Page 151
In 1950 the American Metropolia solemnly resolved, “Our temporarily independent Metropolia cannot place itself in any canonical administrative relationshipnship with Moscow Patriarchate because the latter is unable to express the voice of the Church of Christ freely.”1
In 1970 the Metropolia entered into a full “canonical and administrative relationship” with the Moscow Patriarchate and thereby was recognized by Moscow as an autocephalous Church. One would assume therefore that the Metropolia had changed its mind and now in 1970 believed that Moscow could “express the voice of the Church of Christ freely.” Recent testimonies of the Metropolia leadership, however, would lead one to believe that such was not the case.
When, for example, in 1963 Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad, director of the Foreign Affairs Department of the Moscow Patriarchate, attempted to deny the charges of the meeting of spiritual solidarity held by eminent Orthodox and Roman Catholics in Paris to protest the persecution of believers in the U.S.S.R., Father Alexander Schmemann of the Metropolia wrote the following in his “Notes and Comments: Religious Persecution in Russia”:
“To help smooth the deep impression made by the meeting of solidarity the communists chose no one else but the official spokesman of the Moscow Patriarchate itself – Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad. On March 14, the Communist paper (L’Humanité) carried an interview with him in which Metropolitan Nikodim flatly denied the fact of
1. Cited in M.L.J. Schrank, “Problems of Orthodoxy in America: the Russian Church,” S.V.S.Q., 1962, vol. VI, no.4, p. 198.
Page 152
persecutions, and this, in spite of Ilyichev’s article in Kommunist and the anti-religious instructions in Pravda. ‘There is no religious repression in our country,’ said the Metropolitan. ‘I know that recently there were rumors about the trial of two bishops. . . . It is unpleasant to speak of this, but I must say that these bishops were indicted for actual crimes having nothing to do with their ecclesiastical activity. . . .’ This interview took place at a moment when, according to the most reliable information, the number of open churches decreased almost by one-half, five out of eight seminaries were closed and administrative measures against churches are being intensified. Not only the Church is persecuted, but its hierarchs are forced to deny the persecution!”
Fr. Alexander concludes his statement by correctly terming the state of the Russian Church under the communists a “truly demonic situation.”2
It was, of course, the Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad who in the period 1968-70 was the chief negotiator for Moscow in the agreement worked out with Fr. Alexander and other leaders of the Metropolia. It should also be pointed out that the two bishops (Iov and Andrey), who Nikodim termed “criminals,” have both been recently reactivated by the Patriarchate after serving prison terms of three and eight years respectively for protesting the persecution of the Russian Church by the communists in the early 1960’s.
Two years after Fr. Alexander’s article, an editorial by Fr. John
1. S.V.S.Q., 1964, vol. VIII, no. 1, p. 49.
2. Loc.cit.
Page 153
Meyendorff entitled “The Church in Russia” appeared in St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly. The purpose of this editorial was to discuss the Open Letters of the now-suspended Russian priests Frs. Eshliman and Yakunin. These letters dealt with the persecution of the Russian Church by the communists and the collaboration in this persecution of the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate. Fr. John writes:
“That the authors of the letter to the Patriarch (i.e., Frs. Eshliman and Yakunin) lack sympathy for the candidacy of the young chairman of the Department of Foreign Relations of the Patriarchate, Metropolitan Nikodim (for the position of Patriarch as Alexis’ successor) is clear from their reference to that Department as the main channel of the government’s control over the Church.”1
Fr. John in no way contests the statement that the communists’ “main channel” of control over the Russian Church is the Foreign Department headed by Metropolitan Nikodim.
Fr. John then passes to a discussion of the situation of the Church in Russia. The two priests’ assertion “that no ordination is performed in Russia without the permission of the Soviet for the Affairs of the Church, and that the clergy is being infiltrated by ‘well known’ government agents, of which one, bishop Ignatius of Chernigov, is named, is indeed frightful.”2
A situation which Fr. Schmemann calls “demonic” is termed “frightful” by Fr. Meyendorff.
He continues, “The world knows about the struggle for freedom
1. S.V.S.Q., 1966, vol. X, no. 1-2, p. 5.
2. Loc. cit.
Page 154
undertaken in Russia by poets, writers, and intellectuals. It must learn that the Orthodox Church also participates in the struggle. . . . That the high officials of the Patriarchate would not stand themselves on this frontline is understandable, especially according to the principles elaborated during the ‘Sergius period,’ but a direct co-operation on their part in silencing the true expression of Church consciousness would close every possibility of considering them, even partially, as spokesmen for the Church of God.”1
Fr. Schmemann has already given us one example of how Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad “cooperated” with the communists in “silencing the true expression of Church consciousness.”
