Revisionist ROCOR: A Historian's Analysis of Fr. John Whiteford’s Article Concerning St. John of Shanghai & The Moscow Patriarchate
- Subdeacon Nektarios, M.A.
- 7 days ago
- 27 min read
By Subdeacon Nektarios, M.A.
In a recent article, John Whiteford—the ROCOR-MP priest notorious for his unyielding defense of the Moscow Patriarchate and of the 2007 false union between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate—once again indulges in his characteristic amateur historiography and proof-texting [1]. This time, he seeks to appropriate Saint John of San Francisco as a supposed justification for remaining in communion with the heretical Moscow Patriarchate.
This polemic comes in the wake of my own recent article, The False Shepherd: Moses McPherson’s War Against the True Orthodox Church, wherein I laid out definitively the historical stance of the Russian Church Abroad toward the Old Calendarist Orthodox Christians. There I demonstrated beyond doubt that ROCOR always recognized the Old Calendarist Orthodox Church—not as schismatic, as the deceitful clergy of the new ROCOR-MP now assert—but as true confessors of Orthodoxy. Saint John, Saint Philaret, Saint Vitaly, Archbishop Averky (Taushev) of Jordanville, Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), together with a host of other towering hierarchs, consistently affirmed them as faithful and canonical Orthodox Christians.
In his most recent and failed foray into history, Whiteford attempts to enlist Saint John of San Francisco in defense of the Moscow Patriarchate against the Greek Old Calendarists. The reason for this maneuver is transparent: over the past two years, multitudes of faithful have fled the Sergianist-captured ROCOR-MP for the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece—and not merely laity, but clergy as well.
At the very outset of his article, Whiteford dismissively brands those who rejected the false union with the Soviet-created Moscow Patriarchate as “people in ROCOR who took more extreme views.” What he will not admit is that these supposed extremists, according to this Moscow Patriarchate apologist, were none other than Saint Philaret of New York, Saint Vitaly (Ustinov), Archbishop Averky, Bishop Gregory, and the remnant of ROCOR who refused to betray the legacy of the Catacomb Church and ROCOR by submitting to Moscow.
In a rhetorical sleight of hand, Whiteford appeals to the conservative temperament of Saint John—his monarchism, his steadfast defense of Orthodoxy—as if such personal traits could somehow exonerate the Moscow Patriarchate. He would have the faithful believe that these qualities of the saint should persuade those now awakening to the heretical activity of Moscow, and to the complicit silence of the ROCOR-MP synod, to remain in bondage to them.
When we consider Saint John, we must acknowledge the truth plainly: he was indeed pastoral and more lenient in his approach toward those in the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate, the Metropolia, the Paris Jurisdiction, and World Orthodoxy at large. This is indisputable. Yet the essential question remains: does this in any way vindicate the Moscow Patriarchate from its consistent practice of both Sergianism and the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism?
Does Saint John’s pastoral lenience absolve the Moscow Patriarchate of its continued membership in the World Council of Churches, with all its ecumenical compromises and Protestant ecclesiological statements? Does it excuse their participation in joint prayer with Monophysites, Papists, and other heterodox communions? Does it absolve the suffocating silence of their bishops, who dare not question their Sergianist masters in Moscow? Does it excuse the Moscow Patriarchate’s de-canonization of a number of New Martyrs, or its continual exaltation of Patriarch Sergius—the betrayer of the Russian Church—whom they are now on the verge of canonizing? The answer is manifest: No. Of course not.
Whiteford must appeal to Saint John, who reposed in the Lord long before the Moscow Patriarchate had significantly intensified its heretical activities. For after the repose of Saint John of San Francisco, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia—particularly from 1965 to 2001—took on an increasingly stringent and resolutely anti-Moscow Patriarchate character, most notably under the leadership of Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov).
