Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans: Diplomacy, Theology, and the Politics of Interwar Ecumenism [1 ed.] 026802975X, 9780268029753

Citation preview

Geffert-000.FM:Layout 1 10/9/09 9:46 AM Page i

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Geffert-000.FM:Layout 1 10/9/09 9:46 AM Page ii

Geffert-000.FM:Layout 1 10/9/09 9:46 AM Page iii

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans Diplomacy, Theology, and the Politics of Interwar Ecumenism

n BRYN GEFFERT University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana

Geffert-000.FM:Layout 1 10/9/09 9:46 AM Page iv

Copyright © 2010 by University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 www.undpress.nd.edu All Rights Reserved Manufactured in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Geffert, Bryn, 1967– Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans : diplomacy, theology, and the politics of interwar ecumenism / Bryn Geffert. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn-13: 978-0-268-02975-3 (cloth : alk. paper) isbn-10: 0-268-02975-X (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Anglican Communion—Relations—Orthodox Eastern Church. 2. Orthodox Eastern Church—Relations—Anglican Communion. I. Title. bx5004.3.g44 2010 280'.04209410904—dc22 2009035057 This book is printed on recycled paper.

Geffert-000.FM:Layout 1 10/9/09 9:46 AM Page v

Contents

Acknowledgments Note on Transliteration Introduction

vii ix 1

1.

Nineteenth-Century Precedents

9

2.

Outbreak of Ecumenism

30

3.

The Roman Catholic Church

49

4.

False Starts

71

5.

Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics

6.

Jubilee, 1925

100

7.

The Russian Student Christian Movement

110

8.

The Prayer Book Crisis, 1927– 1928

121

9.

Lausanne, 1927

132

10.

The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius

143

11.

Intercommunion and Sofiology

158

12.

Lambeth, 1930

184

13.

Bucharest, 1935– 1936

201

14.

Edinburgh, 1937

208

15.

Internal Divisions

218

Conclusion

248

Notes Bibliography Index

86

273 435 487

Geffert-000.FM:Layout 1 10/9/09 9:46 AM Page vi

Geffert-000.FM:Layout 1 10/9/09 9:46 AM Page vii

Acknowledgments

A project such as this owes much to many. I am grateful to Theofanis Stavrou, who encouraged this endeavor and treated me like a member of an extended family during my years at the University of Minnesota. J. Kim Munholland, Gary Jahn, and Josef Altholz were generous with their time and advice. Sara Leake at St. Olaf College repeatedly found the unfindable and secured the unobtainable. Kasia Gonnerman tracked down many items, read portions of the manuscript, and, like a dear friend, provided encouragement and support despite her profound disinterest in the topic. Bonnie Coles at the Library of Congress was simply magnificent. I also received assistance from Robinson Murray of Harvard’s Widener Library, Tatjana Lorkovic of Yale’s Slavic and East European Collections, Hjordis Halvorson and Caroline Sietmann of the Newberry Library, Harry Leich of the Library of Congress’s European Division, Angela Canon of the University of Illinois’s Slavic Reference Service, Steven Tomlinson of Oxford’s Bodleian Library, Carol Forbes and Fiona Aitken of the National Library of Scotland, the staff of Princeton University’s special collections, and Linda Raymond of the British Library. Bruce Marshall read parts of the manuscript and taught me much about Bulgakov. Fr. Stephen Platt of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius granted me unfettered access to the Fellowship’s files and served afternoon tea as I waded through papers. Alexis Klimoff and Brandon Gallaher-Holloway shared parts of their own research with me. The three anonymous readers of the manuscript offered provocative and helpful suggestions. My editor, Sheila Berg, improved the final product in many ways large and small. I am grateful to Cam-

|

vii

Geffert-000.FM:Layout 1 10/9/09 9:46 AM Page viii

viii

|

Acknowledgments

bridge University Press and to Taylor and Francis, which allowed me to adapt material that previously appeared as Bryn Geffert, “Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics: John Douglas, Patriarch Meletios, and Metropolitan Antonii on Anglican Orders and Reunion,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57, no. 2 (2006): 270–300; and “Sergii Bulgakov, the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, Intercommunion, and Sofiology,” Revolutionary Russia 17, no. 1 (June 2004): 105–41. I owe more than I can express to Robert Nichols for his advice and encouragement over many years and for conversations about Florovskii, Orthodoxy, and this “age of the absurd” in all its wonder. St. Olaf College provided a sabbatical that permitted much of this research. The University of Minnesota was generous with fellowships and stipends that enabled two trips to England. Some of this money came from the Basil Laourdas Fellowship Fund, which has supported numerous studies of the Orthodox world. It seems fitting that Laourdas, who died with a copy of Alexander Schmemann’s Ultimate Questions on his bedside table, would have made possible this small study of efforts to find agreement on just such questions.

Geffert-000.FM:Layout 1 10/9/09 9:46 AM Page ix

Note on Transliteration

With the exception of names in quotations, this work follows the Library of Congress system for transliterating Russian names. Hence Russian names such as V. V. Zenkovskii and Petr Kovalevskii are rendered with a double i rather than a y (“Zenkovsky” or “Kovalevsky”). Russian Christian names are employed throughout instead of Western variants. Thus this work refers to Metropolitan Antonii rather than “Anthony”; Aleksandr and Petr rather than “Alexander” and “Peter”; Sergei Bulgakov rather than the French “Sergius”; and Metropolitan Evlogii rather than “Eulogius.” However, as Nicolas (Nikolai) Zernov and Georges (Georgii) Florovskii preferred to be called by the English (in Zernov’s case) and French (in Florovskii’s case) versions of their Christian names and as these were the names by which most of their Anglican friends knew them, I refer to both by their “ecumenical” noms de plume. English writers often took great liberty with Greek names. J. J. Overbeck quotes at length from N. M. “Damala,” an incorrect use of the genitive rather than the nominative (Damalas). Likewise, Anglican acquaintances of Hamilcar Alivizatos often rendered his name with an s (“Alivisatos”), an erroneous transliteration of the Greek zeta. This work employs the Library of Congress transliteration for all Greek names.

|

ix

Geffert-000.FM:Layout 1 10/9/09 9:46 AM Page x

Introduction

Many people are apt to think that theology is the splitting of hairs of academic theory and of the work of theologians as having no relevance to the practical problems of life. They are of course wrong, and the truth is the exact opposite of what they suppose. Nothing is so powerful in practice as a theological idea. —Roger Lloyd 1

The most widely cited creed in Christendom, the Nicene Creed, celebrated its sixteen hundredth anniversary in 1925. That summer, on the last Monday of June, members of the Church of England and curious onlookers from throughout London and Great Britain entered Westminster Abbey to witness a splendid sight. For the first time since the split between the Eastern Orthodox and the Western churches in 10542 — indeed, for the first time ever—two patriarchs from the East had set foot on British soil. The two old men, Patriarch Photios of Alexandria, a dwindling outpost of Christianity in predominantly Muslim Egypt, and Patriarch Damianos of Jerusalem, a patriarchate now under British protection and plagued by financial and ethnic strife, sat with six other Orthodox bishops along the north wall of the Abbey, facing a long line of eager but somewhat puzzled Anglican bishops, all arrayed in their scarlet convocation robes.3

|

1

2

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

The English bishops—a widely diverse group—processed en masse up the nave. Their numbers included a strong contingent from the Church of England’s Catholic wing (the “Anglo-Catholics”). The AngloCatholics constituted a significant, conservative faction within the church. They tended to place heavy emphasis on the liturgical life of the church; they took seriously the notion that the church’s sacraments— which many identified as seven (baptism, the eucharist, penance, confirmation, marriage, ordination, and extreme unction) as opposed to the two (baptism and the eucharist) recognized by the Church of England’s Thirty-nine Articles—bestowed grace upon the recipient. And they insisted that the Church of England—just like the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church—had preserved unbroken the historic episcopate since the time of St. Peter by laying hands on priests during their ordination (a doctrine known as apostolic succession). The Anglican canon John Douglas, bedecked in the regalia befitting the knight commander of the holy sepulcher (a title bestowed on him recently by Patriarch Damianos), followed the bishops. Douglas, who would be appointed in 1933 the Church of England’s honorary general secretary of the Council on Foreign Relations and who spoke often and wrote profusely on matters of theology for the Anglo-Catholic wing of the church—particularly on his insistence that the Anglican Church find ways to unify itself with his like-minded Orthodox brethren—had spent countless hours pushing and cajoling the hierarchs in the Anglican and Orthodox Churches to arrange this trip. Many of the English chaplains who attended to the prelates were members of the English Church Union (ECU), a formal organization of like-minded Anglo-Catholics. But the procession of Anglican bishops and the crowd of onlookers also included a good number of Anglican Protestants (Anglicans who preferred their liturgy in small doses, had little use for Catholic theology, and emphasized grace above works), as well as Evangelicals (radical Protestants who considered Scripture the primary authority for Christian doctrine and conduct and understood salvation as an intensely personal matter), many rather unsure what they were doing in the Abbey with such unusual men representing a strange and exotic branch of . . . Christianity? Greek and Russian Orthodox prelates followed Douglas. Two English chaplains attended each prelate, as did Eastern priests and archiman-

Introduction

|

drites in copes of gold cloth. Crowned in a white headdress with a silver cross, Bishop Veniamin of Sevastopol—who had been forced to flee his Crimean city after the Bolsheviks seized it—headed this group. Behind Veniamin, also in white copes and headdresses, came the Russian Metropolitan Antonii of Kiev, now living in Serbia, and the Russian Metropolitan Evlogii, based in Paris. Antonii and Evlogii together oversaw most of the Russian exiles in Europe, exiles who not only lived in two distinct geographic and cultural regions but also espoused two radically different notions of what it meant to be an Orthodox Christian in exile and a former subject of the Russian tsar. In just one year both metropolitans would find themselves and their respective flocks in formal schism, launching a series of vituperative accusations through open letters. But today they walked side by side, carrying their staves topped with serpent heads, in tense but formal unity. Behind Evlogii and Antonii walked Metropolitan Germanos, a frequent visitor to Britain as the official representative of the patriarchate in Constantinople. This once-great patriarchate was now only a shadow of its former self. The patriarch of Constantinople—the “ecumenical patriarch”—was universally recognized among Orthodox churches as the first among equals, the spiritual heir of the Byzantine Empire, the sometime arbiter of disputes among the various patriarchates, and the only patriarch authorized to call an ecumenical council. But by 1925 much of the territory once overseen by the patriarch of Constantinople lay under the control of a new, insistently secular Turkish state. Only a few years before, the Turks had threatened to eliminate the patriarchate entirely; British pressure in the person of Lord Curzon prevented such a drastic step, but matters remained dire. Turks and Greeks fought bitterly after the first world war, with atrocities on both sides. Turkey lost almost its entire Greek and hence Christian population in the early 1920s, when Greece and Turkey agreed that Greece would deport all its Turks to Turkey and Turkey would deport all its Greeks to Greece. In 1922 Kemal Ataturk forced the ecumenical patriarch, Meletios—a great fan of Britain, a frequent seeker of British aid, and the first Orthodox patriarch to recognize the validity of Anglican episcopal orders (i.e., the legitimacy of Anglican priests and bishops)—to abandon the city and his flock. Germanos, now surrounded by Anglican and Orthodox bishops, did not know what lay in store for him or his church. He was delighted

3

4

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

to be in the premier cathedral in England, but he had weightier matters on his mind. The prelates settled in, a sermon was delivered, and the archbishop of Canterbury administered the eucharist. The Eastern patriarchs and prelates removed their headdresses as the archbishop prepared to consecrate the elements. But they did not partake. They could not, for they were in the midst of an Anglican service, and the Anglican and Orthodox Churches—to the regret of many in both—had no provision for intercommunion. A gulf filled with theological disputes, political interests, suspicion, and ignorance separated the two. Although Anglicans and Orthodox had assembled to celebrate the Nicene Creed, they did not even agree as to whether the creed should state that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father,” as the original one formulated in 325 asserted, or whether the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son”—this later addition known as the filioque (Latin for “and the son”). The Orthodox had good reason to seek rapprochement with the Anglicans. The conclusion of the first world war found Britain in control of Orthodox holy places in Palestine. Mindful of the British role in protecting the patriarchate of Constantinople after the Great War, many Orthodox saw Britain as their only hope as they faced the political and economic challenges that lay before them. They hoped for money, and they craved the political muscle they believed the archbishop of Canterbury could flex. Russian exiles from the Bolshevik Revolution flooded into Western Europe and England, hungry and impoverished, and they looked to the generous efforts of the English-organized Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund for assistance. Many in the two churches shared a sense of spiritual kinship. Both churches believed they represented the authentic church of Christ. Their mutual distrust of the Roman pontiff and their insistence that the Roman Catholic Church—not either of them—was responsible for the break with each, led some of their theologians to wonder whether their differences were merely cosmetic. The years between the world wars witnessed the most concerted effort to bridge the gap between Orthodox and Anglicans. Some of Russia’s greatest theologians, notably Georges Florovskii, Sergei Bulgakov, and Anton Kartashev, found themselves forced from their homelands and in sudden proximity to members of the Anglican Church who were

Introduction

|

fascinated by their theology and liturgy. Greek theologians such as Hamilcar Alivizatos and Panteleimon Komnenos developed an abiding interest in the Anglican Church. The interwar years witnessed the two great ecumenical conferences of the twentieth century in Lausanne, Switzerland (1927), and Edinburgh, Scotland (1937), where members of both churches rubbed shoulders. Russian and English students, horrified by a war that led many to question the very meaning of existence, sought answers in the hope of a unified Christian faith and founded at Oxford in 1927 the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, an organization that continues to this day. This, then, is the story of efforts toward rapprochement by two churches and their ultimate failure to achieve formal unity or intercommunion. It is the story of idealism, altruism, political calculations, personal feuds, diplomatic posturing, and theological disputes, all of which combined both to propel and to undermine this grand ideal. This last point is crucial, and it constitutes one of the primary theses of this narrative: those forces that initially inspired contacts between Anglicans and Orthodox are the same forces that ultimately obstructed or undermined progress. In other words, the political and diplomatic concerns that drove representatives of disparate confessions together ultimately impeded a successful resolution to the theological problems at hand. Turmoil in the Balkans, concern about the autonomy of the ecumenical patriarchate within the new Turkish state, anxiety about the fractiousness of various national branches of the Orthodox Church, disputes between the British and Russian states, and a desire to settle conflicts among feuding Russians in exile—all these considerations argued for and precipitated serious ecumenical work. But they also made such work nearly impossible. This account situates itself in the context of the larger ecumenical movement. Both Anglican and Orthodox ecumenists had an abiding sense of their place in a potentially revolutionary, worldwide project of church reunion. The Eastern Orthodox faith is, in a sense, unable to conceive of disparate “churches”—ecumenism is not, to the Eastern Orthodox mind, a movement so much as a state of right being. For the Orthodox, ecuemenism indicates not the coming together of different churches but rather the returning of splinter groups to the one, true church: the holy, indivisible body of Christ. Thus the Orthodox never conceived

5

6

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

of negotiations with the Anglican Church simply as the unification of two like-minded bodies but as a step leading toward the restoration of the church. The problem with such a conception of the church, however, emerged clearly as the Orthodox discovered how far afield the bewildering array of protestant sects had traveled over the centuries. The major ecumenical conferences in Lausanne and Edinburgh provided a rude awakening for the Orthodox delegations. This diverse, fractious, protestant world—a world the Orthodox now confronted more directly than at any time in history—proved disorienting. Optimistic hopes for the reunion of Christendom dashed up against the shoals of Protestant “errors” and even “heresy,” resulting in profound disenchantment and, at times, outright despair. The result was a temptation either to turn the focus from these Protestant groups toward like-minded colleagues within the Anglican Church or, in some cases, to give up altogether on the institutional structures of the ecumenical bureaucracy. Leading Orthodox leaders in the ecumenical movement found themselves deeply disillusioned. Many Protestants came to view the Orthodox and conservative Anglicans as troublesome gadflies and obstructionists impeding reunion efforts. This study thus constitutes an important chapter in the history of the ecumenical movement. The interwar period marked the high point of ecumenical hopes, hopes unrealized and followed by the nearabandonment of attempts to find theological unity and institutional unification. While many Orthodox and Anglican leaders from the interwar period continued to work within the ecumenical movement after World War II, their new forum was now the World Council of Churches, an institution whose name constitutes a tacit admission that unity was not possible and that cooperation among distinct bodies— especially in the social sphere—provided the only real opportunity for meaningful action. This study attempts to explain how the modest aims and lowered expectation during this period emerged from the incredibly ambitious goals entertained between the wars. It demonstrates, in short, why the twentieth-century ecumenical movement— especially under the aegis of the World Council of Churches—so drastically scaled back its goals and expectations. Ultimately, however, this story tells us even more about the internal workings and struggles of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches.

Introduction

|

In essence, this is the story of two churches trying to find themselves, struggling to solve internal questions brought to light by external challenges. As important factions of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches sought to move closer to one another, each church faced internal divisions and debates that at times erupted into real crises. While Anglicans tried to decide what they thought of the Orthodox, they also tried to decide what they thought of each other. And while the Orthodox tried to make sense of the Anglican Church (was it Protestant, Catholic, or some inscrutable hybrid?), the Orthodox churches tried—often in vain—to maintain some semblance of unity among themselves. Ecumenism revived and intensified in-house problems that—if not exactly dormant— at least rested more quietly than when exposed to the light of ecumenical dialogue. This study argues that ecumenical challenges brought to light serious divisions in each confession, divisions that to date have not been adequately acknowledged or explored either by representatives of these respective confessions or by scholars of the ecumenical movement. Accounts of these discussions and debates filled the pages of the Orthodox émigré press, the popular magazines of England, the journals of the Orthodox religious intelligentsia, the theological periodicals of England, and the burgeoning ecumenical press. Western European Protestant, Evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox periodicals all took a keen interest in the discussions. Some of the major participants published memoirs. Letters to the editor inundated the popular and religious press and flew among and between members of the two churches. The Church of England’s Press and Publications Board churned out endless reports and transcripts. Put’, the primary journal of the Russian religious intelligentsia in emigration, followed the debates closely, as did the official organs of the Russian church in emigration. New journals such as the Christian East sprang up both to chronicle and promote the endeavors and to publish documents and opinions from around the Orthodox world. Given the plethora of primary sources available for the study of this grandiose endeavor, it is surprising how little attention it has received. No serious scholarly study exists. Histories of the Orthodox emigration and the Church of England in the twentieth century have alluded to the discussions but only in a cursory or perfunctory manner.4 V. T. Istavridis devoted part of his work, Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, to the interwar

7

8

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

movement, but his account is a somewhat sterile chronology of theological concerns,5 and it makes little attempt to place the discussions in the context of the larger ecumenical movement, the challenges facing each church, and the social and political struggles facing the Orthodox world and the Church of England.6 Indeed, it is this larger context— politics, war, revolution, emigration, exile, and internecine squabbles— that explains both the tremendous hopes and the abject failures, and it is what ultimately makes the story so compelling.

1

Nineteenth-Century Precedents

“And who,” quoth the Patriarch of Constantinople, the supreme head and primate of the Greek Church of Asia, “Who is the Archbishop of Canterbury?” “What?” said I, a little astonished at the question. “Who,” said he, “is the Archbishop?” “Why, the Archbishop of Canterbury.” “Archbishop of what?” said the Patriarch. “Canterbury,” said I. “Oh,” said the Patriarch. “Ah, yes! And who is he?” —R. Curzon, reporting on his conversation with the patriarch of Constantinople on the eve of Queen Victoria’s coronation 1

C

ontacts between Anglicans and Orthodox began long before the interwar period, but the history of rapprochement prior to the first world war is one of tentative and confused efforts, usually without institutional support, made by men at the margins of their respective confessions.2 Two issues frustrated contacts in the nineteenth century. The Russian Orthodox Church—the largest and certainly the most influential of the autocephalous Orthodox churches in the nineteenth century—remained subject to the state, its Holy Synod essentially a governmental cabinet.

|

9

10

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

It enjoyed little freedom to explore theology (theologians at the ecclesiastical academies were subject to the strict censorship that governed all of imperial Russia) or to make contacts with other confessions or governments unless the state explicitly sanctioned such contacts. The second impediment lay in the absence of a clearly developed confessional identity within either the Russian Orthodox Church or the Orthodox Church as a whole.3 Attempts through the centuries to produce confessions mindful of Western and Protestant theology usually created more problems than they solved. Patriarch Cyril Lucaris (1672–1738), for example, ventured toward rapprochement with Protestantism by producing an Orthodox confession of faith that was almost completely Calvinist.4 Neither the confession nor Lucaris earned wide respect in the Orthodox world; Lucaris was deposed and reinstated as patriarch four times before being killed by strangulation. In 1823 Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow produced a catechism that fell prey to the same criticisms: too Protestant and too ecumenical.5 And in Filaret’s Conversations between a Seeker and a Believer (Razgovory mezhdu ispytuiushchim i uverennym) the seeker, expecting the believer to declare that certain churches are in error, instead receives a warning against exclusivism and a reference to Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” So how, asks the seeker, does one know truth? By testing the spirits to see if they are from God. Any spirit that does not confess Jesus Christ is not of God. Seeker: By this acknowledgement, the Eastern and Western Churches are both of God: for each confesses Jesus Christ who came in the flesh: however, these two churches each have different teachings. Believer: Yes, each of them has a special spirit or a peculiar relation to the Spirit of God.6 Robert Nichols has observed that Filaret’s understanding of the church as the mysterious body of Christ required nothing more from other churches than a confession of belief in Christ. Filaret would not pronounce judgment on other churches and admonished others not to create hostile factions among those who believe in the one Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.7

Nineteenth-Century Precedents

|

But concerns about Filaret’s pietism and perceived Protestant sympathies and his support for distributing Bibles in the Russian vernacular caused powerful forces in the Russian church to oppose him. Archimandrite Fotii and Admiral Shishkov attacked Filaret’s catechism and convinced Tsar Aleksandr I to withdraw support.8 Chastened, Filaret would later deny the validity of Anglican orders9 and express doubts about the validity of the first archbishop of Canterbury’s consecration.10 Filaret did urge the Russian church to study the Anglican Church and to focus on (1) the Thirty-nine Articles; (2) the filioque; (3) apostolic succession; (4) holy tradition; and (5) the doctrine of sacraments, especially the eucharistic doctrine.1 1 Although the suggestion went nowhere, these five issues became the very issues that would occupy negotiations between Orthodox and Anglicans between the wars. The nineteenth century witnessed a number of Englishmen trekking to Russia and the Middle East, hoping by dint of individual will to affect some sort of reunion. William Palmer, the son of the rector of Mixbury, believed in the essential unity of the church, a belief popularly known as the branch theory. According to Palmer and to many of those influenced by the Catholic Oxford movement within the Anglican Church in the mid-1800s, the Latin, Greek, and Anglican churches constituted branches of the one true church. The task of reunion was not to reunite severed churches but to jointly rediscover the common trunk. Fervently convinced of the essential unity of Christian confessions, Palmer traveled extensively in Europe and became well acquainted with continental confessions. He found himself drawn in particular to Orthodoxy, and became determined to convince the Orthodox that he and they represented branches of the same, single stem. Palmer traveled to Russia in 1840 without any official ecclesiastical endorsement other than a letter from Dr. Routh, president of Magdalen College.12 Routh’s letter, addressed to the Russian bishops and the Holy Synod, asked them to receive Palmer, examine his faith, and, if appropriate, admit him to the sacraments—a rather unusual request.13 In fact, a number of Fellows at Magdalen College raised strong objections “against this Society’s giving any encouragement to the idea of intercommunion with the idolatrous Greek Church.”1 4 The archbishop of Canterbury, William Howley, had earlier refused to provide Palmer with a letter of

11

12

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

introduction, troubled by Palmer’s curious interpretation of the Thirtynine Articles, the state-mandated doctrine of the Church of England.15 Officials in the Russian church received Palmer cordially but skeptically. Murav’ev, second-in-command to the procurator of the Holy Synod (the government agency responsible for administering the Orthodox Church ever since Peter the Great abolished the Russian patriarchate), met with Palmer, but he was suspicious of the Anglican Church, which he found far too Protestant for his taste.16 Visiting the monastery of the hermitage of St. Sergei, Palmer met with monks and their archimandrite, Brenchaninov, who, to Palmer’s dismay, insisted that the entire West was full of heresy, as evidenced by the introduction of the filioque into the Nicene Creed. (Palmer refused to reject the filioque.) God, in the opinion of the monks, had graciously allowed schism to develop between the Eastern and Western churches to protect the Orthodox Church from being tainted by the ungodly West. Others proved more welcoming. Archpriest Vasilii Kutnevik, chaplain general of the Russian army and navy, admitted that doctrinal differences between the Orthodox and Anglican Churches were not large. But he declared firmly that the Anglican Church constituted a separate communion. Even Filaret, widely tolerant and—in the opinion of many of his fellow Russian Orthodox—suspiciously Protestant, found problems with Palmer’s approach. He dismissed Palmer’s conviction (and a fundamental tenant of the branch theory) that church unity could exist without clear doctrinal unity. “The church should be perfectly one in belief,” Filaret insisted.17 Filaret refused to distinguish between essential dogmas and secondary opinions, convinced that such distinctions were difficult if not impossible. And he insisted that an entire council of the Russian church must agree to any action, effectively putting an end to the discussion. Palmer visited Russia again in 1842, now with a recommendation from an Anglican bishop, M. H. T. Luscombe, a supervisor of Anglican chaplainries on the Continent. This time Palmer succeeded in convincing the Russian synod to appoint a confessor to examine his beliefs. The synod chose Father Kutnevich, who concluded that the Church of England’s Thirty-nine Articles were inconsistent with Orthodox doctrine. When Palmer tried to reconcile the articles with Orthodox doctrine by citing Bishop Luscombe’s gloss on them,18 Kutnevich replied that Luscombe

Nineteenth-Century Precedents

|

interpreted the articles in a manner quite different from the main body of Anglican theologians. Palmer spent much of his time in Russia trying to assure the Orthodox that they unconsciously accepted the branch theory and the filioque, a stance that won him few friends.19 Palmer even failed to convince his great Russian friend, Aleksei Khomiakov—a tireless advocate for the unity of the church and first prominent proponent of sobornost, or catholicity 20—that the Anglican Church should be considered part of the Catholic Church.21 Khomiakov described Anglicanism to Palmer as “a narrow ledge of dubious terra firma beaten by the waves of Romanism and Protestantism and crumbling on both sides into the mighty waters.”22 So what was Palmer to do? Filaret advised that if he wanted to receive communion he must convert to Orthodoxy. By this time Palmer did, in fact, wish to join the Orthodox Church, but he confronted a psychological barrier. Although the Russian Orthodox Church did not require Anglicans to be rebaptized upon conversion (thus erecting no obstacle to his conversion), the Greek Orthodox Church did. Palmer could have chosen to accept the Russian practice over the Greek, but he refused, since he could not understand why two bodies representing two parts of an ostensibly unified Orthodox Church took such different stands on an issue so important. The failure of the Russian church to speak with one voice on various theological controversies also confused him. Finally, Palmer could never understand why Russian theologians—so evidently influenced by Protestant and Roman Catholic theology—should so stridently criticize the Western tradition that produced these views.23 Another (originally German) Englishman, J. J. Overbeck, shared Palmer’s quixotic belief in the ability of a lone individual to make Christianity whole. But he adopted an approach entirely different from Palmer’s. Unlike the early Palmer, Overbeck saw no chance of reunion between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches, or of success in attempts to convince the Orthodox that Anglicanism was amenable to Orthodoxy. Overbeck scorned reunionists and Anglo-Catholics who tried to demonstrate the catholicity of Anglicanism to their brothers in the East. These Anglican pilgrims “who for years inundate the East . . . are a real plague to Orthodoxy, and a great drawback to Reunion. What is the good of putting on an Orthodox mask, when speaking to Orthodox, and thus misleading the Orthodox authorities, as if the Anglican Church was

13

14

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

some sort of Catholic Church, whereas it is, purement et simplement, a Protestant Church?”24 Overbeck’s studies convinced him that the Anglican Church was the only church that could claim to possess the fullness of truth: “all the other churches of Christendom were schismatically and heretically cut off from the Catholic and Orthodox Church.” The Orthodox Church, he wrote, is the “sole depository of the Catholic truth, the only Church which can justly claim Catholicity, the only hope for the West, the only means of resuscitating the ancient anti-schismatical Catholic Church of the West.” Russia seemed to Overbeck providentially placed to provide a link between the East and the West. Since Russia is more familiar to Western Christendom than any other Orthodox country and since it has dealt with millions of Roman Catholic and Protestant subjects for centuries, it “cannot so easily be duped into the rosy view of Anglican Intercommunionists.” The Greeks in Constantinople may be gullible, but the Russians are not so easily led astray.25 Overbeck submitted a petition to the Holy Synod of Russia, asking it to establish an Orthodox Catholic Church of the West, with an autocephalous status similar to that of the national churches of Greece and Romania.26 The ober-procurator of the Russian synod, Count Dimitrii Tolstoi, welcomed the proposal, but nothing came of it. In 1884 the Russian synod, acting on the advice of Evgenii Smirnov, the Russian chaplain in London, abandoned the project.27 Naturally Overbeck’s project earned only resentment from Anglican advocates of reunion. The chairman of the Intercommunion Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury deemed Overbeck’s scheme “a schismatic proceeding” influenced by “the uncatholic and uncanonical aggressions of the Church of Rome” and accused him of proselytizing within the Anglican episcopate’s jurisdiction.28 Efforts by other nineteenth-century figures led to little but disappointment. John Mason Neale, a prolific Anglican author and hymn writer, adopted a different approach, translating Eastern liturgies into English to make them better known in the West and writing popular fiction casting Orthodoxy in a sympathetic light. Real progress, Neale believed, could occur only through formal institutions dedicated to formal contacts and formal discussions. In 1863 he founded the Eastern Churches Association (ECA), an organization that continues to this day.29 Evgenii Popov,

Nineteenth-Century Precedents

|

at that time the Russian chaplain in London, and Constantine Stratoulias, a Greek archimandrite, joined Neale on the standing committee. Edward Pusey, one of the founders of the Oxford movement,30 signed on, as did C. L. Dodgson (a.k.a. Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice in Wonderland).31 The ECA proclaimed itself ready to educate Anglicans about the Eastern churches, to take advantage “of all opportunities which the providence of God shall afford us for intercommunion with the Orthodox Church,” and to raise money for Orthodox bishops and their flocks.32 The ECA treated theological matters seriously but warily. When Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow requested information about Anglican thinking on apostolic succession, Neale chose to work through the American Episcopal Church instead of the Church of England,33 realizing, perhaps, the potential theological quagmire into which such questions would be sucked if addressed by the contentious factions within the Church of England. The ECA accomplished little of substance prior to the first world war (in fact, it lay largely dormant between Neale’s death in 1866 and the late 1890s), but it did introduce important figures to the problem of reunion. Metropolitan Evlogii—then the archbishop of Kholm and later, after the war, the chief representative of Russian Orthodoxy in Western Europe—served as the first president of its branch in St. Petersburg. In 1913 the future patriarch of Moscow, Sergei, became its second president. The ECA was the first attempt within England to found an AnglicanOrthodox society that could sponsor discussions involving large groups of people.34 Most discussions prior to its formation were the products of individuals, often eccentric and frequently on the periphery of their respective confessions. The ECA changed all that. It insisted that its members work always as representatives of a church, rather than as individuals, and never attempt unauthorized work.35 Such demands appeared designed with lone wolves like Palmer in mind. The ECA provided money for forums, and it offered an institutional credibility for organized and serious debate. Its major accomplishments, however, would await the end of the war. Any survey of reunion efforts before the war must also consider the Old Catholic Church, formed when members of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland refused to accept the

15

16

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

dogma of papal infallibility adopted by the first Vatican Council of 1870. In 1874 and 1875 J. J. I. von Döllinger, a German theologian whose views inspired the breakaway church,36 presided over discussions between other Old Catholics, Orthodox, German Evangelicals, and a good many English theologians (Anglican and other) in Bonn.37 Members of the conference such as the Slavophile Aleksandr Kireev arrived hoping to hammer out agreements from which intercommunion would follow.38 Hope for a dogmatic breakthrough reached its zenith when Döllinger proposed resolving the filioque controversy by using John of Damascus’s explanation of the procession of the Holy Spirit—an explanation on which both Orthodox and Anglicans could agree. A solution to that most intractable of theological disputes seemed at hand. But agreements adopted at the conference bore little weight in the larger world. Orthodox attendees could never quite agree on the proper Orthodox stance toward the Old Catholics. Bishop Sergei (Stragorodskii) in particular distrusted the assertion of some Old Catholics that no one Christian church enjoyed full theological authority, and he worried about the import Old Catholics attached to theological freedom.39 The meetings ended in 1875 with some optimism over the agreement on the filioque. But the Church of England never took up the conference’s report, and the matter died from inattention.40 The institutional bodies back home had neither the will nor the interest to engage seriously the commission’s work. Such conferences were plagued in part by the lack of a well-developed and universally accepted Orthodox theology. Orthodox theology in the nineteenth century remained in its infancy, a product primarily of regurgitated Protestant and Roman Catholic scholasticism. Few theologians focused seriously on the question of relations between the Orthodox and other confessions. Ecclesiastical academies in Russia and in Greece did not come into their own until later in the century. N. N. Damalas, a professor of divinity at the University of Athens, became one of the first Orthodox theologians to investigate Anglicanism comprehensively. His assessment of the Anglican Church is significant less for its conclusions (which were largely pessimistic about prospects for reunion) than for its identification of key issues. A quick survey of his work provides a convenient summary of the issues that would dominate Orthodox thinking about the Anglican Church for the next seven decades.

Nineteenth-Century Precedents

|

Damalas’s survey of English church history largely spared Henry VIII, founder of the Church of England, from criticism. (It would be difficult, after all, for an Orthodox theologian to criticize an English king for distancing himself from the pope.) But Damalas excoriated Edward VI, Henry’s successor, for his “precocious zeal for Calvinism bordering on fanaticism.” Damalas blamed Edward’s archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, for the Protestant character of the English church, and excoriated Cranmer’s first confession of faith for the church—the “XLII Articles”—which led to the still extant Thirty-nine Articles adopted during the reign of Elizabeth I.41 Damalas picked apart the Thirty-nine Articles. He could not abide article 13’s stance on justification or article 9’s stance on original sin. He regretted that article 11 contained nothing on the “purification of Holy Baptism.” Happy that article 25 endorsed the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist, he nevertheless complained that the articles rejected the other five sacraments. And he was disappointed to find in article 28 a proclamation that during communion the body of Christ is “given, taken, and eaten . . . only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.” Indignant, Damalas replied, “When the Lord instituted this sacrament, He said to His holy disciples, in giving them the Bread, ‘This is My Body’; and in giving them the Cup, ‘This is My Blood.’ These words, as the Catholic Church teaches, are not to be understood figuratively or allegorically, but literally, and in their real signification.”42 Damalas worried about the articles’ silence on the role of the church in preserving the apostolic and ecclesiastical tradition and fretted that the Thirty-nine Articles did not demand uniform traditions and ceremonies. He was shocked that the articles appeared, in his words, to “[throw] the cultus of the Holy Images and Relics into the same category with the fable on the Purgatory and the indulgences,” thus failing to recognize their dogmatic character.43 But most of all, Damalas could not accept the Anglican Church’s use of the filioque, the “greatest production of Papal tyranny and arbitrariness.”44 Damalas placed his finger squarely on the points of Anglican doctrine that would trouble his successors. Explaining the Thirty-nine Articles would become the chief task of Anglican negotiations with the Orthodox in the coming decades. Damalas’s accusations did not diminish Anglican interest in the Orthodox world. In fact, contacts between Anglicans and Orthodox

17

18

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

increased dramatically in the three decades after Damalas’s study. English churchmen traveled frequently to Russia, Greece, and Constantinople, and Greek churchmen paid numerous visits to Britain. Take, for example, W. J. Birkbeck, a fellow at Magdalen College. Birkbeck traveled often to Russia, making friends with the likes of Nikolai Glubokovskii (a professor of church history in St. Petersburg who would become an important figure in the interwar ecumenical movement), the celebrated preacher Father Ioan of Kronstadt, and the reactionary head of the Holy Synod, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who entertained Birkbeck at his dacha and arranged meetings with church leaders and trips to several monasteries.45 Birkbeck, in turn, arranged trips to Russia for English churchmen and finagled a meeting between the metropolitan of St. Petersburg and the Anglican bishop of Peterborough.46 But Birkbeck approached his travels in a manner quite different from Palmer. Birkbeck never claimed to speak on behalf of the Anglican Church—he merely wished to make Orthodoxy more familiar to it.47 Birkbeck represented a new breed of cautious realists. His primary contribution was information. He translated Russian works about Anglicanism and published numerous articles on the possibility of intercommunion.48 Georges Florovskii rightly argued that such contacts “did not perceptibly promote the cause of reunion or rapprochement,”49 but then reunion was not their primary intent. They did begin to acquaint personalities in each church with counterparts in the other, and these contacts help to explain the formal, institutional interest in reunion that began to appear around the turn of the century. The first such expression emerged in 1888 from the third Lambeth conference, a roughly decennial gathering of Anglican bishops, convened by the archbishop of Canterbury at his residence, Lambeth Palace, to discuss theology and other matters of church life.50 Resolution 17 of the conference praised recent contacts between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches and expressed hope that “barriers to fuller communion may be, in course of time, removed by further intercourse and extended enlightenment.”51 The resolution was, admittedly, rather nonspecific and wholly noncommittal about steps toward reunion. But it marked a major step beyond the silence of previous Lambeth conferences. The 1888 conference sought to bolster its standing with the Orthodox by expressing Anglican-

Nineteenth-Century Precedents

|

ism’s and Orthodoxy’s mutual dissatisfaction with the Roman Catholic Church and its stance on papal infallibility and the immaculate conception. For example: “The Church of Rome has always treated her Eastern sister wrongfully. She intrudes her Bishops into the ancient dioceses, and keeps up a system of active proselytism. The Eastern Church is reasonably outraged by these proceedings, wholly contrary as they are to Catholic principles; and it behooves us of the Anglican Communion to take care that we do not offend in like manner.”52 Yet Lambeth was careful not to express too much interest in Orthodoxy and concertedly sought not to raise false hopes. It frankly acknowledged questions about the filioque,53 and it expressed concerns about the “extreme importance” the Orthodox Church ascribes to trine immersion in the baptismal rite.54 Finally, Lambeth surmised that it would be difficult to enter “into more intimate relations” with a church that employs icons, invokes the saints, and maintains a cult of the Virgin Mary.55 In sum, Lambeth—while interested in reaching out to the East—clearly retained many qualms. The 1888 conference took one concrete step on the road to negotiating reunion: it drafted a statement of beliefs as a basis for future negotiations. This statement, soon known as the “Lambeth Quadrilateral,” proposed a four-point doctrinal minimum to undergird all reunion discussions. It recognized: 1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the revealed Word of God. 2. The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith. 3. The two Sacraments—Baptism and the Supper of the Lord— ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him. 4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adopted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of other nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.56 It is important to place the Quadrilateral in context by noting that it was written with “Home Reunion,” rather than foreign reunion, in mind. That is, the Quadrilateral’s prime concern was finding a way to reunite

19

20

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

the English “nonconformist” or “free churches” (Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, etc.) with the Church of England.57 Its framers gave little thought to Orthodox dogma in its formulation. This fact to a great degree explains its simplicity: the free churches for the most part had little interest in doctrinal complexities, and they would argue in future negotiations with the Church of England against doctrines added by ecumenical councils, the church fathers, or tradition. But such simplicity would prove problematic in negotiations with the Orthodox, who demanded just those additional provisions detested by the free churches. The foundation for discussions with an entirely different branch of Christianity became the foundation for discussions with the Orthodox. Nine years later, in 1897, the fifth Lambeth conference expressed its “earnest desire” to improve relations with the Orthodox churches. A subcommission recommended that the Church of England make a systematic effort to bring Eastern ecclesiastics to visit Anglican churches. Yet it also complained, “[Our members] find themselves confronted by a subject so extensive in its range, that they can only hope to deal with it in outline.”58 Lambeth responded by appointing two English archbishops and the bishop of London to establish closer relations with the Eastern churches. The next year Bishop John Wordsworth visited the ecumenical patriarch, Constantine V, in Constantinople and established for the first time direct correspondence between the ecumenical patriarch and the archbishop of Canterbury. The Lambeth conference of 1908 did little to build on these developments. The conference’s encyclical spoke more clearly about the importance of apostolic succession within the Church of England,59 but such language served more to alienate Protestants within the Anglican Church than to attract the Orthodox.60 Lambeth appointed a permanent committee to coordinate relations between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches, it announced that the Anglican Church could baptize Orthodox children “in cases of emergency,” and it promised to administer the eucharist to Orthodox who did not have access to an Orthodox priest.61 Yet it also despaired of solving basic theological questions. We must, it declared, “lay stress upon the futility of putting definite questions on crucial points of ecclesiastical order to individual dignitaries of the Eastern church, which they can only answer in accordance with their existing canons.” We “are strongly of the opinion that the more satisfactory

Nineteenth-Century Precedents

|

way is to seize every opportunity of mutual service, in the sure conviction that obstacles which now appear insurmountable may in course of time be found to vanish away.”62 In other words: hope for a miracle. Lambeth confessed that its resolutions “may seem to show the remoteness rather than the nearness of corporate reunion.” “We dare not,” it stated, “in the name of peace, barter away those precious things which we have been made stewards. Neither can we wish others to be unfaithful to trusts which they hold no less sacred.”63 Although the Lambeth resolutions of the late 1800s and early 1900s displayed an earnest—albeit cautious, tentative, and hesitant—desire for reunion, they conscientiously glossed over the wide range of theological opinion in the Church of England on matters crucial to the Orthodox. Yet the Orthodox were well aware of divisions within the Anglican Church. When the ecumenical patriarch, Joachim III, invited all autocephalous Orthodox churches to express their opinions on relations with other churches, the Russian synod requested evidence that the entire Anglican Church sought reunion, not just those sections sympathetic to Orthodoxy. We must keep in mind, the synod wrote, that the Anglican Church includes a “Calvinistic current which in essence rejects the Church, as we understand her, and whose attitude towards Orthodoxy is one of particular intolerance.” Such a current must “be absorbed . . . and should lose its perceptible, if we may not say exclusive, influence upon the Church policy and in general upon the whole Church life of this Confession.”64 The Russian synod was the first Orthodox body to put the problem of Anglican divisions in such explicit terms. Although Lambeth’s timid steps toward reunion resulted in little forward progress and although the Lambeth Quadrilateral’s statement on the historic episcopate remained by necessity vague, a number of Orthodox theologians began grappling in earnest with the question of apostolic succession within the Church of England. This newfound interest stemmed in large part from the papal bull of 1896, Apostolicae curae, a bolt from the blue proclaiming that Anglican ecclesiastical orders were invalid. In other words, the ordination of Anglican priests and bishops were not valid ordinations; clerics in the Anglican Church were thus not true members of the universal church’s leadership; and they were therefore unable to administer grace-bearing sacraments. This proclamation revived an issue that would consume the interwar ecumenical

21

22

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

movement, leading to endless debates about whether other churches (in particular, the Orthodox Church) could “recognize” (i.e., regard as valid) Anglican orders. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, proclaimed Apostolicae curae, the Church of England had not maintained an unbroken chain of episcopal succession. Episcopal or apostolic succession, according to the Roman Catholic Church (and to many Anglicans), is maintained by the consecration and ordination of bishop after bishop down through history, creating an unbroken chain or succession that extends back to St. Peter. A break in the apostolic succession would constitute a break in the church’s authority as an heir to the promises bestowed by Christ upon Peter, and thus make the offices of its prelates invalid. Without apostolic succession, according to the doctrine, priests lack the authority to properly administer the sacraments, and hence that church’s sacraments are illegitimate. Some Anglicans viewed Apostolicae curae as an attempt to drive a wedge between themselves and the Orthodox.65 Orthodox reaction was swift and furious: nothing inspired Orthodox theologians so much as a chance to inveigh against a papal pronouncement. V. A. Sokolov, a professor at the Ecclesiastical Academy in Moscow, was one of the first to pick up the gauntlet, churning out a 437-page study of Anglican orders only a year after Apostolicae curae.66 Sokolov began by examining Anglican doctrinal statements on the priesthood, and quickly grew troubled by the variance between the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-nine Articles on this question. The order of ordination in the Book of Common Prayer ascribes to ordination all the signs of a sacrament. But the twenty-fifth of the Thirty-nine Articles states explicitly that ordination is not a sacrament. Sokolov was puzzled. He retained hope that the Orthodox might some day recognize Anglican orders. Yet he concluded that the Anglican Church must first clarify where it stands. It must recognize not only baptism and communion as sacraments but also the “remaining five.”67 As long as the Anglican Church was not clear about whether ordination constitutes a sacrament, Anglican orders must remain in doubt. Professor Afanasii Bulgakov of the Kiev Ecclesiastical Academy (not to be confused with Sergei Bulgakov, who appears later in the story) arrived at similar conclusions.68 The Thirty-nine Articles and the Book of Ordinations gave Bulgakov the impression that the Anglican Church

Nineteenth-Century Precedents

|

saw no evidence of the historic priesthood in its hierarchy. Moreover, Bulgakov worried about the divide in the Anglican Church between Anglo-Catholic and Protestant factions (factions that, of course, viewed the episcopate in quite different terms). Unsure which faction would triumph, he advised that the Orthodox Church adopt a waiting position until one faction scored a victory over the other.69 In 1903 Christos Androutsos of the University of Athens took an even harder line.70 It was senseless, Androutsos argued, to discuss the validity of Anglican ordinations: the only thing one could know with certainty about ordinations conferred outside the church (for Androutsos, the Orthodox Church) is that they were conferred outside the church. Androutsos thus intentionally side-stepped the question of their validity. (Other Orthodox theologians would find Androutsos’s views inflexible and extreme.)71 Rather than investigate how one might pursue unity between Anglicans and Orthodox, he focused instead on the narrower question of whether individual Anglicans could be received by the Orthodox Church. The question thus became a canonical rather than a theological issue.72 Speaking canonically, Androutsos concluded that individual Anglican priests entering the Orthodox Church could be received in their orders conferred by the Anglican Church. But, continued Androutsos, they could be received only if the Anglican Church first clarified several points by establishing a “general council of her prelates” to answer the following questions: Does it accept seven Sacraments? Does it regard confession as necessary for the remission of sins and “the priestly absolving of sins as included in the authority given to it by the Lord”? Does it accept the “Real Presence of the Lord” in the Eucharist? Does it regard the Ecumenical Councils as “infallible organs of the true Church”?73 But then, in an odd move (a move that contradicted his insistence that the Anglican Church hold a “general council of her prelates” to weigh in on these questions) Androutsos promised that if the “high church” party in the Church of England (i.e., the liturgical “Anglo-Catholics,” as opposed to the “low church” Protestant wing) defined these dogmas

23

24

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

“correctly and laid down the rest of its doctrines in an Orthodox manner,” then “solid foundations” would be laid for “true union” with the Orthodox Church. Both Nicolas Zernov (a Russian student who would eventually become a professor at Oxford University) and John Douglas (one of the most eager advocates of Anglican-Orthodox reunion between the wars) jumped on this phrase.74 Douglas, who believed that Androutsos had the support of the ecumenical patriarch and that his study served as the patriarch’s quiet invitation to the Anglican Church would base his life’s work on the belief that—although some Protestants within the Anglican Church often wanted little to do with the Orthodox—it was still worth the Anglo-Catholics’ while to push discussions with the Orthodox forward.75 Androutsos, it seems, spurred the hopes of England’s greatest advocate for reunion (see chap. 4). Discussions and debate blossomed in the early twentieth century. In a 1912 address to the Society of Workers for the Rapprochement between the Anglican and the Orthodox Churches in St. Petersburg, another Sokolov, I. P. Sokolov, took up the question. It is worth summarizing his thoughts, which provide a good example of clear Orthodox thinking on Anglican history and a close reading of Roman Catholic approaches to the topic. Sokolov assumed that any union between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches presupposed that the Anglican Church had maintained a valid, episcopal order.76 The Orthodox must agree that the Anglican Church embodies “the uninterrupted apostolic succession” before it can imagine “corporative union.”77 Strictly speaking, apostolic succession can be accepted “only incompletely” (tolko v nepolnom) outside the Orthodox Church. Yet Sokolov was not willing to speak too strictly, for the history of Orthodox relations with other confessions demonstrates that Orthodoxy has “acknowledged to some degree in some of them the presence of certain institutions and elements whose standing is ecclesiastically Catholic.”78 Sacraments, as St. Augustine taught, are sacraments “even for heretics and schismatics.”79 We can admit a “sacramental hierarchical organization” even in sectarian bodies. Precedent and St. Augustine, in other words, do not allow us to dismiss the question out of hand. Sokolov assumed, to the objection of none of his Orthodox colleagues, that the Roman Catholic Church had preserved apostolic succession.

Nineteenth-Century Precedents

|

His question, then, was this: After breaking with the Roman Catholic Church, did the Church of England preserve inviolate the valid ordinations it bestowed when it was still part of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e., before Henry VIII’s schism with Rome)? Or, to put it another way, was the consecration of Matthew Parker—the first archbishop of Canterbury consecrated after the death of Queen Mary (whose attempts to return to Rome were thwarted by her successor, Elizabeth)—valid? Roman Catholic theologians repeatedly insisted that it was not, and Sokolov addressed their objections one by one. True, Sokolov conceded, some of the bishops who consecrated Parker were “permeated with the spirit of the Swiss reformation,”80 but he passed lightly over this observation, seemingly unbothered by the personal beliefs of those administering the consecration. He quoted Filaret of Moscow, who once asked what would happen if a bishop who did not believe in the grace of episcopacy were to consecrate a priest. Searching the canons, Filaret concluded, “No church rule applicable to such a case can be found.”81 Hence the intention of the consecrator need not affect the validity of the sacrament.82 Sokolov considered another objection leveled by Roman Catholic theologians: records of the consecration of Barlow, one of the bishops who consecrated Parker, do not exist. Yet Sokolov found “incredible” any suggestion that Barlow could have become a bishop under Henry VIII (the self-proclaimed “defender of the faith”) without being consecrated. In any event, “even were it true that Barlow had no episcopal consecration, three other bishops took part in Parker’s consecration, all of them pronouncing the sacramental formula.”83 But did the bishops consecrating Parker “hand him the instruments,” that is, hand him the cup of wine and the host with the words “receive the power to offer the sacrifice to God and to perform masses for the living and the dead”? Perhaps not, since the reformed Anglican rite omitted these instructions. But Sokolov pointed out that such instructions were not transmitted in the Roman Catholic Church before the eleventh century, and no Roman Catholic questions the validity of ordinations conducted before then. Sokolov did take seriously Roman assertions that Anglican doctrines on the eucharist might make Anglican ordinations invalid. Like V. A. Sokolov, Old Catholics from Holland at the 1874 conference in Bonn

25

26

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

rejected Roman Catholic concerns about Barlow’s ordination, yet they noted that the Anglican Church rejected “every reference to the chief power of the priesthood, the power of offering up the Eucharist sacrifice.”84 (The German Old Catholics did not share this concern.) A. P. Mal’tsev, priest of the Russian embassy church in Berlin, also believed that the Thirty-nine Articles—which do not claim the priesthood as a sacrament—presented the chief obstacle to the acceptance of apostolic succession among the Anglicans.85 Sokolov took this concern seriously and focused on article 25, which reads: There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five, commonly called sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. For Sokolov, article 25 could not be more clear: orders are not a sacrament, and thus Anglican teaching on orders “does not differ essentially from the general Protestant doctrine.”86 The teaching on the eucharist in the Thirty-nine Articles “also inclines in the same direction.”87 Sokolov was well aware that Anglican members of the “high church” (e.g., Palmer, Pusey) did all they could to demonstrate that Anglican formularies neither preclude a belief in the presence of the body of Christ in the eucharist nor even a belief in transubstantiation.88 “In the history of Anglican theological thought,” he wrote, “we do see a current which to some degree or another accepts the real objective presence and is conscious that in doing so it is faithful to the teachings of its church.” But such a current testifies to a “lack of discipline” in Anglican teaching, teaching that lacks the necessary “firmness and exclusiveness” (riezkosti’ i iskliuchitel’nost’).89 Such dogmatic errors make the validity of Anglican orders “doubtful,”90 investing them with a status somewhere between a sacrament and a ceremony.91

Nineteenth-Century Precedents

|

But then Sokolov went soft. The sacrament of ordination is faulty, but the church’s “respect” for the hierarchy has saved its sacramental character “from completely becoming a mere church ceremony.”92 The failure of Anglican formularies to mention grace bestowed through ordination, “even if [the failure] were a result of the negative attitude of Anglicans toward the doctrine of the propitiatory eucharistic sacrifice, could not, in any case, deprive the gift of grace, offered in ordination, of the strength of superior prerogatives, which is enough to raise it above mere ceremonial acts.”93 In other words, it is close enough for the Orthodox Church to recognize Anglican orders through the principle of economy (oikonomia), namely, a decision by the Orthodox Church not to apply a canonical, spiritual, or ecclesiastical principle to a given case.94 That same year, in the pages of the same journal that serialized Sokolov’s speech, Archbishop Platon of North America complained that it was difficult to accept Sokolov’s opinion.95 Sokolov’s resort to economy— that is, setting aside the canons—bothered Platon.96 In adopting this solution, argued Platon, Sokolov wrested a conclusion from premises that did not permit it: “his kindness,” chided Platon, “got the better of his learning.” Economy allowed a false end run around deficiencies in the Anglican formularies. “The Episcopalians wish us to accept their holy orders, not as a concession . . . but on the basis of undoubted historical data, critically verified and firmly established. . . . Now, as before, they wish one thing only: that their hierarchy should be accepted unconditionally and without any reservations.”97 Before offering this critique, Platon assured his readers of his benevolent intentions: The Orthodox Church “does not share [Rome’s] haughty, unrelenting, inimical attitude . . . toward all other Christians.”98 Roman Catholics may view reunion as the unconditional submission to the Roman Catholic Church, “but with us of the Orthodox Church, it is possible to discuss, it is possible to try to convince and even to succeed in convincing us of many, very many things.”99 “The Church to which I belong,” he stated, “has not the spirit of intolerance; it is not ill with pride.”100 But on the question of reunion, Platon would not allow charity to trump Orthodox truth.101 We must, as St. Peter demands, be “all of one mind”: “to our thinking, the union of the Churches must take place only

27

28

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

under the banner of Orthodoxy.”102 Platon’s hope for reunion thus lay not in the hope for some type of merger between churches. It lay, rather, among Anglicans who “are no longer completely satisfied with the purely Protestant doctrine of faith” and seek something else.103 Anglo-Catholics must move toward the Orthodox. Unity is possible because those who do not agree with Orthodox teaching can change: “I know that a time will come when they will believe in Christ as my church believes in Him.”104 The Russian theologian Sergei Troitskii, writing around the same time, took much the same stance. We should never talk about the “reestablishment” of church unity, he believed; rather, we should talk about reuniting to the Church her “torn-away offspring.”105 “There can be no talk about some kind of spontaneous conception [zarozhdenie] of a new, Church unity . . . but rather only about the joining of new members and organizations to the united Church, about the grafting of new branches to the good olive tree.”106 Troitskii and Platon both viewed reunion as the return of lost sheep to the Orthodox fold. Androutsos was loath to touch the question at all, content to engage the smaller, more manageable issue of Anglican orders. V. A. Sokolov, I. P. Sokolov, and Afanasii Bulgakov exhibited more hope for progress, but their concerns about Anglican formularies, in particular, the Thirty-nine Articles, significantly curtailed that hope. All three theologians insisted that the Anglican Church either clarify or modify its teaching on the sacraments, especially ordination and the eucharist. But were they right to focus so intently on the Thirty-nine Articles?107 The status of the articles, had, of course, been a matter of fierce debate within the Church of England since their inception in 1571. And the question of their status within the Church of England would dominate discussions between Anglicans and Orthodox between the wars. AngloCatholics would agonize over their Protestant tone and, when most frustrated, try to convince the Orthodox that the articles had little doctrinal standing. Such assertions, in turn, would lead Protestant Anglicans to cry that the Anglo-Catholics were giving away the faith. V. A. Sokolov, Bulgakov, and Androutsos all saw clearly that the Church of England was composed of factions. This understanding goes far toward explaining the cautious tone of their studies. To their minds,

Nineteenth-Century Precedents

|

progress in negotiations awaited a clear and unified statement from the Anglicans on where they stood on the question of ordinations and the other sacraments. | So, while the several decades preceding the Great War witnessed a significant, new interest in the Anglican Church, this new familiarity brought with it a sense of confusion. Who speaks for the Anglican Church? What do its formularies really say? Why the internal contradictions within the Thirty-nine Articles? Whose interpretation of the formularies shall we accept? These questions sharpened in the few decades before the war, and they would dog all discussions between Orthodox and Anglicans afterward. Before the war such questions confined themselves almost exclusively to a narrow circle of professional theologians. Questions of AngloOrthodox reunion did surface at the Russian pre-sobor conference of 1906 and the sobor of 1917 (which authorized the study of overtures from the Anglicans), but they ultimately led nowhere.108 Metropolitan Evlogii recalled that the Russian church before the war “responded weakly” to opportunities to move closer to non-Orthodox churches. “Nobody was seriously interested in closer union with the non-Orthodox. . . . Even circles of professors who studied other confessions . . . coldly and scholastically argued about deviations from Orthodoxy, analyzing non-Orthodox theological formulas and theories.”109 The questions remained philosophical and theological, largely removed from more pressing matters of politics and daily life. It would take a world war, the ensuing chaos in the Balkans, a revolution in Russia, feuds in the Middle East, an assault on the ecumenical patriarchate, and the forced migration of hundreds of thousands of people to change all that and to push the problem of reunion to the fore.

29

2

Outbreak of Ecumenism

[There is an] overwhelming necessity for the Christian Church to have a united front, in view of the menace of Islam, of indifference, of materialism, in view of the clamorous call of the nations. —C. S. Wallis 1

The War will have a beneficent effect on the whole situation; and the experience of chaplains of different denominations, who have worked side by side in the face of danger, who in many cases have ministered together at the Lord’s Table, who have come to understand one another and have brushed away all prejudices and misunderstandings—such experiences will create a demand for unity which cannot rest unsatisfied, and which will outweigh the academic discussions of scholars and the resolutions of episcopal bodies. —A. W. Greenup2

The horrors of the Great War—trench warfare, poison gas, economic upheaval, bread riots, revolution—led those who survived to examine their lives and the world around them anew. The western front—“a nightmare moonscape where men lived like underground rats and died 30

|

Outbreak of Ecumenism

|

collectively like hordes of swatted flies; where death was impersonal and wounds unpretty; a desolate hell surpassing Dante’s worst imaginings”— led English soldiers to despair, wrote Rupert Brooke. “Come and die. It’ll be great fun. And there’s health in the preparation.”3 Russians endured political chaos, two revolutions, and the outbreak of civil war. Soldiers in the tsar’s army, lacking sufficient ammunition or adequate training, were slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands. Where was meaning in such a world? Where was God? The war caused some to abandon the church, convinced that a just God could not allow such suffering and chaos. It led others to the church. Religion offered solace to many who found solace utterly lacking in the world around them. G. K. Chesterton converted to Roman Catholicism in 1922. An Anglican priest baptized T. S. Eliot into the Church of England in 1922. C. S. Lewis capitulated in 1929. This exodus of intellectuals to the church often puzzled their friends. Virginia Woolf wrote to Vanessa Woolf in 1928, “I have had a most shameful and distressing interview with dear Tom Eliot, who may be called dead to us all from this day forward. . . . I mean, there’s something obscene in a living person sitting by the fire and believing in God.”4 The war compelled Anglicans and Orthodox to take stock. A Russian theologian reflected on times that revealed “the tragic nature of human history.”5 A young Russian, writing in exile, urged his contemporaries “to investigate in the chaos of contemporary events the coming, inexorable plan in the new stage of human existence. . . . [H]ow do we give meaning and order to our life? . . . History has given us Russian youth an enormous burden.”6 A young Anglican who would later become a central figure in the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius was still shaken fifteen years after the war by what it had spawned: The Great War, Bolshevism, Fascism, and Hitlerism have torn the scales from our eyes. Democracy, for which the War was supposed to have made the World safe, was never more under a cloud. The whole fabric of nineteenth-century liberalism has been shattered beyond the possibility of recovery. . . . There is no stable European system to replace that which disappeared for ever when the Great War broke out. It is no exaggeration when Professor Berdyaev writes of the end of our age.7

31

32

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Some viewed the war as God’s avenging sword against Christianity’s failures. In the midst of the war Cosmo Gordon Lang (then archbishop of York and a future archbishop of Canterbury) concluded that “we are called to bid men and women everywhere to repent of the sins which have stained our civilization and brought upon it the manifest judgment of God.”8 Many Anglicans, Orthodox, Protestants, and even Roman Catholics9 concluded that war made Christian unity imperative.10 A Bulgarian Orthodox prelate in Sofia contemplated the postwar world—the “political, social, and economic shock,” the “sins of egoism,” and the “insufficiency of love”—and concluded, “All this has shown the necessity of ecumenical church relations.”1 1 Shortly before the war’s end an English monthly reflected, “When the present world-conflict in the field is at an end, the church, if she continues divided, will be unable to speak with authority to a world which will be divided in other and subtler ways. Her only chance of recovering her true position as a spiritual mother of men is to recover first of all her own unity.”12 Aleksandr, the Orthodox bishop of North America, warned that Christian unity was essential: “The World War should have taught us all many lessons, and if we do not heed them then we will have much to answer for before the dread judgment seat of Christ.”13 An Anglican vicar asserted in 1920 that the war “brought with it a keen realization of the brotherhood of man. The fellowship of the trenches made those who took part in it realize that there is much more in human brotherhood than they had previously recognized.”14 The Hibbert Journal stated in 1919, “The present world-wide war, notwithstanding its innumerable infamies and atrocities, seems to be hastening this process of Christianisation, especially in the deepening and widening of our perceptions of the indefeasible fact of the brotherhood of men.”15 Looking back with two decades of hindsight, W. F. Lofthouse credited the war with the search for church unity: “The shattering events of those years, the profound hopes and fears which they raised, the visions they summoned before eager eyes, combined for many into a yearning not to be satisfied by mere denominational loyalties.”16 The Anglican Church tackled questions of reunion with a new vigor following the war. Talk of reunion dominated the Lambeth conference of 1920. The conference’s encyclical noted, “The war and its horrors, waged

Outbreak of Ecumenism

|

as it was between so-called Christian nationalism, drove home the truth with the shock of a sudden awakening. Men in all communions began to think of the reunion of Christendom, not as laudable ambition or a beautiful dream, but as an imperative necessity.”17 John Douglas, the Church of England’s chief advocate for Anglo-Orthodox rapprochement, recalled twelve years after the war, “Being thrown together during the Great War in a fashion and in numbers in which Anglican and Orthodox had never been thrown together before, thousands of ordinary Anglicans and Orthodox came to know each other as members not only of allied nations, but [and here Douglas’s optimism perhaps got the better of him] of sister Churches.” The ECU (the largest organization of Anglo-Catholics within the Church of England) enthused, “The War Alliance with Great Britain has created a favorable disposition towards the English Church among the mass of Greeks, Russians, Serbs, and Roumans [sic].” Athelstan Riley believed that the “wall” between Anglican and Orthodox “has crumbled away as the result of the great War; [the Russian Orthodox Church] is now face to face with Western Christendom in all its manifestations.”18 Indeed, a few Orthodox prelates took it upon themselves to break down this wall themselves, administering communion on the basis of economy to Anglicans who found themselves in Orthodox dioceses during and after the war.19 The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the Soviets’ subsequent attempts to create a secular state and a class of godless citizens forced all Russians to take stock. One Russian emigrant fretted, “One need not be a prophet to foresee that in the near future” godless forces will “become apparent in their results by uniting in one Godless Movement of the World.”20 Reflecting on the course of events in Russia ten years later, the young Russian émigré Nikolai (Nicolas) Zernov concluded, “Without belief in God, without belief in eternal life, a person becomes an animal.”21 The Russian Orthodox Church in exile was reeling after the war. The first formal council of exiled Russian bishops and clerics, meeting in Serbia, spoke of the “punishing hand of the Lord . . . stretched out above us. Russia is suffering immeasurably for our grave sins.”22 Events seemed to support such an interpretation. Zernov observed in his diary of the conference, “The Patriarch is under arrest, fifteen bishops have

33

34

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

been imprisoned, Metropolitan Kiril has lost his sight, Gurii is suffering from tuberculosis, Bishop Fedor has gone mad. Everywhere there is disorder: the Ukrainians have seized the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kiev and are demanding autocephaly, supported by the Bolsheviks and the Jesuits; in Poland 300 parishes have been closed and priests have been imprisoned.”23 Russian Orthodox exiles almost unanimously (though to different degrees) characterized the persecution of the Russian church as God’s judgment. Sergei Bulgakov—a Marxist convert to Christianity and one of the twentieth century’s greatest Russian theologians—attributed Russia’s fall to its historic sins. “We live at a time,” wrote Bulgakov, “when the Russian people, or anyhow a certain considerable portion of it, under the pressure of persecution and violence, has renounced and is renouncing Christ, ‘betraying Him for thirty pieces of silver.’ ” The “devil has entered into the ruling class of the Russian people.”24 Georgii Florovskii, another great Russian theologian in exile who would go on to teach at Princeton University, stated explicitly that the revolution of 1917 was “the judgment of God.”25 Nikolai Berdiaev, who edited the most important Russian journal in exile and sat at the center of ecumenical debates, wrote: Christians, who condemn the communists for their godlessness and anti-religious persecutions cannot lay the whole blame solely upon these godless communists; they must assign part of the blame to themselves, and that a considerable part. They must be not only accusers and judges; they must also be penitents. Have Christians done very much for the realization of Christian justice in social life? Have they striven to realize the brotherhood of man without the hatred and violence of which they accuse the communists?26 Some, such as Georgii Fedotov, a Russian church historian and avid participant in ecumenical discussions, spoke of the “purifying fire of persecution” brought by the revolution.27 Bulgakov believed that it “is necessary to die with all the strength and depth of death, to ‘taste death,’ in order that by it, in it and out of it should shine the light of resurrection.”28

Outbreak of Ecumenism

|

This atmosphere of fear, this consciousness of sin, and this keen desire for repentance, accompanied by a fervent hope for Christianity’s resurrection and renewal, spurred both a new commitment to Orthodoxy among many exiles and a desire to engage other Christians traditionally alienated from Orthodoxy. (Nicolas Zernov is a perfect example of this dual commitment. He insisted, “Orthodoxy is the only means for the rebirth of Russia,”29 but he also suggested that the sufferings of Orthodox Christians “purified” them for dialogue with the Christian West.)30 A sense of sin and alienation and a craving for redemption were powerful catalysts for reunion. Robert Bird has noted the shock that the 1917 revolution administered to many Russians’ Orthodox identity and their sense of place in the larger world of Christendom: “The fall of the visible, national Church forced many to grapple with their membership in a universal, but invisible Church.”31 Some even saw the revolution and its dispersal of Russian exiles throughout Europe as a positive event. While visiting the warden of Winchester’s home in 1925, the exiled bishop of Sevastopol took the warden by the arm and attempted to explain his presence in England among the Anglicans: “Why are we Russians dispersed throughout the world? Of course it is for our sins. But for what other reason? . . . For our sakes.”32 | Reunion became for some a means of protecting the persecuted Russian church. The threat of the “red antichrist” led Stefan Tsankov of Bulgaria to seek a “united defense” in a united Christian church.33 The Russian archbishop of North America declaimed, “The Third International proclaimed as its battle-cry, ‘Proletarians of all lands, unite!’ Against this destructive slogan should not the Christian Churches proclaim, with all prayer, sincerity and force, ‘Christians of All Lands, Unite’? . . . Today with enemies on every side, Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians feel more than ever that if Christianity is to survive it must present a solid front against its enemies and fight as a unified whole.”34 The primary interwar Orthodox-Anglican journals—the Christian East and the Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius—often devoted portions of their pages to Russian émigrés eager to publicize their plight.35 More general concerns about modernity and secularization and their perceived threat to Christianity also impelled Anglicans and Orthodox

35

36

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

to push for Christian unity. Citing Harnack, Nietzsche, Frenssen, Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity, and Strauss’s The New Faith, Archbishop Platon warned in 1913 that a divided Christianity was ill equipped to counter such threats. All of Europe should not be allowed to become like France, where “religion is treated as so much harmful rubbish.”36 John Douglas suggested, somewhat patronizingly: For all the Orthodox nations other than the Russian the question of the day is whether under the inrush upon them of western thought and modern science, of the motor-car, the cinema, the wireless, European life and dress, those Orthodox nations will not shed off religion and their Christianity perish. The history which has made the Orthodox Church and the Orthodox nations what they are, the characteristics of the Orthodox Church as an institution, its centuries-long refusal to purchase deliverance from its Moslem helotage at the cost of submitting to the papacy and the Orthodox tradition of faith and Church life, explain why the Orthodox nations look to us [English churchmen] above all others for brotherly reinforcement in their present trial and transition.37 The Orthodox did indeed fret about modernity and secularism. When the locum tenens of the ecumenical patriarch issued an encyclical in January 1920 calling for a concerted effort to achieve interconfessional unity, he cited as an impetus the need to combat “superfluous luxury under the pretext of rending life more beautiful and more enjoyable,” “voluptuousness and lust hardly covered by the cloak of freedom,” “the prevailing unchecked licentious indecency in literature, painting, the theatre, and in music,” “the deification of wealth,” and “the contempt of higher ideals.”38 In his address to the 1927 ecumenical conference in Lausanne, Switzerland, Archbishop Germanos insisted that “modern conditions demand a united front against the subversive elements of the world which threaten the Christian edifice.”39 Nikolai Berdiaev warned that “the divisions and dissention within Christianity are a great temptation in the face of the non-Christian and anti-Christian world.”40 By 1932 the ecumenical patriarch noted, “The entire Christian world is animated in

Outbreak of Ecumenism

|

the desire that all Churches work together with the goal of effective opposition to anti-Christian teaching, which is becoming more and more noticeable.”41 | Between November 1917 and March 1921 more than one million people fled Russia.42 Russian Orthodox Christians dispersed to all parts of Europe: Berlin, Paris, Belgrade, Riga, Sofia, and London.43 The Russian Historical Archive estimated that between 635,000 and 755,000 unassimilated Russians resided in Europe by 1923.44 Many felt lonely, isolated, weak, and cut off from their church.45 Less than 10 percent of Russian priests made it out of the country,46 and Orthodox émigrés found themselves largely without spiritual leadership. They watched their church struggle in the face of persecutions at home and disorientation abroad. Nicolas Zernov would later describe his fellow exiles as lonely, misunderstood, destitute, hapless, and unwelcome.47 Orthodox clergy in exile could not deal adequately with the flood of new emigrants. Funds simply did not exist. Russian Orthodoxy lacked any tradition of large-scale relief efforts.48 Many looked to the Church of England and the British government for both political and social relief.49 On John Douglas’s initiative (Douglas would serve as general secretary of the Church of England’s Eastern Church Committee), Anglicans and other British Christians established in January 1923 the Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund to assist Russians in exile and those still in the Soviet Union. Douglas’s goal of Anglican-Orthodox reunion played out in the fund’s activities: charitable activity, he hoped, would nurture charitable feelings among the Orthodox toward the Anglican Church. The Anglo-Catholic bishop Walter Frere joined Metropolitan Germanos as the fund’s vice president. The archbishop of Canterbury, whom Nikolai Arsen’ev (a Russian Orthodox academic residing in Poland) called “a true guardian friend of the Russian Church,”50 served as an honorary patron. The fund’s tracts served both as propaganda—reminding British Christians of the persecution endured by the Russian church—and as fund-raising appeals. “In spite of certain concessions,” read one, “the outlawry of Christianity in Russia continues, and the maintenance of basic religion in that vast territory is still a major responsibility of us

37

38

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

all.” Pamphlets called for money, “gifts of hospitality” (e.g., housing for Russian students), gifts of clothing, and mentions in wills.51 Systematic efforts to organize prayers on behalf of the Russian church impressed the Orthodox. St. Clement’s League of Prayer for Russia organized daily sessions of intercessory prayer and distributed pledge cards to be signed by those who promised to pray daily for the church in Russia over the course of a year.52 Russian émigrés were genuinely touched by such efforts.53 The Clergy and Church Aid Fund endeared itself to the Orthodox intelligentsia in Western Europe though its generous support of the Institut de Théologie de Paris (the Russian Orthodox Theological Institute of Paris, soon known simply as St. Sergius), founded to train priests and offer graduate education to those already ordained.54 Between January and March 1923 the fund collected £986.55 Émigré Orthodox academics such as Bezobrazov, Zenkovskii, Bulgakov, and Spasskii all worked with fund-raisers to establish the institute and became acquainted with important figures in the Anglican Church. Sergei Bulgakov’s first substantive acquaintances with Anglicans occurred during his two fundraising trips to London, in December 1924 and June 1926.56 The French government donated the buildings and grounds for the institute. John D. Rockefeller provided funds for instruction and fellowships. John Mott of the YMCA donated $5,000, E. L. Nobel donated 4,000 francs, and the Jewish philanthropist M. A. Ginsburg donated 100,000 francs. Smaller donations arrived from English Christians, especially Anglicans. Of the £3,350 that constituted the institute’s first operating budget in 1926, Anglicans raised £1,300.57 The institute was truly a “Widow’s Mite creation.”58 Many Anglicans supported the institute to promote contacts with the Orthodox.59 And the Orthodox were verbose in expressing their gratitude.60 Anton Kartashev would later write, “Without the careful and untiring concern for us, of Church organization, principally of the AngloSaxon world and from America in particular, we could not have existed.”61 | Colonialism also raised questions about reunion. British imperialism reached its zenith by the beginning of the Great War, forcing British churches to think hard about their often-conflicting efforts in new mission fields. The Hibbert Journal fretted about broken unity as a hin-

Outbreak of Ecumenism

|

drance to missionary efforts abroad. Christian divisions in the West were being planted in the East, it complained. Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Seventhday Adventists—all worked separately to establish their own churches and schools. “The convert, brought in by the attraction of some Missionary’s personality, finds himself in a ring fence, divided for no reason that he can understand from his fellow Christians, perhaps of his own family.”62 Another periodical complained that disunity prevented the church from fulfilling Christ’s great commission. “Something must be done.”63 The Lambeth conference of 1930 urged all Anglicans, of “whatever school of thought, to do their utmost” to promote Christian cooperation and understanding. Cooperation was “obligatory” if missionary endeavors were to succeed.64 “It is, perhaps, on the Mission field,” speculated the Churchman, “that the problem of Unity is likely, if ever, to be solved.”65 But missionary concerns did far more to propel talks of unity within the Church of England and between Anglicans and the free churches than they did to foster discussions with the Orthodox. Although a few Orthodox theologians such as Sergei Troitskii believed that divisions within Christianity accounted for failures in the mission field,66 virtually no formal proposals arose among Anglicans and Orthodox for joint missionary efforts.67 In fact, most Orthodox were suspicious of proselytization by foreign churches of any ilk; some Orthodox were drawn to the Church of England specifically because they believed it was less interested in proselytization than were Lutherans, Baptists, or other Protestant denominations. One can even make the case that discussions between the Church of England and the English free churches regarding union in the mission field actually hurt discussions between the Church of England and the Orthodox churches. Consider, for example, the three Kikuyu conferences held between 1908 and 1926. In 1908 representatives of the free churches tried to create a federation of churches conducting missionary activities in East Africa. Under the Kikuyu proposals, each mission would enjoy its own sphere of influence, while the federation as a whole would accept the Apostles’ and the Nicene Creeds and recognize common membership between churches within the federation. Members of any church in the federation could receive communion at any other church.

