Chapter IV:  Is The Metropolia Ready For Autocephaly?

The preceeding chapters have demonstrated that since 1946 the American Metropolia has been in a state of schism from the Church Abroad.  Being in such a state, she could of course in no way be considered "ready" for autocephaly.

Moreover, in other respects as well the Metropolia is demonstrably unprepared for autocephaly.  This has been pointed out recently by the Church Abroad in a whole series of letters and articles appearing in the Russian daily Novoye Ruskoye Slovo, the Synod's bi-monthly Russian publication Orthodox Russia, and in its English publications The Orthodox Word,  Orthodox LifeOrthodoxy, and The Orthodox Christian Witness.  A typical statement on the question is the letter of Hierodeacon John [Melander] of Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, New York, to the magazine Logos:  "As for Orthodoxy in America in general, it is not ready for such a move [as autocephaly].  Namely, it has not yet shown the fruits of piety in this new land, in the words of Metropolitan Philaret [of the Synod].  When a regional Church is prepared to receive independence, it must demonstrate that it has matured sufficiently for such a move, that Orthodoxy has become firmly rooted in that region, that its spiritual life is flourishing in the highest degree, and that it is able to look after its own self.  Until such a time, it is like a child which must live under the guidance and protection of its mother.  But what do we see in America?  Can one really say that Orthodoxy is flourishing here?  On the contrary, one can say that there is a falling away[Logos, May, 1970, p. 2]

Fr. Melander's comments will no doubt prove unimpressive to Metropolia adherents, who will probably protest that Orthodoxy is flourishing in America, that a "new era" has arrived.  To back up Fr. Melander's statement, therefore, we shall call on Fr. Alexander Schmemann, dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary and leading Metropolia spokesman.  In a series of articles entitled "Problems of Orthodoxy in America," published in St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, Fr. Alexander drew on his long experience with the life of the Metropolia to show the terrible state of affairs the jurisdiction is actually in. Throughout these articles one hears a muted cry of despair over a disintegrating Orthodoxy.

In his article devoted to "The Spiritual Problem," Fr. Alexander affirms that, "Orthodoxy in America is in the midst of a serious spiritual crisis which endangers its very existence as Orthodoxy."  [S.V.S.Q., vol. IX, no. 4, 1965, p. 171]

He continues:

"Nothing probably reveals better the nature of the crisis than the impressive amount of doctrines, rules, teachings, and customs which, although taken for granted for centuries as essential for Orthodoxy, are by a wide consensus declared to be 'impossible' here in America.  Speak to a Bishop, then to a priest, be he old or young, speak finally to an active and dedicated layman and you will discover that in spite of all the differences between their respective points of view they all agree on the same 'impossibilities.'  Thus you will learn that it is impossible to enforce here the canonical norms of the Church, impossible to preserve from the wonderfully rich liturgical traditions of the Church anything except Sunday morning worship and a few 'days of obligation' common in fact to all 'denominations,' impossible to interest people in anything but social activities, impossible. . .But when you add up all these and many other 'impossibilities' you must conclude, if you are logical and consistent, that for some reason it is impossible for the Orthodox Church in America to be Orthodox, at least in the meaning given this term 'always, everywhere by all.'"  [S.V.S.Q., vol. IX, no. 4, 1965, pp. 171-2]

He goes on:  "There have always been minimalistic attitudes among clergy and laity.  But they were always recognized as such, never accepted as the norm.  A Christian could think it impossible for him to live by Christian standards, but it never entered his mind to minimize the demands of the Church."  [Ibid., p. 172]

The Metropolia and other jurisdictions in America, according to Fr. Alexander, have done just that -- tacitly agreed to accept the minimal as the norm.  If, one is tempted to ask, there is a "consensus" that traditional Orthodoxy is "impossible" in America and that minimalism must be the norm in Church life, then how can it be that the Metropolia is "ready" for autocephaly, i.e., total self-government and the complete management of her own affairs?

Fr. Alexander continues his indictment:

"The spiritual crisis of Orthodoxy in America consists, therefore, in the fact that in spite of. . .absolute incompatibility,Orthodoxy is in the process of a progressive surrender to secularism, and this surrender is all the more tragic because it is unconscious."  [S.V.S.Q., vol. IX, no. 4, 1965, p. 175]



Fr. Alexander then moves on to a discussion of various aspects of Church life in the Metropolia.  Thus he has the following to say about her bishops:

“An old Bishop, himself a holy and lovable man, once told me the story of his pastoral visit to one of the big parishes.  Everything ‘went fine’ – the solemn service, the banquet in the best hotel, the visit with the Mayor, Congressman, and other local powers.  But then, he said, something strange happened.  A young woman asked him for an appointment and wanted him to tell her about spiritual life.  The old bishop was deeply astonished.  So obviously this incident was out of pattern, out of touch with his whole experience as pastor, administrator, and bishop.” [Ibid., p. 181.] 

Concerning the Metropolia parishes he states:

“The parish constitutes the main battlefield of the war between Orthodoxy and the growing secularization of the American Orthodox.  It is here that the spiritual crisis is made obvious by the progressive lack of communication and understanding between clergy and laity, on the one hand, and by the impoverishment of the liturgical and spiritual content of Orthodoxy on the other hand.” [Ibid., p. 182.]

