodox churches had become active. But in 1959 Nikita Khrushchev initiated his own campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church and forced the closure of about 12,000 churches. By 1985 fewer than 7,000 churches remained active. Members of the church hierarchy were jailed or forced out, their places taken by docile clergy, many of whom had ties with the KGB. This decline was evident from the dramatic decay of many of the abandoned churches and monasteries that were previously common in even the smallest villages from the pre-revolutionary period.

Persecution under Khrushchev

A new and widespread persecution of the church was subsequently instituted under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. A second round of repression, harassment and church closures took place between 1959 and 1964 when Nikita Khrushchev was in office.
The Church and the government remained on unfriendly terms until 1988. In practice, the most important aspect of this conflict was that openly religious people could not join the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which meant that they could not hold any political office. However, among the general population, large numbers remained religious.

Some Orthodox believers and even priests took part in the dissident movement and became prisoners of conscience. The Orthodox priests Gleb Yakunin, Sergiy Zheludkov and others spent years in Soviet prisons and exile for their efforts in defending freedom of worship.^[27] Among the prominent figures of that time were Father Dmitri Dudko^[28] and Father Aleksandr Men. Although he tried to keep away from practical work of the dissident movement intending to better fulfil his calling as a priest, there was a spiritual link between Fr Aleksandr and many of the dissidents. For some of them he was a friend, for others - a godfather, for many (including Yakunin) - spiritual father.^[29]
By 1987 the number of functioning churches in the Soviet Union had fallen to 6893 and the number of functioning monasteries to just 18. In 1987 in the Russian SFSR, between 40% and 50% of newborn babies (depending on the region) were baptized. Over 60% of all deceased received Christian funeral services.

Glasnost and evidence of KGB links

Main article: Glasnost

Beginning in the late 1980s, under Mikhail Gorbachev, the new political and social freedoms resulted in many church buildings being returned to the church, to be restored by local parishioners. A pivotal point in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church came in 1988 - the millennial anniversary of the Baptism of Kievan Rus'. Throughout the summer of that year, major government-supported celebrations took place in Moscow and other cities; many older churches and some monasteries were reopened. An implicit ban on religious propaganda on state TV was finally lifted. For the first time in the history of the Soviet Union, people could see live transmissions of church services on television.
Gleb Yakunin, a critic of the Moscow Patriarchate who was one of those who briefly gained access to the KGB archive documents in the early 1990s, argued that the Moscow Patriarchate was "practically a subsidiary, a sister company of the KGB".^[30] Critics charge that the archives showed the extent of active participation of the top ROC hierarchs in the KGB efforts overseas.^{[31][32][33][34][35][36]}

George Trofimoff, the highest-ranking US military officer ever indicted for, and convicted of, espionage by the United States and sentenced to life imprisonment on September 27, 2001, had been "recruited into the service of the KGB"^[37] by Igor Susemihl (a.k.a. Zuzemihl), a bishop in the Russian Orthodox Church (subsequently, a high-ranking hierarch - the ROC Metropolitan Iriney of Vienna, who died in July 1999^[38]).

Konstanin Kharchev, former chairman of Soviet Council on Religious Affairs, explained: "Not a single candidate for the office of bishop or any other high-ranking office, much less a member of Holy Synod, went through without confirmation by the Central Committee of the CPSU and the KGB".^[34] Professor Nathaniel Davis points out: "If the bishops wished to defend their people and survive in office, they had to collaborate to some degree with the KGB, with the commissioners of the Council for Religious Affairs, and with other party and governmental authorities.".^[39] Patriarch Alexy II, acknowledged that compromises were made with the Soviet government by bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate, himself included, and publicly repented of these compromises ^[40]

Post-Soviet recovery and problems

Under Patriarch Aleksey II (1990–2008)

Metropolitan Aleksey of Leningrad, ascended the patriarchal throne in 1990 and presided over the partial return of Orthodox Christianity to Russian society after 70 years of repression, transforming the ROC to something resembling a state religion; some 15,000 churches had been re-opened or built by the end of his reign. The Russian Church also sought to fill the ideological vacuum left by the end of communism and even, in the opinion of some analysts, became "a separate branch of power".^[41]
In August 2000 the ROC adopted its Basis of the Social Concept^[42] and in July 2008 its Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights.^[43]

