CHAPTER II
THE RUSSIAN CHURCH ABROAD AFTER THE REVOLUTION OF 1917
page 10
One cannot hope to understand the ecclesiastical situation in America after the Revolution of 1917 without being well-acquainted with the history of the Russian Church at home and abroad after that period. This chapter will explore the circumstances that led to the schism of Metropolitan Evlogy and the Western European diocese from the Church Abroad, and the relations of both these groups to Moscow and the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox patriarchates. Much of the information to be presented in taken from Michel D'Herbigny and Alexandre Deubner, Les Eveques Russes en Exil, Rome, 1932. This book, though written by extremely ultramontane Roman Catholics of a breed now virtually extinct, is - despite its obvious ideological shortcomings - an excellent and objective work of scholarship. It traces with meticulous care the events in the Russian Church following the Revolution.
In 1917 under the Provisional Government a great Sobor [Council] of the Russian Orthodox Church was convoked. This Council,which continued its sessions until after the Bolsheviks seized power, was the last free manifestation of the "catholic" spirit of the Russian Church in this century. A number of important changes were introduced by the Sobor, the most important being [a] the restoration of the Patriarchate,which had been abolished two centuries before by Peter the Great; and [b] the reestablishment of the conciliar principles of the Church. In the final vote for patriarch a considerable majority of the votes went to Metropolitan Antony of Kharkov, later to become the first bishop of the Church Abroad until his death in 1936. 101 votes were cast for Antony, 27 for Archbishop Arseny, and 23 for Tikhon. This vote, held in conditions of absolute political freedom. shows what confidence was put in him by the bishops, clergy, and laity of the
page 11
Russian Church, all of whom were represented at the Council. In drawing of lots, however, the choice fell upon Archbishop Tikhon, formerly of America, and this meek and eminently worthy man was enthroned as Patriarch. The members of the Holy Synod elected by the Sobor were Metropolitans Vladimir, Arseny, Antony, Sergy, and Platon, and Archbishops Anastasy and Evlogy. The first was to be a martyr and the second a confessor under the Bolsheviks. Antony and Anastasy were successively to direct the difficult life of the Church Abroad until the repose of the latter in 1965. Sergy was later to submit the Russian Church to the Communists in his shameful "Declaration" of 1927. And Platon and Evlogy were to rend the holy unity of the Church Abroad with their soul-destroying schisms.
The Bolsheviks,led by Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin, a baptized Orthodox Christian, moved against the Russian Church almost immediately after seizing power. They stripped the Church of all her property, including churches and monasteries, asserting that all property now belonged to the State. This was soon followed by the legalizing of civil marriage, and the government began to make plans to separate the Church from the state and from the educational system. In a government professing a fanatical atheism and materialism these moves had, of course, much more ominous implications than they would have had in a country such as the United States. Realizing that the Church was in mortal danger, Patriarch Tikhon "without waiting for the publication of the law [on the separation of Church and State] or for the reconvening of the Sobor [which was recessed for the Christmas holidays] went into action." 1 On January 19 he issued "a
1. Matthew Spinka, The Church in Soviet Russia, New York, 1956, p. 15.
page 12
strongly worded condemnation of the acts already passed by the Soviets, such as the secularization of marriage and the nationalization of schools, the confiscation of Church property, and various acts of desecration of churches and monasteries. He called it 'a Satanic act, for which you [i.e., the Bolsheviks] shall suffer curses of posterity in this present, earthly life.' He thereupon forbade those guilty of such deeds to come 'to the sacraments of Christ' and summarily anathematized them. Furthermore, he abjured the faithful 'not to commune with such outcasts of the human race in any manner whatsoever.'" 1
When the Sobor reconvened, "it wholeheartedly approved the Patriarch's declaration and added to it some harsh and uncompromising statements of its own." 2 When the decree on the separation of the Church from the State was published by the Bolsheviks the Sobor declared that "any participation, either in the printing of the legislation which is at enmity with the Church, or in attempts to put it into effect, is incompatible with membership in the Orthodox Church, and will bring down upon the guilty parties punishments p to and including excommunication from the Church." 3
Thus in the final closing moments of ecclesiastical freedom in Russia both Patriarch Tikhon and the entire All-Russian Sobor of 1917-18 took an uncompromising stand against he Bolsheviks, the majority of whom, like Lenin, were baptized Orthodox who had repudiated the faith of their fathers.
1. Ibid., p. 15 [The full text in English appears in M. Spinka, The Church and the Russian Revolution, N.Y., 1927, p. 118-122.]
2. Ibid., p. 16
3. Archpriest George Grabbe, The Truth About the Russian Church At Home and Abroad, Jordanville, 1961, p. 30 [in Russian].
page 13
Soon the Bolsheviks were to rise up against the Church of Christ with a ferocity matched only by the persecutions of the first centuries of the Christian era.
When the Civil War broke out, all possibility for Church unity in Russia was lost. On November 7/20. therefore, Patriarch Tikhon issued ukaz No. 362 which stated that, "If a diocese should find itself cut off from the Highest Church Administration, or if the Highest Church Administration itself, headed by the holy Patriarch, should for any reason cease its activity, then the diocesan bishop should immediately enter into relations with the bishops of the neighboring dioceses with the aim of organizing a body to serve as a supreme authority. . . In case this should prove impossible, the diocesan bishop takes on himself the totality of authority." 1
This ukaz, of which more will be said later in this chapter, was in the circumstances so logical a decision that a group of bishops had anticipated it on May 6, 1919, when at Stavropol in the Caucasus they formed a Temporary Highest Church Administration for South-Eastern Russia. This organization, which united several vast dioceses, began its functions immediately. The decisions of the Temporary Highest Church Administration were later confirmed by patriarch Tikhon, who of course, fond its actions completely in accord with his ukaz No. 362. According to Michael D'Herbigny, the Temporary Highest Church Administration was "recognized by all the episcopate of the region" and "had in obedience to it more than thirty bishops and was in direct relations with the heads of autocephalous Churches." 2
1. Quoted in I.M. Andreev, A Short History of the Russian Church from the Revolution to our Time, Jordanville, 1952, p. 90 [in Russian].
2. Ibid.
page 14
At a council of the Temporary Highest Church Administration held on October 1, 1920, at Simferopol, and presided over by Metropolitan Antony of Kiev [formerly of Kharkov], Archbishop Anastasy of Kishinev was designated as the Administration's representative to Constantinople and the Œcumenical Patriarch. Thus the Administration early "extended its jurisdiction beyond the frontiers of Russia." 1
At the same session of October 1, the Administration assigned Archbishop Evlogy of Volhynia, at his own request, to take charge of he dioceses in Western Europe. The administration showed itself to be the Highest Church Administration of South-East Russia in many ways. Two bishops were consecrated, one was removed from his post, one was retired, etc. 2
The changing course of the Civil War, however, began to force large numbers of believers and their clergy to flee their homeland. On November 1, 1920, in Constantinople, a group of Russian bishops-- metropolitans Antony and Platon, Archbishops Anastasy and Theophan and Bishop Benjamin -- "profiting from the hospitality of the Greek Patriarch, "held a council and created "a central organ of the Russian Church Abroad," which they named the Highest Russian Church Administration Abroad. 3 Thus, because of political developments the Temporary Church Administration ceased to exist and was replaced by the Church Administration Abroad.
In May, 1921, another council of the Russian episcopacy abroad was
1. Michel D'Herbigny, Les Eveques Russes en Exil, Rome, 1932, p. 14.
2. Andreev, op. cit., p. 90.
3. D'Herbigny, op. cit., pp.15-16.
page 15
held in Constantinople. Here a more definite form was given to the Administration Abroad founded the previous November. metropolitan Antony of Kiev and Platon of Odessa and four other Russian bishops were present. 1 It is important to note, in view of what followed, that the two formative councils of the Highest Russian Church Administration Abroad were held with the blessing of the patriarch of Constantinople. Further, it should be observed that Platon of Odessa, later to come to America, was one of the founding fathers of the administration.
The Administration, into which all the Russian bishops abroad soon entered, began to act for the immediate care of its flock, which was literally scattered over the face of the earth. On July 22, 1921, showing that its jurisdiction extended to North America, the Administration made Alaska a separate diocese. 2 Although Archbishop Alexander of America protested this action, he was forced to accept it as a coming from the Highest Church Administration abroad. On August 31, 1921, the Administration conferred the spiritual stewardship of the Russian parishes in Bulgaria upon Bishop Seraphim of Loubny. 3 On September 21, it put Metropolitan Antony of Kiev in charge of the Russian communities in Serbia. Previously, on August 20, it issued a call for assistance to relieve the famine of the Russian people in an appeal to its flock in Western Europe, Constantinople, Bulgaria, North America, China, and Japan. 4
Thus the Highest Russian Church Administration Abroad, as D'Herbigny
1. Ibid., p. 17
2. D'Herbigny, op cit., p. 18
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid. pp. 18-19.
page 16
says, "had an immediate jurisdiction" over all rectors of Russian parishes abroad. It's authority was recognized by Antony of Kiev, Platon of Odessa, Evlogy of Volhynia, and all other Russian bishops abroad, as well as by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Serbia. In addition it established contacts with the autocephalous Churches of Greece and Bulgaria. 1 "On the eve of the Council of Carlovtsy in 1921 the Highest Russian Church Administration Abroad incontestably exercised the prerogatives of an imperative authority over the Russian emigration.2 Its jurisdiction extended both to Western Europe and America.
The Carlovtsy Conference was held in November-December, 1921, in Carlovtsy, Yugoslavia, to which seat the Highest Church Administration had transferred itself at the invitation of the Serbian Church. The Council was greeted by Patriarch Dimitri of Serbia and received his blessing. Two Serbian bishops, Hilarion and Maximilian, as well as Stefan, Metropolitan of Sofia, Bulgaria, were present at the Council. Consisting of 13 bishops, 23 clergy,and 67 laymen, the Council was patterned after the 1j17-18 Moscow Sobor. As at Moscow, the bishops had the right to veto any of the Council's decisions. In addition to those present almost all bishops abroad acknowledged the Council in writing. Among them were Antony, Bishop of Alaska; Alexander, Archbishop of North America; and Stephen, Bishop of Pittsburg. 3
The avowed purpose of the Council of 1921 was to "unite, regularize,
1. Ibid., p. 19.
2. Ibid.
3. Andreev, op.cit., p. 91.
page17
and vivify the activity of the Russian Church abroad." 1 Some of its aims were [1] to avert the disorganization of the Russian Church outside the U.S.S.R.; [2] to prevent the inroads of Masonry, Theosophy, and spiritualism among the faithful; [3] to offset the activity of certain sects such as Adventism and Anabaptism; and [4] to halt the influence of socialism and communism among believers. The Highest Church Administration was solemnly commended to the protection of the Blessed Lady Theotokos and Holy Archangel Michael.
