Maria Ozerskaya | February 20, 2016
Paper presented at
the 22nd Sretensky Readings
Following the publication of
the 1927 Declaration of Loyalty to the Soviet Authorities, a powerful movement
of resistance arose within the Church against the policies of Metropolitan
Sergius (Stragorodsky), Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens.
One of the causes of discontent
was that Metropolitan Sergius had permitted the secular authorities to
interfere in the internal affairs of the Church: bishops were appointed to
positions, transferred, removed from their sees, and suspended from serving for
political reasons, at the direction of the OGPU. Metropolitan Sergius
established an uncanonical Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod without
consulting the Patriarchal Locum Tenens. All of this was perceived by
many as an overstepping of his authority and a usurpation of power, resulting
in a significant portion of the clergy and laity withdrawing from Metropolitan
Sergius. They began to refer to themselves as “non-commemorators” (of the civil
authorities and Metropolitan Sergius) or as members of the TOC (True Orthodox
Church). Later, in ecclesiastical historiography, these movements also came to
be known as the “right-wing church opposition.” Between 1927 and 1929, distinct
groups (or branches) emerged within this opposition, named after the hierarchs
who led them. The most significant were the Josephite and Cyrillite branches of
the right-wing opposition.
One of the most difficult
problems in the internal life of the Russian Church during this period was the
question of Eucharistic unity. The division that had arisen resulted in a
rupture of Eucharistic communion between the supporters of Metropolitan Sergius
and the right-wing opposition. However, the reasons for this rupture, and the
way in which it was understood by the Josephites and the followers of
Metropolitan Cyril, differed substantially.
Having signed the declaration of
separation from Metropolitan Sergius, the Josephites ceased commemorating him
at divine services and declared him to be devoid of grace. As early as January
1928, Bishop Dimitry (Lyubimov) announced this to his flock and demanded a
rupture of prayerful communion with Metropolitan Sergius. Very soon, other
Josephite bishops, including Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh), made similar
declarations. In analyzing their actions, it is necessary to examine the
reasons for such a radical position.
The Josephites regarded
Metropolitan Sergius as a heretic and apostate who, through his compromise with
the godless state, had entered into an alliance with Antichrist. In the
Sergianist Church, which, in the opinion of the Josephites, had become a “graceless,
carnal organization,” the Holy Spirit was no longer at work. Thus, the
Josephites were convinced that Metropolitan Sergius and his followers had
placed themselves outside the boundaries of the True Orthodox Church, and
consequently all Mysteries performed by the Sergianists were regarded as
invalid and spurious.
Here it is appropriate to quote
the Kiev Appeal of 1927, most likely written by Fr. Anatoly Zhurakovsky:
“One of two
things must be true. Either the Church—the spotless and pure Bride of Christ—is
indeed the Kingdom of Truth, in which case Truth is the very air without which
we cannot breathe; or else she, like the whole world that lies in wickedness,
lives in falsehood and by falsehood. And then everything is a lie. Every word
we utter is a lie, every prayer, every Mystery” [7, 211].
The most radical Josephites
referred to the Eucharist celebrated in Sergianist churches as the “table of
Satan,” and to the churches themselves as “dens of robbers” (Bishop Victor
[Ostrovidov], M. A. Novoselov). The Josephites received those baptized in the
Sergianist Church through Chrismation, performed marriage ceremonies anew for
those who had been married there, and refused to conduct funeral services for
the deceased who had attended Sergianist churches. Such extreme zealots as
Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov) and Bishop Hilarion (Belsky) even rebaptized those
who had been baptized in Sergianist churches. The Josephites, however, regarded
all these actions not as schismatic, but rather as “preserving the Church from
schisms and divisions” (in accordance with Canon 15 of the First-Second
Council), and as safeguarding the purity of Orthodoxy.
While ceasing to commemorate
Metropolitan Sergius, the Josephites commemorated Metropolitan Peter as
Patriarchal Locum Tenens. They prayed for exiled priests and bishops,
regarding them as confessors of Christ, in whom “the holiness of the Church
shines forth.”
The Josephites were outraged by
the introduction of the commemoration of the civil authorities using the
formula, “For our country and its authorities, that we may lead a quiet and
peaceable life in all godliness and purity,” regarding it as a manifestation of
hypocrisy and duplicity. Many of them prayed according to the formula approved
by the All-Russian Local Council: “For the suffering Russian State and its
salvation.” Some Josephites used a prayer from the Book of Commemorations:
“Those who have fallen away from the Orthodox Faith and have been blinded by
pernicious heresies, enlighten with the light of Thy knowledge, and unite them
to Thy Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church.”
