Hieromartyr Peter, Metropolitan of Krutitsa

8/3/2019 Hieromartyr Peter, Metropolitan of Krutitsa

1/21

HIEROMARTYR PETER,

METROPOLITAN OF KRUTITSADr. Vladimir Moss

Metropolitan Peter, in the world Peter Fyodorovich Polyansky, wasborn on June 28, 1862 in the village of Storozhevoye, Korotoyanskyuyezd, Voronezh province into the family of a village priest, Fr. TheodoreYevgrafovich Polyansky. His brother was Protopriest Basil Fyodorovich.He finished his studies at the Voronezh theological seminary in 1885,and then served as a reader in a village in Voronezh province for threeyears. In 1888 he entered the Moscow Theological Academy. Ongraduating in 1892 as a candidate of theology, Peter Polyansky remainedin the Academy as the second assistant of the inspector. He also taught atthe Zvenigorod theological school. Meanwhile he worked on adissertation devoted to the first epistle of the holy Apostle Paul toTimothy. This major work, for which the author was awarded the degreeof master of theology on March 4, 1897, is still considered one of the bestworks on the hermeneutics of the New Testament.

In 1896 (1897) Peter Fyodorovich was appointed supervisor of theZhirovitsky theological school. It was in this period that he met thefuture Patriarch Tikhon. On July 15, 1906 (1909), considering his workat the Zhirovitsky school to be exemplary, the Holy Synod invited him towork in the rank of state councillor on the Educational Committee of theHoly Synod, where he served as inspector of the theological educationalinstitutions until the revolution. In this capacity, Peter Fyodorovich

travelled to many dioceses and became well-known among theprofessors and senior clergy. Intelligent, full of life and sociable, tactfulbut firm, he greatly influenced the development of theological educationin Russia.

In 1917-18, Peter Fyodorovich was a delegate to the Local Council ofthe Russian Orthodox Church, and on September 20, 1918 he wasappointed to work in the secretariat of the Holy Synod. He also workedas manager of the factory Bogatyr. In 1920 Patriarch Tikhon suggestedthat he accept monastic tonsure, the priesthood and the episcopate andbecome his helper in the administration of the Church. On coming home

he said: I cannot refuse. If I refuse, I will betray the Church. But when Iagree, I knowthat I will be signing my death warrant. On October 8,1920, after being tonsured into monasticism by Metropolitan Sergius(Stragorodsky), he was consecrated Bishop of Podolsk, a vicariate of theMoscow diocese, by Patriarch Tikhon.

Almost immediately after his consecration he was arrested and castinto Butyrki prison, where he remained for two months. He was exiled


2/21

for three years to Velikij Ustyug, where he lived with a priest. Then hemoved to a lodge attached to the cathedral. He often served with thelocal clergy.

In 1923 the foreign journal Tserkovnye Vedomosti wrote: "Bishop

Peter of Podolsk has been arrested several times, the last time on August21, 1921."In the second half of 1923 he was released, whereupon Patriarch

Tikhon raised him to the rank of archbishop. And after the arrest ofBishop Hilarion (Troitsky) the Patriarch made him his closest assistant,raising him to the rank of metropolitan of Krutitsa in the spring of 1924.Many years later Protopriest Basil Vinogradov recalled of that time: "Nomember of the Patriarch's administration, on going to work in themorning, could be sure that he would not be arrested for participating inan illegal organization, or that he would not find the Patriarch'sresidence sealed."

On April 7, 1925, his Holiness Patriarch Tikhon reposed in the Lord.On April 12, the deceased Patriarch's will dated January 7, 1925 wasdiscovered and read out. It said that in the event of the Patriarch's deathand the absence of the first two candidates for the post of patriarchallocum tenens, "our patriarchal rights and duties, until the lawful electionof a new patriarch,... pass to his Eminence Peter, metropolitan ofKrutitsa." At the moment of the Patriarch's death (as the rumour went,by poisoning), the first two hierarchs indicated by him as candidates ofthe post of locum tenens, Metropolitans Cyril of Kazan and Agathangelusof Yaroslavl, were in exile. Therefore the 59 assembled hierarchs decided

that "Metropolitan Peter cannot decline from the obedience given himand must enter upon the duties of the patriarchal locum tenens."

Almost immediately the renovationist schismatics, encouraged by thePatriarch's death, energetically tried to obtain union with the OrthodoxChurch in time for their second Council, which was due to take place inthe autumn of 1925. Their attempts were aided by the Soviet authorities,who put all kinds of pressures on the hierarchs to enter into union withthe renovationists. A firm lead was required from the head of theChurch, and in his proclamation dated July 28, 1925 this is exactly whatMetropolitan Peter provided. After protesting against the propaganda of

the uniates and sectarians, which was diverting attention away from themain battle against atheism, he turned his attention to therenovationists: "At the present time the so-called new-churchmen moreand more discuss the matter of reunion with us. They call meetings incities and villages, and invite Orthodox clerics and laymen to a commonadjudication of the question of reunion with us, and to prepare for theirpseudo-council which they are calling for the autumn of this year. But itmust be clearly recalled that according to the canonical rules of the


3/21

Ecumenical Church such arbitrarily convened councils, as were themeetings of the 'Living Church' in 1923, are illegal. Hence the canonicalrules forbid Orthodox Christians to take part in them and much more toelect representatives for such gatherings. In accordance with the 20thrule of the Council of Antioch, 'no-one is permitted to call a Council

alone, without those bishops who are in charge of the metropolitan sees.'In the holy Church of God only that is lawful which is approved by theGod-ordained ecclesiastical government, preserved by succession sincethe time of the Apostles. All arbitrary acts, everything that was done bythe new-church party without the approval of the most holy Patriarchnow at rest with God, everything that is now done without our approval -the approval of the guardian of the Patriarchal Throne, acting inconjunction with all lawful Orthodox hierarchy - all this has no validityin accordance with the canons of the holy Church (Apostolic canon 34;Council of Antioch, canon 9), for the true Church is one, and the Grace ofthe Most Holy Spirit residing in her is one, for there cannot be twoChurches or two Graces. 'There is one Body, and one Spirit, even as yeare called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, one God andFather of all' (Eph. 4.4-6).