In my recent publication, In Their Own Words: The Private Letters of Saint Philaret of New York & Bishop Gregory Grabbe, I demonstrate precisely this development. Saint Philaret of New York himself writes with clarity concerning the pastoral leniency of Saint John, as well as his broader awareness of the situation with the Moscow Patriarchate and the other Russian schisms to which Whiteford alludes in his article. In his private letter to Abbess Magdalena, written in 1979, he states:
We have already seen that schism is as terrible an evil as heresy, not by today’s weak minded reasoning, but by the teaching of the Holy Fathers and, clearly, its end will be the same. I do not dare to pass judgement on our contemporary, the founder of the schism, Metropolitan Eulogius, but I fear for his soul, and I fear for all those who have been led astray by him and his successors into schism. And I do not understand the position of the late Vladyka John—a true servant of God and a man of God—in this matter. Why did he not immediately “dot all the I’s” and explain to the Eulogians the falsehood of their path and position?! After all, it was precisely because it was not immediately and clearly stated where is the truth and where the falsehood (there cannot be two truths), where is the white and where is the black, where is the light and where the darkness, which path is right and which is wrong—that there was this “inter-jurisdictional confusion”—and the satiation would be clear.” The fact that many “Orthodox” go indiscriminately to any church, what does this indicate? Simply that the people do not value the truth [2].
This primary source document, taken from the private letters of Saint Philaret, provides valuable insight into how Saint John related not only to the Moscow Patriarchate, but also to the Metropolia and the Parisian schismatics. His stance was indeed not as strict as some might prefer; nevertheless, this was the pastoral approach he adopted.
Yet, in another primary source document—a private letter of Saint Philaret to Prince S. S. Beloselsky, written in 1963, while Saint John was still alive—we encounter a much sterner assessment. There, Saint Philaret reflects on the propaganda disseminated by the Soviets in order to obscure the truth, deceive the faithful, and convince them that those under Soviet control were, in fact, truly Orthodox. Saint Philaret writes:
What was the reason for such a step? “Political instability”? God forbid! Vladyka Meletius was not a reed shaken by the wind! But the propaganda and agitation were so strong, the “fog” cast by those working on Moscow’s behalf was so dense, that for a time, anyone could lose sight of the proper perspective—just as the most experienced navigator can lose his way in an impenetrable fog. Do not forget: the Eastern patriarchs themselves traveled to Moscow and served with Patriarch Alexei! That was what Moscow achieved at that time! And this was the main factor that led the simple-hearted and trusting Vladyka Meletius to believe that things had truly changed for the better in the USSR and to recognize Moscow’s jurisdiction.
Vladyka John found himself in a similar situation. For a time, he had no means of knowing the true state of affairs, especially given that erroneous reports circulated in the Far East claiming that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia no longer existed. But as soon as the truth became clear, he turned away from Moscow in a most decisive manner [3].
This decisive turning away from the Moscow Patriarchate by Saint John of Shanghai at that time can be corroborated by yet another primary source historical document, uncovered in the archives of the Central Intelligence Agency. In this 1947 report, entitled Political Information: Activities of Archbishop Viktor, it is recorded in detail that Saint John refused to accept the Moscow Patriarchate. This secular primary source document reads:
[Redacted] Note: See [Redacted] which refers to the jurisdictional dispute between Archbishops Viktor and John mentioned below. Archbishop Viktor, who is the Moscow-sponsored head of the Russian Orthodox Church in China, was elevated to the position of senior Archbishop in China, with the Archdiocese at Peiping, in 1933 by the Russian Orthodox Synod, which was at that time in exile in Yugoslavia. He collaborated conspicuously with the Japanese, and was decorated by the Japanese government. Archbishop John /Iona or Ioann/ is a Russian Archbishop in Shanghai who has refused to accept the Moscow Patriarch, and who recognizes only the authority of the primate of the Orthodox Church in the United States [ROCOR]. See also [Redacted] which reported Archbishop Viktor had received a permit to enter the USSR [4].