39

40

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

This proposal enraged Anglo-Catholics, especially the very Catholic bishop of Zanzibar, who denounced the entire scheme. The Orthodox echoed Anglo-Catholic concerns over Kikuyu. How, they asked, could one participate in the sacrament of the eucharist with free churches that did not recognize the eucharist as a sacrament, or receive ministrations from ministers who did not recognize the historic episcopate? When Frank Weston, a priest from the Universities Mission to Central Africa, tried to placate Anglo-Catholics by proposing that churches in the federation “consent to some episcopal consecration and ordination,” the free churches rejected his proposal. “We feel,” they responded, “that no basis which places the church above the Word of God, no ritual which would take the place of personal communion, and no ecclesiastical control which limits personal liberty in vital things, or fails to honour authority conferred by our own Churches, is possible.”68 Years later, a similar but more cautious scheme in South India would succeed, but it confirmed Orthodox fears (piqued by the Kikuyu conferences) that the Church of England was all too ready to make concessions to the free churches at the expense of doctrinal points dear to the Orthodox. | Study opportunities in England for Orthodox students during the war certainly helped relations. Conscious of the plight of students in wartime Serbia,69 a number of English churchmen urged Oxford and other universities to open their classes to Serb seminarians, providing a refuge for students seeking to escape their war-torn country. The archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, expressed some caution over the scheme, fearful that the Serbian Orthodox Church might find or manufacture grounds for accusing Anglicans of proselytizing among its future church leaders.70 In fact, before the war the Serbian church dismissed all suggestions that Serb students study in England,7 1 fearful that young Serbs would be tainted by Protestantism. These fears diminished as Britain successfully portrayed itself as Serbia’s savior in the face of Austrian imperialism. During the war the entire body of Serbs studying for holy orders received their education under the auspices of the Church of England, mainly at Oxford and Cuddesdon. Their professors took “every care” to ensure that the students maintained “full loyalty” to the Serbian church.72 Arthur Headlam, bishop of Glouces-

Outbreak of Ecumenism

|

ter, who would find himself in the thick of Anglican-Orthodox discussions during the next two decades, taught a number of these students at Oxford. They impressed their Anglican teachers,73 and Serb prelates back home expressed genuine gratitude.74 No reports of conversions surfaced.75 | Numerous other factors—some unrelated, some incompatible — attracted Anglicans and Orthodox to reunion discussions. The fledgling League of Nations raised hopes among a number of Anglicans that a similar model could be applied to the churches.76 Fears of totalitarianism in the 1930s led some to seek reunion as a means of resistance.77 The promise of Anglican reunion with the free churches (so strong in the early 1920s but largely dead by the 1930s)78 piqued the interest of Anglicans about the question of reunion in general. Cypriot Greeks seeking reunion with Greece (Enosis) hoped that close relations with the English national church might make their cause more palatable to their British overlords.79 Anglo-Catholics found themselves drawn to the mystical elements of the Orthodox Church—the liturgy, singing, iconography, and incense. The choir from the Paris Theological Institute made a number of trips to England and sang to enraptured audiences.80 A number of Russians admired Anglican theology’s willingness to tackle social and scientific questions, concerns still largely absent from the Russian theological tradition.81 And as the Anglican Church struggled with the question of divorce at the Lambeth conferences of 1920 and 1930, a few Anglicans looked to Orthodoxy and its more permissive (at least in their view) approach to the problem.82 As the Anglican Church sought to define its relationship to its state, a few Anglicans looked to the Orthodox Church and its attempt in 1917 to free itself from state control. During the 1920s in particular, the question of establishment—should the Church of England remain a church of the state?—hung over any number of issues facing the church. Might the Russian Orthodox Church have something to teach? “If we wish to retain the proud position heretofore enjoyed of being the most liberal and enlightened Church in Christendom,” wrote one Anglican, “we must reorganize ourselves on the lines of the Orthodox Church. . . . The Orthodox Greek Church is without doubt to-day the most-practically [and] the only democratic National Church in the world.”83

41

42

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

But while some Anglicans approached the Orthodox as students, others approached Orthodoxy with a note of condescending paternalism. “The Greeks seem to realize that the eastern Church can no longer stand aloof,” said Douglas. “[I]t is now face to face with the West, ill-equipped to solve modern problems, and likely to suffer serious loss from Western propaganda, both Roman and Protestant, unless it can adapt itself to modern needs, and train its clergy to deal with modern difficulties.”84 The implication, of course, was that the Anglican Church was there to help. Many Russian émigrés hoped that by maintaining ties with the English national church they might better persuade the British government to drive the Bolsheviks from power and restore their patriarch and synod. The British foreign secretary, Lord Curzon, threatened war should the Bolsheviks harm Patriarch Tikhon. Such threats played to Russian hopes.85 On May 31, 1922, Archbishop Davidson joined leaders of the Church of Scotland and other British churches in writing a letter of protest to Lenin against the treatment of Tikhon. The letter read in part, “The public mind and conscience of Christendom, and indeed of the whole civilized world, cannot tolerate silently so great a wrong.”86 But despite his protests, Archbishop Davidson proved unable to wield any significant influence on British foreign policy toward the Soviets. During the 1920s émigré newspapers watched in dismay as Lloyd George and August Briand— despite public reassurances to the émigrés— moved toward recognizing the Soviets.87 Davidson, meanwhile, reassured Russian clergy that he was doing everything in his power to help.88 Russian émigrés battling the Soviet state and each other for control of Russian Orthodox sites in Jerusalem had good reason to cultivate ties to the British state. When Britain gained control of Jerusalem and Palestine after the war, it established the Palestine Mandate, a body that found itself in the unenviable position of refereeing competing claims to some 150 hectares of land formerly owned by the Imperial Russian Orthodox Palestine Society, land to which the Soviet government and two different émigré Orthodox bodies lay claim.89 The Greek church hoped that contacts with the Church of England would aid the Greek cause against Turkey, a region relatively tolerant of Orthodox Greeks when it was part of the Ottoman Empire but now becoming openly hostile as secularists assumed power and worked to

Outbreak of Ecumenism

|

erect a nonreligious state amid the debris of the Ottoman Empire’s collapse. In 1922 the patriarch of Serbia wrote to the archbishop of Canterbury stressing the need for Anglicans to lobby Parliament and other government agencies on behalf of Christians in Asia Minor.90 Many Greeks believed that the archbishop of Canterbury could exert influence on the British government. Such hopes caused political and spiritual goals to bleed into each other. A member of the Orthodox delegation to the 1920 Lambeth conference reportedly remarked, “If England could get St. Sophia for us, we would gladly acknowledge any orders and agree to almost any doctrine.”91 Some Anglicans rightly suspected the motives of Greek prelates who approached their Anglican counterparts.92 Politics clearly constituted a driving force. G. K. A. Bell, chaplain to the archbishop of Canterbury, portrayed the Turkish-Greek question as seminal in promoting Greek-Anglican relations: “The long-drawn-out process of negotiating peace between the Turks in the five years which followed the War . . . made the whole difference to the strengthening of the links between the Eastern and Anglican Churches.”93 As early as 1914 Dorotheos, the locum tenens of the ecumenical patriarchate, pleaded for Archbishop Davidson’s help in dislodging the sultan from Constantinople. In 1921 Dorotheos again traveled to London to meet with Davidson and King George. Davidson corresponded with the patriarch and worked diligently to influence British public opinion and British negotiators at the conference of Lausanne (called to discuss Greco-Turkish relations) on behalf of the ecumenical patriarchate.94 Turkey’s deportation of Armenians during the Great War,95 and subsequent Turkish atrocities in Smyrna (Ismir),96 horrified the British public. Bishop Gore, de facto intellectual leader of the Anglo-Catholics, felt compelled when meeting Metropolitan Germanos in 1922 to express his embarrassment that the “Powers of Europe in the hour of victory were content to sit by and watch the tragedy of massacres of Christian peoples.”97 Following the massacre at Smyrna, an anonymous correspondent for the Church Times expressed shame at being British: “It makes you squirm to hear eyewitnesses tell of our bluejackets standing on the quay with fixed bayonets, under orders not to interfere, while Turkish soldiers walked round them shooting people in the water.”98 Anti-Turkish sentiment filled the Anglican press. The Christian East

43

44

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

complained, “The streets and cafés [of Serbia] are besmirched by the red fez, so hateful to the Englishman sickened with the massacres of Christians in these late years.”99 The Churchman celebrated General Allenby’s seizure of Jerusalem: it “brings peace nearer among the nations now at war, and fulfills the predictions of Holy Scripture.”100 And the archbishop of Melbourne wrote, “In the Holy Land the rule of the hated Turk has been replaced by the power of England. A great and joyous welcome arose from every section of the people.”101 The ECU was militant for the Greek cause. “Let the Turks govern themselves,” thundered the bishop of Oxford at a 1919 ECU meeting, “but they shall not govern Christendom any more.”102 The Anglo-Catholic Church Times declared, “As a race the Turks are not so much uncivilized as incapable of civilization, and therefore unfit to govern other nationalities. Christian subjects under Turkish rule can by no possible means be assured of political equality of protection of life and property.” “Little by little, through a century of strife the Christian populations of Europe have been freed from the yoke of the Turk. It remains to complete the work of liberation by emancipating their kinsfolk in Asia Minor.”103 The Greek church needed all the help it could muster after the war. The new, secular Turkish government, infuriated by the anti-Turkish statements of the ecumenical patriarch, resolved to abolish the patriarchate. In 1922 the Turkish minister of justice forbade as “treason” any contacts between Orthodox communities in Turkey and the ecumenical patriarchate. And on January 4, 1923, the Turkish delegation appointed to negotiate an exchange of populations with Greece formally demanded that the ecumenical patriarch be removed from Turkey. In the meantime the Turkish government approved an attempt to organize a “Turkish Orthodox Church,” independent of and defiant toward the ecumenical patriarch in Constantinople. The parallels between the “Turkish Orthodox Church” and the “Living Church” established by the Soviets in Russia sent chills through the Russian Orthodox émigré community and the Anglicans who followed events in Russia and the Near East. The head of the Turkish Orthodox Church, Papa Efthim, seized the church of Panagia Kaphatiani in Constantinople (now Istanbul) and launched a violent campaign against the patriarchate.104 Threats issued by the Turkish authorities prompted the ecumenical patriarch to consider moving the patriarchate to Thessaloniki or Mount Athos in Greece.

Outbreak of Ecumenism

|

On July 24, 1923, the Treaty of Lausanne finally secured the future of the ecumenical patriarchate in Constantinople.105 Six months later, on December 6, 1923, Gregorios, metropolitan of Chalcedon, was elected to replace Meletios IV (see chap. 4). But the settlement settled little. The next day Papa Efthim’s followers invaded the Phanar, the region of Istanbul where the patriarchate resides, and drove out its occupants. And although Turkish police expelled Efthim and his followers two days later, calm did not follow. Constantine Araboglou succeeded Gregorios on December 17, 1924, as Constantine VI, but on January 30, 1925, Turkish police exiled him from Turkish territory, noting that he was not a native of Constantinople and thus not eligible for an exemption from the forcible exchange of Greek and Turkish populations. The Greeks were furious,106 and they found an eager ally in the archbishop of Canterbury. On January 6, 1924, Davidson sent a letter to the British Foreign Office requesting its support for the patriarchate.107 In the House of Lords Davidson declared the ecumenical patriarchate “one of the most venerable of institutions, with a range of authority and influence far outside the limits of Constantinople and whose continuity is fundamentally important to the whole Christian Church.”108 Such rhetoric did not go unnoticed by the Turkish government. A Turkish minister remarked (wrongly) in 1925 that Anglicanism appeared to be the only Christian body that showed any concern for the future of the patriarchate.109 It is difficult to overstate the impact of this crisis on the Orthodox. Turkey wanted Constantinople, the center of the Orthodox world, protected under international law by the Treaty of Paris (1856) and the Treaty of Berlin (1878), to become a secular city in a secular Turkish state. Greece viewed Constantinople as a fortress of Greek influence in the region; Turkey wanted none of it. Kemal Ataturk was determined to create a state largely free of both Muslim and Orthodox influence. Even before the proposal to abolish the patriarchate, Turkey had severed all connections with the patriarch.1 10 Much of the Christian world adopted the Constantinople patriarchate’s cause as its own. The Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik (American Orthodox Herald) begged fellow Christians to “save [the] suffering Greek church.”1 1 1 The subject filled the British popular and scholarly press. “The present position of the Œcumenical Patriarchate,” wrote the journal

45

46

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Theology, is “a matter of grave importance.”1 12 The Church Times warned about the dire consequences of Turks ruling over Greeks and predicted that the patriarchate’s downfall might result in the disintegration of the Orthodox Church.1 13 In purple prose sometimes approaching that of a tabloid, it chronicled every indignity suffered by the patriarch.1 14 The Christian East printed correspondence about Turkish atrocities,1 15 as well as sober political analysis and maudlin poetry.1 16 The Times charted developments in Lausanne closely.1 17 In England the Orthodox cause had become Christianity’s cause. | By the mid-1920s the Greek Orthodox Church and members of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad had come to view the Anglican Church as a potential political ally and an earnest and reliable source of aid. Organizations through which Anglicans approached the Orthodox, such as the YMCA and the Clergy and Church Aid Fund, demonstrated a willingness to provide assistance without the proselytization the Orthodox feared.1 18 The YMCA, thanks in large part to John Mott, became the largest publisher of Orthodox theological and spiritual literature between the wars, issuing hundreds of books by émigré theologians.1 19 Most of the works published by the faculty of the Theological Institute in Paris bore its imprint. The YMCA published the journal of the institute, Pravoslavnaia mysl’ (Orthodox Thought), and Nikolai Berdiaev’s spiritual and philosophical journal, Put’, which would became a significant forum for Orthodox discussions of ecumenism. Berdiaev organized the Free Religious and Spiritual Society in Berlin with aid from the YMCA. “This unusual relationship,” noted Paul Valliere, “was one of the reasons for the strong commitment to ecumenism among the first generation of Russian Orthodox intellectuals in exile.”120 Orthodox intellectuals who arrived in Europe after the war were eager to begin ecumenical discussions. Mott had made a favorable impression on Anton Kartashev during his visits to Russia. The sobor of 1917 had expressed official support for ecumenical activity, and Mott received personal assurances from the reconstituted Holy Synod that the Russian church would send representatives to the 1927 World Conference of Faith and Order in Lausanne.121 Some members of the 1917 sobor, such as Sergei Bulgakov, seemed to view ecumenical activity as a vindication of the sobor’s failure in the face of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Outbreak of Ecumenism

|

The war, the Bolshevik Revolution, the stream of Russian émigrés to Western Europe, British interests in the Middle East, and threats to the ecumenical patriarchate all account for the new interest among Anglicans in Orthodoxy. The Anglican Church—while suspiciously Protestant to the minds of some Orthodox—could not be classed squarely in the Protestant camp inhabited by Methodists, Congregationalists, and Baptists.122 And, unlike the majority of the English free churches, it did not proselytize. The ecumenical patriarch insisted that the Orthodox Church would consider relations only with churches whose work was not “directed at tearing the Orthodox away from their own Church.”123 The Church of England certainly qualified. But despite the general tolerance of the Anglican Church, its significant charitable efforts on behalf of Russian émigrés, and a British press full of events in Russia and the Orthodox East, large segments of the Anglican Church remained largely ignorant of and apathetic toward Orthodox theology and talk of reunion. “Eastern Christianity is something generally unknown to us in the West,” wrote one Anglican vicar in 1921. “Of the East we know so little and the voices that reach us are so discordant that we cannot determine or gauge the future.” Protestants in the Church of England, in particular Evangelicals, remained openly hostile. “Between ourselves on the one hand and the Greek and Roman Churches on the other there exists a barrier which at present seems insuperable,” wrote the Reverend St. Clair Tisdall in 1917. [The Orthodox] have adopted and added to the teachings of Christ certain dogmas which are in direct opposition to the Gospel. These they insist on our accepting; and this we cannot do, because we are entrusted with the preservation of “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” We dare not mingle with it doctrines which are distinctly of heathen origin. . . . We can only hope and pray that they may return to the Gospel and cast away the accretions which have gradually rendered such Churches in large measure hostile to the truth.124 Such thinking led Protestants in the Church of England to focus on the free churches rather than the Orthodox Church in the interwar years. As George Irwin wrote in the Churchman, “We bear in mind [that] the

47

48

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

ultimate reunion of the whole of Christendom [is at present] impracticable as regards the Roman and Eastern Communion. We are frankly more concerned to secure Home Reunion. This at least seems to be within measurable distance.”125 Anglican supporters of reunion with Orthodoxy waited to see where ecumenical discussions would lead— toward reunion with the free churches or toward reunion with the Orthodox. Would the Anglican Church choose one over the other, or could it pursue both simultaneously? And what about the Roman Catholics? The Anglo-Catholic wing of the Anglican Church insisted that talks of reunion with the Orthodox must be part of a larger, pan-Christian project that would eventually bring Anglican and Orthodox alike back into communion with Rome. But where was Rome? And why did it remain on the periphery as Anglican and Orthodox contacts proliferated during the next two decades?

3

The Roman Catholic Church

We realize that any plan of reunion which does not include the Roman Church is no plan at all. The Roman Church is, of course, the most powerful, the richest, and the most strongly organized unit of Christianity. In the face of a common danger it would seem to many the wise thing to accept the Pope of Rome as a commander-inchief, as the allied armies chose Marshal Foch during the World War. Unfortunately the difficulty here is that in the war the allies chose their commander-in-chief, he did not assume his office by seizing power. That is what the Pope of Rome has done. —Archbishop Aleksandr 1

R

ussia’s two most prominent exponents of church unity in the nineteenth century, Aleksei Khomiakov (1804–60) and Vladimir Solov’ev (1853– 1900), dreamed of the day when Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy would bridge their schism. Yet Khomiakov, until the end of his life, and Solov’ev, until the early 1880s, saw in Roman Catholicism the antithesis of everything they believed Russian Orthodoxy represented: scholasticism over simple, innate wisdom; legalism over communalism; and authoritarianism over sobornost’. Khomiakov argued that the Roman Catholic Church, by ascribing absolute authority to the bishop of Rome, shattered church unity, creating an organization based on coercive, |

49

50

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

external authority. If the pope would eschew his monarchical pretensions, turn away from cold rationalism, and place himself as an equal among the other Orthodox patriarchs (bound by the commitment to consensus on which Orthodoxy prided itself ), Roman Catholicism could return to the Orthodox fold. Reunion for both Khomiakov and Solov’ev essentially meant recantation by the pope of the papacy’s errors and a return of schismatic Westerners to the truth of Orthodoxy. In Khomiakov’s writings Roman Catholicism became a sort of shorthand for everything Orthodoxy was not and should not be. Yet he realized that it remained the most important part of the church divorced from Orthodoxy—a part necessary to make the church whole. Solov’ev shared a similar attitude until 1881, the year of Tsar Aleksandr II’s assassination. Solov’ev appealed to the new tsar, Aleksandr III, to grant clemency to his father’s assassin. The public uproar over this request blindsided Solov’ev and embittered him for the rest of his life. Angry over demands for vindication, which he viewed as little more than bloodlust, Solov’ev declared that Russia was not yet a Christian state. He retired from his teaching position and thereafter devoted himself to ecumenism, an avocation that called into question his earlier, critical stance toward the Roman Catholic Church. Travels to Croatia, his association with Bishop Strossmayer, and extended stays in Paris all strengthened his desire for reunion with Rome but caused the Orthodox hierarchy to regard him with suspicion.2 His History and Future of Theocracy advocated Orthodox–Roman Catholic ecumenism, eliciting controversy that prompted him to publish the work in Zagreb. An earlier lecture expressing sympathy with Roman Catholicism led to a falling-out with Slavophile colleagues.3 To this day Roman Catholic and Orthodox partisans each claim Solov’ev as one of their own. In 1896 Solov’ev made a profession of faith, confessed to a Roman Catholic priest, and received communion from the Roman church. Yet he could never accept the Vatican’s emphasis on obedience. And his own rather mystical philosophizing made him suspect in Roman Catholic theological circles. The pope could not accept his speculations on Sofia, the divine wisdom of God. Thus Solov’ev was caught in a sort of limbo, critical of his own Orthodox faith as practiced and interpreted in Russia, yet unable to throw his lot entirely with Roman Catholicism. In a letter to Rozanov, he wrote, “I am far removed from Latin limitations as

The Roman Catholic Church

|

I am from Byzantine limitations, or the Augsburg or Geneva ones. The religion of the Holy Ghost which I profess is wider and of a fuller content than all separate religions: it is neither the sum total nor the extract of its separate organs.”4 On his deathbed Solov’ev received Last Rites from an Orthodox priest, believing, it seems, that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy remained united in some mystical sense, despite their schism and despite his quibbles with each. In Solov’ev and Khomiakov we see the centuries-old paradox in Russian attitudes toward Rome: a deep desire for unity and an almost mystical belief that reunion is at some point inevitable, combined with a deep mistrust of the papacy and its legacy. Khomiakov remained a strident critic of the Roman Catholic Church, yet longed for reunion. Solov’ev believed that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism remained united in some ethereal sense, yet he could not articulate just exactly how this was, and he continued to identify in the Roman church the faults that Khomiakov outlined fifty years earlier. The Anglican Church of the nineteenth century likewise harbored a number of prominent theologians who sought reunion with the Roman church, particularly John Henry Newman, Edward Pusey, William G. Ward, F. W. Faber, and John Dalgairns, all participants in the Oxford movement. Newman, the movement’s most prominent figure, struggled in its early days to demonstrate that the Anglican Church—though separated from Rome—remained the Catholic church in England. But Anglican Protestant reaction to such assertions prevented the Church of England from moving as a body closer toward Rome. Rather, it pushed many of the Oxford movement’s leading advocates of reunion to break with the Church of England in favor of Rome. When Anglican bishops one after another attacked Newman’s assertion in Tract 90 (1841) that the Thirty-nine Articles were compatible with Roman Catholic dogma, Newman experienced a crisis of faith that ultimately led him to join the Roman church. Ward, Faber, and Dalgairns joined him.5 Members of the Oxford movement who remained in the Church of England (notably Edward Pusey and John Keble) turned their attention to checking the tide of liberalism in their church. Pusey continued to advocate reunion for some time after Newman’s defection. His first Eirenicon (1865) argued that only three roadblocks stood in the way of official reunion: unofficial Roman Catholic doctrines on the Virgin Mary,

51

52

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

purgatory, and indulgences. His second Eirenicon (1869) laid out objections to the immaculate conception, and his hope began to fade. Vatican actions of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century appeared calculated to frustrate those who sought reunion. The Vatican Council of 1870 concluded the long struggle between the Ultramontane and more moderate elements in the Vatican with its declaration on papal infallibility: the pope, it ruled, is infallible when he deems that any doctrine on faith and morals is part of divine revelation and the apostolic tradition. This doctrine drove a number of members from the church; they declared themselves “Old Catholics,” unwilling to accept this last escalation in, they believed, an increasingly authoritarian papacy. Papal infallibility ended once and for all Pusey’s hopes for Anglican–Roman Catholic reunion. The Vatican Council’s decision reverberated for decades, and it remained a central point of contention between the wars. During these years the Roman Catholic press in England defended the decision with gusto, attacking anyone or any institution that questioned it. The Tablet, a weekly newspaper, declared in 1925 that “the Orthodox have been in heresy as well as in schism since 1870, seeing that they reject the Infallibility of the Pope.”6 Such statements, of course, infuriated the Orthodox, as well as AngloCatholics who sought reunion with the Orthodox Church. “Does the Tablet quite realize the implications of that sentence?” responded the Church Times. If it is true that the ancient Churches of the East became heretical for the first time in the year 1870, owing to a dogma decreed in the Roman Church, it follows that the responsibility for that conversion of the Orthodox communions into heretical sects rests with the Council which, by its action, is said to have placed the Eastern Churches in this altered position. It was not the Eastern Churches which changed their Faith in 1870. They continued to teach since 1870 precisely what they taught before. . . . If one result of the Vatican dogma is to make these Orthodox Churches heretical, that result is an exceedingly cogent reason why such a dogma should not have been asserted. . . . The effect of the Vatican has been to add to the calamity of schism the still further calamity of heresy.7

The Roman Catholic Church

|

An angry Anglican vicar claimed in 1918 that until 1870, no Roman Catholic doctrine made continued separation inevitable. But the papal decrees of 1870 “effectually slammed and barred the door.”8 The Orthodox viewed the doctrine of papal infallibility as yet one more effort to gather all ecclesiastical authority in the hands of the pope. The doctrine, wrote the lawyer and émigré activist Konstantin Nikolaev, “decisively destroyed the possibility of the union of the Western and Eastern Church.”9 “Unless the supremacy of the Pope is removed,” declared the Greek theologian C. Cannellopulos, “reunion is impossible with that Church. . . . The claim of papal superiority stands as a Chinese wall, preventing any endeavour for reunion.”10 “We never wanted to break with the Archbishop or Rome,” said the ecumenical patriarch in a 1932 interview, but Rome wants “absolute power” and “absolute centralism.”1 1 Later pronouncements only built on the suspicion created by 1870. In 1894, when Leo XIII issued the encyclical Praeclara gratulationis, which called for reunion through the submission of the Orthodox churches to Roman primacy, nearly all Orthodox saw it as nothing more than the pretensions of 1870 masquerading as ecumenism.12 A second blow, this time directed at the Church of England, came in 1896, when Leo XIII issued Apostolicae curae, declaring that Anglican ordinations “conferred according to the Edwardine rite [i.e., all Anglican ordinations since the reign of Edward VI] should be considered null and void.”13 The Anglican hierarchy, said Leo, had “become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.”14 A year earlier, Leo called on English Roman Catholics to pray for the conversion of England and its return to the true church. As with the doctrine of papal infallibility, the English Roman Catholic press supported Apostolicae curae throughout the 1920s and 1930s,15 while Anglican advocates of reunion fumed: “For him—the Pope—salvation in the Unity of the Faith, means salvation in the Roman Church.”16 Apostolicae curae convinced few Anglicans that their church was in error, but it did, as we have seen, inspire in a number of Orthodox theologians a new interest in the Anglican Church. The final insult to Orthodox and Anglican reunionists came in 1928, a year after the first great ecumenical conference of theology in Lausanne. Pope Pius XI issued Mortalium animos, a sweeping condemnation of the ecumenical movement. Those who participate in such movements, Pius

53

54

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

declared, are “heretics.” Reunion will only come through the recognition of the pope in his capacity of “governor.” Roman Catholics shall not on “any terms take part in [ecumenical] assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.”17 The “union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it.”18 Anglicans, Orthodox, and Old Catholics were aghast.19 Georgii Fedotov seemed incredulous: “Only the Roman Catholic Church refuses in principle to participate in all ecumenical associations.”20 Hamilcar Alivizatos, the leading Greek theologian on the ecumenical front between the wars, responded, “Unfortunately Rome has spoken again in a negative way, and the whole world is perplexed and astonished at the negative utterances of the Papal encyclical. . . . It is astonishing how His Holiness, Pope Pius XI, following the bad tradition of his predecessors, has spoken so unseasonably, contrary to all expectations and once again in opposition to what the Christian world was looking for.”21 | Theological factors alone cannot account for suspicion of Rome. Politics played an equally important role. Orthodox fears of the Unia (or “Uniatism,” an attempt by the Roman Catholic Church to win and retain Orthodox converts by allowing them to retain the outward forms of Orthodoxy while professing allegiance to the pope and Roman Catholic doctrine)22 remained high prior to and between the world wars. Leo XIII’s Praeclara gratulationis resurrected Orthodox suspicions of the Uniat churches that had been simmering for centuries. It appealed to “all of Greek or other Oriental Rites” to convert to Roman Catholicism, assuring them, “We or any of Our Successors will [n]ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation.”23 Orthodox critics pointed out that—despite these assurances— Rome still expected full adherence to all Roman dogmas by those who joined the Unia.

The Roman Catholic Church

|

Fears of the Unia flared again with the Russo-Polish war of 1919–21. Following the Russian Army’s drubbing in 1917, Polish forces marched east into Belorussia and western Ukraine, capturing Minsk and Lviv. On May 6, 1919, Kiev, the center of ancient Orthodox Rus’, fell to Polish forces. Some four million Orthodox Russians suddenly found themselves under Polish control.24 The Poles seized Orthodox churches in captured territory, enraging Russians at home and abroad. Stories of Roman Catholic Poles desecrating Orthodox churches were rampant, escalating fears of Uniat incursions. Pius XI could not have picked a worse time than 1923 to issue Ecclesiam Dei, a celebration of the Uniat martyr Josaphat and a call for the return of Slavs to Rome though the Oriental rite.25 “Rome,” warned the émigré theologian Nikolai Glubokovskii, “circles like a wolf, prepared to devour its catch, perishing Orthodoxy.”26 Konstantin Nikolaev was still fuming in 1950 over these “catastrophes and persecutions” of Orthodox believers by the Roman Catholic Church.27 Friends of the Orthodox in England flooded magazines and newspapers with protests. “The Polish government is about to pull down and destroy in cold blood the Orthodox Cathedral Church in Warsaw,” warned one letter. “We should get all the facts and face them. Anglo-Catholics ought to arouse themselves from their dreams about Rome and to stop treating her as a model for doctrine, discipline, liturgy, ceremonial, and the rest.”28 After the first world war a number of conferences convened to discuss Uniat efforts in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia.29 Bulgakov, Kartashev, Berdiaev, and Florovskii—four of the most significant Russian participants in interwar ecumenical discussions—signed a telegram to a 1925 conference in Velehrad, Moravia, denouncing Uniat proselytizing among the Orthodox: “Until there arises in the bosom of Western Christendom an opposition to the excessive development of the papal power, and until the Vatican dogma of 1870 shall either be totally abrogated or effectively mitigated, all real efforts to reconcile Catholicism with Orthodoxy will meet with obstacles.”30 Russian and Greek Orthodox regularly published hysterical anti-Uniat treatises between the wars.31 Pravoslavnaia Karpatskaia Rus’ (Orthodox Carpathian Rus’) blamed Uniat churches for using “all means to smother

55

56

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

our people”32 while praising Russians in the region who helped to “save” the Orthodox from the wiles of Catholic Poles and Austrians.33 Metropolitan Antonii, leader of one of two main factions of the Russian church abroad, raged against Uniats in Yugoslavia who allegedly turned poor émigré Russians against their faith. “Our great war,” said Antonii, is to save Russians abroad from the “slavery” of Austrian and Polish Catholics.34 Antonii’s conservative supporters thanked him for protecting Orthodox émigrés from Uniat clergy who tried “with all their strength” to suppress Orthodoxy.35 Archimandrite Constantinidis of St. Sophia’s Cathedral in London wrote to the Christian East to complain about Uniat proselytizing among Greek refugees arriving from Turkey.36 The issue even surfaced on the ecumenical circuit. Nikolai Glubokovskii made a tremendous stink at the 1925 ecumenical conference in Stockholm, denouncing Catholic campaigns in Poland to convert Orthodox Slavs into Roman Catholics “or at least Uniates.”37 Fear of the Unia was not confined to radicals among the Russian émigrés. Usually moderate voices grew hostile when the issue arose. Georges Florovskii, for example, expressed utter contempt for the Unia.38 Nicolas Zernov, normally a model of restraint, complained in 1934 of “attempts by Roman Catholics to destroy Orthodoxy and force its members to renounce the faith of their Church.” A “number of signs,” he wrote, “indicate that Rome is energetically preparing for a new crusade against the Christian East.”39 The Viestnik Russkago studencheskago dvizheniia (Herald of the Russian Student Christian Movement) even found a Roman Catholic to inveigh against the Unia: anyone who really wants rapprochement, asserted the author, should “study the Orthodox religion where it is normal.”40 A church service “cannot be used as some kind of religious, psychological vivisection. . . . If one wants to seek rapprochement with Orthodoxy, one should not degrade Orthodoxy.”41 The English Roman Catholic press, meanwhile, insistently portrayed Uniatism and Catholic proselytizing as the preferred means of reuniting Orthodoxy with the Roman Catholic Church. “The fall of the Russian Empire has bereaved the separated [Orthodox] Churches of State support,” wrote the Month in 1923. “It has exposed them to the necessity of cooperating, sooner or later, with the work of Catholic missionaries.” Orthodox who join the Roman Church may retain their own rite, promised the Month, but it “is precisely in retaining their own rite that they

The Roman Catholic Church

|

will submit more entirely to the desire of the [Roman Catholic] Church and be more fully subject to her laws and to her spirit.”42 | Despite the hostility between most quarters of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, a number of Russians who would become prominent in the ecumenical movement showed real interest in cultivating relationships with Roman Catholics during their early years of exile in Paris. The so-called Berdiaev Colloquium, which began in 1926 as a forum for ecumenical conversations, included Roman Catholic and Protestant members. Roman Catholics such as Jacques Maritain, Gabriel Marcel, Charles du Bos, Lucien Laberthonnière, Père Lebreton, Etienne Gilson, and Edouard Leroy met with Orthodox such as Georges Florovskii, Sergei Bulgakov, and Vasilii Zenkovskii. The meetings continued for two years, until 1928, when Mortalium animos put an end to the Catholic members’ participation. A smaller group continued to meet at Berdiaev’s home for a year after the decree. Florovskii claimed that the new Catholic archbishop of Paris sanctioned these meetings—in spite of Mortalium animos—believing “that while the Catholics might scandalously quarrel among themselves in front of the Protestants, there would be no such quarreling in front of the Orthodox.” Florovskii, however, found these meetings frustrating and prone to factionalism (although not necessarily between Roman Catholic and Orthodox): “in the discussion there was always Berdiaev leading one group, the liberals, and Maritain and I leading another group, the conservatives.” By the mid-1930s, after “a terrible clash” between Berdiaev and Maritain, “the regular meetings ended.”43 A more formal series of meetings, conducted by the Roman Catholic cardinal Désiré Mercier, took place at Malines from 1921 to 1925 and served as the most public forum for discussions of reunion between Anglicans and Roman Catholics. Anglo-Catholics such as Lord Halifax (president of the Anglo-Catholic English Church Union) and Bishop Walter Frere and Charles Gore (both later active in the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius), joined John Robinson and Beresford Kidd (warden of Keble College, Oxford) as the Anglican representatives. All meetings except the first took place with the tacit approval of the pope and the archbishop of Canterbury.44 The participants reached agreement on a number of theological points. In any scheme of reunion, they resolved, the pope would enjoy

57

58

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

primacy of honor among the world patriarchs,45 the Anglican Church would be recognized “as a body linked with the Papal See,” and Anglican clergy could continue to marry. The participants agreed that during the eucharist the body and the blood of Christ are received in a “mystical manner,” that episcopacy is established by divine law, and that communion in “both kinds” is a matter of discipline but not of dogma. In the end, however, the conversations led to naught and created more problems than they solved. Mercier did not see any possibility of recognizing Anglican ordinations without requiring some form of supplementary ordination. Protestants and Evangelicals in the Church of England were suspicious of the meetings from the start, especially of the role played by Lord Halifax, whom they regarded with some distrust.46 The Churchman complained in 1924, “Lord Halifax and his friends had not the confidence of their Church and they only represented a party. . . . One must not believe that the opinions of Lord Halifax represent those of the majority of the Church of England.”47 Another Protestant Anglican observer insisted that Anglicans who participated in these conversations were not representative of the Church of England and had no authority to act in the church’s name. Recognizing the papacy as a “Primacy of Responsibility” amounted to Ultramontanism. “It is the Pope’s bull of condemnation,” he concluded, “that has saved us from the indignity of further Malines conversations.”48 Such criticism prompted a good deal of backpedaling after the Malines conversations collapsed. The report of the Lambeth conference of 1930, for example, asserted that the conversations were never “negotiations.” And the archbishop of Canterbury insisted that Anglicans who participated were “in no sense delegates or representatives of the Church as a whole.” Cardinal Mercier made it equally plain that the Roman Catholics had “no mandate such as negotiations would require.” Indeed, Archbishop Davidson never felt completely comfortable with the conversations. He warned Halifax against minimizing the importance of the Thirty-nine Articles and felt it necessary to write to Cardinal Mercier that Halifax represented nobody’s opinion but his own.49 The Malines documents on the position of the pope and the Anglican Church’s relation to the Holy See “filled the Archbishop of Canterbury with alarm,” reported his secretary.50 Rumors surrounding the conversations prompted many Anglicans to push for the publication of tran-

The Roman Catholic Church

|

scripts, a demand Archbishop Davidson resisted. At the Convocation of Canterbury in 1924 he insisted that the conversations were “private.” “We are not even, so far as I can see,” he said, “within measurable distance of . . . negotiations. There is therefore nothing to publish.” Davidson, clearly on the defensive, sighed, “As soon as I made public the fact that these informal conversations had been held, the statement was twisted or exaggerated into an announcement that secret negotiations were in progress under the Archbishop of Canterbury’s leadership for the reunion of the Church of England with the Church of Rome.”51 Malines, in other words, did little but inflame suspicion within the Anglican Church toward the Roman Catholic Church. | Solov’ev’s simultaneous suspicion of Rome and desire for reunion with Roman Catholicism was much in evidence among two Russian émigrés, Metropolitan Evlogii and Sergei Bulgakov, Solov’ev’s philosophical and spiritual disciple. Bulgakov repeatedly insisted that any reunion of Christendom that excluded the Roman Catholic Church would not be true reunion. While living in Paris and teaching at St. Sergius, Bulgakov cultivated relationships with a number of Roman Catholics, especially in his early years when he joined Florovskii in Berdiaev’s colloquia. He admired the conversations at Malines and seemed to hope they would bear fruit.52 He was deeply disappointed when the Vatican called a halt to Mercier’s project: “It is beyond doubt that the rapprochement of the Christian world which has begun, will be one-sided and incomplete so long as Roman Catholics hold aloof. . . . [S]uch exclusiveness bears most heavily, and with all its weight, on Roman Catholics themselves, who are placed in a position of unnecessary isolation, and prejudicial to Christian activity.”53 Mortalium animos hardened Bulgakov’s attitude toward Rome. The Roman Catholic Church, he concluded, “is above all a juridical-church organization of hierarchical power, having its central focus [sredotochie] in the Pope, and unity in love only in second place.”54 By 1933 Bulgakov’s distrust of Roman Catholicism had peaked: “Every Reunion in the Roman Church can only be interpreted dogmatically as an absorption through submission to Papal authority. From the Orthodox and generally speaking the non–Roman Catholic point of view, however, such a conception does not correspond to a true understanding of the Church,

59

60

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

where the hierarchy does not command, but merely gives expression to the ‘soborny’ consciousness of the Church.”55 Papal infallibility, concluded Bulgakov, encapsulated all that was wrong with Roman Catholicism. “This dogma in itself constitutes a sort of dogmatic microcosm of Roman Catholicism, a criterion for all Roman dogmatics, which attributes its own peculiar significance to any dogmatic definition. In practice, this dogma constitutes the main barrier to Reunion, for it turns Reunion into a simple absorption by the Roman Church.”56 Metropolitan Evlogii also tried to cultivate relationships with Roman Catholics early in his Parisian career, but he too became disillusioned. Evlogii heartily approved of Florovskii’s and Bulgakov’s participation in Berdiaev’s colloquia. And Evlogii himself established a number of close relationships with Catholics. He hit it off with a Jesuit priest who served as his translator on a trip to Lourdes, a trip that convinced him that France is neither a “godless” nor a “materialistic country.”57 He worked with Monseigneur d’Erbin, a Jesuit,58 to explore relations between Orthodox and Catholics in France. But of all his Catholic contacts, Evlogii most admired Cardinal Mercier, in part because of Mercier’s sympathy for the plight of Russian exiles. “He opened his Christian heart wide to poor, unhappy Russians, especially to war children,” Evlogii wrote, “[and] listened sympathetically to me as I talked about the position of the Russian Orthodox Church.”59 But Evlogii’s relations with the Catholic community soured when a French abbot published a certain “evil article”60 accusing Evlogii of conspiring with the French police to convert Uniats to Orthodoxy, a charge to which Evlogii was particularly sensitive.61 (Evlogii’s interest in drawing Old Catholics to Orthodoxy could not have helped matters.)62 After that article, wrote Evlogii, “my name in Catholic circles in Paris became odious,” and he declined subsequent invitations to meet with Catholic hierarchs.63 Evlogii grew concerned about proselytization by French Catholics among his émigré Orthodox flock. Proselytization, he complained, “does not square with the spirit of Christian teaching.”64 (Fears of proselytization were not, of course, as strong among Orthodox living in England, but they did exist. Imagine, for example, the reaction of a Russian student studying in England upon opening the pages of the Dublin Review —a

The Roman Catholic Church

|

Roman Catholic periodical published in London—to read that “it is permissible to go on hoping that the Church of Russia may some day rise from the dead, and, reunited to the Apostolic See, achieve in some measure her glorious vocation of christianizing the world.”)65 Evlogii blamed the “imperialism” of the pope and his imperious cardinals for tense relations between Catholics and Orthodox in France. Cardinal Verde even forbade Catholics from visiting Orthodox cathedrals, Evlogii complained. “How far these relations are from ideal intercourse in the Church in love and freedom.”66 Nicolas Zernov never entirely despaired of reunion between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.67 At times he seemed to promote links between the two as a sort of united front against the mass of Protestants that dominated the major ecumenical conferences between the wars.68 Still, Zernov remained critical of the Roman Catholic Church throughout his life. He wrote in Sunset Years, “[The] ordered and consistent structure of the Church of Rome turns out to be an obstacle to liturgical communion between East and West.”69 He argued further that it negated the value of local churches, and it identified the decisions of the papal throne with the voice of the universal church. Zernov never forgave Roman Catholicism its declarations on the immaculate conception (1854), papal infallibility (1870), and the bodily assumption of the Mother of God (1950). He would praise later Roman Catholic ecumenical efforts such as the journal Irenikon but insist that “these individual expressions of good will could not alter the official policy of the Roman Church.”70 Of all the Russian émigrés involved in ecumenical discussions between the wars, Nikolai Glubokovskii took the strongest position against Roman Catholicism. Orthodox Russia will not forgive the Papacy the moral support afforded by it to atheistic and antichristian Bolshevism and, since Rome is displaying a far from laudable activity in proselytizing its flock, it is by no means inclined to enter into conversations with it. Further in the East the Vatican is fussily devoting itself to the overthrow of Orthodoxy. . . . In the present case the Roman Catholic may see a brother in the Orthodox, but the Orthodox see in the Roman Catholic a triumphant destroyer.7 1

61

62

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Such diatribes, of course, would seem silly in light of statements Pius XI issued against the Soviet regime later in the 1920s (see chap. 15) and the food aid the Roman Catholic Church sent to Russia in the early 1920s. They also ignored the imprisonment and execution of Roman Catholic clergy in Russia.72 But Glubokovskii would not be deterred. Roman Catholicism, he preached, seeks universal authority, both political and religious, making reunion impossible: “The formidable fact is that, usurping the divine authority over the whole Church, the Pope put himself on a level with the Holy Trinity and above the Œcumenical Councils. . . . That hierarchic self-exaltation cut the Papacy away from the whole Christian East and has become an impassable barrier of division between them.”73 In his paper at the Stockholm conference in 1925, Glubokovskii vented shamelessly: “Proselytism of a purely pharisaical type has become a kind of disease of the new Romanism, and the conversion of the whole universe to the foot of the Roman Chair has become the bright vision and the sweet dream of the contemporary papacy.” Roman designs on Orthodoxy recalled the action of a “rich and cunning landlord, who strives to get as much as possible of the goods of his sick and disheartened neighbour into his own hands, availing himself of every opportunity and of every possibility.” “I say this with great sorrow,” he continued, “but the facts cry out.” Glubokovskii attacked both Rome and Soviet Russia, concocting a grand conspiracy that wove together the two objects of his hatred into a single, evil force. He suggested “some mysterious bond” between the Roman Catholic Church and the atheist Bolsheviks. Papal policy, he insisted, is “penetrated with Soviet sympathies.”74 Such misleading hysteria was also common in the official pronouncements of the Russian Orthodox Church based in Serbia75 (and, to a lesser extent, among émigrés in Western Europe).76 The official organ of the Karlovatskii Synod erroneously claimed that the Roman Catholic Church remained silent when the Bolshevik regime “executed tens of innocent Russian bishops and hundreds of priests, monks, and nuns of the Orthodox Russian Church.”77 A few Orthodox and Anglicans went so far as to promote AngloOrthodox reunion as a means of protecting each other from the wiles of Rome. Andrei Karpov wrote with Anglicans in mind when he portrayed

The Roman Catholic Church

|

the Vatican as trying to unify Christian practice under its thumb. Unlike the Roman church, he promised, Orthodoxy “does not seek the destruction of Anglicanism.” It does not try to “engulf ” other confessions.78 Nikolai Arsen’ev wrote in a similar vein. Noting the still-significant influence of the Oxford movement in the Church of England and the return of Catholic-minded Anglicans to the “apostolic and ancient-church fullness of Christian experience,” Arsen’ev saw both an opportunity and a danger. If the Orthodox Church does not take the initiative in promoting Anglo-Orthodox rapprochement, he warned, Anglicans might join Rome. Thus Orthodox are obliged to take the initiative in helping Anglicans accomplish the “recatholization” (rekatholizatsiia) of their church.79 Among Anglicans, Athelstan Riley also argued for reunion as a form of common defense against Rome. Quoting Archbishop Benson’s overtures to the Russian Holy Synod in 1888, Riley urged Anglicans and Orthodox to “guard [their] independence against that papal aggressiveness which claims to subordinate all the Churches of Christ to the See of Rome.”80 Orthodox hierarchs did issue occasional statements between the wars that appeared somewhat conciliatory toward the Roman Catholic Church. But they were hardly issued in good faith. In 1931, for example, the ecumenical patriarch, Photios II, assured an interviewer that the Orthodox would be willing to participate in an ecumenical council called by the pope. But only if the pope would “submit for discussion and ratification” all Roman Catholic dogma created since the schism.81 Likewise, Metropolitan Antonii, while visiting England in 1923, promised that the Orthodox would recognize papal primacy as long as the Roman Catholic Church discarded its false dogmas and the “absolutely absurd teaching about the infallibility of the papacy.”82 Both Antonii and Photios knew full well that such overtures would only antagonize the Vatican. The Orthodox Church back in Russia, of course, had no hope for any contact with the Vatican. Soviet antipathy to Rome at least equaled and perhaps rivaled that of the Orthodox émigrés. Pope Pius XI did not help matters when on December 18, 1924, he called for “all those who believe in the sanctity of the family and in human dignity” to “unite and avert from themselves and their fellows the grave dangers and inevitable injuries of socialism and communism.”83

63

64

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Under Russia’s guidance the Communist Internationale became strongly anti-Catholic during the 1930s (due in part to Spanish Fascism’s links to the Roman Catholic Church). Pius XI’s letter of February 8, 1930, to Cardinal Pompili, protested the “horrible and sacrilegious outrages perpetrated in Russia,”84 prompting a humiliating and undoubtedly forced statement from the Moscow patriarch, Sergei, who insisted that Soviet Russia remained free from persecution (see chap. 15). The Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate) attacked Catholicism energetically during World War II, although its criticisms remained largely theological rather than political. An article by I. G. Aivazov was typical: “Given the Papacy’s obvious and conscious violation of and departure from Christian dogma and the basis of church organization . . . it is impossible to talk about unity between the churches of the East and the West.”85 Soviet anti-Catholic propaganda reached ridiculous heights between the wars. Nikolai Bukharin, one of the Soviet Union’s most gifted and entertaining propagandists, compared Roman cardinals to Georgian counterfeiters (while likening Anglican bishops to “American moneybags”). Pope Pius XI, wrote Bukharin, is “a sanctimonious liar, shot through with hypocrisy from the top of his head to the tips of his toes,” who “sheds crocodile tears over the non-existent atrocities in ‘Russia,’ while every stone of the Roman pavements, the fields and the cities of France, Spain, Italy, Germany and a series of other places are saturated with the blood that was shed by the popes, blackened by the smoke of the pyres and submerged in the moral stupor created by the poisonous vapors of the Catholic Church!”86 | While the Soviets attacked Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, while Orthodox émigrés and Anglicans assured one another about the impossibility of rapprochement with the Vatican, and while the Vatican explained that reunion could only come through submission to papal authority, the Roman Catholic press—especially in England—adopted a curious interest in discussions about Anglican-Orthodox reunion. An entire genre of anti-unity literature blossomed in the interwar Catholic press, aimed at demonstrating why Anglicans and Orthodox could never unite. Some such articles were nothing more than puckish exercises, poking fun at Orthodoxy’s claim to be the one true church. Count Bennig-

The Roman Catholic Church

|

sen, an Orthodox convert to Roman Catholicism, noted with delight in Blackfriars (a monthly English Roman Catholic magazine) that any agreement between Anglicans and Orthodox would “tacitly imply that the Orthodox have abandoned their belief that they consider their Church the only one true Church founded by Jesus Christ on earth.”87 Other articles reflected fears that Anglo-Orthodox rapprochement might lend credence to Anglican claims of legitimacy. In 1932, for example, the journal of the Pontifical University (a seat of Jesuit scholarship) offered a fifty-page treatise on the 1930–31 Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission (see chap. 11). Any Orthodox recognition of Anglican orders would “undoubtedly strengthen the faith of many conscientious Anglicans who wish to believe, yet sometimes have doubts, that their church is the church of Christ.”88 In 1922 Père Michel d’Herbigny, director of the Pontificio Instituto Orientale in Rome, published a book extremely critical of AnglicanOrthodox friendship,89 portraying rapprochement between the two confessions as little more than politics, the result of British foreign intrigue, and Prime Minister Venizelos’s political maneuvering in Greece (see chap. 4). Despite public overtures of friendship, d’Herbigny argued, the Orthodox harbored a condescending attitude toward the Anglican Church, viewing it as a Protestant sect. Talks between Orthodox and Anglicans were doomed: each could end its isolation only through a return to the Vatican.90 D’Herbigny’s hope that the Russian revolution might prompt the Russian church to return to Rome infuriated Russian émigrés, who worried about the future of their church.91 The English Jesuit journal, the Month, adopted a more moderate tone. It praised Anglo-Catholics for their interest in reunion. The Roman Catholic Church, it reported, “welcomes the growing appreciation amongst those outside her pale, of the necessity of that unity in Christendom which has been so blindly rejected by schism and heresy.” But it also reminded its readers that unity could occur only through the “common and assured possession of revealed Truth,” an assurance available only in the “Living Voice of Infallible Authority,” namely, the Roman Catholic Church. Hence the “projected union between Anglican and Orthodox [was] inevitably foredoomed to failure.”92 The avidity with which the English Catholic press sought to demonstrate the impossibility of Anglican-Orthodox reunion suggests a certain

65

66

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

fear on the part of Roman Catholics in England of finding themselves excluded from an alliance of their two major opponents.93 The Catholic press jumped on every opportunity to demonstrate a Protestant bent in Anglicanism (a sure way to make the Orthodox nervous), the weak position of the Anglo-Catholic party in the Church of England (to prove that the Orthodox were negotiating with a minority faction), and general discord within the Anglican Church.94 The Tablet characterized Anglican bishops as “torn between the parties in their Church, abused by both sides whatever they do, anxious to keep the plant of the establishment together at all costs”; thus they “carry on their pitiful policy of compromise, [and] avoid making any kind of decision as long as they can.”95 Adrian Fortescue, who became the standard-bearer of the antireunion genre in the English Catholic press, reminded readers that the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church made competing claims to be the only true church of Christ. “They and we agree that the Church of Christ is essentially one visibly united communion. They think it is theirs; we, that it is ours.”96 Fortescue’s articles became regular features of the Tablet and the Month. At times they presumed to clarify Orthodox teaching for the Orthodox. In the Month, for example, he reminded those Orthodox gallivanting with Anglicans about ancient canonical rulings regarding fraternization with heretics.97 Worried that Orthodox churches might recognize Anglican orders through the principle of economy, Fortescue attacked the principle itself as wrong.98 Editorials in the Tablet (which Fortescue may have written) pounced on Orthodox prelates who found anything good to say about Anglicanism. Upset over a Serbian priest’s suggestion that the Church of England might not, after all, be a heretical body, the Tablet fumed that the priest “flatly denies” the teaching of his own church. “The Orthodox Church teaches without any ambiguity that she, and she alone, is the whole and only true Church of Christ. Everyone not in communion with her is a schismatic and no member of the true Church; everyone who differs from her teaching is a heretic.”99 In the early 1920s Fortescue aimed many of his pessimistic assessments about Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement at John Douglas, an Anglo-Catholic to the core who nevertheless held little hope for reunion with Rome.100 In the 1920s Douglas embarked on a crusade to persuade

The Roman Catholic Church

|

patriarchs and prelates throughout the Orthodox world that they could— without any insult to Orthodox doctrine—accept Anglican orders as valid. Fortescue’s long (and learned) chronicles of failed Anglican attempts to approach the Orthodox, lists of Orthodox condemnations of the Anglican Church, and reminders of Orthodox claims to be the only true church of Christ irritated poor Douglas to no end, for they called into question his life’s work. What was Douglas to do when Fortescue cited the Russian Holy Synod’s declaration that all outside the Orthodox flock should “come back to the knowledge of truth, and may be restored to the fold of the holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and to the one Shepherd”? The Russian church, Fortescue reminded Douglas, told Palmer “plainly enough” that “Our Church is in truth the whole Orthodox Catholic Church, and she calls herself so repeatedly.” Douglas, gasped Fortescue, made the astonishing claim that Eastern Orthodox theologians were practically unanimous in justifying Anglican orders. He reminded Douglas that some Orthodox theologians argued exactly the opposite. Some indeed believed that succession may have been kept, but “there then remains the other question [of ] whether heresy has not destroyed the grace.”101 Douglas responded through editorials in the Month and, in 1921, with a long rebuttal in the Christian East. The Orthodox Church as a whole, he insisted, had never made a formal declaration on the validity of Anglican orders, nor had she formally declared Anglicans guilty of heresy. Some Orthodox theologians did express doubt, and “all require[d] assurances.” But “so far as I know,” Douglas wrote, only one Orthodox theologian (Androutsos) concluded that Anglicans “deny the Sacrament of Orders and the Eucharistic Sacrifice.” Douglas tried to minimize Androutsos’s reservations, noting the latter’s own admission that the Eastern church never issued a decision on Anglican orders. Orthodox theologians, argued Douglas, “have refrained from expressing any opinion which declared the mind of the Church in a scientific manner, and based on theological proof.” Douglas acknowledged the patriarch of Jerusalem’s claim that it is impossible for any one church to acknowledge Anglican orders, but his natural optimism remained undeterred. He did, however, concede one of Fortescue’s crucial points, namely, that the Church of England contains

67

68

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

doctrines and parties troublesome to Orthodox theologians. Androutsos was correct to note that if the “high church” faction of the Anglican Church constituted the entire church, there would be little to impede reunion. But it does not. And “until the Thirty-Nine Articles are amended and defined to be of secondary importance” and until Anglicans can provide the Orthodox with “clear and authoritative answers” to other important questions, the Orthodox Church “must maintain her aloofness.”102 Such an admission constituted a major concession to Fortescue, but subsequent debates between the two only solidified existing prejudices. By 1922 Douglas was clearly fed up with “Roman controversialists”: “Perhaps the greatest human contribution towards the growing Anglican and Orthodox rapprochement is the impression given by Dr. A. Fortescue and his collaborators that the Papalists dread nothing more than that it should be strengthened, and desire nothing more than to destroy it.”103 The English Catholic press’s critique of Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement was usually well informed and well researched but never a simply academic exercise. It revealed a deep unease about the implicit challenge that Anglican-Orthodox discussions posed to Roman Catholicism’s ecumenical claims. Catholic diatribes against Anglican-Orthodox discussions stemmed in part from the tone set by papal pronouncements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century: there was, simply, no way for a Roman Catholic in England to support Anglo-Orthodox talks of unity while remaining in good standing with the Vatican, especially after 1928’s Mortalium animos. But the zeal of these attacks suggests more than a wish to remain faithful to papal pronouncements. Since the death of Queen Mary I in 1558, the position of Catholics in England remained more or less marginal. Now, once again, English Roman Catholics found themselves excluded from an important movement in the life of English Christianity and fearful of rapprochement that would not include them. The Oxford movement had not, as they had hoped, led the Church of England back to Rome. Instead, Roman Catholics now watched in dismay as the Oxford movement’s intellectual offspring—the Anglo-Catholics— turned to Rome’s great rival, Orthodoxy. Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement agitated their historic disappointments, and it played to their fears about remaining on the periphery. Fortescue and his fellow polemicists sought to ensure that if Catholicism must remain on the sidelines, then so should Orthodoxy.

The Roman Catholic Church

|

Yet for all the venom of these attacks, they were usually quite perceptive, identifying clearly those shoals on which Anglican-Orthodox discussions would wash up repeatedly between the wars. Douglas struggled to answer Fortescue’s frequent insights about obstacles to AnglicanOrthodox rapprochement, and he conceded outright Fortescue’s observation that the Thirty-nine Articles presented a major barrier between the Church of England and the Orthodox. The very accuracy of the Catholic press’s attacks accounts in part for the indignant reaction they elicited from Anglican proponents of reunion with the Orthodox. Many Orthodox despised the scholastic tradition of Roman Catholicism, but—in this case, at least—it was difficult for their Anglican friends to dismiss its insights. | Some Russian émigrés maintained informal contacts with a few Catholics between the wars.104 And developments such as the inception of the Catholic ecumenical journal Irenikon in 1926 received applause in both Anglican and Orthodox circles. Journals like the Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia and the Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius published the occasional article by a Roman Catholic.105 But the Vatican’s unyielding stance toward the ecumenical movement, as well as the stance adopted by Roman Catholic periodicals, precluded any real hope of rapprochement. Anglo-Catholics such as Bishop Gore prayed earnestly for the reunion of the Church of England with Rome. Yet Gore remained pessimistic and at times almost defiant. In a speech to the English Church Union in 1919, he declared that communion with the East ought not make communion with Rome more difficult. “But if it does, all that one can say is that the arrogant policy of those who form the Papal Court must not be allowed to stand in the way of fellowship with the Churches of the East and of Russia.”106 Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England found themselves buffeted on two sides. Shaken by the hostile missives that the Tablet and the Month lobbed at their efforts to draw closer to Orthodoxy, they were reduced to frustrated and increasingly defensive responses. From the other side, their Protestant colleagues in the Church of England assailed them with almost comical assertions about the dangers of the Roman church. By 1939, for example, the Churchman was publishing treatises on similarities between cannibal feasts and the Roman Catholic Mass.107

69

70

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Protestants in the Church of England knew little about Orthodoxy. But, in their ignorance, they were inclined to believe that it could not possibly be as threatening as Roman Catholicism.108 Between the wars, then, Rome stood alone, distrustful of and distrusted by Orthodox and Anglican alike. The patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were certainly less contemptuous of the Anglican Church. But where, exactly, did they stand? Douglas and his fellow Anglo-Catholics were determined to find out.

4

False Starts

I can say that one of the most important events of the century at the beginning of which we find ourselves is just the work of the union of both Churches, the Holy Anglican and the Greek Orthodox. We can really congratulate ourselves that this question has arisen in our days in a more vivid manner. Let us hope that through our efforts it may in our days come to a happy issue. —Archbishop Meletios 1

In the early 1920s Anglo-Catholic advocates of reunion such as John Douglas—the crusading, grecophilic vicar of St. Luke’s in Camberwell (when not off trotting around the Balkans)—worked in the confidence that they would witness the reunion of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches within their lifetimes. To promote and chronicle this endeavor, in 1920 Douglas founded the Christian East, a journal mostly sober and didactic, occasionally preening and bombastic, but always sure of its mission: the ultimate reunion of Anglicans and Orthodox. The third issue in 1920 proudly printed a congratulatory letter from Meletios, archbishop of Athens, endorsing the journal’s conviction that the union of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches might soon be a reality.2 Hamilcar Alivizatos, a theology professor at the University of Athens and recently back from meetings with Anglicans in New York, Oxford, |

71

72

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

and London, also oozed optimism. The Anglicans interpret the filioque as do the Orthodox, he announced joyfully on his return. Discussions at Oxford demonstrated “no essential difference” between Orthodox and Anglican interpretations of baptism and confirmation. And the conference in London convinced him that the Church of England makes use of icons “on the lines of the Seventh Œcumenical Synod. They deviate in nothing from this line.” The religiousness of the flock of [the Anglican Church], their perseverance and piety in prayer, the splendour of their worship, the sacred pictures and sacred feelings, the affection toward the Church and her sacred mission in society, the existence of monastic orders of both sections . . . have persuaded me that the Anglican Church stands very near, and much nearer than any other, to our own Church, and that truly no serious obstacle exists to prevent intercommunion and union between the two Churches.3 In January 1920—the year of the Christian East’s inception—the ecumenical patriarchate issued possibly the most famous encyclical from the Phanar in the twentieth century, Unto All the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Be. The encyclical constituted an ardent plea for cooperation with other confessions in the face of doctrinal differences. Such differences should not prevent “closer intercourse” or “mutual understanding.” The encyclical stopped well short of calling for any kind of formal reunion, but it proposed some specific steps toward rapprochement: serious study of doctrinal differences, formal relations between theological schools of different faiths (including student exchanges), pan-Christian conferences, and the shared use of chapels and cemeteries in foreign lands.4 Also in 1920 the ecumenical patriarchate accepted the archbishop of Canterbury’s invitation to send a delegation to the Lambeth conference. Both Constantinople and Lambeth felt a new urgency for contact after the war: the archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, had established the Church of England’s Council on Eastern Churches in 1919 to deal both with increasing demands from Orthodox churches for political assistance and with growing interest among Orthodox theologians in theological dialogue. Davidson and his advisers knew that Constan-

False Starts

|

tinople’s newfound interest in the Anglican Church stemmed from its need for allies during the fighting and negotiations with Turkey following the war. A year earlier, Dorotheos, the locum tenus of the ecumenical patriarchate, sent Davidson a letter pleading with “our sister Church in England” for help against the Turks.5 G. K. A. Bell, Davidson’s secretary, attributed Constantinople’s decision to attend the 1920 Lambeth conference to political considerations. Indeed, the Orthodox seized every opportunity to hobnob with important officials in Britain, especially the archbishop of Canterbury, who in Bell’s words was “conceived to possess a very great influence” as the leader of England’s church.6 Peace negotiations between Allies and Turks, Bell argued, “made the whole difference” in strengthening links between Orthodox and Anglicans. The ecumenical patriarchate organized a delegation of four members to attend Lambeth: Philaret Vapheidis, metropolitan of Didymoteichon; Panteleimon Komnenos, a professor of theology at Halki; and two Orthodox priests working among the Orthodox community in England, Constantine Pagonis of London and Constantine Callinicos of Manchester. Arriving in London, the Orthodox could not have known they were about to witness the most unabashedly ecumenical of all Lambeth conferences to date. The archbishop of York and his Committee on Reunion—apparently inspired by the Great Russian Orthodox sobor of 1917,7 which called for a permanent commission within the new Russian synod to coordinate relations with the Anglican Church—urged the conference to issue an encyclical addressed to “All Christian People,” which would speak of the “imperative necessity” of Christian unity.8 Most of the bishops at Lambeth jumped at the idea as articulated in the “Report on Relations to and Reunion with Episcopal Churches”: “We acknowledge all those who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and have been baptized into the name of the Holy Trinity as sharing with us membership in the Universal Church of Christ, which is his Body.”9 An air of excitement gripped the conference as it endorsed the statement.10 The time has come, said the Committee on Reunion, “for all the separated groups of Christians to agree in forgetting the things which are behind and reaching out towards the goal of a reunited catholic church.”1 1 Reunion was in the air, and the committee was determined to inhale. But how? Controversy over means to reunion preceded Lambeth’s commencement. Many Anglican bishops arrived at Lambeth on edge. Earlier that

73

74

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

year prominent Protestants and Evangelicals in the Church of England had, together with contingents from the free churches, issued the Mansfield Statement, a decidedly Protestant proposal for intercommunion with other denominations. The signatories declared themselves equally part of the “one Church of Christ” and insisted that “the efficacy of their ministrations is verified in the history of the Church.”12 The Statement called for the interchange of pulpits and “mutual admission to the Lord’s Table.” But it proved entirely alien to the Anglo-Catholic mind. Bishop Gore believed that it would “rend the Church of England in two.”13 The Church Times complained that such efforts “seem to be deliberately plunging us into anarchy” much like “Lenin has done in the Russian State.”14 The English Church Union, upset about the Statement’s implications for the status of the episcopate, condemned it.15 So did the Church Times: “We cannot admit that the Church and the sects are ‘equally as corporate groups, within the one Church of Christ.’ . . . Some have parted with the Creeds, all have lost the apostolic succession and deny its necessity. The baptism with which they are baptized is not in their view regeneration.”16 The clauses on intercommunion and the interchange of pulpits appeared to violate the spirit—if not precisely the letter—of the 1888 Lambeth Quadrilateral, which Anglo-Catholics came to the 1920 Lambeth conference prepared to defend.17 (The English Roman Catholic press watched the spat over the Mansfield Statement with gratified amusement, happily observing that a “clear parting of the ways between Catholic and Protestant is all for the good.”)18 Anglican proponents of intercommunion with the Orthodox rightly feared the impression the Mansfield Statement would make on the Orthodox. It “would be disastrous if one considers [the Statement] in connection with the problems of reunion with Rome and the East,” wrote a Serb editorialist. “[It constitutes a] serious obstacle to many who are active Eastern workers on behalf of reunion with the Anglican Church. It may darken their vision and restrain their activity.” The Statement, he complained, gave Orthodox theologians the prima facia impression that Anglicans can receive communion at the hands of nonepiscopally ordained ministers and that they regard nonepiscopal bodies as residing within the one church.19

False Starts

|

Bishop Charles Gore wrote to Archbishop Davidson in January, “I hope that Divine Providence intends the Church of England to exist over the next year or two without a schism which would separate off the Catholic section, but I dread the Lambeth Conference and its consequences.”20 Some bishops oriented themselves toward the free churches, others toward Rome and the East. The bishop of Durham demanded that the conference acknowledge the validity of Presbyterian orders and sacraments, a demand that horrified the bishop of Zanzibar, who wanted the Church of England to swing catholic and seek out like-minded confessions.21 Yet these differences did not produce the implosion that some expected, and the resolutions of Lambeth followed, for the most part, a middle path. The bishops again asserted the importance of the Lambeth Quadrilateral as a basis for unity. Visible unity, they resolved, must entail the acceptance of Scripture, the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the sacraments of baptism and communion, and “a ministry acknowledged by every part of the Church.” The episcopate, they declared, is “the one means of providing such a ministry.” It “is now and will prove to be in the future the best means for maintaining the unity and continuity of the Church.”22 Yet they were careful, as the bishop of Durham pointed out, to refrain from questioning the spiritual reality of ministries that did not possess the episcopate. These resolutions—though not as strong as some Anglo-Catholics might have wished (Lambeth’s resolutions on reunion were aimed at the free churches as well)23 —nevertheless represented a triumph of sorts for the Anglo-Catholic party, particularly given the direction reunion seemed to be heading with the Mansfield Statement. Protestant Anglicans saw a catholic drift in the resolutions. Ever vigilant against catholic encroachment, the Churchman pointed out that whereas the Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 called for an episcopate “locally adapted in the methods of administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called into the Unity of His Church” (an admittedly inclusive conception of the episcopate), the 1920 conference went further, terming the episcopate “the one” means of providing such a ministry.24 (The English Roman Catholic press pounced on this change in emphasis.)25

75

76

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Some Protestant Anglicans accepted the change warily,26 or tried to interpret the new language in a light wholly different from the AngloCatholic interpretation. The Reverend Pulvertaft, for instance, insisted that Lambeth never meant to question the validity of nonepiscopal ministries or the grace of nonepiscopal sacraments. Lambeth, he said, “casts no slur upon the validity of the Communion in these Churches.”27 The principal of Oxford’s Mansfield College seemed to agree: the Lambeth appeal “involves the recognition of other ministries than the episcopal.”28 Still, he wanted the confusion cleared up, as did the free churches and Protestant Anglicans who sought reunion with the free churches. The free churches took a wary and somewhat puzzled stance toward the Lambeth resolutions. Although hesitantly positive at first,29 they never embraced the cause of reunion as articulated in them. In The Free Churches and the Lambeth Appeal, published a year after Lambeth by the Federal Council of Free Churches, the council expressed interest in talks of reunion but suggested a path quite different from that charted by Anglicans looking East: Salvation, the Federal Council declared, “is essentially a personal relation of the soul to God. . . . The essentials of the Church are . . . in the Gospel, not in organization.”30 Lambeth confused the Council of Free Churches (much as it did the Orthodox). It proposed, for instance, that in limited circumstances Anglican ministers could receive a “form of commission or recognition” enabling them to appear in free church pulpits and that free church ministers could receive the same. Yet—while permitting limited instances of such exchanges—the resolutions actively discouraged such action. These conflicting messages clouded the issue of ordinations altogether and left the council wondering where, exactly, the Church of England stood on episcopal orders. What, after all, did “a form of commission or recognition” mean, and what did such a phrase indicate about the Anglican Church’s view of nonepiscopal ministry? Could the ambiguity be cleared up, or did Lambeth intend the ambiguity to “allow various, even contrary, constructions”? The latter “does not commend itself to us either intellectually or ethically,” the council reported.31 Shortly thereafter, the Federal Council of Free Churches met again, affirming its desire “to take advantage of every opportunity of cultivating closer relations with the Anglican Church.” Yet, in an ominous note, it warned, “Care must be taken that in any scheme of reunion we

False Starts

|

do not limit our freedom of Christian fellowship with non-episcopal Churches.”32 Other concerns soon surfaced.33 Alfred Garvie, chairman of the Congregational Union of England and Wales, found the Lambeth resolutions distasteful. Making baptism a condition of membership in the church, he noted, would exclude nonbaptized Baptists and Quakers. He worried as well about the Appeal’s understanding of the episcopate: “Unless we take a magical view of sacraments, the value of the sacrament does not depend on who administers it, but on how it is received.” And how, he wondered, “can episcopal ordination make [a minister] more a minister of Christ than he already by the grace of Christ is?” Accepting the bishops’ proposal “would be the abandonment of a principle for which, if need be, I should be ready to die.”34 In short, the free churches and their Protestant allies in the Church of England found Lambeth’s middle road veering too far to the right. Despite concerted efforts between 1923 and 1925, further negotiations between the Church of England and the free churches petered out. By 1925 hope for reunion with the free churches was largely dead.35 But while Protestant Anglicans (to say nothing of the free churches) were not satisfied with Lambeth, neither were the Anglo-Catholics. “Relieved” might best describe their mood. Before Lambeth, said the bishop of Zanzibar, Anglo-Catholics were filled with fear: “They were certain that [Lambeth] would hand over our pulpits to women; advise some measure of federation with non-episcopal communions; perhaps extend recognition to Presbyterian ministries; and approve schemes for a general intercommunion and interchange of pulpits. From all those things we are delivered. And we thank God.”36 Bishop Gore likewise breathed a sigh of relief, glad that the conference neither accepted proposals for reciprocal communion nor recognized nonconformists as “equally valid groups within the Catholic Church.”37 Though relieved, Anglo-Catholics were far from happy, and watched dispiritedly as Protestant Anglicans claimed defensive victories. The Churchman boasted that Anglo-Catholics accomplished little at Lambeth and reminded its leaders that any “attempt to undo the work of the Reformation can never be tolerated.”38 The ECU fretted that the conference botched an opportunity to demand that the Nicene Creed “be interpreted by the dogmatic decisions and the tradition of the whole Church.” Without this clause, the ECU warned, “a door is left open for the heresies

77

78

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

condemned by the Third and Fourth Oecumenical Councils and for other grave errors.” The ECU also insisted that confirmation and absolution be recognized as sacraments, and it called for tighter definitions of the sacraments of baptism and communion (since there was “nothing” in the resolutions as worded to prevent “Zwinglian errors”). Finally, it insisted that the Church of England recognize ordination as “a sacramental means of conferring the grace of Holy Orders, and not merely the appointment to a ministerial position.”39 (In reaction, the Churchman snickered, “It cannot be regretted that the E. C. U. has shown its hand so plainly, but what have Nonconformists to say to proposals of this kind?”)40 The Anglican and Eastern Churches Association, also unhappy with Lambeth, passed a resolution complaining that the conference failed to answer questions posed by Androutsos back in 1902 and that it gave more consideration to reunion as a whole than to reunion with the Eastern churches.41 The Anglican and Eastern Churches Association had good reason to be worried. For the Orthodox, the above discussions demonstrated that neither Anglo-Catholics nor Protestants held full sway in the Anglican Church. Lambeth made it clear that episcopacy was important to discussions of reunion, but, as the ECU had noted, episcopal and other sacramental questions had been either answered unsatisfactorily or left unanswered altogether. Questions about the exchange of pulpits and intercommunion—questions that would become crucial to later Orthodox-Anglican contacts—were addressed in the vaguest manner possible,42 and they led to wildly conflicting interpretations.43 So although Lambeth had announced its support of reunion, Orthodox observers (and most other observers, for that matter) found Lambeth’s terms of intercommunion nebulous. The Committee on Reunion recognized how complicated the matter had become: bend to satisfy one faction, and you risk offending another. Negotiations with one group might produce agreements that hamper negotiations with the other.44 | As Lambeth worked through these questions, the Orthodox delegation was entertained in lavish fashion,45 but its official contacts were limited to seven meetings with the Council on Eastern Churches. These meetings did little to persuade the delegation that any sort of reunion with the Anglican Church would be coming soon. Instead, the delega-

False Starts

|

tion found the variety of opinion within the Church of England rather shocking. Its final report stressed that Anglicans held an “essentially different” concept of the church that was “much wider than ours.” Members of our church, it said, must accept our entire teaching and believe in “lawfully settled ecclesiastical principles,” whereas Anglicans appear free to “differ from each other in faith” and still claim to “constitute one undivided whole.”46 While expressing gratitude for Anglican hospitality, the Orthodox delegation’s report adopted a pessimistic, critical, and sometimes didactically reproachful tone. The Orthodox Church, it informed the Anglicans, “does not accept those who do not belong to it as forming a part of the Church in the true and proper sense of the word.”47 We cannot accept the validity of Anglican baptism either “simpliciter or by ‘economy.’ ” Anglican definitions of the eucharist are vague; the Church of England must define the eucharist as “a Sacrifice and Propitiation.” The Church of England “should formulate definitely the number of the Sacraments.” The Church of England’s use of the Athanasian Creed is troublesome: “We should prefer that the Church of England . . . would limit itself to [the Nicene] Creed only.”48 The Thirty-nine Articles in particular offended the Orthodox. Their Anglican hosts offered countless explanations as to why the articles— although problematic—should pose no obstacle to reunion.49 The archbishop of Gloucester, for instance, assured the Orthodox that the Thirtynine Articles “have much less force than the Prayer-Book and the Catechism” and in “some sections of the Anglican Church they are not used at all.” “We do not ask that another Church which desires to enter into relations with us should accept them. They were written in the sixteenth century, for the confuting of heresies. Many of them are already obsolete.”50 But such explanations failed to impress the delegation,51 and succeeded only in upsetting Protestant Anglicans who got wind of the assertions.52 The delegation’s report dismissed attempts to explain away the articles’ place in Anglican doctrine with the impatient and testy suggestion, “We thought it would not be offensive to propose their general abolition.”53 (Despite this recommendation, the delegation remained pessimistic about the chance of abolishing them.)54 The delegation’s report did conclude on a positive note (“We trust that we may advance steadily towards the goal of final union”), but it offered

79

80

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

no way to proceed, proposing only that both sides trust “that the Almighty hand of God will, with time, remove the obstacles and bring to its fulfillment a work which will constitute a blessing to the Christian world.”55 The only significant outcome was an agreement to form a joint Anglican-Orthodox doctrinal commission to explore questions of doctrine in greater detail.56 But despite these setbacks, Anglican advocates of reunion with the Orthodox did not despair. Although disappointed by the delegation’s report, they took solace in the promise of a doctrinal commission. Always looking on the bright side, the Church Times noted that the Orthodox delegation raised no objections to the validity of Anglican orders.57 Still, the Church Times conceded that all was not well: “When they saw among us what they called ‘High Church’ and ‘Low Church’ they saw something that they did not understand, and asked what the Anglican Church meant by union.”58 The English Roman Catholic Press correctly argued that the Lambeth resolutions could not satisfy the catholic mind (be it Anglo-Catholic or Orthodox). Under the Lambeth statements of unity, the Tablet suggested, a clergyman might interpret baptism merely as a ceremony of initiation or as a genuine sacrament and the eucharist as either an act of remembrance or the sacramental reception of the body and blood of Christ. Hence the “whole foundation and fibre of the scheme is essentially protestant.” Its notion of the church was Protestant.59 In the Orthodox report, crowed the Tablet, there is not a trace of compromise on any point of the Orthodox faith. Indeed in some questions the Delegates seem almost unnecessarily unbending. . . . No idea of softening [the teaching of the Orthodox Church] or of meeting anyone half-way in any dogma, occurs as even possible to them. Indeed, they go further than one would have foreseen in their uncompromising requirement of everything Orthodox. They want baptism by immersion, confirmation immediately after it, no baptism by a deacon, an Epiclesis in the Eucharist. Only in one point did they show a surprising concession; they do not insist on holy oil for Confirmation. Otherwise there is nothing but the old position, to instruct and convert all

False Starts

|

who differ in anything to which their Church (the one true Church, of course, to them) is committed. . . . It is strange that people do not see that this is exactly the attitude of the Pope’s Communion also.60 Relations between Anglicans and Orthodox seemed at a standstill. And then suddenly,61 Panteleimon Komnenos, a professor of theology at the University of Athens and delegate to the Lambeth conference, published a treatise on the possibility of accepting Anglican ordinations.62 The article began with a bang, arguing that the Orthodox attitudes toward Anglican orders were “altogether unjust.”63 Komnenos argued forcefully that Anglicans had preserved the apostolic succession of ordination and hoped that such a finding would constitute a step toward the union of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches.64 To Douglas’s obvious delight, Komnenos was willing to minimize the problematic Thirty-nine Articles. Article 25, Komnenos argued, should be interpreted in light of Edward VI’s ordinal on the three grades of the priesthood “rather than independently of it.” Komnenos termed the articles “Articles of Religion and not of Faith,” which today “have chiefly an historic value.” He glossed over concerns about Anglican eucharistic theology with the glib assurance, “No one who, as have the Anglicans, has the Holy Scriptures in his hands can deny the Divine Eucharist to be a Sacrifice.”65 Yet the statement was hardly the ringing endorsement that some like Douglas desired. The Orthodox may accept Anglican ordinations, Komnenos argued, but through economy, and because the Orthodox Church had “at other times accepted the ordination of heretics.66 . . . It does not follow, of course, that the Orthodox would be justified in resorting to the Anglican clergy in order to be baptized, to be chrismated, to receive divine Communion, etc.” And Komnenos was careful to emphasize that “full dogmatic agreement and union will of necessity require time.”67 Still, unlike many others in the Orthodox world, Komnenos saw a bit of room for unilateral action to push matters forward. He advised the ecumenical patriarch that Constantinople could accept Anglican ordinations “of our own initiative and responsibility” without the immediate consent of other Orthodox churches. Little did he or Douglas suspect just how much trouble this last piece of advice would cause the ecumenical patriarch during the next two years.68

81

82

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

| In the meantime, Archbishop Davidson had asked the Eastern Churches Committee (established in 1919 as the Council on Eastern Churches to coordinate contacts and negotiations with the Orthodox) to draw up “terms of intercommunion,” or a statement of doctrine that could be used in negotiations within the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission. The Terms of Intercommunion tried to solve a number of vexing doctrinal issues through obfuscation. In retrospect, it appears that the Terms sought above all not to provide offense to anyone. On the question of the filioque, for example, they suggested that “both forms of expression may be rightly used, and that they are intended to express the same faith.” “Since the added words are used in an orthodox sense, it is lawful for any Church which has received the Creed as containing these words to continue to recite it in the Services of the Church.” On the sacraments they waffled. The number of sacraments had never been authoritatively determined by tradition, by the apostles, or by any ecumenical council. They recognized that the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist were “pre-eminent above the rest,” yet also agreed that the term “sacrament” could be applied to “other rites and ceremonies in which there is an outward and visible sign and an inward and spiritual grace.” On the eucharist the Terms noted that no ecumenical council ever touched on the manner of the presence of Christ in the elements and suggested only that the eucharist is “a divine Mystery which transcends human understanding.” The doctrine of the eucharist as taught in the liturgies of both the Anglican and Orthodox Churches was “adequate and sufficient.”69 On icons the Terms proposed that “each Church may have liberty to preserve its own distinctive customs” but warned that “the homage . . . owe[d] to God” not be “transferred to holy images nor false miracles be ascribed to them.” In short, the Terms avoided hard answers to difficult questions. The wishy-washy nature of the Terms derived from their attempt to satisfy two very different constituencies.70 Arthur Headlam, bishop of Gloucester and primary author of the Terms, recalled that he drew them up while conducting negotiations at Lambeth with Nonconformists and thus had both the Orthodox and the Nonconformists on his mind.7 1 But the Terms still managed to offend, and Headlam felt compelled even ten years later to reassure members of his church that they offered nothing inconsistent with Anglican doctrine.72

False Starts

|

Despite the glaring deficiencies in the Terms, Douglas remained committed to reunion through doctrinal agreement. In 1921 he published his own observations about doctrinal divisions and began outlining negotiating approaches and language that might be acceptable to the Orthodox.73 Nikolai Glubokovskii gave Douglas’s book a positive review, praising his efforts to understand Orthodoxy “correctly”: “[Douglas] carefully endeavours to avoid Western misunderstandings, and to initiate his readers into the real interpretation of Eastern Orthodoxy in its actual spirit and power.”74 Upset by Headlam’s earlier suggestions that the Nicene Creed alone might provide an adequate basis for Anglican-Orthodox unity,75 Glubokovskii welcomed Douglas’s call for unity through a mutually acceptable, “firm basis of dogma.” Glubokovskii and Douglas agreed that doctrinal differences within the Church of England posed impediments to doctrinal agreement between Anglicans and Orthodox (although Douglas was more confident than Glubokovskii of overcoming these differences).76 But Glubokovskii did not share Douglas’s hope that economic intercommunion might be employed as a means to move the two churches closer together.77 Private instances of intercommunion, Glubokovskii insisted, “were and always will be nothing more than exceptions which in no way create a new rule—namely, that there cannot be any Church intercommunion without a uniting of the Churches. Such cases, therefore, render this unity more distant and difficult rather than nearer and easier.”78 Despite their disagreements over methods, Glubokovskii affirmed one of Douglas’s prime beliefs—namely, that full reunion can occur only through full dogmatic agreement. Glubokovskii and Douglas shared a commitment to finding dogmatic formulas that would be acceptable to both sides and that fudged nothing. Douglas understood better than anybody the problems inherent in the “Terms of Intercommunion” formulated by the Eastern Churches Committee. Written with the free churches in mind, they fell far short of Orthodox expectations. So, in 1922, Douglas took matters into his own hands. Inspired by conversations with Professor Komnenos that he had had in 1920, Douglas—without any official authorization from Lambeth or the archbishop of Canterbury—summoned his nerve and approached the English Church Union about producing an Anglican statement of faith, which, he hoped, the Orthodox could accept.79 Such an

83

84

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

unsanctioned move, of course, was breathtaking in its audacity. But the ECU agreed, and its Theological and Liturgical Committee produced the “Declaration of Faith,” addressed to the ecumenical patriarch and translated into Greek, Russian, and other languages. The Declaration was catholic to the core. The “one saving faith” of Christ’s church was found not only in Scripture: it had been “handed on by the Holy Fathers in their writings and by the tradition” and “reaffirmed and safeguarded” by the ecumenical councils. An ecumenical council, it stated, constitutes “the supreme tribunal of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Decrees of the councils—accepted by the whole church—are “incontrovertible and binding on all Christians.” The Anglican Church has not departed in any way from the councils’ teaching. Although the number of sacraments has never been “formally fixed,” baptism, the eucharist, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and unction all serve as vehicles for God’s grace. Priests should offer the eucharist for both the living and the dead and “sacramentally absolve sinners.” During the eucharist the bread and wine become the “true Body and the true Blood” of Christ. Honor should be given to the “ever-virgin Mother of God and the Saints departed.” We should call on the saints to intercede for us. And finally, “We account the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion as a document of secondary importance concerned with local controversies of the sixteenth century, and to be interpreted in accordance with the faith of that Universal Church of which the English Church is but a part.”80 Important Anglo-Catholic figures signed the statement, including Douglas, Bishop Gore, and H. J. Fynes-Clinton. In time the Declaration garnered 3,715 signatories. The patriarch of Constantinople placed some stock in it, as did Archbishop Aleksandr in North America.81 On learning of the Declaration, the Roman Catholic Tablet could barely contain its glee over the furor it knew would soon follow in England: “We have no hesitation in prophesying that considerably more than half of the clergymen of the Establishment, and most of the Bishops, would abstain on the ground that they simply do not believe the articles of the Declaration, and they know it to be false as a description of the belief of the English Church.”82 As predicted, the Declaration lit a firestorm of protest. Bishop Henson of Durham delivered a speech in Westminster Abbey in which he decried the relegation of the Thirty-nine

False Starts

|

Articles to a place of “secondary importance.”83 He later published an attack on the Declaration, claiming that it misled the synod of Constantinople: “The whole spirit and drift of that statement are quite out of harmony with the English formularies.”84 Arthur Headlam, bishop of Gloucester and sometime friend of the Anglo-Catholics, decided that the Declaration was inconsistent with Anglican Church teaching: “It will be definitely repudiated by the vast majority of worshippers in the Church of England . . . and would make the great majority of our fellow countrymen seriously distrustful of the National Church.”85 If, Headlam continued, the Declaration is an attempt to present the Church of England “in the clothes of the Eastern Church, as one Greek friend of mine said, ‘It is worse than that sort of things our people write.’ ”86 A public action by one section of the church was “indefensible” and “not likely to create a favourable impression on the Orthodox Church.”87 Douglas's good intentions appeared to have blown up in his face.

