In 1947-1970. Japanese Orthodoxy was split into two jurisdictions: the Moscow Patriarchate and the American Archdiocese, an example of the sad consequences of the Cold War. This schism was disproportionate: the entire Japanese Orthodox Church is subordinate to the Metropolia and a small group of believers with 3-4 clerics who recognize the Moscow hierarchy. It would be wrong to see this division only as a consequence of the pro-American and pro-Soviet sympathies of the clergy and believers: it was an epochal expression of a deeper intra-church conflict.

"SOVIET CHURCH" ON THE TERRITORY OF THE TOKYO CATHEDRAL

The origins of the confrontation go back to the time of World War II, when Metropolitan Sergiy (Tikhomirov), who headed the Japanese Church since 1912 he was forced to resign, handing over the management to a layman connected with militaristic circles, Arseny Iwasawa. Soon the figure of the latter caused widespread opposition in the Church, and in January 1941 the church majority organized an extraordinary Council, which decided to dismiss Iwasawa. Despite this, formal power remained in his hands. But realizing the abnormality of the Church's existence without a bishop (and Iwasawa categorically refused to take holy orders), Iwasawa's supporters put forward 70-year-old Archpriest Ono for episcopal ordination. Without consulting the representatives of the church majority, he was sent to Harbin, the Far Eastern center of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and on April 6, 1941, his episcopal consecration took place there. Under pressure from the police and the Ministry of Education in June 1941, Bishop Nicholas (Ono) was recognized as the ruling bishop of the Japanese Church and remained so throughout the Pacific War. However, he never managed to win the favor of his flock, and with the fall of the militaristic regime, his fate was sealed.

On April 5-6, 1946, the first post-war Council of the Japanese Orthodox Church was held, one of the main demands of which was the removal from the Church of Bishop Nicholas "appointed by the military and secret police", as well as clergy "involved in the difficulties of Metropolitan Sergius and abused church property associated with the military, plunging the Church into unrest "[Protocol..., 1946, p. 29]. They were referring primarily to Fr. Anthony Takai, the rector of the Nagasaki church, who sold the church's land without permission after the building was destroyed in an atomic explosion, and Fr. John Yoshimura, involved in the sale of the property of the Tokyo Cathedral-Nicholas-do. After negotiations, Ono agreed to temporarily leave management and retire "for treatment" in Kannari, in northeastern Japan. The decision on Takai and Yoshimura was postponed, but the following year they were forced to leave the Church.

Since with the departure of Bishop Nicholas, the Church lost its only bishop (Metropolitan Sergius died on August 10, 1945), the April 1946 Council discussed the prospects for resuming canonical ties with the Moscow Patriarchate that were interrupted in 1940-

page 49
Moscow Patriarchate. But realizing its dependence on MacArthur's occupation headquarters, the Consistory (the governing body of the Japanese Church) considered it best to ask the headquarters for assistance in sending a Russian Orthodox bishop to Japan, leaving the choice of his jurisdictional affiliation to the discretion of the headquarters. This resulted in joining the American Metropolia , the largest church entity of the Russian diaspora in the United States, which did not have church communion with the Patriarchate. Its actual beginning can be considered the arrival in Tokyo of Bishop Benjamin (Basalygi) on January 7, 1947 (the official entry into the Metropolis occurred a year later). The subordination of the American Archdiocese was not recognized by some Russian emigrants who took Soviet citizenship after the war and wanted to establish ties with the Moscow Patriarchate. For worship, they set up a separate room on the territory of the Tokyo Cathedral, on the second floor of the former Russian Pushkin School. Since it was impossible for clergymen from the USSR to enter Japan (the American authorities did not issue visas to two bishops sent from Moscow), Soviet citizens found themselves in demand for Japanese clergy expelled from the Japanese Orthodox Church.

Divine service in a new building dedicated to St. Venerable the Baptist. St. Sergius of Radonezh was led by Archpriest Anthony Takai; a few months later, Bishop Nicholas (Ono), who had returned to Tokyo, joined him. Some of the Japanese who were supporters of Iwasawa and Ono during the war also joined the St. Sergius Church. A petition was sent to Patriarch Alexy I for the admission of the congregation of St. Sergius Church to the bosom of the Moscow Patriarchate, which was signed by 183 people [GARF, op. 1, d.23, l. 77]. Thus, two heterogeneous strata, differing in their aspirations and interests, merged into one group. And if for the church leadership in Moscow, the fundamental division was based on the principle of relations with the USSR and the United States, then the Japanese Orthodox Church considered the group in Moscow jurisdiction rather as a continuation of the schism of the war years.

The first escalation of the conflict between the two jurisdictions, which occurred in October-December 1948, was due to complications within the Japanese Orthodox Church itself. Bishop Benjamin's management methods, which were irritable and often emphasized his connection with the occupation authorities, caused dissatisfaction among a certain part of Tokyo's clergy and faithful. This resulted in a request to replace the bishop with a younger and more active bishop (according to other sources, to appoint a vicar bishop to help him), which was sent to the headquarters, but met with no understanding. One of the initiators of this project, a member of the consistory Alexander Manabe, was arrested. An opposition group tried to exploit the discord that was emerging in the Church. In October 1948. Ono visited Bishop Benjamin, demanding the return of his primate rights, and then sent him a letter insisting that the decisions of the April 1946 Council "do not contain such a resolution that I should be dismissed and you should be appointed head of the Japanese Orthodox Church department" [GARF, op. 1, D. 588, L. 71]. The message went unanswered. Then Ono issued a "Proclamation" in which he announced that, as the only Japanese Orthodox bishop elected canonically and in accordance with civil laws, after his recovery, he would resume his post as primate of the Japanese Orthodox Church and call on all Orthodox christians to protect it together [GARF, op. 1, d. 588, l. 65-67]. A small part of Mykola-do's parishioners supported it.