"The so-called new-churchmen should talk of no reunion with theOrthodox Church until they show a sincere repentance for their errors.The chief of these is that they arbitrarily renounced the lawful hierarchyand its head, the most holy Patriarch, and attempted to reform theChurch of Christ by self-invented teaching (The Living Church, nos. 1-11); they transgressed the ecclesiastical rules which were established bythe Ecumenical Councils (the pronouncements of the pseudo-Council ofMay 4, 1923); they rejected the government of the Patriarch, which was

established by the Council and acknowledged by all the EasternOrthodox Patriarchs, i.e., they rejected what all Orthodoxy accepted, andbesides, they even condemned him at their pseudo-Council. Contrary tothe rules of the holy Apostles, the Ecumenical Councils and the holyFathers (Apostolic canons 17,18; Sixth Ecumenical Council, canons 3, 13,48; St. Basil the Great, canon 12), they permit bishops to marry andclerics to contract a second marriage, i.e., they transgress what the entireEcumenical Church acknowledges to be a law, which can be changedonly by an Ecumenical Council.

"The reunion of the so-called new-churchmen with the holy Orthodox

Church is possible only on the condition that each of them recants hiserrors and submits to a public repentance for his apostasy from theChurch. We pray the Lord God without ceasing that He may restore theerring into the bosom of the holy Orthodox Church."

This epistle had a sobering and strengthening effect on manywavering clerics. As the renovationist Vestnik Svyashchennago Synodawas forced to admit: "Immediately after Peter's appeal came out, the


4/21

courage of the 'leftist' Tikhonites disappeared." So at their council in theChurch of Christ the Saviour in Moscow the schismatics planned theirrevenge. "Metropolitan-Evangelist" Vvedensky publicly accusedMetropolitan Peter of involvement with an emigre monarchist plot. Insupport of this claim he produced a patently forged denunciation by the

renovationist bishop of Latin America Nicholas, a very dubious personwho had several times crossed into schism and back into the Church.The Bolsheviks gave ready support to the renovationists in their battle

against Peter. Thus Savelyev writes: "On November 11, 1925,Yaroslavsky, Skvortsov-Stepanov and Menzhinsky were discussingTuchkov's report 'On the future policy in connection with the death ofTikhon'. A general order was given to the OGPU to accelerate theimplementation of the schism that had been planned amidst thesupporters of Tikhon. Concrete measures were indicated with greatfrankness: 'In order to support the group in opposition to Peter (thepatriarchal locum tenens...) it is resolved to publish in Izvestia a series ofarticles compromising Peter, and to use towards this end materials fromthe recently ended renovationist council.'.. The censorship and editing ofthe articles was entrusted to the party philosopher Skvortsov-Stepanov.He was helped by Krasikov (Narkomyust) and Tuchkov (OGPU). Thistrio was given the task of censuring the declaration against Peter whichwas being prepared by the anti-Tikhonite group. Simultaneously with thepublication in Izvestia of provocative articles against the patriarchallocum tenens, the Anti-Religious commission ordered the OGPU 'toinitiate an investigation against Peter'."

Meanwhile, Tuchkov initiated discussions with Peter with regard to

"legalizing" the Church. This "legalization" promised to relieve theChurch's rightless position, but on the following conditions: 1) theissuing of a declaration of a pre-determined content; 2) the exclusionfrom the ranks of the bishops of those who were displeasing to theauthorities; 3) the condemnation of the migr bishops; and 4) theparticipation of the government, in the person of Tuchkov, in the futureactivities of the Church. However, Metropolitan Peter refused to acceptthese conditions and also refused to sign the text of the declarationTuchkov offered him. And he continued to be a rock in the path of theatheists' plans to seize control of the Church. For, as he once said toTuchkov:

"You're all liars. You give nothing except promises. And now pleaseleave the room, we are about to have a meeting."

Metropolitan Peter must have foreseen his fate. For on December 5(6), 1925 he composed a will concerning the transfer of ecclesiasticalauthority, and wrote: I expect toil and the speedy, if not alwaysmerciful, condemnation of men. I do not fear toil I have loved it and


5/21

love it now, and I do not fear the condemnation of men their disdainhas been experienced by incomparably better and more worthy personsthan myself. I fear only one thing: mistakes, omissions and involuntaryinjustices If the distinguishing mark of the disciples of Christ,according to the word of the Gospel, is love, then it must penetrate the

whole activity of the servant of the altar of the Lord, the servant of theGod of peace and love. May the Lord help me in this! I ask you to carryout with love, as obedient children, all the rules, decrees and resolutionsof the Church I, the unworthy pastor, will pray that the peace of Godmany dwell in our hearts throughout our lives.

On December 9, the Anti-Religious Commission (more precisely: "theCentral Committee Commission for carrying out the decree on theseparation of Church and State") met and approved of the activities ofthe OGPU in inciting the Church groupings against each other. They alsodetermined the timing of Metropolitan Peter's arrest. And on the nightfrom December 9h to 10 he was placed under house-arrest by a certainKazansky. The order was signed by G. Yagoda.

Metropolitan Peter was taken to the inner prison at the Lubyanka. Atthe same time a group of bishops living in Moscow whom the GPUconsidered to be of like mind with him were also arrested: ArchbishopsNicholas of Vladimir, Pachomius of Chernigov, Procopius of theChersonese and Gurias of Irkutsk, and Bishops Parthenius of Ananiev,Damascene of Glukhov, Tikhon of Gomel, Barsanuphius of Kargopol andothers. About forty people in all were arrested, including the layman A.D.Samarin, the former over-procurator. This was called the case of TheDanilovite Synod because the conservative wing of the Russian Church

gathered around its leader, Archbishop Theodore, the superior of theDanilov monastery.

The events that followed Peter's arrest and imprisonment are not atall clear. We know that a struggle for power took place betweenArchbishop Gregory (Yatskovsky) of Yekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk) and agroup of bishops, on the one hand, and Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhni-Novgorod (Gorky), on the other, which Sergius eventually won. The mostwidely accepted version of events goes something like this.

On December 14, although unable to leave Nizhni-Novgorod at the

time, Metropolitan Sergius announced that he was taking over theChurch's administration in accordance with Metropolitan Peter'sinstruction. However, Metropolitan Sergius was prevented by the OGPUfrom coming to Moscow, and on December 22, 1925, a group of ninebishops led by Archbishop Gregory of Yekaterinburg gathered at theDonskoy monastery. The Gregorians, as they came to be called, thendeclared that since Metropolitan Peter's activity was counter-revolutionary, and since with his arrest the Church was deprived of


6/21

direction, they were organizing a Higher Temporary Church Council.This organization was legalized by the authorities on January 2.