85

5

Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics

It is regrettable and disastrous that ecclesiastical diplomats in common with other politicians should frequently bow themselves down in worship of policy rather than of principle, of expedience rather than of justice and right, in their actions and pronouncements. —Editorial, Orthodox Catholic Review 1

H

owever difficult work toward reunion seemed at times, Anglican advocates could take solace in knowing that they had a sympathetic ear in Constantinople. Meletios Metaxakis, former archbishop of Athens, cut a dynamic figure: he was a tall, “vigorous” patriarch with a strong voice, “bright eyes,” and a beard flecked with gray.2 He was no stranger to Britain, which he had visited in 1918, dining with the archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace and addressing a meeting at Westminster’s central hall. No Orthodox cleric was more eager than Meletios to embrace the Anglican Church. The story of Meletios’s assumption to the patriarchal throne in Constantinople is complex but important for understanding his relations with the Anglican Church. When Meletios assumed power the patriarchal throne had been vacant since 1918, hanging in the balance while the Orthodox world waited for a treaty between Greece and Turkey. By early 1922 no treaty had yet emerged, and Greeks in Constantinople 86

|

Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics

|

were growing increasingly impatient to fill the seat. But here Greek politics intruded. Greeks in Constantinople and Greeks in Greece agreed on the need to maintain the ecumenical patriarchate, but they divided along political lines when it came to choosing a candidate. The Greeks in Constantinople generally supported Premier Eleftherios Venizelos, the antimonarchist who assumed power in Greece after King Constantine I’s abdication in 1917. Arriving in Athens that year, Venizelos ousted most of the synod of the Greek Orthodox Church, a move that placed him at odds with the church in Greece for the rest of his life. (Support among Venizelists for administrative and liturgical reforms also hurt their cause with the more conservative bishops.) Venizelos lost and assumed power several times over the next few years, purging royalists and church hierarchs with each return.3 The Greek church (which supported King Constantine) pronounced an anathema on Venizelos when, during the war, he created a rival government in Thessaloniki.4 Meletios, however, placed himself squarely in the pro-Venizelos camp, earning the royalists’ and conservative prelates’ ire.5 Meletios’s candidacy for the patriarchal throne in Constantinople and his affiliation with Venizelos threatened the growing pretensions of the new archbishop of Athens, whose own position in the Orthodox world had begun to obscure that of the ecumenical patriarch.6 The Gournis government in Greece, worried that Meletios would win the election, sent a letter to the Phanar through the Greek high commissioner asking it to postpone the election. When the Phanar refused, Athens intimated that the metropolitans of Thrace and Macedonia would not be allowed to cross the frontier to vote.7 The election proceeded anyway, and Meletios emerged scathed but victorious. Anti-Venizelists in Athens challenged the election of their former metropolitan immediately, pointing out that seven leading bishops had withdrawn from the election at the last minute.8 The antiVenizelists supported a rival candidate, Chrysanthos of Trebizond.9 Here the Church of England enters the picture. Both Meletios and Chrysanthos visited the archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, to seek his support and endorsement of their rival candidacies.10 Meletios assured Davidson that he, as patriarch, would do everything he could to promote relations with the Anglican Church. Meletios did not explicitly mention recognizing the validity of Anglican orders, recalled Davidson, “but I understood him to imply it.” “I ought to add,” he continued,

87

88

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

“that exactly the same argument is being used by Chrysanthos of Trebizond, though he has not used it to me. . . . I discount this assurance on both sides. I think it rather significant of the sort of way in which these ecclesiastics mix up policy and principle in their declarations and procedure.”1 1 Davidson and a few other Anglicans realized the danger of supporting either Meletios or Chrysanthos,12 knowing that an endorsement would alienate either the Greek population in Constantinople or the church in Greece.13 Meletios, then, was in a bind. The Greek government would not give him passage to Constantinople, as he was not the preferred Greek candidate. The Turks refused his entry as well, not wanting any patriarch in Constantinople. Meletios petitioned Lloyd George for assistance but to no avail.14 Davidson refused to intervene. So, without the support of the British government or the Church of England, Meletios accepted a lift from a French gunboat, which on February 10, 1922, sailed up the Golden Horn and into Constantinople’s harbor. The crowds that greeted Meletios in Constantinople were ecstatic.15 He was crowned Meletios IV, the most ecumenical, vigorous, and controversial ecumenical patriarch of the twentieth century. Meletios’s frustrations in Britain did not deter his attempts to draw closer to the Church of England. In fact, they seem to have made him more determined to cultivate ties. His major move came on July 22, 1922, when he and his synod in Constantinople issued a declaration on the validity of Anglican orders. Six days later he addressed a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, informing him of the decision.16 A combination of factors explains this move, which at the time was considered momentous by Anglican advocates of reunion. Genuine ecumenical concern certainly played a role: Meletios was committed to the reunion of Christendom and truly believed in the importance of a united church of Christ. He had read Komnenos’s article and found it compelling.17 (According to Douglas, Komnenos urged Meletios to issue the statement on ordinations.)18 G. K. A. Bell, Davidson’s secretary, believed that Douglas’s controversial Declaration earlier that year had assuaged Meletios’s concerns about Anglican Church doctrine.19 (It is unclear how much knowledge Meletios had of the uproar Douglas’s statement caused back in England.) Meletios also felt a strong need to ingratiate himself with the Anglican Church, to enhance his position in relation to Chrysanthos

Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics

|

and the royalists,20 as well as (he hoped) to stay in the British government’s good graces in the face of the Turkish threat.21 (The Treaty of Lausanne guaranteeing the security of the ecumenical patriarch would not be signed until 1923.) Douglas was thrilled by Meletios’s recognition of Anglican orders. It represented a major departure from the attitudes of some of Meletios’s predecessors.22 Equally exciting was Meletios’s portrayal of the decision as a first step toward further achievements, or, in his words, “profitable in regard to the whole question of union.”23 Indeed, most Orthodox believed that the recognition of a given confession’s orders was a necessary first condition for further efforts to achieve reunion.24 Yet Douglas’s excitement was tempered from the outset by concern that the ecumenical patriarch’s unilateral move could cause division in the Orthodox world,25 despite Meletios’s insistence that this move required approval from the other Orthodox churches.26 The Anglican chaplain in Constantinople had warned a year earlier that—given the bitter contest for the patriarchal throne—the church of Athens would likely disavow any action toward reunion by a new patriarch and his synod. His worries proved prescient.27 In the eight years following the recognition, only two of the ten autocephalous Orthodox churches endorsed it, convinced that Meletios had erred in not consulting them before his decision. Most autocephalous churches failed to respond to Meletios’s letter at all. The Romanian church waited two years to reply: on January 10, 1925, Patriarch Miron Christea wrote to Constantinople to report that his synod could not agree with the recognition until the Anglican Church proved that it viewed the church as a visible society and that the Anglican conception of a sacrament was equivalent to the Orthodox conception of the sacrament as a mysterion.28 Metropolitan Photios of Alexandria—a dyed-in-the-wool royalist and rabid anti-Venizelist— consistently opposed Meletios and refused to endorse his decision on Anglican orders. Photios regarded Meletios’s election in 1921 as invalid and thus insisted Meletios’s “private opinions” did not represent the Orthodox Church as a whole.29 The Serbs and the Bulgarians, to nobody’s surprise, refused to take any action without Russia (see chap. 15); Douglas attributed Serbia’s refusal to lobbying by Metropolitan Antonii, whose Karlovatskii Synod (a conservative branch of the Russian church in exile that frequently feuded with Russian émigrés in Western Europe; see

89

90

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

chap. 15) resided in Serbia and who was set on removing Meletios from Constantinople.30 Émigré Russians in Paris (of whom there were still only a few) uttered nary a peep about the announcement. Conservative Russian Orthodox, especially those in the Karlovatskii Synod, opposed the move and would later cite it as one of the many reasons they would never place themselves under the ecumenical patriarch. The fierce reaction by the Karlovchane followed a dustup with Meletios earlier that year when he recognized the Soviet-supported Living Church in Russia, alienating himself from nearly all émigré Orthodox Russians.31 Even the metropolitan of Athens—no great friend of the Russians in emigration—condemned the Living Church32 and publicly expressed sympathy for Antonii’s condemnation.33 But what really set Meletios against the Karlovchane and a number of autocephalous churches were reforms implemented at a pan-Orthodox congress he convened the next year, 1923. Some history is in order here, not because the Anglican Church had any real interest in certain reforms such as changes to the Orthodox Church calendar (although the few Anglicans who followed the issue supported the change), but because the reform ultimately undermined Meletios’s standing in the Orthodox world and thus throttled his ability to move Orthodoxy as a whole closer to the Church of England. Meletios’s recognition of Anglican orders came to be seen as part of a package of “un-soborny,” or noncollegial action, and a dangerous flirtation with westernization and modernism. The two actions—the recognition of Anglican orders and the reform of the Orthodox calendar—seemed to conservative Orthodox clerics and theologians two sides of a counterfeit coin. Meletios convened the pan-Orthodox conference with the aim of changing the Orthodox (Julian) calendar to conform to the Gregorian calendar used in the West. The conference also took up the contentious question of second marriages for widowed priests.34 Representatives from only five of the nine autocephalous Orthodox churches attended— Constantinople, Cyprus, Greece, Serbia, and Romania—immediately opening the congress to charges of unrepresentative decision making. Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Russia did not send representatives. Aleksandr, the Russian bishop of North America, attended without authorization from the Russian church; Antonii refused to represent the Karlovatskii Synod, which pulled its representative soon after the con-

Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics

|

gress’s inception.35 (Antonii’s biographer and disciple, Nikon, credits Antonii with persuading “several” of the other Orthodox churches not to attend.)36 Bulgaria, in schism with Constantinople over whether it constituted an autocephalous church, also failed to attend. When the congress agreed (without Serbia’s consent) to replace the old Julian calendar with the new calendar, it emphasized that its decision would be valid only if those churches that did not send representatives to the congress were to adopt it. Such assurances, however, did little to assuage the anger of the absent churches. Jerusalem,37 Antioch,38 and Alexandria refused outright to accept the reformed calendar. Patriarch Photius of Alexandria declared that the calendar had the “smell of heresy and schism” and alleged that Anglicans inspired it.39 Patriarch Gregory IV of Antioch characterized the calendar reform as “pointless, uncanonical and harmful” and conveyed Photius’s condemnation to Antonii,40 whose Karlovchane adhered rigidly to the old calendar, as did the Serbs.41 Despite the official affirmation of the Greek church, a number of Greeks joined the Karlovchane in portraying the calendar reform as Meletios’s attempt to move their church—the one, true church, untainted by Western errors—closer to the heretical West.42 Some opposition to the reform stemmed from popular superstitions about tampering with days dedicated to the saints.43 (Romania witnessed riots when in 1929 its synod eventually adopted a new means of determining the date for Easter.)44 And a number of opponents resisted any sort of change in principle as incompatible with Orthodoxy’s emphasis on tradition.45 But the most common complaint centered on the perceived attempt by one church—Constantinople—to make substantive changes without the participation of others. “What right,” wrote the metropolitan of Kassandria, “does that upstart [Meletios] have to create a pan-Orthodox congress without consulting the metropolitans of the ecumenical Throne?” “What law or canon gives the representative of one local church the right to change the decisions of all the Eastern Patriarchs . . . ?”46 Douglas supported Meletios’s reforms, hoping they would move Orthodoxy into closer contact with the West and the Church of England. He thus observed the resultant furor closely and nervously. He put his finger on part of the problem when he noted that the proceedings at Constantinople represented an attempt by the Phanar to “indicate its

91

92

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

historic claim to be the active center of Orthodoxy.”47 Not all Orthodox churches were ready to concede such a position to Meletios or to Constantinople. Antonii was furious about the reform,48 as are his followers to this day, who portray it and rapprochement with Anglicans as all of one piece: a single package49 “poisoned by ideas growing out of Protestant ecumenism,”50 modernism and westernism,51 nationalism,52 and a willingness to consort with heretics53 (traits supposedly personified by Hamilcar Alivizatos, an advocate of rapprochement with the Church of England and the calendar reform alike). Antonii was suspicious of canonical reform in general,54 but this action especially miffed him because it looked like an attempt to institute a major change in the life of the church without convening an ecumenical council.55 (That such a council was out of the question given Turkey’s refusal to host a major body of Christian hierarchs in no way lessened Antonii’s anger.) How dare Meletios institute a change on which the Russian Orthodox Church, now under the heel of the Bolsheviks, could not weigh in! Antonii also feared any act that seemed to raise the standing of the ecumenical patriarch, a man who —to Antonii’s mind—represented the triumph of pan-Christian unity over imperialistic Orthodoxy.56 Antonii advocated Russia’s historic interests in the Balkans: any attempt by the ecumenical patriarch to lead other Orthodox churches toward reform could be viewed as an attempt to supplant Russia’s traditionally strong influence in this region. And a resurgent ecumenical patriarchate had repercussions for the status of Antonii’s own synod, whose canonical authority and ability to win allegiance from members of the Russian Orthodox Church in exile was already in doubt (see chap. 15).57 Meletios and Antonii were both vying for the mantle of Tikhon, and the pan-Orthodox congress of 1923 became a symbol for the postwar conflict over who represented the Russian Orthodox in exile.58 Antonii became convinced that Meletios, as part of his pan-Christian project, wished to wrest control of Russian church dioceses in Poland and Finland,59 making the ecumenical patriarchate the Orthodox force in Europe.60 Antonii went through the roof when Meletios appointed a Finn as a bishop in the newly autonomous Finnish church—a region that Russian imperialists insisted fell under the purview of the Russian Orthodox Church.61 Meletios did not help matters with his statements about the rights and responsibilities of the ecumenical patriarchate:

Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics

|

citing the canons of Chalcedon (454), he claimed that all Orthodox outside the territorial jurisdiction of a given autocephalous church (e.g., all Russian émigrés) were dependent on the ecumenical throne. Finally, Antonii seems to have feared that the hubbub over the calendar reform would divert attention from the sufferings of the Orthodox Church in Russia.62 The Karlovatskii Synod’s attitude toward the ecumenical patriarchate was complex. On the one hand, it appealed to Christians around the world to come to the aid of the patriarchate and preserve it from the Turks,63 insisting (rather disingenuously) that the Russian church “from earliest times has become accustomed to turn to the ecumenical patriarchate for the explanation of religious-ecclesiastical questions.”64 On the other hand, the Karlovatskii Synod’s publications eviscerated Meletios, portraying his reforms, his rapprochement with the Western churches, and his involvement in the ecumenical movement as nothing more than attempts to increase the prestige of Constantinople on the world stage. Citing Metropolitan Germanos’s travels around Europe, as well as correspondence between Germanos (stationed in London) and the archbishop of Canterbury, the Tserkovnyia viedomosti (the Karlovatskii Synod’s journal) concluded that Germanos “has pretensions to power over all Orthodox churches in West and Central Europe.” England’s involvement with the ecumenical patriarch, argued the journal, was an attempt to take from Russia its “right of advantage” and “protection of Near Eastern Christian peoples.” “The projects of the English regarding the ecumenical patriarch,” it continued, “deprive Russia [of its rights in the region] and completely liquidate its influence and significance.”65 English and Anglicans, in the view of the Karlovchane, became synonymous with support for Meletios.66 The Karlovatskii journal repeated with suspicion the ecumenical patriarch’s statements from London that Constantinople wished to strengthen ties between the Orthodox and Anglican Churches, “which God clearly leads to union.”67 Such statements suggested to the Karlovchane an attempt by Meletios to ingratiate himself with Lambeth in order to win control of Orthodox churches in England, as well as an attempt to win “episcopal jurisdiction for governance of Orthodox” in central and Western Europe.68 In England, the Times pushed (albeit carefully) for Anglican representation at the pan-Orthodox congress that the Karlovchane considered

93

94

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

heretical.69 And when the congress convened, Bishop Gore was there, presenting Meletios with a petition from five thousand Anglican priests assuring him that no impediment could prevent union with the Orthodox. One can imagine the Karlovatskii mind at work as Gore —who, after Davidson, was probably the most famous bishop in the Anglican Church— expressed his joy at attending this congress “where we have gathered in order to discuss various church questions.”70 “For us, living in the West,” Gore continued, “it would be a source of great spiritual satisfaction to have the possibility of celebrating together [with the Orthodox] the major Christian feasts.”7 1 Here was proof enough that Meletios—the unilateral reformer and westernizer—was in cahoots with the Anglicans. The above discussion should provide some context for the failure of most Orthodox churches to endorse the recognition of Anglican orders. Only two—Jerusalem and Cyprus— endorsed the recognition within the next five years.72 The Christian East, always optimistic, celebrated Jerusalem’s recognition (extended on March 12, 1923), hoping it would be the first in a series of recognitions by the other autocephalous churches. But the Jerusalem patriarch’s decision, much like Meletios’s, elicited a strong backlash and accusations of political maneuvering. The patriarchate of Jerusalem was every bit as troubled as the patriarchate of Constantinople. Deep divisions separated its laity and parish priests (most of whom were indigenous Arabs) from the Greek monks who governed the Jerusalem synod from their headquarters at the convent of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher. The Brotherhood elected the patriarch and all members of the synod, excluding the Arab laity from administrative matters. Russia had long provided economic assistance to the Jerusalem patriarchate, due both to her political interests in the region and to her wish to aid the thousands of Russian pilgrims to the Holy Land. But the Great War bankrupted Russia, Russia lost its Orthodox tsar, and Jerusalem lost its main source of income. By the end of the war the Jerusalem patriarchate was in debt to the tune of £500,000.73 Desperate, the Greeks in the patriarchate applied to Greece for assistance, and Venizelos responded generously. In the middle of this mess sat Patriarch Damianos, a figure nearly as controversial as Meletios and equally at odds with the Greek Orthodox Church in Athens. As the war drew to a close and British forces ap-

Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics

|

proached Jerusalem, retreating Turks abducted Damianos and held him in Damascus as the Greeks and the British debated his fate. The Greek consul general blamed Damianos for the financial situation in his patriarchate. The British—who soon occupied Jerusalem—agreed. Both Greece and Britain refused to allow Damianos return passage to Jerusalem. The Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher—now devoid of both a patriarch and outside funding—turned all responsibility for the patriarchate’s finances over to the Greek government. This action did not sit at all well with the British. While unhappy with Damianos’s fiscal record, the British were even more unhappy to see the patriarchate within their new mandate under the fiscal thumb of another state. London worried about the Greek government’s support for the Brotherhood and suspected a political motive behind Greece’s loans—namely, an attempt by Greece to secure its influence over Jerusalem and cement the Brotherhood’s Hellenic sympathies.74 Britain thus allowed Damianos to return in 1919, as General Allenby (British overseer of the occupied territory of Jerusalem) grew concerned about escalating tensions between the Greek synod and the Arab laity, and as the Arab laity expressed concerns about Jerusalem’s increased reliance on Greece. Damianos now seemed more palatable to the British. He was less committed to the Greek national cause than was the locum tenens during his absence, and Britain hoped that he might become a conciliatory figure. He did not. Instead, the Brotherhood complained loudly about his refusal to grant the Greek minority its accustomed power over the Arab majority. In 1921 the British high commissioner for Palestine established a commission to examine the disarray in Jerusalem and took the patriarchate into receivership. (By this time relations between Damianos and the Jerusalem bishops had soured so badly that the bishops severed all ties with him.)75 The commission issued a report critical of Greek, minority control. During the investigation leading to the report, Archbishop Davidson found himself being lobbied by Greeks and Arabs to support their positions.76 Davidson, as in the controversy in Constantinople, worked mostly to keep himself above the fray. The parallels between Jerusalem and Constantinople are pronounced. Jerusalem, like Constantinople, found itself with a patriarch distrusted by Greece and threatened by financial ruin. And like the patriarch of

95

96

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Constantinople, the patriarch of Jerusalem appealed to Britain for political and religious assistance and for help settling a dispute between local ethnic groups. Both controversies received heavy coverage in the British press,77 and both created in the minds of many English a view of Eastern Orthodoxy as a chaotic religion—a sloppy tar bucket that one touched at one’s own risk.78 This “crowd of greedy, dishonest Greeks and rioting Arabs,” wrote the Tablet, now had “honorable English gentlemen” as their judges. “Rarely has the moral superiority of civilized Europe emerged so triumphantly.”79 Given these parallels, it is no surprise that when Damianos recognized Anglican orders in 1923, the same charges leveled against Meletios fell upon him; that is, he granted recognition to win political and financial support from Britain. The Orthodox Catholic Review reminded its readers that Patriarch Damianos in 1907 had declared the impossibility of examining Anglican orders without examining Anglican doctrine and practice as a whole, or without bringing the question before all Orthodox churches.80 Observing Damianos’s about-face of 1923, the Orthodox Catholic Review concluded: Doubtless the exigencies of the Jerusalem Patriarchate in 1923 dictated a policy calculated to secure support and protection from the Anglicans and the British Imperial Rulers of Palestine; whereas the unlimited support of Russian and Russian Pilgrims in 1907 left the Jerusalem Patriarchate free to speak the truth frankly and maintain true Orthodox principles boldly without consulting financial or political expediency. But such treacherous and unworthy sale of Orthodox principles and honor, such barter of the Body and Blood of Christ and petty pawning of the Communion and Fellowship of His Holy Church as this implies, should be far from loyal leaders of Orthodoxy. Such considerations are more fitting for the successors of Simon Magus and Judas.81 A month later the Review termed Damianos’s and Meletios’s recognition of Anglican orders “the buying of English favor with seeming concession of [the] Holy Church to the Protestant State Church of England” and “a fishing for Orthodox alliance and ‘advantages in the East-

Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics

|

ern Mediterranean’ for Imperial Britain.” “What a scandal and shame to the Holy Church!” it concluded. Such literature made clear the fears among Russian Orthodox about British influence in a region Russia considered its own. If the British Crown, already head of the Protestant State Church of England, can, through the High Commissioner of its Palestinian Mandate from the League of Nations, arbitrarily revise the constitution of the Orthodox Catholic Patriarchate may we not look forward to an alien Protestant control of the Patriarchate by the British Government? Is it not to be expected that the next step will be the appointment of the Orthodox Patriarch and Bishops by a Jewish or Baptist British High Commissioner just as Anglican Bishops and Archbishops are appointed by religiously nondescript Prime Ministers or their under-Secretaries?82 The Tablet portrayed the recognition as a quid pro quo: the church of Jerusalem received protection; the Anglicans received recognition.83 Antonii, despairing over now-Communist Russia’s refusal to provide funds to Jerusalem, feared a Jerusalem patriarchate independent of Russian influence and reliant on Britain to judge its disputes and keep it fiscally solvent. Nationalists like Antonii could not stand the idea of one of the four original patriarchates under British receivership. Jerusalem also earned Antonii’s ire for its decision to recognize the Living Church in Russia, a move that destroyed any credibility it held with Russian Orthodox émigrés.84 | Jerusalem’s and Constantinople’s recognition of Anglican orders should have been a momentous event for Anglican advocates of reunion. Instead, it made the entire enterprise suspect in many corners of the Orthodox world and stirred qualms among Anglicans about the fractious Easterners. Anglicans found their greatest Orthodox advocate for reunion—a man determined to reform the Orthodox Church (however minimally)—repugnant to large swaths of Orthodoxy, in particular, the Karlovatskii Synod, the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, and the churches of Greece and Serbia.

97

98

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

The turmoil following the recognition of Anglican orders made Anglicans vulnerable to accusations that rapprochement with the ecumenical patriarchate was due to Venizelist intrigue.85 Yet some English insisted on putting a positive spin on the situation. In 1927 the Church Quarterly Review was still praising Meletios’s “vigorous movement of practical reform designed to enable Orthodoxy to adapt itself to the rapidly changing conditions of the Near East.”86 “Whatever view is taken of the ‘reforms’ of Meletios,” Athelstan Riley observed, “the gratitude of all who work for Christian unity is due to that able prelate who realized the changed conditions of Christendom brought about by the great war and took the first step to establish the entente which now exists between the Orthodox and the Anglican Churches.”87 But those close to the question of Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement knew they were dealing with a powder keg. The Times called the question of the calendar “vexed.”88 And although the Christian East supported Meletios to the end, it gave ample coverage to the turmoil he caused. The Church Times, another supporter of Meletios, was forced to concede that his independent action constituted “a dangerous precedent.”89 Douglas, reflecting on the whole affair a few years later, noted that the Orthodox world had been “rocked by the conflict regarding the former Ecumenical Patriarch.” “In light of his popularity in London and his closeness to the upper spheres of the Anglican Church, there is a sense that he supported and inspired us.”90 Traveling in the East in 1930, Douglas reported that resentment over Meletios’s actions “was still an impediment” to further recognition of Anglican orders.91 Archbishop Davidson was careful not to play up Meletios’s recognition, or even to act as if he welcomed the announcement.92 He did announce the receipt of Meletios’s letter in Convocation on February 16, 1923, but emphasized that the recognition would not lead to intercommunion and that it would have to be accepted by all Orthodox churches or approved by a general synod before it would be ecumenically binding.93 Referring to the letter in a later sitting of Convocation, Davidson noted his regret that “politics and ecclesiastical matters were often intimately related.”94 The status of Meletios in the whole affair of Anglican relations became moot for a few years after 1923. By this time the Turks had had quite enough of his advocacy on behalf of his loyal Greek flock in Con-

Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics

|

stantinople. The British were determined to save the Phanar in negotiations at Lausanne, but they began to view the controversial Meletios as an expendable player in their larger attempt to preserve the patriarchate.95 In the end Britain won from Turkey the preservation of the patriarchate, but it did not intervene when Turkey forced Meletios out of the Phanar. Meletios, stripped of his title, departed for Mount Athos. A correspondent for the Times reported, “His All-Holiness, in declining to make any statement to journalists, merely said that he was broken physically and mentally, and had left Constantinople in order not to make the position of the Greeks there still more difficult.”96 Anglican advocates of reunion with the Orthodox watched their champion depart, knowing that parts of the Orthodox world now associated rapprochement with the Church of England with political chicanery and opportunism.

99

6

Jubilee, 1925

[The significance of the Jubilee] was, of course, more psychological than concrete. —Metropolitan Evlogii1

A

ttempts in the early 1920s to find doctrinal solutions to the problem of reunion only created more problems.2 So when Archbishop Davidson decided in 1925—with much prompting from John Douglas—to invite an Orthodox delegation to London to celebrate the sixteen hundredth anniversary of the Nicene Creed, the Jubilee’s organizers approached the celebration as a social event, putting on hold any thoughts of formal negotiations until the Lambeth conference of 1930. Davidson was determined that the Jubilee not raise unrealistic hopes about reunion. In his opening speech to the Orthodox delegation at Westminster Abbey, he noted the ultimate importance of Christian unity but insisted that it was impossible at the present time.3 Later, at a dinner in the delegation’s honor, he warned that reunion could only be achieved carefully and by degrees. There were no shortcuts.4 The Jubilee did not have an auspicious start. The debacles of 1922 and 1923 were still fresh in many people’s minds, as were accusations that Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement was a cover for British imperial interests. One London periodical warned that the Jubilee celebration 100

|

Jubilee, 1925

|

could be interpreted as a display of Great Britain’s “dominant power in the East.”5 Problems arose from the moment invitations were issued. Douglas assumed the initiative in sounding out various Orthodox leaders about holding festivities in London. But Archbishop Germanos, the ecumenical patriarch’s representative in London, advised the Jubilee’s organizers to send their invitation to the Orthodox churches through the ecumenical patriarch, a move that so angered the Serbian patriarch that he refused to send a representative.6 When extending an invitation to Damianos of Jerusalem, the organizers failed to consult either the British Colonial Office or the Office of the High Commissioner—both of which had been resisting Damianos’s requests to come to London to plead for additional British protection and financial aid.7 The organizers could not invite Metropolitan Sergei of Moscow, who was too closely affiliated with the Soviet regime. But they did send an invitation to the Karlovatskii Synod. The synod—to the surprise of those who had followed its earlier warnings about the dangers of consorting with Anglicans—accepted eagerly.8 Metropolitan Antonii, Antonii’s fiery secretary Makharoblidze, Metropolitan Evlogii (still loyal to Metropolitan Sergei and responsible for the Russian church in Western Europe, yet formally allied with the Karlovchane), and Veniamin of Sevastopol represented the Russians. Antonii credited Davidson and Douglas, who had twice visited him in Serbia, with convincing him to attend.9 When attempting to explain Antonii’s motives for accepting the invitation, it is difficult to weigh altruistic concerns for church unity against political calculations. Antonii would speak eloquently about the need for a reunited Christendom during his visit to England, but he had other concerns as well. Between 1857 and 1914 the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem and the Imperial Russian Orthodox Palestine Society had acquired approximately 150 hectares in Jerusalem, land visited by thousands of Russian citizens on pilgrimage to the holy places. After the Russian revolution the Soviet government laid claim to these holdings, a claim that the British Mandate in Palestine (established in 1922 by the United Nations to administer Palestine following the war) consistently opposed, despite lobbying and visits to London by Soviet diplomats.10 Metropolitan Evlogii, whose claims to represent Russian Orthodoxy in the West infuriated his rival, Antonii, appealed to the archbishop of

101

102

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Canterbury to place responsibility for these holy places in his own hands. The Karlovatskii Synod, headed by Antonii, made its own claims. The synod included former members of the Orthodox Palestine Society, still residing in Jerusalem, where the synod published its journal.1 1 With the establishment of the British Mandate, these members of Antonii’s synod now found themselves subject to British authorities occupying many buildings formerly occupied by the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission and the Russian Orthodox Palestine Society. Some of Antonii’s followers, in other words, had become utterly dependent on Britain.12 Antonii thus had good reason to cultivate any and all ties to British governmental and ecclesiastical authorities. (Antonii’s earlier visit to London in 1923 occurred the same year that Russian Orthodox émigrés appealed to the British Foreign Office for the Jerusalem properties.) Whatever the true motives for Antonii’s visit, the Church Times, still a great supporter of Antonii, was delighted to learn he was coming.13 The patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem sent representatives, as did the churches of Greece (Alivizatos), Romania, and Bulgaria (Glubokovskii). Anglo-Catholics were elated to see so many significant Orthodox figures in their midst. The English Roman Catholic Tablet was not so happy. When it learned of the impending festivities it published an open letter to Metropolitans Evlogii and Antonii, warning them against their ill-advised decision to consort with the fractious and Protestant-infested Church of England. “The Eastern Church was proud of her orthodoxy and her traditions,” wrote Count Bennigsen, an Orthodox convert to Roman Catholicism. “Yet Your Eminences intend to take an official part in the services at Westminster Abbey and St. Paul’s Cathedral, the very strongholds of Modernism.”14 The “so-called ‘Anglo-Catholics’ ” who advocated reunion with the Orthodox churches, in his view, could not speak either for the entire Anglican Church or “for its greater part.” Even if Anglo-Catholics recognized Orthodox doctrine, they still remained in the same “Established Church” with the “extreme Protestant wing,” the “Modernist group” that denies the Lord’s Divinity, and “the Evangelical group” that rejects five sacraments, transubstantiation, the authority of the councils, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints. The count continued, “The Anglican press views your arrival as a further step towards

Jubilee, 1925

|

reunion. Dare I ask with whom the Russian church could reunite in the present chaotic state of the so-called Anglican ‘Church,’ which at the last session of the National Church Assembly one of its members compared to a ‘coalition of discordant sects’ . . . The Church of Russia is rent by schism. Will Your Eminences weaken her still further by supporting so unnatural a reunion?” Russia’s salvation lay “only in her spiritual regeneration, which cannot be effected by an artificial reunion with a Protestant Church.”15 The only reunion “natural” for the Orthodox, said Bennigsen in another letter, is reunion with the “Church Universal,” that is, the Roman Catholic Church.16 The Tablet would publish a number of such warnings. For example: “Unless the leaders of the Eastern Churches are hypocrites (which we find it almost impossible to believe) in calling themselves Orthodox, they cannot knowingly join in grandiose ecclesiastical ceremonies with men who are either frankly heterodox themselves or in full and unprotesting communion with heterodox clerks and layfolk.”17 The Tablet’s warnings mortified Douglas, who feared that the visiting Orthodox would associate the Anglo-Catholic faction in the Church of England with the Roman Catholic press trying to persuade them to stay home.18 The articles did not go unnoticed by the delegation. But the Karlovatskii journal, Tserkovnyia viedomosti (Church Bulletin), did not react in the way that Douglas feared. Instead, it seemed almost to enjoy the Tablet’s conniptions, delighted to have provoked the Roman Catholic Church. The furor in the English Catholic press, wrote the viedomosti, “testifies to the deep and real significance of the events of this summer in England.”19 The Church Times seemed relieved and happy to agree: “The Tablet is divided between a desire to minimize the importance of what it calls ‘a few Orthodox ecclesiastics associating themselves with many Anglican dignitaries,’ and a consciousness that the association was deeply significant.”20 The Anglican hosts treated their visitors in royal fashion, and Evlogii raved about the English bishops’ “wonderful hospitality.”21 They breakfasted at Lambeth Palace and Windsor Castle; attended a banquet in their honor at the Holborn Hotel; traveled to Wales; met with the lord mayor of London; were feted at garden parties at Lambeth Palace, Kensington Gardens, and Oxford’s Highfield Park; toured Parliament; visited

103

104

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

several monasteries; and attended a reception in the House of Lords.22 The delegation found much to admire in what they saw. Evlogii seemed surprised to learn that England had extant monasteries.23 The Tserkovnyia viedomosti decided that England might not, after all, be the decadent, heretical place it had long suspected. It reprinted Glubokovskii’s speech at Oxford University, in which he announced that Oxford had not developed “along a revolutionary path” of rationalism or along the lines of the “crafty modernists” but rather had “organized its growth on the basis of healthy, historical tradition.”24 The Anglo-Catholic bishops Charles Gore and Walter Frere made quite an impression on the delegation. Evlogii was much taken with Frere,25 founder of the monastic community at Mirfield, who spoke a little Russian and had traveled to Russia three times before the revolution (once on a lecture tour sponsored by the Russian Society for Promoting Rapprochement between the Anglican and Eastern Churches).26 Here was an Anglican with a catholic view of the eucharist,27 distrusted by Protestants,28 and as committed to the disciplines of monasticism as the Russians.29 An article in the Church Times, reflecting its pleasure at having an Orthodox delegation on English soil on the occasion of the Jubilee, stated, “Many a king has been crowned in Westminster Abbey, and many a statesman lies buried there, but it is doubtful whether in all its long history the Abbey has ever been the scene of a more momentous and significant ceremony.”30 Such a fawning attitude characterized Anglican rhetoric at the Jubilee.31 The king’s confessor told the delegation, “When you were fully in the right of Christ we Anglicans were still barbarians.”32 And Davidson described London of sixteen hundred years earlier as “a little Roman-British citadel protecting the roadway on the north bank of the Thames.”33 The Orthodox answered such obsequiousness with kindly patronization. Makharoblidze was touched to observe Anglicans endure an entire Orthodox church service, noting that they were not used to standing more than five to ten minutes during their own services.34 The absence of theological discussions—and thus theological disagreements—gave free rein to optimism about prospects for reunion. Evlogii in particular showed real hope. At a service in London he lectured Patriarchs Photios and Damianos about the “historic moment” in

Jubilee, 1925

|

which they found themselves, exhorting them to “draw other branches of the Christian world to the bosom of ecumenical unity.”35 Addressing a conference of the ultra-catholic English Church Union, he portrayed the Jubilee as an event fraught with “historic significance.” At the Monastery of St. John the Evangelist in Oxford he spoke of the day when Russia would be “resurrected” and Patriarch Tikhon’s successor would lead Anglican clergy and the archbishop of Canterbury “into relations with the Orthodox Russian people,” telling them, “Here are our dear brothers who in the years of our ordeal did much for our long-suffering church.” “And when in answer to that our Church people say ‘amen,’ then in reality we will have a bright celebration of reunion.”36 Douglas seemed moved to hear such sentiment from “our old friend.”37 Metropolitan Antonii, whose synod had railed three years previously against too-close contact with Anglicans and other Western confessions, thoroughly enjoyed his trip. “I should admit that I expected little from the idea with which I was invited to England—I mean the idea of a possible rapprochement of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches,” he wrote. “[However,] I was able to throw off my pessimism in this respect. I was joyfully astonished by the warm sincerity of English hospitality, and still more by becoming familiar with the Anglican Committee under the presidency of the highly-esteemed Bishop Gore.”38 Excluded from the delegation to Lambeth in 1920, he now found himself an honored part of a delegation and was either experiencing a change of heart or simply doing his best to impress the English, whose government controlled the Jerusalem territories he wanted back. Antonii professed surprise to find “humble wisdom” in “a country where Western culture has achieved its highest development.”39 He wrote further, “The Orthodox in Russia have become accustomed to thinking, erroneously, that the longer people live in the West, the less they are like us Orthodox, and the more their public life is swallowed up by worldly interests, particularly by economics. . . . How happy and satisfied we are to find that this is not true in this far corner of Western, Protestant Europe.”40 Antonii’s Karlovatskii colleague, Makharoblidze, expressed similar admiration. He enjoyed his visit to an Oxford monastery and was impressed that the Anglican monks attended services five times per day.41

105

106

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

The Anglo-Catholic hosts could not have been happier with Antonii’s attitude. He spoke of the “closeness of the Anglican Church and the Orthodox church”— a closeness that “has strengthened in the past months of our life, when we learned that leading elements of the English nation recognize the Nicean symbol of faith, have reestablished monasticism, and do not even deny the veneration of icons and the seven sacraments.”42 Still, it came as a surprise when Antonii announced at dinner in the Holborn Hotel that the Orthodox Church should strive for unity with other churches and that it would be possible for the Orthodox to recognize Anglican ordinations.43 Anglican advocates of reunion—who remembered well Antonii’s earlier statements about the dangers of consorting with Western churches 44 and his synod’s condemnation of Jerusalem’s and Constantinople’s contacts with the Church of England in 1922 and 1923—were both delighted and taken aback. In 1922 Antonii had written to the Church Times, “There can be no question of union with heretics and schismatics but only their restoration to union with the Church from which they fell away.”45 But now he urged “the liberation of our spirit not only from all shades of hostile feelings toward other believers [inomysliashchiia], but also from our common striving to refute [oprovergnut’] them.” He urged his listeners to think not about the “abridgement” of the number of church truths “but about the possibility of expanding them” in relationships with other Christian societies and confessions. “Don’t assume that such a principle is a concession to the liberal spirit of our age,” he cautioned.46 This, it seemed, was a triumph for the cause of reunion, and the announcement elicited “ceaseless applause.”47 Anglicans who knew Antonii knew him, in the words of the Christian East, as “the most rigid and conservative” of all the Russian bishops, and they thus viewed his statement as especially significant. Douglas enthused, “In light of the Metropolitan’s reputation as an extreme conservative, cautious in the highest degree, that personal acceptance of our priesthood and opinion about the closeness of our dogma to that of the Orthodox church is of the highest significance.”48 When Evlogii in a speech to the ECU alluded to Antonii’s remarks, the crowd expressed its “sustained” and “noisy approval.”49 Somewhat naively, the Church Times characterized Antonii’s

Jubilee, 1925

|

announcement as sanctioning Jerusalem’s and Cyprus’s endorsement of Constantinople’s earlier recognition of Anglican orders.50 Yet when examining Antonii’s remarks closely, it is difficult to account for the enthusiasm they elicited. Antonii argued that Anglican ordinations should be accepted according to the “third rite,” a form of acceptance that requires priests entering the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of their former confession, that is, to become Orthodox priests through the sacrament of penance.51 In effect, then, Antonii was equating Anglicans with the heretical Nestorians—preservers in part of true dogma, but heretics nonetheless. Evlogii remembered Antonii insisting that all non-Orthodox confessions—including the Anglican Church—are devoid of priestly grace (ierarkhicheskaia blagodat’).52 The excitement generated by Antonii’s statement thus stemmed not from any concession to the validity of Anglican doctrine as a whole but from vastly lowered expectations about what Anglicans might reasonably expect from the Karlovchane. Antonii’s statement addressed only those wishing to leave the Anglican Church in order to join the Orthodox Church.53 Three years earlier this announcement might have been received as an insult; now it seemed a cause for celebration. It illustrates like nothing else how low expectations had fallen. It is difficult to ascertain with any clarity exactly what future Antonii saw for Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement. He probably had no clear idea himself. At times he seemed extraordinarily cautious about expressing any hope of reunion between the two churches.54 But at others he expressed optimism and “was certain that the two Churches were drawing closer together.”55 In another speech he spoke of the “confessional closeness” of the Orthodox and Anglican Churches. In a departing interview with the Church Times, he claimed, “The dogmatic differences between us and the Anglican Churches have been almost finally reconciled. If to this is added the cordial disposition with which the Anglicans endeavour to familiarize themselves with our rights and with the history of the Christian Church, and also the modesty of their pretensions—for they do not yet propose a full union of the Churches, but talk only of mutual rapprochement and study of one another’s institutes—it will be admitted that all these circumstances present to our eyes bright prospects of Church reunion.”56

107

108

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Yet it is important to note that Antonii attributed the “closeness” between Anglicans and Orthodox to the rise of “advanced church elements” within the Church of England, a term he used to describe AngloCatholics and their devotees.57 His interest in the possibility of reunion appears to have been heavily influenced by his discovery of a vibrant Anglo-Catholic wing within the Church of England. The Orthodox delegation had little contact with Protestant elements in the church during the Jubilee, spending its time instead with Anglo-Catholics such as Bishops Gore and Frere and organizations such as the ECU. It was this AngloCatholic element to which Antonii was drawn. This fact prompted the Tablet to ask if Antonii had been “hoaxed,” that is, led falsely to believe that the Church of England was uniformly or predominantly catholic.58 (Curiously, the Tablet never suggested that Antonii might be playing politics.) But there is no evidence that Antonii conflated the Church of England with its Anglo-Catholic party. Douglas, who stuck close to Antonii’s side, noted that members of the delegation “saw the Anglican church as it is and knew that anglo-catholicism is not the only type of Anglicanism.”59 On one occasion during his visit, Antonii referred to Anglo-Catholics as “the extreme right wing of the High Church.” He expressed his thoughts on the matter most clearly in a departing interview. Reunion with the Anglican Church, he said, is “more desirable than general conversion.” But then, in a clincher, he added that reunion with the “entire Anglican Church . . . for the present seems hardly probable.”60 Such caution was typical among members of the Karlovatskii Synod willing to consort with Anglicans. Like Antonii, Bishop Anastasii found much to admire in the Anglo-Catholic movement. He told Douglas shortly after the Jubilee, “We sensed in the Anglican Church a breath of that ‘ecumenical’ origin, which was always alive in her hidden depths in spite of her past upheaval, and which proves to be especially bright in the so-called Anglo-catholic movement.” He viewed Anglo-Catholicism as a “leaven” that was “reforming the entire body of the Anglican Church little-by-little, returning her teaching, discipline, and services to the spirit of the ancient Apostolic Ecumenical Church.”61 It was Anglo-Catholicism that drew the Church of England to union with Orthodoxy. Anastasii seems to have viewed reunion as dependent on the triumph of the AngloCatholic party—no sure thing in his mind. He was, in the final analysis,

Jubilee, 1925

|

rather pessimistic. The Orthodox Church, he said, approaches the question of unity “with the utmost caution and never underestimates the significance of dogmatic, canonical and liturgical differences dividing us from Anglicans.” The Orthodox Church can never embark on “the path of compromise,” or it will “lose its authority before all.”62 Despite such reservations, optimism remained high in other quarters. In 1925 the Christian East gushed, “Day by day the Anglican Communion draws nearer to the Eastern Orthodox. . . . [C]omplete reunion of Anglicans with that venerable church seems to await only the restoration of Eastern Europe to political tranquility.”63 Archbishop Aleksandr of North America was convinced by 1926 that the reunion of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches was just around the corner.64 The dean of Durham asserted that barriers between the two churches were breaking down.65 Berdiaev’s journal, Put’, also conveyed high hopes: a piece by Glubokovskii—while noting the need for more detailed formulations of Anglican belief—suggested that unity was still possible.66 Another correspondent for Put’ argued, “[We] may express our hope and wish that it will not be long when believers of both churches will, with one heart and one mouth, glorify the unifying head of the ecumenical church, our Lord Jesus Christ.”67 But such optimism, bolstered by the good feeling generated during Antonii’s visit to the Jubilee, would receive a rude shock in July 1926. Turmoil within the Russian émigré community and concerns about contacts between the Russian church in exile and ecumenical organizations would end Antonii’s and his synod’s involvement in substantive discussions about rapprochement and force other Russian émigrés to consider anew their place in the Orthodox Church and the possibility of maintaining their allegiance both to the church and to the ecumenical cause.

109

7

The Russian Student Christian Movement

Youth is less conceited, more sensitive, and more affectionate than inert old age. —Metropolitan Antonii 1

T

he Russian Student Christian Movement (RSCM) emerged in the mid-1920s as the most vibrant expression of Orthodox youth culture, and it grew painfully in the late 1920s and early 1930s into a staunch advocate for ecumenical dialogue. It drew its leaders and most active participants from those Orthodox who sought, simultaneously, a rebirth of the Russian Orthodox Church in exile and greater contact with the Western churches, especially the Church of England. Attitudes toward the RSCM became something of a litmus test for Russian Orthodox émigrés between the wars. Those who supported the RSCM became the key players in ecumenical activity and OrthodoxAnglican dialogue. Georges Florovskii, Nicolas Zernov, Vasilii Zenkovskii, and Sergei Bulgakov all cut their ecumenical teeth during the movement’s early days. In fact, Florovskii’s ministry as a priest (he was ordained in 1932) began in the RSCM. The movement’s journal, Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia (Messenger of the Russian Student Christian Movement), became a leading source for news and opinion about Russian Orthodoxy’s contact with other churches.2 110

|

The Russian Student Christian Movement

|

Those who were suspicious of ecumenism—who believed that Orthodox should distance themselves from false Christian confessions— eventually condemned the RSCM as a movement alien to the Orthodox spirit and the Orthodox Church. The Student Christian Movement (SCM)—of which the RSCM was but one branch—originated in Britain. There it thrived, claiming as members some 10,000 of the 50,000 British university students enrolled just before the first world war. The SCM in Britain did not demand a statement of faith from its members and flourished without a particular confessional identity.3 Hence it, much like the Church of England, came to encompass Christians with widely different beliefs on any number of dogmatic, doctrinal, and ecclesiastical issues. Baron Pavel Nikolai and John Mott of the YMCA founded the RSCM in St. Petersburg on November 8, 1899, as a division of the World Christian Student Movement. Hindered by legal restrictions on foreign religious organizations, the RSCM did not receive official recognition until 1913.4 Like its counterpart in Britain, the RSCM set as its goal winning back to Christianity its country’s increasingly secular student body. Always on the lookout for dynamic figures who appealed to Russian youth, Baron Nikolai wrote to Mott on December 25, 1906, about an exciting discovery, a “disciple of Marx” who “seems to have turned a Christian and preaches by voice and pen in a way that appeals to students putting (they say) the divinity of Jesus Christ and His resurrection to the front.” This man, he continued, “was bitterly opposed by the revolutionary students, but has now got adherents among students in other universities too.”5 Nikolai’s discovery was Sergei Bulgakov, who became one of the most important Russian Orthodox figures in the interwar ecumenical movement. Bulgakov was everything the RSCM could have wanted. An active member of the Russian Duma and a former Marxist who converted to Christianity (a journey that would lead to his eventual ordination as an Orthodox priest),6 he offered proof that it was possible to win members of the intelligentsia back to the church without forcing them to abandon the social or political concerns that drove them away in the first place.7 Though more Christian than Orthodox at this point in his life, Bulgakov struggled personally with a question that would plague and enliven the RSCM: what allegiances do Russian Christians owe to the Russian

111

112

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Orthodox Church, and to what degree should they interact with Christians who are not Orthodox? After the war Bulgakov—like the RSCM— would become more devoted to Orthodoxy but also more interested in cultivating contacts with other Christian confessions, especially Anglicanism.8 Because of its association with and support from the YMCA, the early RSCM projected a distinctly Protestant image. It had little contact with the Russian Orthodox Church, and many Orthodox hierarchs actively opposed it. The metropolitan of Moscow did not want to grant the RSCM official recognition; in fact, he urged the Holy Synod to condemn it.9 This opposition did not necessarily impede the movement’s growth; missionaries with the movement often found that they had more success among students by disassociating themselves from the Orthodox clergy, whom students largely despised.10 Questions about the RSCM’s relation to the Russian Orthodox Church and its commitment to Orthodox doctrine were present from the start. The metropolitan of Moscow viewed the RSCM as a foreign organization propagating a foreign, Protestant doctrine. But others, such as Vasilii Zenkovskii, a professor of psychology who later became an active participant in the interwar ecumenical movement, viewed the RSCM as a forum for the careful study of the Christian faith, as well as a means of attracting students back to the Orthodox Church.1 1 Such conflicting conceptions of the movement resurfaced when the RSCM was reborn in exile. In October 1923 the International YMCA and Mott’s Student Christian Federation (both sponsors of the RSCM in prerevolutionary Russia) met for an exploratory conference at Prˇerov, Czechoslovakia, together with representatives from religious study circles in other European cities. It was in Prˇerov that the RSCM in exile took shape, with the help of Nikolai Berdiaev and three future professors of the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris: Anton Kartashev, Vasilii Zenkovskii, and now Father Sergei Bulgakov. Tensions flared at the Prˇerov meetings between those who argued for the RSCM’s allegiance to Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy alone and those who argued that—as the RSCM’s title implied—it should present itself as an inclusive Christian rather than a narrow Orthodox society. A group of students from Prague argued that the movement should focus on morn-

The Russian Student Christian Movement

|

ing meditation and Bible reading, but others such as Bulgakov found this focus insufficiently Orthodox and prevailed in arguing that the Orthodox eucharist should serve as the spiritual center of all RSCM conferences.12 Nikolai (Nicolas) Zernov, an early activist in the RSCM in exile, termed this decision an “Orthodox victory over inter-confessionalism” and argued that it “laid the foundation” for a “Eucharistic approach to reunion work.”13 The RSCM’s first statement of principles noted that the movement sought “the union of believing youth for service to the Orthodox church, and the attraction of non-believers to faith in Christ,”14 a commitment counter to Baron Nikolai’s hope that the movement would develop along pietistic lines.15 Eventually the European YMCA agreed to this orientation, although it insisted that the RSCM not become merely an arm of the church (an insistence the movement addressed by excluding from its title the word “Orthodox”). Metropolitan Evlogii assented to this arrangement.16 The decision to ground the RSCM in the Orthodox faith and liturgy meant different things to different people. For some, it represented a policy of isolationism; others saw it as a firm foundation for contacts with other confessions. In his concluding speech at Prˇerov, Bulgakov reminded his Orthodox brethren, “Orthodoxy represents the universal truth,” but then added, “It is time for us also to enter into living contact with other confessions, and I am happy as an Orthodox priest to have shared our labours with representatives of the western traditions.”17 The statement of principles did not settle the movement’s conception of Orthodoxy. What, exactly, did the movement mean when it called for the “union of believing youth for service to the Orthodox church”? Did this mean a commitment merely to Orthodox liturgy and dogma, or did it also mean a commitment to the entire bureaucratic and hierarchical structure of the church? Members disagreed on whether the RSCM should remain an independent organization—loyal to the Orthodox faith, yet free of ecclesiastical control—or whether it should place itself directly under the supervision of Russian bishops by forming “brotherhoods,” that is, cells whose members would agree to ecclesiastical sanction and oversight. Members of the student brotherhood of St. Serafim of Sarov in Belgrade

113

114

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

favored the latter approach. After heated discussion at the RSCM’s third conference at a monastery in Hopovo, Yugoslavia (under Metropolitan Antonii’s presidency), the conferees passed a resolution demanding that all study circles within the RSCM become brotherhoods.18 Advocates of this approach argued that formal ecclesiastical oversight would ensure— as study circles could not—that cells within the RSCM remained in “service to the Church.” “Once the movement believes that it preserves the purity of truth in our day under the leadership of the Orthodox hierarchs, it also believes that the guidance of the hierarchy preserves the movement and directs it away from dangerous paths.”19 Gustave Kullmann, director of the YMCA’s work among student groups, listened dispiritedly to this debate in Hopovo, uneasy that the RSCM might become insular and detached from interconfessional dialogue. The Protestant church needs contact with Orthodoxy, he told the students:20 “If you are so sure that you possess all completeness[,] . . . if you realize your riches, don’t remain close-mouthed.” Don’t “be so cruel as to close the door of your church before us.”2 1 And then he warned them of the threat that bureaucratic oversight posed to their own faith: “Before you stands a great danger of deifying dead forms and undermining vibrant life and new work, of becoming absorbed in yourselves. . . . Do not withdraw into yourselves; accept our help as a step by the West towards your side; and you—take a step toward us.” Kullmann tacitly and gently cautioned the students against aligning themselves rigidly with the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church: students, he said, are more “free and flexible in spirit” than hierarchs, who must be “responsible for their every step.”22 Kullmann’s fears about self-absorption came true when, in June 1926, the Karlovatskii bishops passed a resolution declaring that the YMCA and the World Student Christian Federation were organizations not only hostile to the Orthodox Church but also controlled by Freemasons.23 (Accusations of Masonic sympathies—a sort of catchall condemnation frequently employed by conservative Orthodox critical of groups that seemed inadequately Orthodox—had been circulating long before the Karlovatskii condemnation.)24 Hoping to entice the movement away from Protestant influences, the synod offered to supervise student circles within the RSCM if they would cut all ties to interconfessional societies. The Karlovatskii Synod’s suspicion of the YMCA was hysterical to

The Russian Student Christian Movement

|

be sure but not so difficult to understand. The YMCA’s membership was almost exclusively Protestant, and it had, after all, just sponsored the (to the minds of the Karlovchane) heretical Berdiaev’s unorthodox journal, Put’. Zernov, still relishing his election as general secretary of the RSCM at the Hopovo conference, was flattened by the condemnation. Looking back with thirty-seven years of hindsight, he portrayed the decision as an indication of a widening chasm between two sections of the Russian church. While Bulgakov, Berdiaev, Kartashev, Zenkovskii, and others “preached the universal mission of Russian Orthodoxy at last liberated from secular control, the other section insisted with increasing vigour on a return to the old order, and looked with undisguised hostility on the rapidly-multiplying friendly contacts between the Orthodox and western Christians.” “The resolution of June 1926 marked the victory of this anti-western tendency.”25 At the time, however, Zernov did not see the issue so clearly and wrote an open letter to Antonii expressing his “painful feeling of bewilderment.”26 It “seemed incomprehensible” to Zernov that the bishops “should wish to suppress the only organized Christian Movement among Russian students which was loyal to the Church, missionaryminded, and successful in promoting goodwill towards the exiled Orthodox among an influential body of western Christians.”27 Zernov and his friends could not understand how anybody could question their commitment to the Orthodox Church, or a movement that sought to bring students back to Orthodoxy. They were heartbroken. Evlogii, who with most of his flock in Western Europe broke formally from the Karlovatskii Synod in 1926 (see chap. 15), continued to support the RSCM. Shortly after the schism he attended a meeting of the Student Christian Movement and received an enthusiastic reception.28 The break between the Karlovchane and the RSCM, and between the Karlovchane and Evlogii’s flock, represented a formal parting of the ways in attitudes toward ecumenical activity. The split also placed the Karlovchane at odds with sections of the Orthodox churches of Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and even Serbia, all of whose members continued to meet with the YMCA.29 Most of the professors who remained loyal to Evlogii and who taught at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris were current or former members of the RSCM.30

115

116

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

What made the break especially sad for members of the RSCM was their conviction that they remained faithful devotees of Orthodoxy. In all his writings on the RSCM, Zernov emphasized the movement’s “churchliness” (tserkovnost’): “We drew our inspiration from the Orthodox liturgy, and strove to help young people enter more fully into the life of the church.”31 Zenkovskii echoed these sentiments: “We believe that the Church penetrates the whole life, with all its relations; this is the reason why the main characteristic feature of the RSCM is . . . close contact with the Orthodox Church.”32 Indeed, the RSCM did not behave like a movement overcome by Protestant influence. In 1927—a year after the condemnation—RSCM leaders opposed efforts by a senior YMCA secretary to expand the YMCA’s ministry among Russian émigrés.33 And on July 27, 1927, the YMCA and the RSCM struck an agreement in which the YMCA—in a significant departure from its normal practice— emphasized the uniquely Orthodox spirit of the RSCM.34 Three months before the condemnation, the RSCM’s journal published a politic yet stern treatise on the differences between Protestant and Orthodox conceptions of the church. “For Protestants the invisible church and the earthly church are completely different, even contradictory.” What the ecumenical movement needs, the Viestnik concluded, is an “Orthodox understanding of the church.”35 These were not the musings of a Masonic, Protestant-tainted society. Still, the condemnation from the Karlovatskii Synod sent the RSCM into a spin. Fierce debates about its future broke out at its fourth congress in Bierville (just outside Paris) in early September.36 Some reacted to the synod’s condemnation with a plea to move back into the arms of the synod. A number of delegates advocated replacing the word “Christian” in the movement’s title with the word “Orthodox” to placate the Karlovatskii bishops. Bulgakov, however, was angry that semantics could raise questions about loyalty to the church. The RSCM’s members “are prepared to die” for the church, he exclaimed. “If we have doubts about whether we are right before the Orthodox Church in not calling the movement Orthodox, then I, as your pastor, with my testimony, remove those doubts.”37 In the end a compromise was found: the Russian Student Christian Movement retained its name but adopted the additional phrase, Federation of Orthodox Brotherhoods and Study Circles.38

The Russian Student Christian Movement

|

This compromise did not satisfy all. A certain P. S. Lopukhin insisted that all members of the RSCM be subject to the Russian Orthodox hierarchy and fretted that any other arrangement would violate canonical authority. Another speaker countered that bishops played no role in establishing the RSCM and thus had no claim on its allegiance. Moving the RSCM under the bishops, he argued, would scare away exactly those unbelieving students the RSCM wished to attract. Besides, he noted in reference to Evlogii’s split with the Karlovchane, even if the RSCM wishes to subordinate itself to the hierarchy, whom shall it choose as its overseers in a church rent by division and schism? Zernov found the entire discussion enervating, believing that it diverted attention from the RSCM’s primary goal, attracting students back to the church: “At this conference we talk a great deal about ourselves, as though we forget about the main mass of students from whom we are still far away. It often seems to me that our debates are not real.”39 The Russian Orthodox Church in America responded to the Karlovatskii Synod’s condemnation with a ringing endorsement of the RSCM. Its journal printed an article by Zenkovskii that emphasized the RSCM’s “devotion to the Church,” which had “not only welcomed the rise of the movement, but ha[d] come to increasingly depend upon it as a most effective instrument in winning and holding the youth for Christian faith and life.” “In the movement,” Zenkovskii asserted, “you find the highest type of Russian youth.”40 The synod’s condemnation placed Metropolitan Antonii in an awkward position. He opposed the resolution when it came before the synod, yet he was not willing to divorce himself from the synod over the issue. The synod, after all, represented his base of influence in the Russian émigré community, and—despite his differences with the synod’s reactionary bishops—he was more philosophically in step with them than with Evlogii’s flock. On July 26, 1926, Antonii wrote an awkward and conflicted letter to the RSCM that attempted to demonstrate his simultaneous support for the RSCM, the YMCA,4 1 and his synod.42 He assured the movement’s members that he recognized their “devotion to the Orthodox Church” and their “faith and theological knowledge” and expressed the hope that the movement would prosper until a future sobor could be won over to “complete trust in and sympathy for your

117

118

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Movement.”43 But he also gently urged the RSCM back into line, exhorting its members to act with “humility, patience, and obedience” while warning of the dangers that accompany “a surplus” of freedom and a lack of leadership from ecclesiastical figures. Do not yield to “anti-church influence,” he cautioned; “guard yourselves from youthful passions.”44 In a subsequent letter he pleaded, “Hurry toward reconciliation in everything except the devil.”45 Zernov believed that Metropolitan Antonii’s letter to the RSCM “took the sting out” of the bishops’ resolution he had so recently signed.”46 Perhaps. But the letter did nothing to mend relations with the Karlovchane, and during the next few years Antonii became openly hostile to the movement. Following the condemnation the RSCM charted a middle course, steadfastly refusing to recognize other confessions as equal to Orthodoxy,47 yet refusing to suspend relations with those confessions. In 1931 its executive still struggled with the question of whether Russian Orthodox students could be loyal to the movement and still have a general Christian orientation.48 When a confused priest wrote to the movement’s journal asking for guidance, the Viestnik explained that the movement termed itself “Christian” rather than “Orthodox” in hope of uniting “not only Orthodox but also Russian people of other Christian faiths for a combined struggle with atheists striving to destroy the Christian faith.” Besides, the Viestnik continued, many youth have a critical attitude toward the Orthodox Church and want nothing to do with an Orthodox movement. But they avidly enter circles that do not call themselves Orthodox. The movement might draw such students, who will then find themselves “under the influence of the Orthodox spirit and Orthodox leaders.”49 The RSCM, through its journal, constantly felt the need to defend its loyalty to Orthodoxy and to remind its readers that it “works at the heart of the Orthodox church, not against it.”50 Zenkovskii—who insisted that the Orthodox Church provided the only means to salvation and who criticized Bible circles in other Christian movements as lacking a “clear conception” of the church— defended the RSCM in 1933 as bearing a “clear church character.” The fate of the ecumenical movement, Zenkovskii advised, “depends on the extent to which ‘church Christianity’ can

The Russian Student Christian Movement

|

check the growth of churchless [beztserkovnyi] Christianity”:51 this was the role of the RSCM. After 1926 the RSCM grew bolder in asserting its independence from ecclesiastical control. Sergei Chetverikov insisted in 1932 that “the affairs of the movement” are the “affairs of the ‘laity,’ in which hierarchs cannot meddle.”52 Such assertions, of course, only aggravated the Karlovchane. By the early 1930s the RSCM and Metropolitan Antonii found themselves openly at war. In 1934 Antonii wrote a blistering letter to the movement’s journal accusing it of falling under the influence of Protestantism and of “canonical ignorance and even the destruction of Orthodoxy.”53 Chetverikov, a former apostate who became a spiritual leader for many students in the RSCM and who credited Antonii’s influence for his own return to the church, responded sadly to the attack. “There was a time when Antonii was a friend of the Russian Student Christian Movement,” Chetverikov recalled, reminding his readers of Antonii’s prayer at the Hopovo meeting asking God to “bless this union.” It was absurd, Chetverikov argued, to portray fraternization with Protestants as a betrayal of Orthodoxy. To “accuse the movement of Protestantism is unjust to the highest degree.”54 The Karlovatskii Synod’s condemnation placed the RSCM under a cloud from which it never completely emerged. Orthodox priests wrote to the movement’s leaders to ask if they could in good conscience enter a movement that lacked official recognition from “higher church authorities.”55 Devotees of the RSCM would become the leading figures in ecumenical discussions during the next years, but their association with the RSCM meant that they negotiated with Anglicans and other Protestants without the support of a significant portion of the Russian church in exile, which viewed them as inauthentic representatives of Orthodoxy. The most important interwar forum for Anglican-Orthodox discussion— the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius—was founded with the support of the RSCM in 1927, but the RSCM’s support meant that the Fellowship was stillborn in the eyes of the Karlovchane. The Fellowship dealt with this uncomfortable fact by ignoring it. A history of the RSCM in the Fellowship’s journal ignored the blowup of 1926 entirely: it noted that Antonii had offered his support in the movement’s early days but said nothing about his later about-face.56

119

120

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

| Metropolitan Antonii faded quickly from the ecumenical scene after 1926.57 His writings about the Western churches became increasingly hostile and isolationist. “The will of God is our holiness,” Antonii wrote in 1932. “That is the essence of Orthodoxy and what distinguishes it from Western faiths.”58 On the occasion of Archbishop Davidson’s retirement in 1928, Antonii sent him a moving letter, which, in hindsight, appears to anticipate the end of Antonii’s involvement in ecumenical activity. We “old people stand on this earth with only one leg,” he wrote. “I don’t hope to live until the time of church reunion.” He then quoted the apostle Paul (Heb. 11:13): “All of them died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them. They confessed they were strangers and foreigners on the earth.”59 Three years later Antonii sent greetings to Davidson’s successor, Cosmo Gordon Lang, expressing a desire to see increased “friendship” between Orthodox and Anglicans,60 a sentiment that now seemed hollow and little more than a pro forma reminder of past hopes.

