The Unfulfilled Injunction of Metropolitan Platon (On the History of Western Rite Orthodoxy)

A.A. Kostryukov

Associate Professor at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University, Lecturer at Perervinsky Theological Seminary

 

 

One of the achievements of Metropolitan Platon (Levshin) of Moscow [+1812] is rightly considered to be the establishment of Edinoverie [i.e., Old Rite parishes within the canonical Russian Church]. Accommodating the Old Believers who wished to unite with the Church, Metropolitan Platon disregarded differences in rites, which are not of fundamental importance for our salvation. There can be no doubt that Metropolitan Platon would also have approved of another project that emerged more than a hundred years after his repose. This project was Western (Gallican) Rite Orthodoxy. The principle underlying this movement was Orthodox dogmatic teaching combined with the preservation of the rites and traditions accepted in the West. At present, Western Rite Orthodoxy does not play a significant role, although in the 1920s–1960s this project appeared promising. It may be said that the establishment of this movement represented the fulfillment of Metropolitan Platon’s injunction—an injunction which, unfortunately, was never fully carried out.

The beginnings of the Western Rite in Orthodoxy date back to the 1930s, when Ludovic Joseph Marie Charles Winnaert (or, in abbreviated form, Louis Charles Winnaert) [1] decided to enter the Orthodox Church. He was born in 1880, was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, and was ordained a priest in 1905. In 1918, Winnaert joined the Old Catholic movement and entered into communion with the marginal “Liberal Catholic Church,” where he was consecrated a “bishop.” In 1922, Winnaert established his own “Evangelical Catholic Church” [2] and broke off relations with the “Liberal Catholic Church,” having discovered elements of Theosophy in its teachings. [3] At the age of fifty, Winnaert married, which led to a schism within his community. [4] By the mid-1930s, Winnaert had decided to convert to Orthodoxy. He categorically rejected the Roman innovations concerning the Filioque, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, and others. However, he did not wish to change the liturgical rite to which he was accustomed. The pastor attempted to place himself under the jurisdiction of the Russian Exarchate of Western Europe, headed by Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky), but soon abandoned this idea because he found the conditions imposed upon him unacceptable. [5] Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) was more favorably disposed toward Winnaert. The confession of faith submitted by the head of the “Evangelical Catholic Church” was recognized as Orthodox. The question of rites, however, was more complicated: the Moscow Patriarchate feared that permitting Winnaert to use the Western Rite might lead to conflict with the other Local Churches.

Since the Orthodox Church did not recognize Old Catholic ordinations, Winnaert could not be received as a bishop. His marriage after ordination was also a problem. [6] Although Winnaert should have been deprived of his clerical rank, the authorities in Moscow reasoned that he had “entered into marriage outside the Church while wandering in the space between Churches.” It was decided to make an exception for Winnaert in accordance with Canon 3 of the Council in Trullo, under which those who had married after ordination before January 15, 691, and had violated the law through ignorance were permitted to retain their clerical ranks, on condition that they divorce and without any prospect of advancement to a higher rank of the priesthood. [7]

On June 16, 1936, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow issued Decree No. 1249, according to which Winnaert’s group was received under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate as the Western Orthodox Church.

The following conditions were imposed upon it:

Winnaert was to be received in the rank of presbyter, but on the indispensable condition that his marriage be dissolved and without any prospect of elevation to the episcopate. Upon fulfilling this condition, Winnaert could remain administrator of his parishes under the authority of the hierarch of Western Europe.

Clergy and laity who had received valid confirmation were to be received through repentance, while those who had not were to be received through chrismation. Upon entering the clergy, Winnaert’s followers were to be received in their existing clerical ranks if they had been lawfully ordained in the Roman Catholic Church.

The community being received was required to adhere to Orthodox doctrine.

The community being reunited was required to include in its liturgical calendar all the saints venerated in the East, but, among Western saints, only those who had been glorified “before the separation of Rome from the Orthodox Church.”

Only leavened bread was to be used in the Liturgy. The invocation of the Holy Spirit and the consecration of the Gifts were to be placed not before, but after the Words of Institution (“Take, eat…”). The laity were to receive Communion under both kinds by means of the communion spoon. As a sign of canonical unity, the Liturgy was to be celebrated on an antimension consecrated and issued by the hierarch administering the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate in Western Europe, namely, Metropolitan Eleutherius (Bogoyavlensky) of Lithuania and Vilnius.