The existing form and structure of the Administration was confirmed by the Council. Archbishop Anastasy made an appeal for world attention to be directed to the starving peoples of Russia. Steps were taken to allay the spiritual demoralization of millions of emigré's who had been abruptly wrenched from their homeland.
In addition to attending to these matters, the Council also issued two open letters. The first was called "An Epistle to the Children of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile and the Diaspora." The second was an "Epistle to the World Conference" in Genoa.
The former letter affirmed that "the duty of those of us abroad, who have preserved our lives in the dispersion and have not known the flames which are destroying our land and its people, is to be united in Christian spirit, gathered under the sign of the Cross of the Lord, under the protection of the Orthodox Faith. . . ." 2 The epistle called for a return of the monarchy to Russia and specified that the new monarch should come from the House of the Romanoffs. The "Epistle to the World Conference" called
1. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 22.
2. Andreev, op.cit., p. 97.
page 18
for a world struggle against the communists. "People of Europe!" it appealed, "Peoples of the world! Have pity on our good, frank, and noble-hearted Russian people, who have fallen into the hands of evil men. Do not support them [i.e., the Bolsheviks]. Do not strengthen them against your children and grandchildren!" 1
The action of the Council in issuing these letters caused no small controversy at the time and has continued to create disagreement up to the present. Fr. John Meyendorff of the American Metropolia, for example, recently attacked the Council of 1921 in violent terms, although he mistakenly places it in 1922. 2
It should be pointed out at the outset that all the representatives to the Council, including Evlogy, were monarchists. As D'Herbigny writes, "This principle [i.e., that of re-establishing the monarchy in Russia] was admitted by everyone. . . ." Commentators such as Fr. Meyendorff, who play upon the noted intolerance of Americans [including American Orthodox] towards political systems other than their own, neglect to inform their flock of this. They could have pointed out that monarchy had as a longer and closer connexion with Orthodoxy than has democracy. Fr. John of Kronstadt and Bishop Theophan the Recluse, God-bearers of the XIX century, were theoretical monarchists, as were such highly-respected intellectuals as Fydor Dostoevsky and Alexis Khomyakov. it is no wonder, then, that in 1921, only four years after the Revolution, for the Russian people the question of restoring the monarchy was no minor one.
1. Ibid., pp. 97-8.
2. In The Orthodox Church, February, 1970, p. 4.
page 19
The only point debated at the Council was whether it was the Romanoff dynasty that should be restored. Six bishops were for and six against restoration. Those such as Metropolitan Antony, who were for the proposal, felt that the regicide perpetrated by the Bolsheviks should not be construed as a legal action that permitted a change of dynasty. Those such as Anastasy and Evlogy who voted against the measure felt that the new dynasty should not be specified. 1 By a slight majority of those present at the Council Antony's party carried the measure. After the Council, Anastasy stated that he had come to realize that while the Church was "not bound to any form of government and that "no form of government can be made a dogma by the Church," nevertheless, she cannot remain silent as to the preferability of one form of government to another. 2
Thus the Council of 1921 condemned the regicide committed by the Bolsheviks and censured, in accordance with the last free actions of Patriarch Tikhon and the Council of 1917-18, the Bolshevik persecution of the faith. The warning which the Council addressed to the Genoa World Conference has, in fact, been justified by history. Not only did the Bolsheviks descend on their homeland like the legions of hell, slaughtering some twenty million of their countrymen in the process of forced collectivization and purges, but they successfully exported their anti-Christian philosophy of venom and destruction to the rest of the world.
The Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. has never forgiven the Church Abroad for the Council of 1921. Recently Izvestiya, the Soviet Union's
1. D'Herbigny, p. 39.
2. Ibid., pp. 42-3.
page 20
second-ranking newspaper, published an article entitled "Not by Prayers Alone" in which is slanderously attacked the Church Abroad. The beginning of the "Carlovtsky schism," Izvestiya declares, "goes back to 1921 when, as a result of the defeat of the White Guard bands by the Red Army, the reactionary emigré clerics and laity convoked in the city of Sremski Carlovtsky [Yugoslavia] a council of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad. At its head stood the ardent monarchist Metropolitan Antony [Khrapovitsky]. The Karlovchane did not submit to the demand of the Moscow Patriarchate that they occupy a loyal position in relation to the Soviet government, and thereby placed themselves outside the Russian Orthodox Church." 1 The demand for loyalty actually did not come until after the Council, but we can forgive the communist authors of the article for not being too conversant with ecclesiastical fact. In any case their intentions are perfectly clear.
After the Council of 1921 the Highest Church Administration continued to extend its activity abroad. On December 5, 1921, it named personnel to the Russian Mission in Jerusalem. 2 On January 17, 1922, it made Archmandrite Simon suffragan bishop of Shanghai, China, at the request of the Archbishop of Peking. On the same day it permitted Bishop Damian of Tsaritsyn to open a pastoral school in Bulgaria, on condition that its budget and structure be approved by the Administration. On March 24 it named Archbishop Methodius as bishop of Harbin, China. 3 On April 4 it declared that the following should have the rights of granting divorces in the Church
1. Cited from Golos Rodiny, September, 1969, p. 5 [our italics].
2. D'Herbigny, op cit., p. 43.
3. Ibid., pp. 44-5.
page 21
Abroad: Evlogy in Western Europe, Antony in Yugoslavia, and Alexander in North America. Rights were also given to the Bishop of Alaska. 1 On April 27 it named Appolinary of Belgorod its representative to Jerusalem. On May 30, on obtaining the consent of the Archbishop of Athens, it sent Bishop Hermogen of Ekaterinslav to Greece where he was put in charge of the Russian community in Athens. 2 Metropolitan Antony, head of the Administration, wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople concerning his plans to grant autocephaly to the churches of Georgia, the Ukraine, Finland, and Poland.
When Patriarch Tikhon was arrested on March 15, 1922, for condemning the actions of the Bolsheviks, the Highest Church Administration appointed special prayers to be said for him. Also letters were sent to all Orthodox bishops throughout the world warning them against entering into communion with the Russian "Living Church" schism.
Then unexpectedly, on September 2, 1922, the Administration received a copy of Patriarch Tikhon's ukaz of May 5,1922,in which its closing was ordered. Some, such as Fr. Meyendorff in his above-mentioned article The Orthodox Church, feel this ukaz should have been obeyed. Most do not. Before this ukaz is discussed, however, one would do well to follow D'Herbigny in summing up the activities of the Highest Russian Church Administration Abroad before its receipt of the ukaz.
In Orthodox countries the Administration had, with the consent of the ruling bishops of these nations, erected a Russian diocese in Constantinople [under Anastasy], Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia. "According to the
1. Ibid., p. 48.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
page 22
Highest Russian Church Administration Abroad the bishop of these Russian dioceses which had been created received all his jurisdiction from it, i.e., the Administration, but the exercise of this jurisdiction could be limited by the Bishop of the locality. Thus in Constantinople the Greek patriarch decided that all matrimonial questions among the emigrés were to be regularized by his patriarchal authority." 1
In non-Orthodox countries the jurisdiction of the Highest Russian Church Administration Abroad "extended to Western Europe, where Archbishop Evlogy recognized it, and to North America, where it was accepted without question by the Bishop of Alaska, Antony. In Europe, as in America, the Highest Russian Church Administration Abroad created a diocese, that of Western Europe and of Alaska, and both of these acts were recognized by Patriarch Tikhon."
In the Far East the Administration "established two suffragan bishops in China at the request of Archbishop Innocent of Peking,and a veritable archdiocese in Manchuria - despite the local bishop's protest removing a whole territory from the diocese of Vladivostok." 3
The Highest Russian Church Administration Abroad, D'Herbigny correctly concludes, had thus the same authority vis-vis the Church Abroad as the Patriarch of Moscow had for the Russian Church in the confines of the U.S.S.R.
Then came the ukaz of May 5, 1922. According to this ukaz, [1] the Encyclical of the Council of Carlovtsky to the Emigrés and the Letter to the Genoa Conference could not be considered as the official thought of the
page 23
Church; [2] the Administration Abroad must be suppressed "because it had dared to engage in politics in the name of the Church'; and [3] the emigré bishops who had engaged in "politics" were to be subject to ecclesiastical judgment. 1 The ukaz also stated that the Western European parishes were to be "temporarily" placed under the control of Metropolitan Evlogy.
When this ukaz was received nobody believed that it was a free expression of the will of Patriarch Tikhon. Metropolitan Evlogy, who was later to make great use of the document, wrote to Metropolitan Antony, "This ukaz surprised me by its suddenness. I was stunned at the thought of the terrible trouble it could introduce into our ecclesiastical life. Without any doubt, it was written under pressure from the Bolsheviks." 2 As late as April 24, 1925, Evlogy was of the same opinion. Writing in Vechernee Vremya he observes, "I did not attribute any obligatory value to this document even if it were in reality composed and signed by the Patriarch. It is political and not ecclesiastical. it concerns neither dogmas, nor canons, nor rites, but treats of the attitude one should have towards the Soviets within the limits of the Soviet state. Beyond those limits, therefore, it has no value." 3
By August 19, 1926, Evlogy, now in schism from the Church Abroad, had changed his mind. In an Encyclical Letter to the Faithful he writes, "To wish to reject this clear and precise ukaz from the authority of Moscow because it happens to displease one is an act of insubordination con-
1. Ibid., p. 54.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., p. 55.
page 24
trary to the canons." 1 Evlogy was thus eventually led into temptation by the fact that the ukaz recognized his authority in his own diocese. The communists, for reasons which will be indicated later, had concluded as early as 1j22 that Evlogy would be the best means to employ for sundering the unity of the Church Abroad; hence the conferring of powers on him by the Bolshevik-dictated ukaz.