On January 14, Metropolitan Sergius wrote to Archbishop Gregorydemanding an explanation for his usurpation of power. Gregory replied

on January 22, saying that while they recognized the rights of the threelocum tenentes, "we know no conciliar decision concerning you, and wedo not consider the transfer of administration and power by personalletter to correspond to the spirit and letter of the holy canons."

Sergius wrote again on January 29, impeaching Gregory and hisfellow bishops, banning them from serving and declaring all theirordinations, appointments, awards, etc., since December 22 to beinvalid. On the same day, three Gregorian bishops wrote to MetropolitanPeter claiming that they had not known, in their December meeting, thathe had transferred his rights to Sergius, and asking him to bless theiradministration. The free access the Gregorians had to Peter during thisperiod, and the fact that Sergius was at first prevented from coming toMoscow, suggests that the OGPU, while not opposing Sergius, at firstfavoured the Gregorians as their best hope for dividing the Church.

Fearing anarchy in the Church, Metropolitan Peter went part of theway to blessing the Gregorians' undertaking. However, instead of theGregorian Synod, he created a temporary "college" to administer theChurch consisting of Archbishop Gregory, Archbishop Nicholas(Dobronravov) of Vladimir and Archbishop Demetrius (Belikov) ofTomsk, who were well-known for their firmness. This resolution wasmade during a meeting with the Gregorians in the GPU offices on

February 1. Tuchkov, who was present at the meeting, was silent aboutthe fact that Nicholas was in prison. He agreed to summon Demetriusfrom Tomsk, and even showed Peter the telegram. But he never sent it.When Peter, feeling something was wrong, asked for the inclusion ofMetropolitan Arsenius (Stadnitsky) in the college of bishops, Tuchkovagain agreed and promised to sign Peter's telegram to him. Again, thetelegram was not sent.

Now it has been argued by Regelson that Metropolitan Peter's actionin appointing deputies was not canonical (as the Gregorians alsoimplied), and created misunderstandings that were to be ruthlessly

exploited later by Metropolitan Sergius. A chief hierarch does not havethe right to transfer the fullness of his power to another hierarch as if itwere a personal inheritance: only a Council representing the whole LocalChurch can elect a leader to replace him. Patriarch Tikhon's appointmentof three locum tenentes was an exceptional measure, but one which wasnevertheless entrusted to him by - and therefore could claim theauthority of - the Council of 1917-18. However, the Council made noprovision for what might happen in the event of the death or removal of


7/21

these three. In such an event, therefore, patriarchal authority ceased,temporarily, in the Church; and there was no canonical alternative, untilthe convocation of another Council, but for each bishop to govern hisdiocese independently while maintaining links with neighbouringdioceses, in accordance with the Patriarch's ukaz no. 362 of November

20, 1920.

In defence of Metropolitan Peter it may be said that it is unlikely thathe intended to transfer the fullness of his power to Metropolitan Sergius,but only the day-to-day running of the administrative machine. Thus inhis declaration of December 6, 1925, he gave instructions on what shouldbe done in the event of his arrest, saying that even a hierarchical"college" expressing his authority as patriarchal locum tenens would notbe able to decide "the principal questions affecting the whole Church,whose realization in life could be permitted only with our blessing". Hemust have been thinking of Patriarch Tikhon's similar restrictions on therenovationists who tried to take over the administration in May, 1922.

Moreover, he continued to insist on the commemoration of his nameas patriarchal locum tenens in the Divine services. This was somethingthat Patriarch Tikhon had not insisted upon when he transferred thefullness of his power to Metropolitan Agathangelus. The criticaldistinction here is that whereas the patriarchal locum tenens has, dejure, all the power of a canonically elected Patriarch and need relinquishhis power only to a canonically convoked Council of the whole localChurch, the deputy of the locum tenens has no such fullness of powerand must relinquish such rights as he has at any time that the Council orthe locum tenens requires it.

Why, then, did Metropolitan Peter not invoke ukaz no. 362 and blessthe decentralization of the Church's administration at the time of hisarrest? Probably for two important reasons. (1) The restoration of thepatriarchate was one of the main achievements of the Moscow Council of1917-18, and had proved enormously popular. Its dissolution might wellhave dealt a major psychological blow to the masses, who were notalways educated enough to understand that the Church could continue toexist either in a centralized (though not papist) form, as it had in the Eastfrom 312 to 1917, or in a decentralized form, as in the catacombal periodbefore Constantine the Great and during the iconoclast persecution of

the eighth and ninth centuries. (2) The renovationists - who stillconstituted the major threat to the Church in Metropolitan Peter's eyes -did not have a patriarch, and their organization was, as we have seen,closer to the synodical, state-dependent structure of the pre-revolutionary Church. The presence or absence of a patriarch or hissubstitute was therefore a major sign of the difference between the trueChurch and the false for the uneducated believer.


8/21

Let us now return to the sequence of events. On February 4, 1926,Metropolitan Peter, fell ill and was admitted to the prison hospital. A warfor control of the Church now developed between the Gregorians andSergius. The Gregorians pointed to Sergius' links with Rasputin and the"Living Church": "On recognizing the Living Church, Metropolitan

Sergius took part in the sessions of the HCA, recognized the lawfulnessof married bishops and twice-married priests, and blessed thislawlessness. Besides, Metropolitan Sergius sympathized with the livingchurch council of 1923, did not object to its decisions, and thereforeconfessed our All-Russian Archpastor and father, his Holiness PatriarchTikhon, to be 'an apostate from the true ordinances of Christ and abetrayer of the Church', depriving him of his patriarchal rank andmonastic calling. True, Metropolitan Sergius later repented of theseterrible crimes and was forgiven by the Church, but that does not meanthat he should stand at the head of the Church's administration."

However, these arguments, well-based though they were, were notstrong enough to maintain the Gregorians' position, which deterioratedas several bishops declared their support for Sergius. Yaroslavsky,Tuchkov and the OGPU had already succeeded in creating a schismbetween Metropolitan Sergius and the Gregorians. They now tried to fanthe flames of schism still higher by releasing Metropolitan Agathangelus,the second candidate for the post of patriarchal locum tenens, from exileand persuading him to declare his assumption of the post of locumtenens, which he did officially from Perm on April 18. They also decided,at a meeting in the Kremlin on April 24, to "strengthen the thirdTikhonite hierarchy - the Temporary Higher Ecclesiastical Councilheaded by Archbishop Gregory, as an independent unit."

