A. A. Kostryukov
Russian source: Bulletin
of the St. Philaret Institute, 2021, Issue 38, pp. 160–179.
The article is devoted to the history of the rapprochement
and subsequent rupture between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
(ROCOR) and the Greek Old Calendarist movement during the lifetime of
Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky). As a supporter of ROCOR’s isolation and of
preserving tradition, he effectively abandoned unity with world Orthodoxy,
preferring communion with Greek Old Calendarist bodies as those most
“steadfast” in matters of faith. Statements began to be heard from the
leadership describing the Church Abroad as a “small island” amid universal
“apostasy.” The voices calling upon the Church’s leadership to abandon such
ideas went unheard. The negative attitude toward the new calendar manifested
itself in the condemnation of ROCOR’s Bulgarian parishes, as well as in the
rejection of the position of St. John (Maximovich), who advocated a “universal
path” for the Russian ecclesiastical emigration and broad application of oikonomia
in matters of traditions and rites. In 1970, the Synod Abroad recognized one
branch of the Greek Old Calendarist movement—the “Florinite” branch; in 1971,
the other branch—the “Matthewite”—was also recognized. At the same time, at the
conciliar level, the possibility of recognizing this body, which had been
founded by only a single hierarch, was discussed. Before long, however, the Old
Calendarist bodies began drawing the Church Abroad into their internal
conflicts and also demanding a definitive separation from world Orthodoxy. The
latter was unacceptable to ROCOR, which led to a rupture with the Greek Old
Calendarist churches in 1975–1976.
The years of rule of the third
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR),
Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) (1964–1985), became a period of its
radicalization. The “zealot” course adopted by the Church Abroad was expressed
above all in the deterioration of its relations with the Moscow Patriarchate
and in its distancing from the other Local Churches. Speaking at the Third
All-Diaspora Council (1974), Metropolitan Philaret observed that, on its
much-suffering path, the Russian Church Abroad had many enemies and virtually
no friends. Its task, however, was, despite everything, to bear witness to the
truth and defend the purity of Orthodoxy [Third All-Diaspora Council, 13].
The First Hierarch’s words are
key to understanding ROCOR’s ideology. Insularity, combined with conservatism,
was leading it toward a self-isolation that would have been impossible under
the first metropolitans—Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Anastasy (Gribanovsky).
Formed within the synodal system, they regarded the necessity of maintaining
communion with the Local Churches as axiomatic and sought to keep their
distance from marginal movements. Unlike those hierarchs, Metropolitan Philaret
had been formed spiritually on the periphery of the Russian emigration, in the
non-Orthodox Chinese environment, and did not possess the same reverence for
world Orthodoxy that had distinguished his predecessors.
The “zealot” faction that gained
strength under Metropolitan Philaret—Archbishop Averky (Taushev), Archimandrite
Constantine (Zaitsev), and Protopresbyter George Grabbe—placed the Moscow
Patriarchate and the Local Churches on essentially the same footing. An even
more uncompromising position toward world Orthodoxy, however, was adopted by
Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos), abbot of Holy Transfiguration
Monastery in Boston, who had gained the favor of the First Hierarch. [1]
Those who had only recently come
from non-Orthodox backgrounds, and who were often distinguished by excessive
zeal, likewise insisted on breaking communion with the Local Churches.
Representatives of other Local Churches, dissatisfied with the “modernism” of
their own leadership, also joined ROCOR. All these groups regarded the Church
Abroad as a center of conservatism, zealously monitoring its purity and the
“proper standard” of its ecclesiastical leadership. They saw the Old
Calendarist groups as the alternative to the “fallen” Churches. Such groups
began to emerge in the 1920s and 1930s after certain Local Churches adopted the
new calendar.
The question of ROCOR’s relations
with the Old Calendarist churches has been addressed in a number of studies,
[2] but the details of the Church Abroad’s drift in this direction, the
internal opposition to this course, and the reasons for the rupture with the
Old Calendarists that soon followed have not yet received adequate treatment.