The ukaz ordering the closing of the Highest Church Administration Abroad presented the episcopate abroad with a new and very difficult problem. What should it do about a ukaz from Moscow which was clearly political in intent and clearly dictated by the Soviet government, the persecutor of Russian Christians?
Before the Bishop's Council met, Metropolitan Antony pointed out that, although Patriarch Tikhon had never explicitly confirmed the Highest Russian Church Administration Abroad as such, he had nevertheless sanctioned several of its decisions - for example, the erection of the diocese of Alaska in 1921, and the establishment of the archdiocese of Harbin, which had been removed by the Administration Abroad out of "filial obedience," but because of "the obscurity of the ukaz, the impossibility of suppressing even for one instant all supreme authority in the Russian Church abroad, the disorganization of the central ecclesiastical government of Moscow, the arrest of the Patriarch, and finally the evident fact of Bolshevik influence in the
1. Ibid.
page 25
ukaz," it decided that, until such a time as the Patriarch should be liberated and could freely explain his decree, the Highest Church Administration should continue to function abroad.1 On September 2, 1922, the Bishop's Council resolved to suppress the "Highest Russian Church Administration Abroad" and to convoke a council of the episcopate, clergy, and laity of the Russian Church Abroad to organize a "Temporary Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad," which should have highest jurisdiction. 2 The proposal for the formation of the Temporary Episcopal Synod came from none other than Metropolitan Evlogy of Western Europe, and was unanimously agreed upon by all bishops present. All present, including Evlogy, signed the Council's decisions.
Thus the Church Abroad reacted cautiously but wisely to the first patriarchal ukaz evidently influenced by the Bolsheviks. The temporary Holy Episcopal Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad inherited the powers of the Highest Russian Church Administration Abroad, and the Church Abroad avoided capitulating to the first attempt by the communists to bring its existence to an end. The Temporary Episcopal Synod began to function immediately. It removed Archbishop Alexander from administering the North American diocese and replaced him with Metropolitan Platon of Odessa.3 On September 15, 1922, it upheld the judgment of Metropolitan Evlogy versus the priest V. Znosko who has been deposed by the Metropolitan.4 On September 29, 1922, it authorized the bishops of the Far East to hold a council
1. D'Herbigny, op. cit., pp. 58-9.
2. Ibid., p. 59
3. Ibid., p. 60
4. Ibid.
page 26
to organize a central administration of the churches of the Far East on condition that the administration should depend on the Temporary Episcopal Synod and, through it, on the Patriarch. 1 On December 2, 1922, it conferred the Russian mission of Korea upon Archbishop Sergius of Japan. On December 15, it registered the act by which the bishops of Harbin, China, joined in condemning the erection of an autocephaly in Poland. 2 On January 4, 1923, "as the supreme authority over three million Russian emigrés and the Russian dioceses of America, Japan, China and Finland, i.e., of fifteen Russian dioceses" it joined other Orthodox Churches in condemning the humiliations inflicted upon the Patriarch of Constantinople by the followers of Mustapha Kemal [later Atatirk]. 3
On March 29, 1923, it sent a letter to Patriarch Meletius of Constantinople and the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches asking that they not send representatives to a synod of the "Living Church." 4
The jurisdiction of the Temporary Episcopal Synod,in the words of D'Herbigny, "was recognized unanimously by the Russian episcopate abroad." 5 It was expressly acknowledged by Metropolitans Antony, Evlogy, and Platon, Archbishops Methodius or Harbin, Innocent of Peking, Seraphim of Finland, Elevthery of Lithuania, Anastasy of Kishinev, Theophan of Poltava, Eftimios of Brooklyn, Bishops Antony of Alaska. Sergius of Belsk, Vladimir of Belostok, Adam [of America], Meletius of Zabaikal, Nestor of Kamchatka, Simon of Shanghai, Jonas of Tien-Tsin, Appollinary of Belgorod, Daniel of Okhotsk, Sergius of Novorssysk, Gabriel of Cheliabinks, Hermogen of Ekaterinslav, Theophan of Kursk,
1. Ibid., pp. 60-1
2. Ibid., p.62
3. Ibid.
4. D'Herbigny, op cit., p. 63
5. Ibid.
page 27
Michael of Alexandrovsk, Seraphim of Lubny, Benjamin of Sebastopol, Michael of Vladivostok, Damian of Tsaritsyn, Panteleimon of Pinsk, Marllia, Stephen of Pittsburg, Alexander of North America, John of Latvia, Sergius of Tokyo - in all, thirty-five bishops. 1 It ought to be remarked that, although many of the above bishops are listed by their Russian sees, they were either ruling bishops or members of the Holy Synod of the Church Abroad.
Then jurisdiction of the Temporary Episcopal Synod extended over the following dioceses: In Europe: over the Western European diocese and those of Finland, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, and Turkey. In Asia: over the dioceses of Peking, Harbin, Vladivosto, Tokyo, Zabaikal, and Kamchatka. In America: over the diocese of North America, Aleutia [Alaska], and Chicago. In all, its jurisdiction comprised fifteen dioceses. 2
At the Bishops' Council of 1923 the bishops confirmed the canonical organization of the Temporary Holy Episcopal Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Metropolitan Antony announced that he would like to surrender his duties and retire to Mt. Athos to devote the remaining years of his life to prayer [he had previously spent a short while on the Holy Mountain after the Civil War, but had been summoned to care for the flock of the emigration]. metropolitan Evlogy was asked temporarily to take over the leadership of the Episcopal Synod. When, however, Antony was prevented by circumstances from entering the Holy Mountain, a plea from a considerable part of the emigration forced him to renounce his intentions and remain at the helm of the Synod. The incident does indicate, however,
1. Ibid.
2. Ibid.
page 28
how little Antony relished his position of power and how he yearned for the monastic life.
At the Bishops' Council of May-June, 1923, attended by Antony, Evlogy, Anastasy, and ten others, it was resolved that the Church Abroad should have a yearly episcopal council and a permanent synod of bishops located at Carlovtsy. The first Synod was composed of Antony [chairman], Evlogy, Archbishop Theophan, and Bishops Sergius, Michael, Gabriel, and Hermogen. 1 At the session of June 1, 1923, the Bishops' Council elevated Metropolitan Evlogy's diocese to the rank of an autonomous diocese in a charitable attempt to appease his growing ecclesiastical ambitions. Such matters as the court of highest appeal, the confirmation of bishops, and other clearly defined matters remained, however, in the hands of the Temporary Episcopal Synod. 2
On April 11-12, 1924, at the request of Evlogy, the Temporary Episcopal Synod elevated archimandrite Tikhon to the episcopal rank, naming him as Evlogy's suffragan bishop of Berlin.
At the Bishops' Council of October 16, fourteen bishops were present, including Antony [chairman], Metropolitans Evlogy and Platon [of America], and Archbishops Anastasy and Antony of Alaska. 3 Sixteen other bishops sent letters in which they answered forty questions which had been put to them by the standing Synod.
At this council Metropolitan Evlogy began to exhibit sensibilities which would soon lead him into schism. When the question of the wisdom
1. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 69
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., p. 71
page 29
of the relative autonomy of his diocese was raised, he immediately became angered and threatened to leave the council. Such behavior was soon to become his trademark.
Nevertheless, he continued to use the Temporary Episcopal Synod for his own purposes. At the session of October 24, 1924, his request for a second suffragan bishop located in Prague was granted. Later, on April 9, 1925, he petitioned for another suffragan bishop in central France, with Archbishop Vladimir of Belostok as a titular bishop.
The year 1925 was also the year of Patriarch Tikhon's repose. On November 12, 1925, the Temporary Episcopal Synod recognized Peter of Krutitsk as guardian of the Patriarchal throne in conformity with the will of the Russian episcopate in the U.S.S.R. 1
During 1925 the pernicious winds of schism also began to blow stronger. Professor A. Kartashev of the Western European diocese charged that the Temporary Episcopal Synod was planning a schism from the Patriarchate, a charge refuted by the Synod at Carlovtsy.
At the annual Bishops' Council held in Carlovtsy June 12-25, 1926, and attended by both Metropolitans Evlogy and Platon, matters came to a head. The opening days of the council went quite smoothly. Matters concerning parish life, divorce, and "the situation of the Russian Church in America" were regulated by the council. 2 When the matter of Evlogy's relative autonomy was raised, however, the Metropolitan demanded as immediate and full discussion of the question. The council agreed to do so only when the official agenda had been covered. To show his displeasure,
1. D'Herbigny, op cit., p. 75.
2. Ibid., p. 80.
page 30
Evlogy immediately left the council and retired to the Khopovo monastery in Yugoslavia, where he remained until the council ended. The council, seeking to avert a schism and to pacify the emotionally volatile Metropolitan, granted Evlogy a fourth suffragan bishop, but resolved that he "and his suffragans must declare in writing that they attribute to the councils and the Synod of Bishops [of the Church Abroad] more than moral authority, but rather a true canonical right of jurisdiction, the right to judge and administer the Russian Church Abroad."1 This was precisely what Evlogy would not do. Although he was willing to use the Temporary Episcopal Synod for his own purposes, such as obtaining bishops, he was not willing to allow it any authority over him.
The Council of Bishops, now fully aware of Evlogy's duplicity, presented him with a number of questions, including the following: [1] Why had he composed a special rule concerning suffragan bishops? [2] Why had he refused in writing to put into practice the rule elaborated and confirmed by the Synod of Bishops [of the Church Abroad] in keeping with the decrees of the Moscow Council of 1917-8 on the subject of suffragan bishops? [3] Why had he opened, without the previous consent of the Synod, the Theological Academy of Paris, and why had he not presented its rule for the approval of the Synod? [4] Why had he for five years administered his diocese by means of a diocesan council which had not been elected by a diocesan congress and had been approved by the Synod for only a temporary period of time? [5] Why had he named priests for Australia, which was not in his jurisdiction? 2
1. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 84.
