Chapter III: The Orthodox Church In America Since The Bolshevist Revolution

page 67

CHAPTER III

THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA SINCE THE BOLSHEVIST REVOLUTION

In his Toward an American Orthodox Church, Alexander Bogolepov canonist of the American Metropolia and the ideological architect of its recently-received "autocephaly" from Moscow, writes: "In determining the canonical status of the American Metropolitanate two periods must be distinguished: (1) from the arrival of the Russian Orthodox Mission in Alaska in 1794 to the Fourth All American Sobor in Detroit in 1924; (2) from 1924 to the present.  During the first period the Russian parishes in America existed as part of the Russian Church.  In the course of the second period the Archdiocese of North America became an independent Local Church." 1  Thus for Bogolepov the Metroploia was already an autocephalous (local-autocephalous) Church, that is, in 1963.  As we shall see, Bogolepov actually dates the Metropolia's autocephaly from 1924.  What Moscow did in 1970 was merely to recognize forty-six years of autocephalous existence.

A man who can make such claims deserves closer inspection.  In a recent issue of St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, published by the Metropolia's principal seminary, we find an article on Bogolepov entitled "Role of Honor," written by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, dean of the seminary.  According to Fr. Alexander, Bogolepov was born in Russia in 1886 in the family of a priest, and was graduated from a theological seminary in 1906 at the age of twenty.  He did not continue his theological education at the academy, however.  "Instead of continuing in an ecclesiastical career he enrolled at St. Peterburg's School of Law.  It is as if the Church were

1. Towards an American Orthodox Church, New York, 1963, p. 78

page 68

losing to secular culture its best sons only to recover them much later . . . 1  Bogolepov was graduated in 1910 from the school of law and in 1915, after receiving his Master;s degree in law, he was appointed a Privat-Dozent, and in 1921 a full professor of law, at St. Petersburg University.  In 1922 he emigrated and moved to Berlin where he became an instructor in Russian.

When he came to the United States in 1951, he was invited (because of his legal training, no doubt) to teach canon law as well as the Russian and Slavonic languages at St. Vladimir's.  Thus Bogolepov found himself a canonist and theologian at the age of 65.  His first publication on canon law followed two years later, 2 in 1953, when he was sixty-seven.  His previous publications concerned law, politics, Russian grammar, and Church hymns.

We have dwelt on Bogolepov's biography to point out certain facts.  After an elementary theological education he entered the field of law, and then after the Revolution, that of secular culture.  He returned to theology in his mid-sixties.  It is obvious that one should be able to expect of Bogolepov, a former professor of law, the ability to handle words and construct logical arguments.  It is also evident that one should be wary, lest the professor's desire to "win his case" and his excessively "juridicial" (i.e., external) approach should lead him to by-pass the truth.

That Professor Bogolepov has been effective in winning supporters

1. St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly (hereafter S.V.S.Q.), 1966, vol. X, no. 1-2, p. 7.

2. See S.V.S.Q., 1966, vol. 10, no. 1-2, pp. 9-11 for a list.

page 69

of his point of view is evidenced by the recent article of Katherine Valone, a Greek-American columnist, in the magazine Logos.  In her "Requirements for Autocephality of a Church," she writes, "An excellent book on the issue of the autocephalous status of the Orthodox Church in America was published in 1963 by Alexander A. Bogolepov, Professor of Canon Law at St. Vladimir's Seminary." 1  She then reconstructs Bogolepov's arguments and concludes, "The Church in America has all the necessary requirements for autocephality. . . . The time may in fact be overripe." 2  If Bogolepov's argument is wrong, then he has led Katherine Valone and countless others into temptation.

To return to the history of Orthodoxy in America.  When Archbishop Evdokim (Meschersky) went back to Russia for the Moscow Council of 1917-18 and then chose to remain there as a leader of the "Living Church" schism, his American flock, whose status at that time has been described in Chapter I, was left without a ruling bishop.

On February 25, 1919, Bishop Alexander (Nemolovsky), Evdokim's suffragan, was elected by the Second All-American Sobor in Cleveland to be Archbishop of North America.3

As has been shown, immediately after the Church Abroad was organized, the American archdiocese came under its jurisdiction.  On July 22, 1921, the Administration Abroad made Alaska a separate diocese of the American Church 4 in an action later approved by Patriarch Tikhom. 5

1. Logos, May, 1970, p. 10.

2. Logos, May, 1970, p. 11.

3. M.L.J. Schrank, "Problems of Orthodoxy in America: The Russian Church," S.V.S.Q., vol. VI, no. 4, p. 187.

4. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 18.

page 70

The Carlovtsy Council of November-December, 1921, was recognized in writing by Archbishop Alexander and Bishops Antony of Alaska and Stephen of Pittsburg.1  On April 4, 1922, the Administration Abroad conferred the right to grant divorce on Alexander of North America and Antony of Alaska.2  Thus the Church Abroad clearly had jurisdiction over America in the early 'twenties.

Archbishop Alexander, unfortunately, proved to be incapable of administering his diocese.  After he had become enmeshed in acute financial difficulties, Bishop Antony of Alaska undertook an investigation of his affairs.  This prompted Alexander to leave America for Europe.3

Late in 1922 the Church Abroad, in one of its first actions after Patriarch Tikhon's ukaz of 1922, relieved Alexander of his position as administrator of the American diocese, and replaced him with Metropolitan Platon of Odessa.4  Metropolitan Platon thus received his appointment to America from the Church Abroad.

At the Third All-American Sobor held November 25-27, 1922, in Pittsburg, Metropolitan Platon was formally asked to rule the diocese.5  It was a great tragedy for American Orthodoxy that Platon, like Alexander, proved to be an unworthy man.

Shrewdly sizing up the mood of the disorganized but ecclesiastically ambitious American archdiocese, Platon had already begun intriguing to

1. Andreev, op. cit., p. 91.

2. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 48. 

3. The Russian Orthodox Church in America (An Historical Inquiry), Jordanville, 1955, (hereafter to be abbreviated Russian), p. 7.

4. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 60.

5. Schrank,, loc. cit., p. 188.

page 71

have Patriarch Tikhon recognize him in his rights.  When, however, as was shown in Chapter II, Platon's representative, Mr. Colton of the Y.M.C.A., approached the Patriarch in 1922 (accompanied b Fr. Theodore Pashkovsky of the Metropolia, who later became Metropolitan Theophilus and who testified concerning this meeting with Tikhon in an American court.),1 Tikhon gave Colton a "recommendation for the Council of emigré bishops who direct the affairs of the Russian Church Abroad."2  Up to the present it was thought by all parties, including the Synod Abroad, that this was a written recommendation signed by the Patriarch.  But in the Sea Cliff Parish trial of the Spring of 1971, the very cablegram sent by Colton whole at sea returning to the United States from Europe was procured from the files of the Metropolia for use in the court.  The exact wording of the text had been guarded all these years by the Metropolia and was unknown even to the Synod Abroad.  The cablegram reads as follows: 

On board SS Olympic          May 4, 1922

W. W. Bouimistrow Esq.

350 W. 87th St.

N. Y., N. Y.

Dear Sir,

Just before leaving Russia I received your earnest cables.  I was able to present them in person to the Patriarch, and received his favorable reply.  It was not regarded prudent by either of us for him to send a written communication.  This proved correct, for my papers were searched at the border.  The Patriarch expressed it as his wish and recommendation that the Supreme Church Administration Outside of Russia request

1. Russian, p. 7.

2. D'Herbigny, op. cit., p. 133.

page 72

the Metropolitan Platon to remain in America with the full authority asked for, detailing to the Administration in Canada Archbishop Alexander and to the U.S. Anthony.  He chose to make this in the form of a recommendation.  Since the matter was already in the hands of the Administration, that he did not wish to go over their heads.  He asked me to convey his answer to the Metropolitan Evlogius in Berlin, and this I did last Sunday morning.  In reply to my inquiry when as answer might be expected to you in New York, he replied that he would at once communicate with the Administration with headquarters in the Balkans, believing the final word would not be long delayed.

I shall look forward to seeing you as soon as my engagements admit of staying in New York.  Information is at hand, however, making clear that this will not be the case for at least a week after my arrival on May 10.

With kind personal regards,

yours sincerely,

E.T. Colton

This document shows most clearly that Patriarch Tikhon considered the Church Abroad ecclesiastically responsible for America.

Checked in his plans, Platon soon resorted to plain forgery.  Not long afterwards there appeared a "ukaz" by Patriarch Tikhon dated September 29, 1923, confirming Platon as head of the American Church.  This document, however, was drawn up not by Patriarch Tikhon but by Platon himself, and was recognized as a forgery by an American court: "Platon Rojdstvensky, except for the alleged forged letter of 29 September, 1923, has no right to administer the trust in the real property herein involved."1

1. Russian, p. 8 

page 73

This false ukaz was used by Platon in the litigation he had with Kedrovsky of the Living Church over the Cathedral of St. Nicholas in 1925.  It was the sole document which Platon could produce to support the legitimacy of his rights to the North American Diocese.  Not wishing to recognize the authority of the Synod Abroad and to use documents issued by it, he had only one avenue left open: to present to the American Court the false letter of Patriarch Tikhon.

This was a desperate step for Metropolitan Platon, forever disgracing himself and his followers.  Experts from the forces of Kedrovsky and the court proved irrefutably that the ukaz was an "unmitigated falsehood," and at the same time fabricated clumsily, very poorly, and thoughtlessly.  It is enough to say that the ukaz did not even bear the Patriarchal seal although other less important documents of the time bear the seal of the Patriarch.  This false appointment of Platon was concocted in New York and written in the new orthography (the V. Rev. Leonid Turkevich at first printed it in the old orthography, and then redid it photographically in the new) on paper which showed American water marks, easily proved by experts.  The ukaz was supposedly issued and signed by Patriarch Tikhon on September 29, 1923, and on the next day, September 30, it was printed in New York in the old orthography.  The editor of the "American Orthodox Messenger," the then Fr. Leonid Turkevich and later Metropolitan of Metropolia, never explained by what secret method this historic document could have flown from Moscow to New York in one day, been composed in the printery and printed in such a short time.