The Sacrament of Baptism was to be performed by immersion. Pouring or sprinkling was to be permitted only in exceptional cases. In Chrismation, holy chrism received from the diocesan bishop was to be used. In the Sacrament of Holy Unction, it was to be made clear that this was not merely “Extreme Unction,” but was also for the healing of the soul and body of the sick person.

Winnaert and his group were to submit a petition to Metropolitan Eleutherius, who would receive the group himself or, if he was unable to come, entrust their reception to clergy who knew French.

The parishes being reunited that use the Western Rite are to bear the designation “Western Orthodoxy.”

At their ordination, clergy of the Western Church are to wear Western-style vestments. When serving in Eastern Orthodox churches, they may wear either Western or Eastern vestments. Likewise, Eastern Orthodox clergy, when celebrating services in Winnaert’s churches, may wear either Western or Eastern vestments. [8]

Venerable Silouan the Athonite responded to this event with great enthusiasm, sending Winnaert icons of the Mother of God and the Great Martyr Panteleimon that had been blessed upon holy relics. In his letter to V. N. Lossky, the Venerable Father spoke favorably of Metropolitan Sergius’s broad-mindedness in overcoming ritual differences. [9]

On December 1, 1936, Priest Mikhail Belsky received Winnaert into Orthodoxy in the rank of priest. [10] At the same time, an ecclesiastical divorce was granted, and at the end of January 1937 (according to other sources, on February 5), Winnaert, by then gravely ill and bedridden, was tonsured into monasticism with the name Irenaeus by Hieromonk Stefan (Svetozarov). Shortly thereafter, Father Irenaeus was elevated to the rank of archimandrite by Metropolitan Eleutherius (Bogoyavlensky). [11] In February 1937, a group of clergy and laity under Winnaert’s authority was also received into Orthodoxy. [12] One month later, on March 17, 1937, Archimandrite Irenaeus reposed. [13]

Thus, the foundations of Western Rite Orthodoxy were laid. In addition to the principal parish of the Ascension, several smaller communities were established. Work was also undertaken to reconstruct the Western Orthodox Liturgy. Hieromonk Alexis (van der Mensbrugghe), who had likewise converted from Roman Catholicism, devoted considerable effort to this undertaking. In 1948, he published a book entitled The Orthodox Liturgy of the Western Rite: An Attempt at Restoration. The liturgy he reconstructed was based on the ancient Roman liturgy, incorporating elements of the ancient Gallican and Byzantine liturgies. [14]

The principal continuators of Archimandrite Irenaeus’s work after his death were Priest Evgraf Kovalevsky (later Bishop John) and Priest Lucian Chambault (later Archimandrite Dionysius). The first movement was centered around the Parish of St. Irenaeus and was dynamic and vibrant. [15] The second movement was centered at the Parish of the Ascension. Here, missionary work developed more slowly but promised to bear fruit in the future. However, neither movement produced any tangible results.

There were several reasons for the failure, the principal one being the activities of Priest E. Kovalevsky, who sacrificed both the letter and the spirit of Orthodoxy for the sake of immediate results.

Priest Evgraf Kovalevsky (1905–1970) graduated from the Faculty of Philology of the University of Paris and the St. Sergius Theological Institute. From his youth, Kovalevsky was captivated by the idea of bringing the Orthodox faith to the French. He insisted that ancient Gaul had received Christianity not from Rome, but from the East, and that it had been Christianized even before Rome. The direct evangelizers of Gaul were Eastern saints—the Apostles Trophimus and Dionysius the Areopagite, Righteous Lazarus the Four-Days-Dead, and Hieromartyr Irenaeus of Lyons. As for the Gallican Liturgy, it was based not on the Roman Liturgy, but on the Syrian Liturgy. In the opinion of Priest E. Kovalevsky, the acceptance of Orthodoxy by the French constituted not conversion to another confession, but a return to their origins. [16]

Unfortunately, Father Evgraf’s erudition, gift of persuasion, and sincerity were combined with disagreeable character traits, chief among which was a tendency toward adventurism. This manifested itself, for example, in exaggerating the results of his activities and in bringing into the Church people who had no understanding whatsoever of Orthodoxy. “To give Evgraf the priesthood is the same as giving a revolver to a person with a mental disorder,” V. N. Lossky remarked concerning Father Evgraf Kovalevsky.