2. Ibid., p. 85.
page 31
Later on, when a copy of Evlogy's correspondence with Patriarch Tikhon fell into the hands of the Synod, it became clear that since 1922 "Metropolitan Evlogy had been acting against Metropolitan Antony and the episcopate of Carlovtsy." 1 In 1926 the Synod discovered that Evlogy had been intriguing to have the Synod of Bishops Abroad dissolved by the Patriarch, and himself confirmed in his rights with his jurisdiction extended to include the Russian Mission of Jerusalem. Patriarch Tikhon, however, wisely refrained from granting Evlogy's requests. 2
The 1926 Bishop's Council also dealt a blow to the theological and spiritual modernism which had begun to undermine the life of the Western European diocese. It refused, for example, to approve the Russian Student Christian Movement,centered in Evology's diocese,which stubbornly refused to call itself "Orthodox Christian" and opened its ranks wide to the heterodox. At the fourth general congress of the Russian Student Christian Movement held September 1-5, 1926, the Synod's negative judgment of the Movement received confirmation.
At this council P.S. Lopukhin attempted to speak out as a voice of traditional Orthodoxy. "The goal of the Movement," he said, "is to attract
1. Ibid., p. 255.
2. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 95.
page 32
the youth to the Orthodox faith and the Orthodox Church. Thus its work cannot be foreign to that of the Church and the bishops who are the responsible guardians of the Church. The Movement must act essentially in concert with the hierarchy. 1 It must, he added, "become Orthodox, even in name, and call itself the 'Orthodox Christian Movement'"; for, "how," he asked, "can an organization which fears to call itself Orthodox attract members to Orthodoxy?" 2
P.S. Lopukhin's speech "displeased the assembly." 3 Nicholas Berdyaev, the free-thinking philosopher, objected that, "One must distinguish two conceptions of the Church: [1] that of the visible Church, i.e., the material temples, the parishes, the hierarchy, and hierarchial dependence; and [2] that of the invisible Church, the mystical body of Christ. The Movement, he said, is a movement belonging to the invisible Church. It is thus autonomous in regard to episcopal directives and the Orthodox hierarchy." 4 Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov added that, "One must not be ashamed of the word 'Christian.'" 5 The assembly decided that "the name of Christian corresponds more to reality because the Movement possesses circles who do not call themselves Orthodox." 6
The Russian Christian Student Movement thus reacted to the strictures of the 1926 Bishops' Council by affirming its independence of the hierarchy and by proclaiming a "branch theory" form of ecclesiology.
1. Ibid., p. 115.
2. Ibid., pp. 115-16.
3. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 116.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., p. 117.
6. Ibid.
page 33
As far as the Parish Theological Institute is concerned, as early as April 9, 1925, the Synod at Carlovtsy had refused to approve it before examining its statutes. On June 30, 1926, the Bishops' Council decided that the Institute "must be directly submitted to the authority of the Synod, which alone could confirm the statues and the list of the professorial staff; that the Institute could not be recognized until after approval of its statutes, which must be presented to the Synod by Metropolitan Evlogy; that professors should not be admitted until after an attentive examination or their writings; that the Institute should be free of all Masonic subsidy; that Metropolitan Evlogy should present to the Synod both the old and the new statutes of the 'Brotherhood of Sophia.'" 1
At an early date the Western European diocese also moved into the now-fashionable field of ecumenical concelebrations. Metropolitan Evlogy, for example, cased a sensation by holding a service for the Roman Catholic Cardinal Mercier. 2
In view of Evology's continued refusal to submit to the judgment of a council of his brother bishops, the Church Abroad, January 25-26, 1927, suspended him and informed Evlogy's clergy and all heads of Orthodox Churches of this fact. On February 1, Evlogy replied by stating that he considered the Synod's decisions "anticanonical." 3
On February 4, the Synod addressed an encyclical letter to the flock of the Western European diocese exhorting them not to communicate with their suspended Metropolitan. 4 The same day Metropolitan Evlogy
1. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 146.
2. Ibid., [. 96.
3. Ibid., p. 139.
4. Ibid.
page 34
announced that his diocese would be henceforth independent like the American Church under Metropolitan Platon. Evlogy was unfortunately supported by most of his flock, particularly its modernist elements. Nicholas Berdyaev even saw him as an outstanding instrument of God. "Metropolitan Evlogy," he wrote, "is the man charged by Providence with renewing the Church on the conciliar principle of the free accord of believers with the episcopate." 1
On March 31, 1927, the Synod of the Church Abroad published a pastoral letter directed against the "modernism" of the Theological Institute of Paris. The letter conveyed the results of a thorough investigation of the academy, its staff, and their writings, that had been carried out by Archbishop Theophan of the Standing Synod.
According to this letter, "The Theological Institute of Paris was founded by Metropolitan Evlogy without the authorization of the Council and Synod of the Church Abroad, without the approval of its programs or its professors, of whom some have not received higher theological education and others are of an Orthodoxy which is at least suspect." 2
The letter paid particular attention to the neo-Gnosticm preached by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov and his disciples under the name of "Sophiology." "Up to now, in full accord with the Apostle Paul and the Fathers of the Church, we have known only Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, unto the Greeks foolishness. . .Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God [I Cor. 1. 23-4]. They, on the contrary, profess a new doctrine of 'Sophia,' the feminine principle in God. For them this
1. Ibid., p. 143.
2. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 147.
page 35
feminine principle is at times an individual substance, an hypostasis which, while not being consubstantial with the Holy Trinity, is nevertheless not alien to it. At times for them this feminine principle appears as an 'hypostatic' aptitude to a hypostasis." 1
The letter concludes: "Metropolitan Evlogy hears and sees all this, and yet not only has he not condemned the innovators, not only has he not taken any measures against the modernism which is infiltrating the Church Abroad, but he chooses as collaborators men who profess this doctrine and confers upon them the task of raising future pastors of the Church." 2
On July 3, 1927, a conference of the Western European Diocese was held. There Evlogy attempted to counter the Synod's charges. He had not submitted the matter of approving the Institute to the Synod Abroad, he said, because, with the exception of Metropolitan Antony, the members of the Synod were not "friendly" toward it. He had, nevertheless, brought the statues of the Institute to the 1926 Bishops' Council, but his own sudden departure had prevented his offering them for inspection. He countered the charge that he was fostering modernism by claiming that Orthodoxy was more precious to him than life. At his request Professor A.V. Kartashev denied the Synod's claim that he was recommending a "reformation" in the Church, and Professor Bulgakov affirmed that his doctrine of "Sophia" was "traditional." 3 Furthermore, Evlogy stated that, "The new ideas preached by the two professors are in conformity with Tradition in every respect. The Church is not opposed to the development of theological
1. Ibid., 148.
2. Ibid., 148-9.
3. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 154.
page 36
thought." 1
At the same conference of the Western European Diocese, Professor Bulgakov read a report on the Theological Institute of Paris, after which "the Assembly [i.e., the conference] declared that the Theological Institute was doing its job, and that the written explanations of professors S. Bulgakov and A.V. Kartashev established the perfect Orthodoxy of the professorial body." 2
Bulgakov then read yet another report on the "Brotherhood of Sophia," after which the conference recognized the organization as perfectly "Orthodox."
Finally, after a report by Nicholas Zernov, the conference offered its full support to the Russian Student Christian Movement.
Thus, on the question of the theological modernism of the Western European diocese, the Synod Abroad and the diocese took totally opposed positions. Forced to choose, two bishops [Archbishop Seraphim of London and Bishop Tikhon of Berlin] and six priests left the Western European diocese in 1927 for the Church Abroad.
Once Evlogy cut himself off from the Church Abroad, he immediately fell prey to the Soviet Communists, who in the same year [1927] had finally established full control over the Moscow Patriarchate - a control which they have maintained up to this day. In 1926, Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhni-Novgorod succeeded Peter of Krutitsk as temporary guardian of the Patriarchal throne after Peter's arrest by the Bolsheviks. On being reached by a person who wished him to mediate the dispute between Evlogy
1. Ibid.
2. Ibid., p. 159.
page 37
and the Church Abroad, he replied with his letter of May 28/June 10, 1926, in which though promising not to engage in political actions against the Soviet Union, he nevertheless stated:
But let us be sincere to the end. We cannot pass over
in silence the contradictions which exist between our
Orthodox [people] and the communists who govern
our Union. The latter struggle against God and His
rule in the hearts of the people, while we see the sig-
nificance and aim of our entire existence in the confes-
sion of faith in God as well as in the widest dissemina-
tion and affirmation of that faith in people's hearts.
They accept exclusively the materialistic conception of
history, while we believe in divine Providence, in mir-
acles, etc.
Far from promising the reconciliation of that which is
irreconcilable, and from pretending to adapt or faith
to communism, we will remain, from the religious
point of view, what we are, i.e., members of the Tra-
ditional Church. 1
Passing from this statement of belief to consideration of the emigré plight, Sergius writes:
To inflict ecclesiastical punishment on clerical
emigrés guilty of unfaithfulness toward the Soviet
Union would not produce the desired effect, and
might offer new proof of the allegations that such
decisions had been forced on us by the Soviet govern-
ment. The only thing that appears to us desirable
and perfectly feasible is to assert or complete dis-
avowal of such political clergy, and to repudiate in
advance all responsibility for their political action.
To that end it suffices to establish the rule that all
members of the clergy who do not acknowledge their
civil obligation towards the Soviet Union ought to be
excluded from the ecclesiastical community of the
Moscow Patriarchate, and ought to place themselves
under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Churches in
the countries where they reside.
The same obligations ought to condition the exis-
tence abroad of administrative organs such as the
Holy Synod and diocesan councils. 2
1. M. Spinka, The Church in the Soviet Union, New York, 1956, p. 158.
2. Spinka, op. cit., p. 160
page 38
Metropolitan Sergius wrote in a similar vein to the bishops at Carlovtsy on October 12, 1926, when they asked him to mediate between themselves and Metropolitan Evlogy. "He declined to serve as a judge and specifically asserted that since there was no actual contact between the Moscow supreme administration and the churches abroad, there could be no supervision of governing of these churches by Moscow. Consequently he concludes that 'in non-Orthodox countries independent congregations or churches may be organized, members of which may be even non-Russians.... Think it over, please. For such a solution of the problem obviously corresponds better t the existing circumstances even of our Church.'" 1
Thus Metropolitan Sergius, while seeking what was soon shown to be impossible - namely, a modus vivendi with atheist communists, - gave very responsible advice to the Russian Church Abroad. Those foreign clergy who did not wish to fulfill the obligations of the Soviet government should separate themselves from the Moscow Patriarchate. When in countries ruled by autocephalous Orthodox Churches they should function with the approval of these Churches. The Holy Synod of the Church Abroad and its diocesan councils should function independently of the Patriarchate. In effect, therefore, Sergius was simply expanding the force of Patriarch Tikhon's ukaz No. 362 of 1920 to cover the life of the Church Abroad more explicitly. In addition to the disorganization of the Church mentioned in Tikhon's ukaz, now the complication of political loyalty to an atheist regime is cited by Metropolitan Sergius as another reason for the temporary self-government of the Church Abroad.