Nevertheless, official and administrative documents, together with materials of
a personal nature, make it possible to trace this development and identify its
characteristic patterns. The history of the Church Abroad’s contacts with Old
Calendarist bodies can be reconstructed with the aid of the minutes of the 1971
ROCOR Council of Bishops, the journals of the meetings of the ROCOR Synod of
Bishops (Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops), the correspondence of
Protopresbyter George Grabbe (the “Grabbe” Collection at Stanford University),
documents from the archive of the Department for External Church Relations of
the Moscow Patriarchate, as well as the periodical press of the Russian Church
Abroad—Church Life, Orthodox Russia, and Bulletins of the
Department of External Relations under the Synod of Bishops of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
Initially regarding the
introduction of the new calendar as a violation of tradition, the Russian
Church Abroad nevertheless did not consider it a heresy during the 1920s–1940s
and concelebrated with representatives of New Calendarist Churches. ROCOR’s position
began gradually to change in the postwar years. Sympathizing with the Greek Old
Calendarists, who had been left without a hierarchy, three ROCOR
bishops—Seraphim (Ivanov), Theophil (Ionescu), and Leonty (Filippovich)—between
1950 and 1960 restored the hierarchy of one of the Old Calendarist branches,
the “Florinite” branch. [3] Although the consecration of a bishop for a schism
constituted a canonical offense, the ROCOR leadership limited itself merely to
censuring its hierarchs [Slesarev, 134]. Meanwhile, sympathy for the Old
Calendarists among ROCOR bishops continued to grow. At the 1964 Council of
Bishops, Archbishop Averky (Taushev) described the Greek and other Old
Calendarists as “the people most steadfast in the faith” [True Orthodoxy, 10].
Protopresbyter George Grabbe shared this view. Orthodox Russia was no
less outspoken, its contributors seemingly competing with one another in their
criticism of the new calendar. [4] Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky),
however, was still wary of damaging relations with the New Calendarist Local
Churches or of regarding them as heretical. The First Hierarch, for example,
concelebrated with clergy of the Romanian Orthodox Church [Bartoshevich 1974]. Another
interesting example may be noted. The communities of the Church Abroad in
Tunisia were pastorally served by the Greek priest George Funtenekas. The fact
that he belonged to a New Calendarist Church was actually convenient for the
Russian émigrés: in the Greek church, Fr. George celebrated the festal services
according to the new calendar and was therefore able to celebrate the same
services in the Russian church according to the old calendar [Russian, 1296].
Nevertheless, the anti-modernism
of the zealots made itself felt with increasing frequency. One occasion for an
offensive against the new calendar arose from the situation in the Bulgarian
parishes in the United States that were under ROCOR. Bulgarian émigrés,
especially the younger generation, favored celebrating the Nativity of Christ
according to the American civil calendar. The leadership of the Church Abroad
opposed such sentiments. After the Bulgarian Orthodox Church adopted the new
calendar in 1968, however, the possibility arose that the Bulgarian émigrés in
America might resolve the issue simply by transferring to the jurisdiction of
the Patriarch of Bulgaria. For this reason, ROCOR’s Bulgarian Diocese in the
United States, headed by Bishop Kirill (Yonchev), effectively adopted the new
calendar. The Synod Abroad regarded this as virtually a heresy, condemned the
actions of the Bulgarian parishes, and referred the final decision to the
Council of Bishops [Journal 401-a].
The dispute over the calendar
unfolded at the 1971 Council of Bishops, when the hierarchs considered the
question of the Dutch mission. Although by no means inclined toward modernism,
the mission had celebrated according to the new calendar since the time of St.
John (Maximovich), which drew criticism from the zealot camp [Protocol 6, 13].
The immediate occasion for a genuine conflict, however, was precisely the
“Bulgarian” problem. Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov) spoke out against any
concessions regarding the calendar. In his view, all leniency on this question
had to be rejected, since the calendar was merely the first step toward
modernism. He was strongly supported by Archbishop Anthony (Sinkevich) of Los
Angeles and Archbishop Averky (Taushev) of Syracuse and Holy Trinity
[Monastery]. The latter declared that “if the new style cannot be called a
heresy, it is in any case a very harmful phenomenon.” Without awaiting a
decision from the higher ecclesiastical authorities, the archbishop himself
broke communion with Bishop Kirill (Yonchev) [Protocol 1, 3].
References to St. John
(Maximovich) persuaded few. The “zealots” explained his leniency regarding the
calendar merely as a matter of oikonomia and a temporary measure. Bishop
Kirill, however, also appealed to oikonomia. He pointed out that many of
his parishioners had come from Northern Greece, where they had already become
accustomed to the new calendar. Such parishes constituted about half of his
diocese. The hierarch also drew attention to the younger generation, who wished
to celebrate the Nativity in accordance with the civil calendar. At the same
time, the bishop firmly stated that he himself served only according to the old
calendar and was trying to bring his entire flock back to it [Protocol 3, 1–4].
The Council found his explanations satisfactory and reaffirmed that the Julian
calendar was to be used in ROCOR without any alteration [Resolutions, 3].
Despite this conciliatory decision, subsequent relations with Bishop Kirill
nevertheless failed to develop satisfactorily. On October 6, 1976, the Council
of Bishops resolved to expel him from ROCOR. The reason for this decision was
precisely the calendar question. Bishop Kirill subsequently joined the Orthodox
Church in America [Decisions 1976, 40; Psarev, 186].
