1
5/18 July 1928
Most esteemed Georgy Petrovich!
I understand your sensitivity, so
natural in a merely indirect written acquaintance, bec[ause] I myself am to a
certain degree bound by the same feeling. But you and I, thank God, have one
common center and moral measure — this is St. Philip. [1] Proceeding both from
his timeless injunctions, we do not differ with you in the principled
assessment of the actions of the present helmsmen of the Russian Church. Our
points of view coincide everywhere except where the question descends from
ideal heights into the realm of practical everyday life. It is known that the
latter always requires compromises, and even the Church, insofar as she lives
and acts on earth, must adapt herself to the prophetic circumstances
surrounding her. I do not undertake now to discuss the question broadly from this
side, in view of the fact that this would be too complex for a letter. Perhaps
I shall soon have occasion to present to you an exposition of my thoughts on
this subject separately — in a more systematic and complete form. For now, I
would like to draw your attention to the following considerations and facts.
1. Fully allowing the thought
that from here we do not know the complex conditions of contemporary church
life in Russia, we nevertheless cannot fail to trust the testimonies coming
from the hierarchs there. And they — in the persons, at least, of such authorities
as Metropolitan Agafangel, [2] Metropolitan Joseph, [3] and Archbishop Seraphim
[4] — condemn the new (although in essence it is not such after the well-known
acts issued by Patriarch Tikhon) policy of Metropolitan Sergius not only from a
principled point of view, but also from the side of its expediency or
usefulness for the Church. [5] They find that it has inflicted new
wounds upon the latter, increased the number of exiled and banished
bishops, and worsened the position of the others, who stand far from worldly
politics.
T[hus] [theref]ore, the
sacrifices brought by the Church to the Soviet authorities turned out not only
to be unjustified, but caused her obvious harm. The reason for such a failure,
which befell the seemingly wise step of Metropolitan Sergius, the
aforementioned hierarchs rightly see in the fact that “God does not help a
lie.”
If even the simplest everyday
undertaking cannot be built upon falsehood, then this material is all the less
suitable for church construction. And although on the side of such rotten
construction there turned out to be the majority of the hierarchy and the
flock, no one and nothing can oblige us to follow them, for church truth has
never been measured by a majority of votes.
2. Let us suppose that
Metropolitan Sergius and his like-minded supporters wished to raise the Church
above earthly vanity and to cleanse her of long-standing accusations (although,
of course, far from always deserved by her) of currying favor with the state.
But did they keep her at such a height? Did she in fact remain a dispassionate
spectator of the political struggle, and not intervene in the latter by openly
supporting the Soviet authorities and approving them as they showed themselves
in reality?
Is not the introduction into use
of a church prayer for a godless authority, which blasphemes against the Most
High, the most inadmissible and lawless policy that one can imagine?
Whatever good intentions the
present head of the Russian Church may have, they cannot justify erroneous
actions, especially when the perpetrators of the latter do not wish honestly to
acknowledge their mistakes and continue to assert that the path they have
chosen is the only one beneficial for the Church.
Each of us realizes that, being
beyond the reach of the Soviet authorities, we have no right to pronounce a
reproachful judgment upon our brethren in Russia, suffering “under the yoke of
labor,” but it is one thing to condemn them personally, and another
thing to discuss the direction and character of their church leadership. If we
blindly follow them, trusting them more than the voice of our conscience, the
Gospel, and the guidance of church history, then we shall receive no praise for
this either in this life or in the life to come. [6]
Precisely because by the
mercy of God we remain in freedom, we are obliged freely to investigate the
truth and freely, [according to] conscience, and not by compulsion, to follow
it.
Here we again come to St. Philip,
whose example has for us eternal and abiding significance, and not conditions
applicable only to that historical situation in which this great Hierarch
lived.
Otherwise, we must acknowledge as
relative and conditional the very injunctions of Christ which he followed,
laying down his soul for his flock and not attempting to substitute this
eternal requirement of the Divine law with his own wisdom, or, better to say,
with crafty human reasoning.
To shorten my word, I will say
that I do not doubt for a single minute the sincerity of your feelings and
judgments as applied to the present condition of the Church in Russia; I value
also the experience you have gained from a long stay there face to face with
all the cruelties and madness of the Soviet regime; but — forgive me my
frankness — I fear that the latter may have not only a beneficial significance,
but also contains within it a certain danger, insofar as it forces one to grow
accustomed to a spirit of adaptability, which, it seems, is now spreading
widely in Russia, exhausted under the burden of her cross.
But it was on the Cross that
Christ founded His Church, and only through sufferings does she attain
perfection.
I permit myself to speak of this
again not in condemnation, but only in deliberation for the sake of clarifying
the truth.
Forgive me if I myself have erred
in anything against the latter, and I shall be sincerely grateful if you show
me favor and introduce corrections into my judgments with the same freedom and
sincerity that have distinguished your correspondence up to now.
However much we may differ on
certain points, St. Philip, I believe, will be able again to unite and
reconcile us with one another.