1. Ibid., p. 63.
page 39
This letter of Metropolitan Sergius did not please the Bolsheviks. He was summoned to Moscow and ordered,among other things, to excommunicate all the Russian bishops abroad. The Metropolitan replied with a "categorical refusal." 1 On December 13, 1926, he was arrested.
Sergius spent three-and-a-half months in prison, and then, "contrary to all expectations, "was released on March 30, 1927. For reasons and because of threats which may never be known, while in prison he decided to "comply with the demands of the government," and agreed to the terms later made public in the now-famous "Declaration" of 1927. This "Declaration" issued on July 16/29, 1927, altered the whole course of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2 Its central passage stated that the Russian Orthodox believers,
need to show not in words, but in deeds, that not only
people indifferent to Orthodoxy, or those who reject
it, may be faithful citizens of the Soviet Union, loyal
to the Soviet government, but likewise the most fer-
vent adherents of Orthodoxy, to whom it is as precious
with all its canonical and liturgical treasures as truth
and life. We wish to remain Orthodox and at the same
time recognize the Soviet Union as or civil father-
land whose joys and successes are or joys and succes-
ses, and whose misfortunes are our misfortunes. Every
blow directed against the Union. . . we acknowledge as
a blow directed against us. Remaining Orthodox, we
regard it or duty to be citizens of the Union 'not from
fear, but from conscience,' as the Apostle has taught
us [Romans 13:5]. And we are hopeful that with God's
help, by our mutual cooperation and support, we shall
accomplish that task. 3
Turning its attention to the Church Abroad, the "Declaration" stated:
The problem of the emigré clergy under these circum-
stances is especially poignant. The openly anti-Soviet
1. D'Herbigny, op.cit., p. 112.
2. Text in Spinka, op.cit., pp. 161-65
3, Ibid., p. 163.
page 40
actions of some archpastors and pastors, greatly
detrimental to the relations between the government
and the Church, have forced the late Patriarch, as is
known, to depose the Synod Abroad [April 23/May 5,
1922]. Nevertheless, the Synod has continued to exist
hitherto, and has not changed its politics. Moreover,
by its pretensions to rule, it has lately divided the ec-
clesiastical community abroad into two camps. In
order to put an end to this state of affairs, we demand-
ed from the clergy abroad a written promise of their
complete loyalty to the Soviet government in all their
public activities. Those who fail to make such a prom-
ise, or to observe it, shall be expelled from the ranks
of the clergy subject to the Moscow Patriarchate. We
think that having set up such limits, we shall be secure
against all unexpected happenings abroad. On the other
hand, our demand may perhaps cause many to pause
and consider whether the time has not come to revise
their attitude toward the Soviet regime, so as not to be
cut off from their native Church and land. 1
With Sergius' 1927 "Declaration" the now-familiar voice of the Moscow Patriarchate is heard for the first time. That this 1927 document completely contradicts Sergius' freely expressed sentiments of the year before is obvious.
The "Declaration" was vehemently opposed by many of the best-known and most respected archpastors of the Russian Church. Peter of Krutitsk, still legally Guardian of the Patriarchal Throne, wrote from Siberian exile on September 27, 1927: "For the first bishop, such a declaration is not permissible. I furthermore do not understand why the Synod was organized from such unhopeful individuals who, as I notice from the signatures appended to the declaration, compose it. Thus, for instance, Bishop Filipp is a formal heretic. I was asked, in more fitting terms, to sign the Declaration, but I did not consent, and was for that reason exiled. I trusted Metropolitan Sergius, and now see that I was mistaken." 2
1. Spinka., op. cit., p. 164.
2. Ibid., pp. 70-1.
page 41
The eldest of the Metropolitans of the Russian Church, Cyril of Kazan, who perished in exile in 1936, "declared himself opposed to the 'Declaration.'" 1 So did Metropolitans Agathangel, Joseph, and Archbishop Seraphim, all three of whom had been designated deputies by Peter of Krutitsk. Bishop Varlaam of Perm and Evgeny of Rostov protested, as did the bishops exiled to the Solovki Islands in their "Open Letter" of September 27, 1927. Metropolitan Antony of the Church Abroad protested vehemently. The contemporary martyr of the Russian Church Boris Talantov, who recently died in a forced-labor camp in the Soviet Union, has pointed out the fatal results of this "Declaration." 2
Thus at home and abroad, in 1927 and the 1960's, those who have represented the true conscience of the Russian Church have protested against this death-sentence leveled at Holy Orthodoxy.
Shortly after issuing his "Declaration," Sergius wrote to Metropolitan Evlogy demanding that the Metropolitan and, through him, all the bishops and priests of the Church Abroad sign the following pledge: "I, the undersigned, promise that, in view of my actual dependence on Moscow, I will not permit myself either in my social activity or, above all, in my work for the Church, any action which could be suspected of showing a lack of loyalty towards the Soviet regime." 3 Those who refused to sign were to be removed from the lists of clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate.
On September 12, 1927, Evlogy wrote Sergius informing him that he
1. Spinka, op. cit., p. 71.
2. See Michael Bourdeaux, Patriarch and Prophets, New York, 1970, pp. 330-31.
3. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p.145.
page 42
could not take a loyalty oath since his diocese was not subject to the political control of the U.S.S.R. Sergius responded by saying that "the word 'loyalty' does not signify submission to Soviet laws but abstention from all politics." 1 Each of Evlogy's bishops and priests was to be free to formulate his loyalty oath as he saw fit.
Sergius [or rather, his Bolshevik masters] was thus attempting to ensure that the West European diocese would neither criticize communism nor the communist persecution of religion in the U.S.S.R. In one of the most disgraceful acts ever performed by an Orthodox clergyman, Evlogy agreed to sign the oath as interpreted by Sergius. He then sent copies of Sergius' two ukazes to his clergy with a request that they too sign the oath. Upon receiving such a demand from his Metropolitan, Archpriest Orlov and his entire Geneva parish immediately separated from Evlogy and re-entered the Church Abroad. 2 Others soon followed.
Seeing that for the sake of legitimizing his authority Evlogy was willing to submit to the most humiliating demands, on October 21, 1927, Sergius issued ukaz No. 549, in which he ordered that the Soviet regime was to be commemorated during Divine services. On June 21, 1928, Sergius issued another ukaz in which "Metropolitan Evlogy, Archbishop Vladimir of Belostok, Bishop Benjamin of Sebastopol, and all the clergy who, after them, have signed the promises required by Metropolitan Sergius, are to continue to remain a part of the Moscow Patriarchate." 3 The council of Carlovtsy, which refused to submit, was "deprived of all
1. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 166.
2. Ibid., p. 167.
3. Ibid., p. 168.
page 43
Jurisdiction abroad." 1
The ukaz of June 21 instructed Evology, as being the Moscow Patriarchate's representative, to present the following conditions to the Church Abroad: "[1] Those who should make a promise of loyalty to the Soviet regime would continue to be inscribed in the list of clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate; [2] Those who, while submitting to the order to suppress the Synod and Council of Carlovtsy, refused to sign the promises asked for would be removed from the lists of the clergy of the Patriarchate, and Metropolitan Evlogy was to remove them from their post; [3] Finally, those who should stubbornly support the Synod and Council. . . were to be given over to a synodal court and judged as rebels against legitimate authority, and as the guilty parties in a schism. . . " 2
In his pastoral letter of June 25, 1928, Evlogy invited the Carlovtsy bishops to submit. "It is impossible to be in union with the universal Church if one disobeys a legitimate authority," he said. 3
On June 8, 1928, the Moscow Patriarch formally expelled the Church Abroad from its ranks. The admitted reason for this expulsion was that "the Carlovtsy group refused to sign a promise of loyalty to the Soviets. . . " 4
Angered by Evlogy's servile attitude towards an obviously unfree ukaz of Metropolitan Sergius, Archimandrite Chariton, the rector of the Vienna parish, together with a part of his parish, broke with Evlogy. Shortly thereafter Fr. Boris Molchanov, who had been secretary of the
1. Ibid.
2. D'Herbigny, op cit., pp. 168-9
3. Ibid., p. 169
4. Ibid.
page 44
diocesan education committee, followed suit. 1 The situation, in fact, greatly resembled what took place when in 1969-70 the American Metropolia decided to enter into communion with an obviously unfree Moscow Patriarchate. In 1928 as in 1970 the most alert members of the clergy and laity re-entered the Church Abroad.
Alarmed, Evlogy issued an official notice on August 26, 1928, in which he maintained that, "Metropolitan Sergius has never renounced the faith. He has only recognized the authority of the Soviets as the first Christians recognized that of the pagan emperors. The Russian Church abroad is only subject to the Moscow Patriarchate in questions of dogma, morals, sacraments, liturgy, discipline, sanctions, and ecclesiastical organizations. If the bishops and clergy of the Church Abroad must abstain from all politics, the lay faithful are free to engage in it." 2
D'Herbigny, whose account we have been following, correctly sees the Evlogy-Sergius pact as having been ruinous both for Paris and Moscow. Evlogy and his followers were led by Sergius to sign loyalty oaths to the Soviet government, while Sergius gave tacit approval to the theological modernism of the paris theologians. 3
It was obvious that Evlogy's flock, which was far from sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, would soon grow restive under Sergius' yoke. When on February 2, 1930, the Pope of Rome, Pius XI,invited the whole world to pray for those believers persecuted by the "impious" Soviet government, Evlogy, "after a certain hesitation, openly joined his voice to that of the
1. Ibid., p. 170.
2. D'Herbigny, op. cit., pp. 170-1.
3. Ibid., p. 174.
page 45
Pope,in spite of the counter-declarations of Metropolitan Sergius, who denied any persecution by the Soviet regime in the U.S.S.R." 1 As a result of this action, on June 10, 1930, Evlogy was relieved of his duties by ukaz No. 108 of Metropolitan Sergius. Archbishop Vladimir was appointed as Evlogy's temporary successor.