Back at the July 1948 Council, it was reported on "destructive oppositional tendencies" in the youth society under Nikolai-do, led by Kanzo Murata, whose members, when they came to the cathedral, did not attend divine services, but gathered in a separate room, discussed something in secret, etc. In December, with the assistance of Murat, Bishop Nicholas and his supporters were able to occupy one of the buildings on Ter-

page 50
However, they had to leave the cathedral the very next day. The most spectacular episode was timed to coincide with the celebration of Christmas (in a new style). On December 24, Murata shut himself up in the cathedral bell tower and rang the bells. He announced that he was going on a hunger strike, " praying for changes in the Church." Riichiro Manabe from the youth society (son of Alexander Manabe) passed on information about this to the newspapers (Yomiuri, Kiristoke Shimbun), and the next day the cathedral was visited by journalists, as well as a representative of the religious department of the MacArthur headquarters [Manabe, 1968, p.15]. The incident received press coverage. After some time, Murata took a room in one of the cathedral buildings. They had to expel him from there by force.

Most of the clergy and faithful of the Church reacted negatively to all this. The youth society was disbanded. Manabe spent several weeks in prison, and then, on January 24, 1949, signed an agreement with Bishop Benjamin, according to which he pledged to treat him with respect and obedience in the future, as well as to observe complete neutrality in the conflict with Ono [Manabe, 1968, p.16]. After that, Manabe was released and joined the parishioners of St. Sergius Church, although he retired from active work. Thus, it was not without the help of the occupation authorities that Bishop Veniamin managed to suppress the opposition movement within the city itself. But this did not solve the problems with the group in the Moscow jurisdiction.

In 1949. Ono and Takai were excluded from the clergy of the Japanese Orthodox Church. In the same year, the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, a body under the Council of Ministers of the USSR that controlled church activities, became interested in the St. Sergius Church. On April 11, 1949, the Chairman of the Soviet, G. G. Karpov, wrote to the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, F. T. Gusev:

"The situation of the Orthodox Church in Japan, thanks to the direct intervention of the American military administration, is characterized by a split among the faithful. At the same time, Bishop Nicholas (Ono Kiichi), who lives in Tokyo, sometimes keeps in touch with the Moscow Patriarchate. The Council asks you to find out and report on Bishop Nicholas 'current political orientation, whether he enjoys confidence among the clergy, church leaders and believers of the Orthodox Church, and whether he deserves to be temporarily appointed head of the ecclesiastical mission of the Orthodox Church in Japan" [GARF, op. 1, d. 588, l. 84].

Compiled on April 26, 1949, on the basis of reports from Lieutenant-General Derevyanko and acting Political Adviser N. I. Generalov, the certificate read::

Bishop Nicholas " remains at present a consistent supporter of the Russian Orthodox Church. He voluntarily conducts church services for faithful supporters of the Moscow Patriarchate... Although he does not enjoy much authority among the faithful and clergy, those who recognize the Moscow Patriarchate consider Nicholas their only spiritual mentor. According to his personal qualities, Nikolai is a weak-willed and indecisive person. Since there are no other candidates for the post of head of the ecclesiastical mission of the Orthodox Church in Japan, T. T. Derevyanko, the Generals consider it possible to appoint him temporarily to fill this position. They report that they will be able to help and influence him through local Soviet citizens, as well as through a pro-Soviet member of the Manabe consistory, who enjoys great authority among the faithful, although he does not have a spiritual dignity" [GARF, op. 1, d. 588, l.102].

On May 9, 1949, Patriarch Alexy I wrote a letter to Bishop Nicholas with the following lines::

"We can now set goals for ourselves-to revive the spiritual unity of the Japanese flock and educate it to the extent of the age of the autonomous church... We intend to restore the activity of the Russian Orthodox Mission in Japan and put Your Eminence at the head of this Mission" [GARF, op. 1, 588, p. 106].

page 51
For the first time, Moscow raised the issue of granting autonomy to the Japanese Orthodox Church, which Metropolitan Sergiy (Tikhomirov) had requested back in the 1930s-of course, if the Japanese flock returned to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. The mission, which was proposed as a form of organization for the Ono group, was established in Japan by the Holy Synod in 1870 and ceased to exist with the resignation of Metropolitan Sergius; and if at the beginning of the twentieth century it was more of an organizational superstructure, now it could become an "alternative" organization that competed with the Japanese Church. Bishop Nicholas hesitated to accept an official appointment from Moscow, but in July notified the Patriarchate of his consent. He reported that his group consists of two priests, a nine-member council has been formed, and in addition, ten zealous believers live in Tokyo, which make up the" asset " of the St. Sergius Church [GARF, op. 1, D. 589, L. 39]. The Mission was not established in 1949, but the St. Sergius Church's contacts with Moscow became more regular. On August 16, 1949, in a conversation with G. Osin, an employee of the Soviet part of the Union Council for Japan, Bishop Nikolai and his supporters Peter Kaminaga and Peter Sato noted that the majority of the faithful of the Japanese Orthodox Church are opposed to Bishop Benjamin and his entourage, but they are not going to join the St. Sergius Church:

"Heavily spread rumors... the fact that Bishop Nicholas and all the Japanese who recognize the Moscow Patriarchate are "Bolsheviks", many are forced to hide their beliefs for fear of reprisals from the American authorities. This concern allegedly increased after Manabe's arrest" [GARF, op. 1, 589, p. 80].

Nevertheless, the Ono group did not stop fighting with the leadership of the Japanese Orthodox Church. As early as November 1946, Archpriest Samuel Uzawa, to whom Bishop Nicholas had transferred the authority to manage the Japanese Church when he retired "due to illness", registered it in the Tokyo District Court as a newly created organization, identifying himself as its leader and presenting the charter, which was supposedly adopted by the Church Council on September 15, 1946. Subsequently, as a new one the EP was registered before the Primate. Veniamin. On September 21, 1949, Bishop Nicholas initiated legal proceedings against Uzawa, claiming that the religious organization he had registered was not a newly established Church, but the Japanese Orthodox Church that Ono had headed since 1941. Therefore, Uzawa's actions to register and re-register the Church's property from Bishop Nicholas ' name to his own were illegal [GARF, op. 1, D. 589, L. 119]. During the trial, it turned out that there was actually no Council on September 15, 1946, and Uzawa provided falsified documents. The case took an unfavorable turn for St. Nicholas-so much so that the Council of 1952 had to consider the court's recommendation for reconciliation with Bishop Nicholas. However, "taking into account the conduct of Mr. Ono", this proposal was rejected.

