Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov)

Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) (1910-2006)

Vitaly may be spelt Vitalis, Vitaliy.

Ustinov may be spelt Oustinov, Oustinow.

Early life of Rostislav Petrovich Ustinov

Rostislav Petrovich Ustinov was born in Saint Petersburg, in the Russian Empire, in 1910. He was the son of an officer of the Black Sea Fleet, Peter Ustinov, and his wife Lydia Andreevna (née Stopchansky), daughter of a gendarme general who served during his whole life in the Caucasus. Rostislav was a relative of the well-known actor, Peter Alexander Ustinov.

Shortly after his birth, the family moved to Sebastopol, on the Crimean peninsula. There, Rostislav spent the first years of his life as he was formed by the way of life and worship in the Church of Russia. Later in life, he recalled this period of his life thus :

 I saw the end of Tsarist Russia.  I remember it in detail, but mainly I remember its spirit. In Tsarist times,
 everything was peaceful and pious.  I remember going out into the garden and hearing the ringing of the church 
 bells.  How good and sweet it was to the soul, as if heaven had come down to earth, and one felt an 
 incomprehensible and profound peace.  I remember all of this not simply as a memory, but as a remembrance of 
 the heart.  I remember an interesting incident.  I remember exactly how grandmother took the newspaper and 
 said the following words: 'This is the end of Russia!'  On the front page in big letters it was written that 
 the Sovereign had abdicated from the throne.  I remember the unforgettable difference when the revolution 
 broke out.  Everything changed.

Rostislav Petrovich was 7 years old at that time.

Exile ; education ; military service, 1920-1934

In 1920, during the Civil War, at age 10, Rostislav Petrovich was sent to the military school founded in Feodosia by General Pyotr N Wrangel. When he joined the White Army and he was later evacuated as a refugee, the young Rostislav found himself in Constantinople. From there, he travelled to Yugoslavia, where he studied in the Cadet Corps of the White Army.

Constantinople/Istanbul to Le Mans, France

In 1923, Rostislav’s mother sponsored her son to travel to Constantinople. From there, she moved with him to France, where Rostislav enrolled in the Saint-Louis College in Le Mans. Upon graduating, he joined his mother in Cannes.

Military service, 1934

In 1934, he was called upon to fulfil his military obligations in France. This he did by joining the 9th Cavalry Regiment. The natural talents of the young Rostislav were evident even in those years : the commander of the regiment promised his support in helping him to establish a military career.

However, the young soldier, Rostislav Ustinov, having briefly experienced the stormy and dramatic life in the world, already had the burning desire to leave the vanity of the world and go to a monastery.

Change of direction towards monasticism ; tonsure, 1938

In 1938, despite the opposition of his family, Rostislav entered the Monastery of Saint Job of Pochaiv in Ladomírová, in the Carpathian Mountains of Central Europe, in Czechoslovakia (now Slovakia).

In 1939, the "trudnik" (postulant, worker) Rostislav was tonsured to be a rasophor monk and given the name Vitaly.

Monastic tonsure, 1940

In 1940, Rasophor Rostislav (Ustinov) was tonsured into the lesser schema in the Saint Job of Pochaiv Monastery at Ladomírová, Czechoslovakia. As a monk, he was again given the name Vitaly.

Ordinations, 1941

In 1941, in the city of Bratislava in Czechoslovakia, Monk Vitaly (Ustinov) was ordained by Metropolitan Seraphim (Lade) of Berlin and Germany to the Holy Diaconate.

Soon afterwards Metropolitan Seraphim (Lade) ordained Hierodeacon Vitaly (Ustinov) to the Holy Priesthood in the same monastery.

Pastoral obediences

Hieromonk Vitaly (Ustinov) was assigned to minister to 2 villages, Porubka and Medvezhie, on the Polish border. He lived at the monastery, and he commuted to his pastoral duties by bicycle.

In 1944, during World War II, the monastic brotherhood of the Monastery of Saint Job was forced to flee from the approaching Red Army. Father Vitaly moved to Berlin, Germany, where, together with Archimandrite Nathaniel, he developed a broad mission amongst the Russian refugees and prisoners of war.

Further exile, 1945

In early 1945, the second onslaught of the Red Army forced the 2 young priest-monks to move to Hamburg, where another field of activity opened up for them : to save thousands of refugees from forced repatriation to the USSR. A good knowledge of various languages, especially of English, along with tireless energy, allowed Father Vitaly and Father Nathaniel to save the lives of many Russians.