On June 23, Evlogy convoked a diocesan congress which declared that, "for the good of the Church, the Metropolitan did not in goo conscience have the right to obey Sergius' order." 2
Sergius persisted. On October 28, 1930, he demanded that Evlogy completely retract his anti-Bolshevist activity. Evlogy refused, and in late January, 1931, he and his bishops were suspended by Sergius. 3 At the session of January 28, 1931, the congress decided that Evlogy should once again direct his activity independently of both Moscow and the Church Abroad, and that he should follow ukaz No. 362 of Patriarch Tikhon. 4
Almost immediately afterwards, however, Evlogy tried new tactics. Appealing to the ever-growing ecclesiastical ambitions of the Œcumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Evlogy asked Patriarch Photius to take the Western European diocese under his wing. This proved agreeable to Photius, and on February 17, 1931, he announced the formation of a "Temporary Patriarchal Russian Orthodox Exarchate in Europe." 5 This was done over sharp protest of the Church Abroad.
It is both interesting and instructive to see how Fr. John Meyendorff
1. Ibid., p. 175.
2. D'Herbigny, op cit., p. 175.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., p. 177.
5. Andreev, op. cit., p.146.
page 46
of the American Metropolia describes Evlogy's relations with the Moscow Patriarchate: "When the ecclesiastical authorities in Moscow finally asked him [Evlogy] to submit a written statement of loyalty to the Soviet state, Eulogios appealed, in 1931, to the Œcumenical Patriarch, and became the latter's exarch for the Russian parishes in Europe." 1 Has Fr. John told the whole story?
In 1935 Evlogy accepted an invitation from Patriarch Varnava of Serbia, who heeding our Savior's words, blessed are the peacemakers," had summoned Evlogy and Metropolitan Theophilus of America to Yugoslavia so that they might reconcile their differences with the Church Abroad. At the conference's sessions Metropolitan Evlogy expressed a "willingness to unite with all parts of the Church Abroad if the Œcumenical Patriarch should give his blessing. The Serbian Patriarch offered to intercede in this, and Metropolitan Evlogy accepted the offer with thanks." 2 Evlogy and Theophilus both signed the "Temporary States" which were to govern the life of the Church Abroad henceforward. Both were thus reconciled to the Church Abroad. Almost immediately after returning to Paris, however, Evlogy submitted to the "mob rule" of his constituency and repudiated his signature. In February, 1936, he requested the Œcumenical Patriarch "not to release him from his jurisdiction," 3 thus completely nullifying the assurances he had given in Yugoslavia.
Evlogy's zig-zag jurisdiction-hopping, however, was not at an end. In the fall of 1944, enthusiastic over the Soviet Union's predictable defeat
1. J. Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, New York, 1962, p. 187.
2. Andreev, op cit., p. 148.
3. Ibid.
page 47
of Germany, Evlogy entered into correspondence with the Moscow Patriarchate through the Soviet ambassador in Paris and expressed "his readiness to be immediately united [with Moscow]." 1 When in 1945 Alexis was "elected" Patriarch of Moscow, Evlogy immediately ordered all his parishes to commemorate Alexis in the liturgy as the "lawful head of the Church." Strange behavior for a supposed Constantinopolitan exarch!
On August 29, 1945, an "informal meeting" of the clergy of the Western European diocese gathered to hear a speech by Metropolitan Nikolai of Krutitsk, Moscow's representative. When a number of those present boldly challenged the wisdom of submitting to Moscow, Evlogy "dictatorily broke off the sessions and decisively announced his submission" to Moscow. 2 The following day he sent a telegram to the Patriarch of Constantinople asking his blessing for the return of his diocese to the Russian Church. Upon receiving assurances from Metropolitan Nikolai that the Œcmenical Patriarch had "as it were already given his consent," a solemn liturgy was concelebrated on September 2 to seal the union. 3
On October 3 Evlogy issued an encyclical letter informing his flock that the exarchate had been taken into the Moscow Patriarchate. However, he added, he was to continue to be commemorated as "exarch of the Œcumenical Patriarch" until the receipt of a canonical release from Constantinople. 4 Thus the Exarchate was solemnly proclaimed to belong to two Churches simultaneously.
The uncertainty of the exarchate's status was allowed to continue until,
1. Ibid.
2. Andreev, op. cit., pp. 148-9
3. Ibid., p. 149
4. Ibid.
page 48
on August 8, 1946, Evlogy unexpectedly died. Moscow, understandably unnerved by this event, sent a telegram the following day to Constantinople stating that she had decided "to consider the temporary jurisdiction of the Œcumenical Throne over the Western European parishes at an end." 1
On August 12, 1946, Metropolitan Grigory arrived from Moscow to serve a funeral service for Evlogy together with all the hierarchs of the Exarchate. Two days later Grigory announced that Archbishop Vladimir had been replaced by Metropolitan Seraphim [Lukyanov] - a hierarch who had been pressured 2 into joining the Patriarchate by Nikolai of Krutitsk - as head of the exarchate. This high-handed action so angered the exarchate faithful that at a diocesan meeting on October 16, 1946, they voted to stay under the Œcumenical Patriarchate with Archbishop Vladimir as their head. Thus the exarchate's second flirtation with Moscow came to an end.
Under Vladimir and his successor, Georgy, the exarchate was to remain under Constantinople until 1965,when it was ejected from the Œcumenical Patriarchate by Patriarch Athenagoras under intense pressure from Moscow. Currently the exarchate exists as a self-governing "archbishopric" with only two bishops. A third submission to Moscow would appear to be a distinct possibility.
Such are the bitter fruits of Evlogy's 1926 schism from the Church Abroad, Torn away from its canonical and moral foundations, the Western European diocese was rendered defenseless before the modernizing theology of Fr. Bulgakov and a host of lesser heresiarchs. Such dubious organizations as
1. Ibid.
2. William C. Fletcher, in Nikolai, New York, 1968, p. 75, suggests simple blackmail.
page 49
the Brotherhood of Sophia and the Student Christian Movement were encouraged rather than suppressed. And, finally the exarchate became a helpless prey to the ecclesiastical intrigues of Moscow and Constantinople.
The Relations of the Church Abroad with Other Orthodox Churches
When the Church Abroad first came into existence, nearly all the autocephalous Orthodox Churches extended her the hospitality due to representatives of an Orthodox nation which had been seized by an apostate and militantly anit-Christian government.
The autocephalous Church of Antioch, ruled by Patriarch Gregory IV until his death in 1928, was one of the best friends of the Church Abroad, recognizing her without qualification. Metropolitan Antony, the head of the Church Abroad, was in fact so popular in Antioch that his name was seriously considered as a successor to Patriarch Gregory when rival factions were unable to settle upon a candidate in 1931. 1
The Church Abroad received full recognition from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Archbishop of Cyprus, and the autocephalous Church of Sinai. The Rumanian Church extended recognition, and in 1925 Patriarch Myron of Romania acclaimed the Church Abroad "as the hope of the Russian Church." 2 The Bulgarian Church also recognized the Church Abroad. The Serbian Church extended hospitality to the Carlovtsy Synod, and relations with Patriarch Dimitri [died 1930] and his successor, Patriarch
1. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 214.
2. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 215.
page 50
Varnava, were extremely cordial. 1
Relations were strained in the formative years of the Church Abroad's existence only with three autocephalous Churches, those of Constantinople, Greece, and [after 1925] Alexandria. A brief examination of the causes for these conflicts is in order.
Constantinople: As has been shown at the beginning of this chapter, initially Constantinople was very friendly to the Church Abroad. On November 1, 1920, a "central organ" of the Church Abroad was created in Constantinople with the blessing of the Œcumenical Patriarch. In May, 1921, a more definite form was given to the organization at a council of the Russian episcopacy presided over by a representative of the Patriarch of Constantinople. 2
Soon, however, relations soured. Under Patriarch Meletius IV Metaxakis of Constantinople, whose calendar "reform" still divides the Orthodox Churches, the Œcumenical Patriarch undertook a vast expansion scheme designed to profit from the weakness of the Russian Church after the Revolution. On April 5, 1922, Meletius named an exarch for all of Western and Central Europe, claiming that "all the Orthodox in the barbarian lands depend on the Patriarch of Constantinople" 3 On March 7, 1923, he created an Orthodox archdiocese in Czechoslovakia, and on March 28 by letter No. 1336 he denied Metropolitan Evlogy any jurisdiction over the Russian Orthodox in Western Europe and Czechoslovakia. 4 When Evlogy protested and a conflict arose between Evlogy and Meletius' appointed
1. Ibid.
2. See D'Herbigny, op. cit., pp. 15-17.
3. Ibid., p. 194.
4. D'Herbigny, op. cit., pp. 194-5.
page 51
exarch, SaLaty, Patriarch Tikhon in 1924 requested through an intermediary that Metropolitan Antony solve the matter.
In 1924, Meletius' successor Gregory VII founded a new metropolitan district of Central Europe with Budapest as the bishop's place of residence. 1 By the time of Gregory VII's death in November, 1924, Constantinople had already carved out an empire in Western Europe. Six dioceses were submitted to the Œcumenical Patriarch; the autonomous Archbishopric of Finland under Germanos Aava, the autonomous Metropolia of Estonia under Metropolitan Alexander, the Archbishopric of Prague and Czechoslovakia under SaLaty, the Exarchate of Central Europe under Metropolitan Germanos of Berlin, the Exarchate of Western Europe under Metropolitan Germanos of Thyatira, residing in London, and finally, the diocese of Bishop Gregory of Paris. 2
This astonishing thrust for power was, of course, bound to meet with opposition from the Church Abroad, which legitimately claimed to represent the enslaved Russian Orthodox Church in her foreign dealings. Constantinople's desire to be sole master of Europe and Great Britian could scarcely go unopposed. Furthermore, by extending her influence into Finland, Estonia, and Czechoslovakia, regions which unquestionably belonged to the Church Abroad and which had originally submitted to her before national ambition and governmental pressure combined to induce them to turn to Constantinople, and by granting these countries a wide autonomy for which they were not prepared, the Œcumenical Patriarchate dealt a serious blow to the soundness of Orthodoxy in Europe.