May his prayer and blessing
always be with us and over us. With heartfelt respect I remain your devoted
servant,
Archbishop Anastasy
Stanford University. Special Collections Librarian. F.
“Grabbe”
Box 1, Folder 1
2
7/20 July 1928
Most respected Georgy Petrovich!
I hope you have by now become
acquainted with the epistle of Archbishop Seraphim of Uglich, who, during the
days of the imprisonment of Metropolitan Sergius, was the Deputy of the
Patriarchal Locum Tenens.
This document is of staggering
power, sincerity, and truth. It is written with tears and almost with blood. In
it a series of deep questions of the greatest importance is posed, questions
that now relentlessly torment the conscience of the faithful, if only they wish
to be sincere with themselves.
This faithful witness, who speaks
so much courageous truth in the face of the Soviet authorities, undoubtedly
deserves every respect and trust.
“You have sacrificed to someone
and to something the inner freedom of the Church,” he boldly writes to the
present Helmsman of the Church.
“You have cast us into the realm
of terrible moral torments. Formerly we suffered in silence and endured,
knowing that we were suffering for the truth… By your declaration and the
church policy based upon it, you strive to bring us into such a realm in which
we are already deprived of this support, for you lead us away from service
to the truth, and God does not help a lie” (italics mine). [7]
“Will you really not find the
courage to confess your delusion, your error, by issuing the declaration
of 16/29 July 1927?”
“A terrible groan is carried from
all ends of Russia”…
“Show courage, confess your fatal
error, and if it is impossible for you to issue a new declaration, then for the
good and peace of the Church hand over your rights and authority to another
deputy.” [8]
What could be more indicative and
eloquent than these words?
I again hear here the voice of
St. Philip, defending the true freedom of the Church and reproaching the
present wavering policy of his distant successor.
Glory to God, the spirit of the
Great Confessor is still alive in the Russian Church, only Metropolitan Sergius
and his closest associates are not the bearers of it.
Can one after this say that those
who openly or covertly share this ruinous policy are walking on the correct
path, and even that they are in unity with their Mother Church, which has
always been alien to “compromises contrary to the truth”? (words from the same
Epistle).
Forgive me, and may God bless
you.
With deep respect, Archbishop
Anastasy
Stanford University. Special Collections Librarian. F.
“Grabbe”
Box 1, Folder 1
NOTES
1. Philip II (Kolychev Fyodor Stepanovich; 1507–1569),
hierarch, Metropolitan of Moscow (1866–1868). He rebuked Tsar Ivan IV and the
crimes of the oprichniki. By order of the tsar, at the Council of 1568
he was deprived of his rank, and then sentenced to perpetual imprisonment. In
1569 he was strangled in the Otroch Monastery of Tver by the tsar’s close
associate Malyuta Skuratov.
2. Agafangel (Preobrazhensky Alexander Lavrentievich;
1854–1928) — metropolitan, hierarch. From 1913 he occupied the Yaroslavl see.
He was named in the testament of Patriarch Tikhon as one of the locum tenens.
On 6 February 1928 Metropolitan Agafangel and his vicars addressed the deputy
of the patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky),
with an epistle in which they declared the cessation of communion with him,
remaining under the authority of the patriarchal locum tenens Metropolitan
Peter (Polyansky). After negotiations, Metropolitan Agafangel and his vicars
reconciled with Metropolitan Sergius, but noted that they would not carry out
his decrees that troubled their conscience and contradicted the canons.
3. Joseph (Petrovykh Ivan Semyonovich; 1872–1937) — from 1926
Metropolitan of Petrograd. In 1927 he was transferred by Metropolitan Sergius
to Odessa and refused to accept the appointment. He spoke out against the
compromise policy of Metropolitan Sergius. In February 1928 he announced his
withdrawal from Metropolitan Sergius. He was subjected to arrests and exiles.
He was shot. He was numbered among the saints of the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia in 1981 as a hieromartyr.
4. Seraphim (Samoilovich Semyon Nikolaevich; 1881–1937) —
archbishop, hieromartyr. In 1920 he was consecrated Bishop of Uglich, vicar of
the Yaroslavl diocese. After the arrest in 1926 of the deputy of the
patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), until April 1927
he governed the Russian Church. In 1928 he joined Metropolitan Agafangel and
spoke out against the compromise course of Metropolitan Sergius. He was
subjected to arrests and was held in the Solovki camp. He was shot.
5. From here on, the underlinings are in the documents.
6. Recognizing the fallibility in the actions of Metropolitan
Sergius, you find that this sin can be covered by love, but the sin by itself
does not thereby cease to be sin, especially if committed before the Church [note
of Metropolitan Anastasy].
7. The indication of italics belongs to the author of the
letters. There are no italics in the text.
8. Words from the letter of Archbishop Seraphim (Samoilovich)
to Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of 24 January/6 February 1928 (See: Acts
of His Holiness Tikhon, 1994, 571, 572). The text of the epistle of
Archbishop Seraphim was known abroad. The epistle was published in full in the
journal Church News (see: (Makharoblidze, 1928, 6)).
Russian source: https://scientific-journals-spbda.ru/f/2025-04-28.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.