Some representatives of ROCOR,
however, viewed an alliance with the Old Calendarists negatively, regarding it
as a betrayal of the ideals of the Russian Church Abroad and as a distortion of
its ecclesiological consciousness. Such, for example, was the view of
Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich) of Geneva and Western Europe. The hierarch
wrote that ROCOR must remain “on the universal paths” followed by Metropolitan
Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop Gabriel (Chepur), and St. John (Maximovich).
Recalling the latter, Archbishop Anthony wrote:
“He was the last
universal-minded archpastor of our Church, like Metropolitan Anthony. He
understood the Church in a broadly universal sense; he lived by her and felt
her living breath throughout the whole universe. He was far removed from
shutting himself up in isolation, or from fear of anyone or anything. He even
dared to adopt the Paschalion according to the New Style—something which we
unworthy ones, of course, ought not to imitate. He understood that Orthodoxy
does not consist in the calendar, for he lived Orthodoxy, and the external
forms of the calendar could not trouble him” [Bartoshevich 1975b].
Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich)
warned that association with the zealots would turn the Church Abroad into a
sect. The archbishop wrote:
“I cannot trail
along behind the Greek Old Calendarists… From my point of view and according to
my deepest conviction, that would be a betrayal of the Church. <…> And
now, seeing how far the Greek Old Calendarists have gone, to what absurdity
they have come, we nevertheless continue trying to accommodate ourselves to
them and please them, while ourselves sliding toward becoming a sect that cuts
itself off from universal unity” [Bartoshevich 1975a].
Another ROCOR hierarch, Bishop
Laurus (Škurla) of Manhattan, pointed out that it was praiseworthy to struggle
against deviations, but that this should be done not by entering into schisms,
but from within one’s own Local Church [Psarev, 191]. Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose)
expressed a similar view. He believed that ROCOR should be open to everyone and
should admit all Orthodox Christians to the Chalice, including New
Calendarists. In his view, by maintaining relations with Churches whose
leadership was inclined toward modernism, ROCOR became a source of strength for
those who, from within their own Churches, were struggling against negative
tendencies [Seraphim (Rose), 151–152]. Archbishop Anthony and Bishop Laurus,
however—not to mention Fr. Seraphim—did not possess sufficient influence to
have the final say on this question.
Protopresbyter George Grabbe,
replying to Archbishop Anthony, wrote that he understood his concern over
ROCOR’s growing isolation, which was felt more keenly in small Geneva than in
vast New York. At the same time, however, he could not ignore the views of the
zealots, who closely watched every step taken by the Church’s leadership. Fr.
George wrote that conservatives had been displeased by his congratulations to
P. Anderson [of the American YMCA- Blog Admin.] on his eightieth
birthday, as well as by the establishment, by Archpriest Alexander Kiselev, of
a committee for the defense of Christians persecuted by the Communist
authorities. In the latter case, the zealots were indignant that
representatives of other jurisdictions were included on the committee. The
protopresbyter himself favored a strict approach to the calendar. In objecting
to Archbishop Anthony, he recalled that Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) had
in his time supported the Romanian Old Calendarists. In the same letter,
Protopresbyter George Grabbe defended the necessity of rebaptizing the
non-Orthodox [Grabbe 1975]. On other occasions, the protopresbyter was even
more candid than in his correspondence with Archbishop Anthony. He made no
secret of the fact that he regarded the path of self-isolation as normal. In a
letter from Fr. George to his sister, we read:
“You write about
the ‘Eastern Patriarchs.’ Alas, there are now almost no Orthodox patriarchs
left. The Serbian remains; the Jerusalem Patriarch is still formally Orthodox,
but is already slipping. There is no one upon whom we can rely… Any isolation
is always accompanied by difficulties, but our separation is inevitable”
[Psarev, 190].
Fr. George Grabbe’s rhetoric was
self-destructive. In 1971 he wrote:
“The development
of ecumenism not only among Protestants and Catholics, but also among a
considerable portion of the Orthodox, now makes our Church, as it were, a small
island amid the spreading sea of ecumenism” [Grabbe 1971].
Ten years later, by then Bishop
Gregory, he declared: “One cannot close one’s eyes to the fact that, in
reality, only our Church Abroad continues to preserve Orthodoxy” [Gregory].