Here are the words of Anatoly Levitin, a layman of the Russian Church, now imprisoned for protesting communist persecution in the U.S.S.R. Speaking of the late Patriarch Alexis, nominal head of the Patriarchate, whom he knew personally, Levitin writes, “He is covering up unlawful actions by remaining silent, bewildering or confusing people by his lying refutations (see, for instance, the Patriarch’s interview published in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, no. 4, 1966), upsetting all attempts to rectify mistakes and punishing honest priests who defend the Church. He it is who is protecting with his authority anonymous characters who, by making use of their shady connections, have pushed themselves forward into senior bishoprics. It is he who is betraying the Church to the godless.”2
1. S.V.S.Q., 1966, vol. X, no. 1-2, p. 6.
2. In Michael Bourdeaux, Patriarch and Prophets, New York, 1970, p. 294.
Page 155
Consider also the words of Feodosiya Varavva (a fearless confessor of Orthodoxy who has been singled out for attack by Science and Religion, the official Soviet atheist journal) and of three other laywomen, “In Izvestiya (28 April 1964) our red-cassocked metropolitans and members of the Holy Synod, Nikodim and Pimen, say that no arrests are being made among the clergy. Why, then, do they say nothing about the Pochaev monks who have been imprisoned for the third time?”1
They continue, “We are spiritual orphans who have no pastors. Most of our pastors have bowed to the godless communists and serve their will, not apostolic traditions and the decrees of the ecumenical councils. The true pastors, of whom there remain so few, are themselves harassed by state officials and by those pastors who have submitted to the godless communists.”2
Boris Talantov, a sixty-eight year old layman in poor health sentenced to two years of forced labor for his bold defense of the Russian Church, and who died a martyr’s death while serving this sentence, has indicted three of the four permanent members of the Holy Synod – Nikodim, Pimen, and Metropolitan Alexis – as betrayers of the faith.3 Anatoly Levitin testifies that Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev, the forth permanent member, was forced upon the Patriarch by the communists without the views of the Ukrainian bishops being even heard.4
As for Metropolitan Nikodim, one of the vilest and most dangerous enemies of the Orthodox Church alive today, he has been the apple of the
1. Ibid., p. 173.
2. Ibid., p. 177.
3. Ibid., pp. 140-1.
4. Ibid., p. 279.
Page 156
Soviet’s eye since he began his rapid rise to power in the 1950’s. In 1956 he was assigned to the Russian “Mission” of Jerusalem by the Patriarchate, and in 1957 at the age of twenty-eight became its head. In his Opium of the People, Michael Bourdeaux, an Anglican clergyman, recalls, “I have talked to both Christians and Jews in Jerusalem who still remember with anger the proud way in which he (Nikodim) used to be driven around in a luxury car provided by the Soviet Embassy.”1 Continuing his account of Nikodim’s career, Bourdeaux writes, “In March 1959 he was recalled (from Jerusalem) to become the administrator of the Patriarch’s office. . . . Nikodim was consecrated Bishop of Podolsk in July 1960, being at thirty-one the youngest bishop in Christendom. Yet almost immediately he succeeded Metropolitan Nikolai as head of the Foreign Relations Department of the Moscow Patriarchate. Just a year after his consecration he was elevated to the office of Archbishop of Yaroslavl and Rostov, nominally holding the title of the diocese. . . . though in fact continuing with the work has was already doing in Moscow. In August 1963 a further promotion made him Metropolitan of Leningrad and Ladoga. He had attained supreme power in the Russian Orthodox Church (the Patriarch has for long been a mere figurehead) at an age when most English clergy are just settling into their first living.”2
Metropolitan Nikodim’s biography is ominous in itself. Who rises rapidly to power in a Church controlled by atheist communists but one totally deserving of their trust?
Here is what Levitin, long close to the center of power of the
1. Michael Bourdeaux, Opium of the People, London, 1965, p. 221.
2. Bourdeaux, Opium, p.222.
Page 157
Patriarchate, writes concerning Nikodim’s rise. Addressing the late Patriararch Alexis, he asks: “When your assistant, Metropolitan Nikodim (he was foisted on you and you well know what he is worth), made lying statements about persecutions of the Church, did you refute him by as much as a single word? No. You more than once made similar declarations.”1 Who “foisted” Nikodim on the Patriarch if not the communists?
