THE RUSSIAN CHURCH ABROAD: YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW:
By Fr. Andrei Novikov, professor at the Odessa Theological Seminary.
In late October, 2001, there began a truly epoch-making process in the life of Russian Orthodoxy: one whose full importance can be properly assessed only some time later. At that time, there was a Bishops' Council [Sobor] of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) in New York. Its decisions, let us hope, at last fixed that course of the ROCOR episcopate which had been brewing for long enough, a course aimed at re-uniting two parts of the great Russian Orthodox Church. The ROCOR Bishops' Sobor at that time lifted a whole
series of pretensions against the Moscow Patriarchate, and decided to set up a commission for questions on union with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.
But the immediate prehistory of this latest ROCOR Bishops' Sobor and the events connected with it, was the retirement of the First Hierarch of ROCOR, Metropolitan Vitaly (Oustinoff), who had led ROCOR
since 1986. The Metropolitan himself submitted a statement to the ROCOR Synod, requesting that he be allowed to retire, "in view of age
and illness", as indicated in the Epistle of the same Synod meeting, of July 10-13, 2001. This came as no surprise, since the elderly Metropolitan was already in his 92nd year. The "locum tenens", until
the convocation of a Sobor of Bishops, was Archbishop Laurus of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery, who favored rapprochement with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.
The Sobor was called for October 23. It once again confirmed the line for unity in the Russian Orthodox Church, and by the majority vote, Vladyka Laurus was elected Metropolitan and First Hierarch of the
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. On Oct. 25, Metropolitan Vitaly personally congratulated the new First Hierarch. But three ROCOR bishops, Archbishop Lazarus (Zhurbenko) of Odessa and Tambov, Bishop
Varnava (Prokofiev) of Cannes and Bishop Benjamin (Rusalenko) of the Kuban, flatly refused to recognize anyone except Metropolitan Vitaly as head of their Church. This was, in fact, the beginning of a schism.
But the hardest blow to ROCOR was dealt by its former first hierarch
himself. On Oct. 27, he issued an "Emergency Declaration", in which
he referred to the ROCOR Sobor of Bishops as "brigands", called the
Moscow Patriarchate a "pseudo-church", took back his signature from
his own declaration of retirement, and assigned as his deputy and in
practice as the head of ROCOR, bishop Varnava of Cannes. Obviously,
this declaration by Metropolitan Vitaly was joyously received by the
three above-mentioned bishops.
But even this was not the end. There arose what might be called
a "schism within a schism". Archbishop Lazarus (Zhurbenko) along with
his group understood what "autocephalous" possibilities were open to
them amid the troubles in the Church Abroad, and separated himself
from Metropolitan Vitaly as well, proclaiming his own "True Orthodox
Church". In 2002, Lazarus and his followers were suspended from
sacred service, and excluded from the Church Abroad. Then
Metropolitan Vitaly also placed the "Lazarites" under ban. In this
way, two schisms arose.
Thus, on the one hand, ROCOR firmly embarked on a path of Church
unity and Eucharistic communion with all of the Russian Orthodox
Church, which could not fail to bring joy to the heart of every
Orthodox person, who truly loves holy Orthodoxy. But on the other
hand, it was faced with a sad schism on the part of a small, but
cohesive and fanatical group, led by three of its bishops and even by
its former First Hierarch. What was happening?
In ROCOR there had long before taken shape a party that
systematically, by straight and crooked paths, worked to oppose the
very possibility of Church unity, and tried to turn the Church Abroad
into a proud and irreconcilable "island of freedom", rising
above "fallen world Orthodoxy", G�� that is, into a narrowly sectarian,
pharisaical schism of the "pure" and "elect".
One of the more outstanding representatives of this party had been
Metropolitan Vitaly (Oustinoff). And indeed he "had been", because
from this point on one can speak of a new schism, a falling away from
ROCOR, a sort of "Russian Truly-Exiled church". How could he have put
his signature on the documents of the ROCOR Bishops' Sobor of 2000?