Of the Metropolia laity Fr. Alexander has this to say:

“A recent survey shows that more that seventy-five percent of parishioners in ‘good standing’ have never read the Gospel – except what they hear in Church on Sunday – not to speak of the Old Testament.” [S.V.S.Q., vol. IX, no. 4, 1965, p. 190.]

In another article, “The Task of Orthodox Theology in America Today,” Fr. Alexander asks, “How long shall we leave unnoticed the quick decay in liturgy, spirituality, and monasticism – the traditional sources of Orthodox piety and continuity?[Ibid.,  vol. X, no. 4, 1966, p. 188.]

A jurisdiction rapidly succumbing to secularism, whose bishops, clergy, and laity have virtually abandoned traditional Orthodoxy, a jurisdiction where “liturgy, spirituality, and monasticism” are in a state of “quick decay” – is such a jurisdiction “overripe” for autocephaly as the Metropolia leadership and its Logos fellow-travellers now claim?  In any case, the Fr. Alexander Schmemann of 1965-66 witnesses strongly and convincingly to the contrary.

It ought also to be mentioned the Fr. Alexander omitted certain problems – for example, the very heavy inroads being made by Masonry into the membership of the Metropolia.  He also overlooked the woeful shortage of clergy in the Metropolia.  In her recent wild and reckless dash for autocephaly the Metropolia boasted that she had over 400 parishes.  This was a typical Metropolia half-truth.  According to an article by Fr. Kallistos Timothy Ware of Oxford, which appeared recently in the Eastern Churches Review under the title “Orthodoxy in America: Some Statistics,” 174 of the 411 parishes claimed by the Metropolia are without a priest. [Eastern Churches Review, vol. II, no. 1, Spring, pp. 73-4.]  In Alaska and Canada, where priestly vocations are low, the situation is desperate.  As a point of comparison one might take the American Greek Archdiocese, which, according to Fr. Ware, claims 420 parishes.  Of these only 41 are without a priest.  According to the statistics presented by Fr. Ware, the Metropolia's priestless parish percentage is  by far the worst of any jurisdiction in America.

The spiritual life of the American Metropolia is, furthermore, being rapidly undermined by another force which Fr. Schmemann ignores because this time he is one of its foremost representatives.  We are speaking of theological modernism.

In Chapter II of this study it was shown that theological modernism was one of the principal causes leading to the schism of Metropolitan Evlogy’s diocese from the Church Abroad.  Fr. Schmemann, Fr. Meyendorff, and a number of other emigré Metropolia leaders who received their theological training at the Theological Institute in Paris inevitably brought the “Paris spirit” with them to America.  They do not conceal but rather boast of their love for the Theological Institute.  Thus, for example, Fr. Meyendorff writes in his book The Orthodox Church, “Paris quickly became the chief intellectual center for the Russian emigration.  Nicholas Berdiaev, Serguis Bulgakov, and many other leading thinkers helped to acquaint the West with the thought, spirituality, and traditions of the Christian East.  The Theological Institute of St. Sergius in Paris, under the guidance of Metropolitan Eulogios and a group of capable and talented professors, has trained more than 150 Orthodox priests and has taken a very active part in promoting ecumenical discussions over the years." [The Orthodox Church, New York, 1962, pp. 187-8.]

Fr. Meyendorff to the contrary, the thought of Nicholas Berdiaev had precious little to do with the “thought, spirituality, and traditions of the Christian East.”  According to his own admission, Berdiaev was most profoundly affected by the wildly heretical Western Gnostic and spiritualist Jacob Boehme and a host of Western free-thinkers.  As for Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, Dean of the Theological Institute until his death in 1944, words fail even to describe the attacks he mounted against the Orthodox faith.  Condemned as a heresiarch by both the Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate (through the efforts of Vladimir Lossky) for his blasphemous neo-Gnostic doctrine of “Sophiology,” Bulgakov was sheltered by Metropolitan Evlogy and the staff of the Institute.

In our treatment of the Institute staff we shall concentrate not on their neo-Gnosticism (which is obviously un-Orthodox for anyone with even the slightest insight into the faith), but rather on their ecclesiology, for it is here that St. Vladimir’s in New York is the direct heir of St. Sergius’ in Paris.

The question concerns the “limits of the Church.”  The traditional Orthodox doctrine, as taught unanimously by Scripture and the Holy Fathers of the Eastern Church, is that the limits of the Church on earth correspond exactly to the canonical limits of the Orthodox Church.  No grace is communicated through the Mysteries (sacraments) of those outside the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Orthodox Church.  This teaching, illustrated and defended with brilliant lucidity by the holy martyrs St. Cypian of Carthage, has always been maintained by the Orthodox Church, with the qualification that (as formulated in St. Basil the Great’s first holy canon) some heterodox may at times through “economy” be accepted without the repetition of the rites of baptism.  Thus for “the salvation of the greater number” the Church is prepared under certain conditions to relax her canonical strictness (akribeia), and give to the dead ceremonial forms of certain heretics upon their being admitted to the Orthodox Church.  This practice received confirmation with Canon VII of the Second Oecumenical Council and in subsequent Councils of the Orthodox Church.  Outside the canonical limits of the Orthodox Church, however, the sacraments of heterodox are null and void, conveying no Grace.  Further, although by the infinite mercy of our Saviour any man may be saved, the Orthodox Church has always taught the necessity of being in her ranks for certainty of salvation.  Outside the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ the likelihood of salvation is infinitely less than in her Grace-filled Body which unites heaven and earth.

