The views of St. Cyril, Metropolitan of Kazan, on Sergianism

Protopriest Alexander Malykh | August 28, 2019

 

We have already written (http://kondakov.ws/blog/O-Moskovskom-Patriarhate) that in our attitude toward the Moscow Patriarchate, which is headed by an apostate leadership, we are guided by the conciliar voice of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, as well as by the position of perhaps the most authoritative among the New Martyrs of Russia, Hieromartyr Cyril, Metropolitan of Kazan. Let us again cite his words from a 1934 letter:

"It seems to me that both you yourself and your correspondent do not distinguish between those actions of Metropolitan Sergius and his like-minded supporters which are performed by them in due order, by virtue of the grace-filled rights received through the sacrament of priesthood, and those deeds which are committed in excess of their sacramental rights through human contrivances, for the protection and maintenance of their self-invented rights in the Church. Such are the actions of Bishop Zachariah (Lobov) and Priest Potapov, about whom you write. These are only outwardly sacramental acts, but in essence a usurpation of the sacraments, and therefore blasphemous, graceless, unecclesial. However, the sacraments performed by Sergianists, who have been properly ordained in the priesthood and are not prohibited from serving, are undoubtedly salvific sacraments for those who receive them with faith, in simplicity, without questioning or doubting their efficacy, and who are even unaware of anything amiss in the Sergianist arrangement of the Church. But at the same time, they serve as judgment and condemnation for the very celebrants and for those among the communicants who well understand the injustice present in Sergianism and by their failure to oppose it reveal a criminal indifference to the desecration of the Church. This is why it is necessary for an Orthodox bishop or priest to refrain from prayerful communion with Sergianists. The same is necessary for laypeople who are consciously attentive to all aspects of church life."

But behold, some zealots without understanding, who accuse everyone and everything—except themselves—of gracelessness, claim that we, by referring in our attitude toward the MP to the above-quoted words of St. Cyril, Metropolitan of Kazan, are acting unlawfully and even deceitfully, since, they say, Hieromartyr Cyril, under the influence of St. Metropolitan Joseph, hardened his stance toward the Sergianists by the end of his life.

Is this really so, and what grounds does such an assertion have?

The source of such a statement is, apparently, the publication by Doctor of Historical Sciences M.V. Shkarovsky in the book "History of the Russian Orthodox Church. From the Restoration of the Patriarchate to the Present Day. Volume 1. 1917–1990" (St. Petersburg: Voskresenie, 1997. pp. 982–983) of a draft letter by St. Cyril (Smirnov) to Hieromonk Leonid dated March 23/8, 1937.

We will cite it in full (the words in angle brackets were crossed out by Saint Cyril).

"The mercy of the Lord be with you, God-loving Father Hieromonk Leonid!

"On March 19/April 1 I received your letter and the transfer of 10 rubles. May the Lord save you for your care for my needs—only be careful that this does not come at the expense of yourself or deprive you of something necessary.

"Regarding your perplexities concerning Sergianism, I can say that the very same questions, and in nearly the same form, were addressed to me from Kazan ten years ago, and at that time I answered them in the affirmative, because I considered everything done by Metropolitan Sergius to be a mistake which he himself recognized and would wish to correct. Moreover, among the ordinary members of our flock there were many people who did not understand what had happened, and it was not possible to demand from them a decisive and active judgment about the events. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then. The expectation that Metropolitan Sergius would correct his errors has not been fulfilled, but for those members of the Church who were previously unaware, there has been ample time, motivation, and opportunity to come to understand what is taking place—and very many have come to understand and to realize that Metropolitan Sergius is departing from that Orthodox Church which Holy Patriarch Tikhon bequeathed to us to preserve, and therefore, for the Orthodox, there is no portion or lot with him. The events of recent times have finally revealed the Renovationist nature of Sergianism. Whether the believers who remain in Sergianism will be saved, we cannot know, for the matter of eternal salvation is the matter of God's mercy and grace. But for those who see and feel the unrighteousness of Sergianism (as your questions indicate), it would be an inexcusable deceit to close one's eyes to this unrighteousness and to seek there <spiritual guidance> the fulfillment of one’s spiritual <needs> requirements, with a conscience that doubts the possibility of such fulfillment. Whatever is not of faith is sin. A lie cannot be corrected by a lie and <in no wise> therefore it is impossible to prefer Gregorianism to Sergianism.

"I am in brotherly communion with Metropolitan Joseph, gratefully recognizing that it was precisely with his blessing that the first protest was voiced from the Petrograd diocese against Metropolitan Sergius’s undertaking, and a warning was given to all about the impending danger. <It was from the leaders of this diocese that the obedient faithful of the Vyatka diocese sought and found guidance after the death of Bishop Victor. It is true that among them certain extremes sometimes manifest in relation to Sergianism (for example, rebaptism of those already baptized), but this zeal without understanding appears to me not as a confession adopted by the followers of Victor, but as a lamentable accident, born of the personal temperament of some unreasonable zealots.> Bishop Victor, during his lifetime, was in constant communion with the Orthodox leaders of this diocese; it was to them also that the obedient faithful of the Vyatka diocese turned and found guidance after the death of Bishop Victor."

The publication of this letter in the above-mentioned book was accompanied by the following note:

"The published letter of Metropolitan Cyril was, apparently, a draft. The letter is interesting in that it to some extent changes the established understanding of Metropolitan Cyril’s ecclesiastical position. Until now, it was believed that he belonged to the most 'mild' current among the 'non-commemorators' in relation to Metropolitan Sergius. But by the end of his life, as can be seen from this letter, his views evolved and became closer to the position of Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh) and Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov), mentioned in the letter—leaders of the Josephite and Victorian divisions." (Ibid., p. 983).

