The 1946 Metropolia Schism

 

An example from History of a Presbyterian Council taking over a local Church

From: A History of the Russian Church Abroad and the Events Leading to

The American Metropolia’s Autocephaly 1917 – 1971

Published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery

 

… On December 22, 1945, Archbishop Leonty (Turkevich) of the Metropolia, writing in the newspaper Rossiya, decided to challenge Archbishop Alexis of Yaroslavl’s demand that the Metropolia break with the Church Abroad. He claimed that this could be done only by an All-American Sobor, since the All-American Sobor of 1937 had formed the union. He continued, “To speak as if the Synod Abroad does not exist is wrong, because it really does exist and nourishes Russian Orthodox people in Europe and outside of it. . . How ethical would it be to abandon these bishops, headed by Metropolitan Anastasy, when they are now in such great need of our moral and financial support? In their time they helped us obtain peace with a part of the American Orthodox flock and up to the present time have done nothing bad to us.”[1]

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

 

Soon the enemies of the Church Abroad began to move with renewed vigor. On October 27 1946, five emigré intellectuals of the “Paris” orientation, M. Karpovich, N. Timashev, G. Fedotov, P. Zubov, and G. Novitsky published an appeal in the Novoye Russkoye Slovo, a New York Russian daily, asking that the decisions of the 1937 Sobor be abandoned and that the Metropolia go under Moscow on the basis of a broad autonomy. Thus the essentially sound reasoning of the majority of the Metropolia episcopacy was opposed by influential laymen. That one of the intellectuals, G. Fedotov, had even been a professor at the Paris Theological Institute is hardly surprising.

On November 15, 1946, shortly before the gathering of the All-American Sobor, Theophilus wrote Anastasy: “It is my opinion that all bishops abroad should be in charge of the local administration of their districts, but should unite for mutual assistance and cooperation under the leadership of one who is the most worthy and the eldest, either by length or ordination or rank, and who is elected by them. I am deeply convinced that the coming Sobor will obtain positive results and will assist many to understand the inner power of Catholicity in the Church, and that it (i.e., the Sobor) will repudiate a dictatorship stemming from Moscow.”[4]

In his “pre-sobor address,” printed in the Russian American Orthodox Messenger (November, 1940, no. 11) Theophilus said, “A particular interest is now being shown in Orthodox Americans by Moscow, by the so-called Patriarchal Church, which in reality does not exist–since, after the blessed repose of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, the election of his successors by All–Russian Church councils were conducted not according the canons of the Church but by the ruling (ukaz) of the atheist civil authorities. For this reason, the Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union has become not a ‘Patriarchal’ but, on the contrary, a ‘Patriarch–less’ Church. For us members of the Orthodox Church in America, it is especially necessary that we heed the words of the holy Apostle Paul, ‘see then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise

. . . .’ (Ephesians 5:1 5-1 6 ). “

Excellent advice which unfortunately Theophilus himself was soon to discard! And here is a newspaper statement of Archbishop Leonty made after the Sobor had actually begun: “My conscience does not permit me to submit to the Patriarch. In the future the synod of Carlovtsy will come to America, and therefore it is not necessary for us to break ties with it.”[5]

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

It begins: “Behind the episcopal table sat: in the center Blessed Metropolitan Theophilus; to the right of him, the Archbishop of Western America, Tikhon, the Archbishop of Canada, Ioasaph, the Bishop of Pittsburg, Benjamin, and the Bishop of Alaska, Ioann, and to the left, the Archbishop of Eastern America Vitaly, the Archbishop of Chicago Leonty, the Bishop of Detroit Jerome, and, as a guest, Bishop Seraphim who had arrived only a few days previously.”[6]

At three o’clock in the afternoon on November 26, the first session of the Sobor began: “It was given over to a hearing of the speeches of (1) the Bishop of Detroit Jerome ‘Concerning the situation of the Russian Church Abroad’; (2) Professor N. S. Timashev ‘Concerning the Church in the Soviet Union’; and (3) the speech of I. Kozitsky about our Metropolitan District during the time between the Sixth and Seventh All-American Sobors.”[7]