The Western Church fell away from this correct Orthodox teaching at an early date.  Augustine of Hippo in his De Baptismo and elsewhere elaborated a theory according to which true sacraments, or at least their “character” or “stamp,” can be administered even in heresy.  St. Cypian’s doctrine was rejected.  The Western scholastics seized upon Augustine’s mistaken formulations and developed an entire system in which true Mysteries, including the Saviour himself in the Holy Eucharist, can belong to those outside the one Church.  This doctrine infiltrated Russia in the XVIII and XIX centuries and was even held by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow.  At all times, however, there could be found men in Russia who voiced the correct Orthodox teaching, which was held unswervingly by the Greek Churches of the time.  Thus, Alexis Khomyakov, the great lay theologian, insisted on the uniqueness of the Orthodox Church and denied that true Mysteries could exist outside her.  Similar declarations were made by God-bearers such as Bishop Ignaty Bryanchanninov, Bishop Thoephan the Recluse, Staretz Amvrossy of Optima, and Father John of Kronstadt.  In the XX century the doctrine was taught by Metropolitan Antony of Kiev and Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky).  Had the Revolution not occurred, it is quite certain that the traditional Orthodox teaching would have prevailed.

The “Paris theologians,” sheltered by Metropolitan Evlogy, elected to take the Scholastic doctrine of the “limits of the Church” to its logical conclusion.  Here is a typical statement of Fr. Bulgakov’s: “The efficacy of the Sacraments is mutually recognized by the divided Churches, at least by Orthodox and Rome.  The sacrament of the Eucharist is also regarded as effective: it is valid, but not effective [quibble invented by Augustine and put to great use by the Western Scholastics] beyond the limits of one’s own Church for the members of the divided Churches.  Of course if we absolutely deny the validity of the sacraments outside a particular confession (as is the case still with certain Orthodox theologians who are of this opinion, viz., the Metropolitan Anthony (of Kiev) and others), then the very question of any union in the sacrament falls to the ground.  But if we recognize the validity of the sacrament, which is in fact the case both with the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, then the question arises, may not this efficacy of the sacrament become real in actual Intercommunion…?" [Sobornost, June 1935, p. 9.]

Consistently following his blasphemous and completely indefensible sophistries to the end, Bulgakov advocated intercommunion – at least for a certain “elect” between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism and Orthodoxy and Rome – before the attainment of doctrinal unity.

Haven given true sacraments to the heterodox, Bulgakov and his followers then turned on all those such as Metropolitan Antony, head of the Church Abroad, who defended the uniqueness of the Orthodox Church.

Thus, Nicholas Zernov, a former secretary of the Russian Student Christian Movement, writes: “It is not heretics and schismatics, but zealous Christians, who have inflicted the greatest harm upon the Church, by cutting off from their fellowship all who would not follow their form of worship, by persecuting those who do not accept their interpretation of the Incarnation. . . . The task before the Christian Church today, therefore, is not reunion – the Church has always been and always will be one – but reconciliation among its disunited members…”  [The Reintegration of the Church, London, 1952, pp. 33-4.]

Consider how Zernov blasphemes the decisions of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Oecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church (“their interpretation of the Incarnation”), and mocks the very idea that heretics could have left the oneness of the Church.

Since all heterodox are granted membership in the one Church through their possession of its sacraments and are therefore “Christians,” the belief that they should be converted to Orthodoxy was attacked by the leaders of the Paris diocese.  Metropolitan Evlogy openly condemned the principle of proselytism: “The principle of proselytizing among Christians belonging to a different Church is incompatible with the Spirit of Christ’s teaching and has little in common with apostolic zeal.” [In L.A. Zander, Vision and Action, London, 1953, p. 158.]  Showing that he has inherited the principle of non-proselytism, Fr. Meyendorff of the Metropolia writes in his The Orthodox Church, “Owing to the presence of Russian emigrés, but without and efforts at proselytism on their  part, a number of Western Orthodox communities began to be formed in France and Germany….” [The Orthodox Church, New York, 1962, p. 188.]

Fr. Meyendorff seems to be implying that any attempt to persuade heretics to return to the unity of the Church is at least in bad taste and probably morally wrong.  He is fully in accord with Metropolitan Evlogy on this point.

This irresponsible attitude is set forth most clearly in a book by Professor L. A. Zander of the Theological Institute, entitled Vision and Action.  Zander, who died in 1964, asks: “What is a heretic for us if we consider him sine ire et studio?  In the first instance a brother, a brother in Christ, for only a Christian can be called a heretic.” [Vision and Action, London, 1953, p. 101.]

One must in all seriousness ask whether Professor Zander has ever read pronouncements of the Church Fathers on heretics.  Certainly he presents a totally new and wholly un-Orthodox view of those who have left the Church of the Apostles.