8

The Prayer Book Crisis, 1927– 1928

[The Church of England] has been the least united Church in Christendom. —Hensley Henson, bishop of Durham1

W

hen the Roman Catholic Tablet tried to dissuade Metropolitans Antonii and Evlogii from coming to England for the 1925 Nicene Jubilee, it portrayed the Church of England as “a coalition of discordant sects,” of which Orthodox sympathizers and Catholic-minded conservatives formed only a small part. The Anglican Church, argued the Tablet, is a heterodox body, devoid of unifying principles and possessing no clear mind on issues crucial to the Orthodox faith. Although the Tablet failed in its crusade to convince the metropolitans to cancel their trip, it raised issues the Orthodox could not ignore. Orthodox who remained in contact with Anglicans following the Karlovatskii fiasco struggled mightily to discern the mind of the Anglican Church, in particular, the Church of England. What, exactly, did it believe? Was the Church of England, as the Tablet claimed, simply a diverse and unruly collection of Catholics, Protestants, and modernists, united by name alone? Or did its members share a core of beliefs that might eventually attract them to the Orthodox faith?

|

121

122

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Closely related to this question was another: Who determined Anglican doctrine and practice? Who decided what the Church of England professed? Was this Church of England free to decide liturgical and doctrinal questions on its own, or could its decisions be influenced or even overturned by secular, legislative authority? In other words, could the Church of England negotiate with the Orthodox in good faith, knowing that attempts to move closer to Orthodoxy would go unchallenged in Parliament? This question received a depressing answer during the Prayer Book crisis of 1927 and 1928, a crisis that set Anglican against Anglican, church against state, and left Orthodox observers ever more skeptical about the unity and autonomy of the Church of England. The Book of Common Prayer had governed the Church of England’s liturgical and devotional life since 1550. A compromise document from its inception, it held the church together uneasily. The Prayer Book of 1662—the version still in force in 1927—irritated Catholic-minded members of the Church of England. It was a revision of the 1550 Prayer Book, an edition that had allowed Anglican priests to preserve, or “reserve,” bread and wine left over from public eucharistic services for administration at a later date to sick congregants unable to attend communion celebrations. But the 1662 revision—a concession to Puritans and other Protestants in the church who believed that reservation smacked of Roman Catholicism and implied a recognition of transubstantiation2 — explicitly forbade the practice and ordered that all consecrated elements be consumed immediately after their consecration. Resurgent Catholic sentiment in the late 1800s created pressure for the restoration of reservation, and a number of parish priests began practicing it in direct violation of the 1662 Prayer Book. A report in 1906 by the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline noted that 30 of the 559 “ritualist churches” in England and Wales practiced perpetual reservation. Another report in 1929 estimated that 700 Anglican parishes employed the practice.3 Evangelicals in the church were, of course, most vocal in their condemnation of reservation and other, unauthorized, Catholic encroachments. The Churchman complained in 1918, “[In some churches] we shall have the mass in everything but name.”4 Others— even some inclined to endorse the theology behind reservation—worried that their church seemed to have no control over its clergy. Archbishop Davidson, who was

The Prayer Book Crisis, 1927– 1928

|

willing to revise the Prayer Book to allow reservation, was nevertheless troubled by those who practiced reservation “in defiance of episcopal authority.”5 “The absence of reasonable discipline in the Church of England,” opined the English Review, “offends and alarms a large section of the laity” and, it said, probably explains the church’s financial problems and inability to attract “candidates of moderate views” to the ministry.6 This lack of discipline prompted the formation of a royal commission in 1904 to make recommendations on standardizing divergent liturgical practices. The commission’s report urged the Convocations of Canterbury and York to draft a revised Prayer Book that would bring the different practices into line.7 The Convocations, after agonizing debate, produced a Prayer Book that offered a compromise: it would allow reservation for the communion of the sick and the dying,8 but it would not permit the reserved elements to be used in worship services. (The new Prayer Book also sanctioned prayers for the dead.) Such a compromise, the bishops hoped, would placate those who sought reservation, without upsetting those opposed to the Roman Catholic practice of reserving the elements for private communion by healthy individuals. Through this reform, writes Robert Currie, Convocation hoped to regain control of Catholic extremists by making concessions to moderates.9 The compromise was forged in the face of strident resistance. In 1918 some 3,000 clergy and 10,000 laypeople signed a petition opposing modifications to the communion service. In 1924 more than 300,000 laypeople in the church signed a similar petition.10 The Churchman complained in 1917 that it was irresponsible to tackle such an issue when “the nation is engaged in the deadliest war in history.” That Convocation “could devote its energies to such objects at such a time as this fills us with despair.”1 1 Another article stated that reservation “in any form and for any purpose” clearly contradicts the Book of Common Prayer.12 A year later the Churchman complained that the proposed change had “deeply offended the Evangelicals,” who were “as ‘hotly opposed’ to it as ever.”13 As noted above, the clamor stemmed in part from fears that reservation implied a tacit endorsement of transubstantiation, a fear on which the English Roman Catholic press was happy to prey. It is difficult, wrote the English Review, “to dissociate Reservation of any kind from the idea of

123

124

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

some physical change in the elements, such as is taught in the dogma of Transubstantiation.”14 The Churchman portrayed reservation as a camel’s nose under the listing Protestant tent: any concession to those advocating reservation might lead to more substantive concessions. If either prayers for the dead or reservation were allowed, it argued, “it will be more difficult to resist other demands of a like nature at a later stage.”15 “[We] have abundant evidence,” warned another article, “that with any authorization of Reservation, nothing short of permanent Reservation for Adoration will satisfy a considerable section of extreme Churchmen whose constant doctrinal outlook is ‘South of the Alps.’ ”16 Despite the opposition, a desire for uniformity triumphed when Convocation finally voted. The measure passed all three houses by healthy margins (the vote was closest in the House of Clergy).17 But in the Church of England such a decision was not final. For in the 1920s the church was every bit as much a church of the state as it had been under Elizabeth I, and any change to the Prayer Book (or to the Thirty-nine Articles or other church laws, for that matter) still required the approval of Parliament. Many in the church held grave reservations (a flaccid pun that appeared often in the debates) about a secular body dealing with ecclesiastical and spiritual matters. Why should Parliament, with its large, non-Anglican contingent, vote on matters already decided by the Church of England? The church thought it had found a partial solution to these objections eight years earlier when, on December 23, 1919, Parliament passed the Church of England Assembly Act. The act established the Church Assembly—a small group of legislators from both the House of Lords and the House of Commons (MPs who presumably were interested in and sympathetic to the church)—that could work with Convocation to examine ecclesiastical legislation prior to its introduction in Parliament. Once the Church Assembly gave Convocation’s legislation a good vetting and its seal of approval, the legislation would (in the hope of those who drafted the Assembly Act) sail through Parliament with minimal fuss. The Church Assembly would thus benefit both the church and Parliament: the church would have a respected advocate, and Parliament would no longer have to concern itself with the minutiae of theology and liturgy.

The Prayer Book Crisis, 1927– 1928

|

When Convocation’s revised Prayer Book reached the Church Assembly, the assembly functioned just as the act envisioned: it approved the measure and sent it on to Parliament. The House of Lords—generally sympathetic to the established church and full of bishops who had shepherded the Prayer Book through Convocation—accepted the assembly’s endorsement and passed the measure handily, on a vote of 241 to 88. But the measure’s progress took quite a different turn in the House of Commons, a body free of the more Catholic-minded bishops and riddled with Protestants and Evangelicals from both within and outside the Church of England. Emboldened by opposition from members of the free churches, Protestant Anglicans gave full voice to their fears and frustrations.18 When the dust cleared, the House of Commons had rejected the book on a vote of 240 to 207. Convocation regrouped, softened the provisions on reservation,19 and resubmitted the measure in 1928. The House of Commons voted it down again, 238 to 205. What had happened? As noted earlier, opposition had been mounting for some time. By 1927, the year the measure reached Parliament, the Protestant Alliance had gathered 303,673 signatures in opposition.20 The Protestant Parsons’ Pilgrimage in Defense of the Reformation argued that the revision amounted to a step toward reviving the Roman Catholic Mass.21 Archbishop Davidson’s secretary recalled that objections arose from numerous camps, which complained “that it was too modernist, too old-fashioned, too rigid, too loose, that there were too many prayers for the dead, and too few prayers for the King.”22 The Spectator suggested, “There is no subject on which we hurt each other’s feelings more [than on the issue of the sacraments and the real presence].”23 But opposition did not crystallize along purely Protestant or Catholic lines. (Roman Catholic MPs abstained from the debates.) Supporters of a comprehensive, diverse church tended to support the measure.24 The Outlook, for example, argued that an established church must be a “broad church” (i.e., one that encompassed and accommodated a wide variety of beliefs). “Extreme Protestants should exercise a little tolerance. The churches have a hard fight against Satan in these days in any case. Why hamper the fight by objection to the weapons that some of the clergy use?”25

125

126

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Not all Evangelicals opposed the measure. C. G. Ammons, a Wesleyan, insisted that the Prayer Book “in no way contravened the Protestant religion.”26 A Baptist minister in the Commons threw his support behind the bill. Another MP testified on the house floor that his evangelical sympathies could not keep him from recognizing the concerns on the other side in the debate, a “side just as important, just as legitimate, and just as orthodox.” “I am convinced,” he continued, “unless we are prepared to do a great, and perhaps an irreparable injustice, that this fact must be remembered and that we must approach this matter with open minds.”27 But while the revised Prayer Book won the support of the moderate middle, it never gained enough support either from right-wing AngloCatholics or from Protestant Anglicans as a whole. A number of AngloCatholics voted against it, maintaining that the revisions did not go far enough. Other opponents genuinely feared a Roman Catholic incursion. Letters to the editor in the secular and religious press opposed the measure as, for example, “a very definite step towards reunion with Rome,”28 a view that the Roman Catholic Tablet joyfully endorsed.29 Fears of Roman influence remained high at this time: the Malines conversations were still in progress and had already raised qualms about the specter of Roman Catholic power. In fact, Bishop Knox published a pamphlet, The Malines Conference and the Deposited Book, that portrayed the measure as yet one more example of the Church of England’s attempt to change its doctrine to suit Rome.30 William Joynston-Hicks, British home secretary, emerged as the most persuasive Protestant voice in the opposition.31 He argued that the alternative communion service in the Prayer Book would bring the church “nearer to the mediaeval ideas which were abolished by us at the time of the Reformation.”32 “You allow Reservation, and you allow the light to be constantly burning before the Reserved Sacrament. Do you mean to tell me that that does not lead to Adoration?” “That is the reason why for 300 years the Church of England has declined to permit Reservation— it is because you cannot prevent Adoration.”33 Joynston-Hicks dismissed Archbishop Davidson’s assurance that the new Prayer Book implemented no major changes.34 This “alteration was made because of the demand from the Anglo-Catholics for a change in the doctrines and the practices

The Prayer Book Crisis, 1927– 1928

|

of the Church of England,” he said. “There would have been no revision otherwise.”35 Other MPs rushed to Joynston-Hicks’s side. A Mr. Greaves-Lord intimated that the change would destroy the church’s “unity of spirit.” And a Mr. Morris reminded fellow MPs that Nonconformists left the Church of England “upon a similar issue and the very same principle in 1662.”36 The issue filled the British press. The New Statesman noted that the new rubric explicitly prohibited the reserved bread and wine from being used for any purpose but for the communion of the sick. Yet “a great many people suspect that the Bishops have no real intention of enforcing this rule,” the New Statesman reported. “Our parish padre may easily persuade us that it is good and right and comfortable to regard the Bread and Wine as objects worthy of devotional respect, but we will have nothing at all to do with the ‘Scarlet Woman’ of Rome. For England is a Protestant country and always will be—not on doctrinal but on temperamental (and perhaps instinctive political) grounds.”37 The Saturday Review, on the other hand, warned that rejecting the Prayer Book would be a disaster for the church. The revision, it said, is “a challenge to Anglican Unity”: Parliament must not bow to leaders who “show themselves infinitely more interested in the challenge of one party to another than the really serious challenge of the world to the Church.”38 The defeat left nobody happy. (The Outlook observed that the revision brought “discord among clergy and laity alike.”)39 Supporters accused opponents of unfair tactics in enlisting non-Anglicans in their fight to defeat the measure.40 Evangelicals who carried the day were not happy either. They still had no guarantee that Anglo-Catholics who practiced reservation in spite of the still-extant Prayer Book of 1662 would change their ways.41 In fact, Archbishop Davidson declared in 1929 that bishops should permit the rites outlined in the rejected Prayer Book, an action in direct defiance of Parliament’s decision. (The services in the rejected Prayer Book remained in unofficial use until 1965.)42 The defeat of the revised Prayer Book solved nothing, but it provided fresh evidence to the Orthodox of how contentious were the parties that constituted the Church of England. It also raised serious questions about secular interference and left many questioning the very notion of establishment. (Observers at the time noted that if either non-English or

127

128

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

non-Anglican MPs had refrained from voting, the measure would have passed, although barely.)43 One MP suggested that if the Church of England were a “free and voluntary religious body,” its members would “have what religion they please. But the church is not a free body; it is the church of England, and it represents the official religion of the nation.”44 But should ecclesiastical decisions be subject to state approval? Bishops, argued the Outlook, are responsible for church discipline, and “Parliament has no right to refute their requirements and then to criticize them for not disciplining their clergy.”45 A Mr. Ponsonby stated bluntly on the floor of the House that MPs were mistaken to discuss “these very sacred mysteries.”46 Winston Churchill sighed, “Here you have the greatest surviving Protestant institution in the world patiently listening to Debates on its spiritual doctrines by twentieth century democraticallyelected politicians who, quite apart from their constitutional rights, have really no credentials except goodwill. It is a strange spectacle, and rather repellent.”47 Following the defeat, the Modern Churchman termed establishment a “medieval idea” drawn from a belief in the “spiritual incompetence of the laity.”48 The Church Times, reeling from the vote, urged the church to demand the right to establish its doctrine and liturgy on its own.49 The Roman Catholic English Review chortled about “stern Protestants, who foam at the mouth with rage against the presumption of Rome,” yet “complacently accept a new Pope in the form of an assembly which is largely pagan, thus making Parliament a laughing-stock and the Church of England a tragedy.”50 Not everyone agreed. One MP who opposed the measure reminded his colleagues of Archbishop Davidson’s words on introducing the Deposited Book to Parliament: “Every Member of this House has, in my view, an absolute right to vote freely upon a matter of this kind.”51 | An endorsement of the Prayer Book revision would have brought Anglican eucharistic practice closer to its Orthodox counterpart;52 the defeat of the Prayer Book thus had significant implications for Orthodox attitudes about the possibility of doctrinal unity with the Church of England. The debates of 1927 and 1928 could not and did not go unnoticed by Orthodox observers. Orthodoxia, the official organ of the ecumenical patriarch, published a series of articles on the revised Prayer

The Prayer Book Crisis, 1927– 1928

|

Book, later collected and published as a book.53 Metropolitan Evlogii and his Western European diocese tracked the matter closely, as did Metropolitan Antonii. Put’, the journal of the Russian Orthodox intelligentsia in Paris, also published on the controversy. John Douglas worried mightily about the effect of the Prayer Book’s defeat on Orthodox perceptions of the Anglican Church. He knew that Archbishop Germanos was following the debates in Parliament for “indications as to how far the Church of England is a Church with which the Orthodox Church can unite or indeed can be in close brotherly relations.” Germanos, Douglas noted unhappily, thought of the Church of England in terms of “schools of thought,” “tendencies,” and “sections,” and thus Douglas tried to portray opposition to the revision as the action of a radical, inconsequential section (i.e., “an obscurantist and violently biased beating of the Protestant drum”).54 But Douglas was clearly vexed: “The solidarity of a family is often obscured for an outsider by the sharp words spoken during a quarrel.” During the Prayer Book crisis, “we have no doubt exhibited ourselves at our worst. Our verbal differences have been sharpened and our conflicts of doctrine maximized.”55 The Prayer Book controversy aroused deep concern in the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius (see chap. 10). “Just look at the English Church,” wrote Father Basil in the Fellowship’s journal. “What a rabble! What a failure! What an intolerable mess! There seems to be no way out and no Prayer Book that can deliver us.”56 The Fellowship’s first published collection of essays included a piece on church-state relations.57 Anglicans at the second conference—conducted at the height of the crisis—recalled, “Our Russian friends were as thirsty for information about the rejection of the Prayer Book as we were for details about the relation of their Church to the Soviet Government.”58 Frustrations spilled forth.59 In trying to understand Orthodox perspectives on the crisis, we must remember that Russian émigrés who followed the debates belonged to a church that until 1917 was also subject to state control. The history of the Russian church in the early twentieth century is a history of efforts to free itself from dependence on the state. The major figures of the Russian ecclesiastical intelligentsia now residing in Europe had been nearly unanimous in demanding autonomy for the Russian church.60 In 1917 the Holy Synod (the government cabinet that governed the

129

130

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

church) was abolished, and, for the first time in 196 years, the church found itself free from state control.61 This freedom, so long in coming, disappeared several months later when the Bolsheviks mounted their assault on the church. Russian émigrés understood perfectly both the value of ecclesiastical autonomy and the difficulty of winning and maintaining it. The bishop of Durham understood his Russian audience well when—several years later, in a speech to the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius—he reflected on the Prayer Book debate: “We have recently witnessed the portentous spectacle of a . . . Communist voting in the House of Commons against the adoption of a Prayer Book which had been carefully revised by the authorities of the Church of England.” And the bishop may as well have been talking about the pre-1917 Russian church when he said, “It is obvious that an Establishment of this description can only be tolerable if its anachronistic and anomalous character is frankly accepted.”62 Such a view was common among the Russian émigrés. Evlogii, Bulgakov,63 Florovskii, Zenkovskii, Kartashev,64 Fedotov,65 and even Antonii had all advocated disestablishment in Russia. They could all agree with the English Review’s conclusion “that there is something gravely defective in a system under which a secular body finds itself, willingly or unwillingly, deciding obscure points of sacramental doctrine.”66 The journal of Evlogii’s diocese argued that the subjugation of the Church of England to the British state was unacceptable: “[It] somewhat reminds us of the subjugation of the Russian church to the Ober-procurator67 of the Holy Synod and the decline of episcopal power [in Russia].”68 Berdiaev wrote furiously during the 1920s about the danger of close ties between church and government.69 Zernov also expressed unease with establishment.70 Evlogii’s memoirs speak of his disappointment with the revised Prayer Book’s defeat. He was convinced that Davidson advocated the revisions to bring the Church of England closer to Orthodoxy.7 1 Antonii had invested a good bit of his early hope for rapprochement with the Church of England in the revised Prayer Book. In a letter to Davidson he referred to the revision as “a big step” toward the Orthodox Church in “dogmatic and canonical relations.”72 (By the time of the book’s defeat, however, Antonii was already fading from the ecumenical scene.)

The Prayer Book Crisis, 1927– 1928

|

Put’ tracked the controversy and, like Antonii, portrayed the revision as an attempt to bring doctrinal and liturgical practice closer to Orthodoxy. But Put’ followed the debates with a wary, didactic realism, reminding its readers that—because “the Church of England is the state Church of England”—its doctrine remained subject to Parliamentary approval. Its correspondent reported frankly on Protestant opposition within the church and offered an eyewitness account of several thousand people marching on Lambeth Palace to protest the revision.73 Evlogii’s journal, Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkii (Church Messenger of the Western European Diocese), also monitored the debates. While the Viestnik accepted as self-evident that the Anglican Church had preserved a valid hierarchy and had never turned fully to Protestantism,74 it found the 1662 Prayer Book a confused, half-Protestant/half-Catholic document.75 Attempts by Anglican bishops to interpret this uninterpretable book, argued the Viestnik, led only to chaos. A standardized interpretation was needed,76 and the Viestnik welcomed the revised Prayer Book as a step in the right direction: a “fresh, spiritual breeze blowing through a country in decay.”77 It thus reacted to the Prayer Book’s rejection as if to “a blow.” The debates in Parliament, especially in the House of Commons, proved the “irreconcilability” (neprimirimost’) of parties within the church.78 The final rejection—a “playing with the Christian religion”79 —undermined the Church of England’s spiritual authority 80 and constituted a defeat for the church’s centuries-old attempt to establish a measure of independence from the state.81 The bishops had worked for twenty years to formulate norms of faith, wrote the Viestnik, never “doubting that their authority would be supported by legal organs.”82 The rejection proved that Convocation had “completely” lost its independent decision-making authority. “Such a situation,” it said, “can be termed ‘paralysis.’ ”83 Orthodox reviews of the crisis were uniformly pessimistic. The Church of England, it seemed, could not agree on eucharistic doctrine among its own members, and it was sadly dependent on secular authority to approve any movement toward Orthodoxy. The Church of England appeared even more divided, divisive, and impotent than before.

131

9

Lausanne, 1927

A hymn was sung in French, but the congregation did little justice to it, partly because French is an extremely poor language for hymn-singing. . . . The inevitable result was that the organ and about half the congregation did not keep time. —Church Times 1

During a particularly hot August in 1927, some five hundred delegates from every major branch of Christianity save Roman Catholicism assembled in the magnificent Gothic cathedral in Lausanne, Switzerland, to see if it might be possible to find a measure of doctrinal agreement among the separated confessions of Christendom.2 The idea for the conference originated at the World Missionary Conference of 1910, when Bishop Charles Brent of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States proposed holding a convention on “Faith and Order” to explore questions of doctrine, dogma, liturgical practice, and governance among the Christian churches of the world. The Episcopal Church discussed the idea for a decade, and planners met in Geneva in 1920 to design a conference that would seek solutions to Christian disunion on the basis of doctrine and belief.

132

|

Lausanne, 1927

|

The delegates at Lausanne represented eighty-seven Christian confessions and countless nationalities, conducting their business in French, German, and English. Some four hundred delegates represented Protestant confessions, dwarfing the Anglo-Catholic and Orthodox contingents. The Orthodox delegation numbered only twenty-nine people,3 most of whom found themselves residing in the same hotel as a delegation of Swedish Lutherans.4 Fourteen Anglican bishops attended, plus a number of parish priests and laity. Anglo-Catholics were nervous about attending a largely Protestant gathering. They worried about the influence of U.S. fundamentalists and wondered if a massive Protestant bloc might push through a scheme of reunion based on the self-sufficiency of Scripture.5 The Anglo-Catholic weekly, the Church Times, bristled throughout the conference at the Protestant tone of the proceedings and took offense at worship that seemed inadequately liturgical. It complained that delegates sat during prayers6 and that the high altar in the cathedral “stood bare and alone.” “I wondered,” wrote its correspondent, “when the day would come when a Catholic Bishop will celebrate the Holy Mysteries here vested as a Catholic Bishop should be vested.”7 Bishop Gore also had his doubts about what might emerge from this Protestant crowd but seemed placated when the organizers made clear that no attendees would be bound by the decisions of the conference.8 Some Orthodox wondered whether they should even attend. The Karlovchane, unwilling to consort with heretics, sent no delegates. Nor did the Russian church in Russia. Bulgakov told his colleagues that the union movement can, for Orthodoxy, “have no other task than the re-uniting of all men in the bosom of the Orthodox Church.” “It goes without saying,” he continued, that Orthodox representatives may participate only if “the fullness and purity of Orthodoxy is safeguarded.”9 Bulgakov noted that canons forbade praying and associating with heretics. Yet he also argued that those canons could be set aside if the Orthodox made clear they had no desire to enter into heresy.10 One need not accept the “rigid application” of canons forbidding association with heretics; to do so “would be to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel like the Pharisees.”1 1 There is, Bulgakov conceded, a “spiritual danger of interconfessionalism,” yet he believed that “the time has already passed when we could

133

134

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

lock ourselves in and isolate ourselves from the world as if inside a monastery fence.”12 Most of the Orthodox churches—or at least their prominent representatives—agreed with Bulgakov. Orthodox delegates arrived in Lausanne from Constantinople, Alexandria, Greece, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, and other regions. Evlogii, who had by now established his own short record of ecumenical contacts, was happy to attend and to send members of his diocese, centered in Paris.13 Metropolitan Germanos, who emerged as the spokesman for the Orthodox delegation, was eager to build on Constantinople’s 1920 encyclical.14 Germanos did all he could to appear the gracious and amenable guest at Lausanne. He donned a black frock coat rather than the traditional Greek cassock (a gesture that prompted the Church Times to complain that he lost “much of his dignity and effectiveness” by dressing like a Lutheran minister).15 In a speech full of broad-minded sentiment, he argued that the Orthodox Church “rejects that exclusive theory according to which one Church, regarding itself as the one true Church, insists that those who seek reunion with it shall enter its own realm.” Any conception of reunion as the “absorption of the other churches” was “in every way opposed to the spirit existing in the Orthodox Church,” which distinguishes between “unity” and “uniformity.”16 Still, for Germanos, unity in faith required a good deal of uniformity. Although he urged his theologians to remain open to negotiation on questions concerning the nature of the church, a common creed, the significance of Scripture, and the meaning of the sacraments, he nevertheless made it clear that the Orthodox must demand that tradition and the decisions of local councils and synods remain central to any scheme of reunion.17 The Orthodox often appeared obstinate to the four-fifths Protestant audience. Nikolai Glubokovskii opened his speech with an assault on the free churches (and, by implication, the majority of Protestant denominations) for their inadequate conception of the church.18 Before the conference Metropolitan Stefan of Bulgaria circulated a pamphlet outlining at length the Orthodox conception of the church. The Orthodox must adhere rigorously to their conception of the hierarchy and the sacraments:19 “that which has been established by the Divine Power is not subject to change.”20 Orthodox delegates soon gained a reputation

Lausanne, 1927

|

as intolerant of any hint of relativism or compromise. There is only one faith, proclaimed Stefan Tsankov of the University of Sofia, Bulgaria; it is not “a matter of personal conviction.” Religious truth is “objective” and exists “independently of our personal conviction and freedom of judgment.” We of the Orthodox Church, he said, “hold steadfastly to the belief that where the Church is found, there must also ipso facto be found Faith, Doctrine, and Creed; and that where the one Church of Christ is found, there are found, or ought to be found, one Faith, one Doctrine and one Creed.” There is no happy medium. Any attempt to reconcile conflicting beliefs “would be a futile undertaking, because, in matters of religion, no reconciliation is possible between truth and error; between affirmation and negation.”21 Bulgakov managed to anger many Protestant delegates in a speech on the church’s ministry.22 Disunion, he argued, would disappear only when “the eyes of all will turn towards our Mother, the Orthodox Eastern Church, and towards its charismatic episcopate, for that healing of infirmities and renewal of exhausted energies of which a prayer in our Ordinal speaks.” Protestants balked when he argued that the episcopate “has the right to use its power and authority in the defense and proclamation of the truths acknowledged by the Church” and that it “restores to the right path such groups as have strayed outside Church unity into isolation.” (Bulgakov also offended conservative Orthodox by reiterating his long-held conviction that bishops are nothing more than “the voice of the whole Church” and that clergy are “not above the people but in them and with them.”)23 But the real outrage began when Bulgakov turned to the question of the Virgin Mary. The Mother of God, said Bulgakov, is the unifier of Christianity: Christians can achieve unity only under her cloak.24 The chairman, disturbed by this unexpected detour, interrupted Bulgakov’s speech to inform him that he had gone off topic. Bulgakov objected, but the chairman remained firm and told him his time was up. The incident made a few Anglo-Catholics indignant—they welcomed this leaven of Mariology in the mostly Protestant gathering 25 —but the majority of delegates were probably relieved. When after a week of negotiation the chairman finally allowed Bulgakov to deliver a speech on the Virgin Mary, the audience, according to Evlogii, reacted “with restraint and reserve and an uncertain mood.”26 Many were simply appalled. (Eight

135

136

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

years later even the Christian East remarked, “[The] exaggerated importance given to the Mother of God [by Bulgakov] is particularly unfortunate, as it will appear to lend support to the wildest Protestant accusations of excess in this matter and alienate many who would otherwise be profoundly affected by the Orthodox teaching about the Saints.”)27 The primary work of the conference occurred in committees assigned to produce reports on five main topics: “The Call to Unity” (a rather innocuous expression of the desire for a reunited Christendom), the role of Scripture and the nature of the church, the search for a common confession of faith, the ministry of the church, and the sacraments. A sixth report attempted to summarize the implications of the other reports for “Christian unity.” It soon became clear that agreement on these broad questions was a pipe dream. Quakers and Orthodox, Lutherans and Old Catholics, Baptists and Anglicans all took different and often diametrically opposed positions on fundamental questions within each committee. Their reports emerged not as descriptions of consensus but as elaborations of differences.28 Summaries of commonalities and differences (an approach that Lukas Visher described as “comparative ecclesiology”)29 was the best they could muster. The reports on the nature of the church,30 the common confession of faith,31 and the sacraments32 were especially wishy-washy. The Orthodox delegates became distraught over an apparent disinterest in matters crucial to the Orthodox faith. Protestants, fumed Archbishop Nicholas of Nubia (Alexandria), “give very little value to dogma.”33 Bulgakov complained of Protestant “relativism,” as evidenced by reports unwilling to take firm stands on contentious issues.34 Nikolai Arsen’ev also complained of “relativism.”35 The very theme of the conference— “Unity in Differences”—seemed to Arsen’ev a Protestant notion. A number of Orthodox delegates began asking whether they could, in good conscience, vote on documents infused with Protestant doctrine and (to their minds) unconcerned with ultimate, objective truth. Arsen’ev believed that participating in a vote might convey the impression that the Orthodox Church acknowledged different points of view as having equal value.36 But differences among the Orthodox themselves made a unified response difficult. The Karlovchane believed the conference itself was hazardous and thus remained at home. The Serbian patriarch sent only a

Lausanne, 1927

|

token representative. Moscow viewed Lausanne as a dangerous flirtation with the West. (Evlogii spent at least part of his time in Lausanne reading the metropolitan of Moscow’s denunciation of his diocese’s “open assault” against Soviet power.)37 Russian delegates at Lausanne were dismayed that their Greek counterparts seemed wholly uninterested in discussing doctrine.38 The Anglican bishop of Gloucester, Arthur Headlam, who circulated among the Orthodox delegates, confirmed tensions between the conservative Greeks and more liberal members of the Russian delegation.39 Some Orthodox delegates urged their colleagues to abandon the conference entirely; others argued that a withdrawal would squander their chance to explain Orthodox points of view and positively influence the ecumenical movement.40 In the end, a compromise was struck.4 1 The delegation agreed to stay but—citing concerns about deep differences with Protestants “on a whole number of basic points of faith and teaching”42 and fears among some delegates that voting on the reports would somehow “compromise” their churches43 —decided to issue a declaration noting its displeasure. Metropolitan Germanos read the declaration to the conference on August 18.44 It criticized in particular the conference’s common confession of faith and its report on the nature of the church. These documents, complained Germanos, resulted from compromise that produced “conflicting ideas and meanings,” indicating only external agreement in the letter. “For us,” he said, “two different meanings cannot be covered by, and two different concepts cannot be deduced from, the same words of a generally agreed statement.” The Orthodox could not imagine a united church in which some members characterized Scripture as the only source of divine revelation while others believed that the apostolic tradition provides “the necessary completion of Holy Scripture.” In such an arrangement “nothing but confusion” would result, for reunion requires a common faith. But at Lausanne, it seemed to Germanos, that agreement could “be reached only by vague phrases or by a compromise of antithetical opinions.” Agreements about the necessity of sacraments were meaningless when they masked “fundamental” disagreements about the number of sacraments, their significance, their essence, and their effects. Reunion, he continued, could not be “confined to a few common points of a verbal statement.” Communion in sacris could not exist “where the totality of the Faith is absent.”45

137

138

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

The chairman of the conference received the report politely. Remarked Bishop Brent, “We only hope that [the Orthodox] will study the positions which are contrary to their own position with the same earnestness and lack of prejudice that the balance of the Conference will study their position.”46 The Orthodox were not alone in expressing displeasure. Quakers, Lutherans, and Calvinists followed suit in refusing to endorse the reports. Athelstan Riley and a number of other Anglicans also declared they could not concur with reports they considered ambiguous and misleading and which glossed over significant differences. The Old Catholics and Armenians were prepared to make similar declarations when the conference’s leaders decided not to adopt the reports formally but simply to pass them on to individual churches for consideration.47 Reactions to the Orthodox declaration were as mixed as the doctrinal positions outlined in the reports. The Church Times, generally a great supporter of the Orthodox, questioned the delegation’s motives.48 Bishop Headlam called the declaration “fundamentally wrong.” “What right . . . have they to say that many other things are necessary for faith besides [the Nicene] Creed?” The Council of Chalcedon anathematized anyone who characterized additions to the creed as necessary for belief. Such attitudes “ma[d]e any sort of Christian reunion impossible.” The statement by the Orthodox Church was: “This is what we believe, what we always have believed, what we always will believe and we will make no change.” Now, if every religious body present was to make the same declaration and adopt the same attitude, it would, of course, make any Conference futile and any reunion impossible. . . . The Orthodox Church, according to this declaration, says: We are the Church; what we believe is true; no one else belongs to the Church and we cannot unite with anyone unless they believe what we believe. The Roman Church says exactly the same thing.49 Metropolitan Germanos wrote to the Christian East to defend the declaration against Headlam’s accusations.50 Headlam’s desire for unity based on the Nicene Creed, Germanos argued, is too simple, for it ignores essentials of faith beyond the creed.51 The Nicene Creed, he said,

Lausanne, 1927

|

“is not the sole necessary confession of faith.” As to Headlam’s complaint that Orthodoxy saw itself as the one true church, Germanos asked, “Why . . . should we not conclude that it is possible that out of all who maintain that they themselves are in the right, one only actually is in the right. . . ?”52 The Orthodox actions genuinely upset Protestants in the Church of England. At Lausanne, wrote Thomas Pulvertaft, “it was plain to all that a union between the Greek and the Non-Episcopal Churches is impossible as long as the Greeks maintain their rigid attitude.” “The Anglican Church can never unite with the Orthodox, for it has no intention of abandoning its primitive Catholicity for Mediæval Catholicity.”53 While Lausanne led some Anglicans to mistrust the Orthodox, the reverse was also true. Bishop Nicholas of Nubia, for example, felt that Anglicans at Lausanne did not fully understand that “theological problems can never be solved by compromise, but [rather] by the prevailing of the truth.”54 Lausanne indirectly hurt Anglican-Orthodox relations in another way: it emphasized divisions among Anglicans. The archbishops of Canterbury and York appointed a commission to consider Lausanne’s reports. After two years of study, the commission reported that it could not agree on whether the delegates at Lausanne should have pushed harder for intercommunion;55 that it did not wish to take a stand on the episcopate when considering reunion;56 that it had no idea how to interpret the Lambeth Quadrilateral;57 and that it could not agree on the role of baptism in qualifying someone to become a member of the church.58 In other words, the Anglican commission proved to be every bit as indecisive as the conference it was charged to study.59 Lausanne demonstrated to the Orthodox just how far Protestants had drifted from Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The conference, wrote Evlogii, proved how difficult reunion was and how explosive were questions about the nature of the church, the sacraments, and the veneration of the Mother of God, the saints, and icons. The conference exuded “a spirit of brotherly love,” but brotherly love alone was not sufficient. In his view, the profoundly different conceptions of the church meant that they could not “unite everything in one Ecumenical Church.” Evlogii retained hope that common work might continue in the social and “moral” sphere but seemed to lose hope for formal reunion.60

139

140

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Arsen’ev noted that Lausanne at least brought the various Protestant confessions somewhat closer to each other, thus offering the hope of productive discussions between Orthodoxy and a united Protestant world. But Lausanne also revealed to Arsen’ev the “innumerable differences” among Protestant confessions. The only real hope for reunion, he concluded, was for Orthodoxy to exert its “pedagogical influence” and share with the various Protestant confessions its “riches and experience,” trying to draw those Protestants interested in church tradition back to the bosom of the preserver of that tradition.61 Always the optimist, Bulgakov found promise in Lausanne. While not a manifestation of unity, Lausanne was at least a “striving toward” unity, and it revealed a desire by its participants “to understand one another, to understand the meaning and strength of different points of view.”62 Thus the conversations, though ultimately unproductive, had intrinsic value, and ought to continue.63 “So many historical wounds and dogmatic misunderstandings emerge from one-sided expressions and inexact human words, and may be smoothed over and perhaps even removed [by such conversations].” But Bulgakov remained as adamant as the other Orthodox delegates in his contention that Orthodoxy alone preserved the “true faith.” Orthodoxy’s role was to help other churches “in their search for the single, true tserkovnost’.”64 And he insisted that the Mother of God must remain at the forefront of ecumenical discussions. When reflecting on the Faith and Order movement several years later, Alivizatos concluded that it would be impossible to attain unity of doctrine “by human means.” Yet, like Bulgakov, he urged that ecumenical work continue despite the lack of tangible progress. We should, Alivizatos urged, “stubbornly strive to find the roots and reasons behind our differences.”65 Formal efforts to build on the work of Lausanne led nowhere. Few Orthodox churches commented publicly on the reports. The synod of Alexandria merely affirmed the declaration of the Orthodox delegation.66 Evlogii’s journal seemed no more inclined toward Protestants after the conference than before.67 Lausanne’s “continuation committee” appointed a working group to draw up questions for discussion among the churches back home, but these questions were insulting to the Orthodox: “Did Jesus Christ found (or re-found) one visible Church to be the organ of His action in the world?” “How would you work out

Lausanne, 1927

|

the suggestion that there are elements of episcopal, Presbyterian and congregational orders, all of which ought to have their place in the life of a reunited Church?”68 “How far is it possible to include within the one Church types of religious faith and worship as diverse as are represented by the Friends and the Anglo-Catholics?”69 What did emerge from the conference, however, was a growing respect among Anglo-Catholics for the Orthodox. Arsen’ev observed a closeness between Orthodoxy and “the right wing of Anglicanism” at Lausanne,70 and he found Bishop Gore admirably receptive to Orthodox doctrine. “The Reunion of Christendom,” wrote Athelstan Riley, “will never be accomplished by ambiguity of language or concealment of thought.”7 1 Whereas Protestant Anglicans were disappointed by the behavior of the Orthodox,72 Anglo-Catholics viewed them as spokesmen for their own concerns. Like the Orthodox, John Douglas and Bishop Gore expressed unease with the conference’s report, “The Church’s Message to the World”:73 it put, they believed, too much emphasis on Scripture and not enough emphasis on the church and the sacred tradition. Halfway through the conference, the Church Times bluntly expressed its unhappiness with Protestant rumblings among the Anglican delegates 74 and complained at length about the overall Protestant tone of Lausanne.75 Delegates, it insisted, must not succumb to “Pan-Protestantism.”76 The Orthodox, argued the grateful Anglo-Catholics, put a stop to such nonsense. The Church Times wrote warmly of Professor Glubokovskii’s insistence that Scripture alone could not provide a sufficient basis for reunion, of Archbishop Chrysostom’s and Metropolitan Stefan’s emphasis on apostolic succession,77 and of Bishop Nikolai of Okhrida’s defense of the seven sacraments.78 Douglas portrayed the Orthodox declaration as a useful dam that impeded a conference “swept towards disaster by its unconscious Protestant impulse.”79 The Orthodox presence at Lausanne “has been all to the good,” he wrote. They and the Anglicans ha[d] prevented the Conference from becoming merely pan-Protestant.”80 When the Orthodox issued their declaration, the Church Times headlined its report, “Pan-Protestant Plans Entirely Defeated.”81 Shortly after Lausanne Metropolitan Germanos suggested that it might be possible to unite Orthodoxy with the Church of England if his Anglo-Catholic colleagues could reform their church in their own image.82

141

142

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

For many, Lausanne was a disappointing experience that seemed to place reunion out of reach. H. Richard Niebuhr remarked two years later that hope for church union within the next three hundred years was “optimistic.”83 But for Anglo-Catholics and Orthodox, the experience at Lausanne appeared to offer some hope for closer ties. Here were two groups that thought alike, defended each other against a “misguided” Protestant majority, and just might find a way to guide the Anglican Church back to the “true,” Catholic church. There was, it seemed, some hope after all. A number of Russian Orthodox and Anglican students were already planning a small assembly over the Christmas holiday. And when Anglican delegates approached the Orthodox at Lausanne about attending the next Lambeth conference in 1930, they agreed to come.

10

The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius

Is it perhaps the case that just as the English mind needs above all others the Russian mind to give it a higher, more mystical conception of the Church and its authority, so the deep mystical Russian mind, above others, needs the hard practical English mind to help it take account of facts. —Canon H. L. Goudge 1

It is perhaps the only instance where the members of two very different Christian communities which never before had any common religious life came to the conclusion that the reunion of their bodies is not only important but urgently needed and quite possible. —Nicolas Zernov 2

On January 11, 1927, about sixty people congregated under overcast skies on the platform of a small train station in St. Albans, a town on the northwestern outskirts of London. They awaited twelve Russian Orthodox priests and students—seven from Paris and five from London. When the train arrived and the students and priests disembarked, they seemed to some a “motley” (pestryi) crew. Sergei Bulgakov led the delegation. Clad in a heavy Russian cassock and with long hair and a gray |

143

144

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

beard, he seemed rather “exotic” to his hosts.3 As they moved about town the delegation attracted the curious and perhaps startled attention of residents accustomed, said one delegate, “to the sedate and uniform tenor of English life.”4 The Russians had arrived for the first-ever formal meeting of Anglican and Russian Orthodox students. (A few members of the free churches also attended, although Anglicans overwhelmingly dominated the English side.)5 The British and Russian Student Christian Movements sponsored the meetings, conceived at the 1926 conference of the World Student Christian Federation in Nyborg, Denmark.6 There Russian Orthodox and Anglican students had discovered, to their surprise, that they had a great deal to talk about— enough, at least, to continue the conversations on a more formal basis.7 The timing of the decision—just after the Karlovatskii Synod’s strident criticism of the RSCM8 —constituted a statement of sorts that the Russian Student Christian Movement would proceed with ecumenical contacts, regardless of what the Karlovchane might prefer. Metropolitan Evlogii, a great admirer of English students,9 was happy to sponsor the delegation, and he asked his favorite priest, Father Bulgakov, to lead the delegation with the assistance of Archbishop Serafim (formerly of Sevastopol). Father Timofeev, stationed in London, was a natural choice for a third sponsor. Simply making it to London was no small feat. Many Russian students—refugees of the revolution—lived on the edge of poverty. Daily existence was a struggle for themselves and their parishes. Their presence testified both to the generosity of their hosts and to their own determination to make contact with that branch of Christendom thought most friendly to Orthodoxy. They were excited to be in England, and rather awed. “It seemed to me,” recalled Nicolas Zernov, “that to live and study in this chosen place should be an extraordinary privilege.”10 English life looked awfully good.1 1 But excited though they were, the participants—English and Russians alike—were not quite sure why they were here or what they hoped to accomplish. The Russians felt out of place, foreigners both geographically and psychologically.12 None of the English knew Russian. Most of the Russians spoke some English but poorly. But enthusiasm and resourcefulness overcame language barriers: Latin provided the medium for at least one dinner conversation.

The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius

|

The program—designed jointly by the British and Russian Student Christian Movements—stated that the conference’s aim was, simply, “to acquaint members of the British Student Movement with Orthodox Russian life, and Russians with the Anglican Church.”13 But talk of reunion was in the air, and some participants clearly hoped that this conference might be a step along that path. Whether formal reunion ever constituted a significant goal of the gathering (soon to be named the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius after famous English and Russian saints) became increasingly fuzzy as the years went by. In his report on the second conference Paul Anderson recalled that the question of unification “in the canonical sphere” drew little attention; members of the Fellowship “strove for more modest goals.”14 Zernov implied in his later writings that the Fellowship’s goals were never more ambitious than those outlined in the first program. Marc Raeff ’s history of the Russian emigration echoes this view: “At no point was there any question of an interconfessional unification, in the sense of reaching a compromise position on basic dogmatic and liturgical issues.”15 Duncan Van Dusen agrees: the Fellowship did not “intend to reunite the two Churches, although it cannot be denied that this was the ultimate goal.”16 But such interpretations neglect the excitement and high hopes of the early days. One Russian participant told the RSCM’s Viestnik, “I felt the real possibility of Church unity.”17 Andrei Karpov, who reported on the first conference for Put’, recalled, “At the forefront of all remarks was the question: is it possible to unite Anglicanism with Orthodoxy; are there insurmountable hurdles on this path?”18 Sergei Bezobrazov noted a hope among the conferees for intercommunion—something akin to reunion in the minds of many Orthodox—as “our ardent prayer.”19 Gore advocated this goal as well. Eric Mascall wrote after the second conference, “We cannot believe that the reunion of the Churches is ultimately impossible. Misunderstandings have to be removed, differences require explanation, apathy in many members of both churches must be kindled into brother love: all this is true, but we have seen the vision and we bear it in our souls.”20 Even Zernov entertained such hopes. He described participants at the 1931 conference as “a small but energetic group of people . . . conscious of the necessity for reunion between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches” who have a “firm desire to become personally active workers

145

146

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

in this field.”21 Bernard Clarke, one of the most active Anglican members, considered reunion the Fellowship’s primary aim.22 Membership forms from the early 1930s required members to promise that they would “observe the rule of prayer for Reunion.”23 The question of reunion was an open question and one that its members took seriously. Disappointments did occur early on (Zernov sighed in 1930, “Four years of mutual contact have shown rather slow progress”),24 but serious doubts did not loom large until later in the early 1930s. Only in 1933 did the executive draw up an official statement of aims and beliefs, proclaiming that the Fellowship “has only an indirect relation to negotiations for Reunion.”25 But we precede ourselves. Back to the conference at St. Alban’s in January 1927. Things began poorly. The Russian delegates, refugees from a selfproclaimed socialist state, were rather taken aback by the leftist leanings of their Anglican hosts. “Most conservative students expressed almost socialist views,” gasped the correspondent for Put’. He described the “political radicalism” of the English students and seemed amazed to learn that the majority belonged to the Labour party.26 Expecting theological discussions, the Russians instead found themselves in the midst of debates about social reform. Such “radicalism” blindsided Bezobrazov, a professor at St. Sergius in Paris. Wrapping up a speech about Russian Orthodox martyred by the Soviets, he opened the floor to questions and was bombarded with queries about the Living Church—a church that young Anglican socialists seemed to regard as a model for the evolution of their own. (The Living Church, we must remember, was an ecclesiastical body supported by the Soviet government to supplant the Orthodox Church of which the Russian delegates were confessing members.)27 A few Anglicans even welcomed the elimination of the Russian patriarchate and suggested to Bezobrazov that the Living Church was just “retribution for the indifference” of the Orthodox Church to the material and social needs of its congregants. “It became clear,” Zernov remarked icily, “how little the Anglicans know about it.”28 Bezobrazov and Bulgakov found themselves in the awkward position of portraying the Living Church as nothing more than communist “intrigues” and arguing that Soviet ideology was “the enemy of all re-

The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius

|

ligion.”29 The young Anglican socialists were not persuaded. A few suggested that the persecution of Orthodox believers might actually be to the church’s benefit, purging it of its superstitions and indifference to social problems. “We heatedly objected,” recalled Zernov, “saying that the Bolsheviks strove not to reform Christianity, but to cauterize the image of Christ from the heart of the people.” The English listened politely but were not convinced. They believed, Zernov said, “that we were mistaken about the revolution” and could not be “objective.”30 It took years to persuade the Anglicans to view the Living Church through the eyes of the Orthodox émigrés.31 Much later Zernov reminisced in his memoirs about the differences between his fellow Russians and their hosts: “The English abided in the prewar liberalism of the nineteenth century. They believed that humanity was approaching the realization of its aspirations, and that social justice and economic prosperity were guaranteed for all people, that the League of Nations had made impossible the repetition of destructive war, and that Christians, having finally understood their responsibility not only for spiritual but also for the material wellbeing of humanity, will turn to truth and to those who resist it.” “We Russians,” on the other hand, “having survived a coup of people against God[,] . . . knew that shock rather than peace awaited us.”32 It was painfully clear how little the two sides knew about each other. The correspondent for the Viestnik complained that the majority of English students “had only a somewhat confused conception” of Russia and Russian Orthodoxy.33 The Russians were astonished that the Church of England could encompass parties of such diverse and incompatible doctrinal views. Put’ observed that “the high church and low church differ from each other so much that it seems strange to our Russian understanding that both reside in a single church organization.”34 “At the same time that the high church teaches the reality of the sacraments and confesses that believers receive the true body and true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ through the bread and the wine, the low church considers communion to be [merely] a ritual in memory of the Last Supper.” The high church (i.e., Anglo-Catholics) accepts teachings about the church, the sacraments, and dogma that make it a “church in the Orthodox and catholic understanding of that word.” The low church, however, “inclines towards the Protestant church.”35 The Viestnik was surprised that the Anglicans themselves “repeatedly emphasized that

147

148

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

large differences of opinion exist within the Anglican church on questions of paramount dogmatic importance.”36 Many Anglican students were bewildered and somewhat disturbed37 by Orthodox practices such as prayers for the dead and the veneration of icons, saints,38 and the Mother of God.39 Although they listened with rapt attention when Bulgakov talked about the place of the holy fathers in the life of Orthodoxy,40 they grew disappointed when he outlined his conception of the church. He zealously advocated closer relations between Orthodoxy and other confessions, yet reported that the Orthodox recognized theirs as the only true church. All other churches, he insisted, deviated to a greater or lesser degree from dogmatic purity and truth. “At the time,” reported Put’, Bulgakov’s talk seemed “almost a cruel definition of Anglicanism as heresy.”41 The Orthodox, in turn, were surprised by Anglican theology’s interest in science.42 “The Anglicans want to return again and again to the question about the relationship between science and faith,” remembered a confused Russian student, “and we feel that it is for them one of the main obstacles on the path to reunion.”43 Critical approaches to Scripture also caught the Orthodox off guard.44 Bishop Gore told the Russians that the Book of Genesis is a “symbol” and then endorsed the Darwinian theory of evolution. This was not at all what the Russians expected. When we approach the Book of Genesis, wrote the correspondent for Put’, we “acknowledge its historical reality,” but “the Anglicans cannot understand that.”45 “A historical understanding of the Bible,” wrote the Viestnik, “especially the first chapter of Genesis, is apparently unacceptable to the rationalistic, Anglican majority.”46 Despite such differences, the two sides found a good deal of joy in each other’s company and in what all described as deeply moving, joint worship services. The Anglo-Catholics were delighted to be in the presence of Russian students who—however strange and backward their theology might seem—took liturgical worship as seriously as they did. And the Orthodox were delighted to be in the company of Western Christians who took them seriously at all. Zernov observed, “Until that time we Russians felt ourselves alone among Western Christians. Roman Catholics tried to convince us that all our misfortune was a result of our refusal to recognize the supremacy of the pope. Protestants accused

The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius

|

us of a loss of purity in biblical doctrine. The Anglicans were the first Christians in the West who did not try to convert us. They wanted to get to know us, understand our theology and listened attentively to our interpretation of Christianity.”47 The challenges were many, but both sides were determined to continue the meetings. A year later (December 28, 1927, to January 2, 1928) seventy people— twenty-five Russians and forty Anglicans—assembled in the fog and snow of St. Albans for a second conference. As before, services were conducted alternately according to the Orthodox and Anglican liturgies. Again, nearly all the English were Anglicans, and most of these were Anglo-Catholic. (Three Evangelicals—the principal and two students from Wycliffe Hall—also attended.) The mood was expectant and tense. Anglicans joked rather pointedly with the Russians about the Russian church’s excommunication of Tolstoi. Russians pressed the Anglicans for information about the rejected Prayer Book.48 Anglicans who had also participated the year before warned newcomers about the interminably long Russian services,49 as well as speeches. Once Russian speakers were fairly launched, nothing on earth, certainly not the dinner gong or the signal for morning office, would stop them. They would start with some fairly clear and obvious statements, and then delve steadily and deeper, uncovering one fundamental basis after another, with an ever increasing air of being in the sorest travail. Soon they had left their Anglican listeners far behind, and the chairman—not a coveted post—had to decide whether to stop the Russians in mid-course and seem rude, or whether to ignore the refreshment bell and let everyone’s lunch or coffee get cold.50 The second conference wasted little time on pleasantries. “There was less polite reserve, a more open approach to difficulties,” recalled a Russian conferee. Evlogii reminded the conference, “Love is not afraid of outspokenness—it calls for truth.” “Love demands a struggle.”51 Indeed, disagreements were as sharp as the year before. Questions about Genesis surfaced again. Bezobrazov was ready this time; he assured the Anglicans that the Orthodox were ready to adopt a critical

149

150

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

approach to Scripture. But then he qualified his assurance: “We cannot accept the theory of the composite origin of the Pentateuch from J, E, D, and P, because it would alter our whole idea of the manner of God’s revelation in the Old Testament.” It was difficult, remembered a Russian delegate, to find “common language” on the interpretation of Scripture. Modern Anglican theology is very interested “in all kinds of new research, both in connection with the criticism of biblical text[s] and developments in natural science.” Anglicans lean toward a “mythical” interpretation of Old Testament narratives, and sometimes even question the truth “of this or that Evangelical event.”52 Unlike Bezobrazov, a number of Russian delegates opposed the very idea of critical scriptural inquiry. Faced with such an attitude, one Russian delegate observed that the English “became deaf to our arguments, and affirmed that we were simply scientifically behind them and therefore not competent in these questions.” “I heard one Russian say,” recalled an Anglican student, “that the Bible stands on a different plane from anything else either historical or scientific, and therefore cannot be criticised and examined as we examine and criticise other books; I think that this is to us fundamentally wrong.”53 Anderson (representing the YMCA at the conference) felt sorry for the Orthodox, who were “little familiar with contemporary scientific research in Anglican and German Biblical criticism and could not participate in the discussions on equal terms with the Anglicans, the majority of whom were theology students.”54 Neither side proposed treating Genesis as literal history. But would the Orthodox, the Anglicans asked, be willing to define the account of creation as an “allegory”? No, the Orthodox replied: creation occurred “in a dimension with which science and history could not deal.” They preferred to refer to Genesis as “metaphysically true” or as “meta-history,” but such terms only confused the Anglicans. Said one, “The word is not congenial to our scientific enquirers, who regard it as a way of avoiding the plain questions, ‘Did this happen or not?’ ”55 Frustrated, one Anglican reporter suggested dropping the question altogether and turning the discussion to the New Testament.56 Anglican students again criticized the Russian church for failing to address social issues, and the Russians, again in a defensive position, argued, “Our Church is not indifferent to the well-being of our people,”

The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius

|

for she “often raises the moral as well as the economic level of the surrounding population.” Debates about Christian socialism bogged down many conversations: “Someone said with justice that we started with the formula ‘Orthodoxy equals Mysticism; Anglicanism equals Social Reform,’ and seemed unable to move away from it.”57 But despite these persistent differences, emotional connections continued to grow. Unity was found “not in the conference hall,” said Zernov, “but in the chapel during the hours of prayer” and “during the breaking of the bread.”58 Anglicans and Orthodox took turns administering the eucharist.59 By mutual agreement members of each confession declined to receive the elements when priests from the other presided over the ceremony, but participants from each side remained present throughout the entire service. “The Eucharist turned out to be the primary, decisive factor in our spiritual encounter with the Anglicans,” said Iurii Koletin.60 Another Russian delegate noted “a feeling of spiritual friendship sanctified by the invisible presence of Christ.” A third described “a feeling of great joy, which yet had a great sadness in it,” since the two groups could not partake together in the body and blood of the Lord.61 Such a desire would continue to dog the meetings—a third rail that many wished to touch but were too afraid—until the issue came to a head in 1933 (see chap. 11). Zernov liked the Anglicans for their “expansiveness” and “freedom,” and he spoke of their “sincerity and warmth.” Bezobrazov, despite being ambushed on the question of the Living Church, found the Anglican students likably humble.62 The Russians were touched to observe the reverence shown by Anglicans during the Orthodox worship services: one Anglican described them as “a source of wealth and strength” and a sort of “angelic worship.”63 A number of individuals played a significant role in winning over the leery parties. Father Bulgakov became a great favorite of the Anglican students because of his kind demeanor and sense of humor. The Russians loved Bishop Gore.64 Put’ described him as a man who had spent his whole life trying to move toward Orthodoxy.65 Gore informed the Russians that he was in complete agreement with them on the sacraments and convinced Zernov that he, Gore, held a “genuinely Orthodox conception of the Church.”66 Bishop Frere likewise got along famously

151

152

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

with the Russian students. By the end of the conference a student remarked that it seemed like they had “met old friends after a long absence.” There was an “easiness and understanding” to the proceedings, and “despite the tensions of the work, there was not a single awkward moment.”67 Another important face joined the Fellowship at its third conference in 1929. Though delighted by the goodwill generated at the first two conferences, Bishop Gore worried that future meetings would be meaningful only if they also included representatives from more traditional schools of Orthodoxy: he proposed Georges Florovskii as just such a representative.68 (Gore already seemed to recognize Bulgakov’s and Florovskii’s vastly different approaches to Orthodox theology.) Florovskii jumped right in, undeterred by his poor spoken English. (Mascall, who would coedit the Fellowship’s journal with Florovskii in the late 1930s, recalled the reaction of Anglican students to one of Florovskii’s lectures: “They were quite devastated by his opening sentence, which appeared to be about an Orthodox lemon being confronted with Anglican zoology. When in fact [what] he had said was: ‘The Orthodox layman, when he first meets Anglican theology, thinks it is crypto-Nestorian.’ ”)69 Anderson believed that Father Georges had found his element: “His gaunt figure, his special competence in patristics, where Anglicans and Orthodox find common ground, and his ready wit made him a favorite with English students and theologians.”70 Mascall fondly remembered a “lanky bearded man in his loosely fitting suit, standing with head tilted to one side and eyes lifted to heaven, absorbed in devotion to the Liturgy.”71 Thomas Bird described Florovskii as “positive, witty, and elegant,”72 and John Douglas remembered his “personal charm, sincerity and charity,”73 traits all of which endeared him to the Anglican students. Like Bulgakov, Florovskii possessed a formidable intellect. He earned distinction in history at the State Gymnasium in Odessa. His first paper—a piece on salivation championed by I. P. Pavlov—was published by the Russian Academy of Sciences. And also like Bulgakov, Florovskii was strongly influenced by German idealism, a philosophy he would later (unlike Bulgakov) decisively reject. Florovskii fled Russia after the revolution (his flight received coverage in the Times)74 and lived for a period in Sofia, Bulgaria, tutoring the daughter of Russian diplomats. Following the defense of his thesis,

The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius

|

he taught at the Russian law faculty at the Russkaia Akademicheskaia Gruppa in Prague. Here he began his study of patristics in earnest, a focus that would lead to his appointment (at Bulgakov’s urging) as a professor of patristics at the Theological Institute in Paris. Associated for a short time with the Eurasian movement, Florovskii held that the Russian revolution and the Great War were both indications of the failure of Western culture. Andrew Blane attributes Florovskii’s interest in the ecumenical movement to his participation in Berdiaev’s Paris colloquia, which began meeting in 1926.75 (Florovskii and Berdiaev had a falling out when, in 1932, Florovskii decided to become an ordained priest.)76 But Florovskii joined the Russian Student Christian Movement (becoming one of its priests) only after its break from the Karlovchane: he thus largely missed the divisive debates about ecumenism during the late 1920s. Hence Florovskii, unlike Bulgakov, became active in the ecumenical movement only after making a strong commitment to the Orthodox Church. He came to ecumenism through Orthodoxy, whereas Bulgakov came to Orthodoxy through ecumenism. These differences would inform much of the Fellowship’s debate on the question of reunion during the 1930s. | In the late 1920s and early 1930s it remained unclear as to what, exactly, the Fellowship conferences meant to accomplish. The Orthodox attended the first two meetings with a genuine desire to learn more about the Anglican Church, and they found much to admire. But a number of them also retained something of a missionary mind-set. “Anglicans wait for an Orthodox answer to their quest,” declared the correspondent for Put’ at the 1931 conference. “We realized,” wrote one Russian, “how much is given to us within our Orthodox Church—our Liturgy, our attitude to sin, to confession, our veneration of the Mother of God and of the saints—all this was a great and fundamental help to the Anglicans in their spiritual life.”77 Zernov and Bezobrazov viewed the early meetings as a chance to win Anglicans to Orthodoxy, and they were convinced for a time that they were succeeding. The Anglicans saw the “truth and beauty” of Orthodoxy, wrote Zernov.78 “Their penchant for us,” said Bezobrazov, “is a penchant for the church—for full, genuine, churchliness [tserkovnost’].” “They profess faith in their church, in the canonicity of their position, in the reality of their leadership. But they

153

154

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

incline toward Orthodox as to a source of living water.”79 (Bezobrazov’s desire to win the Anglicans stemmed in part from a desire to get them before Rome did.)80 But active proselytizing never materialized within the Fellowship. Rather, the Fellowship evolved into a forum for mutual education. And education became the chief purpose of the Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, first banged out on a typewriter (with corrections penciled into the final copy) in June 1928.81 Run on a shoestring budget with aid from the Student Christian Movement, it teetered on the edge of solvency during its first years.82 Its early content included a mishmash of topics—everything from Anglican and Russian church music83 to the Hermitage of Optino.84 Russian contributors saw the journal as a means to keep the persecution of the church in Russia at the forefront of the English mind. (An early issue contained a Russian political prisoner’s letter smuggled through a relative in Paris.)85 Anglican socialists ensured that the journal provided accounts of Anglican missions to the London poor.86 Numerous articles appeared on the eucharist, a topic that quickly became a focus of the Fellowship.87 Thematic issues offered complementary and competing views on the Virgin Mary,88 penance,89 confession,90 marriage,91 and sin.92 Asceticism proved a favorite topic of the idealistic students.93 But in those early years the journal did not publish any serious discussions of reunion.94 The thematic issues allowed each side to stake out and explain its positions to the other—to describe foreign faiths and beliefs to those who understood them poorly. The articles were almost uniformly cordial but also largely didactic. Serious, original theology was wholly absent. Contributions by Bulgakov, Florovskii, and Fedotov—all great scholars—were catechismal rather than scholarly or ecumenical.95 Indeed, Bulgakov and Florovskii were unyielding in their insistence that the Orthodox Church was the only true church. “Orthodoxy,” argued Bulgakov at the Fellowship conference of 1930, “possesses the full and pure life of the Church, and therefore the reunion of the Church can only be achieved in Orthodoxy.”96 A year later he wrote in the journal, “All the divisions of the Church, from the Orthodox point of view, are different degrees of a falling away from the truth of Orthodoxy.”97 Florovskii reminded his audiences that “the West separated itself from

The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius

|

the East, and . . . the guilt of the West is greater.”98 Though always careful and usually generous to a fault, these were not attempts to negotiate common ground. From the beginning, the Fellowship’s Anglican membership consisted almost entirely of Anglo-Catholics. And as the years progressed the Fellowship increasingly identified itself with this faction of the Anglican Church. Andrei Karpov spoke at the 1930 conference of the “spiritual kinship of Anglo-Catholicism with Orthodoxy” but said nothing about the Protestant wing of the Church of England.99 (The next year he celebrated Anglo-Catholicism as “a reaction to the spirit of Protestant individualism.”)100 By 1931 an observer noted that “most” of the Fellowship’s members identified themselves as Anglo-Catholics.101 This orientation became clear in the journal, which published articles critical of the Protestant Reformation102 and Protestantism in general.103 Essayists complained about the dissolution of English monasteries. They reminded their fellow Anglicans that Henry VIII never contemplated “a Reformed Church without the traditional essentials of episcopacy and a sacramental system” and argued that “it is impossible to approve of the spirit in which the Reformation under Edward VI’s Council was carried out.”104 Father Gage-Brown wrote a piece that portrayed the Anglican Church as a Catholic church.105 Anglican members produced articles on the importance of the intercession of saints 106 and the tragedy that was the loss of apostolic succession.107 One editorial celebrated the Oxford movement: “The early Tractarians would have rejoiced to see our Fellowship.”108 This orientation did not please all the Fellowship’s members. An editorial in 1931 worried that many of the journal’s discussions “are apt to neglect the Evangelical Anglican point of view.”109 An Evangelical correspondent to the journal complained that Anglican services at the 1931 conference “would hardly have been recognized as representative by the average Anglican”; conferences needed “a trained and senior Evangelical to correct or supplement” discussions.1 10 Another Evangelical begged for the inclusion of evangelical viewpoints in discussions of the Virgin Mary and prayers for the dead.1 1 1 The principal of Overdale College wrote to Eric Fenn (a rare Presbyterian member of the Fellowship), pleading for more members of the free churches in the Fellowship.1 12 But the

155

156

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Evangelicals were fighting a losing battle. By 1934 Zernov would remark how odd it seemed that a Presbyterian still played a prominent role in the Fellowship.1 13 The Fellowship’s executive body settled the matter in 1933 when it adopted an official statement of principles, articulating what had been implicit for quite some time: “The center of the work of the Fellowship is liturgical worship, and it has been by entering into the riches of the catholic tradition . . . that both the individual life of members have been enriched and a spiritual unity discovered.” Those who “dissent from some forms of catholic worship and practice . . . are welcomed into the Fellowship provided only that they desire to understand the Catholic tradition, on which the work is based.”1 14 This statement—a de jure recognition of a de facto orientation—may have been prompted by another consideration as well. Anglican groups dealing with Russian émigrés during these years worried about potential fallout in the Russian émigré community should prominent Russian Orthodox be seen to be communing too closely with Protestants or those of a Protestant persuasion.1 15 In any event, the statement appeared prominently in each subsequent issue of the journal. The Fellowship offered full membership only to those who would swear to participate in either Anglican or Orthodox worship; all others had to be satisfied with “associate” membership.1 16 | By the 1930s the early and tentative hopes about reunion had given way to projects of friendly propaganda and education. Cosmo Lang, the new archbishop of Canterbury, delivered a speech to the 1930 Fellowship conference typical of this orientation. We have much to teach each other, he told the Fellowship, but he uttered nary a word about reunion.1 17 Bernard Clarke made a telling speech at the 1933 conference. We have to “constantly” remember, he said, “that this Conference is representative neither of the Russian church, nor the Anglican Church as a whole.” Protestant elements in the Anglican Church had little opportunity to express themselves. “We must be realists. It is not only the Orthodox who need to remember that all that is Anglican is not Anglo-Catholic. It is probably the Anglican delegates who require most to realize this truth.”1 18

The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius

|

Hopes for reunion—or at least reunion in the foreseeable future— seemed to be running out of steam. Karpov warned that church unity could not be obtained through “some kind of compromise formula,”1 19 and Mascall cautioned that “reunion of a purely pragmatic type will leave the bodies concerned in the same states of imperfection that they were in before.” “It is largely because of the characteristic English love of getting something done without always troubling very much what that something is, that so many hopeful movements in our time are disappointing in their results.”120 By 1933 the Fellowship seemed stuck, or at least comfortably settled into low expectations. The contentious debates of the late 1920s had given way to thoughtful, placid, and rather disengaged speeches and essays—speeches that raised interesting questions but gave little thought to and no definite proposals about the question of reunion. Where was the Fellowship going? And when? Bulgakov had a proposal.

157

11

Intercommunion and Sofiology

When a great exile priest proposed intercommunion between the Russian and English Churches we refused to take advantage of his sincerity. . . . We were less quick to realize that he had placed his finger on the theological problem of reunion and would refuse to remove it, whatever the consequences. —Arthur F. Dobbie-Bateman1

A

t the June 1933 meeting of the Fellowship, Fr. Sergei Bulgakov dropped a bombshell. Movement toward reunion had stalled. We discuss and debate, he said, but we are no closer to reunion than when the Fellowship began. It is unsound and even dangerous to continue forever in discussions of differences: if we don’t take a decisive, concrete step, we will be dead before we see reunion. God calls us to action here and now. And yet we are stymied. Orthodox canons forbid Orthodox from consorting with non-Orthodox, and some of our more conservative brethren take these canons quite literally; the Orthodox Church is divided and unable to speak on canonical matters with a united voice. Deep dogmatic differences within the Anglican Church prevented it from proffering a unified negotiating position. So how to move forward? How to obtain full intercommunion? Economy is not a viable option,

158

|

Intercommunion and Sofiology

|

for it is intended only for exceptional cases—it affirms rather than overcomes differences.2 The only option is a bold move, one without clear canonical precedence. Since we Anglicans and Orthodox of the Fellowship are already in a state of “spiritual intercommunion” (a vague term that drove Bulgakov’s critics to distraction), we should commune jointly in the sacrament of the eucharist. Communion, in other words, might be possible among parts of each church. Bulgakov used the term “partial intercommunion” to describe his proposal. Its implications were enormous, for it turned traditional assumptions among Orthodox and Anglican ecumenists on their heads. According to his proposal, intercommunion would serve as the first step toward reunion rather than the crowning achievement of reunion achieved through doctrinal negotiation.3 Bulgakov hoped that partial intercommunion would provide the psychological or spiritual breakthrough that intellectual discourse and theological discussion had failed to achieve. Reunion would come not “through tournaments between the theologians of the East and of the West, but through a reunion before the Altar.”4 While acknowledging the inherent audacity of his proposal, Bulgakov was not willing to proceed without some sort of sanction from the churches’ hierarchs. Thus he added a final point: the Fellowship should find ordained Orthodox and Anglican bishops who would administer a “sacramental blessing” on the endeavor (a term that confused many and would generate endless debate).5 This blessing would serve both as a form of penance (i.e., an acknowledgment of the sins of disunion) and as formal permission for such an unusual experiment. Bulgakov had pondered and waffled over such matters for a while. He argued in a paper at the Lausanne conference of 1927 that the union of Christians can come only through “sharing of the same Cup at the Holy Table and by the ministry of a priesthood which is an integral unity and indubitably charismatic.”6 But the next year, 1928, he asserted that Orthodox participation in the sacraments with members of other confessions was, given current dogmatic differences, “a matter for the distant future.”7 By the early 1930s he was having second thoughts. Intercommunion, he wrote for the Fellowship’s journal in 1931, could be a “step on the way” to unity.8

159

160

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

It should have surprised nobody who knew Bulgakov’s theology that in looking for a way out of the stalemate he would choose the eucharist. He had a profound regard for the mystical, unifying power of communio in sacris. Everything in Christian life, he argued, ought to orient itself directly or indirectly toward this sacrament.9 The eucharist offered an ultimate cure to all problems (even social problems)10 that stemmed from man’s alienation from God. In his two most serious studies of eucharistic theology—Evkharisticheskii dogmat (Eucharistic Dogma) and “Sviatyi Graal” (The Holy Grail)1 1 —Bulgakov wrote of the eucharist’s supernatural power to unite that which is broken. Only the eucharist brings us directly to God, unites us with God, and unites us with each other. It proves that God “can, if he wishes, raise the matter of this world to unification with Himself,” thereby uniting the faithful with him. “The meta of metabole (the trans of transubstantiation) signifies not a transformation of one state of matter into another within the limits of the physical world but a union of two separate worlds, two separate domains of being.” The eucharistic blood from Christ’s spear wound actually created the New Testament church, and the eucharist can bring the whole of humanity—the entire body of Christ—back into communion with him. The conclusion to Bulgakov’s “Sviatyi Graal”—published in 1932— could be read in retrospect as a plea for unity through the eucharist: “They shall look—and recognize themselves in Him, and Him in themselves, in their life, in their work, in the hidden knowledge of the Holy Grail and in the service of the Holy Grail. And they shall worship Him, who will be inseparably with them.”12 In an article written for the journal just before his proposal, Bulgakov portrayed communion as the process of “uniting with Christ into one Body, into a deified humanity.” Hence, if “competing groups unite before the altar and are filled with the spirit of Christian love, we find that their actual competition is mitigated and is removed from hatred and suspicion.”13 Members of the Fellowship had long expressed regret that they could not participate together in the eucharist. Andrei Karpov claimed that a majority of the conference’s attendees in 1931 experienced the lack of intercommunion as a “deep tragedy.”14 Nikolai Arsen’ev argued in a 1932 issue of Put’ that unity might be found in the sacraments (although he believed that a number of obstacles must be resolved before such action

Intercommunion and Sofiology

|

would be permissible).15 But until Bulgakov’s proposal, nearly everyone in the Fellowship assumed that these obstacles were insurmountable without official action by the entire churches concerned. Three years earlier, Lambeth had affirmed that intercommunion “should be the goal of, rather than a means to, the restoration of union.” Members of the Anglican Church should receive communion only from “ministers of their own Church or Churches in full communion with it.”16 And only a few months before Bulgakov’s proposal, the Fellowship hammered out a statement of principles noting that “entrance into one another’s central acts of worship is limited by the facts of disunity.”17 Thus the proposal caught almost everyone by surprise. Some were excited. It now seems, observed an editorial in the journal, that after six years of discussion and becoming acquainted, the Fellowship “is being called to a more realistic consideration of the problem of Re-union.”18 Zernov was delighted. The eucharist, he said, is an incomplete sacrament so long as the church is divided: what better way to achieve unity than through the sacrament? Michael Bruce, an Anglican member of the Fellowship, hailed Bulgakov as a prophet for boldly proposing specific action.19 Some found the proposal suspiciously Protestant. Intercommunion between bodies that did not recognize all points of dogma was exactly what Protestant Anglicans advocated.20 Bishop Frere responded warily. He urged the Fellowship to avoid hasty action,21 suggesting instead that it work toward doctrinal agreement, toward a “dogmatic minimum”22 (or “dogmatic doctrine”)23 to which all could agree. He remained firm in his preferred order of events: dogmatic agreement must precede intercommunion.24 Father Chitty took an even stronger position, criticizing Frere’s call for a dogmatic minimum: reunion, argued Chitty, must be based on the entire corpus of the faith. Anglican notions of comprehension (to which Frere appealed as an example of freedom outside a minimum) were nothing more than “muddle-headedness.” Florovskii (who would later write a couple of articles against intercommunion) passionately opposed the proposal25 and appeared peeved with Bulgakov for even raising the issue. The whole discussion, Florovskii implied, was fruitless: East and West are separated by vast psychological and spiritual differences. Dogmatic agreement must precede

161

162

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

unity, and we are miles from that, he said.26 The eucharist “is one and undivided” and may be celebrated only “within the mystical limits of the Catholic Church.”27 But the Fellowship, he continued, disagrees as to what constitutes the Catholic Church. He sniffed at Bulgakov’s idea of a “sacramental blessing” as inadequate.28 But opposition had never stopped Bulgakov, and it did not stop him now. During the next two years he fleshed out his proposal, which, he admitted in a vast understatement, “is certainly novel from a dogmatic point of view.”29 That December he wrote an article for the journal that made explicit his opposition to Florovskii’s and Frere’s calls for reunion through dogmatic agreement. Why must dogmatic agreement come first? Why not start with the sacrament? Why not “surmount a heresy in teaching through superseding a heresy of life such as division?”30 Full agreement in dogma was not possible, Bulgakov argued. It did not even exist within the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, one needed to wait only for agreement on “a dogmatic minimum” before proceeding with intercommunion.31 (Nikolai Glubokovskii would have agreed: like Bulgakov, he stressed the centrality of some dogmas but referred to others as simply “elaborate articles of disunion.”)32 Bulgakov and Frere also seemed to agree on this point (both used the phrase “dogmatic minimum”), but their understanding of dogma differed. Bulgakov wanted to move toward a definition of a dogmatic minimum through the “living power of the dogma.” “The life of Grace” flows through the church and its sacraments, a fact that “fulfills and sums up the dogmatic teaching of the church.”33 In other words, a “dogmatic minimum” could be found in the eucharist rather than carefully negotiated theological formulas. Reunion was impossible, Bulgakov argued, if the Fellowship was to begin with theological negotiations, or with a central, hierarchical body that would rule on doctrine. Granted, he allowed, authoritative, ecclesiastical sanction would be required for the “complete reunion of entire Church bodies,”34 but he emphasized that for now he proposed intercommunion only among a like-minded body of believers already in “spiritual intercommunion.” Breaking through our stalemate requires “prophecy,” or “creativeness winged with daring and fired with inspiration.”35 Disunion is the “first cause of our suffering” and suffering “calls us to prophesy the union of all.”36 As long as Christianity concerns itself only with preliminary

Intercommunion and Sofiology

|

discussions, it cannot perceive the difficulties that obstruct the way toward reunion. Yet most “practical” approaches only make the problem seem insuperable. And they will remain insurmountable “as long as the main postulates of the whole problem are not radically reconsidered” and we liberate them from “a mistaken hierarchical and dogmatic maximalism.” “Prophecy”—that is, creativity unencumbered by strict adherence to tradition—alone can free us from this realm. The eucharist will become the sacramental means of expressing and implementing “prophecy.” Although everyone who enters into communion with our Lord does so individually, individuals nevertheless “approach the Cup in unity with the entire Church” and cannot remain indifferent to friends, neighbors, or the “whole of Christian mankind.”37 The eucharistic cup “actively unites confessions” beset by division.38 As noted above, Bulgakov was careful not to imply that his proposal negated the need for official and full ecclesiastical reunion. (He pitched his proposal as an untraditional, “prophetic” means to the more traditional goal of full dogmatic agreement.)39 Still, the proposal constituted a direct challenge to those Orthodox who looked to the church fathers and the ecumenical councils as their sole guide to relations with other Christians. It was typical of Bulgakov to look beyond the fathers and councils to develop a creative theology to address contemporary predicaments.40 Bulgakov understood the unease his proposal created. So while acknowledging the novelty of the proposal, he also tried to assure doubters of its basic dogmatic validity. He assumed as a given that Anglican ordinations were valid (he noted that he was not alone among Orthodox theologians in making this assumption),41 and he thus argued that the sacrament of the eucharist could be considered valid if administered by an Anglican priest. And despite his opposition to “hierarchical centralism,”42 he sought to placate those (including himself, it seems) who desired the consolation of some type of formal, hierarchical sanction. His proposal for a sacramental blessing, he explained, had “the object of expressing, expounding and making real this validity.”43 As Bulgakov developed these arguments between 1933 and 1935, debates about the proposal tore through the Fellowship. Nobody questioned his identification of the eucharist as the center of the Fellowship’s or the church’s life. (“The life of the Church,” wrote Ivan Young, “is essentially a Eucharistic life.”)44 But should the eucharist be employed as a means to

163

164

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

unite the Anglican and Orthodox Churches?45 The Fellowship’s members quickly set up camp on both sides of this question. Zernov, who would later publish his own treatise on the subject,46 became the proposal’s primary cheerleader, although he wanted elucidation on several points.47 The eucharist would demonstrate, argued Zernov, that “Anglicans and Orthodox recognize their brotherhood in Christ, which was not destroyed despite centuries of separate existence.”48 Anton Kartashev, one of Bulgakov’s colleagues at the Theological Institute in Paris, initially refused to take a stance. He described the problem as “paradoxical on every side, theoretically, morally, practically.” He agreed that the present—merely diplomatic—alliance between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches was unsatisfactory, but he worried that intercommunion between members of the Fellowship might cause them to be excluded from their own churches. Is such a “revolution” in canonical practice permissible? Certainly not if through human will alone, but what if this is a movement of the Holy Spirit? “How can we discern what is of the spirit and what is of men?” Kartashev refused to speculate.49 Yet Kartashev also found much to admire in the proposal, and it gradually drew him in. He shared Bulgakov’s suspicion of theological debate alone as a means toward reconciliation. He endorsed the sacraments as a way to move forward once a “dogmatic minimum” had been established, and he approved of the “sacramental blessing.”50 But other members of the Fellowship were not so sure. Bishop Frere waffled badly. He told Arthur F. Dobbie-Bateman (convener of the Fellowship’s executive body) that questions of reunion were not within the purview of the Fellowship, which he characterized as “a praying, not a negotiating body.” The Fellowship must remain “within the limits of its own proper sphere.”51 But then Frere suggested that the Fellowship sponsor a series of five to six conferences on the question, causing Bulgakov to despair: “I myself (as well as the Bishop of Truro [Frere], I imagine) cannot be at all sure that we shall both be in this world for five or six conferences.”52 Gabriel Hebert also had serious doubts: “Not Intercommunion but abstinence from Intercommunion is the truly constructive attitude.”53 Florovskii stood unyielding in his opposition. In an article for the Church Quarterly Review he argued that schismatics (read “Anglicans”)

Intercommunion and Sofiology

|

must acknowledge their responsibility for disunion, observe the sacrament of penance, and then be received into the true, Orthodox Church before participating in its rites.54 He was deeply troubled by the assertion that members of one church could act without the sanction or agreement of their entire church, and he told Dobbie-Bateman that Bulgakov’s proposal could damage the “communal catholicity” of the church. Florovskii refused to concede that any member of the Orthodox Church could commune with some Anglicans but not with others (Kartashev was less bothered by this point).55 Any attempt to achieve intercommunion within an “individual and arbitrary group” was “uncatholic, particularist, and even sectarian.” The Fellowship must not “overshadow the reality” of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches.56 Like Bulgakov, Florovskii was willing to accept Anglican orders as valid, but he denied that such recognition paved the way for intercommunion. The Anglican Church as a whole has fallen from communion with Orthodoxy, having passed through two secessions: the first from the East when Western Christendom abandoned Constantinople and the second from the West when Henry VIII abandoned Rome. Such selfisolation could not but corrode the English church. Florovskii gratefully acknowledged those Anglo-Catholics in the Fellowship who, he said, seemed almost Orthodox, but he wanted a commitment from the entire Anglican Church, not just a faction. Anglicans must decide as a whole where their allegiances lay: with Keble or with Newman.57 Florovskii did what he could to appear sympathetic. “Psychologically I well understand Fr. Sergius’s wish to make some kind of real step forward,” he said. “I am completely convinced, however, that any such step now would be a false one. It is given to us to bear the cross of patience and we must ‘endure to the end.’ ” “It is not sufficient to be in love and charity with all men[;] . . . it is more difficult to be united in truth.” And this had not yet been accomplished.58 Controversy erupted when the Fellowship’s executive met to discuss the proposal. Bulgakov’s contention that members of the Fellowship already agreed to a doctrinal minimum vexed some members of the executive. What constitutes “sufficient doctrinal agreement”? asked Bernard Clarke. What standard should we use? Who decides?59 Some followed Florovskii in denying that select groups in a given church could commune with select groups in another. Frank Bishop

165

166

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

declared the entire proposal “out of order.” “Reunion must not be partial and can only be brought about by the diplomatic method. It is not for us to decide such issues as we should be going against order in the Church.”60 Some Anglicans who longed for reunion with the entire Orthodox Church feared the proposal would only further alienate those Orthodox who distrusted Bulgakov and the Orthodox intelligentsia loyal to Evlogii, thus undermining attempts to find common cause with an already fractious Russian church.61 Indeed, the proposal split Russian members of the Fellowship badly, as evidenced by a meeting in Paris on February 2, 1934, consisting largely of faculty of the St. Sergius Theological Institute. Opponents expressed serious doubts about the canonical validity of the proposal and about communing with a church full of “evangelicals.” Florovskii argued vehemently that Orthodox could pray but never commune with Anglicans. Zenkovskii supported him. Karteshev, Andrei Karpov, Georgii Fedotov, and Lev Zander argued in favor of the proposal. Nikolai Afanas’ev seemed not to know what to think, while F. G. Spasskii simply lamented that the proposal was generating arguments and divisions within the Orthodox community.62 Two years later the Karlovchane (who had no members in the Fellowship) came out against the proposal with guns blazing.63 John Douglas, a chief organizer of meetings among official representatives of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches between the wars (in particular among the Church of England and the Greek and other Balkan churches), had long been suspicious of the unorthodox reputations of Bulgakov and other members of the Russian religious intelligentsia,64 and thus urged extreme caution. Dobbie-Bateman, however, scoffed at those who trod lightly around inter-Orthodox squabbles. The Fellowship should get on with its business and let the Russians worry about the proposal’s effect on their internal maladies. “If representative members of the Orthodox Church are prepared to go forward in response to the guidance of the Spirit,” he said, “we must not be afraid of a split in the Orthodox Church.” DobbieBateman supported the proposal vigorously and took exception to Florovskii’s characterization of the Fellowship as an “arbitrary group.” Perhaps the entire church was an “arbitrary group.” And perhaps the Fellowship’s “arbitrary group” had been moved by the Holy Spirit.65

Intercommunion and Sofiology

|

At times it seemed that Dobbie-Bateman wanted to sweep all theological concerns under the rug. Theology is secondary, he insisted. The important question is whether the proposal accords with “our conscience and the consciousness of the Church.” “We must make up our minds about this first of all and not be intimidated by theologians. The mystical fact comes before theology.”66 Zernov also took on Florovskii. Florovskii’s objection seemed “to lack real motives of conviction.” “He is emotionally very much against the scheme, but he has no clear and objective reasons against it.”67 Zernov (responding obliquely to Kartashev’s earlier concerns) toyed with Dobbie-Bateman’s suggestion that this might be an occasion to cast theology (or at least canonical theology) in a secondary role. In fact, the Holy Spirit may be leading members of the Fellowship to ignore certain canons.68 A number of supporters accepted Bulgakov’s portrayal of the proposal as prophecy or a new revelation. The proposal was not, as Florovskii suggested, an attempt to gratify an individual desire but rather an attempt to obey God, said Eric Fenn.” Oliver Tompkins agreed.69 The Fellowship’s executive realized the magnitude and complexity of the questions it faced and decided to devote the entire 1934 Fellowship conference to the proposal. In late June Bulgakov stood before the Fellowship and delivered a passionate plea for action. The tragedy of the Russian church and his own banishment from Russia had convinced him that his fellow Orthodox could not overcome the Antichrist alone, and thus he believed that God himself called him to work toward reunion. Bulgakov argued in even stronger terms than before that hierarchical resistance should impose no impediment. After all, he said, the Orthodox Church lacks a central authority; it could never legislate one way or another on the question facing the Fellowship. The churches “cannot act without their people,” and thus it is up to the people to take the initiative. We the people must demand “new steps in the way of Reunion.” There is no other choice. “Surely the time has come to formulate this question in terms of partial reunion.”70 Fedotov agreed and endorsed Bulgakov’s proposal as a “necessity.”7 1 Even Kartashev now appeared convinced. Without dismissing or belittling the theological objections raised by others, he nevertheless argued that “tragedy” could not be resolved “along evolutionary lines.”