In 1953, a new bishop from the United States, Bishop Irenaeus (Bekish), became the head of the Japanese Orthodox Church. Distinguished by his energetic character and diplomatic abilities, he took the initiative of reconciliation into his own hands and in March 1954 began negotiations with representatives of Ono, expressing his readiness to recognize him as the bishop of Tokyo and all Japan. Bishop Nicholas ' position in the Church of St. Sergius was not simple: he was also burdened by his military past, and there was also moral pressure from Fr. Anthony Takai, who claimed to be the head of the church. Therefore, when Bishop Irenaeus suggested that Ono return to Mykola-do, Ono did not resist. Bishop Nicholas ' representatives were Alexander Manabe, Peter Kaminaga, and Archpriest John Yoshimura, whose name is not found anywhere from 1946 to 1954 (apparently, he did not serve anywhere). The only priest, really

page 52
who nursed the parishioners of St. Sergius Church, - Fr. Antony Takai did not take part in the negotiations and hardly even knew about them [GARF, op. 2, d.223, l. 11].

On April 18, 1954, the day of the celebration of the Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem, after the end of the Liturgy, Bishop Nicholas announced from the pulpit that he would now serve in the Tokyo Cathedral together with Bishop Irenaeus. On April 24, 1954, the two bishops signed an agreement to establish peace in the Church. Its text was compiled in Russian and Japanese (the original was considered to be the Japanese text). The Russian text of the agreement read: "We, the undersigned Bishops Irenaeus and Nicholas, aware of the harm of discord in the Church, have decided to put an end to the turmoil, unite and continue together the work of God begun by the Great Prelate of the Japanese Church, Archbishop Nicholas...". The main conditions of the agreement were: recognition of Bishop Irenaeus as the head of the Japanese Orthodox Church; transfer of Bishop Nicholas with him, the priests (oo. John Yoshimura, Basil Taka, Gregory Ono, Peter Sato, Lin Kajima) were subordinated to the American Archdiocese; the appointment of a monthly pension to Bishop Nicholas; the termination of litigation [Gap..., 1954].

On May 27, 1954, on Holy Saturday on the eve of Easter, a joint divine service and a conciliatory meeting of the faithful were held in Nikolay-do. The July Council recognized the peace that had been concluded, although under considerable pressure from Bishop Irenaeus. Reconciliation with Ono was a major success for the American bishop. Bishop Nicholas ended the trial with the Japanese Church, and the press portrayed the incident as a victory in the fight against communism. The English-language edition of the Nippon Times reported: "The former pro-communist faction of the Russian Orthodox Church in Japan yesterday renounced all its ties with Moscow and joined the Russian Orthodox Church of North America" [Orthodox..., 1954]. The Mainiti newspaper wrote::

"Bishop Nicholas Ono and five priests, as well as the majority of the faithful, who had previously formed the Russian Church grouping, withdrew from Moscow's jurisdiction and joined the American Orthodox Church. Thus, the red elements in the Japanese Orthodox Church have been eradicated" (Manabe, 1968, p. 19).

However, in reality, this victory was incomplete. If Bishop Nicholas, who left the Japanese Orthodox Church against his will, wanted to return to it, the same could not be said for many Russian parishioners of St. Sergius Church. Protopriest Anthony Takai, an ambitious man who could not accept being expelled from Nikolay-do, now found himself the absolute leader of his small church, did not recognize the reunification and "out of conviction" remained in the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. Although the " opposition elements "were reduced in number and, perhaps, lowered in status, they were far from being completely" eradicated".

Ono's return was perceived by most of the faithful of the Japanese Orthodox Church as a necessary step, and he was expected to be tacitly rejected, although he took part in particularly solemn services (for example, in the consecration of the seminary opened by Bishop Irenaeus). On November 19, 1956, Bishop Nicholas died at the age of 84. One of the converted priests, Fr. Lin Kajima, came into conflict with Bishop Irenaeus and left for the Kami-Musa Church in northeastern Hokkaido. After the death of Bishop Nicholas, he returned to the supporters of Moscow together with his parishioners, who were about 200 people in 50 houses [GARF, op. 2, d.223, l. 40]. Bishop Irenaeus published in the January issue of Seike Jiho ("Orthodox Bulletin, the official publication of the Church of Japan) for the 1957 "Declaration of Independence of the Japanese Orthodox Church" directed against Takai and Kajima, in which he claimed that the Japanese Church had been independent from the Moscow Patriarchate since 1920. The ROC really was a Mate-

page 53
Ryu is a Church for Japanese Orthodoxy, Bishop Irenaeus recognized, but since 1927, due to its complete enslavement by the godless Soviet government, this Church has ceased to exist. The Patriarchy serves atheism, and believers have abandoned it all over the free world. Therefore, Nicholas-do "has and will have nothing to do with the Soviet Church" [Nihon Haristosu..., 1957, p. 7].

DEANERY OF THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE - "THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH"

The signing of the Japan-Soviet declaration on October 19, 1956, ending the state of war and restoring diplomatic relations between the two countries, helped to increase interest in the USSR in Japanese society. Now it is possible to bring the relations of the Patriarchate with its supporters to a different level -at least, to the level of direct personal contacts. Takai and Kajima's correspondence with the Department for External Church Relations (DECR) The Patriarchate was already quite regular, and they asked it to send a representative to Japan, which would increase their authority in the eyes of the faithful. The opportunity presented itself when the Patriarchate received an invitation to the Third World Conference against Atomic and Hydrogen Weapons on August 6-16, 1957 in Tokyo.