While preparing for the reunion of Winnaert’s group with the Orthodox Church, Kovalevsky deliberately misled Metropolitans Sergius (Stragorodsky) and Eleutherius (Bogoyavlensky). In particular, Kovalevsky claimed that thousands of Roman Catholics wished to join the Orthodox Church, whereas in reality Winnaert’s group consisted of only 55 people. Permission to establish the Parish of St. Irenaeus was likewise obtained by inflating the figures: Father Evgraf included 25 people on the list of parishioners, although only four of them were Orthodox. [17]

The situation in Father Evgraf’s parish also gave cause for concern. Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault) subsequently wrote: “They have their own way of life, centered on the person of Father Evgraf (giving the impression of a sect rather than anything else) [...] In this environment there prevails an atmosphere that is not only far from genuinely Orthodox, but also unhealthy—some even say foul (the clergy, parishioners, and students address one another familiarly, without ceremony, smoke, dance, frequent cafés, etc.).” Far worse, however, were Father Evgraf’s liturgical innovations, for he did not so much celebrate the services as improvise them. This was aggravated by the absence of a fixed liturgical text. Archpriest E. Kovalevsky also permitted non-Orthodox Christians and even unbaptized Jews to receive Communion. [18] “Archpriest E. Kovalevsky,” wrote Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich), “is guilty of treating the Sacraments of Repentance, the Eucharist, Marriage, and Holy Orders with more than excessive freedom (denying the necessity of confession before Communion, encouraging non-Orthodox Christians to receive Communion and administering Communion to them, performing church marriages without observing ecclesiastical rules, assisting in the uncanonical ordination of candidates for the priesthood, personally performing the marriage ceremony of a Catholic priest and presenting him for reordination, and the like). For each of these offenses, Archpriest E. Kovalevsky is liable to the most severe ecclesiastical punishment.” On January 9, 1953, the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate ordered that Archpriest E. Kovalevsky be relieved of his duties as a member of the Council attached to the Exarchate and granted leave from his duties as rector of the Church of St. Irenaeus. Archpriest E. Kovalevsky was permitted to celebrate divine services only with the authorization of the Chairman of the Exarchate Council. [19]

But Archpriest E. Kovalevsky outwitted the ecclesiastical authorities even in this. It emerged that he had been preparing to leave for several years and had secretly registered the “French Orthodox Church” with the state authorities as early as 1948. [20] At the same time, Father Evgraf had also managed to register the parish’s real estate in his own name.

Thus began Father Evgraf’s wandering from one jurisdiction to another. In 1954, he placed himself under the jurisdiction of the Western European Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but that same year he was suspended from serving by Metropolitan Vladimir (Tikhonitsky) for “disobedience to ecclesiastical authority.” [21] Shortly thereafter, Archpriest E. Kovalevsky joined the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). He won over Archbishop John (Maximovitch) of Brussels and Western Europe to his ideas. Soon the Archbishop began petitioning for Father Evgraf’s consecration to the episcopate. However, the ROCOR Synod of Bishops received the proposal with less enthusiasm. The principal reasons were the celebration of evening Liturgies, as well as the adoption by the French parishes of the Gregorian calendar and the Roman Catholic Paschalion. Nevertheless, these parishes were received, although the Council of Bishops of 1959 imposed a number of conditions upon them. The “French Orthodox Group” was instructed to adopt the Orthodox Paschalion, while evening Liturgies were permitted only by way of exception. It was further stipulated that the priest must not have celebrated the Liturgy that morning and that, together with the lay communicants, he must abstain from food throughout that day. [22]

After Archbishop John (Maximovitch) was transferred to San Francisco, the Western Rite parishes in France and the Netherlands remained under his authority. [23] For several years, these parishes were a constant headache for the Russian Church Abroad. Archpriest E. Kovalevsky continued to administer Communion to non-Orthodox Christians. The French parishes likewise continued to celebrate services according to the new calendar and to use the Catholic Paschalion. It was only in June 1964 that the Council of Bishops acknowledged that these parishes had celebrated Pascha together with the Orthodox Church. However, this was regarded as an isolated occurrence.

On June 28, 1964, Archpriest E. Kovalevsky announced that he accepted all the conditions imposed upon him. [24] The Archpriest was tonsured into monasticism with the name John-Nectarius (in ROCOR documents he was referred to as John), and on November 11, 1964, he was consecrated in San Francisco as Bishop of Saint-Denis, Vicar of the Western European Diocese, with responsibility for the Western Rite parishes in France. The consecration was performed by Archbishop John (Maximovitch) and Bishop Theophil (Ionescu), who headed the Romanian parishes of ROCOR. [25]