167

168

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Their predicament required “a creative act, a revolutionary moment, action under the prophetic spirit of God.”72 Canon Goudge remained skeptical, however, and argued that Bulgakov’s proposal raised more questions than answers. What did Bulgakov mean when he spoke of a “sacramental blessing”? In what sense is it “sacramental”? Action now “would give grave offence and would hinder the cause of reunion.”73 Bulgakov’s proposal would not foster unity but jeopardize it. John Douglas urged caution as well. Florovskii advised his listeners not to let good intentions lead to canonically invalid action. Patience did not equal inaction. Father Chitty and myself, said Florovskii, both find it painful to attend Mass in his Church without my communication. Nevertheless, “[I am] profoundly convinced that any other way than the bearing of this pain would be wrong.”74 Communio in sacris could never be a private action outside the church. Intercommunion must be the final, rather than the first, step.75 Bulgakov retorted, “Fr. [Florovskii] has said that the need I feel is a psychological one.” But the voice I hear speaks of the “spiritual necessity of love,” not a “psychological love.” Then Bulgakov launched into a speech that must have made Florovskii’s blood curdle. It is said that only Churches as a whole can reunite—but what are churches? All who belong to the same confessional group; all the people in such groups. But is this historically true? If we look at the 3rd, 4th, or 5th centuries, the connection between the various churches lies in agreement in faith and sacraments, but this is not equally realized in all places and at all times. . . . Catholicity and unity may be realized differently in different places. The doctrine of reunion only on the basis of whole churches is Roman.76 Bulgakov did not take this argument far, but the implications were chilling, for he was proposing a redefinition of the church that would encompass all members of the Fellowship, a notion Florovskii could never abide. Professor Lieb, a Protestant member of the Fellowship, jumped on Florovskii and his appeal to a canonical tradition that did not sanction intercommunion. The tradition of the church was not “a chest in which truth lies preserved.” In fact, “Christian truth may become lies when

Intercommunion and Sofiology

|

falsely applied.” Dogmas, though necessary, are “worthless” if we don’t heed God’s call today. “We must bear in mind the realities of the world and the urgent need for Christians to make common cause.”77 Lev Zander sided with Bulgakov. There are two voices in this debate, he said. One is “logical and historical,” and the other represents a “fundamental reaction of the soul.” The Orthodox Church is not logical. The church of Rome is the only logical church. This question does not concern logic but rather “the basic state of the heart.” What if we find ourselves decades hence, old and still discussing the same questions?78 Xenia Braikevitch—who would soon earn a reputation as the Fellowship’s most radical member—decided that Father Bulgakov’s proposal constituted “the first really living thing in this whole work for reunion.” “Canons do not really apply to modern conditions and many of them are disregarded by priests today.” Braikevitch agreed with Bulgakov’s critics that his proposal was dangerous. There “is no safety in religion; there is no safety in surrender to Christ.”79 Florovskii balked and again argued for adhering to canon law. Failing to do so might result in members of the Fellowship being cut off from their own churches.80 And here the debate began to wind down. Members were growing nervous. Passions were high, and some feared disaster if the debate continued. “You must be careful,” warned one conferee, “because many evils surround us.” We must avoid “any new schism, or trouble, or disappointment.”81 Subsequent speakers thanked Bulgakov for his proposal but showed no stomach for continuing the debates. The conference adjourned for closing worship in the chapel. The executive produced some specific recommendations on proceeding. But the wind had left the sails, and nobody had the will even to vote on the recommendations.82 The Fellowship had reached an impasse.83 Supporters grew discouraged as opponents continued to make their case. Canon Goudge published a piece in the journal insisting that the Fellowship lacked any authority to speak for either the Orthodox or Anglican communions. The Russian members could not even claim to represent the Orthodox Church, he wrote, since the Russian church is just one of many Eastern Orthodox churches.84 “Let us not forget that both the English Church and the Orthodox Eastern Church are in their own ecclesiastical life

169

170

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

far less united than they ought to be.”85 Partial communion, concluded Goudge, would not draw Fellowship members closer together; it would, in fact, drive them apart. (Metropolitan Antonii was already on record insisting that “complete dogmatic union” was the “only possible form of union among the Churches.”)86 By 1935 the proposal stood on its last legs. Michael Ramsey suggested, oddly, that “restraint from inter-communion” demonstrates some “deeper meaning of unity.”87 Frere judged Bulgakov’s proposal woefully inadequate and insisted that it needed “considerable expansion” before being submitted to “the authorities”— exactly what Bulgakov wanted to avoid. Kartashev continued to defend the notion of a dogmatic minimum, but he no longer viewed it as a means to implement intercommunion as envisioned by Bulgakov.88 Lev Gillet presented a paper at the 1935 conference arguing that intercommunion should be a sign of rather than a means toward reunion, and he pleaded with members of the Fellowship not to form a camp around Bulgakov. Were the proposal to go forward, Gillet warned, “it is certain that a very large number of Catholic-minded Anglicans” (both within and outside the Fellowship) would oppose the project, causing a “disastrous division within our ranks.” Given the “gross popular ignorance or indifference” in England toward Orthodoxy and Nonconformity, it was necessary to avoid raising any suspicions about the project.89 Even Evlogii, Bulgakov’s great champion, dismissed his proposal. He called it “completely incorrect,” since no group could decide questions of faith or church life without the approval of the general church hierarchy.90 Bulgakov reluctantly conceded defeat but not without some final jibes. We in the Fellowship already abide in a state of “spiritual intercommunion.” So why, he wondered, should we ask the hierarchy whether this is true? We know it is true. Still, “your hesitation shows that your hearts are not ready.” Opposition, he lamented, stems “not so much from the voice of a loving heart, as from the arguments of ‘sober’ reason.”91 “You will not be able to forget this question,” he concluded, “because God has made you face it.”92 The 1935 conference passed a resolution that, while praising the discussions, asserted, “The time has not yet come for us to promote any

Intercommunion and Sofiology

|

scheme of Intercommunion.”93 “It may be,” Zernov wrote several years later, “that our generation will pass away without having achieved intercommunion.”94 The Fellowship made a feeble effort to revive the question in 1940, sending out a questionnaire to determine members’ attitudes. It was a halfhearted attempt to resolve through multiple-choice questions what could not be achieved through debate.95 Only twenty-five people bothered to respond, about half in favor.96 By the early 1940s even Zernov had given up.97 | Beneath the surface of these debates lay another, largely unspoken concern but one that permeated the thinking of those who knew the émigré Russian Orthodox community well. Was Bulgakov a reliable spokesperson for Orthodoxy? Did his theology have the support of his own church? Could his proposals be trusted? These questions had simmered for years, but they boiled over on September 7, 1935, when Metropolitan Sergei of Moscow and Metropolitan Antonii—in a joint action almost unimaginable to those who knew their disdain for each other— roundly condemned Bulgakov’s theology.98 (The condemnation from the Karlovchane was less surprising; they had attacked Bulgakov for some time.)99 A study such as this cannot do the story full justice; a definitive account remains to be written. The tale is extraordinarily complex, full of hysterical allegations over theological minutiae and subject to fiercely contrary interpretations. It is a story, some suggest (and not without merit), into which one wades at one’s own peril. Yet this study cannot remain entirely above the muck, for the aspects of Bulgakov’s theology that spawned accusations of heresy are—I assert—those very aspects that prompted and informed his ecumenical sympathies. Those who attacked Bulgakov’s theology perceived an erroneous conception of the church, plus an inadequate commitment to tradition, the canons, and ecclesiastical discipline—exactly those concerns that underlay attacks on his proposal for intercommunion. Bulgakov viewed his theology, much like his intercommunion proposal, as prophetic and able to move beyond certain hidebound strictures. Those who disparaged his notion of theological development could not abide his creativity and did all they could to portray

171

172

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

him as outside the Orthodox theological mainstream, a portrayal that made Anglicans and Orthodox alike leery of his ecumenical proposals. The denunciations of 1935 centered on Bulgakov’s voluminous writings about “Sofia,” or the “Divine Wisdom.” Brave theologians have come to grief trying to make sense of Bulgakov’s sofianic corpus; for our purpose it is sufficient to define Bulgakov’s sofiology as an attempt to create from his mystical visions of Sophia—as well as from his admiration for Solov’ev’s idealistic understandings of Sofia—a theology that would explain, on the one hand, God’s transcendence over and superiority to his creation and, on the other, God’s full participation with and investment of himself within that creation. Bulgakov believed that Sofia was a “hypostasis” or “hypostasicity” of God,100 that is, a substance of God. (Similarities with the Logos in the Gospel of John are important here.)101 Sofia is, in a sense, the conduit for God’s creative energy or ousia; matter can be conceived as an outpouring of Sofia. Thus Sofia provides a bridge that overcomes the ontological gulf between God and the world. Sofia is neither God nor creation but rather a “border” that allows creator to transform creation. Metropolitan Sergei and the Karlovchane were not the first to be troubled by such theology.102 A number of theologians believed that sofiology smacked of pantheism or gnosticism.103 Others recognized the influence of romanticism and German idealism (an influence Florovskii could not abide),104 particularly in the notion of divine energy within creation.105 But the attacks by Metropolitan Sergei and the Karlovchane were the first to express their misgivings so forcefully. Metropolitan Sergei—who did not have direct access to Bulgakov’s works—issued his opinion on the basis of excerpts sent to him by the metropolitan of Lithuania (prepared by A. Stavrovskii) and Vladimir Losskii of the Brotherhood of St. Fotii (a group that, unlike Evlogii’s diocese, remained loyal to Moscow). Working from incomplete information, Metropolitan Sergei ruled that Bulgakov’s sofianic theology was “eccentric and arbitrary” (svoeobraznyi i proizvolnyi), that it perverted the dogmas of the Orthodox faith, and that, in some instances, it directly duplicated “false teachings already universally condemned by the Church.” Priests who followed Bulgakov’s teaching should “reform of their error” and return to sound doctrine.106 Even more important (at least for the Fellowship),

Intercommunion and Sofiology

|

Metropolitan Sergei stridently attacked Bulgakov’s understanding of the church,107 a concern implicit in the criticisms of others who attacked Bulgakov’s proposal on intercommunion. Whatever the motivation behind the attacks (likely political),108 Bulgakov’s proposal on intercommunion was now the proposal of a theologian whose theological writings had been deemed heretical. Members of the Karlovatskii Synod, including Metropolitan Antonii,109 continued to rail against Bulgakov even after the initial condemnation. The synod awarded Serafim—who initiated action against Bulgakov in the synod—a doctorate for his report.1 10 In 1938 Count Grabbe issued a scathing indictment to the synod.1 1 1 Antonii complained in a letter to Evlogii that Bulgakov’s work was “unorthodox” and “harmful,” that it would tempt young theologians to operate outside the limits of the church—limits that nobody should transgress. “Every new idea in theological science . . . every exegesis should emanate from the teaching of the centuries confessed by the holy church through the holy fathers and teachers.” But Bulgakov instead “enters into a controversy with the ecumenical councils and holy fathers.”1 12 How, Antonii asked Evlogii, can you—the head of the only Russian theological school outside Russia— support such a man? Though upset over the charges and angry that anyone would question Bulgakov’s theological freedom,1 13 Metropolitan Evlogii, under whose jurisdiction Bulgakov placed himself, felt compelled to investigate and appointed a commission to examine Bulgakov’s works.1 14 Seeking balance, Evlogii asked Georges Florovskii to sit on the commission, knowing that Florovskii disagreed with Bulgakov’s sofianic theology, not to mention Bulgakov’s inadequately patristic—at least to Florovskii’s mind— and romantic approach to theology. (Florovskii would later begin his own study of Sofia, never completed—an early draft resides in his papers at Princeton University—in which he sought to demonstrate that depictions of Sofia in Byzantium and ancient Rus’—i.e., the depictions that inspired Bulgakov’s theology and return to the church—were merely allegorical depictions of Christ, the Logos, and not some other hypostasis.)1 15 The chief critic of Bulgakov’s proposal for intercommunion found himself called to issue an opinion on the theological work Bulgakov held most dear.

173

174

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Deeply protective of human freedom in history, Florovskii worried that Bulgakov’s sofiology bordered on metaphysical determinism.1 16 Florovskii had already condemned Pavel Florenskii’s study of Sofia (which, like Bulgakov’s early work, also noted the existence of a “fourth hypostasis”) in a scathing review for Put’.1 17 Any suggestion of a fourth hypostasis, Florovskii argued— even if distinguished from those of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—impinged on the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus questions concerning Sofia were fundamental questions of dogma—not theologoumena, as Bulgakov insisted.1 18 Florovskii—whose entire theology was solidly Christological1 19 —also worried that Bulgakov’s sofiology removed the focus of Christian life from Christ. Christ was God’s link to humanity—he needed no other hypostasis. When Evlogii approached Florovskii about serving on the commission, Florovskii replied that he wanted no part in the matter. Despite the row over Bulgakov’s proposal for intercommunion, Florovskii and Bulgakov remained on relatively good terms (they had corresponded cordially on the matter of Sofia in the mid-1920s),120 and he did not want to jeopardize their relationship. “Allow me to stay away,” he told Evlogii. “You know that I disagree with Bulgakov’s teaching” and believe that it contains “some ambiguity, I would not say heresy, but something misleading.” “I would prefer not to be on the commission, because if you want a complete rehabilitation of Bulgakov, saying there is no reason for concern, I cannot say this, for there are reasons for concern.”121 But Evlogii insisted, and Florovskii reluctantly agreed to serve. Evlogii’s commission split: the majority cleared Bulgakov of heresy, but Florovskii and Father Chetverikov (also a member of the Fellowship) dissented.122 Word spread quickly that Florovskii and Chetverikov refrained from absolving Bulgakov, wounding Bulgakov’s credibility both within the Russian Orthodox émigré community and within the Fellowship.123 (Evlogii, unhappy with a split decision, reconvened the commission, but Florovskii stayed as aloof as possible.) Bulgakov and Florovskii remained on friendly terms, but Florovskii stood firm in his disapproval, and Bulgakov refused to retract his views.124 Vladimir Losskii, who supplied Metropolitan Sergei with excerpts from Bulgakov’s works, published his own critique of Bulgakov in 1936,125 accusing him of a cavalier attitude toward ecclesiastical discipline and canonical procedure.126 Losskii’s critique constituted an ex-

Intercommunion and Sofiology

|

tended apologia for hierarchical discipline in church life. The Viestnik of the RSCM (the movement that helped found the Fellowship) rushed to Bulgakov’s defense,127 as did Nikolai Berdiaev, attacking Losskii and Chetverikov for shackling theological thought. “Is Orthodoxy the religion of a free spirit,” Berdiaev demanded, “or an inquisitorial torture-chamber?” “I remain in the church of Christ, based on love and freedom.”128 In a furious exchange of letters in Put’, Losskii and Chetverikov held firm, insisting that the church hierarchy had a duty to condemn those who strayed from church teaching.129 Such criticisms—that is, a lack of respect for hierarchical discipline—lay at the root of complaints leveled by members of the Fellowship who opposed Bulgakov’s novel approach to intercommunion without full hierarchical sanction. Sofia was central to Bulgakov’s life and work; in condemning Bulgakov’s sofiology, Metropolitan Sergei and Metropolitan Antonii were, in a sense, dismissing Bulgakov himself. Bulgakov credited his vision of Sofia at his son’s funeral with his return to the church, and in Constantinople with profoundly altering the course of his life.130 While living in fear of his safety in Yalta (where he first moved to escape Soviet persecution), he reflected that God “chose me, weak and unworthy, to be the servant of Holy Sofia and her revelation.”131 It is no surprise, then, that he talked incessantly about Sofia in his work for the Fellowship.132 For Bulgakov Sofia was a means of achieving unity, both between God and creation and within creation. And as Sofia unites God and creation, creation is transformed. But if, as Bulgakov contended in Sviet nevechernii (The Unfading Light), “sofiurgy” or the transformation of the world can occur only within the bosom of the church,133 then it is impossible to imagine how Sofia can transform the world if the church—her transformational medium—is divided. Sofia represented for Bulgakov a mystical quest for reunion. Zernov credited Bulgakov’s revelation in Constantinople at the church of St. Sofia with inspiring his vision of a reunited Christendom. Bulgakov himself recalled in his biography that this revelation prompted him to recognize the Hagia Sofia as an “ecumenical church,” for “all people,” that would again make Christendom whole.134 In Sophia: The Wisdom of God, Bulgakov prophesied that the “whole world is coming to be the church” but that “only in the light of sophiology can we grasp the full scope of that eschatological fulfillment of all things.”135

175

176

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Thus when Metropolitan Sergei, the Karlovchane, and Florovskii dismissed Bulgakov’s sofiology, they dismissed what drove Bulgakov to his ecumenical work. His intercommunion proposal was, in the larger scheme of things, a means of accommodating the work of Sofia in creation. The eucharist, as Bulgakov made clear in “Evkharisticheskii dogmat” (Eucharistic Dogma), was itself Sofia: the body and blood of Christ “have the power of Divine sophianicity, which unites the heavenly body and earthly matter.” God’s ascension to heaven did not “annul His connection with the world” but rather affirmed it, “raising it to supermundane, eternal being.” His corporeality “penetrates all of creation (‘All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth’ [Matt. 28:18]) and is inseparable from it.” Thus matter in the world—the bread and wine—can also be raised by the Holy Spirit “into a state of corporeal sophianicity; that is they can become the body and blood of the Lord.” The transformation of the eucharistic elements “can be understood as the complete sophianization of matter of the world, the bread and wine, through their unification with the Lord’s glorified, spiritual body.” Since the bread and wine “belong to this world,” they participate “ontologically” with Jesus’ earthly body. This participation attests to “their primordial sophianicity, which is the basis of the creation of the world.”136 For good measure Bulgakov repeated these assertions verbatim in another article, “Sofiologicheskoe istolkovanie evkharisticheskago dogmata” (A Sofiological Interpretation of Eucharistic Dogma).137 In sum, the transformation of creation, or the realization of creation’s sofianicity, is accomplished in the eucharist. Intercommunion could thus be the realization of sofianic unity. Intercommunion is Sofia’s work. So, again, attacks on Bulgakov’s sofianic theology were not merely attacks on his credibility as a theologian (a fact that did unnerve some in the Fellowship) but also, indirectly but crucially, an attack on his very motivation. Most members of the Fellowship and other Anglicans who desired unity with the Orthodox knew something about Bulgakov’s problems. The Christian East published the text of Metropolitan Sergei’s condemnation, plus Evlogii’s and Bulgakov’s responses.138 Bulgakov himself raised the issue obliquely in a passionate address at the 1936 Fellowship conference about freedom of thought in the Orthodox Church.139 Paul Anderson, head of the International YMCA, prepared a memorandum on

Intercommunion and Sofiology

|

the controversy for select members of the Fellowship.140 Bulgakov did as well, although it is not clear who saw his version.141 The Fellowship’s journal—apparently anxious to stay free of the controversy—remained silent until September 1936, when Lev Zander—describing himself as “a follower and disciple” of Bulgakov—mounted a spirited defense of sofiology and argued for its “affinity” with “the spirit of Orthodoxy.” Only sofiology can provide “the true basis for an Orthodox philosophy,” and it is the “only satisfactory theory” to account for Orthodox mariology. Chiding the xenophobic Karlovchane, Zander jestingly accused them of an affinity with Western theology for not allowing the development of an alternate, uniquely Orthodox philosophy: without sofiology we are “cast in the mold” of “acosmic philosophies foreign to Orthodoxy.”142 But Zander (and later Dobbie-Bateman) remained lonely voices in Sobornost (the new name of the Journal of the Fellowship as of 1935). Sobornost announced the forthcoming publication of Bulgakov’s sofianic treatise for English audiences 1937,143 but it declined to endorse its conclusions.144 Although few members of the Fellowship really understood Bulgakov’s theology,1 45 they expressed concerns about the controversy’s implications for the Fellowship’s future and for reunion. A leading member of the Fellowship warned Florovskii that “the existence of the Fellowship is very much bound up with the affair.” Unless the affair was settled “quietly,” the entire work of reunion might be in serious jeopardy.146 Anderson urged Bulgakov to disavow his theology if necessary.1 47 Dobbie-Bateman showed more sympathy: he accepted Bulgakov’s avowal of fidelity to the church’s tradition and believed that Bulgakov had “shown a firmer grasp of the tradition than have some of his opponents.”148 Still, Dobbie-Bateman told Florovskii privately that he found Bulgakov’s sofiology “an unnecessary hypothesis”149 and that he feared an “intrigue” against Bulgakov by the Greek Orthodox.150 Florovskii claimed that Dobbie-Bateman even tried to prevent the publication of Bulgakov’s summary of sofiology in English, worried that it would give a distorted view of Russian theology.151 The whole affair made John Douglas—a great friend of the Greeks and a wishful friend of the Karlovchane— extremely nervous. According to John Young, Douglas feared “a serious reaction” that would jeopardize his many years of work on reunion. Douglas took a copy of Metropolitan Sergei’s ukaz to a friend who taught theology at Oxford. After

177

178

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

reading it, the don opined that, indeed, Bulgakov’s teaching was heretical, confirming Douglas’s fears. I am anxious, said Douglass, that Bulgakov’s teaching on Sophia may conflict with Orthodox dogma, and even with “the general traditional dogmatic teaching of historic Christianity.”152 Although Douglas did not endorse Metropolitan Sergei’s or the Karlovatskii Synod’s condemnations, neither did he refute them, and he urged his fellow members of the Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund to stay clear of the controversy (which they mostly did). Russians outside Metropolitan Evlogii’s jurisdiction, plus Greeks, Bulgars, Serbs, Romanians, and other Orthodox, would, he warned, hold the Church Aid Fund responsible for Bulgakov’s teaching and activities, jeopardizing the fund’s ability to act “as the agent of British Christianity towards Russian Christianity.”153 Indeed, the fund did receive protests (including one from the duchess of York). Letters complained that the fund supported the Theological Institute in Paris—Bulgakov’s professional home—and that it allowed Zernov (“known to be a disciple of Bulgakov”) to serve as one of its officials.154 | The debate on intercommunion and the controversy over Sofia both raised questions about the limits of theological exploration within Orthodoxy. Bulgakov had long argued that theological development was impossible without the freedom to explore new dogma.155 Unlike Rome, he argued, Orthodoxy had no external organ of infallibility: theological exploration alone could determine what is and is not true. But, he wrote in a jab at the Karlovchane, “Many of us, and particularly many representatives of the hierarchy in our Church, have been sadly influenced by Romanizing tendencies, so that they actually regard themselves as so many Popes, or as a sort of collective Pope. This is a sin in Orthodoxy and constitutes a real temptation to many.” “Our Orthodox church—and this is especially true of the Russian Orthodox church—has never been sufficiently educated for freedom.”156 This is not to say that Bulgakov ever argued that Orthodox theologians should develop theology contrary to the essentials of Orthodox teaching. He staunchly defended what he considered core dogma and roundly criticized the Church of England for not doing the same.157 He told Evlogii, “I solemnly declare that as an Orthodox priest I profess all the true dogmas of Orthodoxy. My Sophiology has nothing to do with

Intercommunion and Sofiology

|

the actual content of those dogmas, but merely with their theological interpretation.” Sofiology is “my personal theological belief to which I have never ascribed the significance of a generally binding church dogma.”158 Still, Bulgakov believed that theology could develop in ways that might call some traditional verities into question. “It would be one of the worst of errors to think that the dogmatic life of the Church ended with the Seventh Oecumenical Council.” “Even an Oecumenical Council is not an external organ for proclaiming the truth of the Church.” “If Gregory of Palama had been obedient to the second Council he would have ended his days as a heretic.” Freedom of thought is essential and an admirable trait of “comprehensiveness.” “Of course I should not like to appropriate this principle in its Anglican form, and should not care to see within the Orthodox Church theologians who deny the Holy Trinity, or the Holy Eucharist and so on. But the principle in itself is good so far as it represents a measure of toleration of different tendencies of dogmatic thought.”159 Toleration, Bulgakov insisted, is essential for theological development. And if theology, as he also argued, is something to be lived rather than merely debated, then intercommunion offered a means of theological development. Just as Bulgakov employed Sofia to develop the Chalcedonian doctrine on the relation of the divine to the human, so he wished to develop reunion through sofianic intercommunion. Development requires freedom. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ made us free, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage.”160 “Those who want to reduce Christianity to obedience” deserve the apostle Paul’s rebuke as “false brothers.” They pervert Christianity, which recognizes commandments but does not recognize rules over itself. “Stand in freedom, which Christ gave you” (Gal. 5:1), for “brothers, you were called to freedom (5:13).”161 Florovskii and Alivizatos could abide a modicum of such talk but not in the measure dished out by Bulgakov. At the 1931 Fellowship conference Florovskii conceded that there could be no “external authority” in questions of faith. “Force cannot judge true spiritual experience.” But then he added a qualification: “In the Church . . . there can be no private opinions.”162 Likewise, Alivizatos argued at the 1937 conference in Edinburgh, that the entire development of church doctrine “would have been impossible without that absolute freedom of thought, which dominates our Church up to this moment.” No Greek theologian, whatever church

179

180

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

he might belong to, could imagine himself restricted in any way in developing his theology, subject, of course, to the criticism and review of public opinion. But then Alivizatos also qualified: theologians “realize the limitations of human thought and intellect” and “know where to stop.”163 | The defeat of Bulgakov’s intercommunion proposal left the Fellowship searching for a purpose. For a while it dove eagerly into social questions, and a casual reader of Sobornost in the mid- to late 1930s might have concluded the Fellowship was attempting to recast itself as a Christian socialist movement. Berdiaev became active in the Fellowship during this time,164 and he appeared at its conferences offering strident critiques of the failing social system and of modern, individualistic civilization.165 He wrote pieces for Sobornost equating war with “triumphant capitalism”166 and describing traditional interpretations of Christianity as an attempt by the ruling classes to exploit the poor. “Christians should always stand for justice,” he proclaimed, and fight the “economic slavery which exists in the capitalist order of society.” “Society from a Christian point of view cannot tolerate the existence of the hungry and the miserable among its members.”167 Bernard Clarke and Xenia Braikevitch (whose shared political sympathies would lead them to the altar) edited the journal for a time during the 1930s,168 publishing and composing articles extolling communism and warning that the class struggle would lead to widespread revolution. Clarke offered an eager defense of dialectical materialism and warned of capitalism’s imminent demise. “There comes a point at which capitalists can make no further concessions. When that point is reached class-war will appear in all its nakedness.” “Marx gives us a true recall to religion, to the task which we have talked about but not performed.”169 Braikevitch warned that the class struggle in England “will rise to the surface in blood as it has done in Spain and Russia. In that day the sword of judgment will reveal where we stand. . . . The class struggle is the winnowing fan of history—it is the flail of God.”170 Perhaps the bloodshed in Russia “was needed to atone for the sins of the past and for our own sins, to lay ultimately the foundation of a new and better order of society.”171 Such language was, of course, anathema to the Russian members of the Fellowship. A few Anglicans appreciated this new orientation,172

Intercommunion and Sofiology

|

but negative reaction overwhelmed the editors. Parisian Russians wrote to protest and plead that the journal refrain from such invective. Anglicans also expressed concern. These articles “have made a disastrous impression here, and have certainly done nothing to help the cause of Reunion.” “On the same page as Miss Braikevitch’s article appears, in the Secretary’s Diary, four ways to help the cause of reunion. One is to contribute financially. I suppose ‘Christian Capitalists,’ whose existence is joyously questioned, were included; if not, I tremble to think what would happen to Fellowship Funds.”173 Correspondents complained that Sobornost was “guilty of a breech of trust,”174 that it seemed “full of the spirit of untruth, hatred, and shouting to the biggest crowd.”175 “We have seen the Spanish tragedy stampeding many Catholics, Romans, and Anglicans into the Fascist Camp,” observed another writer. “It would be a pity if we were to let ourselves be stampeded into the communist camp.”176 Reeling, Clarke and Braikevitch tried to assure their readers that the Fellowship “has no political policy whatever.”177 Their names disappeared from the masthead in the next issue, and Eric Mascall became editor the following year. But the Fellowship continued to drift. Gone were bold proposals. Articles urged restraint178 and offered little hope for reunion.179 The editors felt compelled to assert in 1936 that the Fellowship “is not a vague body pursuing aims which it cannot define,” but they failed to define any such aims.180 Sobornost resumed the tenor of the Journal of the Fellowship prior to the intercommunion proposal. Once again, it filled its pages with genially didactic articles acquainting Anglicans with the Orthodox and the Orthodox with Anglicans. Dogmatic studies reappeared but generally confined themselves to safe topics such as purgatory.181 Common cause seemed absent. Modernists attacked catholics.182 Some argued that the Fellowship was too insular,183 others that it was consumed by peripheral issues. Some extolled Communism, while others worried that the plight of the Russian church under Communism received insufficient attention.184 The Fellowship made one last, serious attempt to discuss reunion at the 1938 conference. Unlike in 1934, when Bulgakov argued for a microapproach to reunion, this conference focused on the ultimate goal: full reunion of the entire Anglican and Orthodox Churches. (In a veiled criticism of Bulgakov’s proposal, Thomas Parker asked that the Fellowship

181

182

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

not become an “obstacle” to reunion.)185 Mascall, departing utterly from Bulgakov’s approach, urged a renewed focus on doctrinal negotiations among all churches, including Rome and Protestant denominations.186 Parker urged reunion through dogmatic maximalism,187 as did Gabriel Hebert.188 But while the discussions expressed dreams of complete reunion, they offered no path to those dreams. By 1943 C. B. Moss, writing in Sobornost, sighed, “The difficulties of union between the Orthodox and Anglican Communions are well known to us.”189 Honest acknowledgments of differences grew frank. Berdiaev complained that the Orthodox often gave Anglicans a completely erroneous idea of the divisions in the Orthodox Church; Anglicans did not, he argued, fully understand the disjunction between the “liberal” group in Paris and the more conservative groups elsewhere (see chap. 15). He complained to Xenia Braikevitch that the present Orthodox Church shows little “soborny” spirit. “It was absurd to imagine that the vast bulk of the Orthodox Church would regard the Anglican Church as the Paris group did.”190 The Fellowship also struggled in its relations with other ecumenical organizations. Some members of the executive tried to distance the Fellowship from the Student Christian Movement, for financial reasons (it could no longer expect the level of aid it received from the SCM in its early years), but also because the SCM seemed increasingly uneasy with the overtly Catholic focus of the Fellowship.191 Some Anglicans shared the SCM’s unease. Liberals, Protestants, and Evangelicals within the Church of England suspected Anglican members of the Fellowship of a Catholic betrayal of comprehensiveness or even of toadyism to Orthodoxy.192 When the Fellowship published its first collection of essays in 1936, one reviewer complained that the Anglican contributors represented only “a special group of Anglicans”: “This to some extent limits the usefulness of their work, since it does not convey to our Russian neighbours the real ethos of the Church of England.”193 The minutes of the Fellowship’s 1935 general committee meeting acknowledge that the “unrepresentative character” of the Fellowship’s Anglican contingent provided “a constant source of friction” with Anglicans who did not belong to the church’s Catholic wing. Evangelicals and members of the free churches regarded negotiations with the Orthodox as an impedi-

Intercommunion and Sofiology

|

ment to “home reunion,” and Free Church dons feared that the Catholic Fellowship’s Catholic atmosphere “may seduce their young men from the true faith.”194 Though troubled by the SCM’s concerns,195 the Fellowship’s executive nevertheless defended the Fellowship’s Catholic orientation. If the base of Anglicans within the Fellowship were widened, the conferences “would thereby be so profoundly altered as to be almost discontinuous with the past.” Still, the Fellowship understood what was at stake: the SCM might “find itself in the position of having sponsored and developed an activity which helps to drive a wedge deeper into the Anglican Church. In professing to seek Christian Unity we may create disunity.”196 By the mid-1930s the Fellowship had mostly lost contact with the SCM.197 Halfhearted efforts to merge the Fellowship with other organizations (presumably to broaden its appeal) failed.198 By the second world war the Fellowship had become, once again, a debating and mutual education society, a forum for Catholic-minded Orthodox and Anglicans to learn more about each other and to participate together in joint worship services (although not in the eucharist).199 Today, the Fellowship stands as one of the most successful examples of sustained and honest dialogue between members of two very different confessions. But while reunion remains its goal, it is no nearer to reunion than when Bulgakov, in 1933, urged that it take a step it was unwilling to risk.

183

12

Lambeth, 1930

We must not forget, my Anglican friends, that English proverb, “More haste, less speed.” —Cosmo Gordon Lang, archbishop of Canterbury 1

A

nglicans and Orthodox largely avoided serious doctrinal discussions at official levels between 1923—the year that John Douglas’s intercommunion scheme created such a fuss—and the Lambeth conference of 1930. Indeed, the Jubilee celebration of 1925 was notable primarily for its studied and wholesale avoidance of doctrinal issues. Neither the Anglican nor the Orthodox Church addressed doctrine within their own confessions in any systematic way during these years. Hopes for an imminent pan-Orthodox synod that might offer a unified statement on Orthodox doctrine—including an examination of its relation to Anglican doctrine—were repeatedly dashed (see chap. 15). Archbishop Aftimos, acting head of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America, prepared a reunion proposal in 1926 for a pan-Orthodox synod, but the document became moot when the synod never materialized.2 (Still, the Month could not refrain from weighing in on his proposal: “If [Aftimos] thinks that these terms of communion . . . could have the remotest chance of being accepted even by ‘Anglo-Catholics’ he must be the prince of optimists.”)3 184

|

Lambeth, 1930

|

Absent a pan-Orthodox synod, the decennial Lambeth conference of 1930 offered the next logical forum in almost a decade for structured theological discussion between the two parties. Given the appearance of Mortalium animos in 1928, bishops of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion now had only the Orthodox Church on which to pin their hopes for reunion.4 John Douglas hoped that Lambeth might offer the breakthrough in Anglican-Orthodox relations that he had long sought. But after the fiascos of the early 1920s, he approached the issue in more realistic terms than before. If all Anglicans were Anglo-Catholic, he mused, “agreement would be easy.” But they are not. And the Orthodox view special relations with just a section of the Anglican Church as “unthinkable.”5 The Orthodox perceive the Anglican Church as divided and “incapable of stating a central Anglican position at all.” Still, Douglas hoped that “extremely sectionally-minded Anglicans” (a group to which he consigned many Evangelicals) might be ignored and that a “Central Anglicanism” might emerge that expressed the beliefs of moderate Anglican Catholics, Evangelicals, and modernists who could express beliefs “essentially identical with the broad current of Orthodox life and tradition.”6 Anglicans first approached the Orthodox about attending Lambeth at the 1927 Faith and Order conference in Lausanne. Douglas subsequently visited Meletios—now patriarch of Alexandria after being deposed in Constantinople—and traveled to other Orthodox Balkan churches to solicit commitments to attend. Douglas had the new archbishop of Canterbury’s support in this endeavor. Like his predecessor, Randall Davidson, Archbishop Cosmo Lang was committed to the idea of reunion, at least in the abstract, and described Lambeth as an opportunity to strengthen the Anglican Church’s ties to other confessions.7 Archbishop Lang, to Douglas’s delight (but to the disappointment of some Anglicans who wanted closer relations with the free churches),8 sent a letter to the ecumenical patriarch, Photios, inviting him to secure a delegation of ten to twelve “discreet and well-learned theologians,” “widely representative of the Autokephalous churches.”9 (Lang had to contact the Bulgarian Orthodox church himself, since the formal schism between Constantinople and Sofia prevented Photios from speaking with the Bulgarian hierarchy.10) Douglas wanted both Metropolitan Evlogii and Metropolitan Antonii to attend, and believed that Lang did also.1 1 If we

185

186

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

are to believe Photios, Lang initially suggested that they both attend,12 although in public Lang proved more reluctant and mindful of political realities.13 Whatever Lang’s real feelings, Photios was determined to stay clear of the juridical controversies among the Russian émigrés and decided that Antonii and Evlogii “cannot be regarded as essential representatives of the Russian Church.”14 Instead, Photios invited Metropolitan Sergei of Moscow, who, undoubtedly in the interest of self-preservation, refused to attend. Therefore, the Russian Orthodox Church—the largest and most influential of all the Orthodox churches—sent no representatives.15 Nikolai Arsen’ev, a Russian theological professor who attended as a representative of the Polish Orthodox Church, was furious that the delegation lacked Russian representatives: “Without the Russian church there cannot be true representation of the Orthodox church.” Arsen’ev alleged that “several members of the influential Greek Circle” did not want the Russian church to participate, claiming that it was too discordant, plagued by “incompetence,” and unable to speak with a unified voice. While conceding that “the Greeks, to our shame, had some formal right to their allegations,”16 Arsen’ev nevertheless insisted, rather implausibly, that the Orthodox delegation could easily have found a person free of party allegiances and possessed of adequate authority in the eyes of the emigrant Russian churches.17 The British press took an unusual interest in the Orthodox delegation’s arrival in London. (Metropolitan Germanos, aware of the racket created by the Orthodox declaration at Lausanne, wrote to the Spectator to ask that the British public not interpret the declaration as an indication that the Orthodox considered reunion with the Anglican Church impossible.)18 The Spectator’s subscribers wrote letter after letter in 1930 about the possibility of reunion between the two churches. G. F. Pollard weighed in several times to argue that Anglicans were “immeasurably nearer” to the Orthodox Church than to any other Protestant denomination. Enumerating points on which Anglican and Protestant doctrine diverged, he pleaded with Lambeth not to “throw in her lot with ‘Protestant’ bodies, which have designedly cut themselves adrift,” and thus jeopardize reunion with the East. “The door to reunion with Orthodox Christendom, though not yet fully open, is at least ajar,” and Lambeth, he continued, should do nothing to slam it shut.19

Lambeth, 1930

|

Pollard’s letter elicited a lively response from all quarters. “By what shift” is the Orthodox Church to be brought into reunion with the Church of England? asked a letter to the editor. Our rubrics deny the real presence in communion, and define Roman and eastern teaching on the matter as “idolatry.”20 Another correspondent suggested that Pollard should have signed his letter “Greek Anglican,” because he seemed to desire that the two Anglican archbishops and the king “bow to the Greek Patriarch as their Superior.”21 C. Sydney Carter, a frequent contributor to the Churchman who hoped that Lambeth might lay the path for reunion between the Church of England and the free churches, groused that Pollard made “the astonishing assertion” that they differ with the Eastern churches only on “certain minor points.”22 Instead, Carter said, attention should be turned to the free churches, the Church of England’s “sisters of the Reformation,” with whom it “accord[s] in every point of doctrine without the least variation.”23 Such debates were not new to the Orthodox, and they did not arrive in London with high hopes. Germanos recalled that the Orthodox had from the beginning considered reunion with the Anglican Church a “remote object.”24 As in 1920, the Lambeth conference of 1930 began when hundreds of bishops from all over the world endorsed the Anglican Church’s commitment to reunion schemes in general but not to one in particular.25 It remained an open question where Anglican-Orthodox negotiations would lead. Fourteen Anglican bishops from Ireland, the United States, Egypt, Gibraltar, England, Canada, and Nassau joined eleven members of the Orthodox delegation for their first discussions of doctrine on Tuesday, August 15. The Orthodox arrived well prepared with a list of pointed questions. Their opening query revealed nagging doubts about earlier attempts by the Church of England to describe Anglican theology in terms thought palatable to the Orthodox. Did the “Terms of Intercommunion” drawn up by the Eastern Churches Committee in the early 1920s, asked the Orthodox, express the mind of the Anglican Church? If not, “where and in what do they diverge from that mind?” The Anglican bishops responded (presumably with straight faces) that “The Terms”—while never officially communicated to the different provinces of the Anglican communion—nevertheless “represented the mind and doctrine of the

187

188

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Anglican Church.”26 Such a contention was dubious at best, but the Orthodox seemed satisfied. Still, they asked if the Anglicans might clarify within “The Terms” Anglican teaching on the nature of holy orders (Do they constitute an unbroken link with the apostles?) and the eucharist (Do the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and is the eucharist a “spiritual sacrifice, propitiatory for the living and the dead”?). The second question concerned authority. Where, the Orthodox wanted to know, does the doctrinal buck stop in the Anglican Church? Which body adjudicates “authoritatively” when differences of faith arise? Bishop Headlam, who chaired the Anglican delegation, replied that such authority lies with bishops summoned as a synod and that decisions by the bishops would be valid if accepted by the synods of all provinces and churches of the Anglican communion. This reply, while true to an extent, omitted a great deal. Bernard Leeming, a Jesuit at the Pontificia Universita Gregoriana in Rome who wrote an exhaustive report on the negotiations, noted Headlam’s rather audacious failure to make any reference to the role of Parliament in the establishment of doctrine within the Church of England.27 The rejection of the Prayer Book in 1927 and 1928, Leeming rightly maintained, “makes the answer of the Bishops appear ludicrously out of touch with reality”;28 ultimate authority resides with Parliament, not the bishops.29 Nevertheless, Meletios, who usually spoke for the Orthodox (at least in the official record of the discussions), again seemed satisfied.30 Third: how does the Anglican Church enforce its doctrine? If a member of the Anglican Church were to publicly utter opinions “contrary to the Faith of the Church,” what would happen and who would decide? Here the Anglican bishops waffled. Headlam noted that the Church of England was “not fond of condemnations for heresy” and was prepared to license a “certain amount of Freedom” (although what might constitute a “certain amount” he neglected to say). The Anglicans noted that bishops have jurisdiction in questions of discipline and that final authority lies with ecclesiastical courts. As evidence, Headlam cited the case of Edward King, the bishop of London tried by the archbishop of Canterbury in 1889. Again, Bernard Leeming noted the Anglicans’ failure to reference any civil authority over the church,31 but—also again— Meletios seemed satisfied, and the delegations retired for the evening.

Lambeth, 1930

|

The two groups resumed their work the next afternoon. The Anglicans arrived with questions as pointed as the ones they fielded the day before. Bishop Headlam had spent enough time around Orthodox theologians to know that Orthodoxy as a whole lacked a clear statement of faith, but he nevertheless opened the questioning by asking where one could find the “official teaching” of the Orthodox Church. Such a question, of course, placed the Orthodox in an impossible position. Meletios referred to the catechism of Peter Mogila32 and the confession of Dositheus as “important statements.” He also noted the confession of Metrophanes Critopoulos and the Answers of Jeremiah II to the Lutheran Theologians at Tübigen, but relegated them to a secondary position. Undoubtedly familiar with the conciliatory tone of Metropolitan Filaret’s Longer Catechism, Headlam asked hopefully what authority it held for the Orthodox. Meletios answered politely but firmly that “it was the work of one who had especially criticized the Church of Rome and by reaction was influenced by Protestantism.”33 Now the Orthodox again took over, and their questions grew ever more direct. Does the Anglican Church agree that holy orders are “a mysterion” and that their “unbroken succession is a link with the Apostles”? Headlam answered carefully. The Anglican Church, he responded, reserves the word sacrament for the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist. But if “the significance of a Sacrament lies in it being the outward sign of a spiritual gift given” (he did not elaborate on the term “spiritual gift”), then “Holy Orders would be considered a Sacrament in that sense.” Amazingly, the Orthodox did not request clarification. Rather, a pattern began to emerge that held for the remainder of the day: the Orthodox posed a difficult question, the Anglicans offered an evasive answer, and the Orthodox moved on without the follow-up questioning that this evasiveness demanded. When Meletios asked about ambiguities and inconsistencies in the Thirty-nine Articles, Headlam simply assured him that “they were in all cases to be interpreted by what the Prayer Book itself said.” The Orthodox moved on. When the Orthodox asked about apostolic succession, Headlam maintained that “there was undoubtedly . . . a link with the Apostles” but that the Church of England “had never considered it its duty to deny the spiritual value of ministries outside its own Communion.”34 Again, the Orthodox posed no follow-up queries. The delegations adjourned for the evening.

189

190

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Day three, 11:00 A.M.: Does the Anglican Church, began the Orthodox, “agree that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ” during the eucharist, which constitutes “a spiritual sacrifice, propitiatory for the living and the dead?” Headlam knew the answer the Orthodox wanted (a simple “yes”), but he knew as well that the Church of England had spent centuries working hard not to formulate a straight answer to this question. Headlam continued the tradition. Ever since the Reformation, he began, the Church of England has rejected (1) a “material interpretation” of the eucharist (here he sought to distance his church as best he could from overtly Protestant teaching on communion) and (2) “the doctrine of Transubstantiation as taught by the Latin Divines in the Middle Ages.” But then Headlam uncharacteristically pressed on in a forthright manner, frankly acknowledging conflicting interpretations of eucharistic doctrine in his church. He quoted both the Anglican catechism (the body and blood of Christ are “verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper”) and article 28 of the Thirty-nine Articles (“The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.”). The American Episcopal bishop of Rhode Island read the epiclesis from the American liturgy, which offered no more clarity on the matter. Hoping to offer a catholic interpretation, the bishop of Nassau quoted the Prayer of Humble Access (“Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the Flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his Blood”), and the bishop of Gibraltar jumped in to point out that an Anglican minister serving communion says, “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee . . .”35 Meletios expressed satisfaction with the wildly conflicting statements. The Anglicans struggled to offer a satisfactory answer to inquiries about prayers for the dead. Headlam acknowledged that—to put it mildly—“at the Reformation the Church of England had been hesitating on the doctrine” but then claimed that prayers for the departed were now common. Again, Meletios seemed satisfied, and was willing to attribute any concerns within Anglican churches about the practice to “the fear of the erroneous opinions of Rome.”36 On Thursday afternoon and the following Friday Anglicans turned to the question of economy. Clearly eager to employ economic intercommunion as a starting point toward full intercommunion, the Anglicans

Lambeth, 1930

|

bombarded the Orthodox with questions about its limits and proper use. They received disappointing answers. A number of the Orthodox delegates refused to consider economy at all; others were willing to allow it only in limited circumstances.37 For the first time, the Orthodox seemed confused and unable to offer a unified response. Asked the Anglicans: could Orthodox laypeople living in America, absent from Orthodox clergy of their own confession, receive “sacramental ministrations” from members of the local Anglican clergy? Meletios struggled. At first, he refused to speculate at all— such a question must be addressed by the long-expected pan-Orthodox synod. But then he insisted that communion must be regarded as the “highest spiritual bond of union” and could come only as a sign of “full agreement in faith.” Meletios noted that he himself had refused to administer the eucharist to Armenians in Khartoum. But then, in an apparent reversal, he spoke favorably about the administration of the sacraments by Patriarch Dimitrii of Serbia to Anglicans, and about the administration of communion by the Romanian patriarch Miron to the Anglican Queen Mother of Romania. The metropolitan of Novi Sad did not like what he was hearing and stepped in to point out to both Germanos and the Anglicans the “great astonishment” and “disappointment” in Orthodox theological circles about the patriarch of Serbia’s actions. But then the metropolitan of Corcyra admitted that he, too, had practiced economy by allowing Armenian refugees in Corfu to receive the eucharist from an Orthodox priest.38 Finally, the Orthodox managed to agree among themselves that while they personally had no objection to Orthodox priests offering communion to Anglicans in cases of “need,” they had no authority to provide official sanction for such actions. They were, in other words, unwilling to endorse the vehicle for rapprochement in which some Anglicans had invested so much hope. Did anything positive happen during these meetings? Certainly they were cordial and reflected a genuine desire to find agreement where possible. But we cannot accept Germanos’s characterization of the talks as negotiations toward reunion (the possibility of formal reunion never reached the table),39 and it is even more difficult to accept Meletios’s portrayal of the discussions as a “significant step toward Church Unity.”40 Sharp differences emerged over and over, each time prompting the

191

192

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Orthodox to abandon their questions. Although the minutes of the discussions frequently report that the Orthodox delegation received Anglican responses with “satisfaction,” it is difficult to equate “satisfaction” with “agreement” when considering both the evasiveness of the answers and the course of subsequent discussions one year later.41 The conversations at Lambeth put Nikolai Arsen’ev in a funk. He complained about the legalistic tone of the proceedings, and groused that the discussions were conducted “under the mark of scholasticism.” Unhappy from the outset about the absence of the Russian church,42 he described the Greek theologians in the delegation as cold scholastics who offered their Anglican counterparts a “formal, legal account of our faith.” This “alien, scholastic school . . . obscures the deep, fundamental, religious meaning of the fundamental elements of Orthodox teaching in the eyes of our Anglican friends.” In the Greek account of doctrine “the secondary is quite often placed on a level with what is fundamental and central”; such legalism was not sensitive to the “blowing of the spirit of life”: “It is very hurtful that our Orthodox Church teaching is being taught to our foreign friends in the appearance of a theoretical tract.” Arsen’ev missed his Russian cohorts who could speak in “the voice of the Russian theological tradition,” a tradition not constrained by “scholastic methods of argumentation.”43 Yet Arsen’ev doled out criticism in equal measure to the Anglicans, complaining about their “obscure and contradictory” teaching on the priesthood and the meaning of the eucharist.44 And despite his allegations of an overly legalistic approach by the Greeks, his own solution to Anglican obfuscation was to propose an exhaustive list of criteria that the Anglican Church must meet before he could acknowledge any hope for progress. He demanded that the upper houses of both Convocations clarify Anglican dogma. They must declare that the sacraments are a mysterion, that Lambeth’s statement on the eucharist should serve as the official text of the Anglican Church, that the Black Rubric be removed from the Prayer Book,45 and that the filioque be removed from the creed. He even asked that the Anglicans grant the Orthodox the right to sanction any “definitive and decisive” resolutions between the Anglican Church and the Protestant free churches. He sought assurance that questions of “faith, morality, liturgy, and Church discipline” could be handled only by an ecumenical council, an obvious swipe at Parliament’s role in the

Lambeth, 1930

|

Prayer Book crises of 1927 and 1928. He requested a “solemn” announcement that the Thirty-nine Articles be interpreted “in the spirit of the indivisible Church” and that a number of articles be changed outright.46 He asked, in other words, for the impossible. The only significant accomplishment was a concluding agreement to appoint a continuing “Joint Doctrinal Commission” (JDC) “to examine the teaching of the two Churches, to register the points on which agreement may be found between them, to note any differences which appear to be of importance; and to report these matters to their respective Churches.”47 This joint commission drew its members largely from those who participated in discussions at Lambeth. The Russian church again lacked representation (the ecumenical patriarch refused to invite Metropolitan Antonii),48 although Arsen’ev again represented Poland. The most notable absence was Meletios, who had most frequently expressed “satisfaction” with Anglican explanations at Lambeth.49 Expectations were muted from the start. At the first meeting, on October 15, 1931, Archbishop Lang greeted the delegates by urging caution. I trust that God will ultimately lead our churches to “real intercommunion,” he said. “But I am sure we must advance towards that goal very carefully step by step.” For the present, “I should be quite content” if this commission did nothing more than justify a pro-synod of the Orthodox churches (see chap. 15) that could consider the question of authorized intercommunion, “however limited and guarded.”50 The commission adhered to Lang’s tone and emphasized its own limited authority, agreeing that the two delegations had no power to bind their respective churches to any decisions the JDC might reach. Metropolitan Germanos again emphasized that he had no wish to birth any proposals for intercommunion: “sacramental Communion will follow as the last step of the process when complete dogmatic agreement has been established and unity has taken place.” Archbishop Lang pleaded with the commission not to reopen questions already resolved in 1930 (if one is to accept expressions of “satisfaction” as resolutions), a request the Orthodox resolutely ignored. In fact, the Orthodox backtracked beyond even the initial questions of 1930, opening this meeting with the most fundamental of queries: what, they asked, is Christian dogma? What, in other words, are the fundamentals

193

194

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

to which they should agree, and in what areas might they retain differences? John Douglas, hoping to make reunion easier by defining dogma narrowly, cited a passage by Professor Stefan Tsankov (Bulgaria) that portrayed dogma as doctrine fixed by an ecumenical council and accepted by the whole church. Perhaps, Douglas suggested expectantly, “only a thesis so determined has the obligatory character of dogma.” But Germanos replied testily, terming Tsankov’s notion “a private opinion” “not accepted by the majority.”51 On that note, the first meeting adjourned. When the delegates reconvened, they turned to the question of Scripture. Headlam opened by quoting the seventh of the Thirty-nine Articles: “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith or thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” Such a statement, of course, was simply incompatible with Orthodox teaching. Arsen’ev and the metropolitan of Tyre and Sidon tried not to dismiss the statement out of hand,52 but Germanos did. According to the Orthodox Church, he retorted, teachings necessary for salvation come from two sources: Scripture and tradition. Tradition is “older than the Word of God, and so of equal power with Scripture.” Scripture is not self-interpreting, and an individual cannot be inspired to interpret Scripture for himself.53 Such bluntness flustered the Anglicans. “Does the Orthodox Church hold that there are doctrines necessary for salvation which are not to be proved from Holy Scriptures?” asked Douglas. Archimandrite Constantinides of Greece replied that the holy tradition “is the infallible completion and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.” Might the Orthodox accept compromise language, asked the archbishop of Dublin, such as: “nothing can be taught as being necessary to eternal salvation which may not be proven from Holy Scripture”? Germanos, however, stood firm, repeating his assertion that tradition must be understood as “completing, interpreting, and explaining scripture.”54 In the end, the two sides agreed that “we receive the Divine Revelation in Our Lord Jesus Christ through Scripture and Tradition”; that “nothing contained in tradition is contrary to the Scriptures”; and that “Everything necessary for salvation can be founded upon Holy Scripture as completed, explained, interpreted, and understood in the Holy Tradition, by the

Lambeth, 1930

|

guidance of the Holy Spirit.” But then they parted ways, each adding an additional statement incompatible with that offered by the other: the Anglican statement repeated language from article 7 of the Thirty-nine Articles, insisting that “whatsoever is not read [in Scripture], nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” The Orthodox, on the other hand, insisted that “Holy Scripture is completed, explained, and interpreted by the Holy Tradition.”55 The two delegations did agree on the fundamental importance of the Nicene Creed, but Germanos maintained that it was valid only with the omission of the filioque. Douglas pleaded that the Orthodox not insist on its removal from Anglican services, for it “would cause needless pain to many thousands of simple people.” Arsen’ev, however, remained unyielding: such a concession could only be made by an ecumenical council. The metropolitan of Bukovina, sensitive to church politics in Eastern Europe, echoed Arsen’ev’s intransigence: “the position of the Orthodox Church in Poland and Rumania with regard to the Uniats would become impossible” if the Orthodox permited the filioque to be used elsewhere.56 The final statement on creeds solved the problem by ignoring it: the statement acknowledged that “we consider as acceptable the teaching of St. John of Damascus and of earlier Greek Fathers that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son,” but it made no mention of the filioque in the creed. While reluctant to endorse any other creeds, the Orthodox finally conceded that it was not “unlawful for a Church to use any other such document [i.e., creed] in the Services of the Church or for the instruction of the faithful, provided that it is agreeable to Scripture and Tradition.”57 The sacraments again proved troublesome.58 The Anglicans, as at Lambeth, noted that the “number of the Sacraments has never been authoritatively fixed,” and Germanos acknowledged that no Ecumenical Council ever set a firm number of sacraments. Yet the Anglicans declined to recognize sacraments other than baptism and the eucharist, while Germanos insisted that “traces” of the seven sacraments can be found in Scripture. The Orthodox attempted to appease the Anglicans by suggesting that two of the seven sacraments (i.e., baptism and the eucharist) “are pre-eminent among the others,” but the attempt fell

195

196

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

on deaf ears: Headlam persisted in referring to baptism and the eucharist as the only sacraments “necessary for the salvation of everybody.” Germanos also held firm: we require the grace afforded by every sacrament.59 “[We] do not think that the other five are of secondary importance as Sacraments, neither that they are unnecessary to the spiritual life of the Christian and consequently to his salvation.”60 During the deliberations the Orthodox consistently tried to discern whether a single, unified body of Anglican doctrine existed. Bishop Headlam understood this desire acutely, and toward the end of the meetings made one last, valiant effort to assure the Orthodox that the Anglican Church was a unified body. Our church, he argued, is not divided into parties. (Headlam passed over the fact that Lambeth had felt compelled to plead with Anglicans themselves to “promote the cause of union by fostering and deepening in all possible ways the fellowship of the Anglican Communion itself.”)61 The differences are merely “tendencies” in a church that allows “great freedom of expression.” “Modernists,” for example, “are not unbelievers” but rather believers “who try to reconcile modern thought with the faith.” Protestant Anglicans are not really Protestants but simply Anglicans who oppose the “excessive claims of the papacy.”62 The minutes do not record the Orthodox reaction to such claims; it is likely that they listened in skeptical silence. Absent since the opening meeting, the archbishop of Canterbury paid a visit on the fifth day to make sure that no unrealistic hopes had arisen. “I think it better that we should progress step by step rather than that we should advance with a rush, with the danger of destroying the work to which our efforts are directed,” he told the participants.63 He needn’t have worried, for it was now quite evident that the discussions were going nowhere. With Meletios absent, the Orthodox were no longer willing to express “satisfaction” with Anglican answers that—though less evasive now than the year before —were equally at odds with key points of Orthodox doctrine. As the commission’s work drew to a close, its members seemed uncomfortable with their task; they took pains in the final report to distance themselves from the question of reunion.64 Lang brought the discussions to a close: “God would be pleased to restore such peace and unity to his Church as is agreeable to his will.” But he provided no indication that Anglo-Orthodox reunion might fall

Lambeth, 1930

|

within this will. His grace then pronounced the benediction, and the proceedings terminated.65 | Nicholas Hermopolis from the church in Alexandria reported to Constantinople on the Joint Doctrinal Commission’s proceedings. While trying to put a good face on its efforts, he nevertheless complained about recalcitrant Anglicans who refused to place oral tradition on a “parallel” or “equal” level with Scripture.66 Hermopolis doubted whether the Anglican Church as a whole would ever accept the Anglican delegation’s concession that Scripture is “completed, explained, interpreted and understood in the Holy Tradition.”67 Germanos was also disappointed with the proceedings but held out hope that the 1940 Lambeth conference might deal more effectively with the matters discussed by the JDC.68 While we cannot know what might have happened at Lambeth in 1940 had that decade’s conference not been canceled due to the second world war, it seems unlikely that it could have moved the discussions forward in a way that this smaller, more dedicated group failed to do. Indeed, in the years following the commission, Germanos seemed to become less hopeful about the prospects for reunion. Speaking to Anglo-Catholic pilgrims to the Holy Land in 1933, and apparently still mulling over Headlam’s attempt to portray Anglicanism as a unified body with only minor differences of opinion, he told them that Anglicans are “unsuccessful” when they suggest that the Orthodox also have different theological schools within their own church “analogous to the schools of thought existing in the Anglican Church.”69 Germanos allowed that the Anglican Church is certainly catholic but questioned whether its catholicity is “manifested in it to such a degree” as to allow reunion with Orthodoxy.70 Bernard Leeming, the Jesuit who gleefully plowed through the proceedings of 1930 and 1931, had a field day lampooning the delegations’ work. The final report, he chortled, was a “meager document,” and he asked why Lambeth even bothered with such matters given Bishop Gore’s observation that the conference was a “purely consultative body and has no authority over anyone, however often it is spoken as if it has.” Leeming scoffed at attempts by the Anglican delegation to minimize the importance of the Thirty-nine Articles or to suggest that they be interpreted in

197

198

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

light of other statements: the Lambeth conference may indeed interpret the articles by the Book of Common Prayer, but Parliament could reverse course and interpret the Book by the articles.7 1 Leeming pointed out incompatible opinions on the role of the episcopacy within the Anglican Church,72 and he noted that the 1930 Lambeth conference, while seeking rapprochement with Orthodoxy, had also endorsed the South India scheme, which did not require its signatories to accept any theory of episcopal origin or any doctrinal interpretation of the episcopacy. Moreover, Headlam, chair of the Anglican delegation, was on record as arguing that Anglicans cannot “claim for Episcopacy more than any other forms of ministry.” The Orthodox, concluded Leeming, believe that apostolic succession constitutes a “fundamental” article of faith; “it may be doubted if the Anglicans do.” The doctrinal disintegration of the Church of England may not be realized in the East; or it may unhappily have advanced there also; the utter lack of authority of the Lambeth Conference may not be understood, nor that its acceptance of Orders as a Mysterion, and of a Sacrifice in the Eucharist, has small influence upon the average member of the Church, and might have none upon Parliament, which, in the last analysis, is the ruling body of the Church of England. But it is to be hoped that the Pro-Synod does not recognize Anglican Orders, as such recognition would undoubtedly strengthen the faith of many conscientious Anglicans who wish to believe, yet sometimes have doubts, that their Church is the Church of Christ.73 | As in the early 1920s, discussions in the early 1930s created fallout elsewhere in the Church of England. Bishop Knox wrote to the Times to complain about attempts by the Anglican delegation at Lambeth to minimize the Thirty-nine Articles. A majority of bishops at Lambeth, he fumed, “without authority from the Church of England,” had made doctrinal statements to the Orthodox that were simply “the views of a party.” Such action destroys the Church of England’s comprehensiveness. “Are we to purchase reunion abroad at the price of exclusiveness at home?”74

Lambeth, 1930

|

Another forty clerics and laymen signed a letter accusing the Anglican delegation of presenting a one-sided view of the Church of England’s doctrine and failing to acknowledge the Thirty-nine Articles as an authoritative doctrinal statement.75 Anglican Evangelicals and liberals now take it for granted, Douglas conceded, that success “can be reached only by shifting the Anglican balance at their expense,” while the Orthodox believe that Evangelicals and liberals in the Anglican Church “would never accept a move towards Orthodox dogma.”76 The Orthodox were not alone in their disappointment with Lambeth and its aftermath; the free churches also failed to get what they wanted.77 (How can Lambeth, moaned the Churchman, continue to bar members of the Free churches from Episcopal pulpits and pews?”)78 The Lambeth reports—always seeking a middle ground—sought to placate both Anglo-Catholics and Protestant Anglicans while often managing to offend both,79 moving the church itself closer neither to the Orthodox nor to the free churches. Lambeth faced many delicate issues,80 and Lang’s overriding goal was to keep his church from splitting in two and to prevent one party from triumphing over the other. In a letter to the bishops prior to Lambeth, Lang concluded that it may even be necessary for members of the Church of England to “hold and expound different opinions, in order that the church as a whole should have the whole of truth, even as the rays of many colour which the spectrum shows combine to make the light of the sun.”81 Such an approach, of course, gave the Orthodox fits. They saw a church plagued by division, unwilling to address it, and, in some cases, even embracing it. Shortly after Lambeth’s conclusion, Meletios reflected on this Anglican Church that both enamored and frustrated him: The past of the Anglican Church has been stormy and muchtroubled not only on account of its enslavement in a foreign subjugation but by reason of its internal upheavals against those which rent our own Church in the periods of Arianism and Ikonoclasm. . . . A lively desire for the recovery of the purity of the teaching of the Undivided Church is there, but the parting of the highway which leads to it into a road towards Papalism and a road towards Orthodoxy, creates an indecision as to the choice of one or

199

200

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

other. . . . The ferment which began through the Oxford Tractarian Movement of a century ago, combines with this to create a certain bitterness of mutual opposition between the two elements— the Roman Catholic and the Protestant. . . . The relation of the Church of England with the State as it has been established in the past is a further obstacle to Union. Not only because the 39 Articles and the Prayer Book constituting a law of the State can only be revised by a law of the State, but because the history of the recent rejection of the revised Prayer Book by the House of Commons shows conclusively that in its teaching the Church is restricted by the relationship which obtains between it and the State.82 As such, the Anglican Church “avoids dogmatic decisions and prefers ‘comprehensiveness,’ which indeed it regards as a thing specially to be desired of itself.”83

13

Bucharest, 1935– 1936

Everyone will sympathize with them in their distresses and admire the tenacity with which they have contended for and maintained the faith, but neither sympathy nor admiration can blind us to the fact that unhappily their faith contains very much that is corrupt and superstitious, for although they repudiate the supremacy of the Roman Church their doctrines differ on the whole but little from those of Rome. —Article in the Churchman after the Romanian Orthodox Church’s recognition of Anglican orders 1

Talks seemed at a standstill following the collapse of the Joint Doctrinal Commission. Nothing appeared on the horizon that might bridge the differences identified in 1931. The Karlovchane still looked upon the ecumenical enterprise with disdain. The churches of Serbia and Greece remained largely silent. The Russian Student Christian Movement spoke eloquently about its hopes for reunion,2 but it was in no position to make those hopes a reality. A number of Orthodox attended a three-week ecumenical seminar in Geneva in 1932 to explore the problems of ecumenical dialogue, but the seminar offered no tangible accomplishments.3 Expectations rose slightly in 1936 when the Greek Orthodox Church sponsored the first-ever conference on Orthodox theology, inviting to Athens about thirty professors from the graduate theological faculties |

201

202

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

of Bucharest, Chis ¸ina˘u, Sofia, Belgrade, Warsaw, and Paris to discuss a host of issues, including Orthodoxy’s role in the ecumenical movement. At this conference the visiting professors underscored their commitment to ecumenical activity, terming it “a happy manifestation of the whole present general renewal of interest in the Church and in theology,” and declared themselves “prepared to collaborate with the movement.”4 But they added that their collaboration must be in an “Orthodox spirit,” a vague phrase that spoke more to insecurities than to any real enthusiasm. The Church of England, on the other hand, spoke grandly and frequently throughout the 1930s about its commitment to ecumenism. But it focused its efforts now on individual churches rather than on entire confessions. Following Archbishop Lang’s dictum that the Church of England not tilt the balance of outreach efforts toward either the Protestant or the Catholic churches, the church found itself in the mid1930s pursuing discussions with both the Lutheran Church of Finland and the Orthodox Church of Romania. Conversations with the Finnish church proceeded smoothly. Discussions in October 1933 and July 1934 led eventually to an agreement to admit members of the Finnish church to Anglican communion, a decision ratified by both Houses of the Convocations of York and Canterbury between 1935 and 1936.5 Like the Church of England, the Church of Finland considered itself an episcopal church, although its episcopal succession ceased in 1884 when the Russian government refused to allow it to consecrate a replacement for the last of its bishops.6 The Finns promised their Anglican friends that they recognized episcopacy,7 but they declined to guarantee that their priests would always be ordained by a bishop rather than a presbyter.8 Anglican negotiators consented to this point,9 and—although the English Church Union swallowed rather hard—it refrained from mounting any opposition to the Finnish agreement. The Church of England had to look harder among the Catholic churches to find eager partners. Rome remained aloof. Anglicans with ties to the Orthodox Balkan churches felt that Serbia (and, to a lesser extent, Greece) was too conservative to offer any hope for fruitful negotiation. Constantinople still seemed a thicket of controversies. The Russian churches were splintered and feuding. Alexandria and Jerusalem

Bucharest, 1935– 1936

|

struggled simply to remain solvent. Bulgaria remained in schism with Constantinople. This left only Romania, the second largest of the Orthodox churches (Russia being the first). Although Romania had never joined Meletios in recognizing Anglican orders in 1922, the Romanian church had long been interested in the matter. In fact, Archbishop Nectarie, the Romanian church’s representative to the 1930 Lambeth conference, carried orders to withdraw from the Orthodox delegation unless the question of the episcopate became the chief item on the agenda.10 The Romanian Orthodox Church had good reason to be interested in the Church of England and the British state. Although Britain opposed Romania’s occupation of Budapest after the first world war (Romanian troops pulled back at the insistence of the Allies), Britain did support— over the opposition of the United States—Romania’s acquisition of Bessarabia. Britain also gave its blessing to the unification of Romania and Transylvania, and grateful Romanian cabinets—fearful of the growth of both communism and fascism in their country— cooperated with British and French foreign policy in the mid-1930s.1 1 Romania housed a small but thriving British community after the first world war. British expatriates erected the Church of the Resurrection in Bucharest, and Anglican churches sprang up in other major cities.12 The Anglican bishop of Gibraltar (whose jurisdiction included Romania) paid regular visits to the country and established close ties with his Orthodox counterparts, ties that made a number of Anglicans back home and even the British Foreign Office rather nervous.13 Patriarch Miron (1925–39) was keenly interested in the ecumenical movement. Although friendly with xenophobes such as Antonii in the mid-1920s,1 4 Miron nevertheless demonstrated a genuine interest in rapprochement with the Anglicans during the 1930s.15 The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius even established a Romanian branch in 1935. The unification of Romania and Transylvania brought nearly all ethnic Romanians into one state, paving the way for a national Romanian Orthodox church and the consecration in 1925 of the first Romanian patriarch. In one sense contacts between the Anglican Church and the new Romanian patriarchate and Holy Synod can be seen as an attempt by the Romanian church to establish itself on the world stage—to demonstrate through negotiations with another national church that it was a serious player.