Furthermore, this imaginary "Edict" of Patriarch Tikhon about the appointment of Metropolitan Platon to America bears the number 41.  Is

page 74

it possible that by the end of September 1923, the Patriarchal office could have been using such a small number?  Patriarch Tikhon was freed from prison July 1, 1923.  Until September 29 (the date of the ukaz), three months passed.  Still, on November 8 of the same year, the Edict of Patriarch Tikhon concerning the change of the calendar1 bears the number 422.  This means that the Patriarch had issued just 41 documents in three months, and within the following five weeks, the number had reached 422!

American professors in universities who teach criminal law, unfailingly point out to their classes "the Patriarchal edict" No. 41 of September 29, 1923, "by which Metropolitan Platon was seemingly appointed to a diocese."2  It is truly astounding that Fr. Meyendorff of the Metropolia, writing in 1970, does not know all this, and says, "After his liberation the Patriarch also appointed Metropolitan Platon as head of the Church of North America (Sept. 29, 1923)."3  When Platon appeared at the Bishop's Council in Carlovtsy on October 16, 1924, it was as a bearer of the forged ukaz.  The other bishops present, naturally enough, took Platon at his word and did not question the authenticity of the ukaz.

In the early months of 1924, according to the Protestant M.L.J. Schrank, "the situation of the Russian Churches in the United States became chaotic."4  A certain John Kedrovsky of the "Living Church" began agitating among the American flock; he also attempted to seize St. Nicholas cathedral in New York.  Worse still, on January 16, 1924, a ukaz "of Patriarch Tikhon, duly promulgated jointly with the Sacred Synod"

1. Church News, 1923, no. 23-24.

2. See P.J. Michajlov, Candid Talks, Philadelphia, 1948 (in Russian).

3. In The Orthodox Church, February, 1970, p. 4.

4. Schrank, loc. cit., p. 188.

page 75

was issued.  According to Bogolepov, "By virtue of that ukaz, Metropolitan Platon was dismissed for having engaged in public acts of counter-revoluiton directed against the Soviet government."1  In Bogolepov's words, Platon "had" to obey the ukaz of the Patriarch or find a way out.

Platon reacted by summoning the Detroit Sobor of April, 1924.  Here it was decided "that it would be impossible for the American diocese to be directy dependent upon the Highest Church Authority on Moscow, as the Patriarch, in their estimation, did not have the freedom to communicate witht he outside world."2  The Sobor "proclaimed the Russian Orthodox Church in America to be temporarily autonomous until the convocation of a new All Russian Council.  The head of the Church in America was to be an elected Archbishop.  Also, there was to be a council of Bishops, a council made up of representatives from the clergy and laity, and peropdic All-American Sobors were to be held.  The Detroit Sobor cofirmed the election of Metropolitan Platon, and asked him to work out a system of rules with which to admnister the American Church in accordance with Orthodox tradition."3

Although the Sobor merely declared itself "temporarily autonomous," it was in fact making a bid for autocephaly.  For the desire fo the Sobor was to be fully ndependent both of Maoscow and of the Church Abroad.  The question of "autocephaly" was hotly debated at the Sobor.  Fr. Joseph Pishtey, now chancellor of the Metropolia, opposed the move.  The majority approved.4  At the Sobor the "Russian Orthdoox Church in North America" became the "American Orthdoox Church."  In the future her only

1. Bogolepov, Towards, pp. 79-80.

2. Schrank, loc. cit., p. 188.

3. Loc. cit.

4. Russian, pp. 11-15.

page 76

connection with the Russian Church was to be "spiritual ties and communion."1

In Bogolepov's view this Sobor founded a new autocephalous Church:

If we study the actions of the American Metropolitanate

in 1924 we realize that it meets all the necessary

requirements for the establishment of an

independent Autocephalous Church:

(a) Its canonical origin is beyond any cavil since it

was founded by the Russian Church as its foreign

diocese, while its bishops were appointed by the

Central Authority of the Russian Church of which

it was an integral part.

(b) By 1924 North American Metropolitanate had sufficiently 

matured for self-government.  It had over 

300 parishes, supported a theological seminary for 

the training of clergy, and had a number of affiliated

organizations.  It comprised three canonically appointed

bishops, Bishop Stephan of Pittsburg (appointed 

in 1916), Bishop Theophilus of Chicago (appointed

in 1922) and Metropolitan Platon.2

In his book Bogolepov compares the Detroit Sobor to the Russian Church's declaration of autocephaly in 1448 (which was recognized b Constantinople in 1589 - a parallel, Bogolepov would now add, to Moscow's recognition of the Metropolia's autocephaly in 1970).

But was the American Church actually ready for autocephaly (i.e., total self-government) in 1924?  No, it was not.  The 1924 bid came at a time when the Metropolia more than ever needed firm direction from the Church Abroad.

According to Michael Lopukhin, writing in St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, the period of the early 'twenties marked a low ebb in the life of American Orthodoxy: "By 1922, local priests were saying that 90% of

1. Ibid., pp. 14-15.

2. Bogolepov, Towards, pp. 81-2

page 77

the Russians in their community were untouched by the Church."1  He continues, "The 1926 U.S. Census reported only 95,134 members of the (Russian) Church, with 199 Churches.  This represents a dramatic drop from a report of 212 churches and 200,000 members in 1921."2  This period, in fact, represents the dark ages of the American Church.

Bogolepov's estimate of "over 300 parishes" in 1924 would appear to be wide of the mark of Lopukhin's U.S. Census figures are correct (there would have been somewhere between 212 and 199 churches in 1924).  Even wider of the mark is the thriving "theological seminary" that he claims existed in 1924.  According to the article "St. Vladimir's Seminary 1938-58," which appeared in the Summer, 1958, issue of the Quarterly, a very rudimentary seminary for the training of clergy existed in Minneapolis from 1905 to 1912 and at Tenafly, New Jersey, from 1913 to 1923.  "This Seminary was not conceived nor did it function as a school of theology in the full sense of the word, that is, as a center of a theological scholarship and thinking, as well as instruction.  Its pattern was that of a pre-revolutionary Russian 'Seminary,' or even a missionary School..."3

It is highly doubtful that such an institution could have adequately served the needs of an autocephalous Church.  In any case, according to the Quarterly, the Seminary "collapsed" in 1923 for lack of funds.4  No new seminary was opened until 1937.  Thus the "seminary" referred to by Bogolepov as existing in 1924 is a mere fiction.  From 1923 to 1937 the American Metropolia had no seminary whatever.

1. M. Lopukhin "The Russian Orthodox Church in America, A Psycho-Social View," S.V.S.Q., vol. VIII, no. 3, 1964, p. 135.

2. Lopukhin, loc. cit.

3. S.V.S.Q., Summer, 1958, p. 3.

4. S.V.S.Q., Summer, 1958, p. 3.

page 78

A demoralized and unchurched flock, no seminary for the training of clergy – these were the conditions under which the Metropolia made the first of her four bids for autocephaly.

Metropolitan Platon, the head of the new "temporary autonomous" autocephalous Church, soon encountered new difficulties which sent him to the Church Abroad for assistance.

When, for example, Bishop Adam denied Platon's jurisdiction over the North American diocese, the Synod Abroad saved Platon by deciding in his favor.1  Without the help of the Synod Abroad Platon could not have survived the attacks of Adam and the "Living Church."

It was not long, however, before the Church Abroad realized that Platon, like Metropolitan Evlogy, was playing a double game, using it for his own purposes but not ascribing any authority to it.

When Platon arrived at the Bishops' Council of the Church Abroad convened in Yugoslavia in 1926 (which we have already discussed), he asked for a letter recommending him to the EAstern Patriarchs and his own flock.  At the session held on June 27 Platon stated that, "for his part he firmly bore witness that he was a decisive enemy of the autocephaly of the American Church, and affirmed his full canonical submission to the Guardian of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter (of Krutitsk), to the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and the Bishops' Synod elected by it."2  When asked to sign this statement, however, he refused and quit the council.  As with Evlogy, his true intentions were made plain for all to see.

1. D'Herbigny, op. cit., footnote on p. 132.

2. Russian, p. 19. 

page 79

At the session of July 1, the Council of Bishops decided "to recognize as beyond doubt that Metropolitan Platon, despite his oral and written declarations, is striving toward the organization of an autocephalous administration for the North American Church."1  The Council condemned the decisions of the Detroit Sobor as "extremely dangerous and harmful for the interests of the Russian Church in America."2

The reply of the North American episcopate was that the Church Abroad "had no canonical significance."3  Soon Platon was to declare the Synod Abroad "uncanonical."4

Bishop Apollinary (Koshevoy), who came to America in 1924 at Metropolitan Platon's request, was invited by Platon to attend the Bishops' Council of the American archdiocese held on January 31, 1927, in which an "appeal" was addressed to the American flock declaring the Church Abroad "uncanonical."  The letter of the four other American suffragan bishops of September, 1926, to the Church Abroad (which according to Apollinary was "crude in form and insolent in content") was confirmed.5

Apollinary reports, "All the hierarchs approved this 'appeal' to the American flock.  I alone did not agree with them.  I declared that I did acknowledge and do acknowledge the Synod of Bishops as canonical, both in origin and in its present form; that I did submit and do submit to it as a judicial-administrative authority, that I deny the right of the American diocese to 'ecclesiastical self-determination.'"6

1. Ibid., p. 20

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., p. 21

4. Ibid., pp. 28-29

5. In "Archbishop Apollinary," The Orthodox Word, Jan.-Feb., 1970, p. 43.

6. Loc. vit.

page 80

                                                                                                                                        80

When Apollinary proved “firm and unbending” he was (“on the spot, in some five minutes”) deprived of his suffraganship, removed from his position as rector of the church in San Francisco, and relieved of all duties.¹  After this had been done, Apollinary turned to his judges and meekly stated, “Forgive me for having led you into such temptation.”  The other bishops, however, shouted “Go away!” and, although the table was set for dinner, drove Apollinary out with the words, “We do not want to share even a slice of bread with you.”²   With Bishop Apollinary, the truth of Christ also departed from Metropolitan Platon’s jurisdiction.