Clearly, being the First Hierarch, he could not openly go into a
confrontation with the overwhelming majority of the episcopate,
clergy and laity of his Church. However, he had earlier done
everything possible to crush any thought, and action within ROCOR,
that tended towards rapprochement with the Moscow Patriarchate
Russian Orthodox Church. One has only to look at the
planned "crowding out" of Archbishop Mark (Arndt) of Germany from the
Synod!
In late 2000 and early 2001, a series of "irreconcilable" ROCOR
bishops (among whom was, at the time, also Bishop Agafangel
[Pashkovsky], (although it would appear that, since then, he has
changed his position after all) began one after another to withdraw
their signatures from the crucial resolutions of the Bishops' Sobor
of 2000. When Metropolitan Vitaly announced his retirement, they
declared that they would continue to recognize him, and him alone, as
First Hierarch. On the internet, various "exile" and "catacomb" sites
of the corresponding ecclesiastical (rather, anti-ecclesiastical)
orientation were literally filled with accounts of how, supposedly,
Metropolitan Vitaly had been forcibly removed from his post. These
announcements do not stand up well to criticism.
But why had Metropolitan Vitaly decided to retire? We probably will
never know for sure. It should be noted that, despite all the other
circumstances, the elderly Metropolitan was definitely of a frank
character (even where he was in error). Therefore it can hardly be
doubted that the motive for the ROCOR First Hierarch's retirement was
indeed his advanced age and poor health.
Inconsistent actions, on the other hand, are to be explained both by
the same venerable age (his 92nd year) and by the influence of the
Metropolitan's private secretary, the notorious Liudmila
Rosnianskaya. Concerning this individual, a zealous activist of
the "irreconcilable" party in ROCOR, and her influence over the First
Hierarch, there was much talk both within the Church Abroad itself,
and beyond its bounds. According to the official statement of the
ROCOR Sobor of Bishops, Rosnianskaya exerted a psychological control
over the Metropolitan, and, along with other ill-intentioned people,
used the old man for her own ends. Unfortunately, there remains scant
hope of his being returned to the Church's fold.
The ROCOR itself undertook, in the years 2001 and 2002, a series of
very important steps towards union with the Moscow Patriarchate.
First in Hungary, and then in Moscow, there were talks, in which
almost complete mutual understanding was attained in various disputed
questions of Russian church history and church unity.
However, amid all the details of rapidly changing circumstances, one
should not lose sight of the main issue. What does the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside Russia represent in its ecclesiastical and
canonical essence: a schismatic community, or an inseparable and
grace-filled part of the Russian Church?
Now, when we stand near a union with ROCOR, that is a pressing
question, since the form that reunion should take depends on the
answer. Should it be a reception of schismatics through penitence, as
is the case with the "Ukrainian" schismatics, or should it be a
joyous reunion, at the Eucharistic Chalice, of two parts of the
Russian Orthodox Church, separated by the storm of 20th century
history?
Thus, the main thing for us at this point, is to understand the
canonical status of the Russian Church Abroad, and this can be done
simply by following its historical course.
If one can so express oneself, the "pre-history" of ROCOR, in both
its canonical and historical planes, was the Temporary Higher Church
Administration (THCA) of the South of Russia, which in 1919 united
under its direction, as can be seen from the name itself, the South
Russian dioceses. These dioceses were located in territory occupied
by the White Army. As they were cut off by the front line from
Moscow, they were deprived of any higher church authority. It was for
this reason that the THCA was formed, and it included both local
ruling bishops and those who had fled from Bolshevik persecution in
other districts of Russia. The venerable hierarch who headed the THCA
was Metropolitan Anthony [Khrapovitsky] of Kiev and Galich, who was
to become one of the founders and the first head of ROCOR.
As has been definitely established from archival documents, found
after the fall of the Soviet regime, the THCA in the South of Russia
was organized and acted with the blessing of Patriarch St. Tikhon.
All the actions of this Administration were subsequently recognized
by the Higher Church Authority of the Russian Orthodox Church, as
being ecclesiastically legitimate.
A full ecclesiastical and canonical justification of the formation
and activity of the THCA of the South of Russia is the Ukase of His
Holiness, Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and All Russia, the Holy Synod,
and the Higher Church Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church,
No. 362, dated Nov. 20, 1920. These three branches of church
authority, according to the resolutions of the All-Russian Local
Sobor of 1917-1918, constituted the entirety of of the Higher church
Authority in the Russian Church in the period between Sobors.