On April 22, Metropolitan Sergius wrote to Metropolitan Peter at theMoscow GPU, as a result of which Peter withdrew his support from theGregorians, signing his letter to Metropolitan Sergius: "the penitentPeter". It would be interesting to know whether Sergius knew ofMetropolitan Agathangelus' declaration four days earlier when he wroteto Peter. Hieromonk Damascene (Orlovsky) claims that Agathangelusdid not tell Sergius until several days later - but the evidence isambiguous. If Sergius already knew of Agathangelus assumption of therights of locum tenens, then his keeping quiet about this very importantfact in his letter to Metropolitan Peter was dishonest and misleading. For

he must have realized that Metropolitan Agathangelus, having returnedfrom exile (he arrived in his see of Yaroslavl on April 27), had every rightto assume power as the eldest hierarch and the only patriarchal locumtenens named by Patriarch Tikhon who was in freedom at that time. Infact, with the appearance of Metropolitan Agathangelus the claims ofboth the Gregorians andSergius to first-hierarchical power in theChurch collapsed. But Sergius, having tasted of power, was not about torelinquish it so quickly. And just as Metropolitan Agathangelus rights as


9/21

locum tenens were swept aside by the renovationists in 1922, so now thesame hierarch was swept aside again by the former renovationistSergius.

The chronology of events reveals how the leadership of the Russian

Church was usurped for the second time. On April 30, Sergius wrote toAgathangelus rejecting his claim to the rights of the patriarchal locumtenens on the grounds that Peter had not resigned his post. In this letterSergius claims that he and Peter had exchanged opinions onAgathangelus letter in Moscow on April 22 - but neither Sergius norPeter mention Agathangelus in the letters they exchanged on that dayand which are published by Gobunin. Therefore it seems probable thatPeter's decision not to resign his post was based on ignorance ofAgathangelus appearance on the scene.

On May 13, Agathangelus met Sergius in Moscow (Nizhni-Novgorod,according to another source), where, according to Sergius, they agreedthat if Peter's trial [for unlawfully handing over his authority to theGregorians] ended in his condemnation, Sergius would hand over hisauthority to Agathangelus. However, Sergius was simply playing fortime, in order to win as many bishops as possible to his side. And on May16, he again wrote to Agathangelus, in effect reneging on his agreementof three days before: "If the affair ends with Metropolitan Peter beingacquitted or freed, I will hand over to him my authority, while youreminence will then have to conduct discussions with Metropolitan Peterhimself. But if the affair ends with his condemnation, you will be giventhe opportunity to take upon yourself the initiative of raising thequestion of bringing Metropolitan Peter to a church trial. When

Metropolitan Peter will be given over to a trial, you can present yourrights, as the eldest [hierarch] to the post of Deputy of MetropolitanPeter, and when the court will declare the latter deprived of his post, youwill be the second candidate to the locum tenancy of the patriarchalthrone after Metropolitan Cyril." In other words, Sergius in a cunningand complicated way rejected Agathangelus claim to be the lawful headof the Russian Church, although this claim was now stronger thanMetropolitan Peter's (because he was in prison and unable to rule theChurch) and much stronger than Sergius'.

On May 20, Agathangelus sent a telegram to Sergius: "You promised

to send a project to the Bishops concerning the transfer to me of theauthorizations of ecclesiastical power. Be so kind as to hurry up." On thesame day Sergius replied: "Having checked your information, I amconvinced that you have no rights; [I will send you] the details by letter. Iardently beseech you: do not take the decisive step." On May 21,Agathangelus sent another telegram threatening to publish theagreement he had made with Sergius and which he, Sergius, had broken.On May 22, Sergius wrote to Peter warning him not to recognize


10/21

Agathangelus claims (the letter, according to Hieromonk Damascene,was delivered personally by Tuchkov). However, Peter ignored Sergius'warning and wrote to Agathangelus, congratulating him on hisassumption of the rights of patriarchal locum tenens and assuring him ofhis loyalty. At this point Sergius' last real canonical grounds for holding

on to power - the support of Metropolitan Peter - collapsed. ButAgathangelus only received this letter on May 31. The (OGPU-engineered?) delay proved to be decisive. For on May 24, after Sergiushad again written rejecting Agathangelus claims, the latter, according toRegelson, wrote: "Continue to rule the Church. For the sake of the peaceof the Church I propose to resign the office of locum tenens."

On the same day Sergius, savagely pressing home his advantage,wrote to the administration of the Moscow diocese concerning thehanding over of Agathangelus to a trial by the hierarchs then resident inMoscow. On June 9 Metropolitan Peter wrote to MetropolitanAgathangelus that if Agathangelus refused to take up the position, or wasunable to do so, the rights and duties of the locum tenancy would revertto him, Metropolitan Peter, and the deputyship to Sergius. However, onJune 12 Metropolitan Agathangelus wrote to Peter renouncing the postof locum tenens. The way was now open for Sergius to resume power.

In June, 1926 Metropolitan Peter was transferred from Moscow to asolitary cell in the political isolator in the Spaso-Yefimiev monastery inSuzdal. Then, in November, he was transferred from Suzdal to the innerprison of the OGPU in the Lubyanka. On November 5 he was convictedby the OGPU of being an assistant and concealer of a blackhundredistchurch organization that has set as its aim the use of the Church for

consolidating the reactionary element and conducting anti-Sovietagitation The indictment read: A blackhundredist church groupingwas created in Moscow which strove to ignite and support a constantstate of tension between the Church and Soviet power, in the hope ofobtaining foreign support in defence of the former or for anintervention. This grouping was called The Sergievo SamarinGrouping after the surname of the former over-procurator, A.D.Samarin, who supposedly headed it, including the so-called formerpeople the inhabitants of the town of Sergiev Posad, P.B. Mansurov,P.B. Istomin and others. Samarin and another former over-procurator,Vladimir Sabler, were supposed to have control over the bishops,

influencing them to make counter-revolutionary decisions, such as theone to leave Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) in his see in Kiev.Metropolitan Peter was condemned for the supposed fact that, havingsubmitted to the leadership of the monarchists, he conducted his activityin administering the Church in accordance with their orders and decrees,striving to move the Church into the position of an illegal anti-sovietorganization. On November 5, in accordance with article 68,Metropolitan Peter was sentenced to three years exile in Abalak in the


11/21

Urals. This was The Case of Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) and others,Moscow, 1926.