What is valuable about these recently published works of Orthodox Traditionalist Publications is that the faithful no longer need to rely upon a false-teaching priest, offering historically dubious claims on behalf of ROCOR-MP, to tell them what the true history of ROCOR is. Now, one may go directly to the primary source documents themselves—documents which, for professional historians, are worth their weight in gold.
Nevertheless, Whiteford persists in his attempts to argue that because Saint John briefly recognized the Moscow Patriarchate, this somehow establishes a precedent obligating others to remain in communion with them, despite their present-day heretical positions. Whiteford even writes in his article: “Obviously, had [Saint John] believed the Moscow Patriarchate was a graceless Church, he would never have done this” [5].
He seems to imagine this as a “gotcha moment” in the life of Saint John. Yet he fails to consider the far more significant fact that once Saint John learned that the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was still in existence, he immediately broke communion with the Moscow Patriarchate and resumed the commemoration of the First Hierarch of the Church Abroad, Metropolitan Anastasi.
As I have already acknowledged, there is no dispute that Saint John was markedly more lenient toward the Moscow Patriarchate, the Metropolia, and the Parisian schismatics than were most of his contemporaries—particularly during the Second World War and the chaotic post-war years. Yet Whiteford deliberately omits the fact of ROCOR’s official stance in this period, namely the 1943 Synodal Condemnation of Patriarch Sergius. In this decree, issued on October 16, 1943, the Synod of Bishops declared the following:
№ 6
Definition of the Meeting of Russian Bishops in Vienna regarding the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky)
October 16, 1943
The meeting of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, having discussed the case of the election of the former Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal See, Metropolitan Sergius, to the Patriarchal See determines:
1. The election of Metropolitan Sergius to the See of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia is an act not only uncanonical, but also non-ecclesiastical, but political, caused by the interests of the Soviet communist government and its leader, dictator Stalin, who are experiencing a severe crisis during the war and need the help of the Orthodox Church hated by them and until recently clearly persecuted by them.
The Soviet Communist Party and Stalin in their attitude to religion and the Church of Christ, in essence, have not changed at all. Religion is still for them the “opium of the people,” and when the need for the help of the Church has passed, they will not fail to resume the open persecution of believers and priests in Russia. In his statement on the radio, Stalin, in order to strengthen his tyrannical power, only wants to show the world that the Soviet Communist Party and he, as its leader, give freedom to the Church, going supposedly sincerely towards the suffering Russian people in their aspiration to God. He stretches out his hands to his captives to the hierarchs of the Russian Church, who, under his pressure, recognized the God-fighting power as legitimate and popular, offers them imaginary peace and a sly kiss, promotes the installation of the Patriarch. But it is impossible to believe him – he has not repented and, together with his communist party, still remains eager for a world communist revolution with the destruction of Christianity and all religion. He only temporarily put on the mask of an ally of the Church.
The election of the Patriarch and the convocation of the Council are needed by Stalin and his party as a means for political propaganda. The patriarch in his hands is just a toy, a utility tool in his clever combinations. He will do with him what he wants. Until there was a war, it was impossible in Russia to elect a Patriarch and organize a Synod. But when a deadly danger loomed over the Communists, then there was a full opportunity to do it in the most simplified way. The canonical, full Council of the Russian Church, provided for by the resolution of the All-Russian Council of 1917-18 (Article 1), was not convened, at least only with bishops. The confessing bishops, suffering for the faith in exile and prisons, were not invited. The martyr Church hiding in the “catacombs” of Soviet Russia was not represented. Only a tiny number of bishops were gathered, who submitted to the God-fighting government and could not be the representatives of the will of the entire Russian Church. The Patriarch is a hierarch who had long bowed before the satanic authority, who declared in 1927 on behalf of the Church that it rejoiced at the successes of this power and that there was no persecution of the Church in Soviet Russia (statement to foreign correspondents in 1930), although now Stalin himself admitted that the Soviet government had so far deprived the Russian people of the Church and freedom of religion. And the first act of the new supreme church authority was blasphemously political resolutions on the establishment of a special prayer for the opening of the so-called "second front" and on the anathematization of Russian people fighting against the Communists and the Bolshevik government.