Following the onset of severe
persecution against members of the right-wing opposition, many
non-commemorators began to go underground. Deprived of the opportunity to
celebrate the Eucharist in churches, the faithful secretly gathered in private
homes. Accounts of such domestic divine services in non-commemorating
communities have been preserved. Priests and bishops frequently traveled
clandestinely to celebrate divine services, violating the restrictions imposed
upon them that prohibited them from leaving their places of residence. Sometimes,
however, no True Orthodox priest or bishop was available nearby. Bishop Nektary
(Trezvinsky), writing to his spiritual children from a prison camp in early
1933, explained how they should act in such circumstances:
“Gather together
in small groups and pray in your homes. Sing the sacred hymns of the Church.
Read the Word of God. […] Receive the Holy Mysteries only from true pastors.
And such pastors, with God's help, you will always find if you sincerely seek
them. Now, according to the prophecy of the Apocalypse, the Church has fled
into the wilderness; that is, she has gone underground or has found herself in
circumstances in which the faithful are compelled to gather secretly and
discreetly for ecclesiastical prayer…” [8, 172].
We see, therefore, that the
Josephite clergy continued to refuse to recognize the Sergianist Mysteries and
did not bless their spiritual children to participate in them. When no
Josephite priests were available, the laity gathered together to pray in private
homes.
Returning to the question of
Eucharistic unity, we should note that the Josephites had reflected deeply upon
it. In their polemical writings and letters, they emphasized that Eucharistic
unity does not arise in a vacuum; rather, it is an expression of the unity of
the Church as the Body of Christ. The Josephites were frequently accused of
destroying this unity, falling into schism, and “tearing the seamless robe of
Christ,” as Metropolitan Sergius expressed it. In response, they argued that
the Sergianist conception of the “unity of the Church” was merely the unity of
a hierarchy bound together by soulless discipline, whereas genuine, living
unity was possible only in the Spirit of Love and Conciliarity. The Church is
not a robe; she is the Body of Christ. In concerning himself with the robe—that
is, the external organization of the Church—Metropolitan Sergius had forgotten
the Body (the inner essence of the Church), just as the Roman soldiers who
crucified Christ wounded His Body while taking care to preserve His garment. True
unity, however, is not external but profoundly internal. “How can there be
external unity where, in people's hearts, at the very root and in the very
essence of things, there is complete division and estrangement?” declared the
1928 Tambov document A Reply to Those Who Tempt Us [8, 522].
Consolidating the division that
had arisen, Metropolitan Sergius and the Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod
issued Decree No. 1864 on August 6, 1929, which placed the left-wing schisms
(the Renovationists and Gregorians) and the right-wing opposition on the same
canonical footing. Their Mysteries were declared invalid; those baptized by
these clerics were to be received through Chrismation, those married by them
were to be married anew, and those who had died in the “aforementioned schisms
were not to be granted funeral services, even at the earnest request of their
relatives” [1, 644]. This decree gave rise to the tradition, which came to
prevail in Russian ecclesiastical historiography, of regarding members of the
right-wing opposition as schismatics. This perception was overcome within the
Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate only toward the end of the
twentieth century.
Turning to the position of
Metropolitan Cyril (Smirnov) and his followers, we should note that their
attitude toward the question of Eucharistic unity differed from that of the
Josephites. In breaking off prayerful communion with Metropolitan Sergius, they
regarded this as a protest against the reform of ecclesiastical administration
being carried out by Metropolitan Sergius and as “the only means of reproving
an erring brother.” This reproof was necessary in order to call Metropolitan
Sergius to repentance. The followers of Metropolitan Cyril considered
themselves to belong to the same Church as Metropolitan Sergius. In their view,
the sin of a primate in his administration of the Church did not impair her
Orthodox dogmatic teaching. Consequently, the Cyrillites recognized the
validity and grace-bearing character of the Mysteries celebrated by the
Sergianists. They likewise recognized the Mysteries of the Josephites. Some
followers of Metropolitan Cyril, such as Bishop Athanasius (Sakharov) and
Bishop Damaskin (Tsedrik), believed that when unworthy ministers served at the
altar, the angels celebrated the Eucharist in their stead.
Metropolitan Cyril maintained
that the joint celebration of the Eucharist was possible only where there was
unanimity of mind and peace of heart. It should be noted that Metropolitan
Cyril applied abstention from concelebration to bishops, rather than to
ordinary clergy and laity, who most often remained obedient to Metropolitan
Sergius out of ignorance. Metropolitan Cyril stated that, in the event of
mortal danger, he would readily receive the final sacraments from such a
priest. For the laity, he even permitted the reception of the Holy Gifts in
Sergianist churches if there was no nearby “Orthodox church that had preserved
intact its canonical relationship with the Patriarchal Locum Tenens” [4,
545]. However, Metropolitan Cyril did not bless active participation in the
life of Sergianist parishes.