In December Tuchkov proposed that that he renounce his locumtenancy. Peter refused, and then sent a message to everyone through a

fellow prisoner that he would "never under any circumstances leave hispost and would remain faithful to the Orthodox Church to death itself".Then he was transferred from Moscow via Vyatka, Perm and Sverdlovskto the closed monastery of Abalak in Tobolsk province, arriving inFebruary, 1927. On January 1, while in prison in Perm, he confirmedSergius as his deputy. Apparently he was unaware of the recent changesin the leadership of the Church. In any case, he was to have no furtherdirect effect on the administration of the Church, being subjected, in thewords of Fr. Vladimir Rusak, to "12 years of unbelievable torments,imprisonment, tortures and exile beyond the Arctic Circle."

Fr. Vladimir tells the following story about Metropolitan Peter whenhe was on his way to exile in Siberia. One dark night "he was thrown outof the railway carriage while it was still moving (apparently more thanone bishop perished in this way). It was winter, and the metropolitan fellinto a snow-drift as if into a feather-bed, so that he did not hurt himself.With difficulty he got out of it and looked round. There was a wood, andsnow, and no signs of life. For a long time he walked over the virginsnow, and at length, exhausted, he sat down on a stump. Through historn rasson the frost chilled him to the bone. Sensing that he wasbeginning to freeze to death, the metropolitan started to read the prayersfor the dying.

"Suddenly he saw a huge bear approaching him."The thought flashed through his mind: 'He'll tear me to pieces'. But

he did not have the strength to run away. And where could he run?"But the bear came up to him, sniffed him and peacefully lay down at

his feet. Warmth wafted out of his huge bear's hide. Then he turned overwith his belly towards the metropolitan, stretched out his whole lengthand began to snore sweetly. Vladyka wavered for a long time as he lookedat the sleeping bear, then he could stand the cold no longer and lay downnext to him, pressing himself to his warm belly. He lay down and turned

first one and then the other side towards the beast in order to get warm.Meanwhile the bear breathed deeply in his sleep, enveloping him in hiswarm breath.

"When the dawn began to break, the metropolitan heard the distantcrowing of cocks: a dwelling-place. He got to his feet, taking care not towake up the bear. But the bear also got up, and after shaking himselfdown plodded off towards the wood.


12/21

"Rested now, Vladyka went towards the sound of the cocks and soonreached a small village. After knocking at the end house, he explainedwho he was and asked for shelter, promising that his sister would pay theowners for all trouble and expenses entailed. They let Vladyka in and forhalf a year he lived in this village. He wrote to his sister, and she arrived.

But soon after her other 'people' in uniform also came..."

In March, 1927, Metropolitan Sergius was released from prison. Heimmediately formed a "Synod" of twelve of the most disreputablebishops in Russia. And then, in July, he issued his famous declaration inwhich he placed the Church in more or less complete submission to theatheists.

From February to April, 1927, Metropolitan Peter was in exile in theclosed Abalak monastery. He cooked his own food, put wood in the stoveand cleaned his clothes. While he was in Abalak, his cell-attendant cameto him, and Metropolitan Peter asked him whether he had come with theknowledge of the authorities. On receiving a negative reply, he told himto go and inform the authorities of his arrival. For this, bothMetropolitan Peter and his cell-attendant were arrested and thrown intoprison in Tobolsk.

While there, he heard that they wanted to issue a decree stopping thecommemoration of his name in the churches. "It is not wounded self-love," he said, "nor resentment which forces me to be anxious about this,but I fear that if my name ceases to be commemorated it will be difficultto distinguish between the Tikhonite and renovationist churches." Headded that the investigator Tuchkov was in charge of church affairs,

which was impermissible, and that he would remain alone like St.Athanasius.

On July (August) 9, Metropolitan Peter was exiled along the river Obto the Arctic settlement of Khe, which was in the tundra two hundredversts from Obdorsk. There, seriously ill and deprived of the possibilityof communicating with the world, he was doomed to a slow death. Hisonly communications were with three renovationist priests, whopersecuted him. On September 11, he suffered his first attack of anginaand from that time never left his bed. He was taken to Obdorsk, where hewas advised to petition for a transfer to another place with a better

climate. But his petition was refused, and he remained in Khe for thetime being. Then he was transferred to Tobolsk prison, where Tuchkovoffered him his freedom if he would renounce his locum tenancy.Metropolitan Peter refused and on May 11, 1928 he was returned to Khe,with the period of his exile extended by two years.


13/21

According to the Sergianist Metropolitan Manuel (Lemeshevsky),during his exile Metropolitan Peter composed a moleben for thesuffering world and a short blessing of the water with a special prayer.

On January 22, 1928 Metropolitan Peter expressed his opinion on

Metropolitan Sergius notorious declaration of July, 1927 in a letter to acertain N.: For a first-hierarch such an appeal [as Sergius declaration]is inadmissible.Moreover, I dont understand why a Synod was formedfrom (as I can see from the signatures under the appeal) unreliablepeople. Thus, for example, Bishop Philip is a heretic In this appeal ashadow is cast upon me and the patriarch, as if we had political relationswith abroad, whereas the only relations were ecclesiastical. I do notbelong to the irreconcilables, I allowed everything that could be allowed,and it was suggested to me in a more polite manner that I sign theappeal. I refused, for which I was exiled. I trusted Metropolitan Sergius,and I see that I was mistaken.

There is evidence the Bolsheviks arranged a secret meeting betweenMetropolitan Peter and Metropolitan Sergius, during which the lattertried to persuade him to accept his Church platform. But MetropolitanPeter refused. Then Metropolitan Sergius shouted at him:

Well, then, you will rot in exile!To which the holy confessor replied:I will rot, but with Christ, and not with you, you Judas-traitor!According to Protopresbyter Michael Polsky, Metropolitan Peter

wrote to Sergius, saying that if he did not have the strength to defend theChurch he should hand over his duties to someone stronger. Similarinformation was provided by the Priests Elijah Pirozhenko and PeterNovosiltsev after they had visited Metropolitan Peter. In May, 1929,Bishop Damascene of Glukhov sent a messenger to Metropolitan Peter,and from his reply was able to write: "Granddad (i.e. Metropolitan Peter)spoke about the situation and the further consequences to be deducedfrom it almost in my own words".