Under Patriarch Aleksey, there were difficulties in the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Vatican, especially since 2002, when Pope John Paul II created a Catholic diocesan structure for Russian territory. The leaders of the Russian Church saw this action as a throwback to prior attempts by the Vatican to proselytize the Russian Orthodox faithful to become Roman Catholic. This point of view was based upon the stance of the Russian Orthodox Church (and the Eastern Orthodox Church) that the Church of Rome is in schism, after breaking off from the Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, while acknowledging the primacy of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, believed that the small Roman Catholic minority in Russia, in continuous existence since at least the 18th century, should be served by a fully developed church hierarchy with a presence and status in Russia, just as the Russian Orthodox Church is present in other countries (including constructing a cathedral in Rome, near the Vatican).


There occurred strident conflicts with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, most notably over the Orthodox Church in Estonia in the mid-1990s, which resulted in unilateral suspension of eucharistic relationship between the churches by the ROC.^[44] The tension lingered on and could be observed at the meeting in Ravenna in early October 2007 of participants in the Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue: the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate, Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, walked out of the meeting due to the presence of representatives from the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church which is in the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. At the meeting, prior to the departure of the Russian delegation, there were also substantive disagreements about the wording of a proposed joint statement among the Orthodox representatives.^[45] After the departure of the Russian delegation, the remaining Orthodox delegates approved the form which had been advocated by the representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.^[46] The Ecumenical See's representative in Ravenna said that Hilarion's position "should be seen as an expression of authoritarianism whose goal is to exhibit the influence of the Moscow Church. But like last year in Belgrade, all Moscow achieved was to isolate itself once more since no other Orthodox Church followed its lead, remaining instead faithful to Constantinople."^[47][48]

Canon Michael Bourdeaux, former president of the Keston Institute, said in January 2008 that "the Moscow Patriarchate acts as though it heads a state church, while the few Orthodox clergy who oppose the church-state symbiosis face severe criticism, even loss of livelihood."^[49] Such a view is backed up by other observers of Russian political life.^[50] Clifford J. Levy of The New York Times wrote in April 2008: «Just as the government has tightened control over political life, so, too, has it intruded in matters of faith. The Kremlin's surrogates in many areas have turned the Russian Orthodox Church into a de facto official religion, warding off other Christian denominations that seem to offer the most significant competition for worshipers. <...> This close alliance between the government and the Russian Orthodox Church has become a defining characteristic of Mr. Putin's tenure, a mutually reinforcing choreography that is usually described here as working "in symphony".»^[51]

Throughout Patriarch Alexy's reign, the massive-scale program of costly restoration of re-opened churches and monasteries (as well as the construction of new ones) was criticized for having eclipsed the church's principal mission of evangelizing.^[52][53]

On 5 December 2008, the day of Patriarch Alexy's death, the Financial Times said: "While the church had been a force for liberal reform under the Soviet Union, it soon became a center of strength for conservatives and nationalists in the post-communist era. Alexei's death could well result in an even more conservative church."^[54]

Under Patriarch Kirill

On January 27, 2009, the ROC Local Council (the 2009 Pomestny Sobor) elected Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus;^[55][56] with 508 votes out of 700.^[57]) He was enthroned on February 1, 2009.

In 2010 news broke of a child abuse scandal involving a monastery in the city of Vladimir, where children are said to have been "hit multiple times, forced to do agricultural labor from 3 a.m. till 10 p.m. with 30-minute breaks for breakfast and lunch".^[58]

In February 2011 the official spokesman of the Synodal Department of the Patriarchate denied reports that the Church was about to merge with the Russian State. He said, "The Russian Church has never in its history been so independent of the state as it is now. It treasures this independence. However, it also treasures the dialogue that it has with the modern state. No doubt, this dialogue cannot be called easy, but it can be called constructive".^[59] At a conference at the Moscow State University on September 2012 Patriarch Kirill said church is not interested in obtaining state powers or even a state status "as in certain European countries".^[60]