The delegation to Japan included Archpriest Mikhail Zernov (later Archbishop Kyprian, managing the affairs of the Moscow Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1961-1964). The main purpose of his visit was to get acquainted with the situation of the group loyal to the Moscow Patriarchate. Visiting the parishes in Kami-Musa and Tokyo, Zernov noted that most of the parishioners of St. Sergius Church were Soviet citizens, but Fr. Anthony also had a Japanese parish, whose activities froze due to "lack of funds." In a conversation with these Japanese parishioners, conducted at Takai's request, Prot. Mikhail emphasized:

"The Russian Church believes that the Orthodox Church in Japan should be truly Japanese. She thanks all the Russian people who helped fr. Anthony Takai wants to preserve the true Orthodox faith in Japan, but Archbishop Nicholas laid the foundation for the Japanese Orthodox Church, and it should consist mainly of Orthodox Japanese; in particular, divine services should be conducted in Japanese. The ultimate goal should be the autonomy of the Japanese Church, and then autocephaly. But the road to this is still long, and for a long time without the help of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Japanese Church will not be able to stand firmly on its feet, and therefore it must remain within its fence for the time being " [GARF, op. 2, 223, pp. 84-85].

Apparently Zernov's Tokyo audience was those Japanese believers who supported Ono and, like him, were not truly accepted by him until after 1954. I wonder what about. Mikhail, who in a conversation with the Japanese outlined the prospects for creating an autonomous national church, pointed out in the report that it was necessary to use Soviet citizens, who, in his opinion, could only be trusted, to organize the "correct life" of parishes. However, it is difficult to argue with the fact that some of the Orthodox Japanese ended up in Moscow's jurisdiction not so much because they sympathized with the Russian Orthodox Church or the USSR, but because of the difficult relations with Nikolai-do. As for Kami-Musa, this church before, like many Orthodox churches in northeastern Japan, did not have a permanent priest, but was part of a larger parish and was served by its rector, who naturally performed most of the services in the central church of the parish. We do not know all the circumstances under which Fr. Lin Kajima, but in any case, it was flattering to have its own priest in this small church, and belonging to the canonical Mother Church, especially after the visit and convincing speeches of a Soviet priest, gave its faithful a completely different status in their own eyes.

page 54
At the end of his report, Zernov suggested that Japanese parishes loyal to the Russian Orthodox Church should be placed in a deanery, and Fr. Antony Takai, to seek in the future the right of arrival in Japan of a Russian priest, who was to become Takai's assistant; and before this arrival, which could only take place in the distant future, to appoint Georgy Minenko (from local Soviet citizens) as secretary of the deanery. In the fall of 1957. The Moscow Patriarchate decided to establish a deanery in Japan, which included the St. Sergius Church and the parish in Kami-Musa, and also approved a rather impressive budget for its financing [GARF, op. 2, 223, l. 120-121].

Thank-you telegrams from fr. Antonia and fr. Lina. In December 1957, Bishop Irenaeus also increased the salaries of his priests. However, the established deanery legally existed only in the documents of the Moscow Patriarchate: in Japan, such an organization was never registered. The main content of the deanery's life (we will leave this name for convenience) until 1961 was the conflicts between Takai and Kajima on material grounds, as well as attempts by Fr. Antonia is trying to convince Moscow to allocate funds for the purchase of real estate.

A major problem was the premises for the Tokyo deanery church. During Archpriest Mikhail Zernov's visit to Japan, services of the Takai group were still held in the Pushkin School building, but after reconciliation with Ono, Bishop Irinei appealed to the court, demanding that the parishioners of St. Sergius Church vacate the building. By mid-1958, all but one room was occupied by Bishop Irenaeus, with the court's permission. The deanery existed in this single room. In the spring of 1959, with funds allocated by the Patriarchate, a new building was rented in the Shinjuku area, where a church in honor of St. John the Baptist was built. St. Nicholas the Wonderworker [GARF, op. 2, d. 279, l. 35]. Fr. Anthony called it "The True Orthodox Church" ("Seito seikekai"). So the sign on the building said, and so (and not like the Moscow deanery) the Orthodox Japanese living in Tokyo knew this church. During the year, services were held alternately in both churches, and while St. Sergius Church continued to be visited mainly by Russians, around the" Seito seikekai", in which Pavel Makishima began to serve as a catechist, the Japanese concentrated. In 1960, the deanery finally moved to Shinjuku.

In correspondence with the Patriarchate, Fr. Anthony repeatedly mentioned that the new premises are cramped, the fees are high, and therefore it is necessary to purchase land and build your own church for the deanery. As another argument, it was put forward that, according to Japanese laws, an organization cannot be registered if it does not have real estate. However, bearing in mind the history of church land in Nagasaki, the Patriarchate was in no hurry to allocate the requested funds.

In 1960, two key figures responsible for the international activities of the Russian Orthodox Church were replaced: in February, V. A. Kuroyedov was appointed as the new chairman of the Council for Russian Orthodox Church Affairs, and in July, Archimandrite Nikodim (Rotov), who was ordained bishop (since 1961 - Archbishop, since 1963 G.-Metropolitan). Forced to work closely with the Soviet authorities, Vladyka Nikodim simultaneously sought to break through the isolation of the Moscow Patriarchate in world Christianity. The years of his leadership of the DECR can be considered the most successful for Moscow's church diplomacy.

In 1961, the Japanese Orthodox Church celebrated the 100th anniversary of the arrival of St. Nicholas (Kasatkin) in Japan. The deanery also celebrated this date. In August, during a visit to the celebrations of Archbishop Sergius (Larin), one of the two bishops who were not allowed to enter Japan by MacArthur's headquarters in 1947, Priest Peter Sayama came under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.

page 55
Dairoku Sayama was born in Taiwan in 1914. A few years later, his family returned to Japan and settled near Kyoto, where his mother's relatives, Orthodox believers, lived. Soon the mother and children were baptized (Dairoku was named Peter, the mother and three older sisters were named Sofia, Vera, Nadezhda and Lyubov), and later the father was baptized. The family then moved to Tokyo, where Sayama graduated from high school. After that, he entered the Anglican University of St. John the Baptist. St. Paul to the Faculty of Theology. Two years later, at the suggestion of Metropolitan Sergius, Peter went to study at the theological school opened at St. Nicholas.