On September 17, 1929, Protopriest Gregory Seletsky wrote to

Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd on behalf of Archbishop Demetrius(Lyubimov): "I am fulfilling the request of his Eminence ArchbishopDemetrius and set out before you in written form that information whichthe exiled Bishop Damascene has communicated to me. He succeeded inmaking contact with Metropolitan Peter, and in sending him, via atrusted person, full information about everything that has been takingplace in the Russian Church. Through this emissary Metropolitan Peterorally conveyed the following:


14/21

"'1. You Bishops must yourselves remove Metropolitan Sergius."'2. I do not bless you to commemorate Metropolitan Sergius during

Divine services."'3. The Kievan act of the so-called "small council of Ukrainianbishops" concerning the retirement of 16 bishops from the sees they

occupy is to be considered invalid."'4. The letter of Bishop Basil (the vicar of the Ryazan diocese) gives

false information. [This refers to a forgery concocted by the sergianistswhich purported to show that Metropolitan Peter recognizedMetropolitan Sergius.]

"'5. I will reply to questions in writing.'"In December, 1929 Metropolitan Peter wrote to Sergius: Your

Eminence, forgive me magnanimously if by the present letter I disturbthe peace of your Eminences soul. People inform me about the difficultcircumstances that have formed for the Church in connection with yourexceeding the limits of the ecclesiastical authority entrusted to you. I amvery sorry that you have not taken the trouble to initiate me into yourplans for the administration of the Church. You know that I have notrenounced the locum tenancy, and consequently, I have retained formyself the Higher Church Administration and the general leadership ofChurch life. At the same time I make bold to declare that your remit asdeputy was only for the management of everyday affairs; you are only topreserve the status quo. I am profoundly convinced that without priorcontact with me you will not make any responsible decision. I have notaccorded you any constituent right as long as I retain the locum tenancyand as long as Metropolitan Cyril is alive and as long as MetropolitanAgathangelus was alive. Therefore I did not consider it necessary in mydecree concerning the appointment of candidates for the deputyship tomention the limitation of their duties; I had no doubt that the deputywould not alter the established rights, but would only deputize, orrepresent, so to speak, the central organ through which the locum tenenscould communicate with his flock. But the system of administration youhave introduced not only excludes this: it also excludes the very need forthe existence of the locum tenens. Such major steps cannot, of course, be

approved by the consciousness of the Church. I did not admit anyqualifications limiting the duties of the deputy, both from a feeling ofdeep reverence and trust for the appointed candidates, and first of all foryou, having in mind at this point your wisdom. It is burdensome for meto number all the details of negative evaluations of your administration:the resounding protests and cries from believers, from hierarchs andlaypeople. The picture of ecclesiastical division that has been painted isshocking. My duty and conscience do not allow me to remain indifferent


15/21

to such a sorrowful phenomenon; they urge me to address yourEminence with a most insistent demand that you correct the mistake youhave made, which has placed the Church in a humiliating position, andwhich has caused quarrels and divisions in her and a blackening of thereputation of her leaders. In the same way I ask you to suspend the other

measures which have increased your prerogatives. Such a decision ofyours will, I hope, create a good atmosphere in the Church and will calmthe troubled souls of her children, while with regard to you it willpreserve that disposition towards you which you deservedly enjoyed bothas a Church figure and as a man. Place all your hope on the Lord, and Hishelp will always be with you. On my part, I as the first-hierarch of theChurch, call on all clergy and church activists to display, in everythingthat touches on the civil legislation and administration, complete loyalty.They are obliged to submit unfailingly to the governmental decrees aslong as they do not violate the holy faith and in general are not contraryto Christian conscience; and they must not engage in any anti-governmental activity, and they are allowed to express neither approvalnor disapproval of their actions in the churches or in privateconversations, and in general they must not interfere in matters havingnothing to do with the Church...

On February 26, 1930, after receiving news from a certain Deacon K.about the true state of affairs in the Church, Metropolitan Peter wrote toMetropolitan Sergius, saying: "Of all the distressing news I have had toreceive, the most distressing was the news that many believers remainoutside the walls of the churches in which your name is commemorated.I am filled with spiritual pain both about the disputes that have arisenwith regard to your administration and about other sad phenomena.

Perhaps this information is biassed, perhaps I am not sufficientlyacquainted with the character and aims of the people writing to me. Butthe news of disturbances in the Church come to me from variousquarters and mainly from clerics and laymen who have made a greatimpression on me. In my opinion, in view of the exceptionalcircumstances of Church life, when normal rules of administration havebeen subject to all kinds of distortion, it is necessary to put Church lifeon that path on which it stood during your first period as deputy. So beso good as to return to that course of action which was respected byeverybody. I repeat that I am very sad that you have not written to meand have confided your plans to me. Since letters come from other

people, yours would undoubtedly have reached me..."After this letter was published, the authorities again tried to force

Peter to renounce the locum tenancy and become an agent of the OGPU.But he refused.

On August 17, 1930, he was arrested in Khe and cast into solitary inTobolsk prison. In November he was moved to prison in Yekaterinburg


16/21

in solitary confinement with no right to receive parcels or visitors. In thesame month a new case was started against him. He was accused that,while in exile, he conducted defeatist agitation among the surroundingpopulation, talking about an imminent war and the fall of Soviet powerand the necessity of struggle with the latter, and also tried to use the

Church to conduct a struggle with Soviet power. Vladyka Petercompletely rejected these accusations, and continued his martyric path.In prison the crowns of his teeth broke, but the authorities paid noattention to his request for a dentist. As a result, all eating became forhim a real torment. His health, which had once been strong, wasundermined. He lay down to sleep at night wondering whether he wouldwake up the next day. He would have fainting spells and lie for a longtime on the prison floor.

On March 11, 1931, after describing the sufferings of his life in Khe(which included the enmity of three renovationist priests), he posed thefollowing question in a letter to comrade J.B. Polyansky, who hadsuggested that he renounce the locum tenancy: "Will not a change inlocum tenens bring with it a change also in his deputy? Of course, it ispossible that my successor, if he were to find himself incapable ofcarrying out his responsibilities directly, would leave the same person ashis deputy - that is his right. But it is certain, in my opinion, that thecarrying out of his duties by this deputy would have to come to an end atthe same time as the departure of the person for whom he is deputizing,just as, according to the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, with hisdeparture the synod created by him would cease to exist. All this andother questions require thorough and authoritative discussion andcanonical underpinning... Be so kind as to bow to Metropolitan Sergius

on my behalf, since I am unable to do this myself, and send him myfervent plea that he, together with Metropolitan Seraphim andArchbishop Philip, to whom I also bow, work together for my liberation.I beseech them to defend an old man who can hardly walk. I was alwaysfilled with a feeling of deep veneration and gratitude to MetropolitanSergius, and the thought of some kind of worsening of our relationswould give me indescribable sorrow."