In late April, 1927, The Church Abroad suspended Platon and appointed Apollinary head of the American Diocese.  The Platonite schism now in full force, Apollinary began to collect such of the flock as remained loyal to the Church Abroad.

Once Apollinary had been suspended, Platon set to work on a new plan for the attainment of autocephaly, since no autocephalous Church had recognized the North American diocese as a sister church after the Detroit Sobor of 1924.  As Basil Bensin writes in St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, “Metropolitan Platon, after the proclamation of the autonomy of the Russian Orthodox Church (in America) of 1924, made a special agreement with the Syrian Archbishop Eftimios to proclaim and independently establish ‘The Holy Eastern Orthodox Church and Apostolic Church in North America.’  This was eventually chartered by Archbishop Eftimios on February 1, 1928, in the state of Massachusetts.  However, this attempt was not realized due to the opposition of the Russian clergy and the Greek

• Loc. cit.
• Russian, p.29.

                                                                    81

Orthodox Church.”¹ 

Realizing that the autocephalous Orthodox Churches would not recognize his Russian American archdiocese Church, Platon decided to let Eftimios form an “American Orthodox Church” under his control, calculating that such an organization, embracing all Orthodox nationalities in America, would be more likely to win recognition.  Fr. Leonid Turkevich, the future Metropolitan Leonty, was to be ordained bishop and become Eftimios’ Chief assistant.²   If Eftimios failed, Platon reasoned, he could put all the blame on the Arab and himself remain head of the Russian Archdiocese of America.

This second bid for autocephaly also failed because of opposition from the Greek Archdiocese of America (formed in 1922) and many of the Russian clergy.  Bogolepov, of course, chooses to ignore this incident in his Toward an American Orthodox Church.  After all, he has no need of two declarations of autocephaly.  It is an indisputable fact, however, that on December 19, 1927, the “Holy Synod of the American Orthodox Catholic Church” sent a letter to all autocephalous Orthodox Churches informing them of the existence of a new autocephalous sister Church.³ 

Eftimios, briefly head of the “American Orthodox Church,” soon tired of such games, married, and dropped out of Church affairs.⁴ 

In December, 1929, Platon formed the American Metropolitan district, and what is known as the “Metropolia” came into existence.

At about the same time Platon informed Bishop Tikhon of the Church

• S.V.S.Q., Summer, 1958, p. 15.
• Russian, p. 35.
• Ibid.
• Ibid., p. 42.

                                                                  82

Abroad, who had come to America to assist Apollinary, that he was prepared to “make peace” with the Church Abroad if he could retain the title “Metropolitan of All America and Canada.”¹   Evidently Platon’s attitude towards the canonicity of the Church Abroad was nothing if not flexible.  The Synod Abroad, however, having learned the Platon was involved in serious financial difficulties as a result of his own irresponsibility, refused the offer.²   And fortunately so.  Almost immediately Platon went to court to try to drive the Church Abroad out of North America.  He lost the cases he started, however, and certain embarrassing details, such as his forged “ukaz of Patriarch Tikhon,” were brought to light.  To mention only one case, the Superior Court of Connecticut ruled against Platon and for the Church Abroad in 1931.³ 

In 1933 the righteous Apollinary reposed.  He was replaced by Archbishop Tikhon as head of the Synod parishes in America.

In the same year (1933), Archbishop Benjamin (Fedchenkov) arrived in America as the official representative of the Moscow Patriarchate.  He demanded “a written pledge of loyalty to the Soviet power” from Platon and his clergy.⁴   According to Bogolepov, when Platon and his clergy refused the loyalty oath and once again declared the Metropolia “temporarily autonomous,”⁵  “the Acting Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius, and his Sacred Synod declared the proclamation of the autonomy of the North American Diocese null and void, since it was made without

• Russian, p.52.
• Ibid.
• Ibid.
• Schrank, loc. cit., p. 191.
• Towards, p. 80.

                                                                    83

the consent of the Moscow Patriarchate.  The group around Metropolitan Platon was declared schismatic, and Metropolitan Platon himself, as the initiator of the schism, was suspended.”¹

Thus, in Bogolepov’s words, “the Moscow Patriarchate continued to consider the American Archdiocese’s proclamation that it was ‘self-governing’ Church a schism and an arbitrary secession of a diocese from the Central Authority of the entire Russian Church and so suspended its hierarchy.”²

He continues: “It follows, in this connection, that the essential problem in determining the canonical position of the American Metropolitanate is the problem of deciding whether the proclamation of its independence constituted a schismatic secession of a diocese from the entire Church or the establishment of a new self-governing Church.”³

We shall pass over Bogolepov’s indecision as to whether the American archdiocese became autocephalous in 1924 or 1933 and take up another aspect of his thought.  According to Bogolepov, any action of the Moscow Patriarch must be obeyed, since Moscow is a legal “canonical” administration.  Moscow’s political servitude to the communists does not, for him, affect the canonicity of her activities abroad, even if this should consist in demanding a loyalty oath to the Soviet regime.  Writing in the March 1970, issue of The Orthodox Church, for example, he remarks concerning the Metropolia’s bid for autocephaly from Moscow, “The question is asked: how can the American Metropolia accept the proclamation of its autocephaly from the Moscow Patriarchate, which is dependent upon the Soviet Government

• Ibid., pp. 80-1.
• Ibid., p. 81
• Ibid.

                                                                84

and always supports Soviet and external politics…?”¹   He answers, “When the question is presented in such a manner, a confusion of ecclesiastical-canonical and political problems result.  Canons are rules (having the force of law) concerning the organization and government which have been established by the Church itself.  The canonicity of each Local Church is defined, in conformance with the Canons, by the consecration of the hierarchs according to the order of the apostolic succession of authority and by recognition of all other Sister-Churches.”²   Thus political servitude (though it inevitably leads to an infringement of canons on the election of bishops, etc.) is not seen by Bogolepov as a factor affecting the canonicity and, therefore, the moral correctness (for what is “canonical” is morally correct) of the Moscow Patriarchate’s actions abroad.

The Metropolia in 1924 and 1933 had to obey the politically dictated ukazes of the Patriarchate.  Or, like the Russian Church when Constantinople fell under the Turks, she could use the political servitude of the Mother Church as an additional reason for the declaring an autocephaly for which she was already prepared.  Either schism or autocephaly in 1924 (1933 being merely a repeat performance of the suspension by Moscow in 1924) – this is the only choice Bogolepov leaves.  “Temporary autonomy” necessitated by the enslavement of one’s Mother Church is not recognized by Attorney Bogolepov as a permissible state of ecclesiastical existence.

Fr. Meyendorff in his statement on the Church Abroad in the February, 1970, issue of the Orthodox Church uses a similar kind of reasoning when he claims that the ukaz of Patriarch Tikhon in 1922, dictated though

• In The Orthodox Church, March, 1970.
• The Orthodox Church, March, 1970.

                                                                  85

it was by the Bolsheviks and later de facto repudiated by the Patriarch himself, was binding on the Church Abroad.¹   Here, too, political enslavement does not affect canonicity.

Thus the Metropolia must choose: either she became autocephalous in 1924 (which, considering her state at the time, is clearly ridiculous), or she was legitimately suspended by Moscow in 1924 (and 1933).  Such is the result of refusing to admit political servitude as a factor justifying temporary autonomy.

Furthermore, if we accept Bogolepov’s fiction that the Metropolia became autocephalous in 1924, then we have to admit that it became autocephalous unconsciously.  Otherwise it would not have made another bid for autocephaly in 1927 by way of Archbishop Eftimios’ “American Orthodox Church.”

Metropolitan Platon died on April 20, 1934.  In November, 1934, the Fifth All-American Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America was held in Cleveland, Ohio.  The Sobor elected Bishop Theophilus (Pashkovsky) of San Francisco as Metropolitan.  On January 5, 1935, Theophilus was suspended by the Moscow Patriarchate.² 

  

Platon’s death gave the Church Abroad great hopes that the American Metropolia’s tragic schism could be healed.  On May 18, 1934, Metropolitan Antony, head of the Synod Abroad, addressed an appeal to “all Russian people in North America and Canada” in which he said, “The Lord commanded Christians that they should always dwell in the union of love and prayed that we should be one as the Holy Trinity is one (John XVII.21).

• Ibid., February, 1970, p. 4.
• Schrank, loc. cit., p. 192.

                                                                    86

But instead of such union we see only the emergence of new groups and jurisdictions at mutual enmity with one another.  The commandments of the Lord, the good of Holy Church, and, finally, even our duty to the Russian people, suffering from persecutions - all this demands of us that the divisions in the North American diocese cease and that she take her proper place in a united Russian Church Abroad.”¹  

The Church Abroad also decided to send one of its pillars, Archimandrite Vitaly of the Pochaev Lavra, to America as a peacemaker.  Vitaly, who had been confessor of Holy Orthodoxy both under the Roman Catholics and the communists, and had been twice sentenced to death only to be providentially rescued each time, was consecrated Bishop of Detroit in Belgrade.

At his consecration Vitaly realized very clearly that it was his task “to go and establish peace and Church unity in America.  I feel this duty with all my being, although I have not yet decided how to do it.”²  

Upon arriving in America, Vitaly was horrified to discover the extent to which American Orthodoxy was demoralized and corrupted.  Everywhere “business” was king.