Structure and organization

See also: Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus', Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church and Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church

 The ROC constituent parts in other than Russia countries of its exclusive jurisdiction, such as Ukraine, Belarus et al., are legally registered as separate legal entities in accordance with the relevant legislation of those independent states.
Ecclesiastiacally, the ROC is organized in a hierarchical structure. The lowest level of organization, which normally would be a single ROC building and its attendees, headed by a priest who acts as Father superior (Russian: настоятель, nastoyatel), constitute a parish (Russian: приход, prihod). All parishes in a geographical region belong to an eparchy (Russian: епархия — equivalent to a Western diocese). Eparchies are governed by bishops (Russian: епископ, episcop or архиерей, archiereus). There are 261 Russian Orthodox eparchies worldwide (June 2012).
Further, some eparchies are organized into exarchates, or autonomous churches. Currently these include the Belarusian exarchate, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia; the Latvian, the Moldovan, the Estonian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate. The Chinese Orthodox Church and the Japanese Orthodox Churches were granted full autonomy by the Moscow Patriarchate, but this autonomy is not universally recognized.
Smaller eparchies are usually governed by a single bishop. Larger eparchies, exarchates, and autonomous Churches are governed by a Metropolitan archbishop and sometimes also have one or more bishops assigned to them.
The highest level of authority in the ROC is vested in the Local Council (Pomestny Sobor), which comprises all the bishops as well as representatives from the clergy and laypersons. Another organ of power is the Bishops' Council (Архиерейский Собор). In the periods between the Councils the highest administrative powers are exercised by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, which includes seven permanent members and is chaired by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Primate of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Although the Patriarch of Moscow enjoys extensive administrative powers, unlike the Pope, he has no direct canonical jurisdiction outside the diocese of Moscow, nor does he have single-handed authority over matters pertaining to faith as well as issues concerning the entire Orthodox Christian community such as the Catholic-Orthodox split.

Ecclesiastical structure

After the establishment of the Metropolis of Kiev in 988, it remained dependent on Constantinople. This was in accord with the principle that the imperial capital was responsible for the bishops "among the barbarians". Other patriarchies could not be considered anyway. Any independence of the Russian Church would have been inconceivable from the very start because a mission church remained, for the time being in juridical dependence. That is why an ecclesiastical province was created, led by the Kiev Metropolitan. He was appointed in Constantinople or at least confirmed there. In the 14th century, an ecclesiastical province was finally established in Kiev after long discussions and changing relations of power, and after Lviv and Galich had fallen to Poland. Thus both locations came permanently under the influence of the Western church. Now there were two metropolitanates of Kiev, one in the city and one transferred to Vladimir, that is Moscow. After the transaction of the first Polish–Lithuanian union, which lasted from 1386 until 1492, the Lithuanian dynasty became Catholic. Since many principalities of the old Rus' belonged to this commonwealth, Orthodox believers represented the majority of the population there. But they fell into an uncomfortable situation because the rulers favoured the Roman Catholic Church. The see of the metropolitan of Kiev had to remain vacant many times, since Constantinople was too weak to intervene decisively in this question. The see was permanently occupied only in the fifteenth century, and then by Orthodox metropolitans who acknowledged the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Since the Russian Church declared itself independent of Constantinopole at the same time, and the metropolitan changed his title to "of Moscow and all the Rus'", the problem of a double metropolis no longer existed. Kiev had lost its significance for Russian Orthodoxy. When the Polish–Lithuanian union was renewed in 1569 Kiev fell to Poland. The Union of Brest which was signed in 1596 caused further unrest in the Orthodox Church in the region. The Polish state acknowledged only those hierarchies that declared their alleigance to the union with Rome. After 1620, there was again an Orthodox Metropolitan in Kiev. When eastern Ukraine and Kiev finally fell to Russia in 1667 in accordance with Treaty of Pereyaslav, Kiev remained for the time being, a simple eparchy. Soon thereafter, in 1685, it was revalued again as a metropolitante within the Moscow Patriarchate.