Then: “The Sobor proceeded to a hearing of the instructions of the delegates from their places and their wishes concerning the question of the mutual relations of our North American Metropolia with the Moscow Patriarchate and the Synod Abroad. In view of the special interest manifested in this question, the Presidium declared that all who wished to state their opinion on this question could do so. Seventy-five persons signed up. The time for each speaker was limited to from five to ten minutes. The hearing of their speeches took almost two full sessions. But, not withstanding the great number of speakers, it was possible to divide them into two groups: (a) the minority who stated that, in view of the fact that the Moscow Patriarchate was still not free and that the Patriarch could not act without the control of the Soviet regime, it was necessary to wait on the matter of recognition (of Moscow) and in no way change the existing order in America. (b) The other group of speakers insisted on the immediate recognition by our Metropolia of the Patriarch of Moscow as our Spiritual Head, on the confirmation by him of our existing autonomy or self-government in America. All the speakers strongly declared that the Head of our church in America must be Metropolitan Theophilus. There were persons who spoke of the necessity of establishing in America our own Patriarchate, independent of both Moscow and any foreign powers whatever. The majority of the speakers insisted on the immediate cessation of administrative ties with the Synod Abroad, headed by Metropolitan Anastasy.”[8]

Then Metropolitan Theophilus, carried away by the mood of the meeting gave a speech in which he contradicted his own counsel of the previous month. He declaired: “Being autonomous in relation to the Moscow Patiarchate we must also be autonomous in relation to the Synod Abroad, with which as with the other parts of the Russian Church, we shall have only a. prayerful and brotherly relation.”[9]

The report continues:

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

“‘The Seventh All-American Church Sobor of the Orthodox Church in America, which has gathered in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, on November 26-29, 1946, after having affirmed our indestructible faith in and loyalty to our elected Eminence Metropolitan Theophilus and after a thorough discussion of our relation to our Mother Church the Moscow Patriarchate, asks His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow to unite us to his bosom and to remain our spiritual father, on condition that we shall keep our full autonomy existing at the present time.

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

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

“‘In case His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow should find our conditions unacceptable, our American Orthodox Church will remain in the future self-governing until such time as the Moscow Patriarchate will find them acceptable and grant what we have asked.’”[10]

The vote was 187 for and 61 against this resolution. It was protested by four of the eight voting bishops present (Vitaly, Tikhon, Ioasaph, and Jerome), twenty-six priests, and thirty-one laymen.[11] After the vote was tabulated, elections took place for the Metropolitan Council and the Revision Commission. All undecided questions were given over to the Metropolitan Council for decision.[12]

The Orthodox Church is, of course, not a Protestant assembly where the simple majority rules. The bishops of the Metropolia, in conformity with the canons of the Orthodox Church, the Temporary Statute, and the rules under which the Metropolia was operating when the Sobor was convoked, were required to ratify the decisions of the Sobor before they could take effect. Since four of the eight bishops present staunchly opposed the Sobor’s decisions, and the other four, as evidenced by their pre-Sobor statements, were hardly 100% in favor of them, chances were very slim that such a ratification would take place. Realizing this, Archbishop Leonty and Bishop Benjamin decided to “hurry their departure” before the bishops could meet. Metropolitan Theophilus then seized upon the absence of the two hierarchs to declare that the meeting could not take place “in view of the departure of the two bishops.”[13] Thus the Sobor’s decisions were not confirmed and remained without any canonical significance.

The Sobor’s request that Patriarch Alexis accept the Metropolia with “full autonomy” drew the following answer from the Patriarch in Moscow: “In principle I do not have any objections to autonomy for our Orthodox Church in America. The Metropolitan of Leningrad, Grigory, will in the near future come to America to discuss with your Eminence (i. e., Theophilus) all questions in a peace-loving spirit. May the blessing of God be upon you and your flock. From now on I consider Your Eminence to be in prayerful communion with us. Concelebrate with Metropolitan Benjamin (of the Patriarchal Exarchate in America) as a sign of this communion.”[14]

On January 28, 1947, Archbishop Leonty, suffering a remorse of conscience, wrote the following to Metropolitan Anastasy, “I am deeply ashamed that my former students of the seminary, now pastors of the Russian Orthodox Church, should have been so in favor, following after the masses, (massa) of recognizing His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow while not taking into consideration the clear indications of his more than submissive position in the U.S.S.R. But the masses were in a mood strongly opposed to our connections with the Synod Abroad. . . . The only way out was to preserve an autonomous existence both as regarding the Patriarch and the Synod.”[15]