203

204

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

But despite its new status, the Romanian church worried about its position within the state. The Treaty of Versailles required the Romanian government to grant Roman Catholic communities a status equal to that of Orthodox communities.16 Although being Orthodox was synonymous with being Romanian in most parts of the country,17 the annexation of Transylvania brought large numbers of ethnic minorities within Romania’s new borders, and Hungarian nationalism threatened the peace many times during the 1930s.18 The Hungarians were largely Roman Catholic, and the Romanian Orthodox Church worried about the influence of Rome in the newly enlarged Romania, especially when the state and the Vatican proposed a concordat in 1927. This concordat included a provision to establish a Uniat church in Maramures and a Roman diocese in Oradea. Both proposals angered the Orthodox Church. The concordat also required Roman Catholic bishops to swear allegiance to the pope (as well as to the Romanian king) and permitted them to communicate directly with the Vatican on church matters, circumventing the state bureaucracy. Catholic institutions such as orphanages, schools, and hospitals were removed from government control. The Romanian church interpreted such provisions as an attempt by Rome to establish a special conclave within Romania. In this context Romanian interest in the Anglican Church can also be viewed as an attempt to find allies elsewhere in Christendom who had no ties to Rome, and who opposed Rome’s claims of hegemony. Between June 1 and June 8, 1935, twelve Romanians and ten members of the Church of England assembled in Bucharest to determine whether the Romanian Orthodox Church might finally recognize Anglican orders. Archbishop Lang appointed Bishop Hicks of Lincoln to lead a delegation that included one Evangelical and nine Anglo-Catholics. The Romanians informed the visiting Anglicans they were willing to recognize Anglican orders only if they could be convinced that Anglican doctrine as a whole did not contradict Orthodox fundamentals. The discussions thus centered on the broader questions raised at Lambeth in 1930 and rehashed the documents produced by the Joint Doctrinal Commission. To most of the Romanian queries the Anglicans offered the standard Anglo-Catholic line. “The Doctrine of the Anglican church is authoritatively expressed in the Book of Common Prayer.” The Thirty-nine Articles “must be interpreted in accordance with the Book of Common

Bucharest, 1935– 1936

|

Prayer.”19 The Anglicans agreed to accept language on the eucharist drafted by the Romanians: (1) “the bread and wine become by consecration ([metabole]) the Body and Blood of our Lord”; (2) the bread and wine “remain the Body and Blood of our Lord as long as these Eucharistic elements exist”; and (3) those “who receive the Eucharistic bread and wine truly partake of the Body and Blood of Our Lord.” Such statements flatly contradicted article 28, but the Anglican delegation had already dismissed the articles and probably consoled itself with the Romanians’ careful refusal to specify how, exactly, the elements become the body and blood of the Lord. (“How? This is a mystery.”)20 The Anglicans also acquiesced on the place of holy tradition, agreeing that “The Revelation of God is transmitted through the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Tradition.”21 The Romanians, in turn, acquiesced to the Anglicans’ refusal to name formally more than two sacraments, describing the remaining five merely as “mysteries” (a term less loaded for the Anglicans than “sacraments”), which impart an “inward spiritual grace.” In other words, the two sides agreed to recognize the remaining sacraments as performing the role of sacraments, without actually calling them “sacraments.”22 Neither the final report nor the Anglican delegation said anything about formal reunion or intercommunion. The Romanians appeared satisfied with the report and agreed to recommend it to their Holy Synod. Should the synod accept it, they promised, their church would recognize the validity of Anglican orders. The synod met in March 1936 and accepted the report—but on the condition that the Anglican Church also ratify the statements contained therein.23 The archbishops of Canterbury and York agreed to consider it at their respective Convocations in May 1936. Both houses of York accepted the report unanimously, but Canterbury’s House of Bishops postponed consideration until January 1937 in order to study the statements more closely. Douglas spoke on behalf of the report in the lower house, where it passed on a vote of 104 to 6. | How can we account for this easy passage, given the report’s ready dismissal of the Thirty-nine Articles and its overtly catholic interpretation of other points of doctrine? The answer, it seems, is twofold. First, both the Convocation of Canterbury and the Convocation of York were far more conservative than the Church of England as a whole, and more

205

206

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

willing to accept catholic glosses on controversial doctrines. Second is the language with which the lower house of Canterbury accepted the report: “inasmuch as the Report of the Conference at Bucharest . . . is consonant with Anglican formalities and a legitimate interpretation of the Faith of the Church as held by the Anglican Communion, this House accepts and approves of the Report.”24 The key here is inasmuch,25 a word that can be taken to mean either that the report is consonant with Anglican formularies or that it is consonant only to a certain degree. Thus members of the Convocation who viewed the report in either light could have voted for it in good conscience. While Anglo-Catholics welcomed the report as a significant step toward formal reunion, we must remember that—despite containing statements on a number of doctrines—its sole purpose was to permit the Romanian Orthodox Church to recognize the validity of Anglican ordinations. The Convocations of Canterbury and York had, in effect, done nothing more than announce they would permit another church to perceive their bishops and priests as bona fide clerics. Celebrations in Anglo-Catholic quarters after the report’s adoption say more about the dry spell in Anglican-Orthodox relations leading up to the report than they do about the significance of the report itself. Still, despite the report’s limited scope, it came under heavy attack that autumn by what the Christian East tried to dismiss as “the extreme Protestant section” of the Church of England. “Nothing was left undone by certain militant Protestant organizations to prejudice public opinion,”26 complained the journal. The Anglican Evangelical Group Movement (AEGM) condemned the report: “No attempt” had been made to frame answers to the Romanian queries by quoting from the Thirtynine Articles or from the Book of Common Prayer, “which are still the authoritative documents of the Church of England.”27 The Church Quarterly Review, a far more sober publication, also wondered whether the report gave an accurate account of the Church of England. It “mislead[s]” the Romanians on “an important point of fact,” it said, when suggesting that the articles and the Prayer Book bear equal importance throughout the Anglican Church.28 The report prompted a number of evangelical Anglicans to write to the Times (which welcomed the report) to urge that “intercommunion should be sought first

Bucharest, 1935– 1936

|

with those of our own blood and language who use and acknowledge the authority of the same Bible and use the same hymns of praise and devotion.”29 Convocation’s approval infuriated the Churchman: “Convocation has never counted for very much in the esteem of the Church as a whole or of the country generally. It has usually been a center of obstinate conservatism and a focus of reactionary influence, and its latest pronouncement is not likely to increase its reputation.”30 Another article in the Churchman characterized the report as an attempt to “weaken the force of the Articles by a subtle form of disparagement” and alleged that the Anglican delegates “betrayed the position which they were sent to represent.” The conference has “very seriously jeopardized the truth so far as the teaching of the Church of England is concerned.”31 Even Sobornost admitted that the evangelical wing of the church “is seriously perturbed at the account of Anglican doctrine given by the representatives of the Church of England at Bucharest.”32 (The Church Quarterly Review noted that opposition to the report also emanated from sections of the Church of England sympathetic to Rome.)33 Opposition in Romania appears to have been less severe, although the weekly journal Glasul Monahilor (Voice of the Monks) protested its church’s abandonment of the term “transubstantiation” in the report.34 Such protests do not permit one to dismiss the report as having no significance. It was, after all, a recognition of Anglican orders by the second largest Orthodox church in the world. But, unlike the recognition of Anglican orders by Constantinople, Jerusalem, Cyprus, and Alexandria (which ignited firestorms within the Orthodox churches), the Romanian-Anglican report set the Church of England against itself. And ultimately, this recognition led the two churches no closer to one another. With the fall of Romania to Communist forces after the second world war, Anglican and Orthodox contacts ceased almost entirely.

207

14

Edinburgh, 1937

At the [Edinburgh] Conference Christendom was portrayed as utterly divided. It may be a painful experience to recognize that fact. —Georges Florovskii 1

A

nglicans and Orthodox had one last opportunity for formal contact at the 1937 Conference on Faith and Order in Edinburgh, Scotland. Although the first Faith and Order Conference resulted in deadlock at Lausanne, the movement resolved to have another go a decade later, when 414 delegates from 122 “Christian Communities” and 43 countries assembled at the base of Edinburgh Castle in St. Giles’ High Kirk on August 3– 13 to determine if unity might be any nearer at hand. The Anglican delegation arrived with 89 members from all factions of the church. Some were optimistic; others were not. Even before the conference began the Church Times fretted about the proceedings “being captured by pan-Protestant America.”2 Aware of these concerns, the archbishop of York—who gave the first address of the general session— promised that “nothing will be accepted for reference to the churches except on a unanimous vote, or at least nemine contradicente.”3 The Orthodox delegation included representatives from Jerusalem, Cyprus, Alexandria, Antioch, Greece, Bulgaria, Latvia, and the Russian church in Paris. Members of the Karlovatskii Synod and the Russian 208

|

Edinburgh, 1937

|

church in Russia refused to attend. Serbia—still closely allied with the Karlovchane—also sent no representatives.4 Evlogii gladly sent a delegation of seven Russian exiles.5 While aware that his own contributions would be limited by his difficulties in languages other than Russian, he decided to attend in order to keep a close eye on his unruly faculty (see chap. 15).6 Some members of the Orthodox delegation were eager for a chance to dispel images of Orthodoxy as intolerant and inflexible.7 But others were reluctant to attend at all, and Evlogii complained that some Greeks seemed merely to be marking time. Tensions among the Orthodox became public during the second day of the conference. Bulgakov, trying to portray the Orthodox delegation this time around as a reasonable and conciliatory group, made a speech to a full session of the conference in which he urged delegates to “remember the difference between dogmatic definitions which are obligatory and definitions concerning doctrinal differences or other points which are often too much exaggerated. . . . We must not sacrifice truth, but in all matters where we are not bound by obligatory definitions we must look for possibilities of reconciliation.”8 This sentiment produced the opposite effect he intended. Following Bulgakov to the podium, Fr. Georges Florovskii announced, “I do not myself follow Father [Bulgakov] in believing that one can separate dogma and doctrine so absolutely,” and then launched a cautionary speech on the dangers of compromise and haste.9 Evlogii sat stunned, dismayed to see his professors feuding in public — exactly the sort of thing he had hoped to prevent. Florovskii’s speech, lamented Evlogii, left a “painful [miagostnyi] impression.”10 But not on everyone. John Douglas, who had always felt greater affinity for the cautious Florovskii than for the bolder Bulgakov, complimented Evlogii on Florovskii’s speech, pointedly (at least to Evlogii’s mind) neglecting to say anything about Bulgakov’s. Evlogii grew convinced that Florovskii and Douglas were hatching plans to undermine Bulgakov’s position at the conference,1 1 and recalled that “rumors and “intrigues” surrounded Bulgakov throughout his time in Edinburgh. (It is difficult to take such accusations seriously, given Florovskii’s usually forthright and blunt approach to all matters.) But Bulgakov was, indeed, a tainted man. The Karlovatskii Synod distributed a condemnation of Bulgakov’s works to all autocephalous churches shortly before the conference,12

209

210

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

and many Anglo-Catholics worried that the accusations of heresy leveled against him might scare away those inclined toward rapprochement with the Orthodox.13 As at Lausanne, the delegates at Edinburgh were assigned to various “sections” charged with producing reports on different points of doctrine: I) The Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ; II) The Church of Christ and the Word of God; III) The Church of Christ: Ministry and Sacraments; and IV) The Church’s Unity in Life and Worship. These sections considered reports and passed criticisms on to their sections’ secretaries. Drafting committees then reworked the reports for further consideration. A few Orthodox appeared quite pleased with the work of their sections. Metropolitan Stefan of Bulgaria, appointed to Section I, told his colleagues that—in comparison to Lausanne—“I find a notable advance in the whole spiritual atmosphere here at the Conference.”14 Arsen’ev, also serving in Section I, seemed genuinely heartened that members of the Lutheran, Reformed, and Orthodox churches managed to agree on the primacy of grace in Christian theology.15 It soon became clear, however, that Arsen’ev and Stefan did not have the trust of the entire Orthodox delegation (Arsen’ev in particular proved to be a thorn in the side of the delegation’s more conservative members),16 which would not be so easily satisfied by the work of the other sections. Bulgakov, for example, objected to Section II’s description of the church as “created” and “called into being.” “In what sense can we say that the Church is created? There is a tradition in the Patristic writings that the Church is eternal. Those of us who do not hold this believe that in any case the Church begins at the creation of the world.”17 Bulgakov had some success in his service to a subsection of Section IV, charged with formulating a report on “the communion of saints.” “Perhaps for some of you this question in our programme seems not needful, but to us it is essential, and we ask the others to understand us in love.” He revived memories of his performance at Lausanne with an impassioned speech on the veneration of the Virgin Mary, who “has so important a place in the whole life of the Orthodox Church that it cannot be passed over in silence.”18 Such talk alarmed Protestants, including members of the Anglican Church, but Bulgakov defended himself against charges of promoting dissention. Dissention, he countered, would have arisen had this issue been omitted, and “scandalized and

Edinburgh, 1937

|

alienated the whole Roman Catholic world.” Veneration of the Mother of God is the “nerve of the whole movement towards reconciliation among the divided confessions.”19 Lev Zander praised Bulgakov for his “great achievement” in getting these questions on the program.20 (They had not made the official program in Lausanne.) Bulgakov even inspired Evlogii—normally somewhat reticent at such gatherings—to join him in pressing the issue.21 Alivizatos also joined the campaign.22 Ultimately, however, Evlogii’s, Bulgakov’s, and Alivizatos’s efforts came to little. The saints and the Mother of God, complained Bulgakov, were “not discussed dogmatically, but only practically.” A few Protestants seemed interested in what Bulgakov had to say,23 but Section IV eventually reached a deadlock when trying to find language acceptable to all confessions. In the end, language ascribing “a high place in Christian esteem” to the Mother of God was removed from the final draft of Section IV’s report, causing the patriarch of Jerusalem to complain bitterly.24 Zander characterized the entire debate as “a storm.”25 As at Lausanne, the Orthodox found themselves growing more and more disillusioned with both the Protestant tone of the reports and the reports’ willingness to describe doctrinal differences without ruling on which version was “true.” As the reports reached their final form, it became clear just how far apart the confessions remained. On Scripture: “While some are prepared to recognize a praeparatio evangelica not only in Hebrew but in other religions, and believe that God makes Himself known in nature and in history, others hold that the only revelation which the Church can know and to which it should witness is the revelation in Jesus Christ, as contained in the Old and New Testaments.”26 On tradition: “Some of us hold that . . . the Church under the guidance of the Spirit is entrusted with the authority to explain, interpret and complete (sumploun) the teaching of the Bible, and consider the witness of the Church as given in tradition as equally authoritative with the Bible itself. Others, however, believe that the Church, having recognized the Bible as the indispensable record of the revealed Word of God, is bound exclusively by the Bible.”27

211

212

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

On the church: “Some would apply the term [church] not only to the visible redeemed and redemptive community, but also to the invisible company of the fully redeemed. . . . Others regard the use of the term ‘church’ with reference to [the] invisible company of true Christians known only to God as misleading and unscriptural.”28 On the communion of saints: “For the Orthodox and certain other Churches and individual believers it means fellowship not only with living and departed Christians but also with the holy angels, and, in a very special sense, with the Blessed Virgin Mary. In this connection the way in which we should understand the words ‘all generations shall call me blessed’ was considered. No agreement was reached, and the subject requires further study.”29 On the eucharist: We all believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, though as to how that presence is manifested and realized we may differ.30 For Florovskii, who chaired the section on the Ministry and the Sacraments,31 the question of the ministry “was the real core” of disagreement at Edinburgh.32 For Zander, the report on the sacraments was the final straw convincing him that that agreement was impossible. Completely frustrated, Zander termed the entire enterprise at Edinburgh a “comparative” and “denunciatory” (oblichitel’nyi) study, “content with the certification of differences.”33 Bulgakov and Florovskii complained about the deliberately vague formulation of many reports. What one Baptist member of Section II described as a “splendid transcending of theological difficulties,” Bulgakov described as “inexact and ambiguous definition.”34 Evlogii likewise resented “the vague definitions on basic questions of Christian dogmatics.”35 Florovskii believed unanimity was possible only by “the deliberate use of vague and ambiguous phrases”: “I cannot help thinking that this unanimity is achieved at rather a high cost.”36 He also complained about the pace of the conference, which attempted to find agreement in a matter of weeks on issues that had divided Christendom for centuries. He felt rushed and pressured.37

Edinburgh, 1937

|

For all these reasons, the Orthodox again contemplated boycotting the final vote on the reports. (It appears, however, that unlike at Lausanne, there was no serious consideration of abandoning the conference altogether.)38 But the Orthodox themselves were divided. Evlogii complained that the Orthodox delegates were “inclined to rivalry”: there “was no unity in the Orthodox group” (edinstvo ne bylo), and “the Greeks proved to be irreconcilable to the Balkan Slavs and Russians.” Though short on specifics, Evlogii alleged that the Greeks were motivated by “nationalistic self-love” and “vain demands.” Some Orthodox wanted an “all-embracing broadness, while others reacted to Protestantism in an irreconcilable manner, believing that it was not even possible to talk with ‘heretics.’ ”39 Although no records remain of conversations within the delegation, it is clear from the conference’s official minutes that the Greeks—with the exception of Alivizatos—stayed largely on the sidelines during the work of their respective sections. Bratsiotis remained silent, as did the patriarch of Alexandria and the patriarch of Antioch. A correspondent for the London Quarterly & Holborn Review recalled that no one at the conference could fail to note the differences between the Russian representatives from Paris, “who are in touch with all the movements of Christian thought in Western Europe, and the official representatives of the very conservative Orthodox Churches from countries outside Russia.”40 Some of the Orthodox wished to vote on the final reports and others did not; in the end the delegation resolved to leave the matter up to each individual. (Evlogii wanted to vote, but apparently did not—he never said why.) But the delegation did agree to issue a joint declaration expressing concerns with the reports, and on Monday, August 16, at 10:00 a.m. Germanos stood before the assembled throng, exactly as he had done a decade earlier at Lausanne, and read a declaration composed the night before. It opened on a positive note, expressing thanks for the “great spiritual profit which we have drawn from our daily intercourse with you,” and the “spiritual solace and spiritual edification which have been granted to us.”41 “We desire to make grateful acknowledgement of the fact that we have had every opportunity to give expression to our religious convictions in statements and discussion. But we ask pardon for saying quite frankly that sometimes, indeed often, the form in which

213

214

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

the final statements of the Reports came to be cast was not congenial to us. Generalising and the use of somewhat abstract language does not appeal to the Orthodox mind.”42 The report, continued Germanos, contained disagreements on “points of capital and fundamental importance” such as the nature of the sacred ministry and holy orders, apostolic succession, the nature and number of the sacraments, and the doctrines of baptism and the eucharist. We Orthodox delegates further stress the necessity of accuracy and concreteness in the formulation of the faith and are convinced that ambiguous expressions and comprehensive expressions of faith are of no real value. We are opposed to vague and abstract terms which are used to identify conceptions and tenets that are really different from one another. We Orthodox therefore consider it our duty both to our Church and to our conscience, to declare in all sincerity and humility that while reports in which such vague and abstract language is used may perhaps contribute to the advancement of reunion between churches of the same essential characteristics, they are altogether profitless for the larger end of which they have been used, especially in regard to the Orthodox Church.43 The declaration expressed its unhappiness over specific issues as well. The report on grace ignored “cooperation” (synergia) or “the participation of man’s will” in the process of his sanctification. The report on Scripture portrayed the written and preached word rather than the church “as primary in the work of salvation.”44 And while Germanos noted his happiness with “a very valuable advance” on the question of the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints, he claimed that “essential differences remain.” The declaration did not end Orthodox participation at the conference (Florovskii, Germanos, and Alivizatos remained quite active in their sections right until the end),45 but it marked the end of any attempt to present a unified and engaged Orthodox presence in the ecumenical movement. Only three members of the Orthodox delegation stood in support of the “Affirmation of Unity” at the conclusion of the conference: Professor Lev Zander (of the Paris Theological Institute), Nikolai Arsen’ev, and Professor Stefan Tsankov of Bulgaria.46

Edinburgh, 1937

|

Edinburgh also highlighted differences among Anglicans. Virtually every time the reports noted that “some believe . . . while others hold,” the issue at hand was one that divided not only Christianity but the Anglican Church as well. Differences among Anglicans regarding the episcopacy even made their way into the final report.47 The bishop of Llandaff, sharing his impressions of Edinburgh in a speech later that fall, observed that differences within the Anglican Church “at bottom arise from profoundly different conceptions of the Church.”48 As at Lausanne, Anglo-Catholics and Orthodox found themselves objecting to the same things. Both balked when American Baptists claimed that during communion “the inward condition of the recipient, rather than the outward symbolic form of its administration,” really mattered.49 Anglo-Catholics gulped as deeply as the Orthodox when the Anglican Viscount of Chelwood praised Queen Elizabeth’s “non-committal declaration” on transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and the real presence, and argued that nobody who accepts the Nicene Creed should be regarded as outside the church.50 Correspondents for the Anglo-Catholic press were every bit as defensive as their Orthodox counterparts. The Church Times complained that the conference was dominated by Protestants: four hundred delegates attended the conference, of which only eighteen represented the Church of England, of which “at most five could be qualified as Catholic.” “It seems to us obvious that to describe a body of this sort as ‘œcumenical’ is such a misuse of terms as to lead to misunderstanding and illusion.”51 The “chief difficulty from the Anglican point of view,” observed another article, “has been to prevent American pan-Protestantism from capturing the sections.”52 The Anglo-Catholics rejoiced when the archbishop of York spoke in favor of maintaining “barriers” to intercommunion.53 And they took heart when Alexios from Malabar attacked the South India Reunion Scheme.54 When a Baptist professor from McMaster University suggested that non-Trinitarians be included in the ecumenical movement, the Church Times joined Metropolitan Stefan of Sofia and other Orthodox delegates in expressing dismay.55 John Douglas echoed the Orthodox when he urged that the word “Church” (as opposed to “Body of Christ”) be employed in the final report.56 In fact, many Protestants at Edinburgh came to see the AngloCatholics and the Orthodox as co-obstructionists. A bishop from the

215

216

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

American Methodist Church complained that the positions of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches “preclude any considerable advance towards corporate or organic union.”57 Shortly after the conference the Church Times reflected, “There is, alas!, divergency of opinion on Faith and Order within the Anglican Communion. . . . But the Orthodox at Edinburgh spoke with one voice, and the Anglo-Catholics must be profoundly grateful for the noble and explicit Declaration of Faith read to the Conference by Mgr. Germanos on behalf of the whole Orthodox delegation. He spoke, indeed, for a great body of English Church people as well as for his own communion.”58 But mutual admiration between the Anglo-Catholics and the Orthodox did not inspire hope in either group that they could— either alone or together—nudge the ecumenical movement in a direction more to their liking. Edinburgh convinced Lev Zander that the entire project was a “huge difficulty.” It would be a “big mistake” to believe that “we stand on the threshold of the happy day of the unification of all Churches.” The ecumenical movement is really a “pan-Protestant organization,” and the Orthodox differ from the Protestants “not only in their conclusions but in the very way the questions are put.”59 And although Paul Anderson tried to convince him otherwise,60 Florovskii—the most eloquent and active of all the Orthodox delegates at Edinburgh—concluded that Edinburgh served only to reveal the “ultimate divergence” of Christian sects: “It inevitably had to be openly admitted that there was no chance of agreement. In my opinion, this was the greatest positive achievement of the Edinburgh Conference.”61 For Anglicans and Orthodox, Edinburgh had ended exactly like Lausanne. In 1938 G. Lomako, a frequent contributor to Evlogii’s journal, noted that some Orthodox were now referring to Edinburgh as a “Babylon.”62 Without dismissing entirely the value of Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement, Lomako concluded that the idea of “unity in one true Church” had been lost in Scotland.63 That same year the Karlovatskii Synod, following the example of the hated Roman pontiff, issued a formal resolution forbidding all Orthodox from participating in the ecumenical movement.64 Gennadios Limouris of the Greek Orthodox Church spoke for many Orthodox when in 1959 he suggested that Edinburgh was the ecumenical movement’s “fall from grace.”65

Edinburgh, 1937

|

| Hopes for the reunion of the Orthodox and Anglican Churches had run out of steam in the early 1930s, and Edinburgh did nothing to revive them. While Edinburgh once again confirmed (if any more confirmation was needed) that Anglo-Catholics and Orthodox had much in common, it also confirmed that Anglo-Catholics were just as adrift in the larger ecumenical movement (and indeed within their own church) as were the Orthodox. In 1939 professors at the University of Athens met at the request of Greece’s Holy Synod to consider their church’s proper relation to the Anglican Church. An influential paper by D. S. Balmos argued that no decision could be taken on the validity of Anglican orders as long as the Church of England harbored organizations such as the Evangelical Alliance, the Protestant Churchmen’s Alliance, and the Protestant Defense Association. Alivizatos maintained outright that Anglican orders were invalid.66 And Balmos’s and Alivizatos’s colleagues ruled unanimously that “the Orthodox Church recognizes as valid only the sacraments performed by herself.”67 And there the matter ended. On September 1, 1939, the German Wehrmacht invaded Poland, launching a war whose resolution would isolate most of the Orthodox world from the West for the next five decades.

217

15

Internal Divisions

The position in the Anglican Church is one of special difficulty by reason of its comprehensiveness. . . . We are bound to live dangerously, because we have learned the lesson of comprehensiveness. —Bishop of Liverpool1 Anglicans are less embarrassed than other Christians by the different views among their members. —Nicolas Zernov2 The three chief Balkan churches—Rumanian, Serbian, and Greek— represent three widely different and mutually antagonistic racial and national cultures, and this antagonism is likely to more than counterbalance any unity which their common religious tradition might afford. —Matthew Spinka3 The renaissance of the Orthodox world is the necessary pre-condition for the solution of the ecumenical problem. —Georges Florovskii 4

John Douglas believed that reunion efforts between Anglicans and Orthodox would have blossomed had not the second world war intervened. We cannot dispute that the war decisively ended any hope of continued discussion. Communist takeovers in Romania and Bulgaria ter218

|

Internal Divisions

|

minated any chance of those churches pursuing meaningful contacts with the Anglican Church. The Greek Orthodox Church was too worried about Communist insurgencies after the war to give significant attention to Anglicanism or Protestantism. Stalin, growing ever more distant from Britain with the onset of the cold war, made free association between the Russian and Western European churches virtually impossible. The Serbian church remained as reactionary after the war as before. Yet it is hard to see any meaningful chance of reunion even if the war had not intervened. Hopes were at an all-time low at the end of the 1930s. Nicolas Zernov complained in 1939 that the war “has revealed with a cold clarity the inefficiency and lukewarmness of the bulk of Christians in regard to the crying need for reunion: twenty-five years of peace which the churches had at their disposal for the restoration of their unity were to a large extent wasted.” Most “preferred vague talk about reunion to any concrete action.”5 But reunion efforts failed not because of vague talk. Many bold, difficult, and painfully explicit conversations between the wars—formal and informal, major and minor—revealed a chasm of theological differences between the two confessions. This study has examined at length the doctrinal and dogmatic gulf between the Church of England and Eastern Orthodoxy, a gulf that encompassed vastly different conceptions of episcopacy, sacramental life, saints, modernity, and the church itself. It has also examined the intrusion of ecclesiastical politics, nationalism, and territorial aims—intrusions that at times precipitated or at least smoothed the way for discussion but ultimately contributed nothing. Instead, these political aims led to accusations of opportunism and devious machinations under the cloak of high-minded ecumenism, accusations that in the end undermined the very discussions they ostensibly spawned. The discussion of such motivations in earlier chapters grants these accusations some credence, though not to the degree desired by the partisans who issued them. Ultimately, however, the facts underlying the accusations were less important than the perceptions they generated, and the perceptions were indeed troubling. Any full consideration of reunion’s failures must conclude by scrutinizing a final factor—one that has been staring us in the face all along (and to which I have often alluded) but that has not yet been examined in adequate detail. Simply put, the Church of England and the Orthodox

219

220

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

world were badly fragmented and preoccupied with their own, internal difficulties. Neither was prepared to negotiate in good faith with the other, since neither was sufficiently united within itself to proffer a consistent negotiating position. | No good statistics exist on the percentages of Anglicans between the wars who would have identified themselves as Catholic, Protestant, or Evangelical. In 1925 Sheila Kay-Smith estimated that Anglo-Catholics constituted roughly one-fourth of the Church of England,6 and there is some evidence that Anglo-Catholicism experienced a boom in the 1920s and 1930s.7 Most scholars of Anglican evangelicalism agree that it reached a low point in the 1920s,8 yet its adherents remained disproportionately vocal. Catholic and Protestant camps in the Anglican Church would both claim to represent a majority,9 but neither could move the church decisively in one direction or another. Archbishops Davidson and Lang worked mightily to hold their opposing factions together and to maintain the Church of England’s comprehensiveness. Lang’s statements about his own beliefs were calculated to suggest that seemingly incompatible strains were not. “The Evangelical tradition is in my bones,” he remarked, but the “Catholic tradition has stirred my imagination.”10 Yet Anglicans who worked with the Orthodox understood Orthodox qualms about competing camps in this most contentious of confessions. The coexistence of three opposing schools in the Anglican communion “creates in the Orthodox mind a most bewildering impression.”1 1 To those outside the Anglican Church, wrote Kenneth Kirk for Put’, the differences within the Church of England “may sound like the languages from the Tower of Babel.” Kirk’s efforts to assuage such concerns were not particularly successful: “A member of the Anglican Church is not embarrassed by that; he knows that these differences in his Church merely indicate the zeal with which it tries to solve its problems.”12 “In the long run,” he wrote later, “the centripetal force in the English Church is stronger than any centrifugal tendencies.”13 But centrifugal tendencies were quite strong. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s Anglican Protestants argued volubly against transubstantiation,14 for the self-sufficiency of Scripture, against extrabiblical dogmas, and for unmediated grace, acknowledging all the while that such argu-

Internal Divisions

|

ments put them out of touch with both the Catholic wing of their church and the Orthodox churches.15 Even those Orthodox most attracted to the Church of England worried about its divisions. Nikolai Arsen’ev, for example, believed that a “whole number” of Anglican theological ideas continued the patristic tradition and that the “decisive” voice in Anglican theology did not belong to “extreme modernism.”16 Still, he found the church in disarray. Nicolas Zernov, Anglicanism’s greatest defender among the Russian émigrés, could never quite get a fix on the Church of England. He wrote long, frank pieces identifying irreconcilable positions within this body, yet tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to find some measure of nebulous, mystical unity. In a single article he could speak of the Church of England as a miasma of competing theological currents, worry about modernists who deny the incarnation, and still maintain that the Church of England was united by some (unidentified) “deep basis.”17 Other Orthodox expressed their concerns more forcefully. Bulgakov told a gathering of Anglicans at a Fellowship conference in 1936 that what they called “comprehension” was “a very ambiguous and a very dangerous and difficult thing.”18 Some years earlier he had marveled at the English church’s tendency to “wash her ecclesiastical linen in public,” a tendency he attributed to “her peculiar position in the public life of the nation” and some “characteristically national habit.” Divisions and controversies were “more potent than in other communions”—perhaps the church’s “peculiar situation” made this inevitable.19 And in 1937 he lamented that Orthodox simply could not discern where “sovereignty” in the Church of England resides.20 Germanos noted with frustration the claims that competing parties in the Church of England made to represent their church’s real orientation. “Evangelicals and the Modernists exalt [the Church of England’s] Protestant character to such an extent that they call it absolutely Protestant. The Anglo-Catholics, on the other hand, discern in it such a strong Catholic element that they are accustomed to call their Church ‘Catholic’ and themselves ‘Catholics.’ ”21 Those who saw hope for reunion in a triumph by the Catholic wing of the church (Zernov, Evlogii, and Arsen’ev in particular) became disappointed. Evlogii, who traveled to England in 1938 to attend a major

221

222

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Anglo-Catholic conference, remarked that the movement seemed tired and enervated.22 Interwar controversies within the Church of England did not split neatly along Catholic and Protestant lines. Even Protestant Anglicans could not agree among themselves on the role of the episcopate or the eucharist in reunion schemes. Some tried to minimize the importance of the episcopacy by portraying it as a late invention, inconsistent with Christ’s original conception of the pastorate.23 Some argued that priests were in no way distinct from laity.24 Some argued that their church had no binding conception of the episcopate and could not confine its members to any particular theory of its origins or proper implementation.25 Some agreed to accept episcopacy under limited definitions but remained frustrated by their inability to secure such definitions.26 Some ardently wanted to retain episcopacy but remove from it “any theory of the transmission of grace.”27 Some were nearly Catholic in their conception of the episcopate, yet opposed any demand for apostolic succession in other bodies as a basis of reunion,28 believing that such demands only erected barriers: “It would be idle not to acknowledge, frankly and unequivocally, that in any proposals for the unity of English Christians, it is Episcopacy which blocks the way.”29 Why, asked the Churchman, “cannot we have Inter-communion at once, as a step towards interchangeability of clergy and more complete union later on? . . . What is the obstacle that blocks the way? The answer to this question is itself simple. There is a body of opinion in the Anglican Communion extremely vociferous and mainly clerical that all ordination to the Ministry, other than Episcopal Ordination is, to say the least, irregular, and that the Sacraments administered by non-episcopally ordained clergy are probably invalid.”30 I have already alluded to the problems posed by the Thirty-nine Articles—a confusing and contradictory statement of faith that troubled the Orthodox to no end. Some Anglicans believed the articles could be easily changed.31 Some argued that they could be rejected or received according to personal whim: the Church of England does not require “unfeigned assent” to the articles, wrote one correspondent to the Spectator during the Prayer Book debate.32 Some believed that priests who did not adhere rigorously to the articles were disloyal to the terms of their ordination;33 others argued that few priests could be expected to uphold the articles without mental reservations.34

Internal Divisions

|

Next to the Prayer Book crisis, upheaval within the Church of England between the wars is perhaps best illustrated by the work of the Commission on Christian Doctrine, formed in January 1922, after twenty-two bishops dispatched a letter to Archbishop Davidson asking that he do something about the terrible infighting in their midst. “Many men of all parties,” they wrote, “are growing weary of disputes. . . . It has become increasingly clear that the methods of controversy traditional in ecclesiastical matters show no prospects of yielding any fruitful results.”35 Would Davidson, they asked, appoint a commission to explore solutions to the disagreements? Davidson initially declined, doubtful that any such group could resolve centuries-old conflicts, but he finally relented, and he and the archbishop of York appointed a commission in September to examine Christian doctrine “with a view to demonstrating the extent of existing agreement within the Church of England” and to investigate to what degree the church might eliminate or diminish differences.36 The commission’s members took their charge seriously, recalling later that tensions between the various schools in the church “were imperiling its unity and impairing its effectiveness.”37 The work was heavy going and spanned nearly the entire interwar period.38 The final report, released in 1938, was a stupendously depressing document, proving how little unity could be found in the church on matters of interest both to its members and to the Orthodox. On the Virgin birth: “Many of us” believe in it, but the evidence is “inconclusive.”39 On angels and demons: It is acceptable for a Christian “to regard angels and demons in a purely symbolical sense.”40 On the sacraments: We recognize two “great sacraments” and five rites “commonly called sacraments.”41 On the eucharist: “We have no right to infer from the fact that the Bible uses the term ‘Body’ ” to support “any one particular theory as to the relationship between the fleshly, the sacramental, and the mystical body.”42 On the saints: “It is impossible to declare that departed saints cannot hear our prayers,” but it is also “impossible to have wellgrounded assurance that the saints hear us.”43

223

224

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

The commission decided that miracles are improbable but not impossible. And it declared that members of the Church of England were free to espouse beliefs not held by the church if they found themselves “bound in conscience to do so,” so long as those beliefs were “not essential to the truth and value of Christianity.”44 The Anglo-Catholic Advisory Council, claiming to speak for two thousand ministers and fifty thousand laymen, denounced the commission’s report and the commission itself.45 Sobornost gave the report a withering review: “Our Orthodox members can hardly be blamed if they have got the impression that the Church of England has now ceased to care whether anyone holds the Christian faith or not.”46 Meanwhile, attendance in the church continued to fall. In January 1939 the upper house of the Convocation of Canterbury produced troubling statistics: in the previous twenty-four years 67 percent of babies born in England were baptized in the Church of England, yet only two and a quarter million people had attended Easter services in 1937. Church hierarchs worried about serious shortages of candidates for Anglican ordinations.47 The Orthodox prided themselves on their avoidance of such doctrinal infighting. They labored at all ecumenical gatherings to present a unified front and frequently argued in conference papers that their church knew no such divisions. In a collection of ecumenical essays published in 1933, Metropolitan Nektarii Kotliareiuk boasted, “The Orthodox Christian’s great comfort and joy is his knowledge that the form and method of Orthodoxy remains uniform and is preserved everywhere.”48 But while the Orthodox Church faced fewer doctrinal disagreements than did the Anglican Church, it was riven by problems no less serious. In the Russian church deep differences persisted on questions of church governance, the authority of bishops, and the role of laity and theologians. Zernov complained in 1935 that Orthodoxy had split into two camps over the issue: one that “supports Roman Catholic teaching about the church, replacing only the authority of a single, infallible pope with the authority of the seven ecumenical councils, and that which professes the teaching about the sobornost of the church.”49 The sarcastic Anglican observer might note that dogmatic unity in Orthodoxy was possible due to its limited number of dogmas and its refusal to adopt detailed statements on any number of difficult questions.

Internal Divisions

|

Ecumenists between the wars often complained that Orthodox theology had no clear definition of the church, where its boundaries lay, and who resided safely in its arms. Orthodox theologians could not agree on what economy meant or how it should be applied.50 But the most divisive and intractable problems in the Orthodox world lay in the political and social sphere—in the various churches’ financial struggles, in their oftencontentious relations with secular authority, and in the acrimonious contests between national and quasi-national churches. The minor Orthodox churches floundered between the wars. Financial problems plagued the patriarchate of Antioch.5 1 The patriarchate of Jerusalem remained dependent administratively and financially on the British Mandate.52 The hierarchy of the Cypriot church, conversely, staged an open revolt against British control in the early 1930s; Britain transported troops from Egypt to crush the insurgency and banished two Cypriot metropolitans to Gibraltar. (The sole remaining metropolitan died in 1933; the appointment of his successor was postponed indefinitely when England refused to allow either of the two exiled metropolitans to return.)53 The many problems that had faced the ecumenical patriarchate in the early 1920s did not dissipate in the 1930s. When Archbishop Cosmo Lang visited Patriarch Veniamin in Constantinople, he termed the visit “both intensely interesting and also pathetic.” “It was hard to realize,” he wrote, “that this frail old man held an office which once had rivaled, and sometimes eclipsed, that of the pope at Rome. Now, in spite of his great position, he has little authority. The various autocephalous Orthodox churches regard him with formal deference or even reverence, but with great jealously lest he should interfere with their independence. He is kept in a state of somewhat humiliating subservience by the Turkish Government, indeed as practically a prisoner within the Phanar.”54 The ecumenical patriarchate never recovered from the exodus of Greek Christians after the Treaty of Lausanne: only four of forty-one metropolitanates survived the exchange of populations.55 Smaller churches continued to peel away from their mother. After Italy occupied the Dodecanese islands, the islands’ small Orthodox church capitulated to Italy’s request that it declare independence from Constantinople. The Albanian Orthodox Church proclaimed itself independent from Constantinople in 1922.

225

226

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

The Karlovchane remained consistently at loggerheads with Constantinople between the wars. In 1925 Antonii accused Constantine VI, Gregorios VII, and Meletios of “arbitrarily” seizing property from Russian church dioceses in Poland and Finland and of trying to pick up Russian churches in Western Europe and America.56 He even blamed Constantinople for the persecution of Orthodox monks in Finland. I have examined the turmoil in the church of Greece during the early 1920s as Venizelists and royalists battled for control of both the state and the religious hierarchy. The Greek church remained dependent on the whims of civil authority throughout the interwar period. The Greek Holy Synod consisted of five to seven members, all of whose appointments required state approval. In addition, the Greek constitution empowered the state to transfer, suspend, and dismiss bishops. Between 1917 and 1935 changing civil regimes constantly appointed, deposed, and reappointed archbishops and bishops, who lived as if on a perpetual dumbwaiter, forever ascending and descending into and out of power.57 (In 1923 Papadopoulos eliminated the patronage system for a brief period, but General Pangalos reinstituted it two years later.)58 Greek bishops and archbishops never played much of a role in ecumenical discussions, in part because their positions within their own church were so insecure. They simply did not hold appointments long enough to establish the long-term contacts needed to develop trust with counterparts in other confessions. Therefore, academic theologians usually served as the Greek church’s representatives at ecumenical conferences. Without ties to the hierarchy, they could be as frank and outspoken on the ecumenical scene as they wished (Hamilcar Alivizatos had no compunctions about making clear his differences with his Russian counterparts),59 but their statements had no binding authority without assent from their church’s leadership. The Christian East never really warmed to the church of Greece. It sympathized with the church’s loss of estates and monasteries,60 but it also criticized the church for being insular and intolerant: “One would not like to trust Greek ecclesiastics with power to persecute, for they feel too keenly about such matters.”61 All camps of the Russian church in exile disliked the Greeks: the Parisians criticized their sterile “scholasticism” and intractability, and the Karlovchane believed they aimed to take control of the émigré Russians.

Internal Divisions

|

The Bulgarians did not particularly like the Greeks either. The Turks placed the Bulgarian patriarchate under the ecumenical patriarchate (i.e., under Greek control) in 1393, where it remained officially—at least according to Constantinople (see below)—until after the second world war. The Bulgarians battled the Greeks for control over local churches throughout the 1830s and 1840s.62 In 1845 Bulgaria sent two representatives to Constantinople to request that the ecumenical patriarch grant Bulgaria its own national church. The ecumenical patriarch responded by arresting and imprisoning the Bulgarian emissaries on Mount Athos and declaring the Bulgarian church in schism.63 Jerusalem and Greece sided with Constantinople; the other autocephalous churches refused to take sides. It looked like Bulgaria would finally get its wish for a national church in 1870 when the Ottoman sultan (Bulgaria remained under Ottoman control) allowed Bulgaria to establish an autonomous church with its own exarchate. The Bulgarian church now governed all Orthodox dioceses in Bulgarian regions.64 Constantinople, however, refused to recognize the church and excommunicated Bulgarians for the sin of “phyletism” or nationalism.65 Relations with the Greeks continued to go downhill. The second Balkan war erupted in June 1913 when Bulgaria launched surprise attacks on Greece and Serbia, both of which opposed Bulgarian claims on Macedonia. (The Reverend W. A. Wigram, trying to account for later tensions between Bulgaria and Serbia for readers of the Christian East, explained that Serbs “look back to days in the great war, when not only every soldier, but every priest, every school master, and every school mistress, was killed by the Bulgarian occupying force.”)66 Bulgaria made itself a pariah in much of Western Europe when it allied itself with the German kaiser during the first world war. After the war Greeks and Serbs took control of Macedonian churches claimed by Bulgaria in regions wrested from the collapsing Ottoman Empire. The Greek church proclaimed that all Macedonian Slavs in Greece were to be slavophone Greeks, and it expelled all Bulgarian clergy and teachers who refused to accept the new arrangement.67 The Bulgarian church, on the outs with other Orthodox churches, also found itself estranged from its own state, which did not allow the church to elect a successor to Exarch Iosif when he died in 1915. King Boris III prevented his church from organizing itself into either an exarchate or

227

228

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

a patriarchate.68 Thus, although Bulgarian representatives at ecumenical conferences (Stefan Tsankov and Metropolitan Stefan in particular) were often among the most cordial and accommodating of all the Orthodox delegates and were viewed as representatives of “a progressive Church . . . keenly conscious of a social and evangelistic mission,”69 they never had the clout of other Orthodox churches, for theirs did not function as an autocephalous church. In fact, the state removed Metropolitan Stefan from the presidency of the Holy Synod in 1934. Relations between Serbs and Bulgarians after the war were so poor that no Bulgarian was permitted to enter Serbia. Nikolai Zernov, who in 1921 attended the first meeting of the Russian church abroad in Serbia, reported that the Serbian patriarch, Dimitri, refused to be present for the opening of the council due to the unexpected arrival of the Bulgarian metropolitan, Stefan.70 Those Serbs who attended the council forced Stefan to leave.7 1 Tensions also remained high between Bulgaria and Greece, which consistently denied Bulgarian requests for an outlet to the Aegean Sea. Bulgarian terrorists made frequent incursions into Greek territory in the 1920s; in 1925 the Greek army advanced well into Bulgarian territory until it received orders from the League of Nations to withdraw. Given such poor relations among the Balkan churches, it is a wonder that Greece and Constantinople ever assented to serving alongside representatives from the Bulgarian church in ecumenical discussions. The mystery is not why relations between Bulgaria and other Orthodox churches were not better but how Bulgaria managed to place its representatives in delegations at all. (The answer, it seems, was pressure from the Anglican Church.) Of all the Orthodox churches between the wars, the Serbian church failed most notably to distinguish between religious and national interests. Basilius Groen asserts (with only a bit of hyperbole) that “ ‘Serbness’ and Orthodoxy are two hypostases of the same being,”72 and Stella Alexander has written of the “total identification of the church with the nation.”73 The Serbian church achieved a patriarchate only in 1920, after the unification of Yugoslavia. But despite its new status, it maintained a sense of persecution and isolation born from centuries of foreign rule and exploitation by Austria, Greece, and Bulgaria.74 (The Serb theologian and bishop Nikolai Velimirovic´ once claimed that the Serbs had suffered

Internal Divisions

|

even more than Christ because they had been crucified for five centuries, whereas Christ hung on Golgotha for only one day.)75 Although the Serbian church initially supported Bulgaria’s demands for autocephaly, it grew increasingly nervous after 1870 when the Bulgarian church began to expand.76 But unease over Bulgaria’s claims did not translate into sympathy for Constantinople: rather, the Serbian church’s leeriness about the designs of the ecumenical patriarchate only increased in the 1880s when Constantinople sought to “Bulgarize” portions of old Serbia and northern Macedonia.77 From 1920 to 1934 the Serbian church found itself utterly dependent on the state. The government controlled the church’s official correspondence with churches abroad,78 a situation hardly conducive to ecumenical dialogue. Such dependence, however, bothered the nationalistic Serbs less than their Orthodox counterparts in other countries. King Aleksandr (1921–34) gave generous subsidies to his nation’s church and protected Orthodoxy’s privileged status among other confessions. NonOrthodox Christians in Serbia complained repeatedly that the Serbian church manipulated the state to serve its own interests.79 The church of Serbia emphasized ties to its Slavic brethren to the neglect of ties to Orthodox of other nationalities. It felt a great affinity for the suffering Orthodox Slavs of Soviet Russia, whose church it viewed as something of an older sister. Unwilling to participate in ecumenical forums to any significant extent without the approval and participation of the Russian church, the church in Serbia remained as impotent as the church it sought to emulate. Preferring the Russian royalists and nationalists who settled in Serbia over the more cosmopolitan Russians who settled in Western Europe, Patriarch Varnava threw his support entirely behind Metropolitan Antonii and the Karlovchane,80 a move that largely distanced the Serbian church from those Russians who were serious about ecumenical contact. To other Orthodox, the Serbian church appeared partisan in siding with one camp of Russian émigrés over the other. Serbian theologians between the wars were notably disinclined toward ecumenical dialogue. Sergei Flere has characterized twentiethcentury Serbian theology as a school that “radically repudiates the central concepts created in the civilization that evolved out of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. It rejects empiricism, analyticism, rationalism,

229

230

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

religious pluralism and religious tolerance.”81 Justin Popovich, possibly the most influential twentieth-century Serb theologian, began to make his mark during the interwar period. An admirer of Metropolitan Antonii, Popovich regarded European civilization and Western Christianity as corrupt, decaying, and poisonous. “Jesus left Europe and in it arrived rage, horror, destruction, and annihilation,” he stated.82 “Western civilization is blinder today than Moslem Arabia, Brahman India, Buddhist Tibet, and Spiritualistic China. In fact, Christ has not been shamed more in the last two millennia than from it, Europe, where baptized people are blinder than the unbaptized!”83 While a student at Oxford University, Popovich produced a thesis on Dostoevskii that constituted a sweeping condemnation of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Western Europe generally. When his examiners advised him to tone it down, Popovich left Oxford in disgust without finishing his degree. He criticized Russian and Greek theologians for failing to distinguish adequately between Orthodox and nonOrthodox “heretics,”84 and for engaging other confessions in a serious manner. Ecumenism, he argued, is simply the “dialogue of falsehood.” It is “pseudo-Christianity of the pseudo-churches of Western Europe,” which are “nothing more than one heresy after another.” “Without repentance and admittance into the true Church of Christ, it is unthinkable and unnatural to speak about the unification of ‘the Churches.’ ”85 Relations between church and state in Yugoslavia remained close during the reign of King Aleksandr. But in 1935, the year after Aleksandr’s death, the Serbian church suddenly found itself facing a crisis: the new Yugoslav government announced it had signed a concordat with the Vatican, a move that frightened the church and inflamed its sense of isolation, defensiveness, and suspicion of other confessions. The terms of the concordat were not outrageous,86 and the government promised that all confessions would share in the privileges extended to Roman Catholics. But the Serbian church could countenance no suggestion that other confessions might merit equal rights. It was especially incensed by promises that the Roman Catholic Church could found monasteries, seminaries, and theological colleges on Serbian soil. Bishop Nikolai wrote to the Yugoslav minister of the interior to complain that the concordat constituted a “Great Injustice” akin to the persecution of Christians by Roman Caesars. The state, he reminded the minister, “has been

Internal Divisions

|

born by the very spirit and truth of our Orthodox, independent and national Church.”87 Patriarch Varnava wrote to the prime minister to remind him of the “great and universally known services of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the creation of the state” and its contribution to “the preservation of nationality among enemies.”88 After Varnava’s death (which was surrounded by wild rumors of papal complicity), the locum tenens insisted that “Serbia has been, is, and will be an Orthodox land.”89 Several bishops in the Holy Synod proposed that the prime minister and foreign minister be excommunicated.90 In the end, the government relented and declined to ratify the concordat. Such anger gave observers pause. The Spectator commented on the “reckless and violent men” among extreme nationalists in Belgrade.91 (It did not help matters when the English Roman Catholic press defended the concordat.)92 Ecumenical commitments were simply impossible in such an atmosphere. The Russian Orthodox Church splintered badly after the war. Churches in Ukraine split into three sections over the issue of loyalty to the mother Russian church.93 In Poland the Ministry of Confessions created an autocephalous Polish Orthodox Church so as not to have within its borders a horde of Orthodox loyal to another state.94 The situation in Russia itself was grim. The revolution ended any hope inspired by the great sobor of 1917 that the Russian church could make a positive contribution to the ecumenical movement. Patriarch Tikhon had virtually no time for ecumenical concerns: his focus was on the impossible challenge of finding a way to preserve both his church’s integrity and its very existence in an atheistic state. Tikhon’s eventual successor, Metropolitan Sergei of Moscow, likewise paid little attention to other confessions during the early part of his tenure.95 All that changed on April 8, 1929, when the government issued a new decree on religion, severely curtailing the juridical rights of religious organizations in the Soviet Union.96 The decree and subsequent attacks on the church prompted Pope Pius XI to write to Cardinal Pompli on February 8, 1930, to protest the “horrible and sacrilegious” outrages in Russia and to announce his intention to celebrate a mass of expiation in St. Peter’s Basilica “for the salvation of so many souls put to such dire trials and for the release of our dear Russian people.”97 The archbishop of Canterbury issued a similar plea following a speech to the upper house of Convocation on February 12, 1930, in which he denounced the “cruel

231

232

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

and persistent persecution of all forms of religion which continue to be waged by the Soviet Government in Russia.” “It is a record almost unparalleled in the history of religious persecutions,” he continued. Lang called for prayer, and he asked that his church “express its corporate sympathy by a united act of intercessions.”98 These protests placed Sergei in an impossible position. He was, of course, devastated by the Soviet decree and sent a private memorandum to Soviet authorities protesting the treatment of his church. But on February 15, 1930, he stunned the international Christian community with a press conference that largely destroyed his credibility and that of the Russian church. Before a contingent of international correspondents he announced with a straight face that there “has never been any persecution of religion in the USSR.” A “few” churches had been closed, but they were shuttered “according to the wish of the population.” “The unhappiness of the Church,” he continued, is due not to its treatment by the Soviet state but “to the fact that in the past, as we well know, it was affiliated with the monarchical system.” In fact, “church circles” had failed to appreciate the “great social value of the revolution.” Sergei ducked a question about freedom of religious propaganda, replying only that his priests were not forbidden to conduct services. He denied any constraint on church governance. He chastised Pius XI for his comments about the Soviet government and claimed that Pius was a hostage “in the camp of English landowners.” When asked about statements by the archbishop of Canterbury about persecution of the Russian church, Sergei replied: The sudden, inexplicable burst of “friendly” feeling toward the Orthodox Church by the usual opponents of Orthodoxy instinctively raises the suspicion that all this is not in the defense of Orthodoxy but in the pursuit of some kind of earthly goal. We cannot explain what kind of earthly goals these are, but they have little to do with spiritual questions. . . . As for the speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury in particular and the false assertion regarding the persecution of religious belief in the USSR, it is just like the speech of the Roman Pope. . . . [T]he working people in London value the speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury as they value “smelly oil” [pakhnyshchaia neft’].99

Internal Divisions

|

The press conference destroyed any hopes that Sergei could operate as a free agent. (International correspondents found the scene sad and somewhat menacing: the correspondent for the New York Times observed that “a monk with a determined cut of jaw surveyed the correspondents constantly through a crack between the open door and the doorpost.”)100 It also ended any (barely) lingering hope for constructive work with the Anglican Church. That same day Izvestiia denounced the British foreign secretary, Arthur Henderson, for announcing that the British government would help to combat an antireligious campaign in the Soviet Union. How should the Russian émigrés react to such a speech? At first, Evlogii defended Sergei.101 But he also joined his Anglican friends in Westminster Abbey to pray for a church Sergei insisted was in fine shape. Evlogii’s participation in the prayer service infuriated the Moscow patriarchate: its journal questioned Evlogii’s loyalty (obiazatel’stvo loiial’nosti) and called his Anglican colleagues “an international company allied against our government and headed by the Roman pope.”102 Evlogii feigned naïveté, questioning why his participation in a prayer service would create such a stir.103 (Of course, he knew better.) On July 11, 1930, Sergei dismissed Evlogii as head of the Russian church in Western Europe. Without a home, Evlogii eventually placed himself and his diocese under the care of the ecumenical patriarchate, a move that enraged not only Sergei but the Karlovchane as well.104 It is ironic that— despite these political travesties—Sergei wrote thoughtfully and carefully in the early and mid-1930s about the Orthodox Church’s proper relation to other churches. He was not a liberal ecumenist by any means. In a 1931 article for the Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkii (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate) Sergei criticized those who were content to let an individual be Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant, as long as he “lives a Christian life and is peaceful about his place beyond the grave,” and those who refused to insist that the Orthodox Church is the only true church of Christ.105 He arrived at many of the same conclusions as other hard-line Orthodox—other churches are in schism; their sacraments do not bestow grace; anointing is required if the Orthodox Church is to accept members from other confessions, and so on.106 Yet his study lacked the polemical venom of his political attacks and echoed none of the hysterics coming out of Serbia.

233

234

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

In 1935 Sergei published a rather amenable article on apostolic succession,107 which demonstrated his familiarity with the large body of Anglican literature on the subject, both pro and con.108 In the article he eschewed Antonii’s hard line that there is no church (or even Christianity itself ) outside of Orthodoxy.109 He again made clear that—while fallen away from the church—non-Orthodox Christians are nevertheless Christians and “not entirely foreign” to the church. He upheld the right of the church to exercise economy cautiously and judiciously. He spoke warmly of Anglicanism. He pointedly refrained from criticizing Greek churches that had already recognized Anglican ordinations and held out hope that the Orthodox Church as a whole might eventually recognize Anglican orders. We will never know what role Sergei might have played in the ecumenical movement had he had the opportunity, but it is clear that—in his ecumenical theology at least—he demonstrated the same care as that exercised by many of his more thoughtful Orthodox colleagues in Greece and Paris. But back to the Russian church abroad. In the early years of exile Evlogii managed to maintain strained relations with the Karlovchane. In fact, it was the Karlovatskii Synod that appointed Evlogii (at his request) to head the Russian church in Western Europe, with headquarters in Berlin. But shortly after arriving in Berlin, Tikhon issued a decree dissolving the Karlovatskii administration and appointed Evlogii as the sole administrator of all parishes in Europe.1 10 Evlogii at first demurred, promising Antonii that he did not recognize the validity of the document.1 1 1 But Evlogii found himself at odds with the church administration in Yugoslavia almost from the inception of the synod. He decried its tight allegiance to the monarchist cause,1 12 and he protested when— after a fierce debate 113 —the new synod declared its support for reestablishing Romanov rule and sustaining a military crusade against the Bolsheviks. (Thirty-four members of this meeting, including six of the twelve bishops, opposed the resolution; even Bulgakov, who had once practically worshiped the tsar,1 14 now regarded him as a “political autocrat, a fig leaf for the bureaucracy,”1 15 and disparaged the blind royalism of the Karlovchane.) Conflicts between Evlogii and the Karlovchane increased when Evlogii recognized Metropolitan Sergei, whom the Karlovchane viewed as a pup-

Internal Divisions

|

pet,1 16 as the legitimate successor to Tikhon. Territorial struggles broke out between the two. In a furious exchange of letters in 1926, Antonii questioned whether Tikhon had ever actually granted Evlogii the right to govern Russian Orthodox churches in Germany.1 17 That same year, at the same conference that denounced the RSCM, the synod announced that it would take control of Evlogii’s churches in Germany. Evlogii and Metropolitan Platon of the Russian Orthodox Church in America both walked out of the conference and cut their ties with the synod. Metropolitan Sergei (who would be arrested in 1927) refused to intervene in the dispute between Evlogii and the Karlovchane.1 18 In 1927 Sergei informed Evlogii that all clergy of the Russian church must sign a declaration of loyalty to the Soviet government. Although the majority of Evlogii’s supporters opposed such a declaration, Evlogii agreed to sign;1 19 he retained his ties to Moscow for the next few years (due in large part, it seems, to Bulgakov’s urging).120 That same year the Karlovchane placed an interdict on Evlogii for his insubordination to their synod: Evlogii replied that the ban was meaningless since he had never been subordinate to the synod.121 Now cut off from the Karlovchane, Evlogii received another demand from Moscow in 1930 to sign an oath of loyalty. He refused and endured a dressing-down from Sergei. After his participation in the prayer service in London, Sergei ordered Evlogii to retire. Beaten down, Evlogii— appealing to canons that allow a bishop to turn to an outside patriarch when in dispute with his own—placed himself on February 17, 1931, under Constantinople as an exarch of the ecumenical patriarchate. This move angered the Karlovchane, who could not stomach the idea of a Russian prelate operating under Greek authority: it was, they believed, an insult to Russian national pride. A few members of Evlogii’s diocese decided to remain loyal to Sergei (they became known as the Moscow Jurisdiction), causing yet a third split among Russians in exile. Strictly speaking, Evlogii’s action probably was not canonical, but he felt that he had no other choice122 and expressed a feeling of “liberation” once it was done.123 The journals of the two dioceses lobbed accusations back and forth. The Karlovatskii journal, Tserkovnyia viedomosti, launched continuous attacks on Evlogii’s person.124 Evlogii’s journal, Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, in turn, complained that the Karlovchane believed

235

236

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

they had “more truth”125 and termed them an outdated remnant of Russian imperialism, wedded to destructive nationalism. Evlogii and Antonii tried several times during the 1930s to patch up their quarrels, and for a time they appeared to believe they might succeed.126 In early 1934 some of Antonii’s students approached Evlogii, informing him that Antonii had taken ill and desired to meet with Evlogii to seek a resolution to their differences. But then Evlogii received a letter from Antonii noting that the Karlovchane had forbidden Evlogii to attend their services. Nevertheless—despite advice to the contrary from members of his own diocese—Evlogii decided to pay a visit to his ill friend. “Antonii looked sadly at me,” recalled Evlogii, and remarked, “What a mistake all this was.”127 The two read prayers of absolution over each other. This meeting briefly encouraged other autocephalous churches. The patriarchs of Antioch and Serbia sent letters to Evlogii noting how pleased they were to learn of the rapprochement.128 But it was short lived. Evlogii refused to attend an August 1934 session of the Karlovatskii Synod to petition formally for a revocation of the ban it had placed on him. And he refused to leave the jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarchate. The Karlovatskii archbishop, Serafim, responded to Evlogii’s refusal by calling him a “Greek bishop” and hence an enemy of the Russian church.129 Evlogii made one more trip to Serbia in 1935 to attend a “reconciliation council” of the bishops, where he reluctantly signed a number of papers effectively increasing the Karlovatskii Synod’s control over dioceses in Europe. (Evlogii’s own diocesan assembly refused to endorse the provisos the following year.)130 It was a depressing trip. Evlogii found Antonii sick and weak, with little influence over his synod. Archbishop Serafim, who appears to have controlled the agenda of the visit, collared Evlogii to complain about Bulgakov’s “heresy.” Evlogii, for his part, did not help matters: he opened his speech to the synod by announcing that he had come “by the authority of the ecumenical patriarch,” dooming any hope of a receptive audience.131 Evlogii and Antonii continued to correspond, exchanging birthday greetings and other pleasantries.132 But attacks by the Karlovchane intensified after 1935; efforts to wrest control of parishes in Germany continued, deeply wounding Evlogii.133 Hitler’s decree of February 25, 1938,

Internal Divisions

|

placed all church property in Germany under the control of the Ministry of Religious Cults, which handed them over to the Karlovchane. Furious, Evlogii wrote bitter letters in 1939 questioning the right of the synod to exist.134 The Karlovchane isolated themselves from most of the Russian intelligentsia in Western Europe. Émigré newspapers such as Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, Vozrozhdenie, and Posliedniia novosti accused the Karlovchane of intolerance and xenophobic nationalism.135 The Karlovchane, in turn, accused the Russians outside their synod of Masonic intrigues and Jewish treachery.136 In public articles Berdiaev called the Karlovchane “reactionary” and “shackled to old and brokendown symbolism.” They are, he groused, unable to reconcile themselves to this revolutionary epoch—an epoch that was proving to be a “blessing” for the church. In these exciting times, the Karlovchane were “breaking away from Russia, from the Russian church, and from the internal, living religious process.”137 Many of the figures who sparred publicly with the Karlovchane taught at St. Sergius, the Russian Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. (A notable exception is Nikolai Berdiaev, who—though he did not teach at the institute—regularly published pieces by its faculty in Put’.) The Karlovchane had much to dislike about the institute. It maintained close ties to the RSCM and the Methodist (and hence suspect) John Mott, who shared with Paul Anderson responsibility for the institute’s establishment. The Karlovchane distrusted the institute’s close work with other confessions. (In trying to raise funds for the institute in 1925, for example, Glubokovskii boasted to potential donors that it was “contributing diligently to the cause of Interconfessional Unity.”)138 The Karlovatskii Synod demanded the right to confirm all appointments to the institute’s faculty and to approve the faculty’s teaching plans, a demand that the institute dismissed. Although Antonii supported the institute until 1926,139 his synod launched a concerted smear campaign against it that year, when it also condemned the YMCA, one of the institute’s major supporters. In 1927 the synod accused Evlogii (head of the institute) of patronizing modernism and claimed that he founded the institute without the synod’s blessing. The institute’s professors are “extremely questionable,” the synod pronounced, and “transgress the limits of mere reform,” departing from “truth and the

237

238

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

reservation of the church from the time of the apostles.”140 The Karlovchane accused St. Sergius of accepting financial assistance from Jews (which was true) and from Masons.141 It portrayed the institute as the de facto home base of Russian ecumenism (also true),142 alienating those such as Zernov who admired the institute for just this reason.143 Given these attacks, it is not surprising that all the professors at the institute, including Florovskii, remained with Evlogii when he placed himself under the ecumenical patriarchate in 1931.144 (Bishop Veniamin, who moved to Paris in 1925 to serve as the inspector of the institute, abandoned Evlogii’s jurisdiction in 1927 to supervise parishes in France that remained loyal to Metropolitan Sergei.)145 Yet it would not be accurate to portray divisions among the Russian émigrés merely as divisions between those loyal to Evlogii and his institute and those loyal to the Karlovchane. Many of the Parisian Russians who feuded with the Karlovchane found it difficult to get along with one another. Kartashev was seldom received in Parisian émigré society.146 Many on the institute’s faculty viewed Berdiaev with a good deal of suspicion.147 And the faculty of St. Sergius were not always on good terms with one another. John Meyendorff has described (perhaps too simplistically) two camps at the institute: those, like Bulgakov, who adhered to Solov’ev’s sofiological system and those who, like Florovskii, adhered to the tradition of the Greek fathers. Professor Kiprian dismissed Bulgakov’s works as “the dead inhabitants of library shelves,” and Zenkovskii found him “insufficiently cautious.”148 Evlogii, on the other hand, practically idolized Bulgakov,1 49 and he became angry when other faculty members criticized him. Paul Valliere has pointed out that Florovskii often found himself at odds with B. P. Tysheslavtsev’s platonizing approach to ethics, Georgii Fedotov’s commitment to liberal democracy, and Vasilii Zenkovskii’s and V. N. Ilyin’s roots in continental idealism.150 Few professors at St. Sergius were interested in Florovskii’s call for a “return to the Fathers” in order to repossess “sacred Hellenism.”151 Others, such as Kartashev, stayed free of either camp.152 Florovskii offended many, especially those at St. Sergius,153 when he published Ways of Russian Theology (Puti russkogo bogosloviia) in 1937, a brilliant work filled with strident critiques of his contemporaries. In Ways Florovskii portrayed the Russian religious renaissance (the term favored by Zernov to describe Russian intellectuals who had returned

Internal Divisions

|

to the church) as “only a return to the experience of German idealism and German mysticism.” He accused Solov’ev—Bulgakov’s spiritual and intellectual mentor—of “the most unholy erotic excitement” and of purveying “a dreadful occult plan for the union of humanity with God through heterosexual love.” He argued that Bulgakov was “powerfully influenced” by Marxism and criticized him for his “unrestrained lurch towards the ‘philosophy of identity.’ ”154 Berdiaev abandoned “ ‘historic Christianity’ for the esoteric speculative mysticism of Böhme and Paracelsus, militantly pushing patristic tradition aside.”155 He “drank so deeply of the springs of German mysticism and philosophy that he could never break loose from this fatal German circle.”156 It is interesting to note that the Karlovchane—who were no great fans of Florovskii— welcomed the work and employed it in their own attacks on the Western European religious intelligentsia.157 Ecumenists worried about Florovskii’s propensity for alienating colleagues. A. F. Dobbie-Bateman, a member of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, offered Florovskii comments on the unfinished manuscript of Ways in 1935. “[You] carry your denunciation of your fellows to an extreme,” he observed. “It seems to me that many of the things which you hold dear, they also hold dear. They badly need criticism but hardly condemnation. In some things they are right, in others wrong. Do they not deserve to be understood and healed and loved?”158 Relations between Florovskii and Berdiaev broke down gradually but almost entirely. Florovskii joined Berdiaev’s ecumenical soirées in the early 1920s and helped Berdiaev found Put’. For a time Florovskii served as a contributing editor. (The Karlovchane hated Put’: “All the Western mystics (most of whom were Rosicrucians) are always quoted sympathetically”; “Lenin and Stalin are openly extolled.”)159 Florovskii and Berdiaev managed to stay close in the 1920s despite wildly different opinions, but their friendship began to fall apart in 1932, according to Florovskii, over his decision to be ordained and after he criticized Berdiaev for publishing a certain “idiotic article” in Put’.160 Berdiaev’s scathing review of Florovskii’s Ways of Russian Theology did not improve their relations. The publisher of Put’ also found himself at odds with members of the Parisian émigré community. In 1925 he abandoned the Fellowship of St. Sofia, a discussion group that included some of the intelligentsia’s

239

240

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

leading lights, including Florovskii, Bulgakov, and Struve. In a long and bitter letter to Bulgakov, Berdiaev complained of his reputation within the Fellowship: “Struve portrays me as a pernicious supporter of Bolshevism [and Kartashev suspects me of being] both a political and religious revolutionary.” There are too many differences of opinion among us, “and we suspect one another of adherence to hostile thoughts and ideas.”161 Florovskii got hold of the letter and wrote to Berdiaev to confirm his assessment. Things had reached the point, wrote Florovskii, where the Fellowship no longer really existed: “[People] among whom there is little internal connection are laughably united in a dead collective.”162 Florovskii and Bulgakov, on the other hand, had tremendous respect for each other. In fact, Florovskii joined the faculty of St. Sergius at Bulgakov’s urging. But Bulgakov had little time for patristics, the focus of Florovskii’s professional life, and relations between the two were constantly strained. Their disagreements were well known in the ecumenical world. Dobbie-Bateman joked with Florovskii about his role as the “Antibulgakov.”163 Although Florovskii never criticized Bulgakov in front of his own students at the institute, Florovskii admitted that they “could understand right away that Father Bulgakov was not in the line of tradition. I never specified it, but it became clear, and there was some agitation that I was attacking him.”164 Even after Bulgakov’s death Florovskii complained about his “unhealthy mysticism.”165 The position of the Russian church in the United States was no better than in Europe. Its subsidies from the mother church ceased after the revolution. John Kedrovskii, a priest who decided to ally himself with the Soviet-sponsored Living Church, headed a schismatic faction of the American church and attempted to appropriate control of its congregations. With the support of the U.S. federal courts, Kedrovskii actually won control of St. Nicholas Cathedral in New York.166 Patriarch Tikhon sent Metropolitan Platon to sort out the mess. Russians in America who had not joined Kedrovskii affirmed Platon as their head at a conference in Detroit in 1924. They also affirmed their independence from the Karlovchane, renamed the archdiocese a “metropolia,” and proclaimed temporary autonomy for the metropolia until the Russian Orthodox Church could convene a sobor. Tikhon ratified the decision and gave the American bishops a mandate to take complete charge of their dioceses.