Orthodox Church in America (OCA)

 

Main article: Orthodox Church in America

Russian traders settled in Alaska during the 18th century. In 1740, a Divine Liturgy was celebrated on board a Russian ship off the Alaskan coast. In 1794, the Russian Orthodox Church sent missionaries — among them Saint Herman of Alaska—to establish a formal mission in Alaska. Their missionary endeavors contributed to the conversion of many Alaskan natives to the Orthodox faith. A diocese was established, whose first bishop was Saint Innocent of Alaska. The headquarters of this North American Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church was moved from Alaska to California around the mid-19th century.
It was moved again in the last part of the same century, this time to New York. This transfer coincided with a great movement of Greek-Catholics to the Orthodox Church in the East of the United States. This movement, which increased the numbers of Orthodox Christians in America, resulted from a conflict between John Ireland, the politically powerful Roman Catholic Archbishop of Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Alexis Toth, an influential Ruthenian Catholic priest of St. Mary's church in Minneapolis. Archbishop Ireland's refusal to accept Fr. Toth's credentials as a priest induced Fr. Toth to convert St. Mary's to the Orthodox Church, and further resulted in the conversion of tens of thousands of other Greek-Catholics in North America to the Orthodox Church under his guidance and inspiration. For this reason, Ireland is sometimes ironically remembered as the "Father of the Orthodox Church in America". These Greek-Catholics were received into Orthodoxy into the existing North American diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church. At the same time large numbers of Greeks and other Orthodox Christians were also immigrating to America. At this time all Orthodox Christians in North America were united under the omophorion (church authority and protection) of the Patriarch of Moscow, through the Russian Church's North American diocese. The unity was not merely theoretical, but was a reality, since there was then no other diocese on the continent. Under the aegis of this diocese, which at the turn of the 20th century was ruled by Bishop (and future Patriarch) Tikhon, Orthodox Christians of various ethnic backgrounds were ministered to, both non-Russian and Russian; a Syro-Arab mission was established under the episcopal leadership of Saint Raphael of Brooklyn, who was the first Orthodox bishop to be consecrated in America.
In 1920 Patriarch Tikhon issued an ukase (decree) that dioceses of the Church of Russia that were cut off from the governance of the highest Church authority (i.e. the Holy Synod and the Patriarch) should be managed independently until such time as normal relations with the highest Church authority could be resumed; and on this basis, the North American diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church (known as the "Metropolia") continued to exist in a de facto autonomous mode of self-governance. The financial hardship that beset the North American diocese as the result of the Russian Revolution resulted in a degree of administrative chaos, with the result that other national Orthodox communities in North America turned to the churches in their respective homelands for pastoral care and governance.
A group of bishops who had left Russia in the wake of the Russian Civil War gathered in Sremski-Karlovci, Yugoslavia, and adopted a pro-monarchist stand. The group further claimed to speak as a synod for the entire "free" Russian church. This group, which to this day includes a sizable portion of the Russian emigration, was formally dissolved in 1922 by Patriarch Tikhon, who then appointed metropolitans Platon and Evlogy as ruling bishops in America and Europe, respectively. Both of these metropolitans continued to entertain relations intermittently with the synod in Karlovci.
Between the World Wars the Metropolia coexisted and at times cooperated with an independent synod later known as Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), sometimes also called the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. The two groups eventually went their separate ways. ROCOR, which moved its headquarters to North America after the Second World War, claimed but failed to establish jurisdiction over all parishes of Russian origin in North America. The Metropolia, as a former diocese of the Russian Church, looked to the latter as its highest church authority, albeit one from which it was temporarily cut off under the conditions of the communist regime in Russia.
After World War II the Patriarchate of Moscow made unsuccessful attempts to regain control over these groups. After resuming communication with Moscow in early 1960s, and being granted autocephaly in 1970, the Metropolia became known as the Orthodox Church in America.^[61][62] However, recognition of this autocephalous status is not universal, as the Ecumenical Patriarch (under whom is the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America) and some other jurisdictions have not officially accepted it. The reasons for this are complex; nevertheless the Ecumenical Patriarch and the other jurisdictions remain in communion with the OCA. The Patriarchate of Moscow thereby renounced its former canonical claims in the United States and Canada; it also acknowledged an autonomous church established in Japan that same year.

Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR)

Main article: Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia

Russia's Church was devastated by the repercussions of the Bolshevik Revolution. One of its effects was a flood of refugees from Russia to the United States, Canada, and Europe. The Revolution of 1918 severed large sections of the Russian church—dioceses in America, Japan, and Manchuria, as well as refugees in Europe—from regular contacts with the main church.

Based on an ukase (decree) issued by Patriarch Tikhon, which stated that dioceses of the Church of Russia that were cut off from the governance of the highest Church authority (i.e. the Holy Synod and the Patriarch) should be managed independently until such time as normal relations with the highest Church authority could be resumed, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was established; by bishops who had left Russia in the wake of the Russian Civil War. They first met in Constantinople, and then moved to Sremski-Karlovci, Yugoslavia. After World War II, they moved their headquarters to New York City, New York, where it remains to this day.

On December 28, 2006, it was officially announced that the Act of Canonical Communion would finally be signed between the ROC and ROCOR. The signing took place on the May 17, 2007, followed immediately by a full restoration of communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, celebrated by a Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, at which the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexius II and the First Hierarch of ROCOR concelebrated for the first time.
Under the Act, the ROCOR remains a self-governing entity within the Church of Russia. It is independent in its administrative, pastoral, and property matters. It continues to be governed by its Council of Bishops and its Synod, the Council's permanent executive body. The First-Hierarch and bishops of the ROCOR are elected by its Council and confirmed by the Patriarch of Moscow. ROCOR bishops participate in the Council of Bishops of the entire Russian Church.

In response to the signing of the act of canonical communion, Bishop Agafangel and parishes and clergy in opposition to the Act broke communion with ROCOR, and established ROCA, or the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.^[63] Some others opposed to the Act have joined themselves to other Greek Old Calendarist groups.^[64]

Currently both the OCA and ROCOR, since 2007, are in communion with the ROC.

Belarusian Orthodox Church

Main article: Belarusian Orthodox Church

The Belarusian Orthodox Church is part of the Russian Orthodox Church

Worship and practices

Canonization

See also: Glorification § Eastern Orthodox Church and List of Russian saints

In accordance with the practice of the Orthodox Church, a particular hero of faith can initially be canonized only at a local level within local churches and eparchies. Such rights belong to the ruling hierarch and it can only happen when the blessing of the patriarch is received. The task of believers of the local eparchy is to record descriptions of miracles, to create the hagiography of a saint, to paint an icon, as well as to compose a liturgical text of a service where the saint is glorified. All of this is sent to the Synodal Commission for canonization which decides whether to canonize the local hero of faith or not. Then the patriarch gives his blessing and the local hierarch performs the act of canonization at the local level. However, the liturgical texts in honor of a saint are not published in all Church books but only in local publications. In the same way these saints are not yet glorified and venerated by the whole Church, only locally. When the glorification of a saint exceeds the limits of an eparchy, then the patriarch and Holy Synod decides about their canonization on the Church level. After receiving the Synod’s support and the patriarch’s blessing, the question of glorification of a particular saint on the scale of the entire Church is given for consideration to the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In the period following the revolution, and during the communist persecutions up to 1970, no canonizations took place. Only in 1970 did the Holy Synod made a decision to canonize a missionary to Japan, Nicholas Kasatkin (1836–1912). In 1977, St. Innocent of Moscow (1797–1879), the Metropolitan of Siberia, the Far East, the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, and Moscow was also canonized. In 1978 it was proclaimed that the Russian Orthodox Church had created a prayer order for Meletius of Kharkov, which practically signified his canonization because that was the only possible way to do it at that time. Similarly, the saints of other Orthodox Churches were added to the Church calendar: in 1962 St. John the Russian, in 1970 St. Herman of Alaska, in 1993 Silouan the Athonite, the elder of Mount Athos, already canonized in 1987 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. In the 1980s the Russian Orthodox Church re-established the process for canonization; a practice that had ceased for half a century.