In the Bulletins published
by Bishop Gregory, participants in ecumenical events were already being
referred to as “Orthodox” in quotation marks. [5] Such ideas led the Church
Abroad to withdraw even from inter-Orthodox forums. Unwilling to recognize that
ROCOR’s isolation benefited the Soviet regime above all, the leadership of the
Church Abroad continued deliberately to retreat from the international arena,
severing its ties with the Orthodox world more and more. According to a
statement from the Synodal Chancery, ROCOR rejected “all forms of ecumenism”
and therefore had no communion with the Church of Constantinople and “a number
of other Churches.” One example was ROCOR’s refusal to participate in the
“Standing Conference of Orthodox Churches in Australia” [Bulletin 31, 1].
The Old Calendarists appeared
more attractive to ROCOR’s leadership. In some minds there also arose the
temptation to become the leader of all the world’s “zealots.” Such an idea was
promoted, for example, by Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos). In a report
delivered at the Third All-Diaspora Council, he stated that ROCOR should become
the foundation of an alternative worldwide jurisdiction of the True Orthodox
[Psarev, 190].
By that time, the process of
creating such a worldwide “pure” Church had already begun. On June 12, 1969,
the Synod of Bishops sent a letter to the “Florinite” Synod stating that it
recognized the canonical status of their hierarchy and the possibility of
sacramental communion with them [Slesarev, 141]. On December 31, 1969, the
Synod of Bishops recognized as valid all the episcopal consecrations performed
by ROCOR hierarchs for the Greek Old Calendarists in the early 1960s [Psarev,
189].
On January 1, 1970, the Synod
resolved to address a letter to Archbishop Auxentios (Pastras), head of the
“Florinite” branch of the Greek Old Calendarists, stating that the Synod
regarded their hierarchy as lawful. The text of the letter read:
“The Synod of
Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia recognizes the validity
of the episcopal consecrations of your predecessor, the late Archbishop
Akakios, and of the subsequent consecrations of bishops of your Holy Church.
Accordingly, and taking into consideration various other circumstances, our
Synod of Bishops regards your hierarchy as brethren in Christ who are in full
communion with us” [Decisions 1970, 14].
The letter was signed by
Metropolitan Philaret; Archbishops Nikon (Rklitsky), Seraphim (Ivanov), Vitaly
(Ustinov), Anthony (Sinkevich), Averky (Taushev), and Anthony (Medvedev); and
Bishops Sava (Saračević), Nektary (Kontzevitch), Andrei (Rymarenko), and Laurus
(Škurla) [Letter].
In August 1970, Bishop Laurus
(Škurla), while in Greece, concelebrated with the “Florinites.” A year later,
in July–August 1971, bishops of this branch visited America, where they
concelebrated with representatives of ROCOR [Slesarev, 142].
But by preferring the Old
Calendarists to the canonical Churches, the Church Abroad became hostage to a
problem characteristic of all breakaway communities. Such groups sooner or
later begin to fragment, competing with one another in “purity” and “truth,”
while suspending and anathematizing one another.
There was not long to wait—the
scandal broke out in that same year, 1971. The background to the conflict went
back nine years, to 1962, when the spiritual son and subdeacon of Archbishop
Vitaly (Ustinov) of Montreal and Canada, Elias Ntouskos, unexpectedly informed
him that he had received the monastic tonsure with the name Akakios and had
been ordained to the priesthood. Ntouskos did not tell his spiritual father the
name of the bishop who had performed the ordination. There were reasons for
this secrecy. The ordaining bishop proved to be another ROCOR hierarch,
Archbishop Leonty (Filippovich) of Santiago. Concealing the matter from his
fellow bishops, the archbishop had performed the ordination, contrary to the
canons, within the territory of another diocese—in New York. None of the
canonical penalties prescribed for such an offense followed. On the contrary,
one violation led to another: Hieromonk Akakios established a parish in
Montreal composed of his own followers and began commemorating not the ruling hierarch,
Archbishop Vitaly, but Bishop Leonty [Protocol 463-a]. In 1971, the
“Florinites,” who had professed their devotion to ROCOR, consecrated Akakios (Ntouskos)
Bishop of Montreal and Canada, even though that title was already borne by
Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov). The Greek portion of ROCOR’s flock in Canada
gradually passed over to the “Florinites” [Slesarev, 142]. Archbishop Vitaly’s
demands that the Synod of Bishops declare Ntouskos’s tonsure and priestly
ordination unlawful had by then come too late. The “Florinites” themselves had
been informed that Ntouskos’s priestly ordination was unlawful, but they
ignored the notification.