1. Ibid., p. 195.
2. Ibid., p. 196.
page 52
Another serious bone of contention between the Church Abroad and Constantinople was the latter's persistent recognition of the schismatic Russian "Living Church." Despite the "repeated warnings of the Synod," Meletius IV, Gregory VII, Constantine VI, and Basil III who ruled Constantinople until 1929, all recognized the "Living Church." 1
To show the extent to which Constantinople became affiliated with the "Living Church" one need only look at the actions of Patriarch Gregory VII. In 1924 Gregory asked Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, then literally battling for his life against the "Living Church" and the Bolsheviks, to "sacrifice himself for the unity of the Church and the benefit of the faithful by immediately renouncing the government of the Church." 2 This stab in the back by the Œcumenical Patriarch, who correctly supposed that the "Living Church" would prove more amenable to Constantinople's ambitions and emerging modernism, was answered by Tikhon with a firm refusal to step down. Gregory VII, however, continued to support Archbishop Evdokim [previously of America] and his Living Church "synod" against Patriarch Tikhon. This action by Constantinople pleased the Soviets greatly. Before co-operating with Constantinople, however, they decided to impose the condition that, "Gregory VII should forbid Archbishops Anastasy and Alexander, who were residing in Constantinople, from committing any action or making any publicity against the Soviets." 3 Like Metropolitan Evlogy in later years, Constantinople hastened to obey the dictates of the Bolsheviks. Anastasy and Alexander were ordered to break with the Church Abroad and "expressions of political opinion were absolutely prohibited." 4 Constantinople's
1. D'Herbigny, op cit., p. 197
2. Ibid., p. 184.
3. Ibid., p. 186.
4. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p 188
page 53
connections with the "Living Church" ended only when the schismatic organization lost all influence due to lack of support by Russian believers.
Perhaps the most serious case of conflict between the Church Abroad and Constantinople, however, was the Church Abroad's reaction to the Pan-Orthodox Council [eventually termed a "commission" because several Orthodox Churches refused to attend] convoked by Meletius IV May 10-June 8, 1923. Antioch and Jerusalem refused to attend, and Alexandria did not even respond to the invitation from such a well-known modernist and Mason as Meletius was. There were many Metropolitans of the Œcumenical throne which did not even recognize Meletius Metaxakis as canonical Patriarch, since he was a political appointee, and not duly elected. Therefore, they refused to attend his councils and were awaiting the outcome of the Greco-Turkish war in order to voice their protest and take action. 1 Fr. Ephraim of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston writes concerning Meletius, "What Metaxakis wanted was an Anglican Church with an eastern tint, and the faithful people knew it, and they distrusted everything he did. While in Athens, he even forbade the chanting of vigil services because he considered them out of date and a source of embarrassment when heterodox - especially Anglicans - visited Athens. . . Besides advocating the new calendar at Constantinople, Metaxakis also wanted shaven clergy, no rassa, marriage after ordination for both priests and bishops, shorter services, etc." 2
Meletius' council was attended by Serbia, Rumania, Greece, Cyprus, and the Russian Church, represented by Anastasy and Alexander of the
1. See Spyridon Loberdos, The Metropolitan of Smyrna Chrysostom, Athens, 1929, pp. 191-193 [in Greek].
2. Fr. Ephraim, "Letter on the Calendar Issue," St. Nectarios Education Series, No. 2, p. 3.
page 54
Church Abroad. The council soon set about examining the following questions: "calendar reform, impediments to marriage, the second marriage of priests, the episcopal ordination of married priests, the shortening of the Liturgy, the question of the fasts." 1
When on June 4, 1923, Archbishop Anastasy made his report to the Carlovtsy episcopate on the "commission's" activities, the Bishops' Council of Carlovtsy "rejected the calendar reform completely, as contrary to the canons, and likewise rejected the second marriage of priests." 2 When on June 25, 1923, Meletius informed the Synod Abroad in writing of the "decrees" of the "Pan-Orthodox Congress," the Synod decided on August 7, that "all the decisions of the Congress are unacceptable because they are contrary to the holy canons." 3 It also pointed out that, since Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria had been absent, the Council's decisions were not binding. Only an Œcumenical Council, the Synod declared, could deal with the questions touched upon by Meletius' council. This was also the view of the Patriarch of Alexandria, Photius. The council's actions were protested by Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Cyprus. 4
One tragic result of Meletius' "congress" was to destroy the centuries-old liturgical unity of the Orthodox Chrch. In spirit it resembled the interpolation of the Creed by the Roman Church. From 1923 on, some Orthodox would be on the 'new" calendar, a fact leading to great demoralization among the Orthodox faithful. The new calendar
1. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 198
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Fr. Ephraim, loc. cit., pp. 1-2
page 55
sponsored by Meletius was demonstrably inferior to the "old" one; its
purpose was to facilitate union with the heterodox.
The opposition of the Church Abroad to Constantinop1e's modernism earned it the permanent resentment of the Oecumenical Patriarchate. The firm opposition of Archbishop Anastasy to Meletius' modernism was not appreciated by those who were rushing to transform the Orthodox Church
into "this world."
Constantinople did not abandon her dreams of a modernist Oecumenical
Council (a kind of Vatican II avant le mot). On June 3, 1924, Patriarch
Gregory VII invited the "sister Churches" to an Oecumenical Council to be
held in 1925 on Mt. Athos. On October 30, 1924, the Carlovtsy Synod
"declared that the convocation of an Oecumenical Council was inopportune
because the Russian Patriarchate could not be represented there." 1 The
Serbian Church also cited the incapacity of the Russian Church to be properly represented as a reason for not holding the Council. A number of Greeks argued that Oecumenical Councils were to be held only to combat heresies. The combined efforts of the Church Abroad, Serbia, and these Greeks staved off the council.
In 1926, Basil III of Constantinople again raised the spectre. On March 30, 1926, Metropolitan Antony protested sharply against Basil's having invited the "Living Church" and the "autocephalous Ukrainian Church of the U.S.S.R." to attend. 2 Once again the council did not take
place.
It is instructive to observe that now in 1970 when Patriarch Athenagoras
1. D˜'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 199.
2. Ibid., p. 203.
page 56
of Constantinople, acting very much like a Metaxakis reincarnate, is hurrying towards the same longed-for Oecumenical Council with the same "reforms" in view (married bishops, second marriage of priests, shorter services, abolition ˜of the fasts, etc.), it is again the Church Abroad, in the person of its courageous and meek first-hierarch, Metropolitan Philaret ˜(who succeeded the righteous Anastasy as Metropolitan upon the latter's death in 1965), which is, together with tradition-minded Greeks, opposing Constantinople's modernism and rallying the faithful. Thus Constantinop1e's quarrels with the Church Abroad reflect very favorably on the Church Abroad. By opposing Constantinop1e's irresponsible expansionism, her shameful recognition of the "Living Church" and the Ukrainian "autocephaly," as well as her espousal of theological and canonical modernism, the Church Abroad has borne witness to the Orthodox faith. Alexandria: As long as Patriarch Photius was Patriarch of Alexandria relations with the Church Abroad were "more than courteous." 1 When Photius reposed on August 22, 1925, the worst enemy of the Synod Abroad ascended the throne, Meletius Metaxakis. This time he was Meletius II. "With him the attitude of the Patriarchate of Alexandria became hostile." 2 According to Meletius, the Church Abroad was "an illegal institution, contrary to the canons and the tradition of the Church." 3 These are, of course, the words of a notorious despiser of the canons and traditions of the Church. One is not astonished to discover that Meletius sided with Evlogy in his quarrel with the Church Abroad. Meletius was, apparently, particularly
1. D'Herbigny, op. cit.˜, p. 212.
2. lbid. ˜
3. Ibid., p. 213.
page 57
venomous because Metropolitan Antony of the Synod had qualified him as a "heretic" on account of his pronounced sympathies for immediate union with the Anglicans. 1 At both Constantinople and Alexandria, therefore, the Church Abroad's first and most violent enemy was Meletius Metaxakis. Greece: Relations with the Church of Greece were strained due to the hostile attitude of Archbishop Chrysostom Papadopoulos, a modernist who was even willing to lie consciously to his own Synod in order to assist Metaxakis' program. 2 His refusal to allow a bishop of the Church Abroad onto Greek soil to care for the Russian faithful in Greece was hardly motivated by love for the emigré faithful who were thus deprived of needed pastoral care. 3 Later a bishop was allowed to come.
The Canonical Position g the Church Abroad
There is a considerable literature on the canonical position of the Church Abroad. Able and convincing presentations of the canonical and moral (for canons cannot be isolated from the Christian life) correctness of the Synod's position have been written by the late Protopresbyter M. Polsky (The Canonical Position of the Highest Church Authority U.S.S.R. and Abroad, Jordanville, 1948) and Protopresbyter George Grabbe (The Truth About the Russian Church At Home and Abroad, Jordanville, 1961). Both these books are in Russian. In them one may find convincing refutations of the various arguments conjured up by the followers
of Metropolitan Evlogy in Paris and then seized upon by such diverse enemies of the Church Abroad as Meletius Metaxakis and Alexander Bogolepov
1. Ibid.
2. See Fr. Ephraim, loc. cit., p. 3
3. D'Herbigny, op. cit.,˜ p. 214.
page 58
of the American Metropolia.
In approaching the question of the Synod Abroad oue should not overlook an obvious fact, viz. , that Church history had never before witnessed
a phenomenon comparable to the emigration of the Russian ˜Orthodox faithful after the Revolution. Several million refugees were literally scattered over the face of the earth. In addition, immigrants to America and elsewhere who were of Russian descent were left without adequate ecclesiastical guidance. Physically, many emigrés were in a state of semi-starvation; spiritually, many were utterly demoralized. It was imperative that this vast and widely-disseminated flock be immediately attended to, especially since it became prey to sectarianism, spiritualism, socialism, and other corrupting "-isms" of the time. In unity is strength, in division, weakness. It was evident that a centralized emigre™ ecclesiastical organization was needed for the spiritual survival of the new dispersion. As early as 1920 such an organization was founded with the blessing of the Oecumenical Patriarch. The Russian episcopate abroad immediately saw the wisdom of and the necessity for the existence of the Church Abroad. This group included Evlogy and Platon. The need for the Church Abroad was also recognized by almost all Orthodox Churches, many of whom, as true Orthodox brothers in Christ, offered her all the assistance they could. Those such as Meletius Metaxakis and Chrysostomus Papadopoulos who refused assistance or persecuted the Church Abroad stand condemned by their own
words and actions regarding other matters as clear enemies of Christ.