At the Cathedral in 1950, Sayama was described as "a young man with a future, a bachelor of 33 years ... who serves as a reader and minder in the church every Saturday and Sunday during divine services," and received the blessing of Archbishop Benjamin to study at St. Vladimir's Theological Academy in New York. [Protocol..., 1950, p. 3]. Sayama was admitted to the academy in 1954, and in November 1956 he was ordained a priest. Although graduates of the academy were required to return to Japan to serve, Fr. Peter, who graduated in 1959, went to Greece on his own initiative and spent about two years there. Upon his return, the Japanese church did not welcome him very well: they gave him a small parish in Kagoshima on the southern island of Kyushu. Therefore, when a delegation from the Patriarchate arrived in 1961, Sayama (on the recommendation of Manabe) met with Archbishop Sergius and, with his blessing, began serving in the Tokyo True Orthodox Church together with Fr. By Anthony Takai. On September 23 of the same year, Archbishop Nikon (de Greve), the head of the Japanese Orthodox Church in 1960 - 1962, banned him from the priesthood.

As of February 1962, the deanery had three clerics (Takai, Kajima, and Sayama). The Kami-Musa parish had 69 believers (37 men, 32 women): "most of them are simple peasants, but they have a strong faith" [GARF, op. 2, d. 478, l. 27]; the True Orthodox Church in Tokyo has 105 Japanese parishioners in 47 houses (47 men and 58 women) and 33 Russian parishioners in 15 houses (18 men and 15 women) [GARF, op. 2, d. 478, l. 1]:"...Most of the parishioners live in and around Tokyo and are office workers, but there are also teachers and a few landscape artists. The majority of Russians are engaged in small-scale trade or rent out apartments" [GARF, op. 2, 478, pp. 26-27]. These figures are interesting: the Takai Church ceased to be "Russian". By the early 1960s, almost all third-wave immigrants who had fled China after the war had left Japan for America and Australia. The oldest emigrants of the first wave passed away. Both in the deanery and in St. Nicholas, the diaspora ceased to play a significant role.

By this time, fr. Anthony was already over 80 years old. Immediately after Sayam's arrival, there was a confrontation between the dean's family and the new priest. This became especially evident after the clergy of the deanery visited the Soviet Union for the first time in August-September 1962, and on September 1, Sayama took monastic vows at the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, receiving the name Nicholas. Since 1963, the DECR's relations with Takai and his sons, who had acquired greater rights in the church due to the dean's infirmity, have become increasingly strained.

Takai and their supporters blamed the Patriarchy for the deplorable state of the deanery, reproaching it for the paucity of funds allocated. Treasurer Vladimir Meguro, who was in the USSR in August-September 1964, tried to convince the DECR leadership of the expediency of providing the deanery with money to buy the church, but did not succeed, and on September 21, Fr. Antony was officially notified of the refusal. Since that time, letters to the Patriarchate pay much more attention to the state of affairs of the Japanese Orthodox Church than to the situation in the deanery, and scrupulously note any problem in church life. Probably in this way blah-

page 56
Gocinie tried to switch the Patriarchate from its own problems to the problems of "schismatics", presenting their situation as a crisis, and itself as the only factor capable of returning Nicholas to the bosom of the Mother Church as soon as possible.

On January 3, 1966, Fr Anthony Takai died at the age of 92. In August, about. Nikolai Sayama visited the USSR, where he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite and officially appointed the new dean of parishes in Japan. Soon a rift between the family of the late Fr began to widen in the True Orthodox Church. St. Anthony and those close to him, on the one hand, and Archimandrite Nicholas ' supporters, on the other. In the summer of 1967, the deanery was forced to vacate its premises in Shinjuku and rent a new one in the Magome district. However, about 60 parishioners close to Takai's family did not follow Magome, separating and forming their own Shakuji Church (Takai, 1998, p.139). The era of the True Orthodox Church is over.

ORTHODOX SPIRITUAL MISSION - THE SECOND "JAPANESE ORTHODOX CHURCH"

In 1962, the Japanese Orthodox Church was headed by a young bishop of Carpatho-Russian origin, Vladimir (Nagossky), who had a difficult relationship with the senior bishops of the Metropolitan Area. Soon, the financial aid from America, which had been very palpable in the 1950s, came to naught, and tensions began to build in the Japanese Church. This also led to an escalation of the confrontation with the group located in the Moscow jurisdiction. The most far-reaching in its consequences was the conflict between Nagossky and Tokyo's Kanda parish, related to the problem of the land plot of the Nicholas-do Cathedral.

This land plot, with an area of about 7,000 square meters, was actually bought by the founder of the Church, St. Nicholas, in 1872, but since according to the laws of that time foreigners could not own real estate in Japan, the land was formally leased by the Japanese government to the Russian embassy for a long-term lease. In 1907. The Tokyo Municipality leased this territory to St. Nicholas as the head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission. Subsequently, the management of the land plot was transferred from the municipality to the Ministry of Finance. In 1937, the contract was renewed by Metropolitan Sergius for a period of 30 years. As a result of post-war inflation, rents increased dramatically, and the Consistory tried to get the government to transfer the site to the Japanese Church free of charge, but all efforts were in vain. Moreover, in March 1959, the State initiated proceedings against the Church, demanding compensation for rent arrears. In this situation, there was only one way out - to find funds and buy the land from the government. The land purchase agreement was signed by the Japanese Orthodox Church on January 9, 1963. The funds were lent by the bank. Soon the Church was faced with the need to pay off the loan, and the Council of 1964 decided to sell about 1000 square meters of land under the southern stone staircase, where several buildings for clergy, Nambu and Kanda parishes, as well as the building of the former Pushkin School, which had long leased part of the cathedral territory to Nihon Daigaku University. Nambu Church agreed to vacate the area, but the rector of Kanda Church, Fr. John Yoshimura and Kanda Alexander Manabe, a parishioner who lived in one of these buildings, who had a difficult relationship with the Japanese Orthodox Church, protested, demanding to provide the parish with another plot of land on the cathedral territory and pay monetary compensation for the construction of a new building. In 1965, Bishop Vladimir banned Yoshimura from the priesthood, and Manabe was deprived of church communion for 10 years. The conflict with the Kanda believers was resolved, but Yoshimura and Manabe did not agree to reconciliation and joined the opposition group.

page 57
a group in the Moscow jurisdiction, having chosen the Patriarchate as its main ally in the fight against Nikolai-do.