It is unbelievable that a bishop of the Orthodox Church could write such a letter. Leonty himself bears witness that the Sobor was run by “mob rule.” But since when do archpastors of the Church feel that they have to submit, even against their consciences, to the “mob” dictates of their flock? Had Leonty not fled the Sobor, he could have joined Vitaly, Tikhon, Ioasaph, and Jerome in vetoing the Sobor’s decisions. What Leonty obviously feared was that such a move would lead to an exodus of rebellious parishes from the Metropolia. A number of wealthy and influential Carpatho-Russian parishes had threatened to leave the Metropolia if it did not follow their will. [16]

On May 22, 1947, Archbishop Vitaly, who together with Tikhon, Jerome, and Ioasaph had been excluded from the Metropolia without a canonical trial (and such a trial would have been difficult to hold, since they made up half of the Metropolia episcopate, not counting Bishop Seraphim who was also of their opinion), wrote: “the abnormality of the matter of the resolutions of the Cleveland Sobor is evident first of all from the fact that, notwithstanding the fact that six months have passed, these decisions have been nowhere officially announced, have not been communicated to the bishops and signed by them, have not been presented to the Synod Abroad. One hears of them only from unofficial sources. “

He continues: “In accordance with paragraph 37 of the Instruction (Nakaz) to the Sobor (in the 1946, no. 1 Russian American Orthodox Messenger) all decisions of the Sobor can take legal effect only when they are approved by a conference of bishops. The Instruction is in full accordance with the canonical rules and the practice of the entire Orthodox Church, with the order of handling matters at the great Moscow Church Sobor of 1917-18, and with the order established by the North American Metropolitan District, following the decisions of the Chicago Sobor of 1936.”[17]

Vitaly concludes: “Such an ordering of ecclesiastical life, in which the highest legal power is vested in Church sobors composed in the main of lower clergy and laymen, with the bishops having only a single vote, is already completely non-Orthodox.[18]

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

On July 17, 1947, Metropolitan Grigory of Leningrad arrived in the United States. He was met at the airport by Archbishop Leonty and a group of clergy.[19] Then he was taken to the Metropolia’s Second Street Cathedral where he was honored. Almost immediately, however, Leonty and Metropolitan Theophilus cooled towards their new guest. Writing in the Metropolia’s Messenger, Leonty heatedly rejected Grigory’s request for a loyalty oath to the Soviet government.[20] In the August 8, 1947, issue of Novoye Russkoye Slovo Theophilus accused Grigory of trying to destroy the peace of the Church.[21]

In October, 1947, according to Bishop Ioann (Shahovskoy) (a newly ordained Metropolia bishop and violent enemy of the Church Abroad, who had played no small role at the Cleveland Sobor), Metropolitan Grigory let it be known he was willing to “soften” his loyalty demands. All that was necessary was for the Metropolia to submit to Moscow as an autonomous Church.[22]

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

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

On December 14, 1947, Archbishop Vitaly convoked a council of those hierarchs who had remained faithful to the Church Abroad. Concerning the decisions of the Metropolia bishops’ conference in San Francisco, it was said, “The participants of the recent Bishops’ Council in San Francisco are consciously and intentionally concealing the truth and leading their flock into temptation by stating that they are now declaring not the autocephaly but the autonomy of the Russian Orthodox Metropolia in America. For anyone even slightly acquainted with the canons of the Church, it is obvious that if the American Metropolia does not have ties and relations with the Moscow Patriarchate or with any other Highest Church centers but decides all ecclesiastical matters by herself, in complete independence, without being judicially dependent on anyone, then this is not ecclesiastical autonomy but autocephaly.”[23]

Professor Bogolepov has recently admitted that Vitaly was right. In discussing the draft which the Metropolia submitted to Metropolitan Grigory of Leningrad, he remarks, “Criticizing this draft, Metropolitan Grigory correctly noted that, while recognizing the Patriarch as ‘spiritual father,’ the plan ‘establishes an imaginary, nominal bond’ with him and in essence ‘already proposes not an autonomous but an autocephalous government. . . .’”[24]

Upon learning of the Metropolia’s refusal, Patriarch Alexis, or rather his masters, decided that Metropolitan Grigory had done “all that was possible to halt the division caused by that part of the Russian Orthodox Church which had gone into schism from the Mother Russian Church.”[25] Archbishop Makary, formerly of the Metropolia, was named Patriarchal Exarch, and Archbishop Adam, also formerly of the Metropolia, was named his deputy.[26]

 

---