Documents adopted at a joint session of all three branches had an
exceptional significance, and could only be cancelled by a Sobor.
Hence, the exceptional importance of Ukase No. 362.
In the point that interests us, it says: "...In the event that a
diocese, as a result of the movement of the front, a change of state
boundaries or the like, should come to be outside of any
communication with the Higher Church Authority ... , then the
diocesan Bishop shall at once enter into relations with the Bishops
of neighboring dioceses for the purpose of organizing a higher
instance of church authority for several dioceses in identical
circumstances (either in the form of a Temporary Higher Church
Government, or a metropolitan district, or otherwise.)
Besides what has been said, the Ukase in question was a blessing "in
absentu" for the creation of a single church organization G�� the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, which is evident even from
the date it was issued: it was sent to catch up with the hierarchs
who had emigrated together with the White Movement. Ukase No. 362, to
this day never cancelled, lay at the foundation of an independent
ROCOR.
And so, as has already been mentioned, the bishops of the Temporary
Higher Church Administration of the South of Russia emigrated
together with the retreating units of the White Army. Beyond the
border, they formed the self-administered Russian Church Abroad,
which remained an inseparable part of the One Russian Orthodox
Church. The great, providential mission of this Church consisted not
only in spiritual care to millions of Orthodox emigres from Russia,
but also in preaching Orthodoxy at the farthest corners of our planet.
Unfortunately, in our Church down to the present, there are still
people who do not understand the full meaning of ROCOR's formation,
and who try to depict the forced evacuation of respected hierarchs of
the Russian Church with the millions of refugees as being a shameful
running away, a showing of pusillanimity and cowardice, incompatible
with a bishop's calling. As another "argument", it is often put out
that, supposedly, the holy canons condemn any abandonment of his
diocese by a bishop, who must care for his flock, and not leave it at
a difficult moment.
Such populist "arguments" are put forth, without doubt, either by
people lacking knowledge of church canons and history, or else by
malicious enemies of church unity, seeking to create a myth of
a "schism" between the MP and ROCOR, so as to block any early
reunion. At the first glance one can see that the above arguments do
not withstand serious canonical or historical criticism, since they
are aimed not at acceptance by the church, but by a "Soviet people's"
mentality.
Christ the Saviour Himself taught His disciples: "When they persecute
you in one city, flee to another". Who would dare claim that this is
a call to pusillanimity and cowardice?
The holy Apostle Paul, facing the threat of murder, secretly fled
from Damascus at night. On account of persecution, the hieromartyr
Cyprian of Carthage in A.D. 250 went into hiding from Carthage.
Saving his life, St. Athanasius the Great fled into the desert.
Surely one cannot accuse these luminaries of the Universal Church of
cowardice?
Now, as concerns the canonical aspect: indeed, there are canons that
condemn abandonment of the flock by bishops and clergy: the 14th Rule
of the Holy Apostles, the 17th Rule of the 6th Ecumenical Council,
and the 21st Rule of the Council of Antioch. But all of these concern
a bishop who deserts his flock capriciously, in times of peace,
without persecution being the cause. On the contrary, the holy canons
clearly justify the forced emigration of the episcopate in cases of
persecution: which is what happened in 1920. The 18th Canon of the
6th Ecumenical Council says: "Clergy, who because of the invasion of
barbarians, or some other such circumstance, have left their places",
are only to return to their sees "when the circumstances or the
barbarian invasions, which were the cause of their departure, have
ceased". This rule therefore recognizes "the invasion of barbarians"
(and the Bolsheviks were worse than they) as a fully adequate reason
for bishops to abandon their dioceses. The 17th canon of the Council
of Sardis says: "If any bishop, having suffered force, should be
unrightfully cast out ... for having defended the truth, and, fleeing
danger, while innocent, and subjected to accusation, should come to
another city: then it is judged right that he not be forbidden to
abide there, until he return, or is able to find refuge from the
offense inflicted on him. For it would be cruel and very harsh for us
not to accept one who has suffered unjust exile: on the contrary,
such a one should be received with special sympathy and kindness".