After the death of St. John (Maximovitch) in 1966, the Western Rite parishes were to come under the jurisdiction of the Western European Diocese of ROCOR. The ruling hierarch of this diocese, Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich), having noticed irregularities in the life and practices of the French parishes, appealed to the Synod to investigate the situation. Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov) was dispatched to France. [26] The hierarch immediately noticed that Bishop John (Kovalevsky)’s flock was not nearly as large as he had reported. It emerged that fasting before Communion was not obligatory in the French parishes, and that Bishop John had permitted a subdeacon to administer Communion to the laity outside the divine services, moreover, not in his own diocese but in the neighboring German Diocese. Some cases were even more outrageous. For example, among the clergy of the “French Church” was a non-Orthodox Christian who had been ordained without first being received into Orthodoxy. This same cleric, with the permission of Bishop John (Kovalevsky), was cohabiting with a woman without being married. On November 7, 1965, Bishop John permitted a Masonic memorial service to be held in his church. Finally, the leader of “French Orthodoxy” had become so absorbed in liturgical creativity that he began devising and introducing his own liturgical rites. [27] Anticipating inevitable canonical penalties, Bishop John (Kovalevsky) sent a telegram to the ROCOR Synod on October 20, 1966, declaring that he no longer recognized ROCOR as his supreme ecclesiastical authority. That same day, he was suspended from serving, but he attached no significance to the suspension. [28] Bishop John told his followers that the penalty was unlawful because it had been imposed upon him after his departure from ROCOR. On February 9, 1967, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad deprived Bishop John of his episcopal rank and reduced him to the status of a simple monk. [29]

The “French Church” became independent. After Kovalevsky’s death in January 1970, the 22 parishes under his authority attempted to place themselves under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate as an autonomous structure. The negotiations were unsuccessful. Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov), Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations, wrote that autonomy was out of the question, and that the Western Rite parishes could join the Russian Church by entering the Patriarchal Exarchate of Western Europe. [30] In 1972, the “French Church” came under the jurisdiction of the Romanian Church. Here, a new bishop, Germain (Bertrand-Hardy), was appointed for the Western Rite parishes. In 1993, these parishes broke away from the Romanian Church and dispersed among various ecclesiastical bodies, most of them marginal. After Kovalevsky’s departure from the Russian Church Abroad, a small group of Western Rite parishes nevertheless remained under its jurisdiction. But this group, too, did not last long. In 1986, the group, headed by Archimandrite Ambrose (Fontrier), entered the Old Calendarist schism. [31] [Blog Admin. note: this is a reference to the breakaway old calendarist group associated with the deposed Archbishop Auxentios Pastras.]

It may be said that the branch of Western Rite Orthodoxy associated with Father Evgraf (John) Kovalevsky came to nothing, and this was largely connected with the personality of the leader of this movement. But another branch remained, centered around Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault). Unfortunately, this movement also met with little success. Archimandrite Dionysius (1899–1965) himself had sincerely embraced Orthodoxy and was one of the few representatives of the Western Rite who truly understood Orthodoxy. Unlike Kovalevsky, Father Dionysius did not pursue outward success, was never involved in scandals, and remained under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate until the end of his life.

Although the Archimandrite used the Western Rite in divine services, he saw no future for it and considered its use permissible only as a temporary measure. Archimandrite Dionysius regarded another approach, which he called “Orthodoxy in the West,” as more promising. The pastor emphasized that it was not the rites that should be French, but the language of worship and preaching. The clergy should be Orthodox from birth (or, at least, thoroughly understand the essence and traditions of Orthodoxy) and have a perfect command of the French language. It was necessary to publish journals about Orthodoxy in French. Finally, Archimandrite Dionysius considered it beneficial to establish a special French Orthodox community with a Russian rector and two or three monks. The church of this community could serve as a model of Eastern liturgical life and would attract interest in Orthodoxy. [32]

The same approach was proposed by another Orthodox pastor serving in Europe, Priest Augustine Roberts. In 1956, he wrote to Patriarch Alexy that Westerners needed, above all, to have Orthodox teaching explained to them and to be given the opportunity to pray in their native language. It was this, rather than the reconstruction of liturgies, that would bring Europeans to Orthodoxy. [33] Unfortunately, neither Archimandrite Dionysius nor Priest A. Roberts was heeded.