Metropolitan Cyril regarded
extreme judgments concerning the Sergianist Mysteries as zeal not according to
knowledge. It pained him to witness manifestations of malice among the
brethren. In a letter from the settlement of Khantayka, addressed to one of the
Leningrad Josephites, he wrote:
“Reports reach
me here in my wilderness of growing enmity among brethren in the faith, turning
into hatred; […] of zeal not according to knowledge, bordering on blasphemy
against the Holy Spirit, such as the mutual accusations of being devoid of
grace. It is grievous to hear this. […] May the Lord preserve you all in love
for one another and for your erring brethren” [4, 306–307].
Metropolitan Cyril considered it
necessary to pray privately for Metropolitan Sergius and his followers.
On the other hand, Metropolitan
Cyril also considered that Metropolitan Sergius had acted wrongly in issuing a
decree declaring the Mysteries of the Josephites invalid. According to
Metropolitan Cyril, by this decree, Metropolitan Sergius was “turning a dispute
that was not yet clear to everyone into irreconcilable ecclesiastical enmity”
[4, 545]. Every manifestation of ecclesiastical enmity, however, is harmful to
the Church.
Metropolitan Sergius accused
Metropolitan Cyril of acting uncanonically by recognizing the validity of the
Sergianist Mysteries while at the same time refusing Eucharistic communion with
the supporters of Metropolitan Sergius. In response, Metropolitan Cyril
maintained that, in recent times, ecclesiastical life had not been conducted in
accordance with the literal meaning of the canons.
Metropolitan Cyril recognized
Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) as the first hierarch of the country and
Patriarchal Locum Tenens, and commemorated his name at divine services.
Metropolitan Cyril did not commemorate Metropolitan Sergius, since he regarded
him merely as Metropolitan Peter’s deputy for the administration of current
affairs, who had usurped the authority of the Locum Tenens and the
Council.
It should be noted that,
gradually, the statements of Metropolitan Cyril and his supporters concerning
the Sergianists became increasingly severe. In February 1934, Metropolitan
Cyril wrote a stern letter to an unidentified hierarch in which he discussed
the efficacy of the Sergianist Mysteries.
“The Mysteries celebrated by the
Sergianists […] are undoubtedly Mysteries unto salvation for those who receive
them with faith, in simplicity, without questioning or doubting their efficacy,
and who do not even suspect that anything is amiss in the Sergianist
organization of the Church,” wrote Metropolitan Cyril. “But at the same time,
they bring judgment and condemnation upon those who celebrate them and upon
those who partake of them who fully understand the wrongdoing inherent in
Sergianism and, by failing to resist it, demonstrate criminal indifference to
the desecration of the Church” [4, 585–586].
Similar views were expressed by
Bishop Damaskin (Tsedrik) in his correspondence with Archbishop Seraphim
(Samoilovich) in 1934 [6, 432–470]. Bishop Damaskin described the rupture of
liturgical communion with the Sergianists as “resistance to the wrongdoing and
scandal taking place,” and even as a conciliar judgment of the Church against
“Metropolitan Sergius and his lawless deeds.” Concerning the Sergianist
Mysteries, Bishop Damaskin wrote that Metropolitan Sergius and his conscious
followers had undoubtedly “fallen from grace” because of the sin of apostasy.
Nevertheless, until a conciliar judgment had been rendered, and so long as they
had not been cut off from the Church, the Lord sent His angels to perform the
Mysteries in place of the unworthy ministers, for the sake of those who
attended Sergianist churches in ignorance. All those, however, who had “been
given the ability to discern the situation, to recognize the wrongdoing and
evil of Sergianism, […] must […] demonstrate by their example their resistance
to the wrongdoing and scandal taking place, by breaking off liturgical
communion with the Sergianists, refraining from attending their churches, and
doing everything possible to hasten a conciliar judgment against the
lawbreakers” [6, 448].
The bishop believed that external
forms of ecclesiastical relationships, church institutions, and even solemn
divine services in churches were becoming unnecessary in the present age and
could even become a source of scandal. Concerning those attached to worship in
churches, Bishop Damaskin wrote:
“A sorrowful
spectacle is presented by people who are attached to the church building but
are entirely unecclesial. For Orthodox clergymen in a church are replaced by
members of the Living Church, these in turn by Renovationists or
self-consecrated clergy, then by Sergianists, and afterward once again by
Renovationists; yet those attached to the church building are scarcely troubled
by any of this. All they need is the church building, the outward decorum of
divine worship, the familiar ritual forms of their external participation in
the Mysteries, and nothing more.
“This is the
very essence of the Sergianist Church. It is the sorrowful legacy of the
Synodal period of the Church, an indication of the waning of the spirit within
the Church. All of us pastors, who bear considerable guilt for this grave sin
against the Church, must repent of it earnestly” [6, 449].