Indeed, this Canon was specifically composed due to the flight of St.
Athanasius the Great. Like him, the hierarch emigrants left with the
White Army, specifically "fleeing the danger" of being simply killed
by the Bolsheviks, whose bestial treatment of the clergy is well
known and requires no commentary.
The clearest apology for the emigration of the Russian bishops in
1920 is provided by the 19th Rule of the 6th Ecumenical Council,
which ROCOR itself constantly refers to. This rule was issued because
of the departure, in the 7th century, of Archbishop John of Cyprus
with his clergy and people, from Cyprus on account of the Arab
invasion of the island, and the relocation of the archbishop, clergy
and people to Hellespont, which was the canonical territory of the
Church of Constantinople. Such actions of the Archbishop of Cyprus
were fully approved by the Council, and he obtained the right of
jurisdiction even on someone else's territory. Archpriest V. Tsypin
raises this objection: "Referring to this canon is hardly right,
because at that time, almost all the Orthodox population of Cyprus
was resettled elsewhere, but in the 20th century only a small part of
the flock, together with its archpastors, left the homeland".
It is quite obvious that such an objection suffers from "stretching".
While all the clergy left Cyprus, not all, or even "almost all" of
the Orthodox population left. According to the church historian and
professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Dr. K. E. Skurat, "in 691
the majority of the Greek people ... moved to the province of
Hellespont... Which means that this migration was not universal".
Thus it is only known that the "majority" left, that is, more than
50%, but it is not known exactly how many. At the same time, as
already has been said, the clergy left in its entirety.
In the 20th century, with a general number of some 3-4 million
refugees, there were only 30 bishops abroad, which was about 15% of
the whole episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church (including those
who were already abroad, or who remained in their dioceses that were
separated from Russia after the revolution). And those 30 bishops
were not enough to serve such a mass of emigrants, the overwhelming
majority of whom were Orthodox, especially in the situation of
setting up the emigration and stabilizing it in the midst of a
heterodox world.
But even if this had not been the case, nevertheless the 39th Canon
of the 6th Ecumenical Council could be applied to the refugee
bishops. At the same time one should again mention the cases of St.
Athanasius the Great and St. Cyprian of Carthage, who under
persecution fled their sees entirely without the flock. Finally, the
Higher Church Authority of the Russian Church, itself, did not
condemn the refugee hierarchs.
Another key question in the relationship between the Russian Church
Abroad and the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate is
the 1927 "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), the
future Patriarch, but at the time, acting in place of the Patriarchal
Locum Tenens. It was specifically this "Declaration" that served as
a "stumbling block" down to the most recent times between the
leaderships of the MP and ROCOR, and was one of the reasons for the
church division. ROCOR had refused to accept the demand in
the "Declaration" to sign a pledge of loyalty to the Soviet regime,
for which its clergy was at first excluded by Metropolitan Sergius
from the ranks of the Moscow Patriarchate, and afterwards also
suspended from priestly functions. But the episcopate of ROCOR for
its part refused to recognize such suspensions, and came to be
outside of Eucharistic communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. 1927
has often been given in certain circles as the year of the "schism"
between the two parts of the Russian Church.
Indeed, can one consider the clergy of ROCOR to have been under
suspension since 1927? Of course not. The reason is that the fateful
Sobor of the Russian Church of 1917-1918, foreseeing such a
situation, had decided that ecclesiastical suspensions over political
questions are of no effect. ROCOR did not go into schism: it desired
to remain, and remained, in the bosom of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Therefore, one can in no way make any comparisons to our home-
grown "Philaretovschina", which, for political and national reasons,
created a schism in the church.
Besides that, the so-called "Ukrainian-Constantinopolitan"
and "Ukrainian-Autocephalous" groups were condemned by the Church at
a Sobor, for trampling a whole series of sacred canons. One can say
nothing of the kind about ROCOR. Not one Council of our, Russian,
Church, or of any other Local Orthodox Church, has condemned it. The
entire "suspension" in sacred service was the personal act of
Metropolitan Sergius, who did not have, furthermore, any
authorization to take such steps, as the head of the Russian Orthodox
Church, the Locum Tenens, hieromartyr Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky)
wrote in his letter to Metropolitan Sergius.