According to Vitaly, the flock with which he entered into relations consisted 80% of Carpatho-russians and Galitians and 20% of Russian immigrants from the western provinces of Russia.³   His long-time affiliation with Carpathian Russia as archimandrite of the Pochaev Lavra assisted him in finding a common basis of communication with these people.  The older clergy were, he found, on the whole for union with the Church Abroad and for “discipline.”  The younger clergy constituted a greater

• Russian, pp. 64-5
• Russian, p. 64.
• Archbishop Vitaly, Motives of My Life., Jordanville, 1955, p. 133.

                                                                   87

problem: “The younger American clergy know neither Russia, nor Orthodoxy.  Its ecclesiastical training is weak. . . For them the priestly calling means ‘business.’”¹   This element considered its leader to be Bishop Leonty (Turkevich).  Of the Russian population in America Vitaly estimated that “not more than 15-20% attend Church.”²

To the Russian population in America Vitaly issued a series of fiery calls to union, such as the following of March 19, 1935: -

“How many years has our Church division continued?  Eight, perhaps ten years.  During that time, fathers and brothers, our hair has not even had time to grey.  And, look, the Serbs had a Church division which lasted more than 300 years, through ten generations!  Who divided us?  I think it was Russian stupidity.  But in order to divide the Serbs it took the work of the Turks, the Greeks, and especially of the Germans. . .  But after the Great War, Serbian bishops came together from Turkey, from Greece, from the Kingdom of Serbia, from Montenegro, from the Carlovtsy patriarchate, from the Bosno-Herzegovinian autocephaly and the Dalmation autonomous churches. . .  Seven jurisdictions, seven schools, seven ordos and forms of Church life.  And through all these impediments and obstacles which had been carefully erected by enemies the Serbian bishops extended a hand to one another and said: Let us overcome the three hundred year division and let us be one Serbian Church.  And then as a sign of unity they elected the eldest of their number, Kyr Dimitry, as Patriarch. . .  And now there is one Serbian Church, consolidated in its parts which had been sundered apart.  Let us believe that this

• Ibid., p. 134.
• Vitaly, op. cit., p. 135.

                                                                   88

experience of our Serbian brethren will inspire us also and that it will help us to come to the unity, organization, and discipline of the Russian Church Abroad.”¹

On July 26, 1934, Bishop Tikhon and Metropolitan Theophilus had a meeting.  Bishops Arseny, Alexy, and Metropolitan Theophilus of the Metropolia declared themselves in union.  The most ardent opponent appeared to be Bishop Leonty.²

On September 13, 1934, as a gesture of reconciliation the Church Abroad removed the ban which had been placed on the American Metropolia.³ 

At this hopeful stage patriarch Varnava of Serbia intervened with his invitation that the various parts of the Church Abroad come to Yugoslavia in 1935 to hear their differences and reëstablish unity.

In addition to Patriarch Varnava, this conference was attended by Antony, Anastasy (who had succeeded Antony as acting head of the Church Abroad because of the later’s advanced age and poor health), Evlogy, Theophilus, and Dimitry of the Far East (who was in union with the Church Abroad).  A “temporary Statue of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad” was drawn up and signed by all those present, including Evlogy and Theoplilus.  The “temporary” aspect of the Statue referred to the fact that it was to remain in effect until the Russian Church should become free.  According to the new Statue, “The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, consisting of the dioceses, missions, and churches located outside the borders of Russia is an inseparable part of the Russian Orthodox Church,

• Ibid., pp. 59-60.
• Russian, p. 65.
• Ibid.

                                                                  89

temporarily existing on autonomous principles.”¹

It continues:

“The highest legislative, judicial, and administrative organ of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is the Council of Bishops who gather yearly, and its executive organ is the Holy Bishops’ Synod.”² 

“The Holy Bishops’ Synod consists of the four member-representatives of each of the four Metropolitan districts (Near Eastern, Far Eastern, West European and North American) under the presidency of Blessed Antony, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia.”³ 

Antony’s successor was to be elected by the Bishops’ Council.

According to the Statue the “first judicial instance with authority over bishops was the district council (of bishops).  For bishops not belonging to the district and for the metropolitans of districts, it was the Episcopal Synod (of Carlovtsy).”⁴ 

Complaints against the decisions of a court of the first instance were to be submitted, not later than two months after the trial, “to a general Bishops’ Council (of the Church Abroad) in written form.”⁵ 

On November 19, 1935, the signers of the Statue sent an epistle to “Our Beloved in Christ Russian Orthodox Flock of the Dispersion.”  It stated that, “after a series of sessions in the work of which His Holiness the Patriarch (Varnava) took a most lively and active part, they (i.e., the signers) had worked out a Statue concerning the structure of the Russian Church Abroad, constructed on the principle of its division into four Metropolitan

• Russian, p. 70.
• Ibid.
• Ibid.
• Ibid., p. 79
• Russian, p. 79.

                                                                 90

districts, solidly united in a common center – the Council of Russian Hierarchs Abroad and its executive Organ, the Holy Synod. . .”¹ 

Consider the fruits of the great humility and love of Patriarch Varnava and Metropolitans Antony and Anastasy, true archpastors of the Saviour’s flock.  No demands for political “loyalty,” no humiliating requirements were imposed on the schismatic jurisdictions of Evlogy and Theophilus.  Rather they were welcomed into the Church Abroad on equal terms with the Balkan (or Near Eastern) and Far Eastern districts.  All that was asked of Evlogy and Theophilus was that they join the holy catholicity of the Church Abroad, in unity overcoming the weakness and sin of division.

Evlogy soon repudiated his signature, but Theophilus remained true to his.  He declared, “The position of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has been strengthened by the unity and peace which have been obtained.  Now we have one center of Church administration in the Bishops’ Synod in Sremsky Carlovtsy, where the American Metropolitan district will be represented by our elected representative.”² 

On November 28-30, 1935, the bishops of the Church Abroad and Metropolia met at St. Tikhon’s Monastery in Pennsylvania, and, after hearing Metropolitan Theophilus’ report on his trip to Serbia, they decided to put the agreement - i.e., the Statue - into effect.³  

In March, 1936, the Russian American Orthodox Messenger, which had long been extinct, was revived.  In its first issue (March, 1936) it declared, “Through the efforts of His Holiness the Patriarch of Serbia,

• Ibid., p.71.
• Russian, p. 72.
• Ibid., p. 73.

                                                                 91

Varnava, and the new head of our North American Metropolia, His Eminence Metropolitan Theophilus, peace between the jurisdictions was at last obtained at the end of last year, and it has affected our Church like the breath of a Grace-filled spring.”¹ 

On May 14-17, 1936, a council of the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America was held in Pittsburg.  It issued the following encyclical letter to the faithful: “With great joy we inform you, beloved, that at our Bishops’ Sobor in Pittsburg the ‘Temporary Statue of the Russian Church Abroad,’ worked out in November of 1935 by out hierarchs at the conference held under the presidency of His Holiness the Patriarch of Serbia, Kyr Varnava, was unanimously accepted by all of us, with the preservation of the existing autonomy.”² 

It continues, “All of our Archpastors, headed by their Metropolitan, enter into the make-up of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which is the highest ecclesiastical organ for our whole Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and which remains, at the same time, an inseparable part of the All-Russian Church.”³

This encyclical letter was signed by Metropolitan Theophilus, Archbishops Adam, Tikhon, and Vitaly, and Bishops Arseny, Leonty, Benjamin, Jerome, Makary, and Leonty – i.e., by all the bishops of the two jurisdictions.

The decisions of the Pittsburg Bishops’ Sobor were then submitted for approval to the Bishops’ Council held in Carlovtsy on September 19,

• Messenger, March, 1936, no. 1, p. 1.
• Messenger, May, 1936, no. 3, p. 33.
• Ibid., pp. 33-34.

                                                                   92

1936, and approved.  Thus the requirement of the Temporary Statue that the decisions of the bishops’ councils of the four Metropolitan districts be approved by the Bishops’ Council of the whole Church Abroad was adhered to by the American bishops.  Bishop Malary represented the American Metropolia at the session of September 19.  On September 20, the Council elected Anastasy as head of the Church Abroad to replace Metropolitan Antony, who had reposed on August 10, 1936.¹

In October, 1937, an All-American Sobor was held in New York, at which the “Temporary Statue” was accepted.² 

Alexander Bogolepov, as will be shown later, does not think very highly of the sobor.  The author of the article “St. Vladimir’s Seminary 1938-58,” however, is of a different opinion.  He writes, “The 1937 Sobor was a turning point in the history of our Church.  Here it manifested a readiness for a constructive planning of our own future.  Among other vital decisions, the Sobor acknowledged the urgent need for a theological school.”³   Besides opening the seminary, which had been closed since 1923, the Sobor founded a clergy home, guaranteed the further existence of the Russian American Orthodox Messenger, and instituted financial reforms.⁴   According to the testimony of her own members, when she became an integral part of the Church Abroad, the American Metropolia received a new lease on life.

The two jurisdictions, the Church Abroad and the Metropolia, were thus fused to form one Metropolitan District under Metropolitan Theophilus.

• Russian, p. 76
• Ibid., p. 81.
• S.V.S.Q., Summer, 1958, p. 4.
• Basil Bensin, History of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America, N. Y., 1941, pp. 25-6.