Internal Divisions

|

The Karlovchane viewed such action as yet another attempt to splinter the Russian church. In 1927 they “deposed” Platon and appointed a rival archbishop in the North American diocese. All bishops in the American metropolia, however, remained loyal to Platon.167 Platon refused Sergei’s demands of 1928 and 1933 to sign documents pledging not to participate in any political activities against the Soviet regime. In response, Sergei appointed a rival bishop as his own exarch in America in 1933. A few parishes joined the Moscow exarchate, and some moved to the Karlovatskii jurisdiction, but most remained loyal to Platon. A conference in Cleveland in 1934 affirmed the American church’s total administrative independence from Moscow and its right to elect its own leaders. In 1937 Platon’s successor, Theophilus, managed to consolidate the various Russian Orthodox groups in the United States into one body, forging an alliance with the Karlovchane and the independent Carpatho-Russian diocese.168 But by then it was too late—the Russian Orthodox churches in American had managed to unite just in time to witness significant ecumenical discussions in Europe breaking down. | Divisions in the Orthodox world bothered even its most partisan combatants. During a trip to Romania in 1925, Antonii hoped aloud that Orthodoxy might some day find a “spiritual union among all organisms of the Orthodox Church.”169 In 1937, after the failure of the Edinburgh conference, Evlogii’s journal published a series of articles lamenting the problems of nationalism in the Orthodox world. The “sin and sickness of nationalism distorts the Christian faith.”170 Such problems, the journal reflected, would not exist if Orthodoxy were “one and whole” (edinyi i tselostnyi). The Orthodox Church ought to have “a single view,”17 1 a unified outlook unencumbered by nationalist interests. Notable Orthodox figures expressed such sentiments frequently and spoke often about the need to settle a host of unresolved administrative and theological issues within their church.172 Most who participated in ecumenical activities realized that any meaningful rapprochement with other confessions depended on such a resolution. Zernov complained that the Orthodox Church had never made “an authoritative and generally accepted pronouncement” on whether Christians not in communion with one of the Orthodox churches live outside the One Holy Catholic Church.173 Alivizatos complained that differences made it difficult for

241

242

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

the Orthodox churches to respond to overtures at ecumenical conferences and hoped that an Orthodox “pro-synod” or “pan-Orthodox synod” would allow the churches to settle their differences and respond to ecumenical overtures with one voice.174 Germanos told a gathering of the Gloucester diocesan conference in summer 1923 that the Orthodox Church needed “a permanent authority” to represent itself and to rule on questions surrounding reunion.175 And he suggested in 1929 that convening a pan-Orthodox synod constituted a necessary step on the path to closer relations with the Anglican Church.176 The American periodical Pravoe dielo pleaded for a synod that would speak with a “powerful voice” and let the world know that Orthodoxy is not “dead.”177 (The Karlovatskii Synod welcomed such sentiment in principle but believed that a synod should not convene during such “tribulations, severe persecution and constraint”; Meletios, the Karlovatskii journal reminded its readers in 1933, only made things worse with his pan-Orthodox commission of the early 1920s.)178 Those in dialogue with the Orthodox agreed that an Orthodox prosynod was a necessary prerequisite for real success. Douglas struggled to educate his Anglican colleagues about a theological system that “has not been systematized and formulated as Latin theology has been.”179 The English journal Theology (the most serious and scholarly Anglican journal published between the wars) portrayed the Orthodox world as weak, divided, and beset by extremists and suggested that a pro-synod offered the only hope of unifying Orthodoxy.180 The Church Quarterly Review also portrayed the Orthodox world as one of conflict, and hoped that a synod might allow the Orthodox to rule definitively on whether other confessions did or did not exist within the one Holy Catholic Church.181 Anderson viewed a synod as the vehicle that would allow Orthodoxy to speak with one voice on ecumenical questions.182 Meletios knew that a full pan-Orthodox synod was impossible in the early 1920s and thus convened a mere “pan-Orthodox conference,” which, he hoped, might recommend provisional decisions for eventual acceptance by a full pro-synod. The timing of the conference could not have been worse. It met in May 1923, just as Ismet Pasha announced Turkey’s intention to remove all Orthodox from the country. And the decisions of the conference created a furor that did more to fracture Or-

Internal Divisions

|

thodoxy than unite it. The Serbs were furious that the conference did not include all autocephalous churches, furious over changes to the calendar, and furious that the “pan-Orthodox conference” had begun referring to itself as a “pan-Orthodox synod.” They insisted that any plans for a future synod be drawn up by a representative preparatory commission.183 But with Meletios’s abdication hopes for even a preparatory commission moved to the back burner. Balkan churches proved reluctant to have any significant contact with the ecumenical patriarchate, the only body in Orthodoxy with the authority to convene a panOrthodox synod. (At a 1924 meeting of Balkan churches in Romania, delegates rejected a proposal from Constantinople that they send representatives to the Phanar to recognize the ecumenical patriarch as the “head” of the Orthodox churches.) To his credit, Metropolitan Germanos fully appreciated the fears engendered by Meletios’s ill-advised conference/synod of 1923 and labored to ensure the autocephalous churches that the ecumenical patriarchate did not entertain the pretensions they suspected: Constantinople did not pretend to be the “head” of other Orthodox churches but merely the primus inter pares and arbitrator.184 The next major attempt to convene a pro-synod occurred in 1926, when Constantinople invited several national churches to send representatives to a preparatory conference on Mount Athos in June. But some months after dispatching the invitations, Constantinople canceled the preparatory conference, citing by way of explanation the economic crises in the Balkans. Indeed, Romania was in dire financial straits, Greece was bankrupt, and imports and exports in Yugoslavia had fallen by 40 percent in the past two years.185 But the real reasons for the cancellation are more complex. In a move of stunning political naïveté, Constantinople issued invitations to Metropolitan Sergei in Moscow and to representatives of the Living Church, hoping, apparently, that the expected synod could reconcile the two bodies. Sergei, incensed by this threat to his (legitimate) claim that his church constituted the only canonically valid body in Russia, refused to attend.186 The Karlovchane, erstwhile opponents of the Living Church, were also outraged. When the Serbs and Bulgarians learned of Sergei’s refusal to attend, they declared that any meetings without the Moscow patriarchate would be pointless. By midsummer

243

244

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

only four of the ten autocephalous churches invited had replied.187 Constantinople considered trying again in 1929, but Turkey refused to allow a conference on Turkish soil and intimated that any bishops who left Constantinople to participate at another site could not return.188 Such failures did not destroy hopes that a solution might be found. (Alivizatos continued to believe that a pro-synod would occur “in due time.”)189 Evlogii’s journal expressed hope but also spoke realistically about obstacles. Where should the synod be held? Some wanted Mount Athos (perceived as a neutral site), others Constantinople. Who should preside? Some wanted the ecumenical patriarch, but strong voices in the Balkans would not agree. Who should attend? Which churches are legitimate?190 Should churches in Poland, Estonia, and Finland—all of which claimed autocephaly after the war—be considered autocephalous and thus represent themselves at the conference? (Anton Kartashev of St. Sergius in Paris accused these churches of being in schism with the church in Russia and doubted their ability to dispense grace and assure salvation.)191 Who should represent the Russian church? (Petr Kovalevskii concluded that a synod should await the liberation of the Russian church.) Could Bulgaria attend a conference summoned by a patriarchate with which it was in schism? (In the late 1920s the Romanian church proposed a preconciliar commission to decide the Bulgarian question once and for all, paving the way for Bulgarians to attend a synod; the commission never met.)192 The Anglicans grew impatient. During discussions at Lambeth in 1930, Bishop Headlam asked Meletios when the pro-synod would meet. Meletios replied that it would probably meet within a year and assured Headlam that it would have the power to decide questions such as those tackled by the Orthodox and Anglican delegations at Lambeth.193 But despite his assurances, Meletios himself was growing frustrated. Not long after Lambeth he reminded his Holy Synod in Alexandria of the promises he had made to Anglicans: “Of course, there is no lack of good reasons to justify the delay, but it is none the less true that the Romeward current among the Anglicans draws strength from the fact that there is a general perception of the powerlessness of the Orthodox Church to convene a General Council.” This “powerlessness” was “interpreted as the outcome of excessive radicalism which ha[d] made its way into the

Internal Divisions

|

Orthodox World.” The Anglicans viewed their national rivalry as an obstacle to unity.194 In 1930 the ecumenical patriarch Photios II was finally able to gather a “pre-commission” at the Vatopedion Monastery on Mount Athos to prepare for a full-blown synod, tentatively scheduled for October 1931 either on Mount Athos or in Thessaloniki.195 All autocephalous churches except the Russian and the Bulgarian sent delegates to the “pre-commission,” which intended to prepare for the complete codification of all holy canons. But things quickly fell apart. A representative from the Serbian church announced that his church would not participate unless it received assurances that any new meetings would eschew measures such as the calendar change of 1923.196 Metropolitan Sergei in Moscow announced that his church would not participate in a synod.197 Writing to Basil Dimopoulos, the ecumenical patriarch’s representative in Moscow, he warned that a synod might stampede the various Orthodox churches into illadvised reunion efforts with other confessions, particularly with the Anglican Church. If reunion efforts demanded hurried concessions, then, he said, the negotiations and discussions would not produce “authentic unity of the Anglicans with the church, but only external, so to speak, a diplomatic union, hiding inner differences.”198 Sergei’s refusal to attend essentially scuttled the plans.199 The ecumenical patriarch planned another preconference for 1932 in Athens, but it appears not to have been held.200 Rumors continued to fly among Anglicans about imminent synods,201 but all hopes led only to disappointment. As long as Russia could not attend, Serbia and Bulgaria would refuse. | The above survey should provide an indication of the divisions in the Orthodox and Anglican worlds that made reunion with the other impossible. In closing, however, one must also note the role played by apathy and ignorance. Reunion efforts never grabbed the attention of the majority of laypeople in either the Anglican or the Orthodox Church. Only a minority (although a substantial minority) of Anglicans followed reunion discussions closely, and only a minority of that minority advocated reunion with the Orthodox Church. Anglican advocates of reunion with

245

246

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

the free churches often viewed discussions with the Orthodox as an effort to undermine their goals. As C. M. Chavasse wrote in the Churchman, “All overtures at present to the Greek church are really a red herring to divert attention from Reunion at home, and reminds me of that cheap and snobbish socialism one sometimes meets which prates impractically about the masses while behaving offensively to members of its own household.”202 Anglican advocates of reunion with the Orthodox, of course, argued just as strongly that reunion with the free churches would undermine their own efforts.203 Despite prodigious efforts by John Douglas, Paul Anderson, Nicolas Zernov, and Georges Florovskii, most Anglicans learned little about Orthodoxy during their lifetimes. Zernov complained frequently about the widespread ignorance he encountered on speaking tours;204 he seemed freshly appalled every time a member of his audience asked if the Orthodox were Christian. Even reputable religion journals showed little appreciation for the foreign faith. In a 1936 review of essays by members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, the Journal of Theological Studies trotted out the old bromides about Orthodoxy: it stands “aloof from humanism” and falls into a “weak and defenseless asceticism.”205 Anglican expatriates in Orthodox lands viewed Orthodoxy with more curiosity than respect. There is little evidence that the influx of Anglicans into the Holy Land generated any new sympathy for the Orthodox Church. In his study of the British Mandate in Palestine, A. J. Sherman remarked, “Recent arrivals tended to find almost all non-Anglican worship distressingly alien and mysterious.”206 Canon Stacy Waddy, rector of an Anglican school in Jerusalem, argued that Britain had a duty to improve relations with the “separated Churches” but only because they were bedeviled by “ignorance.”207 British diaries from the period often describe Orthodox services and rituals as weird. “It is extraordinary,” wrote one expatriate, “how little the Greeks [i.e., the Orthodox] have of organizing and the fitness of things.”208 Complaints about the “superstition” and borderline heathenism of the celebration of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem prompted Douglas to write a defense of the ceremony and the Christian credentials of its participants.209 Discussions of reunion in Orthodox circles were limited almost exclusively to the theological intelligentsia. The majority of laypeople in any Orthodox country would have been hard pressed to say what an

Internal Divisions

|

Anglican was. Orthodox exiles who did have contact with the Anglican Church were preoccupied by other concerns. The Russian church in exile struggled just to feed and house its people. Fewer than 0.5 percent of priests and only 10 percent of bishops made it out of Russia;210 those who did had little time for ecumenical work. Zernov acknowledged that the Orthodox Church at large could provide its representatives at ecumenical conferences with little support.21 1 Keeping the flock clothed and fed was essential and critical. Restoring the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was essential as well but far less urgent.

247

Conclusion

I

t is difficult to weigh the relative importance of the myriad and often incompatible considerations that prompted reunion discussions. Attempting to disentangle the various motives only confirms how inextricably entangled they were. No single explanation can adequately reconcile or even account for all factors involved. Russian exiles depended on the Church of England’s charity and had good reason to cultivate ties with their benefactors. Orthodox throughout Europe believed (usually in vain) that the Church of England might exert meaningful influence on the British state to protect the Russian church. To powerless exiles and politicians from troubled quarters of the Orthodox world, it seemed eminently logical to seek closer relations with one of the most powerful states in Europe and with that state’s established church. They craved the state’s political muscle (while overestimating its willingness to exert that muscle) and counted on the Church of England’s influence on government policy, which they also overestimated. Political calculations—both admirable and not so admirable — certainly greased the skids. Metropolitans Sergei, Antonii, and Evlogii had designs on Russian property controlled by the British Mandate and wanted to reestablish Russian influence in this region by making nice to the occupying power. Constantinople and Greece both sought protection for Greek interests in Turkey. “If England could get St. Sophia for us,” said one member of the 1920 delegation to Lambeth, “we would gladly acknowledge any orders and agree to almost any doctrine.”1 Greeks and Arabs in Jerusalem each sought to convince their British overseers 248

|

Conclusion

|

to support their respective, feuding camps. Many Orthodox countries feared incursions by the Roman Catholic Church (often with little basis save paranoia) and viewed the Church of England as an ally or even a bulwark against the machinations of the papacy. Besieged patriarchs in the Phanar, quarreling Russian nationalists and cosmopolitans, feuding ecclesiastical politicians in Greece and Jerusalem, and Russian nationalists with designs on Middle Eastern holy sites all hoped to promote their causes by enlisting the sympathy and support of the English state and its church. Yet it is incorrect if all too easy to resort to cynicism when crafting explanations for Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement. We cannot and should not dismiss the idealistic and even altruistic motivations that also inspired reunion efforts. The first world war and its consequences frightened Christians throughout Europe; Anglican and Orthodox negotiators sincerely trusted that their work might prevent a recurrence. Ecumenists believed they could unite the churches to save the lost, feed the hungry, house the homeless, teach nations to live in harmony, and restore the world to God. The lofty and sometimes naive idealism behind such goals made them no less real. Reunion efforts seemed a grand and selfless cause. Again, we cannot discount selfish, partisan motives, but they do not tell the whole story. Meletios was a calculating politician but also a firm and fervent believer in the transcendent value of Christian unity. Antonii could be pig-headed and vain, yet he seems to have believed (if only in the abstract) that unity constituted a worthy goal. Zernov crafted a comfortable livelihood from his work on the ecumenical front, yet we cannot credit his fervency to a quest for financial security. Bulgakov and Florovskii had far more to lose than to gain through their participation in ecumenical discussions. Bulgakov lost respect within large swaths of the Russian church and endured terrible attacks on his character. Florovskii worked doggedly alongside people who seemed to him spectacularly wrongheaded, repeatedly throwing himself up against (to his mind) a wall of romantic and sentimental nonsense, all in service to a cause that nearly drove him batty. He and Bulgakov persevered, however, because they believed to their core that the church must become one. It is tempting to dismiss Archbishop Davidson’s and Archbishop Lang’s efforts as overly cautious, tepid, and lacking conviction. But when

249

250

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

considering the dangers that reunion negotiations posed to the stability of their own church, it is remarkable that they supported discussions at all. Metropolitan Sergei wrote critically but compassionately about the Church of England at a time when any sympathy to British institutions ran counter to Soviet ideology. Certainly the motives of some hierarchs were less than selfless. But not all. And few entirely. Students who pushed the cause forward (at times in the face of stiff hierarchical resistance) pushed from a base of almost pure idealism. We may question the motives of Anglican and Orthodox students who talked into the wee hours at High Leigh only if we suggest that a desire for companionship somehow negates the altruism that motivated the search for reconciliation. Members of the Russian Student Christian Movement, impoverished and homeless, nevertheless found the resources to support ecumenical endeavors, efforts that sections of their church repaid with scorn and reproof. It is probably unnecessary to expound here on the important place that “unity” occupies in the Christian mind and the ideals that this notion inspires: the doctrine of the Trinity speaks to a mystical and perfect form of unity; Christ proclaimed that he came not only to unite mankind with the Father but also with itself; Scripture is full of admonitions to maintain and foster unity.2 Such ideals explain the Church of England’s pride in its much-vaunted “comprehension,” that is, its ability to hold various and squabbling parties together. The Orthodox prided themselves (sometimes with justification but usually without) on the unity they maintained among themselves, and their conception of Orthodoxy as a powerful, unifying force. The ideal of unity, however, often bumped up against another Christian ideal: safeguarding truth. For while Scripture speaks eloquently about unity, it speaks with equal vigor about discerning and preserving truth and protecting oneself from those who would distort truth.3 Anglican and Orthodox ecumenists believed they could reconcile both ideals: “unity in truth” at times emerged as a concise slogan. But hard-liners in the Orthodox world—for political and theological reasons—and Protestants and Evangelicals in the Anglican Church—largely for theological reasons (often expressed as a desire not to alienate the Nonconformist churches)—refused to believe that unity with the other could be found

Conclusion

|

without sacrificing truth. Ultimately, the different ways of interpreting these two ideals, and the different emphases placed on each, could not be reconciled. Whether for political, theological, selfish, or selfless reasons (and at times for all four), incompatible understandings of truth trumped unity. | This study of Anglican-Orthodox relations has framed the question of unity within the larger ecumenical movement of the interwar period, and it is important at this point to situate this period within the ecumenical longue durée of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. What did the interwar period and the particular contributions of Anglicans and Orthodox mean to the modern ecumenical movement? To put it bluntly, did Anglicans and Orthodox during these years advance or stymie the international community’s quest for a reunited church? Such questions demand a brief consideration of the direction the ecumenical movement charted after the second world war. In an effort to enlist the support of the Russian populace in the war against Germany, Stalin granted the Russian Orthodox Church in the early 1940s freedoms that were unprecedented during the previous two decades. Churches reopened, clergy emerged from prison, and Stalin reestablished the patriarchate in 1943. The church, in turn, urged its adherents to support the regime in defense of the nation, proclaiming Stalin Russia’s “divinely anointed leader.” Desperately trying to persuade Britain to open a second front on Germany’s western flank, Stalin even allowed the Moscow patriarchate in 1943 to entertain (at the Church of England’s request) a delegation consisting of the archbishop of York and two Anglican chaplains. Stalin turned the visit into a public relations coup. The three-person delegation expressed its sympathy for the suffering Russian populace and conveyed its admiration for the “heroic resistance” of the Soviet people in the face of the “evil strength of fascism.” Sergei, in turn, praised the patriotic activities of Anglican clergy and reflected on the “spiritual connection between our churches and the cooperation between these two great peoples for the final defeat of Hitlerism.”4 It appears, however, that no substantive discussions of doctrine (let alone reunion) took place during the visit, and contacts between the two churches thereafter were sparse.5

251

252

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

The Russian Orthodox Church made a concerted effort to reestablish contact with the other Orthodox churches following the war. Three factors account for this new focus. First, the church realized that—by sitting so long on the sidelines—it had provided rival émigré churches with a greater claim to legitimacy. By trying to revive lost contacts (especially with the Serbian church) Moscow hoped to marginalize the Karlovchane and reassert its claim as the only canonically valid Russian church.6 (An indication of such concerns can be found in a 1945 article in the Zhurnal that cited a friendly letter addressed to Adolf Hilter from Metropolitan Anastasii, a member of the Karlovatskii Synod.)7 Second, Stalin began to realize during the war that he could harness the church for his own ends: witness the church’s success in marshaling nationalistic sentiment in favor of the war effort. After the war Stalin decided to employ the church to secure control over newly occupied territories in the Balkans and in Eastern Europe. Russian churches that had become autonomous state churches in Latvia, Estonia, and Ukraine after the first world war returned to the Moscow patriarchate after the second. State churches in the eastern bloc— especially those of Romania and Bulgaria—quickly aligned themselves with Moscow. Tito received representatives from the Russian church, and Moscow even convinced Metropolitan Evlogii to place himself under the Moscow patriarchate. Third, as the overt persecution of the Russian church abated, it saw an opportunity to again assert its position against that of the ecumenical patriarchate—to make a bid, in the words of William Fletcher, “to wrest pre-eminence in the entire Orthodox world.”8 Flush with hopes for a resurgent Russian patriarchate, Patriarch Aleksei proposed holding an eighth ecumenical council (i.e., the first since Nicea in 787) under his own auspices. To nobody’s surprise, the patriarch of Constantinople (Maximos V) quickly protested, noting that both canon law and tradition reserved the right of calling an ecumenical council to the ecumenical patriarch. Moscow’s proposal, argued Constantinople, was an attempt to usurp the authority of the ecumenical patriarchate.9 The church of Greece backed Maximos, and Moscow abandoned the idea. But it did not drop its pretensions entirely. In lieu of a full-blown ecumenical council, it issued invitations to all Orthodox primates to at-

Conclusion

|

tend a celebration in 1948 of the five hundredth anniversary of Russian autocephaly, where the churches might discuss some of the issues long slated for a pro-synod. (A celebration of Russian autocephaly was, of course, a dig at Constantinople, since the Russian church became autocephalous in 1448 by breaking from Constantinople.) Patriarchs from all countries under immediate Soviet control decided to attend. In fact, Serbia—wildly excited to be back in contact with Russia—even began to refer to the gathering as an “ecumenical council.” Greece, Antioch, and Constantinople sent representatives but pointedly refrained from sending their patriarchs. And although the delegations from Greece and Constantinople attended the opening celebration, they left before the conference began.10 The patriarch of Alexandria sent no representatives. Religious and political objectives intermingled throughout the conference. It was, from the start, an odd mix of religious theorizing and political posturing. The organizers opened the proceedings by reading a telegram from Comrade Stalin welcoming the guests, and the minutes report that Stalin’s words were “acclaimed unanimously and with fervour.”1 1 Archpriest Kostelnik of the Russian church praised the Soviet regime for offering its people religious freedom.12 The new archbishop of Canterbury, William Fisher, had asked the conference to take up the question of Anglican orders. It did so with gusto, but it did not deliver the results that Fisher envisioned. The patriarch of Bulgaria offered a paper in absentia that portrayed the Church of England as hopelessly subject to the British state.13 Archbishop Kolchitskii of the Russian church characterized Anglicanism as “laden with all sorts of doctrinal confusions,”14 and Bishop Serafim of Bulgaria suggested that the Church of England was so divided and in such disarray that “there is no such thing as an Anglican Church in the sense of one united Church.” Bishop Gurii of Russia argued that the Anglican Church “as a whole is much nearer to Protestantism (both theoretically and practically) than to Orthodoxy.”15 Kolchitskii asserted that the recognition of Anglican orders at Bucharest was “an ‘imperfect’ and incomplete recognition.” He dismissed efforts to downplay the Thirty-nine Articles:16 the English king, he reminded his colleagues, must take an oath to observe them. Kolchitskii dismissed statements presented to Lambeth conferences in 1920

253

254

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

and 1930 as “private acts”: “officially they are not binding.”17 The Orthodox Church cannot recognize sacraments outside her boundaries.18 V. S. Vertogradov, a professor at the Theological Academy in Moscow, declared Anglican orders invalid.19 An interconference commission appointed to rule on the issue agreed: Anglican orders are false. The conference also offered sustained condemnations of Roman Catholicism (“the Vatican always takes part in the instigation of fratricidal international wars”),20 Protestantism, and ecumenism. A Bulgarian archbishop confessed that although his church had participated in the ecumenical movement between the wars, it had since discovered “political influences” that made the movement suspect.21 A delegate from the University of Bucharest alleged that a Protestant majority committed to “individualism and exaggerated humanism” had taken control of the ecumenical movement. “English imperialism shows great interest in this religious movement,” he observed, “and will try to turn it into a political lever to attain economic privileges for itself in the East.” We cannot exclude the possibility, he continued, that “English leaders have made some definite calculations in connection with the oecumenical movement in which the official Anglican Church plays such a prominent role.”22 Others took even stronger positions. There is a basic contradiction between ecumenical agreements and the teaching of the Orthodox Church, argued Archpriest Razumovskii of Russia. Orthodox cannot participate in ecumenical activities because Christ “teaches us to avoid direct contact with evil.” The Karlovchane, he continued, are entangled in Masonic schemes. Bulgakov’s much-vaunted ecumenical efforts were nothing more than “a call to disarmament” and an example of “fraternizing without an order from those in command[,] . . . a trampling upon Church discipline.” The YMCA’s support of Russian émigrés “aims at diverting members from attending Church.” Edinburgh was a disaster, and would, Razumovskii hoped, force its participants “to share our disillusionment” with the movement. May the “boundless mercy of God” end their “blindness and disobedience.”23 Only Metropolitan Stefan of Bulgaria was willing to speak forcefully in defense of ecumenism.24 In the end, the conference passed a resolution stating that ecumenism is nothing more than an attempt by Protestantism “in all its multiformity and division” to shield itself from the designs of the Vatican.25 The aims of the ecumenical movement “do not correspond to the ideals

Conclusion

|

of Christianity or to the aims of the Church of Christ, as understood by the Orthodox Church.” As such, all Orthodox churches “are obliged to refuse to take any part in the oecumenical movement in its present-day shape.”26 The church, according to the Moscow conference, was simply, solidly, and exclusively Orthodox. Such invective, only a few years after the failures in Edinburgh, led many Protestants, Anglicans, and especially Orthodox to express grave doubts about prospects for doctrinal unity. Some, such as Fedotov, largely abandoned doctrinal negotiations, finding a home instead in the less ambitious and less controversial activities of the Life and Work movement, which sought not unity but cooperation with other churches on a wide range of social issues.27 Many Orthodox, however, abandoned the ecumenical movement altogether. (Bulgakov died of cancer in 1944.) The World Council of Churches (see below), formed in 1948 by merging the Faith and Order and the Life and Work movements, expected eighty-five Orthodox representatives to attend its first conference in Amsterdam. Only twentyfive showed up. Just two local Orthodox churches dispatched official delegates: the ecumenical patriarchate and the church of Greece (the Romanian diocese in the United States also sent representatives). The Russian, Georgian, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Polish, and Albanian churches, as well as the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, all failed to send delegates. In fact, in July 1948—one month before the first meeting of the World Council of Churches (WCC)—a gathering of Orthodox hierarchs in Moscow from Eastern bloc countries roundly condemned the ecumenical movement. The message was clear: few Orthodox had any stomach for ecumenical contacts they considered useless at best and traitorous at worst. Edinburgh’s one significant accomplishment was the formation of a continuation committee that eventually worked out the details for the WCC—the new international body that assumed responsibility for cooperation among the disunited confessions. For all its good intentions, the WCC constituted an institutional concession that reunion was all but impossible in the foreseeable future; loose federation remained the only option. Reflecting decades later on his work in the 1930s and 1940s, Florovskii observed, “it was becoming increasingly evident that in ‘divided Christendom’ there was actually no real agreement concerning the basic

255

256

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

issue—the very ‘nature’ or true character of the unity which Christians are bound and called to seek.”28 Such skepticism and disappointment did not prevent Florovskii from playing an active role in the WCC’s formation. But he viewed the WCC not as a means of promoting reunion but rather as a recognition that reunion was impossible in his lifetime. At the WCC’s first meeting in Amsterdam (1948) he told the audience, “Christendom is utterly divided and polarized. There is no common mind in the Christian world. . . . There is no common voice that could speak with authority and conviction to all Christians, or on behalf of all Christians.” “This means that we are representing divided Christendom, representing primarily our diversity and separation.”29 Florovskii would emphasize repeatedly that the WCC “is not ‘a Church,’ and consequently has no doctrines of its own, and especially no particular doctrine of the Church.”30 It “categorically denies any claims to being or becoming a super-ecclesiastical organization as well as exercising any power over member Churches.”31 So eager was Florovskii to emphasize the disunity of Christendom and the limited claims of the WCC that he argued against using the name “Churches” at all in the organization’s title.32 What is remarkable about the ecumenical movement after the second world war is the degree to which its institutional bodies began to adopt Florovskii’s rhetoric. Whereas many Protestant ecumenists between the wars viewed Florovskii and his Orthodox brethren as crotchety pessimists intent on positing and affirming differences, Florovskii now found himself in the mainstream (at least on this issue), surrounded by those ready to recognize that genuine, intractable differences did indeed exist, with no hope of solving them soon. WCC communications from the Amsterdam conference bent over backwards to disavow any hopes for quick solutions and worked hard to tamp down fears that the WCC might become anything other than a loose collection of independent churches: this council, it announced at its formation, “disavows any thought of becoming a single unified church structure independent of the churches which have joined in constituting the Council.”33 The WCC repeatedly emphasized the limits of its charge and aspirations. Its 1950 conference in Toronto insisted that the WCC “is not a world church. It is not the Una Sancta of which the Creed speaks.” Mem-

Conclusion

|

bership in the WCC “does not in any sense mean that the churches belong to a body which can make decisions for them.” Even more significant was Toronto’s effort to distance the WCC from any formal reunion schemes. “The purpose of the World Council of Churches is not to negotiate unions between churches, which can only be done by the churches themselves acting on their own initiative,” but rather, simply, “to bring the churches into living contact with each other and to promote the study and discussion of the issues of Church unity.” 34 The WCC, in other words, was ready to accommodate talk about reunion, but not to do anything concrete to promote reunion. Of particular importance for our study, the Toronto conference officially washed its hands of crafting or discovering any consistent definition of “the church.” “The World Council cannot and should not be based on any one particular conception of the Church. It does not prejudge the ecclesiological problem.” It refused to “become identified with certain particular theories of unity,” and insisted that membership in the WCC “does not imply the acceptance of a specific doctrine concerning the nature of Church unity.” It declined even to hazard a definition of “unity.” The Council stands for Church unity. But in its midst there are those who conceive unity wholly or largely as a full consensus in the realm of doctrine, others who conceive of it primarily as sacramental communion based on common church order, others who consider both indispensable, others who would only require unity in certain fundamentals of faith and order, again others who conceive the one Church exclusively as a universal spiritual fellowship, or hold that visible unity is inessential or even undesirable. But none of these conceptions can be called the ecumenical theory.35 Four years later, at a council in Evanston, Illinois, the WCC’s assembly reiterated that membership in the WCC “does not imply that each Church must regard the other member Churches as Churches in the true and full sense of the word.”36 It quoted, by way of example, a paper by an Orthodox theologian at the University of Athens: The Orthodox Catholic Church . . . believes wholeheartedly that she is not one of the many historic Christian Churches and Confessions but is herself “the” Church herself [sic], that is, the “one,

257

258

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

holy, catholic and apostolic Church,” of the holy symbol of the faith, the one and only true and securely saving and infallible and orthodox Church, the Church that holds the Christian truth in all fullness and purity and which truly, canonically and uninterruptedly, prolongs in a direct line the primitive Church.37 Orthodox participants in ecumenical discussions had spent more than two decades making clear this exclusive conception of the church. It was now beginning to sink in, as was the realization that no Christian body could persuade even the most ecumenical Orthodox theologians to abandon it. Gone were the lofty dreams for doctrinal unity or a common conception of the church. Two decades of fruitless negotiations and unrealized expectations gave way to a more realistic and almost cynical realpolitik. The skepticism and worry that optimistic ecumenists tried to relegate to the margins of the interwar movement now stood front and center, engraved in official pronouncements of the WCC. Given such deflated hopes, we might ask whether the interwar movement was an aberration: a brief, bright flame of hope quickly lit and quickly extinguished, preceded and succeeded by much darkness. The survey of nineteenth-century precedents in chapter 1 should make clear that the interwar movement grew out of a long history of contacts, conversations, and scholarship; it emerged neither quickly nor unexpectedly. What changed between the wars was the intensity and sense of urgency in this endeavor, a change attributable almost entirely to the political challenges of the early twentieth century. Whereas ecumenical discussions in the nineteenth century involved small bodies and often eccentric personalities, the ecumenical movement went mainstream between the wars. The change was one of degree and scope rather than of type. So was this high point of ecumenism an aberration in light of what followed? A reader of an early draft of this book asked whether “most mainstream Orthodox and Anglican church leaders in the decades prior to World War II were, for all their internal differences, unreconstructed ecumenists.” “That is the kind of message,” he observed, “that contemporary Orthodox prelates, who now ironically pay lip service to the importance of émigré figures such as Georges Florovsky and Sergei Bulgakov, would find challenging.” It is worth examining two assumptions

Conclusion

|

in this question carefully—namely, that the primary actors of the 1930s and 1940s were “unreconstructed ecumenists” and that today’s Orthodox prelates pay only “lip service” to ecumenical ideals. It is misleading to portray “most mainstream Orthodox and Anglican church leaders” between the wars as genuinely committed to the cause of ecumenism. Certainly Florovskii, Bulgakov, and Zernov were passionate and utterly sincere in their commitment to restoring church unity: their commitment to the ecumenical movement (in time, theological work, and historical research) vastly exceeds almost anything evidenced by modern Orthodox prelates. But they were minorities among other important Orthodox prelates, most of whom approached the ecumenical movement with either disinterest or disdain. We must also note that Florovskii, Bulgakov, and Zernov were ecumenists of a particular sort, insisting constantly that the Orthodox Church represents the one, true church, and that church reunion ultimately requires other churches (though Florovskii disliked even the word churches)38 to return to the Orthodox fold. For all their graciousness, openness, curiosity, amiability, humor, careful cultivation of friendships, extensive learning, and genuine sympathy for their fellow Christians, they believed—as did their xenophobic, uncharitable, and endlessly suspicious Orthodox colleagues who often loathed them—that their church was the church (however variously defined or assiduously undefined). They held this conviction fervently and stalwartly throughout the interwar period. Such a conception of the church, of course, was anathema to the Protestant masses that constituted the bulk of the interwar ecumenical movement. Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant ecumenists agreed on the necessity of reunion. But by “reunion,” they all meant very different things. The primary contribution of the interwar period was, as Florovskii has suggested, to demonstrate—slowly, fitfully, and painfully—just how different these conceptions were. In one sense Anglican-Orthodox contacts represented a high point of ecumenism, a period infused with hope from sections in both confessions that reunion was indeed possible and perhaps even imminent. But in another sense these contacts represented a low point. While AngloCatholics and cosmopolitan Orthodox talked excitedly about the reunion of their two churches, both groups came to be seen within the larger

259

260

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

ecumenical universe as impediments rather than contributors to reunion. Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic delegates at Lausanne and at Edinburgh drove their Protestant colleagues to distraction with their insistence on the sacredness of tradition and the decrees of ecumenical councils, the veneration of saints and the Mother of God, sacramental theology, and all manner of other “additions” to the faith. Protestants came to perceive Anglo-Catholics and Orthodox as co-obstructionists— reactionary allies erecting all manner of barriers to ecumenical progress. It would be foolish to speak of Protestants as a unified body; yet Protestants were united in—if nothing else—their opposition to certain, fundamental, Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic beliefs. Hopes for the reunion of Christendom rose as high as they did between the wars in part due to shared convictions that reunion was necessary, but also because many Protestants initially failed to recognize how different were their conceptions of the Christian faith from those of the Orthodox and large swaths of Anglicans. The jettisoned and scaled-back goals embodied by the World Council of Churches arose not because the Orthodox and Anglo-Catholics changed their positions in any fundamental way after the second world war (i.e., not because they became any less tolerant or less open to discussion, although this certainly did happen within important sections of the Eastern bloc churches) but rather because Protestants came to realize during the interwar period how vastly different was the Catholic (be it Anglo-Catholic, Orthodox, or Roman Catholic) conception of the church, and how unwilling were catholic confessions to compromise on this fundamental conception. The Anglican and Orthodox Churches were, of course, each beset by internal divisions—divisions that, as noted repeatedly, prevented them from negotiating effectively with other Christian bodies. But even had these internal divisions not existed, it is difficult to imagine how—as Florovskii noted ad nauseum—one could reconcile such diverse conceptions of the church without fudging, and fudging was something neither he, his Orthodox colleagues, his Anglo-Catholic colleagues, the huge number of Roman Catholics standing on the sidelines, nor, ultimately, the World Council of Churches, was willing to do. “Personally,” wrote Florovskii in 1965,” I am not looking forward to any spectacular events in the ecumenical field in the near future.”39

Conclusion

|

| Florovskii was right. Anglicans and Orthodox are no closer to each other now than they were sixty years ago. And they are no closer to resolving their internal differences. The internal divisions that plagued Orthodoxy between the wars have not faded over time; and they still figure prominently in territorial disputes between national Orthodox churches. In his excellent study of contemporary relations between Moscow and Constantinople, Aleksandr Kyrlezhev notes “the absence of a clear understanding” of how Orthodoxy should be ordered.40 Into this void step various national churches— particularly Moscow and Constantinople— each claiming the right to order Orthodoxy in its own image. Mikhail Sologub blames Moscow’s consistent “assertion of absolute autocephalism” and Constantinople’s claims of “universal jurisdiction” for the tensions that reverberate throughout the Orthodox East.41 To this day Moscow and Constantinople bicker endlessly over their respective geographic authority. Patriarch Bartholomaos of Constantinople (1991–present) regularly cites canon 28 of the fourth ecumenical council when claiming jurisdiction over Orthodox believers in the diaspora. Such claims never failed to infuriate Patriarch Aleksei II of Moscow (1990–2008): “It does not at all follow” from canon 28, insisted Aleksei, that “ ‘every province not belonging to another patriarchal see’ should be subject to Constantinople.” In 1996 Aleksei was so miffed by Patriarch Bartholomaos’s claims that—for the first time in the thousand-yearplus history of the Russian church—a patriarch of Moscow (Aleksei) omitted the name of the patriarch of Constantinople (Bartholomaos) when celebrating the liturgy. He then declared a “break in communion” with the ecumenical patriarchate and removed his name from the liturgical dyptics.42 It is significant that Aleksei traced Bartholomaos’s pretensions directly back to the claims of Meletios IV—that ecumenical stalwart and bane of Russian Orthodox nationalists—who, according to Aleksei, “developed the theory of the subordination of the whole Orthodox diaspora to Constantinople.”43 Moscow, in other words, now blames Meletios for the sorry state of Orthodox relations today. Moscow’s grievances do not end with Constantinople. Take Estonia. A segment of Orthodox Christians (mostly Russian) in Estonia remain loyal to Moscow. But another segment calling themselves the “Estonian

261

262

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

Apostolic Orthodox Church”—unhappy with Russia’s forcible annexation of their country under Stalin—placed themselves under Constantinople’s wing in February 1996, a move supported by Estonia’s prime minister and president. The Russian president Boris El’tsin protested that such a move was illegal within Moscow’s “canonical territory.” Thousands of Russian Orthodox in Estonia demonstrated against the Estonian government.44 Estonia’s decision, of course, also enraged Patriarch Aleksei of Moscow. When Estonian delegates arrived later that year in Ravenna for a meeting of Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians, the delegation from the Moscow patriarchate left in protest.45 Relations between the two Orthodox groups in Estonia have improved somewhat since 1996, but accusations continue to fly between the national churches,46 and disputes over property have landed in the Estonian courts.47 Attempts by Ukrainian Orthodox to gain independence from Moscow have prompted similar conniptions within the Moscow patriarchate. In 1992 Aleksei categorically rejected calls for Ukrainian autocephaly and defrocked the metropolitan of Kiev who led the calls.48 Today three warring Orthodox jurisdictions exist side-by-side in Ukraine. Ukrainian politicians who advocate close ties with the Kremlin tend to support the Moscow patriarchate’s juridicial claims, while those seeking to align Ukraine closer with the West tend to support an independent Ukrainian church.49 Jurisdictional flare-ups can and do occur almost anywhere. In 1994 Constantinople protested when a group of Orthodox Christians in Biarritz attempted to move from Constantinople’s jurisdiction to that of Moscow. Bartholomaos dismissed the archpriest who led the exodus and filed a lawsuit in the French courts. Bartholomaos also voiced howls of protest in 2006 when the Moscow patriarchate claimed ownership of a church in Nice then loyal to Constantinople. This case also found its way to the French courts.50 Other national churches find themselves caught in the crossfire. Any attempt to summarize current relations between the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Moscow, and Constantinople would require a book unto itself. (Suffice it to say that the issues at play constitute a morass of competing claims, hard feelings, and suspicions into which Greeks, Serbs, and Macedonians have also been drawn.)51

Conclusion

|

Relations between Orthodox groups in Britain remain tense. In 1926 the Russian embassy church of London—founded in 1716 as the Parish of the Dormition—splintered between members sympathetic to the Karlovatskii Synod and members sympathetic to Evlogii (who at that time still remained loyal to Moscow).52 Over the decades the parish remained officially allied with the Moscow patriarchate, but in practice it kept its distance and worked closely with other Christians in the West. In 1950, for example, the parish accepted as its rector the hieromonk Anthony Bloom, who had served since 1948 as the chaplain of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius—hardly an organization high on the list of Moscow’s favorite institutions. Anthony and his “vicariate” distanced themselves ever further from Moscow and functioned, for all practical purposes, as an independent entity. This careful balance in London between de jure allegiance to Moscow and de facto independence from Moscow did not survive Anthony’s death in 2003. Moscow appointed a member of Anthony’s parish, Bishop Basil, as a temporary replacement. The choice of Bishop Basil was an odd one to say the least, since Basil had urged Anthony in years past to change the diocese’s allegiance from Moscow to Constantinople.53 We can only assume that—at the time of Basil’s appointment—Moscow had little knowledge of Basil’s predilections. Whatever the case, once installed Basil acted quickly and decisively: in March 2006 he dismissed six members of his parish council who advocated closer ties with Moscow.54 Three months later he abandoned the Moscow patriarchate and submitted his parish to Constantinople. Moscow angrily branded the move “uncanonical.” The case reverberated throughout the Orthodox world as various Orthodox churches found themselves compelled to choose sides: the patriarch of Alexandria, the patriarch of Jerusalem, and the metropolitan of Cyprus supported Constantinople; the patriarch of Antioch plus major figures in the churches of Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania sided with Moscow.55 Here, then, is a case in which Constantinople’s and Moscow’s competition for the loyalty of Orthodox in the diaspora—a competition so fierce in the 1920s and 1930s—continues unabated, thanks in part to the legacy of Russian émigrés with ties to the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius. Jockeying for position in the diaspora remains serious sport. The Moscow patriarchate scored a major triumph in May 2007 when it signed an

263

264

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

act of communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), the body that grew out of and remained loyal to the ideals of the Karlovatskii Synod. (As recently as 1997 and 2000 the Moscow patriarchate and ROCOR still battled for control of church property in Palestine.) The act effectively brought back into Moscow’s fold the Karlovatskii progeny who in the 1920s and 1930s excoriated the Moscow patriarchate for its loyalty to an atheistic state. But while the act of communion did restore fellowship between two important bodies in the Orthodox world, it included neither the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), which split from ROCOR in 1946, nor the Western Exarchate, the more cosmopolitan group of émigrés headed by Evlogii in the 1920s and 1930s (see below). The Moscow patriarchate and ROCOR view the OCA and the Western Exarchate—two of the more liberal bodies in Orthodoxy—with a good deal of suspicion. The Moscow patriarchate and ROCOR remain exceptionally conservative. ROCOR, for instance, continues to publish documents using prerevolutionary Russian orthography,56 a style abandoned by most Russians in the decades after the Bolshevik Revolution. It issues regular condemnations of Western confessions and supports the nationalistic rhetoric of which Moscow is so fond. In Russia Patriarch Aleksei largely marginalized the liberal and reformist wings of his church. Church reformers (“leftists” in the words of their critics) such as Georgii Chistiakov complain about Moscow’s “complete rejection of ecumenism and of any openness towards other confessions. The very term ‘ecumenism’ has become pejorative and an accusation of affinity towards it is seen as evidence of a certain betrayal of Orthodoxy.”57 The negotiating documents that preceded the restoration of formal communion between Moscow and ROCOR took swipe after swipe at other Christian confessions: “A significant portion of the Protestant world has embarked on a path of liberal humanism and is increasingly losing its link with the Tradition of the Holy Church, changing by whim the divinely established norms of morality and dogmatic teachings and placing itself at the service of the interests of the consumerist society, subjected to ideals of earthly comfort and political goals.” As “salt that has lost its savour” (Matt. 5:13), such communities have lost their power to resist human passions and sins. “The Ortho-

Conclusion

|

dox church,” the documents continue, “excludes any possibility of liturgical communion with the non-Orthodox. In particular, it is considered impermissible for Orthodox to participate in liturgical actions connected with so-called ecumenical or inter-confessional religious services.” It is “not proper to smooth over or obscure the actual differences between Orthodoxy and other confessions.”58 Such statements bear stark similarities to statements issued by the Karlovchane in the 1920s and 1930s. Today Patriarch Kirill, the newly elected patriarch of Moscow (2009– ) and former chairman of the patriarchate’s Department for External Relations, regularly rails against Western confessions and the West itself. The world’s problems, in Kirill’s estimation, stem largely from the Enlightenment, which “declared man, born free from sin, to be the center of the universe.” “The French Revolution introduced this paradigm into political logic.” The Protestant Reformation was another “tragedy” born from a “rejection of the absolute authority of the Church in interpreting Holy Scriptures.”59 Modern debates within Western democracies over same-sex marriage “touch on the fundamental theme of the link between morality and freedom.”60 The Orthodox Church is and should be “concerned with the artificially proclaimed dominance of the secular liberal philosophy of life on all levels of social life in most countries and in the integration of liberal institutions. The principal question raised, is whether the secular liberal humanistic model of the structure of the State, society and international relations is entitled to a global monopoly.”61 Kirill faults “almost the entire Western world” for adopting “the pose of ‘teaching the East about life,’ ” while failing “to learn the individual characteristic features of its “pupils.” He worries that “European integration” will become “just an expansion of the authority of Western institutions and norms.”62 To Kirill’s mind the Russian Orthodox Church is as much “the main living bearer of the ‘identity code of Russian civilization’ ” as it is the body of Christ.63 Kirill’s take on the ecumenical movement flows naturally from his apprehension of the West. Ecumenism is “in crisis” and “possibly even at a dead end.”64 He parrots Georges Florovskii’s warnings about the dangers of “dogmatic minimalism” and “hurried efforts,” without ever fully conceding that unity with other Christian confessions might constitute a worthy goal. While Florovskii, like Kirill, believed that Orthodoxy alone

265

266

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

preserves Christian truth in full, he, unlike Kirill, believed that Christians could hold different theological views honestly (even if erroneously). Kirill for his part dismisses theological differences as dishonest, sneaky incursions of “secular humanism,” which has poisoned the West throughout its history. Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, vice-chairman of the Moscow patriarchate’s Department for External Relations, takes an equally harsh view of the West and ecumenism. (In 2007 Chaplin proposed abolishing the word ecumenism altogether from inter-Christian dialogue.)65 Like Kirill, Chaplin’s criticisms carry a distinctly nationalistic tone. Talk about the “universal nature of the church,” Chaplin insists, should not overshadow the “right to national identity and national self-expressions.” In fact, the church “has called upon its children to love their homeland on earth and not to spare their lives to protect it if threatened.” “Christian patriotism” is a positive force. “The Orthodox Christian is called to love his fatherland, which has a territorial dimension, and his brothers by blood who live everywhere in the world.”66 Chaplin’s Orthodox patriotism defines itself in opposition to the West, and Chaplin tends to frame Orthodox theology as a principled stand against all manner of Western perversion. “Orthodox civilization” does and must oppose Western democracy, a “spiritual illness” whose demise is imminent. “The very existence of a pluralistic democracy [in the West] is none other than a direct result of sin.”67 Western secularism has “turned into a notion of the rights of the individual outside his relations with God.”68 For Kirill and Chaplin (as for the Karlovatskii Synod of the 1920s and 1930s), Western theological principles that diverge from those of Orthodox Christianity stem from the the political and philosophical corruption of the West rather than from sincere and authentic disagreements on the particulars of Christian doctrine. This hostility to Western confessions manifests itself today in Russia’s legal system, which favors the Moscow patriarchate in ways both large and small. In the past decade the Russian Duma has imposed strict limits on the activities of foreign missionaries, diminished the legal standing of non-Orthodox religious organizations in numerous ways,69 and granted the Moscow patriarchate remunerative economic prerogatives.70

Conclusion

|

Patriarch Aleksei—while more temperate than Kirill and Chaplin in his criticisms of ecumenism and the West—nevertheless kept his metropolitan (now his sucessor) and archpriest in the two positions most responsible for cultivating relations with other Christian confessions. Zoe Knox has made a compelling case that despite Aleksei’s own early involvement in ecumenical projects, he soon “realised the limits of tolerance and the extent of extreme nationalist sympathies” within his church.7 1 So, to return to my earlier point, ROCOR and the Moscow patriarchate reached their accord in 2007 in part due to their mutual antipathy to other Orthodox bodies, Western confessions, and ecumenical agencies. ROCOR remains angry with the Orthodox Western Exarchate, the body headed by Metropolitan Evlogii in the 1920s and 1930s, which ROCOR believes fails to demonstrate sufficient allegiance to its Russian Orthodox heritage. In 2003 ROCOR described one of its own goals as preserving “Russian culture within its flock.” “While the older generation passed to another world,” ROCOR lamented, “their children and grandchildren began to forget the Russian language and lost the cultural legacy of their parents. Mixed marriages became a common occurrence.”72 Such romantic nostalgia underscores ROCOR’s disillusionment with the more cosmopolitan Russian émigrés whom ROCOR (née the Karlovatskii Synod) has consistently snubbed. In a recent case of wishful thinking, then-Metropolitan Kirill spoke of a desire among those of the “Parisian heritage” to “preserve a spiritual link with their roots, with their national religious traditions.”73 Positing such a desire within the “Parisian heritage” says more about what is important to the Moscow patriarchate—namely, the Russianness of Russian Orthodoxy—than it does about the concerns of more cosmopolitan émigrés. In fact Kirill acknowledged that the Moscow patriarchate is “concerned about the signs of alienation from the Russian Church which have been seen recently within the [Western] Exarchate.”74 It should come as no surprise that ROCOR and the Moscow patriarchate today view the WCC with great suspicion. In 2003 a ROCOR synod proudly noted the “great number of clergymen and laymen in Russia” who “insist upon the withdrawal of the Russian Church from the World Council of Churches.” Such a desire, suggested the synod, provides

267

268

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

“hope that with time the wound inflicted upon the Russian Church . . . will be healed.”75 And while still a member of the WCC, the Moscow patriarchate maintains a wary stance. Discussions about homosexuality at the eighth assembly of the World Council of Churches in Harare (1988) prompted sharp reactions from the Moscow patriarchate and other national, Orthodox bodies.76 Delegates from Russia and Greece protested by refusing to attend the assembly’s opening worship service. As in the 1920s and 1930s, Orthodox bodies at recent ecumenical gatherings have found more unity in opposing unity than in any positive action of their own. But even cooperative stonewalling cannot hide the divisions that persist within Orthodoxy. A popular Web site for Orthodox news and commentary, the Orthodox Christian Information Center (OCIC) concluded that Orthodox representatives at Harare “exposed [themselves] for their customary ethnic frictions and rivalries.”77 Ill informed, ill prepared, and dogged by internal disputes, they were simply unable to function. (We recall here Orthodox performances at Lausanne in 1927 and Edinburgh in 1937.) There remains a “profound crisis” among Orthodox ecumenists, argues the OCIC. “The Orthodox presence in Harare was humiliating.” “We left with heads bowed. When we lose the opportunities that are given to us, we prove unworthy of our calling.” 78 The Greek theologian Emmanuel Koumbarelis blames such failings on a persecution complex within Orthodoxy (another observation reminiscent of the interwar period). “The other Orthodox are not plotting every day to topple us from our seats,” sighed Koumbarelis. “On the contrary, we undermine ourselves on our own, when we do not handle our talents as responsible people and when we forget that we are, first and foremost, members of our Church, that is, members of Christ, and secondarily members of our nation, which we ought to serve only to the extent that the saving work of our Church is not impeded or neglected.”79 At the ninth WCC Assembly in Porto Alegre (2006), Orthodox churches showed less evidence of disarray. But we can attribute their relative calm more to the limited aims of this assembly than to any change in attitudes toward each other or toward ecumenical dialogue. The Moscow patriarchate’s representative to European institutions, for example, praised the assembly because it voted on nothing, permitted no “inter Christian prayers,” and allowed any recalcitrant confession to

Conclusion

|

participate as a “church in association rather than as a full member.” His praise, in other words, concerned what the assembly did not accomplish rather than what it did. The Bulgarian and Georgian Orthodox have removed themselves from ecumenical endeavors even further than their Russian counterparts. In 1997 the Georgian Orthodox Church withdrew entirely from the WCC, complaining that the WCC failed to heed Orthodox interests. (Roughly one month before the withdrawal the father superior of one of Georgia’s most influential monasteries suspended communion with his patriarch due to the patriarch’s “ecumenical heresy”; shortly thereafter leaders of other monasteries joined the call, prompting the patriarch and Georgia’s Holy Synod to withdraw.) In 1998 a spokesman for the Bulgarian church suggested that WCC activities contributed to “a dissolution of the truths of faith.”80 Although the Orthodox Church has participated in the ecumenical movement and has belonged to the WCC for half a century, there has been no satisfactory advance in multilateral theological dialogue between Christians. Just the opposite: the gulf between Orthodox and Protestants has become even wider, because dozens of new sects have proliferated within the Protestant churches. These confuse people’s understanding of Orthodoxy, not only here but in all other Orthodox lands. The WCC has diverged considerably from its original aims. [A disputable point at best.]”81 Although Orthodox groups evidence varying degrees of suspicion toward the WCC, nearly all condemn its occasional willingness to explore human sexuality and the ecclesiastical status of women. These two issues—which tend to draw national Orthodox bodies together, however tenuously—now threaten to tear apart the equally fractious Anglican Church. Again, we should recall the interwar period, during which irritable Orthodox bodies defined themselves in part against issues that bedeviled the Anglican churches. In 1976 after a long and tortuous debate, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States voted to ordain women. Most Orthodox churches—which have consistently opposed the ordination of women

269

270

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

and chafe at what they consider the WCC’s preoccupation with the issue —were appalled. For most Orthodox, this decision was beyond the pale. The ordination of a homosexual bishop by the Protestant Episcopal Church unleashed even fiercer condemnations from the Orthodox churches. In November 2003 the Moscow patriarchate announced that Gene Robinson’s consecration as Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire “forced” the Russian church to “freeze its relations” with the American church. “Biblical passages that condemn homosexuality are clear and unequivocal.”82 “Homosexualism is a sin, which separates man from God.”83 The Russian church “cannot condone the perversion of human nature.” (The Episcopalians should not have been surprised: when a Russian Orthodox priest married a gay couple in September 2003, authorities immediately defrocked him, bulldozed his church, and then burned the wreckage.)84 Discussions of homosexuality on the ecumenical circuit send Orthodox hierarchs into a tizzy. “Attempts of certain Protestant churches to force discussion of sexual minorities on the WCC have provoked a particular indignation of the Orthodox,” explains Bishop Ilarion of the Moscow patriarchate.85 “You know, of course,” warned then-Metropolitan Kirill, “about the debates taking place in the West today with respect to same-sex marriages. These are exactly the kind of debates that touch on the fundamental theme of the link between morality and freedom. Today people are demanding the same rights for homosexual couples that are enjoyed by normal families. What can we set against this tendency? Only moral standards grounded in church ethics.”86 Homosexuality, of course, not only estranges Orthodox from Anglicans but also threatens the unity of Anglicanism itself. Despite his personal beliefs, the archbishop of Canterbury reacted with dismay to the ordination of Bishop Robinson, and Anglican churches in Africa condemned the move in strong terms. Some dioceses in the United States have begun to ally themselves with foreign bishops in protest. While self-described progressive Anglicans welcomed the move, priests and bishops defecting to conservative churches in the developing world maintain that the ordination of homosexuals is “diametrically opposed” to Anglican teaching.87

Conclusion

|

Again, it is instructive to note parallels between today’s contentious debate over homosexuality and the issues that divided Anglicans in the 1920s and 1930s. Asking whether the church can rethink traditional stances against homosexuality again brings to the fore centuries-old questions about whether Scripture alone provides adequate answers to modern questions.88 The willingness of Anglican churches to ordain homosexuals in defiance of their hierarchs resurrects complaints about a lack of discipline within Anglicanism.89 Today’s Orthodox spokesmen (and many Anglicans) bewail the Anglican Church’s inability to keep dissenters and unsanctioned reformers in line. Such failures call to mind debates between the wars over the use or nonuse of the revised Prayer Book, as well as the ferocious debates over reservation (a debate preceded by a report from the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline). Present complaints about Anglicans’ tendency to “fudge” on contentious issues echo identical complaints in the 1920s.90 As in the interwar period, modern critics of Anglicanism suggest that it has segmented itself into camps too diverse to be considered a single confession.91 The globalization of Anglicanism and the new assertiveness of leaders in areas outside the traditional Anglican core—namely, Africa and South America—have only contributed to the schisms in the church. Anglican leaders incensed by the ordination of homosexual clergy met in Jerusalem in 2008 and labeled their conference the “Global Anglican Futures Conference.” The name is significant, for it suggests that leaders outside Anglicanism’s traditional geographic strongholds can and should claim leadership in the face of “errors” promulgated by more established ecclesiastical centers. Such assertiveness echoes in important respects attempts by competing groups of Orthodox émigrés— stationed outside the traditional geographic bastions of Orthodoxy—to assert their own leadership in the face of “errors” permitted by established centers (namely, Moscow) in the 1920s and 1930s. Of course, the reasons for these geographic shifts differ: revolutionary upheaval in Russia forced Orthodox believers into exile between 1917 and the early 1920s; Anglicanism’s growth in the third world today has been largely organic and evolutionary. Yet the results of these shifts are in some respects similar. The Anglican crisis over homosexuality has spawned the same debates over territorial jurisdiction that have long

271

272

|

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans

plagued Orthodoxy. “We recognise,” the Global Anglican Futures Conference declared in 2008, “the desirability of territorial jurisdiction for provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion, except in those areas where churches and leaders are denying the orthodox faith or are preventing its spread.”92 Such statements call to mind assertions by the Karlovchane about territorial jurisdiction between the wars. We can only conclude that the schisms that plague Anglicanism today are as fervent as those that plagued Anglicanism between the wars. Relations between national Orthodox churches are no better than they were in the 1920s and the 1930s. Orthodox hostility to ecumenism is nothing new. If anything, today’s prelates are slightly more temperate in their rhetoric (if not in their convictions) than were the Karlovchane of the 1930s and 1940s. Granted, Orthodoxy today has no figures who can rival the energy, learning, or ecumenical commitments of Georges Florovskii and Sergei Bulgakov. Yet Bulgakov died having achieved few concrete results, and Florovskii’s ecumenical efforts left him mentally spent, convinced that reunion lay nowhere on the visible horizon. One might still legimitately ask—if only theoretically—whether a unified Orthodox Church could ever reach agreement on fundamental theological issues with a unified Anglican Church. The odds seem remote at best. What is abundantly clear, however, is this: so long as neither confession can get its own house in order, any dream of interconfessional unity stands no chance at all.

Notes

Introduction

1. Roger Lloyd, The Church of England, 1900–1965 (London: SCM Press, 1966), 279. 2. Although Pope Leo IX’s bull of 1054 made the breach formal by excommunicating the patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Caerularius, the chasm between Rome and Constantinople had been widening for centuries. The crusades, particularly the fourth crusade, bred animosities and resentments that persist to this day. All hope of reunion died after the council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–39), which produced a formal agreement quickly repudiated by both sides. 3. A description of the ceremony can be found in “The Patriarchs at the Abbey: Nicene Commemoration on St. Peter’s Day,” Church Times, July 3, 1925, 25. 4. Marc Raeff, Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919–1939 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). Roger Lloyd, The Church of England in the Twentieth Century, 2 vols. (New York: Longmans, Green, 1950). Zernov provides some fascinating accounts of specific issues and movements between the wars in Nikolai Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper and Row, 1963). Biographies of Archbishops Davidson and Lang give solid coverage of their ecumenical beliefs and actions: G. K. A. Bell, Randall Davidson: Archbishop of Canterbury, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1935); J. G. Lockhart, Cosmo Gordon Lang (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1949). 5. V. T. Istavridis, Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, trans. Colin Davey (London: S.P.C.K., 1966).

|

273

274

|

Notes to Pages 8– 11

6. One of the only studies to examine a political angle is Stuart Mews, “Anglican Intervention in the Election of an Orthodox Patriarch, 1925–6,” in The Orthodox Churches and the West: Papers Read at the Fourteenth Summer Meeting and the Fifteenth Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society, ed. Derek Baker (Oxford: Blackwell, 1976), 293–307.

1.

Nineteenth-Century Precedents

1. Bell, Randall Davidson, 1087. 2. A concise summary of Anglican-Orthodox contacts in the nineteenth century can be found in Josef Altholz, “Anglican-Orthodox Relations in the Nineteenth Century,” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 18– 19 (2002–3): 1– 14. 3. Jaroslav Pelikan, “The Eastern Orthodox Quest for Confessional Identity: Where Does Orthodoxy Confess What It Believes and Teaches?” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 14– 15 (1998–99): 21–36. 4. George Tavard, Two Centuries of Ecumenism: The Search for Unity, trans. Royce Hughes (Notre Dame, IN: Fides, 1960), 156. 5. Filaret, Khristianskii katikhizis, pravoslavnyia kafolicheskiia vostochnyiia Greko-Rossiiskiia tserkvi (Sanktpeterburg: Sinodal’noi tipografii, 1823). 6. Robert Nichols, “Metropolitan Filaret and the Awakening of Russian Orthodoxy” (Ph.D. diss., University of Washington, 1972), 148. 7. Ibid., 149. 8. For examinations of Filaret’s involvement in the Russian Bible society, see Walter Sawatsky, “Prince Alexander N. Golitsyn (1773–1844): Tsarist Minister of Piety” (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1976); and Judith Cohen Zacek, “The Russian Bible Society, 1812– 1826” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1964). 9. Anglican hopefuls noted that Filaret admitted he issued this opinion based not on a firsthand study of Anglican documents but from ex parte statements made to him by Roman Catholics. See “Constantinople and Anglican Ordinations,” Christian East 3, no. 2 (1922): 103; and “Philaret and English Ordinations,” Christian East 3, no. 3 (1922): 116– 17. 10. Matthew Parker was consecrated in Lambeth Palace in 1559 by four former Edwardian bishops. Because Queen Mary had deposed these bishops during her attempt to lead England back into the Roman Catholic fold, many English Catholics raised doubts about their ability to transmit apostolic succession to Parker. These doubts raised questions about the subsequent validity

Notes to Pages 11– 13

|

of the entire priesthood in the Church of England. The validity or lack thereof of Parker’s ordination dominated the treatises of many Orthodox theologians in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as they struggled to make sense of apostolic succession in the Church of England. 11. Georges Florovskii, “Russian Orthodox Ecumenism in the Nineteenth Century,” in Ecumenism II: A Historical Approach, ed. Richard Haugh (Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989), 130. 12. For Palmer’s own account of his trips, see William Palmer, Notes of a Visit to the Russian Church in the Years 1840, 1841 (London: K. Paul, 1882). 13. Katharine Ridley, “A Pioneer in Reunion—William Palmer,” Sobornost, no. 18 (1939): 10. 14. Florovskii, “Russian Orthodox Ecumenism in the Nineteenth Century,” 119. Original emphasis. 15. Based on the Forty-two Articles established during the reign of Edward VI, Elizabeth I and Convocation established the Thirty-nine Articles in 1563 as an Anglican statement on difficult theological topics of the day. The Thirty-nine Articles constituted one of Elizabeth’s many efforts to restore religious unity in England following the Counter-Reformation of Mary I. Many of the articles are deliberately vague and framed in ways that allow multiple interpretations. They have, therefore, allowed fractious camps in the church from Elizabeth’s time to the present to read them in terms amenable to their own beliefs. Yet Calvinist elements in the articles have always troubled the Church of England’s Catholic wing, which has at times hoped to dismiss the articles altogether. All clergy (but not laity) in the Church of England are required to subscribe to the articles. 16. Ridley, “A Pioneer in Reunion,” 12. 17. Florovskii, “Russian Orthodox Ecumenism in the Nineteenth Century,” 120–21. 18. Matthew Luscombe, L’église romaine comparée avec la Bible, les pères de l’église et l’église anglicane, en six sermons (Paris, 1839). 19. Anne Fredrickson, “The Anglican Crisis of Identity: The Case of William Palmer, 1811– 1879” (Senior thesis, University of Minnesota, 2000). 20. “Catholicity” is a poor translation of this concept, which denotes the unity of diverse persons within the organic fellowship of the church. In Khomiakov’s thought (much like Sergei Bulgakov’s thought in the twentieth century) people in a sobornyi relationship—a relationship possible only within the church of Christ— maintain full individual freedom while sharing a mystical unity that transcends any human notion of democracy or common purpose. Orthodox theologians often contrast the concept of sobornyi unity

275

276

|

Notes to Pages 13– 15

with the unity imposed by a hierarchical body such as the College of Cardinals or the Roman Catholic pope. 21. Ridley, “A Pioneer in Reunion,” 16. The Anglican Church, according to Khomiakov, must become consciously Catholic before any hope of reunion proves realistic. Anglicanism was too Protestant, and Protestantism is an “unprincipled revolt.” Khomiakov—while he did not believe that Catholics, Protestants, or even Jews were doomed to hell—did not view any church except the Orthodox Church as the true church. N. O. Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy (New York: International Universities Press, 1951), 35. 22. William Palmer, Aleksei Khomiakov, and W. J. Birkbeck, Russia and the English Church during the Last Fifty Years: Containing a Correspondence between Mr. William Palmer, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and M. Khomiakoff, in the Years 1844–1854 (London: Rivington, Percival, 1895), 112. 23. Ridley, “A Pioneer in Reunion,” 14– 16. 24. “How much we should like to transfer those eastern Church authorities, for a couple of days, to London! There they would stare at the English Church and ask, ‘Did those officious people come to us to enlighten or to blind us?’ ” From Overbeck’s introduction to N. M. Damala, “On the Relation of the Anglican Church to the Orthodox,” Orthodox Catholic Review 2 (1869): 176. Original emphasis. 25. J. J. Overbeck, “The Western Orthodox Catholic Church,” Orthodox Catholic Review 3–4 (1871): 45, 47. Original emphasis. 26. Ibid., 46–48. 27. Florovskii, “Russian Orthodox Ecumenism in the Nineteenth Century,” 134–35. 28. Ibid., 135. 29. In 1914 the Eastern Churches Association merged with the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Church Union to form the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association. 30. Founded in the 1830s and 1840s by a group of Oxford dons, the Oxford movement sought to recover the Church of England’s Catholic heritage, focusing on the liturgical and sacramental life of the church. Tracts for the Times, a series of pamphlets written by John Newman, Edward Pusey, and others, argued that the Church of England’s identity as a divine institution lay in its preservation of apostolic succession. Many members argued for the restoration of monastic orders and religious communities. Such thinking inclined some within the Oxford movement toward the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches: Newman eventually converted to Catholicism and became a prominent cardinal, while Pusey focused on the Eastern Orthodox churches.

Notes to Pages 15– 16

|

31. Liddon and Dodgson both traveled to Russia in 1867 and obtained an interview with Metropolitan Filaret shortly before his death. 32. Duncan Van Dusen, “Some Relations between the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches,” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 28, no. 1 (1959): 56. Henry Brandreth, “Anglican Eastern Associations: A Sketch,” Sobornost, no. 31 (1945): 10. 33. Van Dusen, “Some Relations,” 56. 34. The YMCA began some work in Russia as early as 1868 but confined its activities almost exclusively to Lutherans and members of the Reformed churches. Most of its leaders were American. See Kenneth Scott Latourette, World Service: A History of the Foreign Work and World Service of the Young Men’s Christian Associations of the United States and Canada (New York: Association Press, 1957), 369. John Mott, who would become president of the World Alliance of YMCAs, paid a visit to Russia in 1909 and attracted crowds of hundreds. He was received fairly well by the Orthodox because of assurances that he had no intention to proselytize. C. Howard Hopkins, John R. Mott, 1865–1955: A Biography (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979). But the YMCA did not begin to assert any significant influence in Orthodox circles until just before the Bolshevik Revolution. Although it would play a prominent role in support of the Russian Orthodox in emigration, the Bolsheviks terminated its activities in Russia. 35. Brandreth, “Anglican Eastern Associations,” 11. 36. Many Orthodox theologians, especially during the 1870s and 1880s, saw some hope of rapprochement with a church that rejected the Protestant Reformation, wished to ground Christian dogma in the ecumenical councils, emphasized the writings of the holy fathers, yet criticized the Roman pontiff, the lack of catholicity within the Roman Catholic Church, and claims of papal infallibility. 37. The best study of the negotiations is LeRoy Boerneke, “The Dawn of the Ecumenical Age: Anglican, Old Catholic, and Orthodox Reunion Negotiations of the 1870’s” (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1977). 38. “A Russian Layman on Reunion,” Christian East 1, no. 2 (1920): 92–93. Kireev was much less hopeful about reunion with Anglicans, finding the Thirty-nine Articles an insuperable barrier. One cannot portray the Slavophiles as making a significant contribution to the problem of reunion. Though eager to talk with the West, their primary interest was demonstrating that Orthodoxy offered solutions to theological and cultural problems the West could not solve. See Christos Yannaras, “Orthodoxy and the West,” Eastern Churches Review 3 (1971): 295–96.

277

278

|

Notes to Pages 16– 18

39. Episkop Iamburgskii Sergei, “Chto nas razdeliaet so starokatolikami,” Tserkovnyi viestnik, November 7, 1902, 1411– 15. 40. Josef Altholz offers two possible explanations for why Convocation never considered the report. Convocation was, at the time, considering proposals to revise the liturgy and simply had no time for other distractions. Second, the question of the filioque had “provoked an explosive reaction” from Pusey, who published letters to the Times opposing any change. “This was enough to alert Church leaders to the fact that the question was divisive.” Altholz, “Anglican-Orthodox Relations in the Nineteenth Century,” 9. 41. Damala, “On the Relation of the Anglican Church to the Orthodox,” Orthodox Catholic Review 2 (1869): 180. 42. Ibid., Catholic Review 5–6: 8– 10. 43. Ibid., Catholic Review 3–4 (1871): 39–40. 44. Ibid., Catholic Review 2 (1869): 182. Damalas concluded that the Church of England repeated papal errors and “practically presupposes her own Infallibility.” Ibid., Catholic Review 3–4 (1871): 42. 45. Robert Byrnes, Pobedonostsev: His Life and Thought (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968), 216. 46. Patrick Cotter, “The Coronation of the Last Tsar: A Chapter in the History of Anglo-Orthodox Relations,” Sobornost, no. 5 (1936): 15– 16. “You have no idea,” said Mr. Birkbeck, “how nice and good they looked.” 47. Nikolai Glubokovskii, “W. J. Birkbeck and Russian Orthodoxy,” Constructive Quarterly 5 (1917): 568–92. 48. Afanasii Bulgakov, The Question of Anglican Orders: In Respect to a “Vindication” of the Papal Decision, Which Was Drawn up by the English Roman Catholic Bishops at the End of 1897, trans. W. J. Birkbeck (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1889). 49. Florovskii, “Russian Orthodox Ecumenism in the Nineteenth Century,” 141. 50. None of the resolutions issued by Lambeth are binding: changes in the Thirty-nine Articles or changes to the Book of Prayer are not official until approved by Parliament, since the Church of England is a state church. (Those who oppose the Lambeth resolutions often cite this fact as a primary line of defense.) Nevertheless, the Lambeth resolutions are taken seriously within the church. 51. The resolution also recommended that “the counsels and efforts of our fellow Christians should be directed to the encouragement of internal reformation in the Eastern Churches, rather than to the drawing away from them of individual members of their Communion.” See Randall Davidson, The Lambeth Conferences of 1867, 1878, and 1888: With the Official Reports and

Notes to Pages 19–20

|

Resolutions together with the Sermons Preached at the Conferences (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1889), 283–84. 52. “From the Encyclical Letter,” Christian East 11, no. 2 (1930): 73. 53. Its characterization of the filioque as “capable of being explained in an orthodox sense” would have shocked most Orthodox at the time. “Report of the Sub-Committee,” Christian East 11, no. 2 (1930): 74. 54. Yet it noted that there is nothing to prevent the church from formally sanctioning such a practice. “Report of the Sub-Committee,” 75. 55. “Although it is but fair to state that the Greeks, in sanctioning the use of pictorial representations for the purpose of promoting devotion, expressly disclaim the sin of idolatry, which they conceive would attach to the bowing down before sculptured or molten images.” “Report of the SubCommittee,” 75. 56. Davidson, The Lambeth Conferences of 1867, 1878, and 1888. 57. The reaction of the free churches was mixed at best. An assessment written in 1918 reported that the first three articles raised only “slight” discussion. The last, however, was regarded as the “chief barrier to unity” between Conformists and Nonconformists. “No authoritative exposition has been forthcoming of its somewhat ambiguous language. . . . Is it possible for Nonconformists to ‘accept episcopacy’ without surrender of fundamental principles? The answer to the question depends partly upon the answer to another, the exact scope of which has never been set forth by those who framed the Lambeth ‘Quadrilateral.’ What is meant by the Historic Episcopate?” “It is practically impossible to accept the fact of episcopacy ‘without any theory of its character.’ ” W. T. Davison, “The Historic Episcopate,” London Quarterly Review 130 (1918): 151–52, 158. An article in the Churchman, a monthly published by Anglican Evangelicals, was somewhat more optimistic: “We need to notice that this condition [i.e., the historic episcopate] is not laid down as a central ‘note’ of a true church, but only as a necessary plank in any scheme of Reunion.” Its framers “decided not to include the following phrase that the Historic Episcopate is ‘an inherent part of the sacred deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and His Apostles to the Church.’ ” “We may be devoutly thankful that such a statement was rejected by the Lambeth Conference, since, contrary to our Article VI, it adds an article of faith incapable of Scriptural proof, as well as an additional note of a true Church to ‘the ministry of the Word and Sacraments’ laid down in Article XIX.” “While we must insist therefore that the Historic Episcopate is not an essential principle in Christian Reunion, we must also assert that it is essentially expedient for any successful scheme of union. It is a necessary condition only from the point of view of practical expediency.” C. Sydney, “The Historic

279

280

|

Notes to Pages 20–22

Episcopate,” Churchman 32, no. 151 (1918): 420. Such arguments, which viewed the historic episcopate as a matter of expediency rather than a fundamental deposit of faith would drive Orthodox theologians to distraction when they sought to discern the mind of the Anglican Church on this matter. 58. “Report of the Sub-Committee,” 77. 59. The archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, began his encyclical by stating, “We who speak are bearers of the sacred commission of the ministry given by our Lord through His Apostles to the Church.” “The Lambeth Conference: Encyclical Letter,” Church Times, August 14, 1908, 205. 60. “Alas!” responded the Reverend A. W. Greenup. “[The encyclical and the report] make it clear that by ‘Historic Episcopate’ the majority of the Bishops mean the theory—I won’t call it doctrine—of Apostolic Succession, and all that it connotes.” Greenup noted that the Lambeth conference of 1888 and the Quadrilateral said nothing of episcopacy as a divine institution and nothing about apostolic succession, and he castigated Anglican bishops who spoke about full union on the basis of episcopal ordination: “such a narrow theory is not upheld, indeed is disallowed, by the Thirty-nine Articles. The only Article referring to the principles on which the Church of England’s ministry rests is the twenty-third, which reads: ‘It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.’ Not a word is said here about episcopacy; and, as the Article is based on a Lutheran formula, it is significant for the view taken by our reformers of churches lacking in episcopal government and it is amusing to see how Bishop Gibson gets over the whole difficulty by saying that the omission in the Article is made up elsewhere.” D. D. Greenup, “Lambeth and Unity,” Churchman 34, no. 174 (1920): 302. 61. “The Lambeth Conference: Encyclical Letter,” 208. 62. “Report of the Committee,” Christian East 11, no. 2 (1930): 80. 63. “The Lambeth Conference: Encyclical Letter,” 206. 64. Florovskii, “Russian Orthodox Ecumenism in the Nineteenth Century,” 144. Reprinted from the Guardian, August 28 and September 2, 1903. 65. Writing many years later, Athelstan Riley complained that Rome “is never tired of insisting that no Episcopal Communion recognizes Anglican Orders and that Anglicanism is destined to remain an outcast from the Catholic family and even from the ‘schismatic Greek.’ Those whose memories go back to the papal condemnation of Anglican Orders will remember how Car-

Notes to Pages 22–25

|

dinal Vaughan wrote to the Easterns endeavouring to obtain their concurrence.” Athelstan Riley, “Anglican and Orthodox,” Church Quarterly Review 101 (1925–26): 132. 66. V. A. Sokolov, Ierarkhiia Anglikanskoi episkopskoi tserkvi (Sergiev Posad: 2-ia tip. A. I. Snegirevoi, 1897). 67. Ibid., 360–61. Sokolov’s position is summarized in Nikolai Zernov, “Anglikanskiia Rukopolozheniia i Pravoslavnaia tserkov’,” Put’, no. 59 (1939): 57–73. 68. See Afanasii Bulgakov, O zakonnosti i dieistvitel’nosti Anglikanskoi Ierarkhii s tochki zrieniia Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi (Kiev, 1906). 69. For a brief summary of Bulgakov’s position, see Zernov, “Anglikanskiia Rukopolozheniia i Pravoslavnaia tserkov’.” 70. His To kyros ton Anglikon cheirotonion ex apopseos Orthodoxou was translated six year later: Chre¯stos Androutsos, The Validity of English Ordinations from an Orthodox-Catholic Point of View, trans. F. W. Groves Campbell (London: Grant Richards, 1909). 71. C. Cannellopulos would complain twenty years later that although “Dr. Androutsos is recognized as a learned and distinguished theologian and the University of Athens feels greatly honored in having him as a professor, he does not represent the opinion of the majority in our Church. He is considered rather as an extreme Orthodox in some of his views.” C. Cannellopulos, “Christian Reunion from the Point of View of the Eastern Orthodox Church,” Church Quarterly Review 96 (1928): 282. 72. See Tavard, Two Centuries of Ecumenism, 159. 73. Androutsos, The Validity of English Ordinations, 82–83. 74. See Zernov, “Anglikanskiia Rukopolozheniia i Pravoslavnaia tserkov’,” 62; and J. A. Douglas, “The Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Orders,” Christian East 2, no. 1 (1921): 209. 75. J. A. Douglas, The Relations of the Anglican Churches with the Eastern Orthodox, Especially in Regard to Anglican Orders (London: Faith Press, 1921), 17. 76. I. P. Sokolov, “O diestvitel’nosti Anglikanskoi ierarkhii,” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 17, no. 12 (1913): 260. 77. Ibid., 262. Original emphasis. 78. Ibid., 261. 79. Ibid. 80. Ibid., 17, no. 13 (1913): 279. 81. Ibid., 281–82. 82. Ibid., 17, no. 14 (1913): 306–13. “The doctrine of intention, as the necessary condition of performing the sacrament, with the significance and consequences it has in Roman theology, has not penetrated into our dogmatics

281

282

|

Notes to Pages 25–27

in any lasting way. Therefore, Roman considerations as to the way the sacrament of priesthood is made nonvalid by the ideas of Anglicans, which reject in it the sacrificial function, in other words the consideration that their ideas are destructive to the necessary intention of the performer of the sacrament and thus making the ordinal ineffective, are not binding for an Orthodox theologian” (324). 83. Ibid., 281. 84. Ibid., 17, no. 16 (1913): 343. 85. “Whenever the Anglican hierarchy was examined from the theological point of view in Russian literature, the writers always were inclined to bring forward as the chief obstacle to the acceptance of the validity of this hierarchy exactly its own refusal to accept priesthood as a sacrament.” Ibid., 17, no. 19 (1913): 404. 86. Ibid., 17, no. 20 (1913): 434. 87. Ibid., 17, no. 21 (1913): 451. 88. Ibid., 455. 89. Ibid., 456. 90. Ibid., 17, no. 22 (1913): 478. 91. Ibid., 17, no. 23 (1913): 500. 92. Ibid., 499. 93. Ibid., 500. 94. Orthodox prelates exercise economy if they decline to apply a given principle or law in the belief that such an act will result in a greater spiritual good. Economy is, in other words, a decision to waive a law when the spirit of the law may clash with the letter of that law. “Economy” is not a legal principle; it is, rather, a decision to allow charity to triumph over scholasticism or legalism. As such it is cherished by many Orthodox as an example of their refusal to be governed by the sort of legalism or scholasticism they find abhorrent in Roman Catholic theology. Orthodox theologians have interpreted “economy” in widely different ways, and there exists no clear agreement on when it should or can be applied. These differences presented problems when discussing how or even if economy ought to be applied to Anglican clergy and laypeople. John Douglas was especially interested in economy, viewing it as a means of promoting rapprochement, which, he hoped, would lead ultimately to unity. He offered a learned treatise on economy in the journal Theology. While full of personal opinions, the treatise provides a good overview of the subject, especially the variety of ways in which economy has been interpreted. J. A. Douglas, “The Orthodox Principle of Economy, and Its Exercise,” Theology 24, no. 129 (1932): 39–47. Georges Florovskii took a rather more cautious view of economy than did Douglas, being careful to define

Notes to Pages 27–29

|

it as a “pedagogical rather than a canonical principal” and a “pastoral corrective of the canonical consciousness.” Georges Florovskii, “The Limits of the Church,” Church Quarterly Review 117, no. 233 (1933): 120. 95. Archbishop Platon, “Moe mnienie,” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 17, no. 16 (1913): 339. 96. Before coming to the United States to head the Russian Orthodox Church in America, Platon served in the Russian Duma and taught ethics and moral philosophy at the University of Kiev, which he also headed. In the United States he remained conservative in his theology, but he was an indefatigable advocate for contact with members of other American dominations. Charles Johnston, “The Departure of Archbishop Platon,” Constructive Quarterly 2 (1914): 550–56. 97. Archbishop Platon, “Admitting All Impossibilities, Nevertheless Unity Is Possible,” Constructive Quarterly 1 (1913): 433–34. Original emphasis. 98. Platon, “Moe mnienie,” 320. 99. Ibid., 336. 100. Archbishop Platon, “A Message from the Russian Church,” Constructive Quarterly 1 (1913): 32–33. “I have not the shadow of an intention to dispute with Protestantism or to enter on a polemic, to refute or to prove.” Archbishop Platon, “Faith as It Is Understood by an Orthodox Divine,” Constructive Quarterly 2 (1914): 176. 101. It is “important to learn where is the Church of Christ; to discover which Christian confession is to be accepted as truly pure and salutary.” Ibid., 178. 102. Platon, “Admitting All Impossibilities,” 430. 103. Platon, “Faith as It Is Understood by an Orthodox Divine,” 185. 104. Platon, “Admitting All Impossibilities,” 428. 105. Sergei Troitskii, “Vsemirnaia konferentsiia dlia obsuzhdeniia voprosov viery i ustroistva,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti no. 14 (1915): 511. 106. Ibid., 512. 107. This question served as the topic of a lecture by F. W. Puller, given in 1913 in St. Petersburg. He later worked it into a book: F. W. Puller, The Continuity of the Church of England before and after Its Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, with Some Account of Its Present Condition (London: Longmans, Green, 1913). 108. Some interesting proposals about reunion surfaced at the pre-sobor. Serafim Meshcheriakov of Polotsk, for example, suggested that, in discussions with the Anglican Church, the Orthodox not make an insurmountable issue of the filioque. There was, he argued, room in the Orthodox tradition for both understandings of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Missionary

283

284

|

Notes to Pages 29–32

clergy from the Kishenev diocese, however, took a dim view of Anglican orders and declared them invalid. See James Cunningham, A Vanquished Hope: The Movement for Church Renewal in Russia, 1905–1906 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1981), 202–3. The sobor of 1917, which successfully abolished the Holy Synod, stated that it welcomed overtures from Anglicans and Old Believers seeking to strengthen ties with Orthodoxy. The Bolshevik Revolution ensured that nothing came of these expressions. 109. Mitropolit Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni: vospominaniia mitropolita Evlogiia (Georgievskogo), izlozhennye po ego rasskazam T. Manukhinoi (Moscow: Moskovskii rabochii, Izdatel’skii otdel Vsetserkovnogo pravoslavnogo molodezhnogo dvizheniia, 1994), 523.