In 1989 the Holy Synod Established the Synodal Commission for canonization. The 1990 Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church gave an order for the Synodal Commission for Canonisation to prepare documents for canonization of new martyrs who had suffered from the 20th century communist repressions. In 1991 it was decided that a local commission for canonization would be established in every eparchy which would gather the local documents and would send them to the Synodal Commission. Its task was to study the local archives, collect memories of believers, record all the miracles that are connected with addressing the martyrs. In 1992 the Church established 25 January as a day when it venerates the new 20th century martyrs of faith. The day was specifically chosen because on this day in 1918 the Metropolitan of Kiev Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) was killed, thus becoming the first victim of communist terror among the hierarchs of the Church.

During the 2000 Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, the greatest general canonization in the history of the Orthodox Church took place: not only regarding the number of saints but also as in this canonization, all unknown saints were mentioned. There were 1,765 canonized saints known by name and others unknown by name but "known to God".

Icon painting

Main article: Russian icons

The use and making of icons entered Kievan Rus' following its conversion to Orthodox Christianity in AD 988. As a general rule, these icons strictly followed models and formulas hallowed by Byzantine art, led from the capital in Constantinople. As time passed, the Russians widened the vocabulary of types and styles far beyond anything found elsewhere in the Orthodox world. Russian icons are typically paintings on wood, often small, though some in churches and monasteries may be much larger. Some Russian icons were made of copper.^[65] Many religious homes in Russia have icons hanging on the wall in the krasny ugol, the "red" or "beautiful" corner. There is a rich history and elaborate religious symbolism associated with icons. In Russian churches, the nave is typically separated from the sanctuary by an iconostasis (Russian ikonostas, иконостас), or icon-screen, a wall of icons with double doors in the centre. Russians sometimes speak of an icon as having been "written", because in the Russian language (like Greek, but unlike English) the same word (pisat', писать in Russian) means both to paint and to write. Icons are considered to be the Gospel in paint, and therefore careful attention is paid to ensure that the Gospel is faithfully and accurately conveyed. Icons considered miraculous were said to "appear." The "appearance" (Russian: yavlenie, явление) of an icon is its supposedly miraculous discovery. "A true icon is one that has 'appeared', a gift from above, one opening the way to the Prototype and able to perform miracles".^[66]

Bell ringing

Main article: Russian Orthodox bell ringing

Ecumenism and interfaith relations

In May 2011, Hilarion Alfeyev, the Metropolitan of Volokolamsk and head of external relations for the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church, stated that Orthodox and Evangelical Christians share the same positions on "such issues as abortion, the family, and marriage" and desires "vigorous grassroots engagement" between the two Christian communions on such issues.^[67]
The Metropolitan also believes in the possibility of peaceful coexistence between Islam and Christianity as the two religions have never had religious wars in Russia.^[68] Alfeyev stated that the Russian Orthodox Church "disagrees with atheist secularism in some areas very strongly" and "believes that it destroys something very essential about human life."^[68]

The Russian Orthodox Church today has ecclesiastical missions in Jerusalem and some other countries around the world.^[69][70]

Numerical strength

The ROC is often said^[71] to be the largest of the Eastern Orthodox churches in the world. Including all the autocephalous churches under its supervision, its adherents number more than 150 million worldwide — about half of the 300 million estimated adherents of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Among Christian churches, the Russian Orthodox Church is second only to the Roman Catholic Church in terms of numbers of followers. Within Russia the results of a 2007 VTsIOM poll indicated that about 75% of the population considered themselves Orthodox Christians.^[1] Up to 65% of ethnic Russians^[72][73] and a similar percentage of Belarusians and Ukrainians identify themselves as "Orthodox".^[1][72][74] However, according to a poll published by the highly respected church related journal Pravmir in December 2012, only 41% of the Russian population identifies itself with the Russian Orthodox Church.^[75] Pravmir also published a 2012 poll by the respected Levada organization VTsIOM indicating that 74% of Russians consider themselves Orthodox.^[76] According to figures released on March 2, 2011, the Church had 164 dioceses, 217 bishops, and 30,675 parishes served by 28,934 priests and 3,625 deacons. There were 805 monasteries and 30 theological schools.^[77]

See also:

• List of Russian Orthodox eparchies
• List of Russian saints