The possibility of the existence of the Church Abroad is recognized even by Professor Bogolepov of the American Metropolis. According to
page 59
him, the Russian dioceses in Western Europe, the Far East, and America, i.e., those Russians not in lands clearly belonging to autocephalous Churches, would have been justified in forming a superior ecclesiastical
organization in accordance with Patriarch Tikhon's ukaz No. 362 of November 20, 1920, and Metropolitan Sergius' proposal of September 12, 1926. 1 What Bogolepov objects to is the fact that Russian Orthodox in Orthodox countries such as Serbia and Bulgaria also joined the Church Abroad.
Reflection on the spirit of canons 37 and 39 of Trullo, l3 and 18 of Antioch, and 17 of Sardica will show, however, that the autocephalous Orthodox Churches were bound to shelter and recognize as bishops those who had fled persecution by an apostate government. Owing to the disorganization of the Russian Church and the controls exerted by an atheist government, the bishops abroad were forced to be temporarily independent of the Patriarch of Moscow. This "temporary" state would obviously continue until the Russian Church should again be free to function abroad as an Orthodox Church and not the vehicle of communist intrigue.
There is no reason why the Russian parishes located in Orthodox countries could not adhere to the Church Abroad as long as they received permission from the autocephalous Churches of those countries. Thus, before the revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church had holdings on Mt. Athos in Greece and in Jerusalem with the permission of the Church of Greece and Church of Jerusalem. The logical nature of the position of the Church Abroad was appreciated by all Orthodox Churches except those
whose ambitions or modernism ran athwart the Church Abroad's unyielding
1. Alexander Bogolepov, Toward an American Orthodox Church, New York, 1963, p. 63.
page 60
devotion to Orthodoxy.
Furthermore, if an autocephalous Church did decide to impose re- strictions on Russian Orthodox in her bounds, she had to be able to justify her actions canonically. Thus Archbishop Theophan of the Synod Abroad protested sharply against Constantinople's attempt to restrict archbishops Anastasy and Alexander. He showed that Constantinople's action contra- dicted the canons of the Church (i.e., canon 6 of the Second Council, 21 of Trullo, 128 and 129 of Carthage, and 74 of the Apostles). 1
Opponents of the Church Abroad such as Professor Bogolepov always try to show that she has violated the territorial principle of the Orthodox Church. Such objections always rest on a misunderstanding. The Church Abroad does not claim to be an autocephalous Church in the sense that the established patriarchates are. Nor does she claim to be an autonomous Church in the sense that, for example, the Church of Finland is. Rather she claims to represent the autocephalous Russian Orthodox Church abroad; she claims those dioceses and missions of the Russian Church not behind the Iron Curtain. Following the spirit of Patriarch Tikhon's l920 ukaz and Metropolitan Sergius' freely-given counsel of 1926, the Church Abroad is the temporary administrator Q the foreign dioceses o_f the Russian Church. Were the communists to be ejected from the Soviet Union and the enslavement of the Moscow Patriarchate brought to an end, the Chœurch Abroad, after carefully ascertaining that the Russian Church was in fact free, would integrate herself again with the Patriarchal Russian Orthodox Church.
1. D˜'Herbigny, op. cit.˜ p. 189.
page 61
Even enemies of the Church Abroad agree that she faithfully keeps the traditions of the Russian Church. She contrasts sharply in this respect with the Moscow Patriarchate, which is rapidly casting off all vestiges of traditional Russian Orthodoxy. Yet her adherence to Russian tradition is not blind. Thus in the matter of the "limits of the Church," where the main current of Russian theology felt the effects of Roman Catholic influence in the XVIII and XIX centuries, the Church Abroad has followed such men as St. John of Kronstadt, Alexis Khomyakov, and Bishop Ignaty Bryanchaninov, who professed the correct view. Metropolitan Antony and Fr. George Grabbe of the Church Abroad have been influential in restoring awareness of the Biblical and Patristic attitude respecting this point.
Hence, in the final analysis, the validity of the position taken by the Church Abroad depends on whether or not she was and is justified in not maintaining relations with the Moscow Patriarchate. As has been shown, at first the Church Abroad was compelled to separate herself from Moscow because of the disorganization of the Russian Church. Later, especially after Sergius' "Declaration" of 1927, when the disorganization of the Church was "repaired" in its own way by the Soviet regime, the sole reason for not dealing with Moscow was the Patriarch's total subservience to an atheist government. This last-mentioned fact, as has been shown, prompted Sergius in 1926 to ask the Russian bishops abroad to break relations with the Moscow Patriarchate if they did not wish to be subservient to the Soviet government. Those such as Evlogy who were foolish enough to deal with Moscow soon found themselves caught in a spider's web of political "loyalty" to the Soviets .
page 62
The Church Abroad refused and refuses to deal with the Moscow Patriarchate, knowing that the Patriarchate in its foreign relations is directed not by a free episcopate or even a relatively free episcopate (as was the case of the Greek Church under the Turks) but by atheist communists manipulating docile puppets for purposes aimed directly at the destruction of the Church.
The Western European diocese under Evlogy, as has been shown, at times professed a "legalistic" view of the situation. The fact that they were dealing with puppets was declared unimportant until the pressures for political obedience and subservience grew to be intolerable. The American Metropolia has had the same ambivalent attitude towards Moscow. At times she has declared the Moscow Patriarchate an entirely legitimate organization even in her foreign dealings. Then, when Moscow would suspend her for lack of political obedience, she would join the Church Abroad and declare that the demand for political subservience to communism allowed - or rather, demanded - disobedience to the ukazes of the Moscow Patriarchate. Occasionally the Metropolia has tried to steer a course between these two views, declaring that suspensions for political disloyalty to the Soviet government are invalid, whereas actions such as the granting of autocephaly (which are obviously just as much politically motivated by the communist overseers of the Patriarchate's foreign policy) are valid. In one thing, however, the Metropolia has been quite consistent--in claiming that when Moscow's ukazes are directed against the Church Abroad (even when they have explicit political motives behind them, as did, for instance,
Tikhon's ukaz of 1922), they are valid and have to be obeyed. Thus Fr.
Meyendorff of the Metropolia, basing himself on this ukaz of'l922, states,
page 63
"Since 1922 the ˜'Synod of Carlovtsy' has no independent canonical existence." 1 Fr. Meyendorff then concludes that since 1922 the Church Abroad has been in schism from her Mother Church, the Moscow Patriarchate. At the same time Professor Bogolepov can write concerning an action by Metropolitan Platon of the American Metropolia, œ"In 1933 Metropolitan Platon rejected the demands of the Moscow Patriarchate for submission of the American Metropolia and a declaration of loyalty to the Soviet Government on the part of the American clergy." 2 If, as Fr. Meyendorff asserts, the Church Abroad was bound to obey a ukaz from
Moscow, even one with a clear political motive behind it, why did not the Metropolia also have to obey a similar ukaz from her "Mother Church"?
Obviously we have here an untenable double standard.
Furthermore, the free actions of the leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate before Sergius' submission in 1927 show what value it ascribed to the ukazes extracted from it by the communists. Thus after the ukaz of 1922, when Mr. Colton of the Y.M.C.A. approached Tikhon on the matter of confirming Metropolitan Platon, the Patriarch directed him to take the matter to the Synod of Bishops of the Church Abroad, showing that, unlike Fr. Meyendorff in 1970, be ascribed no significance to the ukaz of l926 issued over his name, 3 Metropolitan Sergius' advice to the Church Abroad in 1926 showed that he too ascribed no importance to the ukaz. Archbishop Seraphim of Finland, who served as a go-between or Patriarch Tikhon and the Church Abroad, gives the following testimony: "I
1. In The Orthodox Church, February, 1970, p. 4.
2. Ibid., March 1970, p. 5
3. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 133
page 64
used all my influence so that the Patriarch should not suppress the Synod (Abroad) and he wished to follow my advice. When in January, 1924, Evlogy requested the suppression of the Synod by the Patriarch, the latter refused. A similar refusal came from Metropolitan Peter (of Krutitsk, Guardian of the Patriarchal Throne after Tikhon's death in 1925), to whom Evlogy addressed himself in l925." l The Bolsheviks would, of course, have been delighted if Tikhon had done as Evlogy wished. He incurred their dis”pleasure by not doing so. The fact, already discussed, that Patriarch Tikhon sanctioned such actions of the Church Abroad as the creation of new dioceses, shows that he considered it his legitimate representative abroad.
One last matter remains to be mentioned. Professor Bogolepov has attacked the Church Abroad's claim to be a part of the Russian Church. "Being part of the Russian Church means belonging to it, being in administrative contact with it and, above all, recognizing its supreme authority." 2 He asks, "How can canonical communion endure after the Church Abroad has interrupted all relationships with the Moscow Patriarchate, and after Patriarchs Sergius and Alexis have suspended the bishops of the Synod Abroad? It follows that only spiritual communion remains. . . . In any case such communion has no canonical significance." 3 The history of the Church shows many cases when relations between bishops and the administrative center have been broken. It is especially prevalent during times of Persecution. In all such instances, including the early years of Patriarch
1. Ibid., p. 255.
2. Bogolepov, Towards, p. 73.
3. Bogolepov, Towards, p. 74.
page 65
Tikhon, when the Bolsheviks were supporting the "Living Church,œ only "spiritual communion" with the center was possible. If the Moscow Patriarchate's political servitude to an atheist government is a justifiable reason for not having relations with her, as the Church Abroad asserts and the American Metropolia alternately asserts or denies as she finds expedient, then such "spiritual communion" with the Church of Russia is indeed possible. To show that such communion does exist, here is a letter from the Soviet Union addressed to Metropolitan Philaret and Archbishop Antony of Geneva of the Church Abroad: "Spiritually we are united. Our divisions are external and therefore temporary. We Russian Orthodox people remain at one with you in our hearts, we pray for you and beg your holy prayers and blessings. With great joy we have heard your words of brotherly love and compassion broadcast to us. We were glad to hear that our fellow-countryrmen of the dispersion are zealously preserving our true Orthodox faith ..." 1 Is such communion, as Professor Bogolepov asserts, really "of no canonical significance"?
1. In Michael Bourdeaux, Patriarch and Prophets, New York, 1970, p. 162.