The “Florinites’” lack of respect
for ROCOR was the lesser of the evils. They also began issuing ultimatums—for
example, that monks from Mount Athos not be ordained and that the non-Orthodox
be received only through rebaptism. Otherwise, they refused to regard ROCOR as
Orthodox [Vestnik 1979, 39]. In the Russian Church Abroad, these demands were
considered excessive. Moreover, the Old Calendarists began drawing ROCOR into
their internal disputes. For example, the “Florinites” sought arbitration from
the Synod Abroad in the conflict that had arisen between Archbishop Auxentios
and Bishop Akakios (Pappas the Younger). By that time, the latter regarded
himself as a special guardian of Orthodoxy and had begun accusing the
“Florinites” themselves of modernism. ROCOR, however, had no desire to involve itself
in the matter [Protocol 14, 4].
The “Florinites” did not stop
there. They began, for example, receiving ROCOR clergy into their jurisdiction
without notifying the Synod Abroad. Moreover, one of the defectors,
Archimandrite John (da Rocha), was received from ROCOR into the Old Calendarist
schism through baptism, after which he was tonsured anew as a monk, reordained
through all the ranks of the priesthood, and consecrated a bishop for Portugal
[Slesarev, 163].
The fanaticism of the
“Florinites” reached its height in 1974, when they declared that the Mysteries
of the canonical Church of Greece were devoid of grace. This declaration
provoked protests from a considerable portion of the “Florinite” camp. ROCOR
likewise regarded the decision as excessively radical. In 1975, Metropolitan
Philaret (Voznesensky) announced the severing of communion with the “Florinite”
Synod, “with the exception of Metropolitan Petros (Astyfides) of Astoria, the
monks of the Holy Mountain, and the pious people” [Stolp, 59–60].
At the same time, ROCOR became
embroiled in dealings with another branch of the Greek Old Calendarists—the
“Matthewites.” This hierarchy, founded in 1948, was manifestly uncanonical,
since it had been established by a single hierarch, Matthew (Karpathakis).
Representatives of this body approached ROCOR, which inevitably gave rise to
discussion. First, the fact of the unilateral episcopal consecration from which
the “Matthewite” hierarchy derived required careful consideration. Second,
contacts with this group threatened to draw ROCOR into yet another whirlpool of
intrigues and scandals. It was unclear, for example, how their opponents, the
“Florinite” followers of Auxentios, would react to friendly relations with the
“Matthewites.”
On September 28, 1971, a
“Matthewite” delegation arrived at the ROCOR Council of Bishops, consisting of
Metropolitans Kallistos (Makris) and Epiphanios (Panayiotou), together with
Protopresbyter Eugenios Tombros. Negotiations began.
When asked how they explained the
origin of their hierarchy, the “Matthewites” replied that they did not insist
upon its canonical status, that they sought its regularization, and that they
left the decision to the ROCOR Council of Bishops. When asked about the
“Florinites,” the delegates answered that they had appealed to Archbishop
Auxentios thirteen times, but without success.
The anti-ecumenist and calendar
position of the “Matthewites” was, of course, close to that of the Council of
Bishops. But was it possible to recognize a hierarchy founded by a single
hierarch? Finding itself between oikonomia and akribeia, the
Council sought to examine the question from various angles. Although the First
Apostolic Canon states that an episcopal consecration must be performed by no
fewer than two bishops, exceptions to this rule are known. Thus, the Council
referred to the Apostolic Constitutions, where it is stated that, in
times of persecution, an episcopal consecration by a single bishop is
permissible. [6] The Council also pointed to a number of historical precedents.
In the Russian Church, for example, there was Bishop Joasaph (Bolotov), who was
appointed by the Synod to America in 1799. Because the necessary number of
bishops was unavailable in Irkutsk, the archimandrite was consecrated by Bishop
Benjamin (Bagryansky) of Irkutsk alone [Protocol 16, 3]. Similar cases also
occurred in Greece during its struggle for independence and its rupture with
Constantinople. Consideration was also given to the fact that Patriarch
Christophoros of Alexandria had received priests ordained by “Matthewite”
bishops in their existing rank.
On the other hand, the Council
had no intention of defending consecrations performed by a single bishop. It
was pointed out that the Apostolic Constitutions were an uncertain
source and that the Council in Trullo had not recognized them as a canonical
authority. Nor are historical precedents always worthy of imitation, even when
they occurred during times of persecution. It was not without reason that Canon
4 of the First Ecumenical Council and Canon 3 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council
prescribed that a bishop should be ordained by all the bishops of the province.
If this should prove impracticable, then, at the very least, the consecration
itself must be performed by three bishops, while the others are to express
their consent by written letters. Thus, even in the most difficult
circumstances, the Church must send more than one bishop for an episcopal
consecration. Moreover, the First Apostolic Canon itself was formulated
precisely during a period of persecution.