Manabe and Yoshimura developed a concept that was approved by the Patriarchate and formed the basis for all further actions of the deanery in relation to the Japanese Orthodox Church until 1969.Since the cathedral land was the main source of income, the threat of losing it could become a means of powerful psychological pressure on the Japanese church. But the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission was theoretically supposed to act as the tenant of the land plot before it was purchased from the government, since Vladyka Nicholas and Metropolitan Sergius signed lease agreements in 1907 and 1937 as the heads of the Mission. Manabe and Yoshimura insisted that the Japanese Orthodox Church is a new legal entity and is not the legal successor of the Mission. They suggested that the Patriarchate urgently reanimate the legal entity " Russian Spiritual Mission "(based on the Japanese deanery) and appoint Sayama as its head-the successor of Metropolitan Sergius, who would initiate a lawsuit over the illegal actions of the Japanese Orthodox Church that appropriated the mission's property.

On July 6, 1967, the bulletin of the deanery "Nihon Seikyokai ho" ("Bulletin of the Orthodox Church in Japan") published an open letter to the chairman of the Consistory of the Japanese Orthodox Church from Archimandrite Nicholas, the clergy and laity of the deanery, in which the entire history of the subordination of Nicholas to the American Metropolis was described from Moscow's point of view and it was reported that "in the near future In the future, a delegation from the Moscow Patriarch headed by a bishop is coming to Japan, and therefore we are ready to offer our services so that you can meet with the bishop of the Mother Russian Church " [GARF, op. 6, d. 142, p. 68]. In the budget of the deanery for 1968, the Patriarchate already provided for the payment of salaries to 3-4 priests in case of transfer from the jurisdiction of Nikolai-do [GARF, op. 6, d. 210, l. 18-25]. Indeed, in the course of 1968, Fr. Vasily Taka and 45 families from his parish in Mito (Ibaraki Prefecture), Deacon Vladimir Tsuji from the church in Osaka returned to the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church, and in the summer of 1969, the priest of the church in Kyoto, Fr. Timofey Tasaki. On the recommendation of Alexander Manabe, lawyer Anthony (Tatsuo)came to the deanery Horiai, who was assigned to conduct court cases.

Soon, the deanery submitted to the Patriarchate the draft statutes of two religious legal organizations drawn up by lawyer Horiai: the Orthodox Spiritual Mission in Japan and the Japanese Orthodox Church (Nihon Seikyokai). The charter of the first church stated that it was a part of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, its head bishop with the title of Tokyo and Japan and his deputy were appointed by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and were guided in their activities by the instructions of the DECR chairman [GARF, op. 6, d.210, l. 49-59]. In the second charter, there was no talk about the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate. The governing body, the Church council, consisted of seven members; the first-ranking clergyman became the head of the council, and the rest were elected at a church Council. When the charter came into force, the members of the council were: its head Bishop Nicholas, Archpriest John Yoshimura, Fr. John Makishima, Alexander Manabe, Anthony Horiai, Valery Filippovich Shvets and Georgy Tikhonovich Minenko [GARF, op.6, d. 210, l. 42-48].

So, we are looking at projects of two different organizations. Why did the deanery need it? The answer is simple: it was supposed to be registered under the second charter, while the first one was drawn up only for Moscow. Just as the deanery was not registered before, so now the Mission will not be registered either. There were two inscriptions on the sign of the church in Mahome. In Russian: "Deanery of the Moscow Patriarchate in Japan". In Japanese: "Moscow sosyuke kankatsu Nihon Haristosu seikekai (Seito seikekai)", i.e. " Japanese Orthodox Church of Christ of the Moscow Patriarch-

page 58
ta (the True Orthodox Church)". This was a clear challenge to the Japanese Orthodox Church in the American jurisdiction. The question was which of the "Japanese Churches" could become the base of the future autonomous Church, in whose hands the church administration would be. The opposition group hoped that its canonical integrity would make it possible to reunite the " big " Japanese Orthodox Church with the Moscow Patriarchate by joining it, and by adopting the name of the second Japanese Orthodox Church, it believed that it would soon become the only one. In December 1967, during a visit to the USSR, Archimandrite of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Nicholas was appointed head of the re-established Orthodox Ecclesiastical Mission and ordained a bishop. However, in the same December, it was not the Mission that was registered in Japan as a religious legal entity, but the "Japanese Orthodox Church".

On March 18, 1968, Bishop Nicholas (Sayama) filed a lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court regarding the misappropriation of the land plot and buildings of Nicholas-do by the Japanese Orthodox Church (of course, in American jurisdiction). On March 21, the cathedral's real estate was seized for the duration of the trial. This meant that now the Japanese Church could only use the cathedral for worship, but it did not have the right to sell or lease the land and buildings located on this territory. On March 26, a press conference was held at which Sayama announced that he was instituting a trial in order to "call on the Japanese Orthodox Church of Christ, which for political reasons acts at the request of the schismatic church, to return to the bosom of the true Orthodox Church as soon as possible" [GARF, op. 6, d. 210, l. 29]. The next day, the newspapers were full of headlines: "A court case has been initiated on the ownership of Nikolay-do. A dispute broke out between the USA and the USSR "("Nihon Keizai"), " The struggle between Americans and Russians for Nikolai-do!" ("Sankei"), " The bell of St. Nicholas Cathedral announces the beginning of the Cold War!" ("Mainichi"), "Who will own the bell of St. Nicholas-do" ("Asahi") etc.

In October 1968, a delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate headed by Bishop Juvenal (Poyarkov), Deputy Chairman of the DECR, arrived in Japan. On November 23-24, the founding meeting of the clergy and laity of the Orthodox Ecclesiastical Mission in Japan was held, at which the "Appeal to the Separated Brothers" addressed to Nikolai-do was adopted:

"Shortly after the war, you separated from the Mother Church and began to forget the sacred Tradition and canons of the Orthodox Church. However, it should be noted that there is no reason for this division among Japanese believers. After the war, which Japan lost, we could not have any relations with the Mother Church... Unaware of the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States, which is in schism, was involved in an internal struggle and took the path of disobedience to its hierarchy, the Japanese Orthodox Church fell under the yoke of this schismatic Church... We, Orthodox Japanese Christians, must extinguish the flames of discord that have flared up in our Church... Today, our Mother Russian Church wants the Japanese Orthodox Church to be autonomous, and only she can give it permission, according to the canons of the Orthodox Church. There can be no other way. Hence, "a branch separated from the trunk must be grafted back to the same trunk "" [To the separated brothers..., 1969].