It is very important in this connection to quote here the words of
the outstanding contemporary hierarch of the brotherly Orthodox
Church in America, the recently reposed Bishop Vassily
(Rodzianko): "Not one current hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad
is under any suspension, or under judgment, or defrocked... When, at
the All-Russian Local Sobor of 1971 in the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra the
question was raised of excommunicating the Russian Church Abroad,
this was boldly and firmly opposed by the then-Exarch of the Moscow
Patriarchate in Western Europe, Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh (of
London), who delivered an impassioned speech at the Council in
defense of the Russian Church Abroad. He was supported in his
presentation by the lay delegate from France, N. V. Lossky. The Sobor
did not excommunicate the Russian Church Abroad, but only decided toexcommunicated'
study this question'. By the same token, the Sobor of Bishops of the
Russian Church Abroad at no place or time has ever
(i.e. never proclaimed `non-Orthodox', or on a level with the Roman
Catholics) the Orthodox Church in America. All the decisions have
borne a merely administrative character. There exist various
theological opinions on this score, but they are only opinions, and
not canonical or ecclesiastical decisions of the whole Russian
Orthodox Church... The Orthodox Church in America continues to view
the Russian Church Abroad as a Church and does not doubt its
Mysteries, nor its Orthodoxy, nor its Faith, and mystically is in
full communion with it, as with a part of the Universal Orthodox
Church: the Divine Body of Christ, present in all fullness inits
Eucharist".
To the words of Vl. Vassili, one can only add that in the same way,
as regards the Moscow Patriarchate, ROCOR at its councils has never
brought forth any condemnations, although it has always had several
serious claims against the hierarchy of the MP, claims which finally
were brought to naught at the end of the year 2000. ROCOR has always
considered itself an inseparable part of the Russian Church, one that
only "temporarily found itself outside of Euchristic communion".
But does not being outside of Eucharistic communion bear witness to a
schism? In practice, that is always the way it is. But not in this
case. Here, we are dealing with a "canonical separation", one that
must be clearly delineated in church law from a schism. It was in
such a division that many of the holy new martyrs and confessors of
Russia remained: the founders of the Catacomb Church, who refused to
recognize the line of Metropolitan Sergius, "suspended by him in
sacred functions", and they did not have Eucharistic communion with
the part of the Russian Church that was headed by him. It is enough
to name such Saints as hieromartyr Kirill (Smirnov), hieromartyr
Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh), hieromartyr Archbishop Peter
(Zverev), hieromartyr Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov), and others. Here is
what is said on this score by theologians of the St. Tikhon's
Orthodox Theological Institute in Moscow, which is noted in the
Orthodox world: "On examining the past events of Russian church
history over many decades, it is necessary to distinguish schisms,
which are started and developed along opportunistic, ambitious,
political, nationalistic and other similar considerations, such as
the Living Church, Renovationist, Gregorian ("Philaretan", we add on
our own G�� A.N.), from divisions that have arisen out of motives of
confessing and standing firm for spiritual Truth and church life.
Unlike real schismatics, such opposition members were soon faced with
the spilling of their blood, with giving their freedom and their
lives for the views they confessed. Their martyrs' battle itself bear
witness that their disagreements and division were in the search for
Truth, had a temporary, tactical character, and did not harm their
membership in the Fullness of the Russian Church". Everything that
has been said here about the non-schismatic character of the Catacomb
Church, fully applies also to ROCOR.
An excellent proof that, in the case of ROCOR, we are dealing with
just such a canonical division as described above, is the continued,
even if unofficial, Eucharistic communion of ROCOR with certain Local
Orthodox Churches, mostly with those of Serbia and Jerusalem. The
ROCOR faithful are admitted to Holy Communion at the Holy Sepulchre
from the hands of the Church of Jerusalem's bishops, something that
our "Ukrainian" schismatics cannot even dream of; while ROCOR bishops
have more than once taken part in consecrations of bishops of other
Orthodox Churches, for example, the Romanian and Antiochian Churches.
Thus, if we commune from one Chalice with these Churches, then we do
with ROCOR as well, since there is only one Eucharistic Chalice.