The members of the Council
explained the importance of having at least two bishops for an episcopal
consecration by the principle that “the lesser is blessed by the greater.” When
a bishop ordains a priest, this principle is observed. But for a bishop, a
single consecrating bishop is not “greater” than he is. For him, the “greater”
is the assembly of bishops. The consecration of a bishop by one bishop alone
therefore violates the principle of ecclesiastical hierarchy.
Having weighed all the arguments
for and against, the Council concluded that a consecration performed without
observance of the canons was invalid. Among Roman Catholics, for example, the
correct form alone is sufficient, even if the consecration itself is the result
of someone’s arbitrary action; in Orthodoxy, however, it is also essential that
it be performed with the blessing of the Church (Canon 6 of the First
Ecumenical Council). It was therefore quite natural that the “Matthewite”
consecrations were regarded with suspicion in the Orthodox world.
Nevertheless, oikonomia could
also be applied. Canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Council was taken as a
precedent: it permitted the Cathari (Novatians) to remain among the clergy
after the “laying on of hands.” Among the various interpretations of the words
“laying on of hands” was the explanation given by St. Tarasios at the Seventh
Ecumenical Council, according to which they were to be understood not as
ordination but as a blessing. Bishop Nikodim (Milaš), a canonist, interpreted
these words as referring to the Mystery of Repentance. The ROCOR Council of
Bishops also recalled Canon 79 of the Council of Carthage, according to which,
in a case of great necessity, for the sake of the peace and benefit of the
Church, Donatists could be received in their existing rank.
If oikonomia was possible
in the case of the Donatists and Novatians, why could it not be applied to the
Old Calendarists? The conciliar decision stated:
“In their
teaching they have in no way erred against Orthodoxy, but in their striving to
defend it they violated hierarchical order by having an episcopal consecration
performed by a single bishop, Matthew of Vresthena [Resolutions, 27].
A simple recognition of their
consecrations would have violated a number of canons, but oikonomia,
according to other canons, was also possible. The Council therefore concluded
that the performance of an additional laying on of hands—a cheirothesia—would
be an acceptable and canonical solution.
The question of the possible
reaction of the ‘Florinites” was also addressed. Metropolitan Philaret and
Archbishop Averky proposed that, after the restoration of the “Matthewite”
hierarchy, they should be encouraged to unite, after which they could
themselves determine their future course. The Council also kept in mind that
the “Florinites” themselves had expressed a desire for unity [Protocol 14,
3–6].
The following decision was
adopted:
“In view of all
the foregoing, as well as the desire expressed by Archbishop Auxentios that all
those faithful to pure Orthodoxy in Greece should be united, the Council of
Bishops resolves:
1. To deem it
possible to grant the petition of Metropolitans Kallistos and Epiphanios, for
which purpose two bishops are to perform over them the rite of the laying on of
hands. They, in turn, are to perform the same rite over their fellow bishops,
and all the bishops over the priests.
2. To require
Metropolitans Kallistos and Epiphanios, as well as their fellow bishops, to
take every measure toward the unification of their hierarchy, clergy, and laity
with the corresponding hierarchy, clergy, and laity headed by His Beatitude
Archbishop Auxentios.
3. To notify
His Beatitude Archbishop Auxentios of all the foregoing.
4. To entrust
the performance of the rite specified in paragraph 1 of this decision, at Holy
Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, to Their Graces Archbishop Philotheos and
Bishop Constantine” [Protocol 16, 6–7].
The “Matthewite” Metropolitans
Kallistos and Epiphanios, who had come to the United States, agreed to the cheirothesiai.
On September 30 and October 1, 1971, at Holy Transfiguration Monastery in
Boston, Archbishop Philotheos (Narko) and Bishop Constantine (Essensky)
performed the cheirothesiai over the Greeks [Stolp, 235]. In essence,
these were actual episcopal consecrations: each was performed at a separate
Liturgy, the episcopal omophoria were removed from those being
consecrated, and the prayers of episcopal ordination were read in full
[Slesarev, 153–154]. Upon their return, Metropolitans Kallistos and Matthew [sic; Epiphanios] performed the laying on of hands over their fellow bishops. For a
time, communion between ROCOR and the “Matthewites” was established [Bochkov,
169].
But the unity proved fragile. The
“Matthewites” considered ROCOR too tolerant of the new calendar and expressed
dissatisfaction that New Calendarist parishes remained within its jurisdiction.
Inclined toward isolation, the “Matthewites” attempted to drag the Russian
Church Abroad down with them. In 1975, they demanded that ROCOR sign a
“Confession of Faith” anathematizing ecumenism and the new calendar. Since
ROCOR refused to sign this document, in May 1975 the “Matthewites” announced a
provisional rupture of relations with ROCOR. On February 20, 1976, the
“Matthewite” Synod declared that it was definitively severing communion with
ROCOR [Slesarev, 157].