Elsewhere Levitin writes: “Metropolitan Nikolai. . . was replaced by the complaisant Metropolitan Nikodim who accommodated himself to everything. The new metropolitan organized a foreign department consisting of a few dozen parasites who compile card-index records that nobody needs and reply to unnecessary letters. He holds splendid banquets and receptions on a very pretentious scale. . . . Metropolitan Nikodim travels around in first-class compartments, flies all over the world in the company of his hangers-on and reads out his typewritten speeches roughly and clumsily composed as they are; he engages in intrigues, plays at being a diplomat - and no one at all pays him the slightest attention. . . . He has become the target for malicious pranks and an international laughing-stock. The question arises: has the state gained anything by placing at the head of the Church government such an odious personality as Metropolitan Nikodim?”2
The unfortunate answer to this question is – Yes. For although “insiders” like Levitin recognize Nikodim for the pernicious charlatan he is, the State most certainly makes good use of his talents. Among other things the Soviet State gained the cooperation of Frs. Schmemann
1. Bourdeaux, Patriarch, p. 277.
2. Bourdeaux, Patriarch, pp. 283-4.
Page 158
and Meyendorff and the Metropolia leadership with the “odious” Nikodim.
Here are words of the imprisoned Boris Talantov: “Metropolitan Nikodim’s assertion that this letter (of the Kirov believers) was anonymous and did not deserve credence is a shameless lie calculated to prevent those who signed the letter from having the opportunity of exposing this falsehood abroad. . . . Instead of defending the truth, the faith, and his fellow Christians, Metropolitan Nikodim is lying and slandering his brothers. . . . Metropolitan Nikodim is not worthy to bear the high office of Metropolitan of the Orthodox Church.”1
Elsewhere Talantov writes: “The activity of the Moscow Patriarchate abroad is a conscious betrayal of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Christian faith. The Patriarchate appears on the world platform as a secret agent combating world Christianity. Metropolitan Nikodim is betraying the Church not out of fear but out of conscience; a full unmasking of what he and the Patriarchate are doing would mean the end of his undercover enterprise. The time has come to unmask the betrayal by the Moscow Patriarchate abroad, Metropolitan Nikodim’s hour has struck. . . . ”2
Let us once again return to Fr. Meyendorff’s statement of 1966 which was cited earlier. Speaking about the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate, he affirmed: “a direct co-operation on their part in silencing the true expression of Church consciousness would close every possibility of considering them, even partially, as spokesmen for the Church of God.”3
That Metropolitan Nikodim and his colleagues who direct the activities of the Patriarchate have “cooperated” with an atheist state in “silencing
1. Bourdeaux, Patriarch, p. 154.
2. Ibid., pp. 331-2.
3. S.V.S.Q., 1966, vol. X, no. 1-2, p. 6.
Page 159
the true expression” of Russian “Church consciousness” is, as has been shown, beyond any shadow of doubt. Therefore, according to the Fr. Meyendorff of 1966, they cannot be considered “even partially” as “spokesmen for the Church of God.”
It was, however, precisely with Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad that the Metropolia entered into negotiations to procure her autocephaly. Three important meetings of representatives from the Metropolia (led by Frs. Schmemann and Meyendorf) with Nikodim were held in 1968-69 in Europe, America and Japan. Then, after all difficulties had been ironed out, Metropolitan Nikodim arrived in America to sign the agreement.
According to One Church, the official English-language publication of the Moscow Patriarchate’s exarchate in America:
“His Eminence Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad and Novgorod, member of the Sacred Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate and universally-known and respected Orthodox leader, spent fifteen eventful days in American from March 18 to April 2, 1970. Several historic matters were dealt with by His Eminence including the finalization of discussions with representatives of the Russian Metropolia concerning the granting of the status of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of America. . . . ”
In the section “Activities of March 20 to March 22” we read:
“The next day, Metropolian Nikodim met with Mr. Jacob A. Malik at the United Nations center. He then journeyed to Syosset, Long Island where he visited with Metropolitan Ireney and other representatives of the Metropolia including Archpriests Schmemann and Meyendorff who had
1. One Church, 1970, no. 3, p. 118.
Page 160
been prominent in the negotiations earlier.”1
One Church neglects to inform its readers that Mr. Jacob A. Malik is the official U.S.S.R. representative to the U.N., a Soviet citizen and a communist. One may suspect that Mr. Malik’s counsel may not have been immaterial in the Metropolitan’s subsequent actions regarding his negotiations with the Metropolia.