The pressure of this satanic power on the hierarchy submissive to it is beyond any doubt. The uncanonical and non-ecclesiastical election of the Patriarch, carried out in the interests of the God-fighting government, is no less dangerous for the Church than open persecution against it. It is fraught with serious consequences. It humiliates the authority of the Church and its hierarchs, it puts them in a service position before the servants of the devil, inflicts new wounds on the martyred Church in the person of its still persecuted confessors and creates a new turmoil in the church environment. New temptations are being born for believers and new reasons for mockery of them by non-believers. By the fact that Metropolitan Sergius sacrificed the Orthodox Church to the interests of the godless Soviet power and placed it in the service of this power, he committed a betrayal of the Church of Christ.
2. In view of the above considerations, the Meeting of Bishops of the foreign part of the Russian Church, which is always faithful to its Mother Church and never breaks off spiritual communion with her, in the duty of episcopal conscience does not find it possible to recognize Metropolitan Sergius as the canonical, legitimate Patriarch of the All-Russian Church and offer prayers for him as its head.
3. The administration of the foreign part of the Russian Church should therefore remain unchanged, according to the resolutions of the Council of Bishops of 1927, based on the Decree of His Holiness the Patriarch and St. [sic] Synod of November 7/20, 1920, until the establishment of normal relations with Russia and the establishment of true freedom of faith in it.
4. To explain to the pastors of the Church and all believers that all the prohibitions and church punishments emanating from the current Moscow church authorities are illegal, invalid and should not in the least embarrass the conscience of God-abiding Russian people.
5. To address the Orthodox children of the Russian Church in the Homeland and in the scattering with a special appeal regarding the election of the Patriarch in the Soviet Union, in which to find out the true, canonical view of the election of the Patriarchs of the Local Churches and the anti-clerical act committed in Moscow on August 30/September 12 this year under the pressure of the satanic authorities.
6. To bring this resolution to the attention of the First Hierarchs of all autocephalous Orthodox Churches [6].
Whiteford, in his continued defense of the Moscow Patriarchate, tacitly rejects the Russian Catacomb Church and its position on the Moscow Patriarchate, since the Catacomb Church maintained that the Patriarchate was a Soviet-created structure lacking apostolic succession. Whiteford argues that neither the Russian Catacomb Church nor the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad were walking the royal path, or the “middle road.” Rather, only those who rejected the Soviet Church’s policies without entirely condemning it, he claims, were truly on the “middle road.” In Whiteford’s own words:
The problems the Russian Church faced were in many ways unprecedented, and not everyone in the Russian Church agreed on how to respond. And divisions were intentionally stoked by the Soviets who wanted to divide the Russian Church, so it could more easily destroy it. In Russia itself, you had the official Church under the Moscow Patriarchate, the Catacomb Church, which largely considered the MP to be traitors, and thus without grace, and then you had those who took a middle road -- not accepting the policies of the MP, but also not condemning it entirely [7].
Here again, Whiteford seems to forget that the Russian Church Abroad also entirely rejected all of the “Patriarchal elections” of the Moscow Patriarchate from Sergius onward. He also seems to have entirely overlooked the official position of the Russian Church Abroad and the Synod’s canon lawyer, Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), who published in 1971, and was distributed by the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, The Canonical and Legal Position of the Moscow Patriarchate, in which Bishop Gregory states in the last line of his book: “legally and canonically the Moscow Patriarchate and its synod are nothing but a fiction and a vast bluff” [8]. Additionally, in 1971, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad decreed: “All the elections of Patriarchs in Moscow, beginning in 1943, are invalid on the basis of the 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles and the 3rd Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, according to which ‘if any bishop, having made use of secular rulers, should receive through them episcopal authority in the Church, let him be deposed and excommunicated together with all those in communion with him’” [9].