The Church Abroad itself, having
plunged into the maelstrom of Old Calendarist scandals, for a time abandoned
any further rapprochement with them, returning to this course only under the
next First Hierarch, Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov).
The history of the rapprochement
with the Old Calendarist Churches under Metropolitan Philaret thus became the
logical outcome of the Russian Church Abroad’s developing self-isolation.
ROCOR’s policy of isolationism was its own choice and not the result of
rejection by world Orthodoxy. At the same time, during the period under
consideration, the ROCOR leadership departed from the “universal” principles of
Orthodox Christianity and sacrificed pan-Orthodox unity, placing the emphasis
instead on “zealotry” and the preservation of traditions.
On the other hand, ROCOR’s
rupture with the Old Calendarist Churches was just as natural an outcome,
since, despite the radicalism of the “zealot faction,” the Church Abroad as a
whole retained Orthodox ecclesiology and consisted to a considerable extent of
people who categorically rejected the path of “alternative Orthodoxy.” The
conceptions of the canonicity and universality of Orthodoxy that had been laid
in its foundations from the very beginning of its existence preserved it from a
lamentable fall and fragmentation.
FOOTNOTES
1. For further details, see [Kostryukov 2020a; Kostryukov
2020b].
2. See, for example, the following works: [Bochkov; Psarev;
Slesarev; Stolp].
3. The Florinites are a branch of the Greek Old Calendarists,
so called after the title of their leader, Metropolitan Chrysostomos
(Kavouridis) of Florina.
4. See, for example: [Orthodox Russia 1982a; Orthodox
Russia 1982b].
5. See, for example: [Bulletin 17, 1; Bulletin
18, 3].
6. In the Apostolic Constitutions (8.27), the
following is stated on this subject: “Let a bishop be ordained by three or two
bishops. If, however, anyone is ordained by a single bishop, let both he and
the one who ordained him be deposed. But if necessity compels him to be
ordained by a single bishop, because a greater number of bishops cannot be
present during a persecution or for some other similar reason, then let him
produce the consent of a greater number of bishops” [Constitutions,
195].
Sources
1. Bartoshevich 1974 = Anthony (Bartoshevich), Archbishop.
Letter to Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), February 23, 1974 // Stanford
University. Special Collections. Grabbe Collection. Box 1. Folder 7.
2. Bartoshevich 1975a = Anthony (Bartoshevich), Archbishop.
Letter to Protopresbyter G. Grabbe, February 3, 1975 // Stanford University.
Special Collections. Grabbe Collection. Box 1. Folder 7.
3. Bartoshevich 1975b = Anthony (Bartoshevich), Archbishop.
Letter to Protopresbyter G. Grabbe, July 25, 1975 // Stanford University.
Special Collections. Grabbe Collection. Box 1. Folder 7.
4. Vestnik 1979 = “The Greek Old Calendarists” // Bulletin
of the Western European Diocese. 1979. No. 13. pp. 38–39.
5. Grabbe 1971 = Grabbe, George, Protopresbyter.
“Contemporary Ecumenical Renovationism and Our Attitude Toward It: A Report to
the 1971 Pastoral Conference” // Stanford University. Special Collections.
Grabbe Collection. Box 4. Folder 3.
6. Grabbe 1975 = Grabbe, George, Protopresbyter. Letter to
Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich), March 9, 1975 // Stanford University.
Special Collections. Grabbe Collection. Box 1. Folder 7.
7. Gregory = Gregory (Grabbe), Bishop. Report to the 1981
ROCOR Council of Bishops // Stanford University. Special Collections. Grabbe
Collection. Box 3. Folder 8.
8. Journal 401-a = Journal No. 401-a of the ROCOR Synod of
Bishops, January 21, 1969 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File 212-a
(Journals of Meetings and Minutes, 1969–1971).
9. Bulletin 17 = “A New
Betrayal of Orthodoxy” // Bulletin No. 17 of the Department of External
Relations under the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside
Russia. July 1978. p. 1.
10. Bulletin 18 = “It Is
Not Easy to Reach Agreement” // Bulletin No. 18 of the Department of
External Relations under the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside Russia. August 1978. p. 3.
11. Bulletin 31 =
“Clarification from the Synodal Chancery” // Bulletin No. 31 of the
Department of External Relations under the Synod of Bishops of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside Russia. June–July 1980. p. 1.
12. Decisions 1970 =
“Decisions of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside
Russia” // Church Life. 1970. Nos. 1–4. pp. 9–23.
13. Decisions 1976 =
“Decisions of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside
Russia” // Church Life. 1976. Nos. 7–12. pp. 35–46.
14. Letter = Letter of
the ROCOR Synod of Bishops to Archbishop Auxentios, December 31, 1969 //
Archive of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow
Patriarchate. File: Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. Folder “1969.”
15. Constitutions = The
Apostolic Constitutions, Handed Down through St. Clement, Bishop of Rome.
St. Petersburg: [n.p.], 2002. 208 pp.
16. True Orthodoxy =
Averky (Taushev), Archbishop. True Orthodoxy and False “Orthodoxy”: On
Standing Firm in Orthodoxy under Contemporary Conditions / Report of
Archbishop Averky to the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside Russia, May 13/26, 1964. Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1969.
16 pp.
17. Orthodox Russia 1982a
= “The Apostles’ Fast and the New Calendarists” // Orthodox Russia.
1982. No. 13. pp. 1–2.
18. Orthodox Russia 1982b
= “The Old and New Styles” // Orthodox Russia. 1982. No. 13. p. 3.
19. Protocol 1 =
Protocol No. 1 of the meeting of the ROCOR Council of Bishops, September 8,
1971 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File: Council of Bishops, 1971.
Protocols.
20. Protocol 3 =
Protocol No. 3 of the meeting of the ROCOR Council of Bishops, September 10,
1971 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File: Council of Bishops, 1971.
Protocols.
21. Protocol 6 =
Protocol No. 6 of the meeting of the ROCOR Council of Bishops, September 14,
1971 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File: Council of Bishops, 1971.
Protocols.
22. Protocol 14 =
Protocol No. 14 of the meeting of the ROCOR Council of Bishops, September 24,
1971 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File: Council of Bishops, 1971.
Protocols.
23. Protocol 16 =
Protocol No. 16 of the meeting of the ROCOR Council of Bishops, September 28,
1971 // Archive of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File: Council of Bishops, 1971.
Protocols.
24. Protocol 463 =
Protocol No. 463-a of the Synod of Bishops, January 10, 1972 // Archive of the
ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File 212-a (Journals of Meetings and Protocols,
1969–1971).
25. Resolutions =
Resolutions and Decisions of the 1971 Council of Bishops // Archive of the
ROCOR Synod of Bishops. File: Council of Bishops, 1971. pp. 1–32.
26. Seraphim (Rose) = Letters
of Father Seraphim (Rose). Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery Press,
2005. 318 pp.
27. Third All-Diaspora Council = “The Third All-Diaspora Council” // Church Life. 1974. Nos.
7–12. pp. 13–51.
Literature
1. Bochkov = Bochkov, Pavel, Priest. A Survey of
Non-Canonical Orthodox Jurisdictions of the 20th–21st Centuries. In 4 vols.
Vol. 4: The Greek Old Calendarist Schism and the Non-Canonical Jurisdictions
Derived from It. St. Petersburg: Svoe Izdatelstvo, 2018. 282 pp.
2. Kostryukov 2020a = Kostryukov, A. A. “On the Question of
Relations between the Serbian Church and the Russian Church Abroad in the
1960s–1980s” // St. Tikhon’s University Review. Series II: History.
History of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2020. Issue 92. pp. 144–157.
3. Kostryukov 2020b = Kostryukov, A. A. “The Attitude of the
Russian Church Abroad toward the Non-Orthodox under Metropolitan Philaret
(Voznesensky)” // Bulletin of the St. Philaret Institute. 2020. Issue
35. pp. 248–269.
4. Psarev = Psarev, A. V. “The Development of the Russian
Church Abroad’s Outlook regarding the Local Churches and the Non-Orthodox” // Proceedings
of the Fourth All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside
Russia. Moscow: Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate, 2012. pp.
180–205.
5. Russian = The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia:
1918–1968 / Edited by A. Sollogub. In 2 vols. Vol. 2. New York: ROCOR
Publishing House, 1968. 690 pp.
6. Slesarev = Slesarev, A. The Old Calendarist Schism in
the History of the Orthodox Church (1924–2008). Moscow: Publishing House of
the Krutitsy Metochion; Society of Church History Enthusiasts, 2009. 562 pp.
7. Stolp = A Pillar of Fire: Metropolitan Philaret
(Voznesensky) of New York and Eastern America and the Russian Church Abroad
(1964–1985) / Compiled and annotated by Nun Kassia (T. A. Senina). St.
Petersburg: Art of Russia, 2007. 606 pp.
Russian source online:
https://psmb-neos-resources.hb.bizmrg.com/target/sfi/b6ae6ad530abcf626a47158702e92314e156088e/%D0%92%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA38%2B-160-179.pdf