Furthermore, after his chat with Mr. Malik, Nikodim had yet another chance to keep in touch with his homeland and receive needed counsel. “While in Washington he (Nikodim) also called upon the Soviet Ambassador Dobrinin at the Soviet Embassy for a brief visit.”2
This visit was a veritable triumph for the visiting Metropolitan. Tuesday, March 31, was undoubtedly the culminating point of the trip. “Tuesday, March 31, a reception and dinner honoring the Metropolitan was held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on Park Avenue. It was attended by many prominent ecclesiastics representing almost all of the Orthodox jurisdictions in America, officials of the National and World Councils of Churches, and other friends of the Russian Orthodox Church.”3
As the picture on p. 124 of One Church indicates, the Metropolia was represented at this dinner given in honor of the foremost betrayer of the Russian Church by Bishop Theodosius of Alaska.
After the dinner an even greater triumph occurred for the Metropolitan of Leningrad:
“Later that same evening at the residence of Metropolitan Ireney
1. One Church, 1970, no. 3, p. 119.
2. Ibid., p. 120.
3. One Church, 1970, no. 3, p. 125.
Page 161
in Syosset, Long Island, Metropolitan Nikodim and representatives of the Metropolia signed the documents of agreement to the conditions for the granting of autocephaly – Following this historic event, a Te Deum was celebrated in the chapel of the Metropolitan’s residence by Archpriest Alexander Schmemann in the presence of the distinguished hierarchs and clergy who had witnessed the signing of the agreement.”1
The evening of March 31, 1970, was truly an “historic” day in the life of Orthodoxy in America – it was a day of infamy and betrayal.
The question arises as to why the Metropolia leadership, ignoring God and consequence, elected to enter into canonical relationships with those who are termed betrayers by the confessing Russian Church.
Two reasons appear to be paramount: Fear and ambition.
Fear because the Metropolia was losing court case after court case (and, therefore, parish after parish) to the Moscow Patriarachate. Her very existence, according to a statement of her own Archbishop Sylvester of Montreal, was in danger.
And fear because, being under ban from Moscow, she was greatly hindered in her ecumenical and pan-Orthodox dealings. She thus felt herself under great pressure to regularize her relations with the “Mother Church,” especially with plans being made for the forthcoming “Eighth” Ecumenical Council sponsored by Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople.
Ambition because the Metropolia has since 1924 dreamed of becoming an autocephalous American Orthodox Church with her own patriarch. This dream seemed endangered by the plan afoot, favored by Archbishop Iakovos
1. Loc. cit.
Page 162
of the Greek Archdiocese and others, gradually to turn the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in America into the governing Synod of an American Orthodox Church. Outnumbered over 2 to 1 by the Greeks, the Metropolia would clearly be able to play only a secondary role in such an American Church. Her swift agreement with Moscow represented an ecclesiastical coup, designed to negate Iakovos’s plan.
Fear and ambition, therefore, were the principal factors behind the Metropolia’s move.
It is not surprising, however, that the Metropolia has made numerous attempts to justify her actions. The remainder of this chapter will deal with her apologia.
According to apologists of the Metropolia such as Professor Bogolepov and Father Meyendorff, the Moscow Patriarchate, although admittedly politically subject to the Soviet State, is nevertheless a legitimate canonical ecclesiastical body with which the Metropolia had every right to deal. Thus the Moscow Patriarchate represents for the Metropolia the legitimate continuation of the pre-revolutionary Russian Orthodox Church, and only she could canonically grant autocephaly to the American Church, since the American mission had been entrusted to Russia by Divine Providence.
Here again we see at work the Metropolia’s extreme legalistic mentality, which is Western and scholastic rather than Orthodox. The political servitude of the Moscow Patriarchate (total servitude as far as its foreign dealings are concerned) is not regarded as a factor that vitiates the legitimacy of Moscow’s actions. The Metropolia leaders ask, “What about the situation of the Greek Orthodox under the Turks? Was not the
Page 163
Oecumenical Patriarchate subservient to the Turks? And yet who would say that the Church of Constantinople was not a legitimate Orthodox Church body even under Turkish occupation?”