Another reason for the failure of the Western Rite was the lack of support from Moscow. In 1956, Archimandrite Dionysius explicitly warned the Patriarchate that the cause of the Western Rite in Orthodoxy would disappear unless assistance was provided. The absence of support would mean that the priests would continue to live in poverty, while the publication of journals would remain nothing more than a dream. [34] However, the Moscow Patriarchate, held captive by the God-fighting authorities, was unable to help the Western Rite parishes. The Soviet state, for its part, had no interest in the development of Western Rite Orthodoxy. [35]

An important obstacle to missionary work in Europe was the division of Russian Orthodoxy in Europe into three jurisdictions—the Russian Exarchate of Western Europe of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Russian Church Abroad, and the Moscow Patriarchate, the last of which was extremely unpopular. [36] Non-Orthodox Christians interested in Russian Orthodoxy turned primarily to the churches of the Exarchate of Constantinople and ROCOR—these jurisdictions had churches and bishops. For the Moscow Patriarchate, appointing a bishop to France in the postwar years was almost impossible. The clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate were regarded by Western European states as Soviet agents, and obtaining visas for them was made extremely difficult. [37]

Western Rite Orthodoxy had failed at that time. The reasons were both particular (Kovalevsky’s adventurism) and general (the lack of understanding of Orthodoxy among the inhabitants of Western Europe). At present, when Roman Catholicism is experiencing a crisis, the preaching of Orthodoxy in Europe may bear fruit. The main thing is not to repeat the mistakes made in the mid-twentieth century.

 

FOOTNOTES

1. Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library (OR RGB). Fond 919, Box 2, Storage Unit 19, fol. 12.

2. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6343, Inventory 1, File 252-b, fol. 99. See also: Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault).” Church and Time, 2006, no. 3 (36), pp. 118–120.

3. Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library (OR RGB). Fond 919, Box 2, Storage Unit 19, fol. 14; State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6343, Inventory 1, File 252-b, fol. 99.

4. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fol. 193.

5. Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library (OR RGB). Fond 919, Box 1, Storage Unit 21, fols. 13–13v; State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6343, Inventory 1, File 252-b, fol. 99.

6. Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault),” p. 122.

7. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6343, Inventory 1, File 252-b, fols. 100–101.

8. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6343, Inventory 1, File 252-b, fols. 101–102. Cf. Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault),” p. 124.

9. Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library (OR RGB). Fond 919, Box 1, Storage Unit 21, fol. 13v.

10. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fol. 192. See also: Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault),” p. 125.

11. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fol. 192. See also: Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault),” p. 125.

12. Voice of the Lithuanian Orthodox Diocese, 1937, nos. 3–4, p. 25.

13. Voice of the Lithuanian Orthodox Diocese, 1937, nos. 3–4, p. 27.

14. Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault),” p. 135.

15. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fols. 107–109.

16. Church Life, 1962, nos. 1–6, pp. 44–52.

17. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fols. 195, 198.

18. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fols. 209–210.

19. Extracts from a letter of Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) to Archimandrite Nikolai (Eremin), June 5, 1953 (copy); Directives of Patriarch Alexy Concerning the Case of Archpriest E. Kovalevsky (copy). Archives of Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville (HTSA). “Ambrose (Konovalov)” Collection, Box 2, Folder 1.

20. Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault),” p. 144.

21. Nivière, A. Orthodox Clergy, Theologians, and Church Figures of the Russian Emigration in Western and Central Europe, 1920–1995. Moscow–Paris, 2007, p. 262.

22. Church Life, 1959, nos. 11–12, p. 203.

23. Church Life, 1963, nos. 1–12, p. 18.

24. Church Life, 1964, nos. 1–6, pp. 12, 87.

25. Church Life, 1964, nos. 7–12, p. 48.

26. Church Life, 1966, nos. 7–12, pp. 84, 87.

27. Church Life, 1967, nos. 7–12, p. 4.

28. Church Life, 1966, nos. 7–12, pp. 87–88.

29. Church Life, 1967, nos. 1–12, pp. 3–6.

30. Chiflyanov, B., Archpriest. Letter to Patriarch Alexy I, August 8, 1971. Archives of the Department for External Church Relations (DECR). File “Russian Church Abroad,” Folder “1971,” fols. 34–35; Nikodim, Metropolitan. Letter to Archpriest B. Chiflyanov, October 20, 1971. DECR Archives. File “Russian Church Abroad,” Folder “1971,” fol. 33.

31. Slesarev, A. The Old Calendarist Schism in the History of the Orthodox Church (1924–2008). Moscow, 2009, pp. 227–230.

32. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fols. 212–217.

33. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 2, File 190, fol. 343.

34. Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault),” pp. 147–148.

35. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 843, fol. 62.

36. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fol. 214.

37. For further details, see: Kostryukov, A. The Russian Church Abroad, 1939–1964: Administrative Structure and Relations with the Church in the Homeland. Moscow, 2015, pp. 266–273.

 

Russian source: Платоновские чтения: сб. Материалов [Platon Readings: Collection of Papers], 2015, Issue 12, Perervinsky Theological Seminary, Moscow, 2016, pp. 20–28.