Bishop Damaskin saw the
possibility of resolving these problems in “the establishment of firm spiritual
and grace-bearing bonds between pastors and their flocks. […] Then, amid the
present tempest, the Church will remain unshaken in the face of even more
subtle temptations, even without church buildings” [6, 449].
In 1945, following the election
of Alexy I (Simansky) as Patriarch, many non-commemorators restored prayerful
communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. Recalling the events of that period,
Bishop Athanasius (Sakharov) wrote:
“When, in 1945,
while I was in prison, the priests who were with me and I, who had not
commemorated Metropolitan Sergius, learned of the election and enthronement of
Patriarch Alexy, we discussed the situation that had arisen and unanimously
decided that, since there was now no other lawful First Hierarch of the Russian
Local Church besides Patriarch Alexy, who had been recognized by all the
Eastern Patriarchs, we ought to commemorate the name of Patriarch Alexy in our
prayers as our Patriarch. This I have done without fail ever since that day.
“Everything in
the activities of the Patriarch and the Patriarchate that troubles and
scandalizes zealous defenders of the faith—all this remains upon the conscience
of the Patriarch, and he will answer for it before the Lord. But to deprive
oneself of the grace of the Holy Mysteries merely on account of things that
cause distress and scandal, and which may sometimes not be quite as they appear
to us—this is a fearful thing” [3, 221].
Bishop Athanasius wrote an
epistle to the catacomb communities and sketes, calling upon them to return to
the fold of the Patriarchal Church. His appeal was effective, since he enjoyed
considerable authority among the catacomb Christians. Upon the restoration of
prayerful and canonical communion, the former non-commemorators were not
required to repent, except in rare cases. Some non-commemorating communities,
however, never restored Eucharistic and canonical communion with the
Patriarchate. These communities joined the ranks of the True Orthodox
Christians (TOC). Most often, such communities had no priests.
In conclusion, it should be said
that the non-commemorators were regarded by the authorities as the most
dangerous “counterrevolutionary elements” and were among the first to suffer
brutal repression for their convictions. Most of them met a martyr’s death in
prison camps and prisons. The courage of these people, their steadfastness,
their zeal for the purity of the Church, and their readiness to suffer for her
are truly remarkable. During the difficult years of persecution, the
non-commemorators maintained a clearly defined ecclesiastical position and
defended it, even at the risk of their lives. Our Church has yet to undertake a
serious ecclesiological analysis of their views, as well as a thorough
examination of the history and the causes of the emergence of the right-wing
church opposition.
In recent years, significant
changes have taken place in the Moscow Patriarchate’s assessment of the
non-commemorators. At the Jubilee Council of Bishops in 2000, several dozen
Josephites were canonized. The Council’s documents state that members of the right-wing
church opposition were not schismatics and that the canonization of the
non-commemorators was possible because their actions were not motivated by
self-interest but arose from a concern for the welfare of the Church, as they
themselves understood it.
Sources and Bibliography
1. The Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow
and All Russia, Subsequent Documents and Correspondence Concerning the
Canonical Succession of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority, 1917–1943. A
collection in two parts. Compiled by M. E. Gubonin. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s
Orthodox Theological Institute (PSTBI), 1994. 1,064 pp.
2. Those Who Hunger for Righteousness: Materials from the
Ecclesiastical Polemics of 1927. Compiled and introduced by Priest
Alexander Mazyrin and O. V. Kosik. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for
the Humanities (PSTGU), 2011. 424 pp.
3. Athanasius (Sakharov), Bishop. I Am Thine: A Collection
of Letters. Moscow: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2009. 352 pp.
4. Zhuravsky, A. V. In the Name of the Truth and Dignity
of the Church: The Life and Writings of Hieromartyr Cyril of Kazan. Moscow:
Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2004. 864 pp.
5. Mazyrin, Alexander, Priest. Senior Hierarchs on the
Succession of Authority in the Russian Orthodox Church during the 1920s and
1930s. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities (PSTGU),
2006. 444 pp.
6. “‘God’s Judgment Is Being Carried Out upon the Church and
the Russian People…’: Archival Materials for the Life of Hieromartyr Damaskin
(Tsedrik), Bishop of Starodub (1877–1937).” Published by O. V. Kosik. Theological
Collection, Issue 10. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Institute
(PSTBI), 2002, pp. 432–470.
7. Shkarovsky, M. V. Josephitism: A Movement within the
Russian Orthodox Church. St. Petersburg: Memorial Research and Information
Center (designated a “foreign agent”), 1999. 400 pp.
8. Shkarovsky, M. V. The Fates of the Josephite Pastors:
The Josephite Movement of the Russian Orthodox Church as Reflected in the Lives
of Its Participants. Archival Documents. St. Petersburg: Satis, 2006. 600
pp.
Russian source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.