This is an extremely critical point. Here many quite sincere Metropolia adherents have been led into serious temptation. Was the situation of the Church of Constantinople under the Turks comparable to that of the Russian Church under the communists?
The answer is no. Consider how Fr. Meyendorff himself describes the position of the Greek Church under the Turks: “Under Turkish rule. . . . the Church preserved its canonical organization intact and was even able to strengthen itself as a result of certain privileges granted to the ecumenical patriarch by the conquerer.”1
Could one say such a thing about the Russian Church today? Anyone who has read the writings of Frs. Eshliman and Yakunin, Archbishop Yermogen, Boris Talanov or Anatoly Levitin dealing with the situation of the Moscow Patriarchate in the 1960’s knows to what extent the Russian Church has been forced into a totally uncanonical position by the atheist authorities.2 Furthermore, the degree of her subservience to the State is incomparably greater than was that of the Greek Church under the Turks. The limit of interference which the Orthodox Church can tolerate from a state is the following: when a state demands that the Church sacrifice Orthodoxy itself, then the Church has no choice but martyrdom. In the 1960’s the Soviet State, having decided to use the
1. John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, New York, 1962, p. 86.
2. These writings have been collected in Michael Bourdeaux, Patriarch and Prophets, New York, 1970.
Page 164
Moscow Patriarchate as a powerful weapon of foreign policy, demanded that the Russian Church sacrifice Orthodoxy itself. One clear indication of this was the Patriarchate’s recent decision to offer all Sacraments to Roman Catholics and Old Believers, a decision which came from before the Metropolia signed its agreement with Metropolitan Nikodim.
In no way, therefore, can the Moscow Patriarchate be considered a legitimate canonical body. Not only have her hierarchs been uncanonically ordained, a fact which even Professor Bogolepov and Fr. Meyendorff admit, but by concelebrating with and even communicating the mysteries to those outside the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ they have subjected themselves to canonical suspension.
Where, therefore, is the legitimacy of the Moscow Patriarchate as claimed by the Metropolia? What is the value of a piece of paper (tomos) signed by Metropolitan Nikodim – who must be suspended and excommunicated many times over according to the canons, and who the confessing Russian Orthodox Church terms a betrayer of Christ?
The Metropolia replies to such arguments by asking: I then the Moscow Patriarchate deprived of Grace and no Church at all? Do the simple believers have to suffer in the eyes of God for the betrayal of their leadership?
This is another canonical question on which, once again, many sincere people have fallen into temptation. For what Professor Bogolepov and Fr. Meyendorff and their colleagues are trying to do here is simplify the question which is by nature extraordinarily complex. They say: The Moscow Patriarchate is a legitimate ecclesiastical organization, despite
Page 165
its egregious canonical lapses, because its parishes are attended by the faithful. Therefore, they say, we can deal with the leadership of the Patriarchate as the legitimate representatives of these faithful.
The fact that Metropolitan Nikodim and his fellow members of the Holy Synod represent the faithful only “on paper” and de facto work directly against their interests is considered unimportant by the legalistic theologians of the Metropolia.
The correct attitude toward the Church in Russia is that of the Russian Church Abroad, which, “not wishing to have any communion with hierarchs whom there is every basis to consider in complete obedience to the Soviet atheists, none the less never brought forth specific judgements over all the clergy in the U.S.S.R., as is unfoundedly claimed by Archbishop John and Fr. Joseph Pishtey (of the American Metropolia), basing themselves entirely on the articles of individual persons expressing their private opinions. We know, however, that strict control over ecclesiastical appointments creates an artificially-selected group and that with every year in the Moscow Patriarchate there should be less clergy maintaining their independence. Thus, only Archbishop Yermogen alone out of the few who disagreed with the anti-canonical changes introduced by order of the civil authorities into the Statue on Administration of the Patriarchate, remained faithful to his position and to this day is deprived of a see.”1
In 1927 a split occurred in the Russian Church over Metropolitan
1. Archpriest George Grabbe, “An Answer to Archbishop John and Fr. Joseph Pishtey,” Orthodox Life, 1970, no. 1, pp. 31-2.
Page 166
Sergius’ famous “Declaration” which subjected the Russian Church to the communists. Those hierarchs in the U.S.S.R. such as Joseph of Leningrad and Cyrill of Kazan and many others who broke with Sergius on this matter, correctly felt that the “Declaration” would enable the State eventually to gain complete control over the Church. Others, such as Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), felt that the Church could survive by making the State adhere firmly to its decree on the separation of Church and State.