This letter suggests a softening of Metropolitan Peters attitude toSergius and his synod. However, this is not necessarily the case. Knowingthat there was no way that he could remove Metropolitan Sergius from

his post while he, Metropolitan Peter, was still in prison, he may havebeen appealing to their humanity in order to get him released first. Then,having arrived in Moscow, he could have taken the reins of theadministration of the Church into his own hands again. However, itseems that the Bolsheviks saw through his ruse, because they (andMetropolitan Sergius) continued to show him no mercy, did not allowhim to return to Moscow and continued to insist on his renouncing thelocum tenancy.


17/21

On March 27, 1931 Metropolitan Peter wrote to B.P. Menzhinsky: "Iwas given a five-year exile which I served in the far north in the midst ofthe cruellest frosts, constant storms, extreme poverty and destitution ineverything. (I was constantly on the edge of the grave.) But years passed,and there remained four months to the end of my exile when the same

thing began all over again - I was again arrested and imprisoned by theUrals OGPU. After some time I was visited by comrade J.V. Polyansky,who suggested that I renounce the locum tenancy. But I could not acceptsuch a suggestion for the following reasons which have a decisivesignificance for me. First of all I would be transgressing the establishedorder according to which the locum tenens must remain at his post untilthe convening of a council. A council convened without the sanction ofthe locum tenens would be considered uncanonical and its decisionsinvalid. But in the case of my death the prerogatives of the locum tenenswill pass to another person who will complete that which was not doneby his predecessor. Moreover, my removal would bring in its wake thedeparture also of my deputy, Metropolitan Sergius, just as, according tohis declaration, with his departure from the position of deputy the Synodcreated by him would cease to exist. I cannot be indifferent to such acircumstance. Our simultaneous departure does not guarantee churchlife from various possible frictions, and, of course, the guilt would bemine. Therefore in the given case it is necessary that we discuss thismatter together, just as we discussed together the questions relating tomy letter to Metropolitan Sergius dated December, 1929. Finally, mydecree, coming from prison, would undoubtedly be interpreted as madeunder pressure, with various undesirable consequences."

Of course, Metropolitan Peter was right, from a strictly canonical

point of view, that with his departure or death, Metropolitan Sergiusrights would disappear. But he also knew as did, of course, theBolsheviks that de facto his position would become much stronger, infact unassailable. That is why he did not want to resign, but wantedrather to return to Moscow to reassume the reins of power. And that iswhy the Bolsheviks were determined not to let him return. For theyknew, from his letter of December, 1929, that he was still an anti-sergianist. So the stalemate continued, with Peter refusing to resign andthe Bolsheviks refusing to let him return to Moscow

In the spring of 1931 Tuchkov suggested to Metropolitan Peter that he

work as an informer for the GPU, threatening to give him another termin prison if he refused. On May 25, Metropolitan Peter wrote toMenzhinsky that "such an occupation is incompatible with my callingand is, besides, unsuited to my nature." And again he wrote toMenzhinsky: "In our weakness we fall more or less short of that ideal,that truth, which is enjoined upon Christians. But it is important not tobe burdened only by earthly matters and therefore to refrain fromviolently murdering the truth and departing from its path. Otherwise it


18/21

would be better to renounce God altogether... In this matter one wouldcome up against two completely contradictory principles: Christian andrevolutionary. The basis of the former principle is love for one'sneighbour, forgiveness of all, brotherhood, humility; while the basis ofthe latter principle is: the end justifies the means, class warfare, pillage,

etc. If you look at things from the point of view of this second principle,you enter upon the revolutionary path and hurl yourself into warfare,and thereby you renounce not only the true symbol of the Christian Faithand annihilate its foundations - the idea of love and the rest, but also theprinciples of the confession of the faith. There is no need to say how thisdilemma - between love for one's neighbour and class warfare - is to beresolved by a seriously believing person who is, moreover, not a hireling,but a real pastor of the Church. He would hardly know any peace for therest of his life if he subjected himself to temptation from the direction ofthe above-mentioned contradictions."

Metropolitan Peter's sufferings after the visits of Tuchkov were soacute that for some days his right arm and leg were paralyzed. AndTuchkov fulfilled his threat: on July 23, 1931, the OGPU condemnedMetropolitan Peter to five years in a concentration camp "for stubbornstruggle against Soviet power and persistent counter-revolutionaryactivity". Immediately after this sentence had been passed, OGPU agentsAgranov and Tuchkov sent the administration of the Yekaterinburgprison a note recommending that Metropolitan Peter be kept underguard in the inner isolation-cell. Later, they moved the metropolitan toan isolation cell in a prison of special assignment in Verkhneuralsk.

In the summer of 1933 they increased the pressure on the

metropolitan still more: they substituted his walks in the commoncourtyard with walks in a tiny, separate courtyard which was like a dampcellar whose floor was constantly covered with pools of rain-water andwhose air was filled with smells from a latrine just next to the courtyard.When Vladyka saw this place he had an asthma attack and barely made itto his room. Soon the prison administration told him that the moneywhich had been given for him had been spent and that they would nolonger be providing him with additional food from the refectory. Vladykawas strictly isolated. The doctor's assistant who was in the room next tohim was strictly forbidden to enter into any kind of relations with him,and his request to meet the local bishop was refused.

In August, 1933, Vladyka wrote to the authorities: "In essence, thelocum tenancy is of no interest to me personally. On the contrary, itconstantly keeps me in the fetters of persecution. But I am bound toreckon with the fact that the solution of the given question does notdepend on my initiative and cannot be an act of my will alone. By mycalling I am inextricably bound to the spiritual interests and will of thewhole Local Church. So the question of the disposal of the locum


19/21

tenancy, not being a personal question, cannot be left to my discretion,otherwise I would turn out to be a traitor of the Holy Church. By the way,in the act [of my entry into the duties of locum tenens] there is a remarkto the effect that I am bound not to decline from fulfilling the will ofPatriarch Tikhon, and consequently the will of the hierarchs who signed

the act..., as well as the will of the clergy and believers who have been incommunion of prayer with me these last nine years."Metropolitan Peters heroic refusal to renounce his post as locum

tenens, or sign a pact with the authorities on the lines of MetropolitanSergius declaration, meant that the official Russian church did not lostits last links with the true apostolic succession until his death in 1937 or Metropolitan Sergius illegal assumption of the locum tenancy and thesee of Kolomna in 1936.