Having settled in Hamburg, Igumen Vitaly (Ustinov) established Church life at the Displaced Persons camp in Fischbeck. A barracks chapel was immediately set up with a daily round of services, psalm-reading courses, and even a year-long theological course for 12 youths. At the same time, Igumen Vitaly gathered together a small monastic group, that began to publish Church service books and a newsletter, “Pochaivskije Listki” (“Pochaiv Letters”).

Move to England, 1947

In 1947, Igumen Vitaly (Ustinov) moved to London, England.

From 1947 to 1951, Archimandrite Vitaly was the rector of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR} Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God in London. At this time, he not only worked in aid of exiled Russian-speakers so that they could support one another, but he also did active missionary work amongst the English heterodox.

In 1951, Archimandrite Vitaly (Ustinov) was chosen and elected by the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia to become a bishop.

Episcopal ordination, 1951

In 1951, on the Feast-day of Saints Peter and Paul (12 July), Archimandrite Vitaly (Ustinov) was ordained to the Holy Episcopate.

Bishop Vitaly (Ustinov)

Episcopal service

Then, Bishop Vitaly (Ustinov) was sent to Brazil as the Bishop of Montevideo in Uruguay.

He settled in Vila Alpina, a suburb of São Paulo. Soon, the young bishop opened his own print shop and established a small orphanage for boys where they were taught the daily cycle of services.

Transfer to Canada, 1954

In 1954, Bishop Vitaly was transferred, and he was assigned to Canada where he was assigned to serve as the Bishop of Edmonton and Western Canada. While he was there, he established a small monastic community in Wildwood, Alberta, not far from Edson. There was yet another small hermitage established near Smoky Lake.

In 1957, he was transferred, and he was assigned to sere as the Archbishop of Montréal and Canada. As Archbishop of Montréal, he established a skete (which later became Holy Transfiguration Monastery) in Mansonville, Québec. In Montréal, Archbishop Vitaly acquired and refurbished the structure which became the large Saint Nicholas Cathedral on Boulevard Saint-Joseph that was not far from the Synodal "podvorie" (representation).

Archbishop Vitaly, 1959

Archbishop Vitaly, 1960s

It may be said in retrospect that there was no place where Archbishop Vitaly settled that he did not organise a small monastic brotherhood and an active publishing concern.

In 1986, the Council of Bishops chose Archbishop Vitaly to be the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, as successor to Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky).

First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, 1986

In 1986, Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov) was elevated to the dignity of metropolitan.

Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) was enthroned in New York City to become Metropolitan of New York, the Diocese of Eastern America, and the First-hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

Metroplitan Vitaly (Ustinov)

Metropolitan Vitaly was a supporter of the re-opening of the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia. The process of re-opening had, indeed, begun in the Church of Russia by about 1990. The decision became possible because of the fall of communism just prior to this. However, Metropolitan Vitaly did not accept the canonicity of the Church of Russia, nor did he recognise the beginning of the reconstruction of the Church of Russia which had already begun.

Therefore, under his guidance, on 2/15 May, 1990, a decision was taken by the Holy Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR as a consequence of which a significant number of dioceses, parishes and monasteries of the ROCOR were opened on the territory of the canonical Russian Orthodox Church. It may have been the intent in this move to re-introduce the Orthodox Christian Faith into Russia (the metropolitan and others at that time believed that a complete reconstruction of the whole Church was necessary). The possibility of an eventual restoration of the monarchy had been a constant undercurrent of intention in the ROCOR since the 1917 Revolution.

Significant changes in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church (caused by the fall of the communist system in the USSR) made it possible to start a dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) and the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). There had been repeated calls for dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church itself ; but Metropolitan Vitaly repeatedly stated his negative attitude towards the ROC during the 1990s, and he openly considered that any contact with the ROC to be impossible.

The consequence of his attitude, and of the establishment of dioceses, parishes and monasteries on the physical territory of the Church of Russia was an open declaration of schism from the Mother Russian Orthodox Church. Although many of these later disappeared during the 2007 Reconciliation, some remained in the schism that was later initiated by Metropolitan Vitaly.