Since 1927 the so-called Catacomb or “underground” Church has maintained the position of Metropolitan Joseph and the other hierarchs who broke with Sergius over his “Declaration.” Terribly persecuted by the totalitarian State, often forced to live in forests, the clergy and laity of the catacomb Church have refused to have communion with the leadership of the Patriarchate, knowing that it has betrayed the Russian Church. The American Metropolia has often treated this confessional Church with brutal contempt, considering it “sectarian” for having broken with the Moscow Patriarchate. The Russian Church Abroad, on the other hand, feels that the Catacomb Church has most clearly discerned the truth of Christ, and that it is correct in not agreeing to have relations with a State composed of communist apostates from the Church and dedicated to the destruction of Christianity. The Catacomb Church clearly exists, despite the efforts of the world’s most efficient secret police force to extinguish it. Information about it can be found in such official Soviet publications as The Atheists’ Dictionary (Slovar’ Ateista).
The literature which reached the West in the 1960’s from those in the “official” Russian Church who are seeking to retain their Orthodoxy
Page 167
reveals the depth and agony of their position. Like Archbishop Hilarion Troitsky in the ‘twenties, some of them, such as Archbishop Yermogen and Frs. Eshliman and Yakunin, feel that the State should merely be forced to adhere to its own laws on separation of Church and State and the regulation of religious associations. Unfortunately, however, as these writers bear witness, the Soviet State has no intention of abiding by its own laws on Church-State relations, laws which are designed primarily to deceive foreign public opinion. Those like Archbishop Yermogen and the two Moscow priests, who attempt to hold the State to its own laws, are soon retired (Yermogen) or suspended (Frs. Eshliman and Yakunin). The “Hilarion” approach thus fails because it has incorrectly gauged the metaphysical evil at the bottom of the communist state. The Soviet government is increasingly intolerant toward any hierarchs or clergy who resist becoming tools of its policy.
In the writings of Boris Talantov we find an ever-increasing awareness of this fact. Whereas at first he seeks to hold the Soviet government to its own laws on religious associations, his later writings, such as “Sergievsnchina” and “Soviet Society,”1 reveal a realization that the inner spiritual laws of the communist party of the U.S.S.R. require it to persecute the Church. Likewise, he comes to an awareness that the Sergius “Declaration” of 1927 led inevitably to the collapse of the Russian Church in the 1960’s. In his “Sergievsnchina” Talantov defends those hierarchs who broke with Sergius in 1927 and attacks Nikita Struve of
1.See a discussion of these works in John Dunlop, The Recent Activities of the Moscow Patriarchate, Seattle, 1970. See also Michael Bourdeaux, Patriarch and Prophets, New York, 1970.
Page 168
the Paris exarchate for defending Sergius’s actions in his book Christians in Contemporary Russia.
Archbishop Yermogen, Frs. Eshliman and Yakunin, are all in agreement on one matter – the “official” Russian Church is in terrible danger and is on the verge of spiritual death. They all agree that the reason for this is the “Sergius” philosophy of the Patriarchate. Their cry for the Church to purge itself of unworthy hierarchs and clergy (Nikodim and the other permanent members of the governing Holy Synod are either implicated of explicitly mentioned), however went unheard. They rather than Nikodim were purged.
The fate of these courageous and devout Orthodox shows better than anything else that the State after the 1943-1960 period of relative toleration will now brook no opposition to its policies, even when the opposition bases itself on Soviet legislation. With the total enslavement of the Russian Church at home fast becoming a reality, one may expect that virtually the entire Russian Church will as in the 1930’s take refuge in the catacombs.1 Now as in the ‘thirties the boundaries between the “official” and “catacomb” are fluid.
To conclude, by dealing with Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad the American Metropolia has in no way dealt with a legitimate Russian Church authority. Rather it has entered into relations with an odious hireling of the Church’s communist persecutors.
1. The author of the recent “Open Letter to Fr. Vladimir of the B.B.C.” asserts that only the Church catacombs saved the Russian Orthodox during the 1930’s. See text in Bourdeaux Patriarch, pp. 230-36.