                                                                  93

A group of dedicated men undertook the task of making the newly-resurrected St. Vladimir’s Seminary a respectable institution of theological learning.  According to St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, Archbishop Vitaly “took an active part in the preparation of the seminary’s transformation into a graduate school.”¹ 

The advantage of the Metropolia’s new canonical position soon became evident.  When Archbishop Adam again rebelled, the documents of his trial were forwarded to the Synod Abroad, and it, as a court of second instance, settled the case on June 1, 1939.² 

At the Second All Church Abroad Sobor held in 1938 in Carlovtsy, Bishop Benjamin of American represented the Metropolia and participated in the sessions of the Bishops’ Synod.³

Between 1938 and 1940, the Bishops’ Council of the Church Abroad raised Bishop Arseny of America to the title of Archbishop, made Archpriest Ioann Nedzelnitsky a protopresbyter, and performed numerous similar actions.⁴ 

In the Russian American Orthodox Messenger of January, 1940, Metropolitan Theophilus stated, “I consider it my duty to testify of my thankfulness toward the chairman of the Synod Abroad, Metropolitan Anastasy, for his benevolent attitude toward us.  He has kept his promise to support us in the task of bringing peace to our Church. . .  By his influence and elevated authority Metropolitan Anastasy is able to contain

• S.V.S.Q., Summer, 1958, p. 7.
• Russian, p. 84.
• Ibid., p. 83.
• Ibid.

                                                                    94

the passions of certain restless persons. . . to influence and direct Church life along a more peaceful, normal path.”¹

Summing up the years 1935-46, when the Metropolia was in union with the Church Abroad, Archbishop Vitaly writes:

“The years from 1935 to 1946 were years of the peaceful and fruitful construction of Church life in America.  In those years sobors and episcopal conferences were convoked.  New parishes were formed and old ones strengthened.  Church life became ordered and piety grew.  An excellent building for the central cathedral was obtained in New York.  The theological seminary was reëstablished in New York and a pastoral school founded at St. Tikhon’s monastery.  The orphanage received a large dwelling.  Statutes were worked out concerning the central and parish administration.  Celebrations of the 950^th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia and the 150^th anniversary of the Russian Orthodox Church in America were organized and conducted.  The St. Vladimir Church (memorial for the Baptism of Russia) was founded and the celebration of St. Vladimir’s day was instituted.  The youth organization named the Federated Russian Orthodox Clubs flourished.  Friendly coöperation was established with old and new Russian social organizations.  The establishment of an Orthodox Theological Academy was being prepared.  Attention was given to the question of financial security for clergy in case of old age or sickness.”²

Although a second Metropolia schism occurred only in 1946, its roots reach back to the early ‘forties.  Two factors contributed to the dissention which was to sunder the unity of the Church Abroad once more.

• Ibid., p. 85.
• Vitaly, op. cit., p. 119.

                                                                   95

First, the outbreak of World War II soon forced Matropolitan Anastasy in Yugoslavia to lose contact with the American Church for most of the war.  Second, Stalin, who has decimated the official Russian Church to the point of virtual non-existence (at one point only four bishops and a handful of parishes were functioning), suddenly decided to use the coöperative Metropolitan Sergius to whip up patriotism and gain control over the Orthodox of the Baltic provinces.  Metropolitan Sergius was duly “elected” patriarch, and the Moscow Patriarchate became an international force.  The Metropolia, impressed with Moscow’s new ecclesiastical power and even more by Russia’s military successes, soon succumbed to temptation.

When on September 8, 1943, Sergius was elected patriarch by eighteen hand-picked bishops,¹  the American bishops decided to recognize him.  “Meeting in late October of 1943, the Metropolitanate bishops decided to commemorate the name of the new Patriarch at divine services.  They still, though, questioned his freedom in relation to the State, and were uncertain as to whether to accept his jurisdiction in administrative matters over the American diocese."2

This decision, which Bishops loyal to the Synod in the Metropolia, being a minority, could not prevent, was an infringement of the Temporary Statue.  Such a decision could only have been made by a Bishop’s Council of the entire Church Abroad.  Furthermore, according to the Statue the decisions of the bishops’ councils of the Metropolia had to be approved by the Bishops’ Council of the Church Abroad.  This did not take place.

When in 1945 Alexis was “elected” Patriarch of Moscow (Sergius

• Russian, p. 94.
• Schrank, loc.cit., p. 193.

                                                                96

having died in May, 1944), the Metropolia decided to send representatives to the enthronement ceremonies.  Bishop Alexis of Alaska, two archpriests, and a legal expert were dispatched to Moscow.  On his return, Bishop Alexis brought back the following ukaz from Moscow:

     “His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and the Holy Synod, having examined the report of Bishop Alexis, arrived from America, concerning the desire of the American dioceses to unite with the Russian Mother Church and concerning the projected structure of the American Church after such a uniting, consider the following decisions to accord with the good of the Church and to be canonically feasible:

• 1.   All the dioceses of North and South America and also of Canada are to comprise one Metropolitan district-exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate.  The Metropolitan of this district besides the title of his diocesancity should bear the title of Patriarchal Exarch of all America and Canada.

• 2.   Not later than the day of Mid-Pentecost, 1945, an All-American Orthodox Church should be convoked in America, consisting of all bishops and representatives of the clergy and laity of both our Exarchate, headed by Metropolitan Benjamin, and of the Metroplitan district, headed by Metropolitan Theophilus.

     The Sobor shall be presided over by archbishop Alexis of Yaroslavl and Rostov, who is delegated to America by His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

• 3.   The Sobor (a) is to express the decision of the American Orthodox dioceses to unite with the Russian Mother Church:
• 
  

        b) is, in the name of the American Orthodox Church, to make an official repudiation of any political declarations that have been made against the U.S.S.R., and is to inform all parishes of this;

        c)  is to elect according to the existing order in America, by not less than a two-thirds vote, a Metropolitan – head of the Metropolitan District – and to present the elected candidate for confirmation by the Moscow Patriarchate.

Addition I:  The Moscow Patriarchate for its part recommends to the Sobor as candidates for Metropolitan the Exarch of All America and Canada,

                                                               97

Metropolitan Benjamin, and Archbishop Alexis, but will not hinder the Sobor in its right to put forward and elect its own candidate to this post.

  

Addition II:  The Moscow Patriarchate has the canonical right to reject the elected candidate if he is judged by the Patriarchate to be inappropriate for any reason whatsoever….”¹ 

Point4 stated that “the right of confirming candidates for the episcopate, the right of rewarding clergy with the highest decorations, and the right of the highest court of appeal in relation to bishops and clerics” was to remain in the hands of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Point 5 stated that, if the terms of the ukaz were accepted by the American Council of Bishops, then, even before the All-American Sobor met, Moscow’s ban of January 4, 1935, would be lifted from the American Church.² 

The ukaz was dated February 14, 1945, and signed by “the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Alexis.”

If the Metropolia needed any proof that politically Moscow was still under complete communist control, this ukaz furnished it.  The Council of American Bishops, held May 22-25, 1945, decided not to accept the ukaz and declared that the Temporary Statue “was still in effect.”³ 

The Metropolia’s flock, however, was quite impressed by Alexis’ ukaz.  At a council of the New Jersey-district priests on August 3, 1945, the ukaz was approved; and it was “unanimously” recommended to the forthcoming All-American Sobor that it agree to the Patriarch’s request to “refrain from political statements against the U.S.S.R.”⁴ 

• Russian, pp. 98-9.
• Ibid., p. 99
• Ibid., p. 100
• Russian, p. 101.

                                                                  98

In that same month (August, 1945) Metropolitan Anastasy was finally able to reëstablish contact with Metropolitan Theophilus.  The resolution of the Chicago Council of Bishops reaffirming support for the Temporary Statue was approved by the Church Abroad.

On September 17, 1945, Archbishop Alexis of Yaroslavl and Rostov arrived in America.  He was met at the airport by the Metropolia bishops Alexis of Alaska and Makary of Brooklyn, and by a number of clergy and laity.¹ 

In his meetings with Metropolitan Theophilus, Archbishop Alexis demanded “that the Metropolia sever all relations with the Church Abroad and cease commemorating Metropolitan Anastasy, and that an All-America Sobor be convoked to be presided over by Archbishop Alexis.”²

Theophilus capitulated.  He wrote to Metropolitan Anastasy, saying that there was no longer any necessity for the presence of the Church Abroad in America and that the Metropolia planned “to recognize the Patriarch (of Moscow) as its spiritual head with only the following privileges: the blessing of myrrh, the hearing of complaints between bishops, the right to have relations with other Patriarchs, and the right of veto over the future elections of metropolitans of North America, but only on moral or canonical grounds.”³

Such an “autonomy” would, of course, place the Metropolia directly under the control of the communists.  The Patriarchate could and would have used its right to settle disputes between bishops, for example, to

• Ibid., pp. 103-4.
• Ibid., p. 107
• Ibid., p. 108

                                                                   99

maximum advantage.

On December 11, 1945, Anastasy telegraphed back to Theophilus: “Your proposed union with the Patriarchate has not only a spiritual but a canonical character that binds you with its consequences.  Such a union would be possible only if the Mother Church were completely free, and, moreover, only after a careful discussion of the matter at a general Sobor (of the entire Church Abroad), which at the present time cannot be convoked.¹ 

Anastasy concluded, “The overwhelming majority of the bishops, clergy, and believers who have been evacuated to Europe are decidedly against union with the Patriarchate, which is unfree.  The existence of the Synod is necessary to support the unity of Russian Orthodox parishes abroad and to avoid anarchy.”²

Four American bishops – Archbishops Tikhon and Vitaly, and Bishops Ioasaph and Jerome – strongly opposed union.  Two others, Makary and Alexis, decided to anticipate union and went over to the Moscow Patriarchate.³

Metropolitan Theophilus, now playing a double game, in January, 1946, asked the Synod Abroad to confirm the election of Ioann Zlobin to the episcopate.  At his ordination Ioann swore loyalty to Synod Abroad and Metropolitan Anastasy.

On December 22, 1945, Archbishop Leonty (Turkevich) of the Metropolia, writing in the newspaper Rossiya, decided to challenge Archbishop Alexis of Yaroslavl’s demand that the Metropolia break with the Greek

• Russian, p. 109.
• Ibid.
• Ibid., p. 111.