Zander relates the following story as an illustration of his maxim.  In May, 1927, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, “who combined keen confessional consciousness with profound ecumenical conviction,” returned from an interconfessional conference at Lausanne.  He was “grieved and disappointed.”  “When he had raised his voice to defend the veneration of Our Lady….the chairman of the meeting would not allow him to speak, and Fr. Sergius felt this as an act of hostility towards the most intimate truth of Orthodoxy.  Talking about Protestants (whom he viewed, in general, with certain severity) I asked him: ‘But you love them, don’t you? Why?’  His answer may sound like a truism, but he put into it such power of conviction and vision that it seemed to me, as it were, the solution of the whole problem of ecumenism.  ‘Because they are Christians,’ he said, ‘And can one fail to love a Christian?’”  [Vision and Action, p. 99.]

Bulgakov and Zander exhibit here a strange disregard for those decisions of the Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils which explicitly anathematize all who will not venerate the Mother of our blessed Saviour.

Evlogy’s principle of non-proselytism elicits the following comment from Zander: “In practice it means that, although I see that my brother is erring, I make no attempt to disabuse him of his errors and to set him in the way of truth.  The first conclusion to be drawn from this is that those errors are not an absolute obstacle to salvation, and that heretics can be saved.”  [Ibid., p. 113.]

What can we say to this?  Yes, it is possible that by the infinite mercy of God some heretics may be saved.  But it is sheer madness to conclude, as Zander does, that false beliefs have little or no bearing on salvation.  Here again Zander shows his complete blindness to the entire Orthodox tradition.

What are we to think of an episcopate which permitted the dissemination of such dangerous ideas?  And why did not the other members of the faculty at the Paris Theological Institute condemn the book?  On the contrary, it seems the Prof. Zander’s former colleagues and students – Fr. Alexander among them – retain the most positive impression of Zander.

In an article dedicated to the memory of the recently-deceased Zander, Fr. Schmemann writes: “Professor Zander died in a train while returning to Paris after a lecturing tour in Germany; this death was indeed symbolical: for the last forty years he was constantly ‘on the go,’ a real itinerant apostle of Orthodoxy.” [S,V.S.Q., vol. IX, no. 1, 1965, p. 40.)  Zander’s Vision and Action from which we have quoted is proclaimed by Fr. Schmemann “an important book on the ecumenical movement.”  [Loc. cit.]  The testimonial continues: “To us L. A. remains an inspiring image of a layman totally devoted to the Church, truly and fully living her life, the example of a wonderful apostolic zeal, and, last but not least, of genuine Christianity.”  Although Fr. Schmemann concedes frequent disagreement between himself and Zander on a number of issues, he concludes as follows: “no disagreement (with Zander), however radical, could have any impact on personal friendship and mutual respect.”  [Loc. cit.] 

Fr. Schmemann in the Parisian tradition refuses to criticize the disastrous doctrines of Zander.  “Friendship – sentimentality interpreted – is here made an ultimate value.  The contrast with the attitude of the saintly Fathers of the Church could not be more striking.  Could we for a minute imagine St. Athanasius, for example, calling Arius “an inspiring image,” an “example of genuine Christianity”?

Let us forget that both Zander and Fr. Schmemann lay claim to being theologians.  As such, their function is to illuminate the faith for the faithful, to search for means of expressing the eternal truths of Orthodoxy, to build within the living tradition.  The intellectual content of the faith cannot, by definition, be unimportant to them.  And yet we see Zander unflinchingly and unequivocally jettisoning large and essential parts of traditional Orthodox doctrine, while Fr. Schmemann assumes a laissez-faire attitude towards him.

It is unfortunate that the whole atmosphere of the Paris Theological Institute was conductive to just such episodes.  Where theological innovation was the norm and episcopal control was lax or non-existent, a disciplined commitment to traditional Orthodoxy could not but give way to unbridled speculations and theological license.

Bulgakov, Zernov, and Zander were the more prominent exponents of the Paris Theological Institute.  At present the facility can boast of at least two members who are continuing the traditions of Bulgakov, Zernov, and Zander.  They are the arch-ecumenist Paul Evdokimov, [See his “Communicatio in Sacris: a Possibility,” Diakonia, vol. II, no. 4, 1967] and Oliver Clement, whose recent 500-page “saint’s life” of the apostate Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople has drawn rave reviews from ecumenists the world over.

Another member of the Theological Institute, recently deceased, was Fr. Nicholas Afanasiev (1893-1966).  This man, though perhaps less well-known than the others we have mentioned, had perhaps the most dangerous theories of all.  He is considered to have been Fr. Schmemann’s main theological mentor. [On this see Rev. B. Schultze in Diakonia, 1969, no. 2, p. 125.]

In his teaching of “eucharistic ecclesiology,” Afanasiev accepts in toto the validity of the sacraments of heretics and sneers at those doctrinal differences which “attempt” the keep the “Churches” apart.  Afanasiev rejects the ecclesiology of St. Cyprian of Carthage and the whole canonical structure formulated by the Seven Oecumenical Councils as corruptions of the original teaching of the Church.  Like a latter-day Martin Luther, he claims to have discovered this true and undistorted doctrine. [The most complete exposition of Afanasiev’s thought can be found in “Una Sancta,” Irenikon, 1963, no. 4.]