Most likely, this conclusion was enthusiastically received by the “zealots.” However, the validity of such a conclusion raises doubts and gives the impression of being hasty.

Doctor of Historical Sciences Mikhail Vasilievich Shkarovsky, known for his remarkable books on the history of the Russian Church in the 20th century, has allowed unfortunate errors in them. Thus, for example, he confused Saint John (Maximovich), Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco, with Archbishop John (Shakhovskoy) of San Francisco. In his presentation of the history of the Catacomb Church in the USSR, he referred to information provided by such a, to put it mildly, dubious figure as “Archbishop Ambrose (Sievers) of Gothia” (among many other extravagant “acts” of his, which can be found on the internet, this “catacombite” “canonized” Adolf Hitler).

Is this commentary on the publication yet another error on the part of the historian?

Isn’t wishful thinking being taken here for reality?

Why is no attention paid to the words which, although crossed out in the draft, are nevertheless quite characteristic of Metropolitan Cyril:

"It was from the leaders of this diocese that the obedient faithful of the Vyatka diocese sought and found guidance after the death of Bishop Victor. It is true that among them certain extremes sometimes manifest in relation to Sergianism (for example, rebaptism of the baptized), but this zeal without understanding appears to me not as a confession adopted by the followers of Victor, but as a lamentable accident, born of the personal temperament of certain unreasonable zealots"?

Hieromartyr Cyril always regarded such “extremes” as “lamentable” phenomena and never approved of them—neither among the Sergianists (on August 6, 1929, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and his Synod issued a decree forbidding “under any request to perform funeral services for the deceased” and prescribing to “re-anoint those baptized and re-crown those married outside his ecclesiastical administration”), nor among their opponents. In his letter dated January 27, 1929, Metropolitan Cyril wrote:

"To my desert come rumors of growing enmity among the brethren in faith, turning into hatred; of reproaches turning into slander from one side to the other; of zeal not according to knowledge, bordering on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, such as mutual accusations of gracelessness. It is grievous to hear this. God is love, and only he who abides in love abides in God (1 John 4:16).

"Therefore, all irritation must be completely removed from our midst, even if accusations of enmity and verdicts of schism are heaped upon our heads. These accusations have nothing to cling to when enmity does not actually exist. And zeal for preserving in full purity our ecclesiastical order, like oil upon water, will always rise above the accusations of schism in the vessel of actual ecclesiastical truth."

(Mazyrin A., Priest. High Hierarchs on the Succession of Authority in the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1920s–1930s – Moscow: Publishing House of PSTGU, 2006, pp. 93–94).

That this position of St. Cyril remained unchanged is evidenced by the words from his letter to Bishop Eugene (Kobranov), written in June 1937: "I cannot see any need for changes in the view I have formed concerning the essence of Sergianism" (Mazyrin Alexander, Priest. Op. cit., p. 186).

As for Metropolitan Cyril’s words in his letter to Hieromonk Leonid, that "the events of recent times have finally revealed the Renovationist nature of Sergianism," they were prompted by the decree of the Moscow Patriarchate dated December 27, 1936, which proclaimed Metropolitan Sergius as Patriarchal Locum Tenens. Renovationism was seen by Metropolitan Cyril in the synodal, collegial form of church governance established by Metropolitan Sergius through the formation of a Synod under him. The question of the grace (validity) of the Sergianists, however, he left to be decided by a lawful Council.

In a letter from February 1934, he wrote the following on this matter:

"A different understanding of the Patriarchal testament, asserted by Metropolitan Sergius, has already led to the fact that the testament, which was composed to ensure the prompt election of a new Patriarch, has become the basis for the substitution in Church governance of the person of the Patriarch with some kind of collegial 'Patriarchy.' Whether the blessing of God rests upon this undertaking of Metropolitan Sergius, we do not dare to judge until a lawful Council, by its verdict, pronounces the judgment of the Holy Spirit upon it. But, as with all things akin to Renovationism, we cannot recognize the church governance altered by Metropolitan Sergius as our Orthodox governance, in succession from His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. Therefore, remaining in canonical unity with the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter, and given the present impossibility of communication with him, we recognize the lawful structure of church governance on the basis of the Patriarchal directive of November 7 (20), 1920."

(Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Later Documents and Correspondence on the Canonical Succession of the Supreme Church Authority. 1917–1943 / Compiled by M.E. Gubonin. – Moscow: Publishing House of PSTBI, 1994, p. 701).

Thus, the harsh words of St. Cyril about the Sergianists in his letter to Hieromonk Leonid do not indicate any fundamental change in his position toward Sergianism.

At the end of his life, in exile in southern Kazakhstan, Hieromartyr Cyril corresponded with St. Joseph (Petrovykh), who was also there. After the false report by the NKVD in 1936 about the death of St. Peter (Polyansky), the latter recognized Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan as head of the Russian Church in the capacity of Patriarchal Locum Tenens. Thus, if the brotherly communion of Metropolitans Cyril and Joseph in Kazakhstan in 1937 implied either a hardening of one or a softening of the other, then in light of all the above we can assert that it was not Metropolitan Cyril who changed, but rather that St. Joseph (Petrovykh) moved away from his extreme position and drew closer, in his attitude toward Sergianism, to the position of Hieromartyr Cyril.

 

Russian source: https://kondakov.ws/blog/Protoierey-Aleksandr-Malyh-O-vzglya