Page 169
The Metropolia spokesman also wrongly claim that their agreement entails no dangers to the American Church or the Orthodox faith. How could Moscow gain any control over us, they ask, when we are in a country politically independent of the U.S.S.R.? Here again the Metropolia leaders have led many into temptation. Under the clever leadership of Metropolitan Nikodim, the Patriarchate and her masters have abandoned the coarse demand for “loyalty oaths” and the like which characterized her activities in the ‘thirties, ‘forties and ‘fifties. They have realized that more subtle pressures will bring greater results. Thus “all” she apparently got from the agreement with the Metropolia was (1) the Japanese Church as an autonomous Church under her authority, (2) the right to enter into full canonical relations with Metropolia clergy, to concelebrate, etc., (3) the right to have “friendly” exchanges of professors, seminarians, clergy and laity between the U.S. and U.S.S.R., (4) the Metropolia’s support versus the “Greeks” in pan-Orthodox synods and activities.
The Metroplolia’s surrender of the Japanese Church to Moscow was a gross act of betrayal by which an immature and small body was delivered into the hands of Metropolitan Nikodim and his colleagues. The reason that the Metropolia herself always refused autonomy under Moscow was that she knew well what that meant. (See Chapter III above.) The fact that the Japanese Church was tricked by Moscow into believing that autonomy would be desirable does not justify the Metropolia. She alone is responsible before God for delivering the Japanese into the hands of the enemies of the Holy Church. She was the mother responsible for the infant Japanese mission.
Page 170
The establishment of full communion with the Metropolia helps Moscow greatly both at home and abroad. At home pictures of Metropolia hierarchs and clergy concelebrating with Nikodim or Bishop Juvenaly of Tula (this has already occurred at the Metropolia’s St. Tikhon’s Monastery in Pennsylvania and elsewhere) will serve to demoralize the confessing Church. “See,” Moscow will say to her opposition at home, “the American Metropolia freely recognizes us as legitimate rulers of the Church. How dare you challenge our authority and actions?” Furthermore, it will lead other Orthodox and heterodox into temptation. Seeing that the Metropolia, headed by such well-known emigrés as Frs. Schmemann and Meyendorff and by a majority of emigré bishops, recognizes the validity of Moscow’s actions, they will be led to dismiss their own anxieties about Moscow’s canonical and political misdeeds. “Surely,” they will say, Russian emigrés know the situation of the Russian Church better than we do. If they deal with Nikodim, then we should also.” Finally, Moscow will not ignore the propaganda benefits of a direct contact with the Metropolia faithful in Metropolia Churches. The parishioners will be invited to come to Russia to see the flourishing state of the Mother Church, asked to support the Mother Church in her struggle for world peace, etc.
The exchanges between Moscow and the Metropolia will be maximally exploited by the Patriarchate’s masters. On the buses taking Metropolia parishioners to St. Tikhon’s Monastery to witness Metropolitan Ireney’s recent solemn concelebration with Bishop Juvenaly of Tula, for example, leaflets were distributed inviting the faithful to come to the Soviet Union and see the religious life of the Russian people. As John
Page 171
Dunlop has demonstrated in his The Recent Activities of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Moscow Patriarchate has turned the religious “tourist” trade into a lucrative business for the Soviet State. These tourists are, of course, shown carefully-selected sights and religious personnel and are prevented from coming into any contact with the persecuted Church. After such guided tours many foreigners have become enthusiastic defenders of the Soviet Union’s religious policies. “All talk of persecution,” they say, “is untrue. For we have seen with our own eyes that the Church is flourishing in Russia.”
Exchanges of clergy and seminarians will serve a similar purpose. Unlike the emigré leadership of the Metropolia, which knows full well what the situation in the Soviet Union is like, their American protégés have no compunction about travelling to the Soviet Union and concelebrating with Patriarchate leaders. Thus, while Metropolitan Ireney and Frs. Schmemann and Meyendorff decided to forego the pleasures of a trip to the Soviet Union to pick up the tomos of autocephaly, young Bishop Theodosius of Alaska and a group of American clergy and laity (none of them particularly well known outside the Metroplia) enthusiastically traveled to the U.S.S.R. Once there, as is indicated in the newspaper The Orthodox Church, May, 1970, they entered fully into the liturgical life of the Moscow Patriarchate. Bishop Theodosius was even permitted to ordain several candidates for priesthood. It did not, of course, occur to Bishop Theodosius to ask himself questions which would have arisen in the mind of any emigré – namely: “Who am I ordaining? Is this man a servant of the Church or an agent of the State being infiltrated
Page 172
into the Church to destroy her from within?”