Thus, the Appeal declared the Patriarchate's readiness to grant autonomy to the Japanese Church, provided that canonical ties are restored. Created (in Moscow securities) The mission, in theory, was supposed to mediate in this matter. We encounter a different view in the registration notice of the " Japanese Orthodox Church "(Mission) in the second issue of the 1968 Nihon Seikyokai Ho, which emphasized that it "should become the main Church in order to

page 59
to unite all Orthodox churches located on the territory of Japan "[Shuke hojin..., 1968, p. 2].

Be that as it may, it is difficult to assume that at that time the "big" Japanese church itself would have decided to change its jurisdiction, even if the situation with the court initiated by Bishop Nicholas had become truly threatening. Japan was in the sphere of American influence, and relations with the Russian Church had not existed for several decades. And who knows how long this situation would have lasted if the break in relations between the Japanese Church and the American Metropolis had not been initiated by the Metropolis itself in 1969, when it reconciled with the Russian Orthodox Church and reached an agreement on granting autocephaly; one of the conditions for this was the return of the Japanese Orthodox Church to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Neither the Japanese Orthodox Church nor the Mission was informed of the ongoing negotiations for a long time. The clergy of Nikolay-do were informed about them by Archpriest Alexander Schmeman, a well-known theologian and figure of the Archdiocese, who arrived in Japan on September 8. The final stage of the negotiations was supposed to be a conference in Tokyo scheduled for November. On its eve, on October 19, 1969, an extraordinary Council was held, at which Bishop Vladimir declared that the Japanese Church would receive "independence", without specifying that it was an autonomy within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. As the first condition for this, the Council chose a candidate for episcopal ordination - the 35-year-old priest of the Kagoshima Church, Theodosius Nagashima, who was tonsured a monk the day before, proposed by Nagossky. Nagashima was consecrated on November 2 by Bishop Vladimir and Archbishop John of San Francisco, who arrived from the United States.

The mission, which was never informed by the Patriarchate about the course of affairs, was extremely negative about the actions of the Japanese Church. In the November issue of Nihon Seikyokai ho, it was denounced:

"Recently, the Nikolai-do group has been hastily developing a plan to achieve independence." According to the author of the publication, the American archdiocese, out of political calculations, sought to prevent the restoration of relations between the Japanese Church and the Mother Russian Church, and therefore encouraged it to declare independence.: "If, by demonstrating some semblance of liberalism and thus disregarding the canons of the Orthodox Church, the American Metropolia formally makes it possible to grant independence [to Nikolay-do], it will commit an illegal act. This is tantamount to suicide. If you don't awaken them now, you'll end up with [Nikolai-do] it will turn out not to be a Christian Church, but a political organization "[Nihon seikyokai..., 1969, p. 2].

In the next issue of the magazine, the Mission reproached the Japanese Church for publishing false information that as a result of the upcoming conference in Tokyo, "St. Nicholas-do will become a completely independent Church from the USSR and the United States, and as a preparation for this, an agreement is being reached on the election of one Japanese bishop" [Manabe, 1969, p.4].

The Tokyo Ecclesiastical Conference, which was attended by representatives of the Patriarchate, the Archdiocese, the Japanese Orthodox Church and the Mission, opened on November 26, 1969. On the first day, a delegation of the Japanese Church issued a demand for autocephaly (kanzen dokuritsu). This, predictably, provoked the indignation of Bishop Nicholas, who stated::

"First of all, the people of St. Nicholas must, according to the canons, return to the bosom of the Mother Church. Without this, any discussion is meaningless. It is strange that they demand immediate independence at their own discretion. In order for the Church to become autocephalous, a long preparation is required... The claim of independence by the Japanese Church, not

page 60
having the right training and energy for this is just childish. I am the officially elected successor of Archbishop Nicholas and Metropolitan Sergius. The fact that the Nicholas-do group calls itself the real and spiritual successors of the work of St. Nicholas has no basis in fact and can be regarded as robbery" [Manabe, 1969, pp. 5-6].

However, the delegates from the Japanese Church did not listen to Sayama's opinion and refused to hold a dialogue with the Mission representatives at all. Negotiations were disrupted.

The next day, Metropolitan Nicodemus, DECR Chairman, who led the Moscow Patriarchate delegation, suggested that Bishop Nicholas be removed from the conference and that negotiations continue in a three-way format - between representatives of Nicholas-do, Fr.Alexander Schmemann and himself. This proposal was accepted, after which the tone of the conversation became "friendly" and the parties managed to reach an agreement: the Japanese Orthodox Church agreed to the status of autonomy (jichi dokuritsu) as a sufficient degree of independence. The issue with the Mission turned out to be more complicated: Although Metropolitan Nicodemus clearly expressed his desire that after the settlement of relations with the Mother Church, the Japanese Orthodox Church and the Mission should unite, the representatives of Nicholas-do did not agree to this unification and demanded the liquidation of the Mission (especially since it was actually registered as the "Japanese Orthodox Church"). As a result, the conference participants came up with the option of transforming the Mission into a Metochion of the Moscow Patriarchate - an organization that has direct ties with Russia and does not invade the jurisdiction of the autonomous Japanese Orthodox Church.

The results of the conference caused a shock in the Mission. How long ago did her parishioners consider themselves the only faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church, and Sayama-the only canonical bishop of Tokyo and all Japan? In Nihon seikyokai ho, Manabe complained that if the Japanese Church had been informed in advance of the tasks of the upcoming conference and had the opportunity to prepare for it, the Mission did not know anything and only the day before received brief explanations from the visiting Bishop Nicodemus, which put them in a vulnerable position [Manabe, 1969, p. 7]. However, it was certainly not a matter of timing.