Examples of canonical division can be found in the rich history of
the worldwide Orthodox Church. They show that, despite the obligatory
unity in questions of doctrine and canons, a division may occur where
Eucharistic and administrative contact is broken between individual
parts of the Church, over questions of church order and policy,
without any conciliar excommunications, (though of course mistaken
opinions can be uttered) or viewing of one part of the Church by
another as being graceless or uncanonical.
For example, in the mid-third century, a dispute over how heretics
should be received into the Church led to a break in communion for
several years between the Churches of Carthage and Rome. It came to
the point where, in the heat of polemics, bishop Stefan of Rome
called Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, "a worker of craftiness, a
pseudo-Christian and pseudo-apostle", and threatened him with
excommunication. This, however, was not a schism but a division, to
which Prof. V. V. Bolotov rightfully ascribes a "formal" character.
Now we see both St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Stefan of Rome in the
Orthodox calendar, although each died out of communion with the
other's Church (communion was restored under Sixtus II, the successor
of St. Stefan).
Then, there was the noteworthy dispute between the rigorists and the
moderates in the Church of Constantinople in the 9th century! This
(which, by the way, in some points is reminiscent of the situation
between the MP and ROCOR) led to a division and a full breach in
communion between two parts of the one Local Church of
Constantinople. In this case there were even immoderate, "zealot"
voices raised with mutual anathemas (no one, however, was
anathematized by a Local Council). Yet both parts of the Church of
Constantinople were subsequently reunited, and not with one part
being received by the other as if out of schism, but the leaders of
both parts, the holy patriarchs Photius and Ignatius, offered mutual
repentance for all the incautious statements and division. After
their deaths, both were canonized by the Orthodox Church.
Over the decades of its existence, the Russian Church Abroad has
given the world more than a few great saints and excellent
theologians. What are we to say of such names, honored by the
faithful of our Church, as the blessed John (Maximovitch), St. Jonah
of Hankow, archbishop Averky (Tauschev), archimandrite Constantine
(Zaitsev), priestmonk Seraphim (Rose), and others? A great worldwide
miracle came to pass in the Montreal-Iberian myrrh-streaming icon of
the Most Holy Theotokos, in the Church Abroad, in 1982. Metropolitan
Theodosius, head of the Orthodox Church in America, spoke thus of
it: "All the patriarchates, all the metropolitans and church
hierarchies can point to the errors or problems of the Russian Church
Abroad, but no one can ever say anything against this miracle".
Recent events show the real possibility of what only the most
dedicated supporters of Russian Church unity could have hoped for
earlier. See what encouraging words we find in the letter of the
Synod of Bishops of the Church Abroad of May 24, 2003, to His Grace
Bishop Ambrose of Geneva and Western Europe, on the occasion of the
Epistle of Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow to the hierarchs of the
Russian tradition in Western Europe:
"Unity of various parts of the Russian Church is already being
realized among Orthodox Russian people in the fatherland and abroad.
The presence of grace in the churches in Russia is not questioned by
the Russian Church Abroad, just as the Moscow Patriarchate recognizes
the sacraments performed by clergy of the Russian Church Abroad.
Further drawing together should come about as we all grow in the
Truth of Christ, and, in part, through a spiritual understanding of
the historic paths of our Russian Church. The Synod of Bishops of the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has given its blessing to
various measures aimed at clarifying the paths to what Patriarch
Alexy mentions in his letter, `the restoration of historical
continuity' in Russia. It is our desire to continue efforts in this
direction".
A significant event in the process of reunion of the two parts of the
Russian Church was the visit of the ROCOR hierarchs, Archbishop
Hilarion of Australia and New Zealand, and Bishop Ambrose of Geneva
and Western Europe, to the Holy Dormition Cathedral in Odessa, where
the Most Reverend Bishops and the pilgrims who accompanied them were
able to venerate the many sacred objects in the cathedral, kept by
the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in the years
of persecution and suffering. In the sanctuary [altar area] of the
cathedral, Archbishop Hilarion and Bishop Ambrose were received by
the well-known Orthodox zealot and fighter against ecumenism, the
Most Reverend Metropolitan Agafangel, of Odessa and Izmail, permanent
member of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church [of the
Moscow Patriarchate], in the proper manner for the reception of
hierarchs. The hierarchs engaged in a short discussion, in which
Metropolitan Agafangel addressed the need for the two parts of the
Russian Church to unite as soon as possible, there being no longer
any obstacles to justify this separation.
In summation, one can say that the Russian Church Abroad has rather
firmly taken its stand on the path of church unity. As concerns the
small groups headed by the former first-hierarch Metropolitan Vitaly
(Oustinoff) and Archbishop Lazarus (Zhurbenko), their path seems
banal enough: a sectarian drawing apart and transformation into a
marginal sect of the Donatist type (the Donatists were schimsatics of
the 4th century, who taught that sacraments, performed in the Church
by a bishop who had committed a mortal sin, were null and invalid due
to the sinfulness of the bishop, even before he be deposed, and they
considered themselves pure of sins; at the root of Donatism lies
Pharisee-ism, which is as old as the world itself).
It is quite appropriate to close this short article with the words of
the great hierarch, venerated by zealots of Orthodoxy, Metropolitan
Ioann (Snychev) of St. Petersburg and Ladoga:
"An endless theme for speculation is the schism' that exists betweenI beseech you, brethren', as the
the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia and Abroad. Divisions and
schisms are certainly an ill.
Apostle Paul cries out to Christians, `by the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that... there be no divisions among you, but that ye be
perfectly joined together in the same spirit and the same thoughts'
(I Corinthians 1:10).
However, one should not write off as one of the defects of life that
which is in fact the providential gift of God, beneficial and
healing. Here life itself confirms a fundamental point of Orthodox
teaching for us: the most merciful Lord, condescending to human
weaknesses and moods, by the almighty effect of His grace, turns evil
itself to our good, bringing bad beginings to a good outcome.
In its time, the secret police had no small amount of work to do, to
divide the Church in 1927, setting the parts in the homeland and
abroad one against the other. But could those who fought against
God ... have imagined, that in tearing and fragmenting the body of
the Russian Church, they, with their own hands, were bringing about
the foundation of a spiritual organism of such insuperable power and
strength, that all further efforts at its destruction would be in
vain? Truly Thy works are wonderful, O Lord, and there is no end to
Thy wisdom.
Divided as to administration, the Russian Church did not lose its
spiritual unity. More than that G�� being freed from formal ties to
structures "under the Soviets", the part of the Church that was
abroad obtained the freedom necessary to denounce the evil that
reigned in the fatherland, in Russia. In hostile, heterodox
surroundings, Russian people in foreign lands showed the world the
feat of standing in the truth of Orthodoxy, the feat of hope and
faith G�� faith that the time would come when the torment of our
captivity would end, and the Lord would deliver Russia after its
sufferings from the yoke of the sacrilegious.
In turn, the Church in Russia, having been delivered from accusations
of political disloyalty, was able to concentrate its efforts on the
spiritual care of its flock, which had embarked on a struggle
hitherto unseen: that of national confession and martyrdom.
On the much-suffering Fatherland, the Church humbly, but unswervingly
fostered throngs of the new martyrs of Russia, `who, for the faith of
Christ and for Holy Russia, received a crown of martyrdom from the
enemies of God'. The Church that was abroad rebuked their tormentors,
bearing witness to the world of the true meaning of what took place
in Russia.
The pastors in Russia shepherded the flock in the harshest of
conditions. Often sacrificing themselves, they looked after
the `little flock' of Christ, bearing the grace-filled flame of
living, fervent faith through all the trials and torments. The clergy
abroad carried sparks of that flame all over the world, to its most
distant corners, wherever the tempest of social catastrophe flung
Russian emigrants in search of shelter and nourishment.
Thus it is now also: the division of the Russian Church into parts in
the homeland and abroad, even though it has not long to continue
anymore, providentially furthers a diligent, many-sided and detailed
examination of the most important, crucial questions and problems of
our Fatherland and our people. The future reunion, making common the
unique spiritual experience of both parts of the one Church, can only
become yet another powerful impetus to Russian rebirth".
It now falls to us to see Vladyka Ioann's prophetic words begin to be
fulfilled. God grant, that they be fulfilled completely!