                                                                  100

Abroad.  He claimed that this could be done only by an All-American Sobor, since the All-American Sobor of 1937 had formed a union.  He continued, “To speak as if the Synod Abroad does not exist is wrong, because it really does exist and nourishes Russian Orthodox people in Europe and outside of it. . .  How ethical would it be to abandon these bishops, headed by Metropolitan Anastasy, when they are now in such great need of our moral and financial support?  In their time they helped us obtain peace with a part of the American Orthodox flock and up to the present time have done nothing bad to us.”¹

At the Great Bishops’ Council held in Detroit, May 22-24, 1946, it was decided (1) “after an exchange of opinions to recognize the necessity of coöperation with the Synod Abroad on the basis of brotherly union, taking into consideration the existing autonomy in America of our North American District; (2) to deem it both beneficial and necessary to send our representatives to the Synod Abroad in the future.”²  Bishop Jerome of Detroit was then appointed the Metropolia’s representative to the Synod for the term of one year.  The Council also resolved to write the State Department in Washington asking approval for the arrival in America of Bishop Seraphim (Ivanov) and thirteen Russian monks for church work in the United States.³ 

Soon the enemies of the Church Abroad began to move with renewed vigor.  On October 27, 1946, five emigré intellectuals of the “Paris”

• Russian, p. 113.
• Ibid., p. 116.
• Russian, p. 116.

                                                                  101

Orientation, M. Karpovich, N. Timashev, G. Fedotov, P. Zubov, and G. Novitsky published an appeal the the Novoye Russkoye Slovo, a New York Russian daily, asking that the decisions of the 1937 Sobor be abandoned and that the Metropolia go under Moscow on the basis of a broad autonomy.  Thus the essentially sound reasoning of the majority of the Metropolia episcopacy was opposed by influential laymen.  That one of the intellectuals, G. Fedotov, had even been a professor at the Paris Theological Institute is hardly surprising.

On November 15, 1946, shortly before the gathering of the All-American Sobor, Theophilus wrote Anastasy: “It is my opinion that all bishops abroad should be in charge of the local administration of their districts, but should unite for natural assistance and cooperation under the leadership of one who is the most worthy and the eldest, either by length or ordination or rank, and who is elected by them.  I am deeply convinced that the coming Sobor will obtain positive results and will assist many to understand the inner power of Catholicity in the Church, and that it (i.e., the Sobor) will repudiate a dictatorship stemming from Moscow.”¹

In his “pre-sobor address,” printed in the Russian American Orthodox Messenger (November, 1946, no. 11) Theophilus said, “A particular interest is now being shown in Orthodox Americans by Moscow, by the so-called Patriarchal Church, which in reality does not exist – since, after the blessed repose of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, the election of his successors by All-Russian Church councils were conducted not according to the canons of the Church but by the ruling(ukaz) of the atheist civil

• Russian, pp. 120-1.

                                                                  102

authorities.  For this reason, the Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union has become not a ‘Patriarchal’ but, on the contrary, a ‘Patriarch-less’ Church.  For us members of the Orthodox Church in America, it is especially necessary that we heed the words of the holy Apostle Paul, ‘see then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.  Wherefore be ye not unwise….’ (Ephesians 5:15-16).”

Excellent advise which unfortunately Theophilus himself was soon to discard!  And here is a newspaper-statement of Archbishop Leonty made after the Sobor had actually begun: “My conscience does not permit me to submit to the Patriarch.  In the future the synod of Carlovtsy will come to America, and therefore it is not necessary for us to break ties with it.”¹

Once the All-American Sobor began in Cleveland, on November 26, 1946, however, the advice of the episcopate was thrown to the winds.  In reporting this important Sobor we cite the official report given in the Metropolia’s own Messenger (December, 1946, no. 12), which was written by the secretary of the Sobor, A. E. Bezsmertny.

It begins: “Behind the episcopal table sat: in the center Blessed Metropolitan Theophilus; to the right of him, the Archbishop of Western America, Tikhon, the Archbishop of Canada, Ioasaph, the Bishop of Pittsburg, Benjamin, and the Bishop of Alaska, Ioann, and to the left, the Archbishop of Eastern America Vitaly, the Archbishop of Chicago Leonty, the Bishop of Detroit Jerome, and, as a guest, Bishop Seraphim who had arrived only a few days previously.”²

• Ibid., p. 122.
• Messenger, December, 1946, no. 12, p. 184.

                                                                  103

At three o’clock in the afternoon on November 26, the first session of the Sobor began: “It was given over to a hearing of the speeches of (1) the Bishop of Detroit Jerome ‘Concerning the situation of the Russian Church Abroad’; (2) Professor N. S. Timashev ‘Concerning the Church in the Soviet Union’; and (3) the speech of I. Kozitsky about our Metropolitan District during the time between the Sixth and Seventh All-American Sobors.”¹ 

Then: “The Sobor proceeded to a hearing of the instructions of the delegates from their places and wishes concerning the question of the mutual relations of our North American Metropolia with the Moscow Patriarchate and the Synod Abroad.  In view of the special interest manifested in this question, the Presidium declared that all who wished the state their opinion of the question could do so.  Seventy-five persons signed up.  The time for each speaker was limited to from five to ten minutes.  The hearing of their speeches took almost two full sessions.  But, not withstanding the great number of speakers, it was possible to divide them into groups: (a) the minority who stated that, in view of the fact that the Moscow Patriarchate was still not free and that the Patriach could not act without the control of the Soviet regime, it was necessary to wait on the matter of recognition (of Moscow) and in no way change the existing order in America.  (b) The other group of speakers insisted on the immediate recognition by our Metropolia of the Patriarch of Moscow as our Spiritual Head, on the confirmation of him by our existing autonomy of self-government in America. All the speakers strongly

• Ibid.

                                                                  104

Declared that the Head of our church in America must be Metropolitan Theophilus.  There were persons who spoke of the necessity of establishing in America our own Patriarchate, independent of both Moscow and any foreign powers whatever.  The majority of the speakers insisted on the immediate cessation of administrative ties with the Synod Abroad, headed by Metropolitan Anastasy.”¹ 

Then Metropolitan Theophilus, carried away by the mood of the meeting, gave a speech in which he contradicted his own counsel of the previous month.  He declared: “Being autonomous in relation to the Moscow Patriarchate we must also be autonomous in relation to the Synod Abroad, with which, as with the other parts of the Russian Church, we shall have only a prayerful and brotherly relation.”² 

The report continues:

“After the end of the speech of His Eminence to Metropolitan, the Sobor sang him a ‘Many years.’  After this the speech of His Eminence the Metropolitan was translated in abbreviated form into English by Archpriest I. Pishtey.  The Sobor was then presented four resolutions.  First was the resolution of the Pittsburg clergy which was presented and then accepted by secret ballot.  Here is its text:

“The Seventh All-American Church Sobor of the Orthodox Church in America, which has gathered in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, on November 26-29, 1946, after having affirmed our indestructible faith in and loyalty to our Eminence Metropolitan Theophilus and after a thorough

• Messenger, December, 1946, no. 12, p. 184.
• Ibid., p. 185.

                                                                  105

discussion of our relation to our Mother Church the Moscow Patriarchate, asks His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow to unite us to his bosom and to remain our spiritual father, on condition that we shall keep our full autonomy existing at the present time.

“’Our highest legal instance must remain our periodic American Church Sobors.  At them we elect our metropolitans, select our rules (ustavy) and fully direct our life.

“’Since the Moscow Patriarchate is incompatible with the Synod Abroad of the Russian Orthodox Church, the American Church ceases any administrative submission whatever to the Synod Abroad, although it will dwell in brotherly and prayerful communion with all Churches in the dispersion.

“’In case His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow should find our conditions inacceptable, our American Orthodox Church will remain in the future self-governing until such time as the Moscow Patriarchate will find them acceptable and grant what we have asked.’”¹

The vote was 187 for and 61 against this resolution.  It was protested by four of the eight voting bishops present (Vitaly, Tikhon, Ioasaph, and Jerome), twenty-six priests, and thirty-one laymen.²  After the vote was tabulated, elections took place for the Metropolitan Council and the Revision Commission.  All undecided questions were given over to the Metropolitan Council for decision.³

The Orthodox Church is, of course, not a Protestant assembly where

• Messenger, December, 1946, no. 12, p. 185.
• Russian, p. 125.
• Messenger, p. 186.

                                                                106

the simple majority rules.  The bishops of the Metropolia, in conformity with the canons of the Orthodox Church, the Temporary Statute, and the rules under which the Metropolia was operating when the Sobor was convoked, were required to ratify the decisions of the Sobor before they could take effect.  Since four of the eight bishops present staunchly opposed the Sobor’s decisions, and the other four, as evidenced by their pre-Sobor statements, were hardly 100% in favor of them, chances were very slim that such a ratification would take place.  Realizing this, Archbishop Leonty and Bishop Benjamin decided to “hurry their departure” before the bishops could meet.  Metropolitan Theophilus then seized upon the absence of the two hierarchs to declare that the meeting could not take place “in view of the departure of the two bishops.”¹  Thus the Sobor’s decisions were not confirmed and remained without any canonical significance.

The Sobor’s request that Patriarch Alexis accept the Metropolia with “full autonomy” drew the following answer from the Patriarch in Moscow: “In principle I do not have any objections to autonomy for our Orthodox Church in America.  The Metropolitan of Leningrad, Grigory, will in the near future come to America to discuss with your Eminence (i.e. Theophilus) all questions in a peace-loving spirit.  May the blessing of God be upon you and your flock.  From now on I consider Your Eminence to be in prayerful communion with us. Concelebrate with Metropolitan Benjamin (of the Patriarchal Exarchate in America) as a sign of this communion.”² 

• Russian, p. 126.
• Russian, pp. 126-7.