During the first period of Metropolitan Vitaly's primatial service, several saints were glorified by the ROCOR. These included : the Assembly of the Holy Optina Elders, and Saint Paisius Velichkovsky (in 1990) ; Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco ; Saint Innocent of Moscow, and Saint Nicholas of Japan (in 1994) ; Saint Jonah Hankoussky (in 1996) ; Priest-Martyr Maxim Gorlitsky (in 1998) ; Saint Philaret of Moscow ; Saint Ignatius of the Caucasus ; Saint Theophan the Recluse, and Saint Theophilus of Kiev (in 2000).

In 1998, Metropolitan Vitaly suffered from a fall. He broke his right arm, and he therefore could not serve liturgically in any manner that required using that arm. Illness and physical infirmity contributed to his retirement a few years later.

Visible differences amongst hierarchs, 2000

On 26 October, 2000, the Holy Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR, chaired by Metropolitan Vitaly, welcomed some of the decisions of the Bishops' Jubilee Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church which met 13-16 August, 2000. These included the glorification of the New-Martyrs, and the adoption of the "Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church". In particular, the ROCOR statement read : "We are encouraged by the adoption of a new social concept by this assembly of bishops, which essentially nullifies the 'Declaration' of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of 1927". A commission on the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church as a whole (including the dioceses outside the Russian borders) was established by the ROCOR Synod of Bishops.

At the same ROCOR Holy Synod meeting, the document "Conversion of the 'Old Believers' to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad" was adopted. Regret was expressed about the atrocities caused to the adherents of the "old rite" in previous times, and there was as a call for the end of this bitter division.

Unexpectedly, on 4 December, 2000, Metropolitan Vitaly circulated a statement in which he expressed his disagreement with many of the decisions of the ROCOR Holy Synod. The message read : "The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which has preserved its spiritual freedom all these 80 years, will never make a connection with the Moscow Patriarchate".

Despite this statement, on 8 February, 2001, the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, chaired by Metropolitan Vitaly, issued a statement about the "internal unity" of all members of the Synod.

Nevertheless, by that time, an alienation had developed between Metropolitan Vitaly and other hierarchs of the ROCOR, including the majority of clerics and lay-persons. As Priest Alexander Ivashevich noted in 2001 :

 Because of Bishop Vitaly, in recent years it was impossible even for the bishops to come calmly to the 
 meetings.  Meanwhile, on the writing-table of our All-Great Old-Leader, there were various documents 
 which were contrary to the spirit of episcopal consensus.  Then, when he was persuaded by someone to sign 
 them, that person maliciously did not remind Bishop Vitaly that he himself had just signed (together with 
 his fellow-bishops) a document which was the opposite of the document set before him.  All this undermined 
 the free and unanimous acts of our Orthodox Councils and Synods, and we are all witnesses to the terrible 
 consequences.  Bishop Vitaly became isolated for a long time : first, from his fellow-bishops ; then, 
 from their clergy ; finally, from his close and long-term friends. All this had been noticed for years 
 by loving archpastors and pastors and close friends of Vladyka".  It is very likely (perhaps obvious) that 
 Metropolitan Vitaly was suffering from confusion in his old age, and this vulnerability was used by certain
 persons to their own ends.

After the promulgation of the document "Clerics of the Western European Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church" on 5 May 2001, which called for "opposing a new course in our Church", Metropolitan Vitaly changed his position again : on 22 June, 2001, he signed the "District Message" which included a statement that "the Basic Social Concept of the the Russian Orthodox Church" cannot nullify the "treacherous Declaration of 1927". The statement denied the spiritual revival taking place in Russia, and it called erroneous the creation of the Commission on the Unity of the Russian Church.

Development of division, 2001

In mid-February, 2001, Bishop Barnabas (Prokofiev) circulated a letter to the editorial office of the Bulletin of the German Diocese of the ROCOR, in which he stated that, despite the publication in the Bulletin, he himself did not sign the 26 October, 2000 Epistle of the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR, and he also withdrew his signature under the letter of the Synod of Bishops to Patriarch Pavle (Stojcevic) of Serbia. Previously, both Bishop Agafangel (Pashkovsky) of Simferopol and Crimea and Bishop Benjamin (Rusalinko) of the Black Sea and Kuban had withdrawn their signatures. On 4 June, they were joined by Archbishop Lazar (Zhurbenko) of Odessa and Tambov.