According to Afanasiev, Orthodox and Roman Catholics are one since both have Christ in the Eucharist: “. . . .Everywhere and always one sole and the same Eucharist is accomplished: Christ is ‘the same, yesterday, today and forever’. . . .We should not forget that our separation (i.e., of the Orthodox and Roman Catholics), even if it has been caused by dogmatic divergences has, nevertheless, a canonical character.  This separation remains always on the surface of ecclesiastical life and does not reach its depths. . . .These divergences have not touched the very essence of the Eucharist, for we always celebrate one sole and the same Holy ecclesiological Chalice of Christ, after his commandment: do this in remembrance of me.” [Irenikon, 1965, no. 3, p. 339.]

In his summa, entitled “Una Sancta” and dedicated to the memory of John XXIII, the Pope of Love,” Afanasiev derides the very notion that Roman Catholics should become Orthodox.  For him this would constitute inacceptable and impractical “ecclesiological suicide” on the part of Roman Catholics.  He writes, “For Eucharistic ecclesiology the Orthodox and the Catholic Church are both Churches or, to be more exact, each local church (i.e., parish) of each of these two groups is a Church, whether one speaks of before or after the ‘separation.’  I have put ‘separation’ in quotes because in reality there was not and is not any separation.  The Church of God remained and remains always one and unique.  The rupture of communion could not cause a division in the Church which, by its nature, cannot be divided into parties.” [Ibid., 1963, no. 4, p. 465.]

He continues, “The reëstablishment of fraternal communion between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church in the present state of affairs would not be a negation of an actual division, which would thus be considered nonexistent, but would be a victory over this division by the power of Love, i.e., by the Church. . .”[Ibid., p. 474.]  Thus, taking the Patristic maxim that “where the Eucharist is, there is the Church,” and granting the precious Body and Blood of our Saviour to Roman Catholics (and, one would assume, monophysites and Anglicans as well), Afanasiev totally demolishes the doctrine of the unity of the Holy Church.  It is not surprising that Professor Trembelas, official theological representative of the Church of Jerusalem, should have condemned this teaching as heresy. [See the 1969, no. 4 issue of Diakonia.]

What is Fr. Schmemann’s attitude to Afanasiev’s new doctrine of “eucharistic ecclesiology”?  In his article “The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology” in The Primacy of Peter, edited by Fr, John Meyendorff (London, 1963), he openly declares himself an adherent of Afanasiev’s theology.  Like Afanasiev he repudiates the ecclesiology of St. Cyprian and the entire structure of the Church contained in the canons of the Oecumenical Councils. In this article and elsewhere Fr. Schmemann presents a distorted view of the unity of the Church.  Worst of all, however, is that as a true disciple of Afanasiev, Schmemann must hold that Roman Catholics have a true Eucharist, and, therefore, are in the Church.

When Fr. Afanasiev died in 1966, Fr. Schmemann wrote the following “In Memoriam”:

“Father Nicholas leaves no heavy volumes. His opus magnum, The Church of the Holy Spirit, for which, in 1948, he received his doctoral degree, remains unpublished.  He was at his best in short and scholarly essays, a collection of which, I hope, will soon appear in English.  In some ways Fr. Nicholas was a man of one idea, or, it may be better to say, one vision.  It is this vision that he described and communicated in what appeared sometimes as ‘dry’ and technical discussions.  A careful reader, however, never failed to detect behind this appearance a hidden fire, a truly consuming love for the Church.  For it was the Church that stood at the center of that vision, and Fr. Afanasiev, when his message is understood and deciphered, will remain for future generations a renovator of ecclesiology.” [S.V.S.Q., 1966, vol. X, no. 4, p. 209.]

Father Schmemann’s admiration for this more than dubious figure is clear.  He even “hopes” that a collection of Afanasiev’s essays will appear in English.  It is safe to predict that Dean Schmemann would warmly recommend such a collection to his students at the Metropolia seminary.

Fr. Schmemann concludes his obituary with this heartfelt tribute:

“As I write this, on the day of his funeral, and remember years of friendship, communion in theological interests, sharp debates sometimes, I want to express again that gratitude which I have had to feel and express so many times in these last years – as we lost one after another of our teachers of that unique and glorious generation, the gratitude for having known Fr. Afanasiev and shared his friendship and been given so much by him.” [Loc. cit.]

But apart from the specific question of ecclesiology, Fr. Schmemann evidences at every step the pernicious influence of “religious modernism,” which was the hallmark of the Paris Theological Institute.

Fr. Schmemann has also recently published a collection entitled Ultimate Questions, An Anthology of Modern Russian Religious Thought (New York, 1965).  Although this volume contains a fine selection from Khorniakov, it focuses predominately on some of the most aberrant and misleading works of the so-called “Russian Religious Renaissance” of the late XIX and early XX centuries.  Included with other writings are Solovyov’s “Beauty, Sexuality, and Love,” Florensky’s “On the Holy Spirit,” Fyodorov’s “The Restoration of Kinship Among Mankind,” Rozanov’s “Sweet Jesus and the Sour Fruits of the World,” Berdyaev’s “The Ethics of Creativity” and Bulgakov’s “Meditations of the Joy of the Resurrection.”  Here truly is a chef’s salad of sensuality, “Sophiology,” and Gnosticism, appealing directly to the religious adventurer and decadent, whatever his confessional background.