Moscow has shrewdly realized that the bulk of the Metropolia clergy and her future American episcopate (which will soon replace the aging emigrés at her helm) do not share the emigrés aversion to the Soviet Union. Bishop Theodosius and his fellows will prove much more cooperative than the grudgingly cooperative Metropolitan Ireney. By encouraging the future leaders of the Metropolia to come to the Soviet Union and by showering them with gifts and honors, Moscow will seek gradually to pull the Metropolia ever more closely into her orbit.
As far as Moscow’s hope that the Metropolia will support her against the “Greeks” is concerned, here she can be quite certain of success. Since the Metropilia’s “autocephaly” has been recognized so far only by Moscow and several other Iron Curtain Orthodox countries, it is obvious that the Metropolia must curry Moscow’s favor or risk being refused admittance to Pan-Orthodox activities. The Greeks have so far even to consider the possibility of recognizing the legitimacy of the Metropolia’s new status: the chance are that they will continue this policy in future. The Metropolia will thus be accepted as an autocephalous Church by the Greeks only if Moscow employs the same heavy-handed tactics she used to pry recognition of the Polish and Czech autocephalies out of the Greeks. The Metropolia’s criticism of Moscow will therefore have to be quite muted, although Moscow in her increased sophistication may permit the Metropolia occasional tepid articles on religious restrictions in the U.S.S.R. as a sop to her conscience. It is interesting to note, in this connection, that when the Metropolia episcopate decided to condemn
Page 173
Moscow’s new practice of administrating sacraments to Roman Catholics (this being after her receipt of autocephaly, of course), she chose not to mention Moscow by name and merely condemned in practice.1 Such extreme caution is in the Metropolia tradition. When, for instance, in 1969 she chose to react to Archbishop Iakovos’ frequent celebrations with heterodox, she again merely condemned the practice (or rather she only condemned concelebrations in liturgical vestments) and said nothing about Iakovos.2 Given the Metropolia’s time-honored timidity, Moscow has little to fear from her new “daughter” Church.
To conclude, the Metropolia had no right to enter into canonical relations with a Church enslaved by atheist communists. In dealing with the present leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate, she dealt not with the Russian Church, but with chosen hirelings of the Soviet State such as Metropolitan Nikodim, a man condemned as a traitor to the Church by men such as Boris Talantov, who has been recognized by the Metropolia itself as a confessor of Orthodoxy.3
The fact, frequently cited by Metropolia apologists, that the other Orthodox Churches throughout the world also recognize the leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate, is no excuse. Nearly half of these Churches are behind the Iron Curtin and are no freer that the Moscow Patriarchate itself. Others, such as Alexandria and Antioch, are also under heavy pressure in the matter of recognizing Moscow because of the political course followed by the nations in which they are located. It is worthy of
1. See The Orthodox Church, April, 1970, p. 1.
2. The Orthodox Church, 1969.
3. See the article on him and Levitin in The Orthodox Church, April, 1970.
Page 174
note, however, that the Church of Greece recently refused to admit Metropolitan Nikodim to Mt. Athos because of his attempts to intrigue there and export “monks” from the Soviet Union to the Holy Mountain.
Recognition by itself means little. Did not the Church of Constantinople and others recognize the Russian Living Church and even invite her to a projected Ecumenical Council which never occurred? The only valid criterion for recognition is truth. And the Moscow Patriarchate stands convicted by the Holy Canons as a thoroughly uncanonical organization. The leaders of the Metropolia, being fully informed of the ecclesiastical situation in Russia (the letters of Frs. Eshliman and Yakunin and Archbishop Yermogen were even printed in the St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly), committed a blatantly criminal action when they entered into dealings with Metropolitan Nikodim and his colleagues.
Furthermore, the Metropolia did not merely receive recognition from Moscow; it had to negotiate recognition, as the recently published tomos indicates.1 Among other concessions it surrendered Japan to the jurisdiction of Moscow, permitted forty-three Patriarchate parishes to remain under Moscow in the United States, and entered into full liturgical communion with hand-picked hierarchs of the Soviet government. It also moved into de facto dependence upon Moscow in pan-Orthodox dealings.
The disastrous moral and spiritual consequences of this agreement are only beginning to be realized by attentive observers. With time the terrible sin committed on March 31, 1970, when Metropolia signed the agreement with Moscow will become evident to all.
1. Published in The Orthodox Church, May, 1970.