On 20 February, 2001, in Lyon, France, under the chairmanship of Bishop Barnabas, there was a gathering of the clergy of the Western European Diocese who did not recognise the assignment of Bishop Ambrose (Cantacuzen) to this diocese. It was decided to refuse a trip to the Synod Headquarters, and to petition Metropolitan Vitaly to annul the decision of the Synod of Bishops about the assignment of Bishop Ambrose to the Western European See. Numerous applications of this sort (which were submitted earlier) were left without consideration.

On 28 February, 2001, Bishop Barnabas published an appeal "to all children" of the ROCOR, an appeal which cast aspersions on various bishops of the Holy Synod. He intended to commemorate only Metropolitan Vitaly as authentic.

On 8 March, 2001, the clergy of the Western European Diocese, who disagreed with the assignment of Bishop Ambrose, appealed to Bishop Barnabas with an urgent request to head the “de facto widow” diocese. They were of the opinion that Bishop Ambrose deserved excommunication, and that he was guilty of "ecumenical heresy".

On 23 April, 2001, the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR in New York suspended 9 clerics of the Western European Diocese from serving immediately : Archpriests Veniamin Zhukov, Mikhail de Castelbajak, Pavel Poirier, Radu Apostolescu, Priests Nikolai Semyonov, Quintin de Castellozhbajak and German Ivanov-Trinadtzat. The reasons for this decision were : "violation of Church discipline", "disobedience to the Supreme Church Authority" and "refusal to commemorate the Diocesan Bishop, Bishop Ambrose appointed by the Synod of Bishops in 2000". The decree was signed, amongst others, by the chairman of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops (i.e. Metropolitan Vitaly).

On 25 April, 2001, a group of clerics of the Canadian Diocese made a rather decisive statement regarding the "change of course" of ROCOR, in which they expressed their full agreement with the position of Bishops Barnabas, Benjamin and Agafangel and with statements emanating from them and their clergy.

On 2 May, 2001, 6 ROCOR hierarchs wrote an appeal to the flock of the Western European Diocese, in which, referring to Metropolitan Vitaly, they indicated that the service of the banned clergy of the Western European Diocese "is a terrible crime and deprives them of their sacred rite of legality and Grace" ; they called on the flocks of the suspended clergy “to refrain from participating in the wrong and illegal“ rites ”of the above-mentioned clergy". Responding to this appeal, the suspended clergy wrote : “The bishops, having departed from genuine pastoral care for their sheep, forgot the Gospel words about the good shepherd [...] sides of the Moscow Patriarchate [...]”.

On 5 May, 2001, the "Appeal of the clergy of the Western European Diocese" was adopted with an appeal "to unite the like-minded clergy and flock in Russia and in the diaspora and powerfully resist the new course in our Church".

On 4 June, 2001, a General Assembly of the Western European Diocese was held in Cannes under the chairmanship of Bishop Barnabas (Prokofiev). Thus, 2 parallel Western European dioceses appeared in the ROCOR, equally not recognising each other and each appealing to the authority of Metropolitan Vitaly. The seceded clerics pinned their hopes on the future new Synod of the ROCOR. Members of the Assembly stated : "We have to create a diocesan structure under the omophor of our bishop, His Grace Bishop Barnabas, while remaining under the spiritual authority of Metropolitans Antony (Khrapovitsky), Anastasy (Gribanovsky), Philaret (Voznesensky) and the current First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Metropolitan Vitaly".

On 26 June, 2001, Bishop Gabriel (Chemodakov), Deputy Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, placed a statement from the Synod of Bishops on the official synodal web-site. It stated that the "District Message" had not been written by Metropolitan Vitaly.

On 10-13 July, 2001, a meeting of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops took place. The Synod assessed the "District Message" as being erroneous, after which Metropolitan Vitaly agreed to retire.

On 13 July, by a resolution of the Synod, it was determined that, until the extraordinary Synod of Bishops was held, the interim leadership of the ROCOR would be entrusted to Archbishop Laurus (Škurla). In this regard, an extraordinary Assembly of the Bishops of the ROCOR was scheduled for October, 2001.