Analyzing the painful problem of the post-war church schism, it should be clearly understood that the only canonical Orthodox jurisdiction on Japanese soil was that of the Moscow Patriarchate. The subordination of the Japanese Church to the American Metropolia had no legal basis, and it is impossible to ignore the fact that in 1947-1970. She was out of prayer communion with the Mother Church. And, of course, we should remember with gratitude those few Orthodox people who remained faithful to the Russian Orthodox Church during that difficult time. However, it is also necessary to recognize that the Japanese Church, subordinate to the Americans, still preserved the legacy of the" apostle of Japan " St. Nicholas; it would also be incorrect to cross out two and a half decades of her life, presenting the opposition group as the only bearer of the Orthodox tradition. The one-dimensional division into "black" and "white" hardly fits the situation that developed in Japanese Orthodoxy during the Cold War.

From the very beginning, St. Sergius Church, under the care of Bishop Nicholas (Ono), had a trail of negative memories. In the perception of the Japanese Orthodox Church, a group subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate was paradoxically associated with the militaristic regime and the Pacific War, which inevitably caused rejection. And subsequently, especially after the departure of the majority of Russian emigrants from Japan ,this group (due to the impossibility of priests from the USSR serving in Japan) remained a refuge for Japanese clergy who were in conflict with Nikolai-do - no matter for what reasons. It is sad, but the vector of confrontation with the Japanese Orthodox Church, the struggle against it, has become more active-

page 61
The Mission statement is fundamental. This prevented the Mother Church from re-establishing contacts with the majority of Orthodox Japanese, culminating in the story of the two "Japanese Churches".

Since the Mission sensed the possibility of a change in the jurisdiction of Nikolayev-do, it not only failed to form a spiritual readiness for reconciliation with the former "schismatics" in the interests of church economy, but also insisted that it is the "narrow gate" through which it is only possible for the Japanese church to enter in the canonical genesis. However, such uncompromising attitude (if not aggressiveness) could only complicate the dialogue between the Moscow Patriarchate and its daughter Church in Japan. The interests of the Mission leaders collided logically with the restoration of church integrity. The Moscow Patriarchate had to make a choice - and it did: Vladyka Nikodim, after refusing to support Sayam's claims at the November conference and making a humiliating decision for the Mission to transform it into a Metochion, in fact, simply "turned off" the Mission from the game.

Of course, this was a difficult moment for all Japanese believers in the Moscow jurisdiction. After the conference, Bishop Nicholas was forced to submit a petition to the Patriarchate for appointment as rector of the Metochion, which was granted. The title "Bishop of Tokyo and all Japan" he had to change to a more modest one - "Bishop of Mozhaisk". The agreements reached at the conference were enshrined in the tomos of Patriarch Alexy I on the autonomy of the Japanese Orthodox Church of April 10, 1970, which contains the following paragraph: "The Patriarchal Metochion - the Representation of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, which is managed by a person in holy orders-is excluded from the Orthodox Autonomous Japanese Church in the territory of Japan in Tokyo... The rector and clergy of the metochion are appointed by His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia "[Tomos..., 1970, p. 10]. In the summer of 1970, the Kami-Musa Parish and Tokyo Shakuji Church became part of the autonomous Japanese Orthodox Church.

The history of the Metochion (by the way, it was registered with the change of its name from "Japanese Orthodox Church" to "Metochion of the Moscow Patriarchate" only in 1979) was deeply affected by this disappointment. But whatever the future relationship between the Metochion and the Patriarchate, it belonged to a different era: in 1970, the split of the Japanese Church into American and Moscow jurisdiction was overcome.

list of literature

State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). F. 6991.

To the separated brothers. Appeal / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1969, No. 2.
Manabe Rekizan. Nihon seikekai gojunenshi. Nikoraishi no eimin iko gendai make (50 years of the history of the Japanese Orthodox Church: from the death of St. Nicholas to the present day). Tokyo: Nihon seikekai ho, 1968 ().

Manabe Rekizan. Bay-so-niti (niha) yonsha kaidan to sono hihan (Critical remarks on the American-Soviet-Japanese (with the participation of both groups) Quadrilateral conference) / / Nihon seike, vol. 2, No. 11, December 1969. ().

Nihon seikyokai no dokuritsu (Independence of the Japanese Orthodox Church) / / Nihon seike, vol. 2, No. 10, November 1969. ().

Nihon Haristosu seikekai no dokuritsu (afutonomiya) ni kan suru seimei (Declaration of Independence (Autonomy) of the Japanese Orthodox Church of Christ) / / Seike jiho. N 806, 05.01.1957. ()

page 62
The break of the Japanese Orthodox Church with Moscow and its reunification with the North. American Archdiocese // Россія. 21.05.1954.

Showa jugonendo kokai gijiroku (Minutes of the Annual Council of the Japanese Orthodox Church 1940). Tokyo: Consistory of the Japanese Orthodox Church, March 1941 (().

Showa nijugonen shichigatsu kokai gijiroku (Protocol of the July 1950 Council of the Japanese Orthodox Church of Christ). Tokyo: Consistory of the Japanese Orthodox Church of Christ, September 1950 ().

Showa nijuitinen Nihon seikekai kokai gijiroku (Protocol of the 1946 Council of the Japanese Orthodox Church). Tokyo: Consistory of the Japanese Orthodox Church, July 1946 ().

Showa nijusannendo kokai gijiroku (Protocol of the Annual Council of the Japanese Orthodox Church of Christ 1948). Tokyo: Consistory of the Japanese Orthodox Church of Christ, July 1948 ().

Shuke hojin Nihon seikekai setsuritsu kokoku (Notification of the establishment of a Religious legal Entity "Japanese Orthodox Church") / / Nihon seike, Vol. 1, No. 2, January 1968. ().

Takai, Antony Yukio. Shakuji kyokai honbu kizoku no omoide (Memories of the return of the Shakuji Church to the jurisdiction of the main church) / Toke fukkatsu daiseido shufuku seisei kinenshi (Commemorative edition in honor of the consecration of the restored Tokyo Resurrection Cathedral). Tokyo: Japanese Orthodox Church of Christ - Tokyo Resurrection Cathedral, 1998 ().

Tomos of Alexy, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1970, N 11. Orthodox Church Here Renounces Soviet Ties II Nippon Times. N 19825, 25.04.1954.

Permanent link to this publication: