RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD
DANIEL, BISHOP OF ERIE
246 EAST SECOND STREET
ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA 16507
TEL: (814) 452-0845
THOUGHTS CONCERNING THE PURPORTED
UNIFICATION BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX
CHURCH ABROAD AND THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE
Trandlated to English at http://metanthonymemorial.org/VernostNo40.htm
When examining ecclesiastical rules (apostolic, conciliar and the fathers, that is the canonical basis of legislation of the Orthodox Church), it is not difficult to become convinced that the principal, if not solitary objective of these rules, is the spiritual well-being of the flock. All the rest, for instance, the elevation of individual hierarchs or individual local churches, is relatively insubstantial and must not eclipse the main principle. Therefore, in deciding issues of church management, one must always consider whether the rendered decision is beneficial for the souls of the flock. Neglect of this principle has led to such sorrowful phenomena, as the secession of the Roman church from the fullness of Orthodoxy.
It is known that the Orthodox Church consists of a certain number of separate churches, joined by unity of faith, yet independent from each other. The number of them has never been a subject in the teaching of the faith and could have varied throughout the times. (Rome recognizes only one church – the Roman church to which, in its opinion, everyone must be subjected.)
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, or the Church Abroad, was established completely canonically, on the basis of the decree of Patriarch Tikhon, as a temporary church administration. No one at that time could suppose that its existence would extend over more than eighty years! The founders of our church had presumed that as soon as the godless, communist regime fell, all the refugees for the sake of whose spiritual needs it had been established, would immediately flock back to Russia, and then there would no longer be any need for the existence of a separate church outside Russia. But eighty years have passed, and there has been no soviet regime for over ten years, yet our flock did not swarm “back” to Russia because these are no longer the refugees from the soviet regime, who had dreamed of returning home, but their children and even grandchildren. (I personally know of only one (!) case of such a “return”). Furthermore, many converts to Orthodoxy from other faiths, not of of Russian descent at all, belong to our church, to whom the concept of “returning to Russia” is not applicable at all. Their number is growing. It is possible that this is the true mission of our church: witnessing Orthodoxy to a world of a different faith.
Having once received ecclesiastical independence (“autocephaly” – this word is far too loud, but in essence it is the same thing) our church must concern itself with the spiritual life of its sheep, and not be too preoccupied with the formal claims of other churches.
One could probably not object to improved relations with the Moscow Patriarchate, since it would be beneficial for both sides: the Church Abroad has many years of experience in being in the free world, without submission to any worldly power, while the Moscow Patriarchate unites the majority of Orthodox in Russia around itself. Such an improvement in relations could eventually lead to establishing liturgical communion between the two churches, but this would be possible if Moscow completely ceases its encroachment on the independence of the Church Abroad and the desire to absorb it.
Some envision the “reunification” of the Church Abroad with the Moscow Patriarchate in the following manner: the Church Abroad would relinquish its independence (i.e. autocephaly), which it had enjoyed the last eighty years, and “infuse itself” into the structure of the “mother-church”, albeit even with the most favorable conditions of “automony”, in the capacity of an exarchate, or in some other fashion, yet with unconditional submission to that church and its head, the patriarch. Talk of autonomy may be attractive for poorly informed people, but the essence of the matter does not change. In other words, in this case the Church Abroad will be expected to “self-abolish” under the cover of flowery words.
Such a “reunification” is completely unacceptable for the Church Abroad. In this case it is impossible to speak of “reunification” since the Church Abroad never belonged to the current Moscow Patriarchate. The very use of the _expression “mother-church” demonstrates the unsoundness of this view. Every birth is simoultaneously a separation, since that which is born becomes a separate organism, an entity separate from the birth-giver. It is connected to it only by birth. The one born cannot re-enter the womb which delivered it through the same means that it came out of it. The only way it can re-enter its birthgiver would be not through the womb, but through the stomach, but not one mother would ever devour her own children.
The Church Abroad became independent back in the times of Patriarch Tikhon, without any hostility against the mother-church. After that, within the Moscow Patriarchate, big changes occurred. During the initial period the church in Russia was persecuted by the godless soviet regime. During the Second World War, the church was no longer so heavily persecuted, and after the war Stalin “mercifully” permitted the selection of a patriarch, who metropolitan Sergii (Starogorodskii) was to become, staining himself by active collaboration with the soviet regime. His successors acted in the same manner, the current patriarch not excluded. They all collaborated with the soviet regime and they owed their promotions to it. The fall of the soviet regime occurred independently of them, and even if there had been no fall they would have gone on in subservience to the regime, which stained itself with the blood of millions of Russian people and a multitude of hieromartyrs. Yet now the leadership of the Patriarchate behaves itself in such a manner as if nothing extraordinary occurred, and that they represent the very Moscow Patriarchate from which we supposedly fell away.
From its very beginning, the Russian Church was under the Patriarchate of Constantinople and recognized the Patriarch or Constantinople as its head – he appointed the metropolitans who headed the Russian Church. But in the fifteenth century, the so-called Union of Florence occurred – an attempt to unite with the Roman Catholic church, in which the Patriarch of Constantinople was involved. The Russian Church could not remain under his power without putting its orthodoxy into danger. Therefore, because of dire need and without the permission of the mother-church, it became independent, i.e. autocephalous, electing St. Jonah as its metropolitan. Reconciliation occurred only at the end of the sixteenth century, but the notion of returning under the rule of Constantinople was out of the question. With the consent of the eastern patriarchs the metropolitan of Moscow was endowed with the title of patriarch, and the Russian Church became independent once and for all.
Something similar occurred even now. In the 1920’s the Russian Church Abroad separated from the church in the homeland, because Russia became enslaved by the godless soviet power, and it is now eighty years since it has been living independently. It is not obliged to “return” under the rule of the current Moscow Patriarchate. It lives in different conditions than the church in Russia, and over the course of eighty years it has adjusted to them. Why should it need to go under submission to Moscow now? What benefit could this bring to its flock?
One must recognize improved relations with the Moscow Patriarchate as desirable, to the extent that this is possible, but one must decisively reject a merger with it because this would mean the “self-abolition” of the Church Abroad, which we have no moral right to do. If our church submits to the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate, then those of us and our sheep for whom this is unacceptable, would be left without a church, which would contradict the main objective of all church rules, as was mentioned in the beginning. Therefore it is better for us to remain in the current situation, be it difficult, but the only right thing to do according to the conscience.
If we were to unite with the Moscow Patriarch, then we would have to recognize the American autocephalous church (O.C.A.) with which we have little in common because of their extreme modernism. Then we would have to be closer with new calendar Greeks, which would push us away from the old calenderists (Greeks and others), who are in communion with us. The flock of the Church Abroad does not need such a unification.
But it would not bring great benefit for the Moscow Patriarchate either. In size it surpasses other churches, and has no need to acquire a small number of parishioners from abroad.
By becoming independent from the church in Russia, we have not stopped being Orthodox; so in the event we join the Patriarchate we will not become Orthodox, for we have never ceased being that. Therefore this unification holds no benefit for us.
If someone personally does not like the independent status of our church, then these people belong to it through misunderstanding. No one is holding them back, they can go under Moscow’s authority, or anywhere else they please, but understandably, without the flock and church property. We have no right to “gift” either our flocks nor the assets of our humble church, acquired with such labour, to the Patriarch.
The Moscow Patriarchate faces an enormous task. That is the spiritual upbringing of the many million strong Russian people, who have spiritually reverted to the wilderness during the years of soviet rule, when people were deprived of all spiritual education and when in all the schools atheism was forcefully planted. In this we can only wish them success, but its absorption of the Church Abroad would not bring them any benefit in this matter, and would merely be an unnecessary fancy.
Everything which has been said can be summarized as follows:
Improvement of relations with the Moscow Patriarchate?
“Yes”, to the extent this is possible.
Unification with the Moscow Patriarchate?
Decisively “No”, since this would mean the “self-abolition” of the Church Abroad.
Bishop Daniel