                                                              107

On January 28, 1947, Archbishop Leonty, suffering a remorse of conscience, wrote the following to Metropolitan Anastasy, “I am deeply ashamed that my former students of the seminary, now pastors of the Russian Orthodox Church, should have been so in favor, following after the masses (massa), of recognizing His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow while not taking into consideration the clear indications of his more than submissive position in the U.S.S.R.  But the masses were in a mood strongly opposed to our connections with the Synod Abroad. . .  The only way out was to preserve an autonomous existence both as regarding the Patriarch and the Synod.”¹

It is unbelievable that a bishop of the Orthodox Church could write such a letter.  Leonty himself bears witness that the Sobor was run by “mob rule.”  But since when do archpastors of the Church feel that they have to submit, even against their consciences, to the “mob” dictates of their flock?  Had Leonty not fled the Sobor, he could have joined Vitaly, Tikhon, Ioasaph, and Jerome in vetoing the Sobor’s decisions.  What Leonty obviously feared was that such a move would lead to an exodus of rebellious parishes from the Metropolia.  A number of wealthy and influential Carpatho-russian parishes had threatened to leave the Metropolia if it did not follow their will.²

On May 22, 1947, Archbishop Vitaly, who together with Tikhon, Jerome, and Ioasaph had been excluded from the Metropolia without a canonical trial (and such a trial would have been difficult to hold, since they made up half of the Metropolia episcopate, not counting Bishop Seraphim

• Ibid., p. 133.
• Russian, p. 129.

                                                              108

who was also of their opinion), wrote: “the abnormality of the matter of the resolutions of the Cleveland Sobor is evident first of all from the fact that, notwithstanding the fact that six months have passed, these decisions have been nowhere officially announced, have not been communicated to the bishops and signed by them, have not been presented to the Synod Abroad.  One hears of them only from unofficial sources.”

He continues: “In accordance with paragraph 37 of the Instruction (Nakaz) to the Sobor (in the 1946, no. 1 Russian American Orthodox Messenger) all decisions of the Sobor can take legal effect only when they are approved by a conference of bishops.  The Instruction is in full accordance with the canonical rules and the practice of the entire Orthodox Church, with the order of handling matters at the great Moscow Church Sobor of 1917-18, and with the order established by the North American Metropolitan District, following the decisions of the Chicago Sobor of 1936."¹

Vitaly concludes: “Such an ordering of ecclesiastical life, in which the highest legal power is vested in Church sobors composed in the main of lower clergy and laymen, with the bishops having only a single vote, is already completely non-Orthodox.”² 

Vitaly’s statement was signed by Tikhon, Ioasaph, Jerome, and Seraphim.

On July 17, 1947, Metropolitan Grigory of Leningrad arrived in the United States.  He was met at the airport by Archbishop Leonty and a group

• Ibid., p. 138
• Russian, p. 140.

                                                                   109

of clergy.¹  Then he was taken to the Metropolitan’s Second Street Cathedral where he was honored.  Almost immediately, however, Leonty and Metropolitan Theophilus cooled toward their new guest.  Writing in the Metropolia’s Messenger, Leonty heatedly rejected Grigory’s request for a loyalty oath to the Soviet Government.²  In the August 8, 1947, issue of Novoye Russkoye Slovo Theophilus accused Grigory of trying to destroy the peace of the Church.³

In October, 1947, according to Bishop Ioann (Shahovskoy) (a newly-ordained Metropolia bishop and violent enemy of the Church Abroad, who had played no small role at the Cleveland Sobor), Metropolitan Grigory let it be known he was willing to “soften” his loyalty demands.  All that was necessary was for the Metropolia to submit to Moscow as an autonomous Church.⁴ 

A council of the bishops of the Metropolia held in San Francisco November 12-14, 1947 (Vitaly and his four like-minded brother-bishops were, of course, not invited), decided the following: (1) To put off the formation of canonical ties with Moscow to a more opportune time; (2) To continue to commemorate the suffering Church of Russia in the person of its First-hierarch, His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia; (3) To live on the former basis, carrying out full autonomy in Church life in accordance with the decisions of the Seventh All-American Church Sobor.

This decision was signed by Theophilus, Leonty, Ioann of Alaska, and the new bishops Nikon of Philadelphia and Ioann (Shahovskoy) of

• Ibid., p. 144.
• Ibid., p. 149.
• Ibid., p. 151.
• Ibid., p. 152.

                                                               110

Brooklyn.

On December 14, 1947, Archbishop Vitaly convoked a council of those hierarchs who had remained faithful to the Church Abroad.  Concerning the decisions of the Metropolia bishops’ conference in San Francisco, it was said, “The participants of the recent Bishops’ Council in San Francisco are consciously and intentionally concealing the truth and leading their flock into temptation by stating that they are now declaring not the autocephaly but the autonomy of the Russian Orthodox Metropolia in America.  For anyone even slightly acquainted with the canons of the Church, it is obvious that if the American Metropolia does not have ties and relations with the Moscow Patriarchate of with any other highest Church centers but decides all ecclesiastical matters by herself, in complete independence, without being judicially dependent on anyone, then this is not ecclesiastical autonomy but autocephaly.”¹

Professor Bogolepov has recently admitted that Vitaly was right.  In discussing the draft which the Metropolia submitted to Metropolitan Grigory of Leningrad, he remarks, “Criticizing this draft, Metropolitan Grigory correctly noted that, while recognizing the Patriarch as ‘spiritual father,’ the plan ‘establishes an imaginary, nominal bond’ with him and in essence ‘already proposes not an autonomous but an autocephalous government…’”²

Upon learning of the Metropolia’s refusal, Patriarch Alexis, or rather his masters, decided that Metropolitan Grigory had done “all that

• Russian, p. 154.
• In The Orthodox Church, March, 1970, p. 5.

                                                                  111

was possible to halt the division caused by that part of the Russian Orthodox Church which had gone into schism from the Mother Russian Church.”¹   Archbishop Makary, formerly of the Metropolia, was named Patriarchal Exarch, and Archbishop Adam, also formerly of the Metropolia, was named his deputy.² 

Metropolitan Theophilus, Leonty of Chicago, Ioann of Alaska, Ioann of Brooklyn, and Bishop Nikon were subjected to an ecclesiastical trial “for stubborn opposition to the calls of the Mother Church to communion, for having drawn their flock into schism against the wish of the flock itself as expressed in the decisions of the Cleveland Sobor, and, above all, for the illegal ‘anathema’ (proklyatie) placed on Archbishop Makary for having united with the Moscow Patriarchate.”³  The ban which had been placed on Theophilus on January 5, 1935, by Metropolitan Sergius and “conditionally removed” in January, 1947, by Patriarch Alexis was declared to be once more in effect.  The ban was also extended to cover all the Metropolia bishops who had followed Theophilus into “schism.”⁴

Was this not, one might ask Professor Bogolepov and Fr. Meyendorff, a “canonical” action of the “Mother Church”?  If so, then the Metropolia was ejected from the Church and her sacraments rendered null and void for the next twenty-three years.

In February, 1948, the Moscow Patriarchate seized St. Nicholas Cathedral in New York from the Metropolia by a court action.⁵

• Russian, p. 155.
• Ibid.
• Russian, p. 155.
• Ibid.
• Ibid., p. 156.

                                                               112

The Metropolia’s recognition of Patriarch Alexis as its “spiritual head” left it no defense against the Patriarchate, which was to seize a number of Metropolia parishes through the courts in the years which followed.

In September, 1948, the Metropolia lost an even more important legal case to the Church Abroad in the Superior Court of Los Angeles.  The trial lasted twenty days.  The Metropolia was represented by Metropolitan Theophilus, who was questioned for five entire days, Protopresbyter G. Lomako, Archpriest A. Kukulevsky, two lawyers, the Episcopalian scholar O. Harris, and a Mr. Vysheslavtsev.  The Church Abroad was represented by Archpriest Michael Polsky and two lawyers.  Archbishop Tikhon was questioned for half an hour.¹ 

“Everyone had the ‘Book of Canons’ in English.  The Metropolia’s lawyer had up to thirty books in English and Russian, and he gave them and translations from them to the judge to read.  The canons were checked against original Greek and dictionaries were used.”²

The representatives for the Metropolia actually bore witness against themselves.  When, for example, Fr. Lomako was questioned on a certain canon, he said: “That canon refers to an autocephalous Church.  What autocephaly does this Church (I.e. the Metropolia) have?”  When asked if the canons spoke of the laity’s right to govern the Church (as happened at the Cleveland Sobor), Fr. Lomako said they did not.³ 

Thus by the mercy of God, the truth about the Church Abroad triumphed over the lawlessness of the Metropolia in Los Angeles civil

• Russian, p. 160.
• Ibid., p. 161.
• Ibid.

                                                                   113

court.¹

The Court decided: “The Bishops’ council and the Holy Synod of the Church Abroad constitute the supreme judicial tribunals of the Church organization upon matters of faith, discipline, general policy, and tenets of the Church.”²

Concerning the Cleveland Sobor of 1946 which led the Metropolia into schism from the Church Abroad, the court stated, “The defendants (viz., the Metropolia) have cited no canon to support their contention that supreme power is lodged in a general sobor composed of bishops, clergy, and laity.  As was previously stated in this opinion, a study of the canons has convinced the court that the control of the Church and its maintenance has been placed in the bishops themselves.  Unless it is necessary for all matters acted upon by a general Sobor, affecting the whole Church, to be submitted to the conference of bishops, it would be possible for the control of the Church to be almost completely in the hands of the laity.”³ 

Thus a purely objective law court saw what the Metropolia would not and still refuses to see – that the Cleveland Sobor of 1946 was “Robber Council” without canonical significance, and that by separating itself from the Church Abroad in 1946 the Metropolia went into schism and left the unity of the Church of Christ.