What was the purpose of producing this volume?  In his introduction, Fr. Schmemann tells us that the anthology was conceived as “a kind of invitation” to Russian religious philosophy. [P. 8-9.]  It is difficult to imagine a less healthy way to attract interest.  We shudder to think that these murky gropings, so distant from true Orthodoxy, really represent “ultimate questions” for Fr. Schmemann.  While he does insert a mild disclaimer to the effect that the essays may not necessarily be “the official teaching of the Orthodox Church,”[P. 4.] the tone of the introduction is positive and even enthusiastic.  An unsuspecting reader is hardly prepared for the poison in this book.

We have concentrated our attention on Fr. Shhmemann because he is the most visible and vocal representative of the Metropolia and because his connection to the Paris Theological Institute is so direct and evident.  But it would be unfair to imply that other prominent members of the Metropolia do not share his views.

We return again to the problem of ecclesiology which has served as an indicator of deeply-held theological convictions.

Let us hear the words of Fr. Leonid Turkevich, later to become Metropolitan Leonty of the Metropolia.  Addressing the heterodox in 1920, he wrote: “What shall be our starting points in our search for unity in Christ, the one Teacher of humanity?  Shall we take the long road of theological investigation, or rather, begin with the simple fact of brotherhood in the common life?  Should we assemble in interchurch congresses, or choose the more beautiful and reasonable method of joining together in religious ceremonies? . . . Christianity is divided into many different denominations.  But its nature is the same, whether it be preached by Paul or Apollos or Cephas. . . . We are Christians, not because we bear the name of some denomination, but because we are Christians.  I do not mean to say that the idea of the Church as the foundation of the Truth is not needed because each of us belongs to a radius.  The denominations offer their members an atmosphere suited to develop and strengthen their belief in Christ and bring them into communion with Him.  Individuals are under the protection of the forms of their particular denominations as those most convenient for them by reason of historical, geographical and national circumstance.  But the essence of their Christianity is not to be found in these varying forms, it is something more inward.” [The Constructive Quarterly, vol. VIII, 1920, pp. 192-200.]

Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople might well envy these words!  Given Fr. Turkevich’s views on Orthodoxy – merely one “denomination” among many others – it is not surprising that he later turned away from the Church Abroad, where the life-giving uniqueness of the One Church was proclaimed with reverence and gratitude.

In more recent times we can find similar sentiments expressed in an article of George Barrois, a professor at St. Vladimir’s Seminary and a recent convert from Protestantism.  Professor Barrois writes: “There are actually no doctrinal grounds which might preclude intercommunion between Orthodox Churches and the Church of Rome.  They have received their hierarchic priesthood by unquestioned Apostolic succession; they profess the faith of the Seven Councils; the variety of their organization, the proper character of their liturgies, the distinctive flavor of their theological developments do not substantially affect their basic unity. ‘We rejoice,’ declared Paul VI addressing the Orthodox in the Encyclical Mysterium Fidei, ‘when we consider your faith concerning the Eucharist, which is of our faith.’” [Georges A. Barrois, “Closed Communion, Open Communion, Intercommunion,” S.V.S.Q., 1968, no. 3-4, pp. 152-3.]

Thus for Professor Barrois the Filioque, the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, Merits, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, Created Grace, and other Roman heresies become merely a “distinctive flavor,” presumably to be appreciated for its richness and certainly not to be attacked by the Orthodox.  Professor Barrois neglects to mention in his arguments the fact that Orthodox Saints have chosen martyrdom rather than submit to the “flavor.”

The same spirit of ecclesiological irresponsibility is characteristic of many other Metropolia spokesmen.  We could name, for example, Fr. Thomas Hopko, listed in the St. Vladimir’s Seminary Catalogue as an instructor in doctrine and the institution.  His report on an interdenominational “Spiritual Life Institute” leaves no doubts that he has completely abandoned the central and fundamental faith in the Orthodox Church as the true Church of Christ. [S.V.S.Q., 1965, vol. IX, no. 4. See especially p. 194.]

These examples, which could easily be manipulated, demonstrate the extent to which the corrosive forces of theological modernism have penetrated into the Metropolia.  The unwholesome traditions deriving from the Paris Theological Institute and the lack of strict episcopal control have both significantly contributed to this sad state of affairs.  But whatever the cause of this theological disarray, it is strong evidence that the Metropolia is most certainly not ready for autocephaly.

Our critics will perhaps challenge such a conclusion.  Why, they will say, should internal difficulties affect a decision concerning autocephaly, provided the basic requirements are met?  Prof. Bogolepov puts it as follows: “If such small churches as those of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Albania, with their less-developed ecclesiastical life have been recognized as autocephalous, then why cannot the existing Church in America, providing it meets all the canonical requirements for the recognition of autocephaly, be recognized as such?” [The Orthodox Church, March, 1970.]

If Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Albania could do it, so can we – this is Bogolepov’s answer to charges that the Metropolia is unready for autocephaly.

What about these autocephalies?

In his book The Orthodox Church Fr. Meyendorff has this to say about the Albanian Church:

“In 1944 the Albanian population consisted of 688,000 Moslems, 210,000 Orthodox, and 104,184 Roman Catholics.  Only after political pressure had been brought to bear, did the ecumenical patriarch finally consent to recognize the autocephalous status of the Albanian Orthodox Church in 1937, a minority in the country, practically without schools or traditions of its own.[J. Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, New York, 1962, p. 178.]

As for Poland, according to Fr. Meyendorff, in 1924 the four million Orthodox of various backgrounds in Poland were given autocephaly by Constantinople (a move, by the way, protested by the Church Abroad, which correctly considered Poland not ready for autocephaly).  Then, “In 1939 the Soviet Union occupied the part of Poland inhabited by the majority of the Orthodox and gained still further territory as a result of World War II.  Canonically, these regions were again attached to the Patriarchate of Moscow, while only some 350,000 Orthodox remained on Polish soil. . . In 1948. . . three Polish bishops, including the Metropolitan Dionysius, had to do penance before Patriarch Alexis and receive a new autocephalous act from him. . . The independence of the Polish Church with respect to Moscow is of a very relative nature.” [Ibid., pp. 179-80.]

The Czech Orthodox Church, according to Fr. Meyendorff, consists of native Czech Orthodox, former Czech Uniates (converted from 1930 on) and a small number of Russian emigré parishes.  “These four groups were united by the Patriarch of Moscow in 1947 to form one Church. . . . Its first head, Eleutherios (who resigned in 1958) and its present head, Metropolitan John, are both Russian bishops.” [Ibid., p. 181.]

What then, after the information applied by Fr. Meyendorff, are we to think of Professor Bogolepov’s assertion that the American Metropolia was justified in following the examples of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Albania?  Nothing complimentary to the Metropolia, surely.

In their war for power, a war which is rending and mutilating the twentieth-century Orthodox Church, the communist masters of the Moscow Patriarchate and the ambitious and theologically irresponsible hierarchs of Constantinople are seeking to create more and more autocephalous Churches to vote with them in “pan-Orthodox” Synods and the prestigious Ecumenical Movement.  Moscow, currently trailing the “Greek” cluster of Churches, has of late been moving swiftly to make up the difference.  Unhindered by any effective opposition at home (which is quickly silenced by the Soviet secret police), Moscow is able to move more rapidly than Constantinople, which still has to make feeble attempts to justify its actions to its flock.  Having autocephalized Poland and Czechoslovakia, both of them totally unprepared for ecclesiastical self-direction, Moscow moved on to autocephalize the American Metropolia.  Furthermore, in her agreement with the Metropolia, Moscow received Japan as an “autonomous” Church.  We shall quite likely soon see the emergence of a woefully weak autocephalous Japanese Church.  Moscow’s recent creation of a Ukrainian “filial” was probably the first step toward the creation of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church.  Perhaps a Belorussian Orthodox Church will also appear.  The recent formation of a Macedonian Orthodox Church in Yugoslavia under direct pressure from the communists brings another “autocephalous” Church into the Moscow orbit.

Constantinople and her Hellenic allies may be expected to retaliate.  One may thus expect the emergence of an autocephalous Finnish (or Scandanavian) Church, although the Finnish Orthodox have almost completely capitulated to heterodox customs and even celebrate Easter with the West.

Alexandria may be led to proclaim an African Orthodox Church.  Moscow and Constantinople will probably race one another to proclaim a South American Orthodox Church.  Moscow has currently lept into the lead there with the creation of an Exarchate of Central and South America under the “politically reliable” Archbishop Nikodim, a Soviet citizen.

The American Metropolia is thus merely a pawn in a reckless scramble for power involving the communist controllers of the Moscow Patriarchate and the thoroughly de-Orthodoxed hierarchs of Constantinople.  A disease which one could in all seriousness call “autocephalitis” has struck the Orthodox Church.  In this perspective, why Moscow decided to agree with the Metropolia’s claims of readiness for autocephaly becomes all too clear.

Another important factor which seriously undercuts the Metropolia’s claims is the fact that she represents a considerable minority of the Orthodox on the North American continent.  Even her highly-inflated figure of 800,000 believers (100,000 of them supposedly in Alaska) leaves her with only half the numbers of the Greek Archdiocese.  When one adds to this the Syrians, Serbs, and Bulgarians, not to mention the Church Abroad, the Metropolia’s percentage of the American Orthodox populace is rendered quite small.

In her recent polemical literature, which is directed chiefly against the Church Abroad but also (more politely, of course) against the Greek Archdiocese, the Metropolia flatly refused to accept this fact as an argument against autocephaly.  She argues thus: Before the Revolution of 1917, all Orthodox in America were under the Russian Church.  Hence only the Russian Mother Church can grant autocephaly to an American Orthodox Church.  The other jurisdictions acquired a doubtful canonical existence from the day of the granting of autocephaly to the Metropolia.  Nevertheless, the Metropolia will not sever ties with these jurisdictions but out of true charity will tolerate their existence, hoping that eventually they all will elect to join her ranks with the permission of their mother Churches.