Retirement, 2001

On 6 July, 2001, Bishop Barnabas (Prokofiev) wrote a statement in which he insisted that Metropolitan Vitaly was the author of the "District Message", and that it was circulated on his behalf. He explained the history of the document, and he actually stated that Metropolitan Vitaly was only one of the co-authors of the document. Others included Bishop Barnabas (Prokofiev), "a group of faithful clerics" : (Archbishop Sergius (Kindyakov), Archpriest Sergiy Petrov, Priest Nikita Orlov, Protodeacon German Ivanov-Trinadtzaty). He indicated that they had been personally invited to discuss the catastrophic situation in which the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia had been plunged after the October, 2000, Holy Synod of Bishops meeting. [...] The meeting now convened by Metropolitan Vitaly took place in Mansonville, Québec, Canada, and it lasted for 3 days. In addition to exchanging views at the table, there were 5 working sessions of 2 hours each. [...] By the beginning of his work, the Metropolitan was presented with a project that was carefully discussed, modified, supplemented, in particular by the Metropolitan himself.

On 10 July, 2001, Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov), who was clearly suffering from memory loss, agreed to retire from active service.

After this, Metropolitan Laurus (Skurla) was assigned to serve as Locum Tenens. He was elected to be the First Hierarch of ROCOR in October, 2001.

However, within a few weeks of this retirement, Metropolitan Vitaly declared that he regretted the move, and he publicly condemned his successor.

Schism, 2001

Metropolitan Vitaly then formally led his followers into schism, and he then became the head of the “Russian Orthodox Church in Exile”. This unexpected action may be attributed to physical and/or mental factors associated with his great age.

Repose, 2006

On 25 September, 2006, Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) reposed in Christ at Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Mansonville, Québec.

The Funeral Service for the Burial of a Hierarch was offered at the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Mansonville. It was led by Bishop Vladimir (Celishchev) of San Francisco, together with Priest Andrei Lomov of Montréal, and other clerics of the non-canonical ROCA (B). These included Archpriest Benjamin Zhukov from Paris, France ; Archpriest Nikolai Semenov from Brussels, Belgium ; Priest Vyacheslav Davidenko of the Saint Ksenia parish in Ottawa, Ontario, and more than 200 lay people (the vast majority of the congregation of the ROCA (B)). Also, Monk Flor (Vanko) of the canonical Holy Trinity Monastery of the ROCOR (with several other clerics of the canonical ROCOR) (at Jordanville, New York), travelled to Mansonville to make their farewells to Metropolitan Vitaly. However, they all prayed somewhat apart from the main group.

After the completion of the funeral service, the body of Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) was interred in the cemetery of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Mansonville, Québec.

The grave is beside the Temple, near the south wall, towards the Altar.

Grave of Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov)

— Bishop of Montevideo (ROCOR) 1951-1954. Preceded by : ____. Succeeded by : ____.

— Bishop of Edmonton and Western Canada (ROCOR) 1954-1957. Succeeded by : Bishop Sava (Sarachevich).

— Archbishop of Montréal and Canada (ROCOR) 1957-1986. Preceded by : Archbishop Panteleimon (Rudyk). Succeeded by : Archbishop Gabriel (Chemodakov).

— Metropolitan, First Hierarch of the ROCOR 1986-2001. Preceded by : Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky). Succeeded by : Metropolitan Laurus (Škurla).

Reflections

On 25 September, 2006 (the day of the repose of Metropolitan Vitaly), the First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, Metropolitan Laurus (Škurla) called for remembrance of his predecessor :

 Vladyka Metropolitan Vitaly, being alone, to our great sorrow, it is impossible to say 
 that of his own free will, but rather because of his surroundings, he distanced himself 
 from us.  Despite this, we remembered him in our Temples with sorrow.  Now that his soul 
 needs prayers, we call on our pastors and flocks to pray for the repose of his soul.

On 9 December, 2006, the participants of the meeting of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, presided over by Metropolitan Laurus, performed an absentee funeral service for Metropolitan Vitaly in which participated numerous clergy. The men's choir was under the direction of P A Fekula.

The period of the service of Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) became quite complicated, as is evident from the recounted events. The previous acts of Metropolitan Laurus reflect the underlying honour and respect that was given in general by the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia to their First Hierarch, Metropolitan Vitaly. It would be in this spirit that the bishops tried to protect and support their leader as he began obviously to weaken and to be limited because of his age and fragile health. The efforts of these bishops were subverted by others who had quite a different agenda. Nevertheless, it is important to pay attention to the steady, peaceful, fraternal and kind disposition of the ROCOR hierarchs towards those who disagreed with them.