On ROCOR’s Attitude toward the Serbian Church in 1967

The Free Serbian Orthodox Church was formed in 1963, when the communist authorities in Yugoslavia attempted to bring the Serbian Metropolitan in America, Dionisije (Milivojević), under their control. Metropolitan Dionisije refused to cooperate with the communists and, under their pressure, was removed from his position. Refusing to recognize his removal as lawful, he withdrew from the official Serbian Church and founded an independent Serbian metropolitanate in the United States, which he named the Free Serbian Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Dionisije was supported by Serbian parishes in Europe and Australia.

The Russian Church Abroad found itself faced with a kind of choice. On the one hand, the Serbian Church and state, in the person of the martyred King Alexander, had rendered it decisive support by receiving it and securing its legitimacy. On the other hand, the communist authorities that had come to power in Yugoslavia sought to influence the Church, and the degree of freedom enjoyed by the official Serbian Church during the years of Tito’s communist regime raised questions.

I shall cite the words of Metropolitan Philaret from Minutes No. 11 of the 1967 Council of Bishops:

After the conclusion of both reports [on the Serbian Church], the Chairman stated that, owing to the lateness of the hour, their discussion could take place only on the following day. Nevertheless, for his own part, he wished to say a few words, with which the Council might perhaps agree. When he had previously spoken about the Serbian Church, he had repeatedly been accused of allegedly saying that the Serbian Church was free. He had never said this. There are different kinds of freedom, and different kinds of lack of freedom. The Church cannot be entirely free in a country ruled by a communist regime. But external freedom is one thing, and internal freedom is another. His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon found himself in circumstances worse than those of the Church in Yugoslavia, yet he nevertheless did not lose his internal freedom. Who was outwardly less free than Patriarch Hermogenes? Yet he preserved his internal freedom. Therein lies the greatness of Patriarch Tikhon: at times he made certain outward concessions, but at the same time preserved the internal freedom of the Church. At the previous Council it was said that there was no certainty that the Serbian Patriarch had lost his internal freedom. Can a sign of equality be placed between the Serbian hierarchy and that of Moscow? In Australia, upon arriving there from China, Metropolitan Philaret—then an archimandrite—found full ecclesiastical communion with the Serbian Church. They served in one another’s churches and, at the request of the Serbian Patriarch, conferred ecclesiastical awards upon Serbian clerics. If one recalls Orthodox Russia in 1959, one may find there a report on the Serbian Patriarch’s stay in the Holy Land and his visit to our Ecclesiastical Mission, which he honored with his presence. Five years passed. In Yugoslavia there was the same regime and the same Patriarch. The Council of 1964 made no new decision, but merely recorded a practice that had long existed. On this account, Orthodox Russia declared that we had extended our hand to Antichrist. Father Constantine [Zaitsev, editor of Orthodox Russia] was then asked: at what point, in Father Constantine’s view, had our attitude toward the Serbian Patriarch changed so radically? It should be emphasized that the Council of 1964 established nothing new and included the proviso that, should anything new arise, the Synod would deliberate upon it. But in connection with the internal schism among the Serbs abroad, our position became more complicated. Accusations were directed against us that we had allegedly adopted a pro-communist position. Weighing these circumstances, the Synod decided to take the position that this question was external to us and, in order to avoid division, deemed it more useful to leave the matter to the conscience of each Bishop. The Bishops viewed the matter differently. As regards the Chairman’s own inner conviction, he agrees with Bishop Kirill that the decision should be left to the conscience of each hierarch, for he has no inner conviction that the Serbian hierarchy acts in the same manner as Moscow. But principle is one thing, while practical action dictated by tact is another. The Chairman is inclined toward making no new decision. The least painful course would be to stand aside and serve with neither side until the disputes cease. The question now concerns the creation of a Serbian Church Abroad. Who, if not we, should sympathize with such an undertaking? But when our Church was founded, its founder was such a hierarch as Metropolitan Anthony, who could rely upon the decree of Patriarch Tikhon. The Serbian Patriarchate treated him fraternally, but that was an external matter.

It was not the Serbian Patriarchate, but the Russian hierarchs themselves who created our Church. We have no right to provide a foundation for a new ecclesiastical branch. We could offer the Serbs nothing other than what we gave to the Romanians and Bulgarians. After these remarks, the Chairman stated that the reports would be discussed on another day, but for the time being proposed that the draft resolution prepared by Archbishop Athanasius be heard.

Thus, our hierarchs adopted, as it were, a wait-and-see position on the question of the Serbian division. Nevertheless, at this same Council of Bishops in 1967, a unanimous decision was adopted not to concelebrate with the hierarchy of the official Serbian Church.

Top Secret

To Minutes No. 13 of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

May 19/June 1, 1967.

In addition to the present Council of Bishops’ resolution concerning relations with the Serbian Orthodox Church, the proposal of His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret, First Hierarch and Chairman of the Council of Bishops, is unanimously adopted and approved: that all the Right Reverend hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad refrain from concelebrating with the hierarchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

Chairman of the Council of Bishops: + Metropolitan Philaret

Members of the Council [listed in Minutes No. 1]: + Alexander, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany; + Athanasius, Archbishop of Buenos Aires and Argentina; + Archbishop Philotheos; + Leonty, Archbishop of Santiago and Chile-Peru; + Seraphim, Archbishop of Chicago and Detroit; + Nikon, Archbishop of Washington and Florida; + Vitaly, Archbishop of Montreal and Canada; + Anthony, Archbishop of Los Angeles and Texas; + Averky, Archbishop of Syracuse and Holy Trinity; + Anthony, Archbishop of Geneva and Western Europe; + Seraphim, Bishop of Caracas and Venezuela; Savva, Bishop of Edmonton; + Anthony, Bishop of Melbourne; + Nektary, Bishop of Seattle; + Kirill, Bishop of Toledo and Toronto.

 

 

Russian source: http://www.internetsobor.org/index.php/novosti/rptsz/1967