Protopresbyter Michael Polsky cites the words of one witness thatMetropolitan Peter had secret links with Metropolitan Joseph, who wasin exile in Chimkent. Polsky also writes that Peter was freed for a shorttime in 1935. This fact was confirmed by the Paris newspaperVozrozhdenie, which said that Peter refused to make concessions inexchange for the patriarchal throne and was again exiled. Another Parisnewspaper, Russkaya Mysl' wrote that Peter demanded that Sergiushand over the locum tenancy to him, but Sergius refused.

More light on this crucial meeting has been cast by Protopriest LevLebedev, who writes: In 1935 there came to an end the term of exile ofthe lawful locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter, towhom Sergius was obliged to hand over the administration of the

Church All now depended on how and what Sergius would choose.Sergius chose. He wrote a letter to the NKVD (its text was published ontelevision not so long ago), in which he said that if the administrationwere transferred into the hands of Metropolitan Peter the building (ofcooperation of the Church with Soviet power), which had beenconstructed with such labour (!), would collapse. The suggestion wasunderstood and accepted. After a few days Metropolitan Peter wasarrested and sent to a new place of imprisonment in MagnitogorskThere are some basic data to the effect that Vladyka Peter even returnedfrom exile, lived in Kolomna and came to Sergius in Moscow, so as totake over the administration. But Sergius did not hand over the

administration, and wrote this same letter to the NKVD.Vladyka was again transferred to the special purpose Verkhne-Uralsk

prison, put in an isolated cell and given the number 114 instead of beinggiven a name, so that no one should know about the fate of the locumtenens.


20/21

On the evening of August 2, 1936, Metropolitan Peter asked to have atalk with the head of the prison Artemyev. On the next day, Artemyevmade a report in which his deputy Yakovlev called for Metropolitan Peterto be brought to trial on the grounds that he "made an attempt toestablish links with the outside world". Then Artemyev and Yakovlev

declared that Metropolitan Peter was an "irreconcilable enemy of Sovietpower and slanders the existing state structure..., accusing it of'persecuting the Church' and 'her workers'. He slanderously accuses theNKVD organs of acting with prejudice in relation to him... He tried tomake contact with the outside world from prison, using for this personthe medical personnel of the prison, as a result of which he received aprosphora as a sign of greeting from the clergy of Verkhne-Uralsk."

On August 25 (July 9), 1936 he was given another three-year term.From this time the conditions of his imprisonment became still stricter,he hardly saw anyone except the head of the prison and his deputy.

On September 11, 1936 an official announcement falsely declared thedeath of Metropolitan Peter. On December 27 Metropolitan Sergiusassumed the title of locum tenens of the patriarchal throne andMetropolitan of Krutitsa - although, as he himself had admitted, therights of the deputy of the locum tenens ceased immediately after thedeath of the locum tenens himself, and as Metropolitan Peter hadwritten in 1931, my removal would bring in its wake the departure alsoof my deputy, Metropolitan Sergius.

But Metropolitan Peter was not dead. His execution came later: "OnOctober 2, 1937, the troika of the UNKVD for Chelyabinsk region decreed

the execution by shooting of Peter Fyodorovich (Polyansky),metropolitan of Krutitsa. The sentence was carried out on October 10,1937 at 16.00 hours. Head of the UGB of the UNKVD, security forcesLieutenant Podobedov." He was buried in Magnitogorsk.

* * *

(Sources: M.E. Gubonin, Akty Svyateishego Patriarkha Tikhona, St. Tikhon'sTheological Institute, 1994, pp. 681-682, 879-86; S. Belavenets, "Obdorsky Izgnannik",Moskovskij Tserkovnij Vestnik, N 13 (31), June, 1990; V. Rusak, Svidetel'stvoObvineniya, Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1986; Luch Svyeta, Jordanville: HolyTrinity Monastery, 1970, pp. 61-62; Protopresbyter George Grabbe, The legal and

canonical situation of the Moscow Patriarchate, Jerusalem, 1974; Lev Regelson,Tragediya Russkoj Tserkvi, 1917-1945, Paris: YMCA Press, 1977; M. Spinka, The Churchand the Russian Revolution, New York: Macmillan, 1927; Protopresbyter MikhailPolsky, Noviye Mucheniki Rossii, Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1949-56;Polozheniye Tserkvi v Sovyetskoj Rossii, note 8 in the 2004 Paraklit edition; I.M.

Andreyev, Russia's Catacomb Saints, Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Press, 1982;"Vladyka Lazar otvechayet na voprosy redaktsii", Pravoslavnaya Rus', no. 22, 15/28November, 1991, p. 5; S. Savelyev, "Bog i komissary", in Bessmertny, A.R. and Filatov,S.B. Religiya i demokratiya, Moscow: Progress, 1993; Alexander Nezhny, "Tretye Imya",


21/21

Ogonek, no. 4 (3366), January 25 - February 1, 1992; Hieromonk Damaskin,"Zhizneopisaniye patriarshego myestoblyustitelya mitropolita Pyotra Krutitskago(Polyanskogo)", Vestnik Russkogo Khristianskogo Dvizheniya, no. 166, III-1992, pp.213-242; "Novomuchenik Mitropolit Pyotr Krutitsky", Pravoslavnaya Rus', no. 17(1518), September 1/14, 1994; V.V. Antonov, "Lozh' i Pravda", Russkij Pastyr', II, 1994,pp. 79-80; M.B. Danilushkin (ed.), Istoria Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Tserkvi, 1917-1970, St.Petersburg: Voskreseniye, 1997, pp. 206-209; Za Khrista Postradavshiye, Moscow,1997, vol. 1, pp. 295, 650;http://www.pstbi.ru/bin/code.exe/frames/m/ind_oem.html?/ans; Archpriest LevLebedev, Velikorossia,St. Petersburg, 1999, pp. 586-587; http://www.omolenko.com/texts/katakomb.htm;

http://www.histor-ipt-kt.org/KNIGA/moskva.html)United Kingdom
http://www.omolenko.com/texts/katakomb.htmhttp://www.histor-ipt-kt.org/KNIGA/moskva.htmlhttp://www.histor-ipt-kt.org/KNIGA/moskva.htmlhttp://www.histor-ipt-kt.org/KNIGA/moskva.htmlhttp://www.omolenko.com/texts/katakomb.htm

Documents

Hieromartyr Peter, Metropolitan of Krutitsa