• Anyone concerned with the canonical status and moral position of the Metropolia should read this decision, which was reprinted in the original English by Jordanville Monastery in 1949 under the title In the Superior Court of the State of California.
• In the Superior, p. 15.
• Ibid., p. 18.

                                                                114

From 1946 until 1970 the Metropolia continually aggravated her state of schism.  Metropolitan Loenty, who in 1950 succeeded the deceased Theophilus, often intimated to Metropolitan Anastasy that union was still possible; yet when in 1963 he was approached by the notorious enemy of Christ, Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningard, Leonty started the negotiations which were to lead to the receipt of autocephaly in 1970 under his successor Metropolitan Ireney.  Thus, after the fiascoes of 1924, 1927, and 1946, the Metropolia finally received a nominal “autocephaly” on her fourth attempt.

To conclude this treatment of the Metropolia’s tragic history, we will deal briefly with the attempts of Professor Bogolepov to rationalize the unjustifiable and explain the inexplicable.

Bogolepov, trying desperately to challenge the 1948 decisions of the California Superior Court in favor of the Synod, first aims his legal arrows against the Temporary Statute, - an embarrassing document for a Church which he asserts to have been autocephalous since 1924.  He claims that the Statute was not accepted “in the wording accepted by the Bishops’ Sobor at Carlovtsy in 1935.”¹ 

“The American Metropolitanate could not be united with the Russian dioceses abroad without the approval of the Statute of the All-American Sobor.  The Sixth All-American Sobor of 1937 adopted the 1935 Provisional Statute subject to certain adjustments to local conditions of the (American Metropolitan) district.”² 

• Bogoletov, Towards, p. 64.
• Ibid.

                                                                  115

He continues: “The most important change of the Provisional Statute was the preservation of the All-American Sobor, vested with the power to resolve the problems of Church organization by virtue of its own authority.”¹ 

At the 1937 Sobor, according to Bogoletov, “the bishops appointed by the Bishops’ Synod Abroad requested that the amendments adopted by the Sobor be submitted to the Bishops’ Sobor Abroad for approval, but the All-American Sobor rejected this suggestion.”²   Finally the Sobor agreed to submit its decisions to the Bishops’ Sobor Abroad” for its ‘information’ only and not for ‘approval.’”³ 

Unlike Professor Bogolepov, we can scarcely applaud this action on the part of the 1937 Sobor.  While conforming the “Temporary Statute,” according to which the highest administrative and judicial organ of the entire Church Abroad was the yearly Bishops’ Council of the representatives of the four metropolitan districts, the Sobor sought to keep the All-American Sobor itself out of the control of the Bishops’ Councils.  Thus, while all decisions of the bishops’ councils of the American Metropolia had to be approved by the Bishops’ Councils in Carlovtsy,⁴ the All-American Sobors themselves were supposed to be free of such controls.  It would appear, therefore, that even when entering the Church Abroad the Metropolia engaged in duplicity.  However, one wonders if Bogolepov’s attempt to circumvent the clear implications of the 1937 decision actually succeeds.  If under the new arrangement the councils of the Church Abroad could veto

• Ibid., p. 67.
• Ibid., pp. 67-8.
• Bogolepov, Towards, p. 68.
• Ibid., pp. 68-9.

                                                                116

decisions of the Metropolia bishops’ councils, could they not also veto the decisions of these councils to convoke an All-American Sobor?  Surely the decision of the American bishops was necessary to call the Sobors.

In any case, the Church Abroad, knowing by painful experience what the intentions of the Metropolia were, decided to apply extreme “economy” at this point, hoping that once the Metropolia had entered the unity of the Church Abroad, she would gradually lose her harmful “autocephalous” yearnings.

Bogoletov also tries to cast doubts on the 1937 Sobor by stating that its decisions are suspect because bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church Abroad participated in the voting, and because the vote to accept the Temporary Statute was only 105 for, 9 against, with 122 abstensions.¹  Thus the great spontaneous thrust for union of the Church Abroad and Metropolia is considered by Attorney Bogoletov as an “evil,” and the fact that 122 individuals were afraid to express their opinion a legal factor.  There is no question (here one can agree with Bogoletov) that the union of the Metropolia and the Synod in America was carried out by Patriarch Vatnava of Serbia, the Church Abroad, and a responsible minority of the Metropolia.  The “masses,” to use Archbishop Leonty’s phrase, were always desirous of autocephaly.

When Bogoletov comes to the Cleveland Sobor of 1946, which dissolved the union of the Metropolia with the Church Abroad, he again manifests his ultra-juridical mentality: “The question arises. . . as to why the decision of the Seventh All-American Sobor to end its relationship with the Church

• Ibid., pp. 71-2.

                                                                 117

Abroad was not submitted for approval to the bishops who attended the Sobor, although a rule to that effect was promulgated by Metropolitan Theophilus in his ‘Instruction’ prior to the holding of the Sobor.  During the course of the sessions this provision was changed by the Sobor, which resolved that its decisions not be submitted for the approval of the Bishops’ Conference.”¹

Bogoletov admits that this action “violated the rules of procedure” (to say nothing of the Holy Canons), but hastens to add, in what is surely one of the finest pieces of pettifoggery ever: “But a violation of the rules of procedure may invalidate a resolution only if such violation substantially leads to the adoption of the resolution.  In this case, however, the resolution of the Sobor – accepted without submitting it to the Bishops’ Conference for approval – would have been approved unchanged if it had been submitted to that Conference.  The All-American Sobor of 1946 was attended by nine bishops only.  One of them, Bishop Seraphim, was there only as a guest and had no right to vote. Four bishops belonged to the Carlovtsy group and were against the resolution of the Sobor, while the other four, headed by Metropolitan Theophilus, supported it.  In the case of a tie the deciding vote is usually (!) cast by the president.”²

This last statement did not satisfy even Bogoletov’s own colleague at St. Vladimir’s Seminary, Professor Nicholas Aresniev, who wrote in his review of Bogoletov’s Toward an American Orthodox Church, “In one passage (pp. 69-70) where, referring to the fact that the decisions

• Ibid., p. 69.
• Ibid., pp. 69-70.

                                                                 118

of the All-American Sobor held in 1946 have not been submitted for approval to a conference of bishops of the Sobor, the author emits the opinion that no importance has to be attached to these circumstances.  He seems to abandon here his usual strongly juridical way of approach and his argument appears to me here less impressive than in other cases.”¹

Professor Aresniev is too kind.  Alexander Bogoletov’s attempt to explain away a shocking infringement of the canons should cause those (such as Katherine Valone of the Logos) who were impressed by his juridical argumentation to take another look at Toward an American Orthodox Church.  Consider how Bogoletov in speaking of the Cleveland Sobor invents a new canonical body – the conditional council of Bishops which would have done such-and-such if it had met.  Just as he constructs a fictitious “autocephaly” in 1924, so he has a hypothetical Metropolia Bishops’ Council hypothetically approve the Cleveland Sobor’s actions.  For the Orthodox Church, however, a council not held is no council at all.  The Cleveland Sobor remains what it is, a Robber Council, and the beginning of a new Metropolia schism.

We conclude this chapter with an appeal to the American Metropolia issued by Archbishop Vitaly after the 1946 schism, and which is particularly relevant today:

“Brethren, Orthodox people of America and Canada!  It has long been time for us to cease our vacillations, to accept Church discipline, to bring ourselves to order, to abandon our willfulness and arbitrariness, to stand on the path of legality and the Church canons.  We cannot continually cast

• S.V.S.Q., vol. VIII, no. 1, 1964, p. 50.

                                                                 119

ourselves from one side to the other, extract autonomy and at times autocephaly as well by illicit means, as if there were some dire need for getting around the law.  There can be no Divine blessing on such acts.  There is no other way before God, conscience, and law for the whole Russian Church Abroad, separated as she is from the Mother Church by theomachistic, false, and hypocritical regime of deceivers, than to unite under the authority of a council of all Russian Bishops abroad and its permanent organ, the Bishops’ Synod.”1 

• Vitaly, op. cit., p. 50.

Appendix (?)
Undated Decree
 possibly included in a later edition of this manuscript.

The Sobor of Bishops, having heard the report of the Synod of 

Bishops about the fact of the so called Metropolia has received 

autocephaly from the Moscow patriarchate, approves of all the steps 

taken by the Synod of Bishops to convince Metropolitan Ireney and his 

associates of the falacy of their decision, which increases the rift 

provoked in 1946 by the Cleveland Sobor with the Russian Orthodox 

Church Outside of Russia.

The American Metropolia has received its autocephaly from the 

Moscow Patriarchate, which does not have a true succession from His 

Holiness Patriarch Tikhon ever since the time when Metropolitan 

Sergius, later called the Patriarch, broke his obligations toward the 

Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter, and 

embarked on a course which was immediately condemned by the eldest 

Ecarchs of the Russian Church. The Moscow Patriarchate, more and more 

subservient to the influence of the atheistic and anti-christ 

goverment, ceased to be the voice of the Russian Orthodox Church. 

Therefore, as correctly stated by the Synod of Bishops, none of its 

acts, including the granting of autocephaly to the North American 

Metropolia, have any legal effect. Besides, independently of this, 

this act, which has affected the rights of other numerous Churches 

has resulted in protests by a number of Orthodox Churches which have 

severed relations with the American Metropolia. 

Observing with sorrow this illegal act and acknowledging it to be 

without effect, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church 

Outside of Russia, up to now not relinquishing the hope for the 

reunification of the American Church unity detects in the 

announcement of the American autocephaly a step leading the American 

Metropolia to even further rift away from unification of the Russian 

Church. Seeing in it a mortal sin toward the subservient and 

suffering Russian Church, the Synod of Bishops

DECREES: That hereafter, the clergy as well as the laity should not have spiritual 

or liturgical relation with the hierarchy and clergy of the American 

Metropolia."