Indeed, one can agree with the Metropolia that before the Revolution all Orthodox did or at least should have belonged (for, as has been shown, from the 1890’s on many Greeks did not) to the Russian Orthodox missionary diocese of America.  The Metropolia is also right in maintaining that to the Russian Church belongs the prerogative of granting autocephaly to an American Orthodox Church.  She is, however, wrong in maintaining that the Moscow Patriarchate, absolutely subservient to an atheist regime which has caused the Russian land to run red with the blood of new Orthodox martyrs, has it in her power to grant such an autocephaly.  And she is wrong in assuming that she could secretly negotiate for autocephaly without consulting her fellow-Orthodox in America.  Even if one ignores the case of the Greeks, who founded their own Archdiocese in 1922, there is that of the Serbs and Syrians.

What do the leaders of the Metropolia say to the fact that His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, on Januray 30, 1922, gave express permission to the Syrians in America to form their own Archdiocese under the Patriarch of Antioch?  Or to the fact that as early as October, 1917, Archbishop Alexander of America gave the Serbs in America wide autonomy?

These two groups unquestionably have, from the Metropolia’s own point of view, a separate canonical existence from the Metropolia.  Their consent to the formation of an American autocephalous Church was clearly necessary.  But the Metropolia, engrossed in secret negotiations with Moscow as she was, did not take the trouble to prepare the ground at all carefully for such an agreement.  Instead, she presented the Serbs and Syrians with a fait accompli, and thereby dealt them a grave and undeserved injustice.  Such irresponsibility is not characteristic of a mature religious organism which is ready to embark on its own path.  Rather, it bespeaks a body badly in need of sound discipline and firm guidance.

We shall not here discuss in detail the dissent and ferment within the ranks of the Metropolia itself which was brought on by the news of the impending autocephaly.  Clearly this symptom stems from the same cause.  The Metropolia had simply not prepared its people for autocephaly, and many were shocked and overwhelmed by the rapid pace of events.  How could this be the case of a Church supposedly “overripe” for autocephaly?

Finally, we will point to several other facts which bear upon the readiness of the Metropolia to become the autocephalous American Orthodox Church: Only two of the bishops who signed the Metropolia’s 1970 agreement with Moscow are American-born (Bishop Theodosius of Alaska and Bishop Dimitry of Berkeley).  Metropolitan Ireney and certain of the other bishops know English extremely badly; the meetings of the episcopate are therefore conducted primarily in Russian.  The chief spokesman of the Metropolia, including Fr. Schmemann, Fr. Meyendorff, Professor Bogolepov, and most of the faculty at St. Vladimir’s Seminary, are emigrés, born in Russia or in Western Europe.  Thus the Metropolia is at present headed, administered, represented, and taught largely by “imported” emigrés.  It follows that the native-born American sector of the Metropolia – the people proper – is still in a formative stage, and, though perhaps possessed of great potential, is nevertheless unready to assume the burden of leadership.

This is in no was meant to disparage the vast majority of the people in the Metropolia, who are native-born Americans of Carpatho-Russian descent.  Many of them have dedicated their lives and energies to productive and useful church work.  Their efforts are very much to their credit.  But it is also a fact there are serious gaps in the spiritual achievements of the Metropolia as a whole.  Such a fundamental area of Church life as monasticism – traditionally, Orthodoxy’s cornerstone and source of strength – remains woefully undeveloped, virtually a terra incognita.  The blame must fall on the episcopate and the academic spokesmen of the Metropolia, who have failed to provide the patient guidance necessary to establish and to nurture a viable indigenous monastic tradition.  No doubt the modernist tendencies within the Metropolia have had a part in discouraging monasticism.  But the problem remains, and it is a grave one: only a vigorous monastic tradition can produce the staunchly Orthodox and forceful episcopate which the Church requires.  How will qualified men be found to replace the current emigré episcopate as time goes on?  The prospects are gloomy indeed, and it may not be accidental that there have recently been heard muted voices within the Metropolia suggesting a married episcopate.  The whole problem (and even more such a suggested solution!) reveals an abysmal lack of foresight on the part of the Metropolia leadership, together with an irresponsible absence of preparation for self-rule.

It seems to us, in sum, that the Metropolia is in very dire straits.  Plagued by rising secularism among her people, poisoned by the spread of theological modernism among her spokesmen, unequipped with the experience or “spiritual capital” which is accumulated only by generations of true adherence to the living Orthodox tradition, heavily dependent on “foreign” talent in her leadership, the Metropolia vividly demonstrates by her actions her immaturity as a religious organism.  Her headlong plunge into autocephaly is the final proof of this immaturity.

The next chapter is devoted to the consequences of the negotiations and the agreement with Moscow.  We pray that clear-minded members of the Metropolia will read it carefully and will recognize the agreement with Moscow for the error and temptation it is.  We pray also that these readers may once again discover the path of life which leads to the Church Abroad, the confessor of true Orthodoxy in an age of self-delusion and betrayal.