2.

Outbreak of Ecumenism

1. C. S. Wallis, “Fellowship of the Churches: In the Mission Field,” Churchman 34, no. 175 (1920): 396. 2. Greenup, “Lambeth and Unity,” 299–300. 3. Robert Wohl, The Generation of 1914 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), 90–92. 4. Virginia Woolf, A Change in Perspective, ed. Nigel Nicolson, vol. 3, The Letters of Virginia Woolf (London: Hogarth Press, 1977), 457–58. 5. Andrei Karpov, “The Personality and the Church: The Problem of Personality in the Light of Christian Teaching,” in The Church of God: An Anglo-Russian Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, ed. E. L. Mascall (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934), 135. 6. V. Il’inskii, “Nasha Obiazannost,” Mladorus’ 1 (1922): 5. 7. Bernard Clarke, “Things New and Old,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 22 (1933): 22. 8. Lockhart, Cosmo Gordon Lang, 254. 9. The most prominent Roman Catholic magazine in England observed that the “world war, wreaking havoc far and wide, has awakened so much new antagonism, that the old division between Eastern and Western ideas seems to have become less real. Christianity is called upon in our time to rise above the differences of Christian nations.” Andrew Szeptycki, “How to Reunite Latin and Orthodox,” Month 141 (1923): 385. 10. Although Nikolai Arsen’ev worried about the Protestants’ capacity for “boundless, immeasurable splitting.” Nikolai Arsen’ev, “Religioznye s”iezdy u N’iukastl i Kembridzh,” Put’, no. 20 (1930): 91.

Notes to Pages 32–33

|

11. Stefan Tsankov, “Tserkovnoe Edinstvo v sovremennom mirie,” in Khristianskoe vozsoedinenie: Ekumenicheskaia problema v pravoslavnom soznanii (Paris: YMCA Press, 1933), 125. 12. Walter Seton, “The Basis of Reunion,” Hibbert Journal 17 (1918): 64. 13. Archbishop Alexander, “The Russian Orthodox and Christian Unity,” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 27, nos. 3–5 (1926): 23. 14. Thomas Pulvertaft, “Lambeth 1920 and After,” Churchman 43, no. 3 (1929): 174. 15. J. W. Diggle, “On Some Parallels between a League of Nations and a Re-union of Churches,” Hibbert Journal 17 (1919): 204. 16. W. F. Lofthouse, “Intercommunion and Reunion,” London Quarterly & Holborn Review 166 (1941): 467. 17. “The Lambeth Conference: Encyclical Letter,” Church Times, August 20, 1920, 169. 18. Riley, “Anglican and Orthodox,” 129. 19. The patriarch of Antioch administered communion to Canon Garland on Christmas Day, 1919. Garland described the event as follows: “Two priests now came, placed upon me vestments similar to their own, and led me to the altar, putting me next to the Bishop who was assisting the Patriarch, and above the other priests. At the proper times I received the kiss of peace and was censed, and in the Great Procession was given a small hand cross to carry, following the priests bearing paten and chalice. After the Patriarch had communicated himself he retired to a corner and knelt down in devotion. It was wonderful watching him; priests came and lovingly kissed his robe and hand, but he remained absorbed in prayer. The Bishop took his place to give the Holy Communion to the priests. I stood back, but a priest came and led me forward with the others, and I had the privilege of receiving the Holy Communion, being addressed by my Christian name as I was communicated separately in each kind.” J. A. Douglas, “The Purport of the Recent Orthodox Delegation,” Christian East 11, no. 3 (1930): 103 fn. 2. In 1920 Garland again received communion in Belgrade at the invitation of the patriarch of Antioch, despite the fact that an Anglican chaplain was due in Belgrade the following Sunday. Douglas, “The Orthodox Principle of Economy, and Its Exercise,” 47. Such instances of communion through economy were welcomed by Anglo-Catholics hoping for reunion, and they were cited during the 1920s and 1930s as a possible basis for future intercommunion. But a good many Orthodox disapproved. When the Serbian patriarch administered communion to six Anglicans on Christmas Day, 1927 (a decision that produced much clamor among Anglicans and Orthodox), he did so without the consent of his synod.

285

286

|

Notes to Pages 33–36

20. I. Lagovsky, “World Godlessness,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 11 (1931): 38. 21. Nikolai Zernov, “Pravoslavie i Natsionalizm,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 10 (1927): 17. 22. Nikolai Zernov, “The First Council of the Russian Church Abroad in Sremski Karlovtsi (21 November–2 December 1921): The Notes of One of the Participants,” Eastern Churches Review 7, no. 2 (1975): 177. 23. Ibid., 165. 24. Sergius Bulgakov, “Judas or Saul: Thoughts on the Russian People,” Slavonic Review 9 (1931): 527, 530. 25. George Williams, “Georges Vasilievich Florovsky: His American Career (1948– 1965),” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 11, no. 1 (1965): 22. 26. Nikolai Berdia’ev, The Origin of Russian Communism, trans. R. M. French (London: Geoffrey Bless, 1945), 171. 27. G. P. Fedotov, The Russian Church since the Revolution (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1928), 85. 28. Bulgakov, “Judas or Saul,” 535. 29. Zernov, “Pravoslavie i Natsionalizm,” 16. 30. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 258. 31. Robert Bird, “In Partibus Infidelium: Sergius Bulgakov and the YMCA (1906– 1940),” Symposion 1 (1996): 110. Bird is incautious in his use of the term “invisible church,” a notion that many Orthodox found suspiciously Protestant. 32. Riley, “Anglican and Orthodox,” 125. 33. Tsankov, “Tserkovnoe Edinstvo v sovremennom mirie,” 125. 34. Alexander, “The Russian Orthodox and Christian Unity,” 22–23. 35. See, for example, Nikolai Glubokovskii, “The Patriarch and Clergy of Russia under the Bolsheviks,” Christian East 3, no. 2 (1922): 83–93. 36. Platon, “Moe mnienie,” 384–85. 37. J. A. Douglas, “Its Importance in World Christianity,” in The Orthodox Church, ed. P. Usher, J. A. Douglas, Dr. Frere, and R. M. French (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, n.d. [193?]), 7–8. 38. “Unto All the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Be,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 1, no. 1 (1954): 60–61. 39. Archbishop Germanos, “Call to Unity,” in The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and Statements, 1902–1975, ed. Constantin Patelos (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978), 133. 40. Nikolai Berdia’ev, “Vselenskost i konfessionalizm,” in Khristianskoe vozsoedinenie: Ekumenicheskaia problema v pravoslavnom soznanii (Paris: YMCA Press, 1933), 63.

Notes to Page 37

|

41. “Besieda so Vselenskim Patriarkhom,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 2 (1932): 16. 42. Chaplain Huntington, The Homesick Million (Boston: Stratford Company, 1933), 5. 43. Marc Raeff notes that in the early years of emigration most Russians expected to return home. They “continued to consider themselves exiles, retaining the hope that their residence beyond Russian borders would be temporary, and that their return would soon be possible with the collapse, deemed imminent, of the Soviet government.” Raeff, Russia Abroad, 4. These expectations faded over time, but they help explain why Russian involvement in the ecumenical movement did not become significant until the late 1920s. 44. John Hope Simpson, The Refugee Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1939), 5. 45. Metropolitan Platon and Archbishop Aleksandr of North America, already cut off from the home church, issued an appeal to President Warren Harding for assistance: “We dread, not only for Russia’s sake but for America’s, a Slavic horde, powerful, but Godless, which like Genghis Khan, or Attila, may sweep down upon civilization like the hordes led by those barbarians of old.” Archbishop Platon, “An Appeal of the Eastern Orthodox GreekCatholic Hierarchy Representatives to Mr. President of the United States of America,” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 23, no. 9 (1922): 43. The Russian Orthodox Church in America sent appeals left and right: “Brethren of the Christian Clergy, and Followers of Christ, Can you remain indifferent when you hear that beasts in human bodies in Russia are destroying and robbing practically all the Christian Churches and sacred memorials and relics, and desecrated the tombs of Christian Russian rulers? . . . You must understand that their only purpose is to outrage and disgrace Christian feelings and human general [sic].” Archbishop Alexander, “Appeals to American Christians to Save Russian Christians: Christians, How Can You Be Silent?” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 23, no. 19 (1922): 147. 46. Nicholas Hayes, “The Intelligentsiia-in-Exile: Sovremennye Zapiski and the History of Russian Emigre Thought” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1976), 5. 47. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 256. 48. Raeff, Russia Abroad. 49. The Orthodox Church, wrote Archbishop Aleksandr, “has found in the National Church of England, and its daughter, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, a staunch friend in her day of tribulation and her hour of need.” Alexander, “The Russian Orthodox and Christian Unity,” 24.

287

288

|

Notes to Pages 37–39

50. Nikolai Arsen’ev, “Dvizhenie k edineniiu Khristianskikh tserkov i problema sovremennago mira,” Put’, no. 31 (1931): 85. 51. To the Help of Russian Christians (London: Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund, 1938). 52. Such a card appeared in the Christian East 11, no. 1 (1930). Those who signed it promised to pray the following: “O GOD, Our Refuge and strength, Who art a very present help in trouble: HAVE MERCY—we beseech Thee— UPON THE CHURCH IN RUSSIA, in her hour of need. Deliver her by the most mighty protection from tyranny and the dangers that beset her, and grant her people rest: through Christ our Lord, AMEN.” 53. Metropolitan Evlogii was particularly flowery in his gratitude, thanking the archbishop of Canterbury in 1930 for the “true and one-souled prayerful mood of Anglicans toward the suffering of the Russian Church.” “Poiezdka Ego Vysokopreosviashchenstva Vysokopreosviashchennieishago Mitropolita Evlogiia v Angliiu,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 4 (1930): 14. Evlogii noted in his memoirs the “countless crowds” that would assemble in churches throughout England to pray for the Russian church. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 547. 54. For a history of St. Sergius, see Donald Lowrie, Saint Sergius in Paris: The Orthodox Theological Institute (New York: Macmillan, 1951). 55. Donald Davis, “British Aid to Russian Churchmen, 1919–39,” Sobornost, no. 1 (1980): 43. 56. Raeff, Russia Abroad. 57. Lowrie, Saint Sergius in Paris, 77. 58. “Chronicle and Causerie,” Christian East 6, no. 4 (1925): 220. 59. Bishop Gore, Canon John Douglas, and Major Tudor Pole—all active in Anglican-Orthodox dialogue—visited the institute. Tissington Tatlow, secretary of the Student Christian Movement in England, worried that a collapse of the institute would mean the loss of valuable contacts between Anglicans and Orthodox. Davis, “British Aid to Russian Churchmen, 1919–39,” 48. 60. Evlogii wrote to express his “burning Christian love” for Archbishop Davidson’s support of the Russian church, Russian clergy, and the Paris Theological Institute. “Every meeting of Orthodox and Anglicans, still not united in the unity of the church, is distinguished by a genuine spiritual happiness and brotherly love in Christ.” Mitropolit Evlogii, “Arkhiepiskopu Kenterberiiskomu,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 3 (1927): 18. 61. Lowrie, Saint Sergius in Paris, 90. 62. Harry Madras, “Church Union in South India,” Hibbert Journal 28 (1929): 155. 63. Wallis, “Fellowship of the Churches,” 394.

Notes to Pages 39–41

|

64. “Report on Relations to and Reunion with Episcopal Churches,” in The Lambeth Conferences, 1867–1948: The Reports of the 1920, 1930, and 1948 Conferences, with Selected Resolutions from the Conferences of 1867, 1878, 1888, 1897, and 1903 (London: S.P.C.K., 1948), 223. 65. W. Y. Fullerton, “The Free Churches and Lambeth,” Churchman 43, no. 3 (1929): 184. 66. Troitskii, “Vsemirnaia konferentsiia dlia obsuzhdeniia voprosov viery i ustroistva,” 508. 67. In 1920 Canon Hichens suggested that the Church of England establish a collegiate church in the Orthodox regions of Constantinople, Smyrna, and Damascus. “Then,” he wrote, “we could exhibit our type of worship in a proper way, we could help in mission work amongst the Jews and Moslems, and our candidates for Holy Orders could study theology and Church history in the lands where Church history had its beginnings.” Canon Hichens, “Some Thoughts on Reunion with the Orthodox Church,” Christian East 1, no. 3 (1920): 117. Nothing came of the proposal. 68. Lloyd, The Church of England, 1900–1965, 424. 69. The Anglican reunionist journal, the Christian East, asserted, “There was no country in Europe which suffered more during the war. It had been depleted of almost all its wealth; there was hardly a railway bridge which had not been destroyed; typhus and other diseases abounded.” Arthur Headlam, “The Present State of the Serbian Church,” Christian East 7, no. 2 (1926): 51. 70. Bell, Randall Davidson, 845. 71. Metropolitan of Trebizond Chrysanthos, “The Relations of the Constantinopolitan and Anglican Churches,” Christian East 1, no. 2 (1920): 68. 72. “Lambeth Conference Committee’s Report on the Eastern Churches,” Christian East 1, no. 3 (1920): 131. 73. The bishop of Gibraltar raved, “They outrun the Scotch in the hardness they are ready to endure in order to go on with their studies. It is no unknown event for one of them to be up at five sweeping out offices or doing similar rough work, so as to earn enough for two frugal meals during the day. A bench in the public park is no great hardship during the summer for a young man: but after the summer is over, or before it begins, when nights are cold and damp, it will be the resting place of students who can only afford a bed under a roof once or twice a week. It is almost pathetic, too, to think of the shifts they are put to find a quiet place or a corner in which to study.” J. H. Greig, “Some Notes on the Position in Serbia,” Christian East 5, no. 4 (1924): 145. 74. Fr. Nikolai Velimirovic “paid a glowing tribute to the part Oxford had played in the education of Serbian students; the work of ‘the dear and noble

289

290

|

Notes to Page 41

S.P.C.K. for Serbia at a time when help was most needed, and when it was so often refused—in the dark hour of her distress and martyrdom.’ ” “Serbs in Oxford: A Slavonic Service in Christ Church,” Church Times, February 14, 1919, 142. 75. In fact, patriotism among the Serbs appeared to remain high. At a Slavonic service in Christ Church in 1919 the Serbian choir sang an English hymn, but it also broke into two verses of the Serbian National Anthem. “Serbs in Oxford,” 142. 76. The Hibbert Journal in particular pushed this notion: “As the League of Nations must depend for its stability and strength on the conviction of the universal brotherhood of men, so the league of churches must depend for its loveliness and power on the full conviction and frank recognition of the universal Fatherhood of God without distinction or respect of denomination.” Diggle, “On Some Parallels between a League of Nations and a Re-union of Churches,” 212. “[A] league of the Churches, which should form the United States of the Church, binding them into a real unity of spirit, may surely recognize the ministers who are fully accredited by their various churches. It is a tragedy that history again and again shows us the secular world forging ahead in its response to truth.” J. Paul Gibson, “A Psychological Aspect of the Problem of Reunion,” Hibbert Journal 30 (1932): 589. 77. “[The] rising tides of nationalism and secularism and the shadow of a totalitarian State claiming the primary and exclusive loyalty of all its citizens” demonstrate the “growing necessity of . . . a world-wide fellowship of Christians.” Kenneth Scott Latourette, “The Problem of Realizing the Church Universal,” International Review of Missions 25 (1936): 297. 78. Stuart Mews, “Religious Life between the Wars, 1920– 1940,” in A History of Religion in Britain, ed. Sheridan Gilley and W. J. Sheils (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1994). 79. In the early 1930s the Cypriot bishop, Leontios, lobbied both the archbishop of Canterbury and Anglicans who sat on the Conjoint Commission overseeing Cyprus to sell the British public on the benefits of Enosis. “Chronicle and Causerie,” Christian East 12, no. 4 (1931): 138. 80. The Times reported on a 1934 performance in Bristol Cathedral: “There was a large attendance, and the beauty and reverence of the singing made a profound impression.” “Tewkesbury Abbey Church,” Times, May 12, 1934, 14. 81. Russian students who met English students at the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius in the late 1920s were stunned by the Anglicans’ interest in modern science. V. Grinevich, writing in Put’, complained that Russian theology was guilty of evading the theory of evolution, while noting, “The religious philosophy of modern England is blessed with riches, with the

Notes to Pages 41–42

|

breadth and boldness of its scope, and also its unusual and varied themes and views.” V. Grinevich, “Religiozno-filosofskaia mysl’ Anglii,” Put’, no. 19 (1929): 92, 79. 82. J. A. Douglas, “The Practice of the Orthodox Communion in the Matter of Divorce,” Church Quarterly Review 123 (1936): 105–11. “In view of the issues raised by the Report on Marriage now before the Church Assembly, enquiry is frequent as to what are the teaching and practice of the Orthodox Communion in regard to divorce” (105). Some Anglican traditionalists, on the other hand, admired what they saw as Orthodoxy’s insistence on the sanctity of marriage. At a meeting of the Society for Promoting Catholic Unity in 1937, one member suggested that similar views on the sanctity of marriage ought to impel talks of unity. “The Sanctity of Marriage,” Church Times, June 25, 1937, 761. 83. J. G. Farrer-Morgan, “Should Women Be Admitted to the Priesthood?” Churchman 32, no. 146 (1918): 108. 84. J. A. Douglas, “Prospects of Union between the Eastern and Anglican Churches,” Christian East 1, no. 1 (1920): 39. 85. The archbishop of Canterbury, however, was loath to take too strong a position against the Bolsheviks. At Convocation in 1923 he condemned Tikhon’s “unfrocking” and termed the Bolshevik Living Church a spurious and fraudulent church, yet he also, in the words of the Times, “pointed out that, even in the midst of their just protests against religious persecution under the Soviet régime, they must not forget the grievance which Liberalism had against the old régime, and the silence of the Orthodox Church when the non-Orthodox creeds, especially the Jewish, were penalized or persecuted.” “Soviet War on Religion: Bishops’ Protest,” Times, May 2, 1923, 1. The British Foreign Office placed intense pressure on Davidson to condemn the Bolshevik regime, but Davidson balked due to fears that a condemnation would harm his church’s famine relief efforts in the Soviet Union. He faced a dilemma: condemn the Soviet regime and risk Church Aid workers being expelled from Russia, or satisfy the Orthodox royalists and right-wingers by condemning the Bolsheviks. See Charles Edmondson and Barry Levis, “Archbishop Randall Davidson, Russian Famine Relief, and the Fate of the Orthodox Clergy, 1917– 1923,” Journal of Church and State 40, no. 3 (1998): 619–37. The tsarist chargé d’affairs in London forwarded to Davidson messages from Metropolitan Platon of Odessa describing Bolshevik treatment of priests “before which the persecutions of the Christians in the first three centuries pale” (622), but Davidson also received cables from Kalinin assuring him that the sequestration of church property had the support of most clergy and that complaints of persecution had no merit. Davidson found the

291

292

|

Notes to Pages 42–43

conflicting information “confusing and frustrating” (628) and, as a result, failed to adopt a firm stance. 86. “The Russian Church and Its Patriarch: United Protest by the Christian Leaders of Great Britain,” Church Times, June 2, 1922, 584. The Soviet representative in Britain wrote back, assuring Davidson, “In spite of the statement contained in the Protest there has been no attack on the Church. . . . In the conflict between Patriarch Tikhon and the Soviet Power, the vast majority of the clergy sides with the Soviet Power and the labouring masses it represents. Only an insignificant number of the clergy—those who were the most privileged and demoralized through their connexion with the Tsarist nobility and with capital—form the group of the Patriarch Tikhon. . . . The Soviet Power, as well as the labouring masses, consider the above Protest of the hierarchy of the various Churches of Great Britain to be dictated by a narrow caste solidarity because it is entirely directed against the real interests of the people, and against the elementary demands of humanity.” “The Primate and the Russian Church,” Church Times June 9, 1922, 599. 87. Hayes, “The Intelligentsiia-in-Exile,” 62. 88. He replied in February 1919 to a plea from the archbishop of Omsk: “I have received with deepest distress the message in which your Beatitude and those who sign with you describe the appalling trials and the cruel suffering to which the clergy and people of the Russian Church are now being subjected. The bishops and their flock on whose behalf you appeal to me may be assured that no effort shall be wanting on our part to arouse in the public mind a realization of the terribleness of these things, and to promote by every means in our power any measures of relief which the Governments and the allied Powers may find to be practicable.” “A Cry from the Russian Church,” Church Times, February 21, 1919, 177. 89. Stephen Batalden and Michael Palma, “Orthodox Pilgrimage and Russian Landholding in Jerusalem: The British Colonial Record,” in Seeking God: The Recovery of Religious Identity in Orthodox Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia, ed. Stephen Batalden (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1993), 251–63. 90. Archbishop Dimitri, “Christians in the Near East,” Church Times, November 24, 1922, 538. 91. Mews, “Anglican Intervention in the Election of an Orthodox Patriarch,” 297. 92. “Sympathy with Orthodox Christians this country may have in abundance, but, although sympathy may cause battles, it never yet won one. The more readily the student of Eastern history accords honour to those who are striving for the reunion of Christendom, the more suspiciously should he

Notes to Page 43

|

look on all purely political manifestations of this worthiest of objects.” “Britain and Eastern Christendom,” Near East and India 28 (1925): 63. 93. Bell, Randall Davidson, 1088. 94. Van Dusen, “Some Relations between the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches,” 45. Davidson argued in the House of Lords on at least two occasions—in 1914 and in 1919—that Christians should be set free from Turkish domination. He complained to Lord Curzon, “I am quite certain that there is a steadily growing sense of resentment against the very idea of our acquiescing in what is apparently French policy, the abandonment of these Christian populations to the very foes who have been most ruthless hitherto in their cruelty, misgovernment, and massacres.” Bell, Randall Davidson, 1093. Davidson also met with Kemalist delegates and confronted them with the Bryce report on atrocities against Armenian Christians (1097). When it looked in December 1922 that the Lausanne conference—called to settle Greek and Turkish relations—might permit the Turks to remove the patriarchate from Constantinople, the ecumenical patriarch wrote to Davidson, “Join us, O brother beloved, and with all the Orthodox Bishops, together with your own brethren, both in prayer to God and in protest to the Conference for the averting of the wrong which is being wrought against the whole Orthodox Church.” Davidson responded, assuring the patriarch that he would push for the retention of the patriarchate in Constantinople: “I have throughout continued to press upon the Conference at Lausanne our earnest hope and desire that no breach should take place in the maintenance of the historic Œcumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople. The continuity of the Patriarchate in Constantinople is profoundly important to the whole Christian Church.” “Lambeth and the East: Interchange of Important Messages,” Church Times, December 29, 1922, 683. Davidson’s telegram became public and provided Lord Curzon with the resolve he needed to stand firm at Lausanne. Bell, Randall Davidson, 1100–1101. 95. A few thousand Armenians joined the Russian Army during World War I, inspired by Russian propaganda that encouraged aspirations for an Armenian state in eastern Anatolia. In response, the Ottoman cabinet decided to relocate the entire Armenian population in the war zone to the center of the Syrian desert. Turkish historians estimate that 200,000 Armenians died; Armenians claim ten times that number. Erik Zürcher estimates 600,000 to 800,000 deaths. Erik Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History (New York: I. B. Tauris, 1993), 120. 96. “Can anything in history equal the horror of the sack of the great Christian city?” asked an editorial in the Christian East. “The Shame of Europe,” Christian East 3, no. 3 (1922).

293

294

|

Notes to Pages 43–45

97. “Eastern Churches Committee: Reception in Honour of Archbishop Germanos,” Church Times, July 28, 1922, 87. 98. “The Near East: Constantinople in the Present Crisis,” Church Times, October 13, 1922, 351. Clearly some of this feeling was also motivated by anti-French sentiment. The author of the aforementioned article, although “ashamed of being British,” concluded that it would be a “greater infamy to be French or Italian.” A portion of the Anglican community extolled the benefits of Anglican sympathy for the Orthodox as a means of heading off French Catholic influence in the region. Another correspondent for the Church Times decried French nationalism in the region as “repugnant to Christian Ethics.” Much French money is invested in the Levant, he warned, and “French financial interests can therefore be trusted to support the Turk.” “Frenchmen practically destroyed the Christian Eastern Empire in the fourth Crusade, and French diplomacy for more than four centuries has maintained the bloodstained rule of the Ottoman. . . . She has left the unhappy Orthodox population to their fate.” He decried the tendency of the Liberal party “to make a friend of the Turk and to ignore his crimes and his victims” but concluded, “at least in England, our Government, whatever be its faults, has some sense of our duties to our co-religionists in the East, and it is kept from a betrayal of its duties by an active public opinion in the Churches.” “French Catholicism in the Near East,” Church Times, September 8, 1922, 229. 99. H. J. Fynes Clinton, “A Visit to Serbia,” Christian East 2, no. 4 (1921): 153. 100. R. R. Resker, “The Sieges of Jerusalem,” Churchman 32, no. 146 (1918): 91. 101. Archbishop of Melbourne, “The Lambeth Conference and the Orthodox Eastern Church,” Christian East 1, no. 3 (1920): 142. 102. “The Restoration of St. Sophia: Plain Speaking by the Bishop of Oxford,” Church Times, January 31, 1919, 101. 103. “The Cross and the Crescent,” Church Times, April 11, 1919, 353. 104. Harry Psomiades, “The Ecumenical Patriarchate under the Turkish Republic,” Balkan Studies 2, no. 1 (1961): 53. 105. Turkey agreed to allow the patriarchate to remain in Constantinople after the Greek prime minister, Venizelos, promised Ismet Pasha that Patriarch Meletios IV, whose anti-Turkish stance angered Ankara, would be replaced. 106. Constantine was received at the railway station in Thessaloniki with full military honors. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators turned out. The archbishop of Athens declared that Constantine’s expulsion was “much more serious than even the hanging of Patriarch Gregory V in 1821, because its object [was] not only to terrify the Greeks, but to accomplish a

Notes to Pages 45–46

|

plan for uprooting the Patriarchate.” Alexis Alexandris, “The Expulsion of Constantine VI: The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Greek-Turkish Relations, 1924– 1925,” Balkan Studies 22, no. 2 (1981): 344–45. 107. Ibid., 341–42. The Foreign Office, however, was reluctant to make any promises and did not wish to raise the issue at the League of Nations. 108. A. Rustem Bey, “The Future of the Oecumenical Patriarchate,” Foreign Affairs 3, no. 4 (1925): 609. 109. Ibid., 610. 110. “Gone are the administrative rights it possessed for centuries, gone the privileges and franchises, the pomp and splendor, on which rested its great situation in the country and to which it owed much of its prestige abroad. . . . Its oecumenical pretensions are absolutely ignored.” Ibid., 607. 111. Archbishop Alexander, “Address Delivered by Archbishop Alexander at Pan-Christian Mass-Meeting Protesting against Persecutions of Eastern Christians by the Turks, Held in Carnegie Hall (New York) 1st of June 1922,” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 23, no. 12 (1922): 1. 112. Bishop of Gibraltar, “The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Its Position,” Theology 10, no. 58 (1925): 183. 113. “Meletios IV and the Great Betrayal,” Church Times, July 20, 1923, 77. 114. See, for example, its account of the failed abduction: “A Greek seized the Patriarch by the neck, a Turk by the legs. Others seized his arms. Together they half dragged, half carried him from his room downstairs and into the hall. There, thanks to the courage of a few faithful servants who came to his help and were therefore hustled off by the Turkish police to gaol, he broke loose for a moment, but was quickly seized again. They had him at the very door itself when the French police arrived on the scene. If they had been a couple of minutes later, Meletios IV would have been in the motor car, and if the world had ever had authentic news of him it would have learned simply of his death in Asia Minor.” “The Patriarch’s Peril,” Church Times, June 15, 1923, 689. The episode also enraged the more sober Times, which asserted that the “crime was undoubtedly organised, and organised many suspect, with the connivance, if not at the instigation, of the Turks. Both the English Bishops speak with natural and righteous indignation at this enormity, and demand some guarantee that it shall not be repeated. We are in conference with the Turks at Lausanne. What action are we going to take to show our indignation at this outrage against the head of the Orthodox Church within the Turkish dominions and to assure his safety for the future?” “A Year of Church Councils,” Times, June 25, 1923, 13. 115. Dionissios Menas, “The Massacre of Nicaea,” Christian East 1, no. 4 (1920): 13.

295

296

|

Notes to Pages 46–47

116. “With Cross thrice-over blazoned on our banner o’er the earth— / With Thy Cross at heart rejected as a thing of lesser worth— / Shall we dare to stand hereafter and bid others put their trust / In a sign we hold so lightly that we leave it in the dust?” Queenie Scott-Hopper, “The Betrayal of St. Sophia,” Christian East 2, no. 1 (1921): 13. 117. “Future of Mosul: Turks’ Mood More Tractable,” Times, January 1, 1923, 10. 118. By the 1920s the YMCA explicitly rejected proselytization, a change from its beginnings in 1855 as an evangelical outreach organization. John Mott, a figure responsible for much of the YMCA’s aid to the Russian Orthodox in the pre- and postwar years, conducted all his activities with the assumption that the Russian Orthodox Church was the primary spiritual expression of the Russian people. Matthew Miller, “The Russian Ministry of the YMCA, 1899– 1939” (M.A. thesis, Wheaton College, 1994), 28. 119. Mott’s biographer credits Mott with the “positive Orthodox editorial policy of the press.” Hopkins, John R. Mott, 1865–1955: A Biography, 647. 120. Paul Valliere, Modern Russian Theology, Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov: Orthodox Theology in a New Key (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 282. Valliere lists Vladimir Solov’ev’s legacy as a second factor, noting his influence on Bulgakov, Berdiaev, and other Russian thinkers who became involved in ecumenical activities after the Great War. Because of Solov’ev, asserts Valliere, Bulgakov and Berdiaev regarded ecumenism as part of their intellectual tradition. Catherine Evtuhov’s biography of Bulgakov, The Cross and the Sickle (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997), splendidly charts the profound affect of Solov’ev’s work on Bulgakov’s intellectual and spiritual development. Both were consumed with sofiology, both sought a final reunion with the Roman Catholic Church, and both were heavily influenced by German idealism. But Bulgakov’s involvement in the ecumenical movement was far more substantive than that of Solov’ev. Bulgakov was the better theologian and better versed in the traditions of the church and patristic theology (in spite of Florovskii’s criticisms of his lack of appreciation for the patristic tradition). And while Solov’ev’s contributions to ecumenism were largely speculative and philosophical, Bulgakov’s were also practical and tangible. Bulgakov absorbed Solov’ev’s almost mystical yearning for church unity, but, unlike Solov’ev, he engaged in the hard work of meetings, speaking tours, and mentoring, becoming a full participant in the bureaucracy of ecumenism that developed in the 1920s and 1930s. 121. Seton, “The Basis of Reunion,” 69. 122. For an indication of the Orthodox approach to the Baptists, see Arkiepiskop Vitalii, “Besieda s Baptistom o kreshchenii,” Russko-Amerikanskii

Notes to Pages 47–52

|

Pravoslavnyi viestnik 31, no. 7 (1930): 94–96. The article complains about the propaganda of Baptists who managed to convert with their temperance rhetoric a poor Orthodox woman married to a drunkard. 123. “Besieda so Vselenskim Patriarkhom,” 17. 124. W. St. Clair Tisdall, “Why Not ‘A Church of the British Nation’?” Churchman 31, no. 140 (1917): 457. 125. George Irwin, “The Possibilities of Reunion,” Churchman 32, no. 152 (1918): 473.

3.

The Roman Catholic Church

1. Alexander, “The Russian Orthodox and Christian Unity,” 23–24. 2. Solov’ev’s La Russie et l’église universelle (Paris: Stock, 1922) received a hostile reception in Russia, and the Holy Synod forbade him to write on religious topics. Published in English as Vladimir Solovyov, Russia and the Universal Church, trans. Herbert Rees (London: G. Bless, 1948). 3. For a discussion of Solov’ev’s attitudes toward Roman Catholicism and Christian ecumenism, see Valliere, Modern Russian Theology, 175–92. 4. From Solov’ev’s letters, quoted in Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, 122–23. 5. Ward had worked earlier to disprove Newman’s assertion that the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church professed a common faith. 6. “Two Hoaxes?” Tablet, July 4, 1925, 5. It continued, “But in this respect we are entitled to hope that their heresy will prove to be only superficial and transient. Stifled by royal and imperial restrictions, exercising the most pretentious of their jurisdictions in a Mussulman capital, hampered by strange movements of Dissent (which, unlike Anglo-Saxon Dissent, has always endeavored to harden the Church in old ways rather than to lead her in new paths), and inclined to philosophical, theological, and devotional stagnation, the Orthodox Christians have suffered loss in their exile from the Catholic Church” (5). 7. “Rome and the Orthodox,” Church Times, July 10, 1925, 41–42. Still fuming several months later, the Church Times continued, “We cannot avoid the conviction that those theologians who make the most of the Pope’s exclusive prerogatives are more in accordance with the real spirit of their Church. After all, it is not only to a primacy by Divine right that we are invited to give assent. We are also required to assent to what is indistinguishable from a centralized infallibility concentrated in one person.” “Reunion and the Roman Primacy,” Church Times, October 16, 1925, 424.

297

298

|

Notes to Pages 53–54

8. George Hanks, “The Possibilities of Reunion,” Churchman 32, no. 154 (1918): 615. Hanks’s assessment of possibilities for reunion prior to 1870 would have been considered overly optimistic by most of his fellow Anglicans. 9. K. N. Nikolaev, Vostochnyi obriad (Paris: YMCA Press, 1950), 51. 10. Cannellopulos, “Christian Reunion from the Point of View of the Eastern Orthodox Church,” 304, 247. 11. “Besieda so Vselenskim Patriarkhom,” 17. 12. Praeclara gratulationis read, in part, “We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. . . . The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman pontiff. But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ’s Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs.” Praeclara gratulationis (June 20, 1894). www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/index.htm (accessed October 30, 2006). 13. Pope Leo XIII, “The English Text of Apostolicae Curae,” in Anglican Orders: Essays on the Centenary of Apostolicae Curae, ed. R. William Franklin (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1996), 131. 14. Ibid., 133. 15. “Catholics deny the validity of Anglican Orders as everyone knows.” Adrian Fortescue, “The Orthodox Church and Schismatical Ordination,” Month 137 (1921): 385. 16. F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, “Union with Rome Impossible,” Churchman 39, no. 1 (1935): 8. Hitchcock continued, “There are no doubt a number of advanced men who would sacrifice much (of what is not theirs to sacrifice) to be in union with Rome, and to have a Roman acknowledgement of the validity of their orders. But they may rest assured of one thing, that Rome will never recognize the validity of Anglican orders” (9). 17. Pius XI, “Mortalium animos,” in The Papal Encyclicals, 1903–1939, ed. Claudia Carlen (Wilmington, NC: McGrath, 1981), 315– 16. 18. “Furthermore,” Mortalium animos continued, “in this one Church of Christ no man can or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” Ibid., 317. 19. One German Old Catholic, Pfarrer Kreuzer, responded to Mortalium animos, “Causa finita! the work of reunion is not ended by the blows of this

Notes to Pages 54–56

|

paper cudgel; on the contrary, it has now a rational beginning, being rid of a problem which, from the first, has been insoluble. . . . The special task of Christendom, free from Rome, is to liberate our Catholic brethren from the yoke of anti-Christian Rome.” J. G. Tasker, “Rome and Reunion,” London Quarterly Review 150 (1928): 100. 20. G. P. Fedotov, “Oksford,” Put’, no. 54 (1937): 57. 21. Hamilcar Alivisatos, “Roma Locuta Est.,” Christian East 9, no. 3 (1928): 127. 22. Uniatism is sometimes known as the vostochnyi obriad, or Eastern Rite. Uniate churches recognize the Roman pontiff as their head and subscribe to Roman Catholic doctrine, but they use the Byzantine or Orthodox rite in their services. The term “Uniat” derives from the Union of Brest-Litovsk of 1596, when the metropolitan of Kiev and five of his bishops (together with thousands of their adherents) joined the Roman Catholic Church with the stipulation that they would retain their liturgy. The Orthodox have opposed the Uniat church since its inception, viewing it as nothing more than an attempt by Rome to gather Orthodox under its wing. 23. Praeclara gratulationis (June 20, 1894). www.papalencyclicals.net/ Leo13/index.htm (accessed August 25, 2002). 24. Ivan Georievsky, “Rome and the Christian East,” Church Quarterly Review 131 (1940): 95. 25. Pius XI, “To His Venerable Brethren, the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and Other Ordinaries of Places Having Peace and Communion with the Holy See on the 300th Anniversary of St. Josaphat the Martyr, Archbishop of Polock (of the Oriental Rite),” in Documents on Christian Unity, 1920–4, ed. G. K. A. Bell (London: Oxford University Press, 1924), 32–43. 26. Nikolaev, Vostochnyi obriad, 85. 27. Ibid. 28. Nemo, “The Russian Church and Rome,” Church Times, April 6, 1923, 384. 29. Matthew Spinka, “The Catholic and Slav Orthodox Unionistic Congress,” Christian Union Quarterly 14, no. 2 (1925): 267–72. 30. Ibid., 272. 31. See, for example, Ivan Georievskii’s history of Catholic activities among the Uniats: Georievsky, “Rome and the Christian East,” 77– 101. 32. Arkhimandrit Vitalii, “Khotiat sudami zadushit Pravoslavie,” Pravoslavnaia Karpatskaia Rus’ 4 (1932): 1. 33. Ierei, “Chto spaset ob”edinit i vozvelichit Russkii Narod?” Pravoslavnaia Karpatskaia Rus’ 6 (1932): 1.

299

300

|

Notes to Pages 56–57

34. Mitropolit Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, Mitropolita Kievskago i Galitskago, 17 vols., ed. Archbishop Nikon (New York: Izdanie Seievero-Amerikanskoi i Kanadskoi eparkhii, 1956–69), 9:112. 35. “Blazhennieishii Mitropolit Antonii i Karpatskaia Rus’ v dovoennoe vremia,” Pravoslavnaia Karpatskaia Rus’, September 30, 1935, 7. 36. Proselytism and propaganda “are strictly forbidden by the first article of the Greek Constitution,” he reminded his readers. Michael Constantinidis, “Letter to the Editor,” Christian East 10, no. 1 (1929): 9. The Greek government responded to the proselytization by closing the Uniate Orphanage School in Athens. 37. Nikolai Glubokovskii, “Christian Fellowship in Life and Work,” in Patelos, ed., The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, 145. 38. He dismissed the Unia —or “religio-cultural westernization”—as “less an act of religious choice than cultural and political self determination.” Those who turned to Uniatism succumbed to the temptation of “ ‘undisturbed peace’ under Roman obedience.” Georges Florovskii, “Early Russian Ecumenism,” in Haugh, ed., Ecumenism II, 76–77. 39. Nikolai Zernov, “Vozmozhno li soedinenie s pravoslaviem zapadnykh khristian,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 4 (1934): 15. 40. R. P., “Ot redaktsii,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 1 (1932): 16. The author continued, “The politics of Rome have not had the slightest success with the Orthodox. Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite are not successful” (16). “Only when the Roman Church recognizes the existence of Orthodoxy [can we think about reunion]” (18). 41. Ibid., 17. Roman Catholicism’s support of the Eastern Rite, said this anonymous Roman Catholic author, diverted attention from the true schism between Orthodoxy and Rome. It was not a step toward reunion but rather an impediment. R. P., “Soedinenie tserkvei i politika Rima,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 1 (1931): 14– 18. 42. Szeptycki, “How to Reunite Latin and Orthodox,” 385, 390. 43. Andrew Blane, Georges Florovsky: Russian Intellectual and Orthodox Churchman (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1933), 54–55. Yves Congar claims that Jacques Maritain “owes his awakening to an historical understanding of things and his sense of historical typology to his contact with Berdyaev.” Yves Congar, Dialogue between Christians: Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966), 7. Marc Raeff observes, “The cerebral neo-Thomism of Jacques Maritain was not very attractive to the Russians, but his liberal humanism in social and political questions, and his anti-Fascist stand, made him particularly interesting to the

Notes to Pages 57–60

|

émigrés, especially when contrasted with the positions of the official Catholic establishment.” Raeff, Russia Abroad, 141. Maritain did not contribute in any significant way to Orthodox-Catholic rapprochement during his time in Paris. In 1933 he left the Institut Catholique in Paris to accept an appointment at the Institute for Mediaeval Studies in Toronto. 44. Archbishop Davidson provided Lord Halifax with a letter. 45. The exact language called for an “acknowledgement of the papal see as the center and head on earth of the Catholic Church, from which guidance should be looked for, in general, and especially in grave matters affecting the welfare of the Church as a whole.” 46. Halifax did not blink when the Roman Catholics insisted that Christ himself established papal primacy, and Davidson worried that Halifax would minimize the importance of the Thirty-nine Articles. Lloyd, The Church of England, 1900–1965, 416. 47. John Knipe, “A Visit to Malines,” Churchman 38, no. 4 (1924): 291. 48. Hitchcock, “Union with Rome Impossible,” 7, 11. 49. Bell, Randall Davidson, 1255. 50. Ibid., 1164. 51. Archbishop of Canterbury, “The Malines Conversations,” Church Times, February 8, 1924, 134. 52. He quoted Mercier approvingly: “Men are made to love one another. Not rarely does it happen that the hearts of strangers, who from a distance believed themselves enemies, on understanding each other experience an intimate delight which they would not have suspected. It is perhaps the first time for four hundred years, said one of them, that studious men, Protestants and Roman Catholics, have been able to converse with entire frankness for hours and hours on the very grave subjects which separate them intellectually, without the cordiality of their relations being for an instant impaired or their confidence in the future disconcerted. Assuredly the drawing together of hearts is not unity in faith, but it makes for it.” Sergei Bulgakov, “The Papal Encyclical and the Lausanne Conference,” Christian East 9, no. 3 (1928): 118. 53. Ibid., 119. 54. “Not for nothing does the encyclical speak so much about Vatican dogma . . . and about the power of the Roman high priest.” “Vatican dogma [in Mortalium animos] came ahead of Nicea; Papal authority overshadowed scripture.” Sergei Bulgakov, “K voprosu o Lozanskoi Konferentsii,” Put’, no. 13 (1928): 79–80. 55. Sergei Bulgakov, “Ways to Church Reunion,” in Father Sergius Bulgakov, 1871–1944: A Collection of Articles by Fr. Bulgakov for the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius and Now Reproduced by the Fellowship to Commemorate the

301

302

|

Notes to Pages 60–61

25th Anniversary of the Death of This Great Ecumenist (London: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1969), 22. Original emphasis. 56. Ibid., 27. See also Sergei Bulgakov, “Does Orthodoxy Possess an Outward Authority of Dogmatic Infallibility?” Christian East 7, no. 1 (1926): 12–24. Original emphasis. 57. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 525. 58. The very fact that an Orthodox prelate would work closely with a Jesuit is significant, given Russian Orthodoxy’s long suspicion of Jesuit activities among the Uniates in Poland and the Ukraine. 59. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 526. 60. Evlogii does not cite the article. 61. Evlogii’s activities among Uniates in the Ukraine before assuming responsibility for the Russian Orthodox of Western Europe lent some credibility to these claims. He admitted that during his service in the Russian Duma he acquired a reputation as “a furious opponent of Catholicism.” Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 524. Evlogii was not clear whether the French accusations centered on his activities in France or on earlier efforts. 62. The Old Catholic bishop Vinart approached Evlogii about some sort of reunion between Orthodoxy and Old Catholicism. “The sincerity of his efforts,” wrote Evlogii, “were beyond question.” But ever cautious, Evlogii referred the question to the ecumenical patriarch, who insisted that a synod consider the matter. Vinart would not wait. He turned instead to a Lithuanian metropolitan, who demanded that Vinart divorce his wife and take monastic vows. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 530–31. 63. Ibid., 528. Evlogii is highly defensive in his memoirs about his fallout with Parisian Catholics. “The primary blame [for these failures] does not lie with me,” he insisted, asserting that he never turned down opportunities for “friendly relations.” But he comes across as rather petty at times, describing in some detail, for instance, a silly personal squabble with Cardinal Verde about being stood up for a meeting (532). 64. Ibid., 529. 65. F. W. Hodge, “Vladimir Soloviev: “A Russian Newman, 1853– 1900,” Dublin Review 202 (1938): 153. 66. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 531. 67. In his typically generous though noncommittal manner, he wrote late in life, “To bring results, the dialogue between Orthodoxy and Catholicism needs a bolder analysis of the course which determined the fundamental difference between these two paths of Church development. A new approach to the dialogue demands also attentive listening to the voice of the other side, in the belief that the life of both communities is guided by the Holy Spirit. We

Notes to Pages 61–62

|

Orthodox know and believe from our own experience that, despite all our sins and errors, our Church has not been forsaken by the Holy Spirit. It has kept its right faith and the grace-giving power of its sacraments. Do we have the right to affirm that Roman Catholics have been forsaken by God, that the whole evolution of their Church followed a false path?” Zernov never answered this last question. Nikolai Zernov, Sunset Years: A Russian Pilgrim in the West (London: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1983), 62. 68. The refusal of the Roman Catholic Church to participate in the conferences at Stockholm, Lausanne, Oxford, and Edinburgh, wrote Zernov, “drastically curtailed the scope of the [ecumenical] movement and made it onesided. Its conferences, instead of providing a common platform for the major Churches, became mainly a meeting-place for the Protestants.” Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 259. 69. Zernov, Sunset Years, 64. 70. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 255. 71. Nikolai Glubokovskii, “Rome, Orthodoxy and Reunion,” Christian East 3, no. 4 (1922): 77. Glubokovskii would later clarify, “I should not like to leave an impression that I am an enemy, on principle, of every kind of Papacy or of the Papacy as it has existed throughout Christian history. That would correspond neither to my Orthodox convictions nor to my scientific knowledge. I differentiate the historical Papacy from the dogmatised Papacy.” Nikolai Glubokovskii, “Papal Rome and Orthodox East,” Christian East 4, no. 4 (1923): 167. 72. Glubokovskii ignored the papal relief mission to Russia in 1922–23. Pius XI offered to redeem at his own expense the sacred vessels the Soviet government confiscated from local Orthodox churches under the pretext of famine relief. The Vatican spent an estimated $1.5 million to feed 160,000 starving Russians during the famine. Edmund Walsh, Why Pope Pius XI Asked Prayers for Russia on March 19, 1930: A Review of the Facts in the Case, together with Proofs of the International Program of the Soviet Government (New York: Catholic Near East Welfare Association, 1930), 22–23. 73. Nikolai Glubokovskii, “The Modern Papacy and the Reunion of the Orthodox East with the Roman Catholic West,” Christian East 5, no. 3 (1924): 127. 74. Glubokovskii, “Christian Fellowship in Life and Work,” 144–45. 75. Although in some ways Glubokovskii remained even more antiRome than Metropolitan Antonii (of whom I will say more later): “Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev—Hrapovitsky—has recently expressed himself as favourable to the possibility of granting the Pope a supremacy in rank, de jure ecclesiæ, over other Patriarchs. . . . For my own part, I consider his declaration to be hasty and untimely, since Roman Catholicism, believing that it possesses

303

304

|

Notes to Pages 62–64

far more de jure divino, will not respond to his advances.” Glubokovskii, “The Modern Papacy and the Reunion of the Orthodox East with the Roman Catholic West,” 129. 76. A willingness to believe in any number of Catholic conspiracies to undermine Orthodox countries was common among Russian Orthodox émigrés. Archbishop Platon, for example, made scorching pronouncements against Catholic countries (read France) that he accused of preferring Islamic rule in the Balkans to Orthodox rule. “How can there be any talk of the union of Churches or the Christians in our days, when, for example, the present head of the Roman Church is so anxious that Scutari should not remain in the hands of an Orthodox nation, preferring that this city should belong to Muslim Albanians. . . . Pope Pius IX darkened the eventide of his life by expressing his sympathy with the Turks in their struggle against Russia.” Platon, “Moe mnienie,” 318. Zernov assumed nefarious collusions between Rome and the Living Church, in spite of the Bolsheviks’ persecution of Roman Catholics in Russia. He reserved special venom for the Jesuit priest Michel d’Herbigny, who established friendly relations with the Living Church, a fact that, in Zernov’s mind, demonstrated that d’Herbigny “regarded the calamities experienced by the Russian Church [after the revolution] as an opportunity for the extension of papal authority over the nation.” Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 254. 77. “Po povodu osuzhdeniia lits rimsko-katolicheskago dukhovenstva,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 7–8 (1923): 2. 78. Andrei Karpov, “Piataia Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia: Heigh-Leigh, 16–23 Aprielia 1931,” Put’, no. 30 (1931): 60, 67. 79. Arsen’ev, “Dvizhenie k edineniiu Khristianskikh tserkov,” 85. 80. Riley, “Anglican and Orthodox,” 130. 81. “If all the innovations that have been introduced by the Roman Church should be ratified by the Œcumenical Synod, we would accept them without reserve. Without such ratification how could we be expected to accept without any discussion all that the Roman Church seeks to impose?” “Chronicle and Causerie,” Christian East 12, no. 4 (1931): 142. 82. “Graf Bennigsen i Mitropolit Antonii o soedinenii Tserkvei,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1923): 11. 83. From his Consistoria Allocution, quoted in Walsh, Why Pope Pius XI Asked Prayers for Russia, 23. 84. Walter Kolarz, Religion in the Soviet Union (New York: St. Martin’s, 1961), 184. 85. I. G. Aivazov, “O soedinenii tserkvei,” Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkii 5 (1945): 43. The article contains typical Orthodox criticisms of the Roman

Notes to Pages 64–66

|

church, railing against the filioque (36–37), the introduction of doctrines on the immaculate conception (37), and Catholic theology’s failure to limit itself to the writings of the ecumenical councils (36). A full list of dogmas “contrary to historical church teaching” begins on p. 39. 86. Nikolai Bukharin, Finance Capital in Papal Robes: A Challenge, trans. Moissaye Olgin (New York: Friends of the Soviet Union, n.d. [1930?]), 3, 7, 9. Bukharin, now hitting his stride, argued that the papacy has become “one of the fundamental forces which the bourgeoisie advances against the proletariat” (22). “The history of papacy is the history of endless wars, conspiracies, diplomatic deceptions, perfidious treacheries, secret murders, numberless pillaging expeditions” (15). Original emphasis. 87. G. Bennigsen, “The Anglo-Orthodox Rapprochement and the Catholic Church,” Blackfriars 13 (1932): 156. 88. Bernard Leeming, “A Note on the Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission between the Anglican and the Eastern Orthodox Church,” Gregorium 13 (1932): 580. 89. Michel d’Herbigny, L’Anglicanisme et l’Orthodoxie (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1922). 90. See J. A. Douglas’s summary of the work: J. A. Douglas, “Roman Controversialists and Anglican-Orthodox Friendship,” Christian East 3, no. 4 (1922): 185. 91. For an account of d’Herbigny’s efforts at proselytization in Russia, including an improbable attempt to convert Patriarch Tikhon on his deathbed, as well as d’Herbigny’s years at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, see Leon Tretjakewitsch, Bishop Michel d’Herbigny, S.J., and Russia: A PreEcumenical Approach to Christian Unity (Wurzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1990). 92. Joseph Keating, “Anglicans and Orthodox,” Month 157 (1931): 527–28. 93. “Ever since the protestantizing Cyril Lukaris, Patriarch of Constantinople, sent in 1628 the ‘Codex Alexandrinus’ as a present to Charles I, there have been friendly overtures between members of the two bodies which find a common ground of sympathy in their whole-hearted rejection of the Pope’s supremacy.” Ibid., 529. 94. Keating was appalled by the declaration of the Orthodox delegation at the 1920 Lambeth conference, which asserted that “in the English Church men differing from each other in faith, not in things indifferent and nonessential, constitute one undivided whole.” Ibid., 530. Keating complained about “that mysterious ‘Archbishops’ Committee’ . . . [which] has been engaged now for eight years in trying to determine what precisely is Anglican doctrine” (534) and concluded that there is an “intrinsic impossibility of Anglicanism ever expressing, as the Easterns desire, its ‘corporate mind’ ” (535).

305

306

|

Notes to Page 66

95. “Communicatio in Concione,” Tablet, March 13, 1920, 349. 96. Adrian Fortescue, “The English Church and the Orthodox,” Tablet, April 10, 1920, 495. 97. Fortescue quoted the Forty-fifth Canon of the Apostles: “Any bishop or presbyter or deacon who will pray with heretics, let him be anathematized; and, if he allows them as clergymen to perform any service, let him be deposed.” Fortescue, “The Orthodox Church and Schismatical Ordination,” 386. 98. Adrian Fortescue, “How the Orthodox Church Regards Our Sacraments,” Month 138 (1921): 116. “Probabilism [Fortescue’s dismissive term for economy] does not mean that I take any chance of committing sin or not. On the Probabilist theory, I am certain that I shall not commit sin. For here the axiom occurs: lex dubia non obligat. If then the law is doubtful, it is certain (not merely probable) that it does not bind me. But in sacraments there is no principle: sacramentum dubium est validum. So to follow a probable opinion about a valid sacrament is to run the risk of nullity in all effects that depend on that sacrament. Catholic theology admits no such principle, when it is a question of valid sacraments. In this case we must act on Tutiorist principles. The Orthodox ‘oikonomia’ [economy], is denial of this. Once I asked a distinguished Orthodox theologian what would happen if they accepted a man’s ordination by ‘oikonomia,’ and it then turned out that he had not been ordained. He said that God would supply the grace of the sacrament, if everything had been done in good faith. This gives an excellent view of ‘oikonomia.’ It is probabilism in sacraments, trusting to God to supply any possible unknown defect. Of course the theory is conceivable. God can give to man any grace of any sacrament without the external rite. But we have no guarantee that God will do so. Hence ‘oikonomia’ is a wrong principle.” 99. “Communicatio in Concione,” 350. 100. “If the Roman Catholic Church claims to be the unique and authentic representative of the One Church founded by our Blessed Lord and spread through the world by His apostles, that pretension is met by the counter claim of the Orthodox Church that in unbroken continuity of life, of faith, and of ministry itself it is the unique and authentic representative of that Church in Eastern Christendom. In witness to that claim it is staunch to contend that there never was a time when the Christian East accepted the papacy as by divine foundation the center and the guide of the Church; it repudiates the whole body of papalist medieval and scholastic innovations and theorisings in belief and practice, and it maintains that in the film of its mystic life throughout the ages it has preserved the deposit of faith committed to the apostles without ‘innovation, addition or diminution.’ ” J. A. Douglas, “Its Historic Importance,” in Usher et al., eds., The Orthodox Church, 9.

Notes to Pages 67–69

|

101. Fortescue, “The Orthodox Church and Schismatical Ordination,” 394, 395, 398–99. Fortescue cited Maltzev and Overbeck as examples of “some Orthodox theologians.” Neither, however, can be considered major figures, a fact that Douglas was quick to note: “Although Dr. Fortescue quoted an extract from Maltzew which at first sight appears to pronounce Anglican Orders altogether invalid, Androutsos is probably right in describing that theologian as not going farther than saying that they are ‘at least very doubtful.’ The quotation of the convert Overbeck as an authoritative Orthodox theologian is evidence of the straits in which Dr. Fortescue found himself to get denial even from an individual.” Douglas, “The Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Orders,” 203 fn. 2. 102. Douglas, “The Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Orders,” 201, 208, 203, 209. Original emphasis. 103. Douglas, “Roman Controversialists and Anglican-Orthodox Friendship,” 186. 104. The Dominican Yves Congar paid “several visits” to Sergei Bulgakov at the Paris Institute. But he found himself caught between two extremes. He was offended by the contention of Khomiakov, Berdiaev, Glubokovskii, and Archbishop Veniamin that Rome was motivated by a “thirst for spiritual denomination and imperialism.” Congar, Dialogue between Christians, 72 fn. 4. But he was also embittered by the Vatican’s hostile attitude toward ecumenical contacts. In December 1947 he was refused permission to publish on the position of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the ecumenical movement. 105. See, for example, Andrei Lilienfel’d, “Da budut vsi edino,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 11 (1927): 17–20. 106. “English Church Union,” Church Times, June 20, 1919, 606. At times Gore’s frustration with the papacy made him sound almost Orthodox: “The Roman Church seems to us to have shown itself in its assertion of its claims extraordinarily unscrupulous.” Charles Gore, “Catholicism and Roman Catholicism II: The Development of the Early Church,” Church Times, December 15, 1922, 651. 107. Some cannibals, it observed, “held a fervent belief that, in the eating of flesh and blood they, thereby, imbibed additional strength and courage. . . . By eating the smallest particle, they asserted that, in some mysterious manner, they would be strengthened in spirit. Is there any fundamental difference in theory between this and the Sacrifice of the Mass? The African Animist, with his inveterate belief in the realm of the spirit, maintains emphatically that the priest has a delegated faculty of being able to induce a spirit to enter material substance. . . . Is this practice and belief much, if in any way, inferior

307

308

|

Notes to Pages 70–73

to some found in civilized countries?” G. T. Basden, “Some Parallels between Animistic and Catholic Beliefs and Practices,” Churchman 53, no. 3 (1939): 153–54. 108. “I am not sufficiently conversant with the present position of negotiations with the Greek church to speak with confidence of the absence of any possibility of Reunion here. It is by no means so hopeless as with that of the West [i.e., Roman Catholicism], for the Greek Church does not, or at any rate till the issue of the Vatican decrees did not, regard herself as constituting the universal Church.” Hanks, “The Possibilities of Reunion,” 614.

4.

False Starts

1. Archbishop of Athens Meletios, “Letter from His Grace the Archbishop of Athens,” Christian East 1, no. 3 (1920): 9. 2. Ibid., 9. 3. Hamilcar Alivisatos, “Aspirations towards Union,” Christian East 1, no. 3 (1920): 126–28. 4. “Unto All the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Be,” 58–61. 5. “There can be only one safeguard for us,” wrote Dorotheos. “It is the dislodgement of the Sultan from Constantinople.” Such lobbying had a significant influence on Davidson. On December 17, 1919, he delivered a polemical account of Turkish atrocities in the House of Lords and argued that all Christians should be set free from Turkish dominion. Bell, Randall Davidson, 1089. 6. Ibid., 1088. Davidson did exert significant influence on behalf of the ecumenical patriarchate. In the midst of the crisis, following the receipt of telegrams from Orthodox from many countries, Davidson wrote to Lord Curzon, “I am quite certain that there is a steadily growing sense of resentment against the very idea of our acquiescing in what is apparently French policy, the abandonment of these Christian populations to the very foes who have been most ruthless hitherto in their cruelty, misgovernment, and massacres” (1091–92). 7. For an account of the sobor, see James Cunningham, The Gates of Hell: The Great Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1917–1918 (Minneapolis: Minnesota Mediterranean and East European Monographs, 2002). 8. We “believe that when the opportunity for reconstructing its proper organization is given to it” relations with the Church of England “may be more intimate than ever.” “Report on Relations to and Reunion with Episcopal Churches,” 129.

Notes to Pages 73–75

|

9. “Report on Relations to and Reunion with Episcopal Churches,” 120. 10. Lockhart, Cosmo Gordon Lang, 268. 11. “Report on Relations to and Reunion with Episcopal Churches,” 120. 12. “Christian Reunion: Strange Manifesto from Oxford,” Church Times, Febuary 27, 1920, 229. 13. “English Church Union: Our Relations with Nonconformists,” Church Times, March 19, 1920, 307. 14. “Loading the Dice,” Church Times, June 18, 1920, 605. 15. The ECU declared that it “cannot accept the Mansfield College statement on Reunion, since this statement is at least capable of being interpreted as laying down a position with reference to the Church which the Council [of the ECU] cannot admit, and as obscuring the truth as to the necessity of episcopal ordination.” “Communion with Schismatics,” Churchman 34, no. 173 (1920): 235. 16. “A Disavowal,” Church Times, February 27, 1920, 217. 17. “The Quadrilateral,” wrote the Church Times, “seems to have been lost sight of in recent sporadic and informal experiments in reunion.” “The Quadrilateral,” Church Times, March 5, 1920, 241. 18. “Communicatio in Concione,” 351. 19. “The Mansfield Resolutions,” Christian East 1, no. 1 (1920): 85. 20. Lloyd, The Church of England, 1900–1965, 406. See also Bell, Randall Davidson, 1004. Others viewed Lambeth as hardly worthwhile. “I doubt if there are a hundred persons in the United States who attach the smallest importance to its decisions,” scoffed Bishop Lawrence. Lloyd, The Church of England, 1900–1965, 404. Those disappointed by Lambeth’s decisions pointed out that it “is not a legislative assembly,” and “its findings have not the biding force of laws.” Bishop of Fukien, “Proposed Schemes for Reunion,” Churchman 43, no. 3 (1929): 214. 21. Lloyd, The Church of England, 1900–1965, 407. 22. J. E. C. Wellington, The English Church (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1926), 129. 23. The free churches, at least initially, responded “in a constructive spirit” and did not appear overly concerned by the language on the necessity of the episcopate. Mews, “Religious Life between the Wars, 1920–1940,” 452. 24. “Essentials of Unity,” Churchman 34, no. 177 (1920): 467. 25. “The removal of the ‘historic Episcopate’ from its rank as one of the conditions de iure in the quadrilateral, and reducing it to a place in a supplementary plea that, de facto, is not at all the same thing.” “The Lambeth Conference and Reunion,” Tablet, August 21, 1920, 238.

309

310

|

Notes to Pages 76–77

26. Or at least as long as the episcopate is to be viewed, in Bishop Waller’s words, as a “bond of unity” rather than a “papacy or a prelatical order.” “Lambeth and Episcopacy,” Churchman 34, no. 178 (1920): 525. 27. Thomas J. Pulvertaft, “The Sixth Lambeth Conference,” Churchman 34, no. 178 (1920): 538. 28. W. B. Selbie, “The Free Churches and the Lambeth Appeal,” Constructive Quarterly 9 (1921): 648. 29. Two Anglican archbishops met with a committee of free churchmen at Lambeth on December 8, 1920. Lang spoke to the Assembly of the Baptist Union in April 1921, and both the archbishop of Canterbury and the archbishop of York met with twenty-five delegates from the free churches on November 30, 1921. Lang’s speech at the Baptist Assembly prompted Dr. Shakespeare of the Assembly to write, “Your address was so persuasive that I said afterwards that if someone had risen and moved that we accept episcopal ordination, it would have been carried. I think perhaps this is an exaggeration, but something very near it would have been reached.” Lockhart, Cosmo Gordon Lang, 274. Such optimism did not hold. 30. Selbie, “The Free Churches and the Lambeth Appeal,” 647. 31. Ibid., 649. 32. Ibid., 654. 33. Ultimately Congregationalists, Wesleyans, Presbyterians, and Baptists proved unable to accept Lambeth’s position on episcopacy. 34. Alfred Garvie, “A Congregationalist View of the Lambeth Appeal on Christian Reunion,” Constructive Quarterly 8 (1920): 552, 554, 559. The principle is this: “That the living Christ alone saves to the uttermost all who come unto God by Him; that only His grace and man’s faith are necessary for salvation; that there is no human mediation which is alone legitimate and effective[;] . . . that to recognize in any way the exclusive or even paramount claim of any form of mediation is to limit the variety and the liberty of His grace in saving man” (560). 35. In July 1923 representatives of the free churches met in a “Joint Conference” with representatives from the Church of England, from whom they received a memorandum assuring them that the Church of England recognized their ministries as “real” ministries but noting as well that the Church of England could not allow anyone to minister in it who had not received episcopal ordinations. In September the Federal Council of Free Churches expressed regret over the decision. Discussions continued until July 11, 1924, when the Federal Council of Free Churches announced that it saw little hope for progress and suggested that the joint conferences be postponed indefi-

Notes to Pages 77–78

|

nitely. Fullerton, “The Free Churches and Lambeth,” 182. Subsequent discussions broke down entirely in 1925 when the Anglicans and free churches could not agree about episcopal orders. By 1926 the Assembly of the Baptist Union was grumping, “In general, the place given to Sacraments by the Lambeth Appeal would, it appears, exclude from the Universal Church of our Lord bodies of devoted Christians with whom we enjoy fellowship, and to this exclusion we cannot consent. . . . [The] union of such a kind as the Bishops have contemplated is not possible for us. We would say this not only with the frankness which we believe is the highest courtesy among Christian brethren, but with the assurance of our regret that the way in which they would have us go with them is not open” (181). H. L. Goudge later wrote a response to the free churches’ less than enthusiastic response to the Lambeth Appeal of 1920: H. L. Goudge, The Church of England and Reunion (London: S. P. C. K, 1938). The Churchman characterized the book as nothing “but a restatement of the Tractarian ideals of the Church and the Ministry. For all the kindly ways in which he says it, it seems to amount to nothing other than the phrase ‘you may take it or leave it.’ ” E. H., Review of Goudge, The Church of England and Reunion, Churchman 52, no. 4 (1938): 239–40. 36. F. Z., “The Lambeth Conference on Reunion,” Church Times, August 20, 1920, 173. 37. “Lambeth and Reunion,” Church Times, October 1, 1920, 302. 38. “Anglo-Catholics in Conference,” Churchman 34, no. 176 (1920): 407. 39. “The Lambeth Conference: Report of the Theological Committee of the E. C. U.,” Church Times, December 10, 1920, 589. 40. “The E. C. U. and the Lambeth Conference,” Churchman 35, no. 1 (1921): 7. 41. Cannellopulos, “Christian Reunion from the Point of View of the Eastern Orthodox Church,” 282. 42. On intercommunion the resolutions declared, “The Bishops of the Anglican Communion will not question the action of any Bishop who, in the few years between the initiation and the completion of a definite scheme of union [What, the reader might ask, constitutes “initiation” or “completion”?] shall countenance the irregularity of admitting to communion the baptized but unconfirmed communicants of non-episcopal congregations concerned in the scheme.” But then, in an apparent reversal (or at least in a qualification that seemed to negate the above language), the resolutions announced that Lambeth “cannot approve of general schemes of intercommunion or exchange of pulpits [note the use of “approve” rather than “permit”].” “Report on Relations to and Reunion with Episcopal Churches,” 40–41.

311

312

|

Notes to Pages 78–79

43. Protestants in the Church of England were relieved that Lambeth refused to forbid pulpit exchanges, while Anglo-Catholics took solace that “this privilege is very strictly limited” and “a purely provisional arrangement.” “The Report on Reunion,” Church Times, August 20, 1920, 177. 44. “Report on Relations to and Reunion with Episcopal Churches,” 127. 45. Athelstan Riley and Lord Salisbury held official lunches for the delegation, as did the Lord Mayor of London. 46. “Report of the Delegation of the Patriarchate Sent to the Conference at Lambeth, 1920,” Christian East 3, no. 1 (1922): 7. 47. Ibid., 11. It did add, however, “Our Church had not yet, like the Western Church, made a public pronouncement regarding the possibility of the salvation of Christians outside its bosom.” 48. Ibid., 8– 11. 49. “In answer [to our concerns],” wrote the Orthodox, “we were given certain explanations such as the following: ‘The aim of Elizabeth and her counselors was to find a means to the reconciliation of those Catholic and Protestant tendencies. It was a time of disorder, when different Articles of Faith were put forward by different parties in Europe. So it happened also in the Thirty-nine Articles. Our theologians accentuated the fact that these did not impose new Faith, but were composed to put an end to disputes. They were therefore articles of reunion. Their aim was not the definition of doctrines. They were not Articles of Faith, but Articles of a practical public State’s confession as is shown by their vague character. There is no branch of the Church which has not found that they might be rejected, yet they are difficult to reject. In the last fifty years the Thirty-nine Articles have fallen, while the Creeds have risen, in public estimation. If you wish to learn the mind of the Church of England, study the Prayer Book and not the Thirty-nine Articles.’ ” Ibid., 12. 50. Ibid. 51. In his summary of the Lambeth conference Metropolitan Germanos echoed doubts about the Thirty-nine Articles’ portrayal of the eucharist. Metropolitan of Thyatira Germanos, “Towards Reunion: Being the Substance of Two Lectures Delivered during the Anglo-Catholic Pilgrimage to the Holy Land, 1933,” Christian East 14, no. 1 (1933): 13. 52. W. Guy Johnson, “The Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Communion,” Churchman 51, no. 4 (1937): 201–2. 53. “Report of the Delegation of the Patriarchate Sent to the Conference at Lambeth, 1920,” 12. 54. “As long as in England no separation between Church and State is made . . . it appears in fact that only a revision of these Articles will perhaps be possible.” Ibid., 13.

Notes to Pages 80–81

|

55. Ibid., 19. Komnenos tried to put a positive spin on the discussions in a letter to the Church Times, in which he spoke of “the exceptionally friendly attitude of [the Church of England] towards ours, and the exceptional good feeling of the chivalrous English nation towards Greeks in general.” The letter had political overtones, and seems—at least in part—an attempt to remind the British of their obligations to the Greek state. Panteleimon Komnenos, “The Question of Union with the Church of England,” Church Times, December 3, 1920, 562. 56. The Orthodox delegation included representatives from all but the Russian Orthodox Church. Dr. Headlam, bishop of Gloucester, chaired the proceedings. Not everybody welcomed the formation of this commission. Cosmo Lang, archbishop of York and future archbishop of Canterbury, viewed the proceedings with some trepidation. Worried about the reaction of Evangelicals in his fold, he refused to allow the commission to touch on the authority of Scripture. “The Church of England stands or falls on the paramountcy of God’s Word,” Lang told Headlam. “I won’t let you give it away.” Lockhart, Cosmo Gordon Lang, 362. 57. “The Lambeth Conference and the Eastern Churches,” Church Times, November 5, 1920, 453. 58. Ibid. The Church Times had not at this point written off the possibility of pursuing unity with both the free churches and the Orthodox. It suggested that “probably the wisest course to pursue will be to continue negotiations with the East and do all that can be done there, while leaving the door open for Protestants.” “Some Nonconformist Critics,” Church Times, August 27, 1920, 199. 59. “Its whole notion of ‘unity’ and ‘Reunion,’ based on a dead or documentary rule, with no provision for a living interpreting authority commanding the submission of all its decisions, is Protestant.” “What Does Lambeth Mean?” Tablet, August 28, 1920, 270. 60. “The Orthodox Delegates to Lambeth,” Tablet, August 5, 1922, 165–66. A subsequent article sought to prove that the Orthodox position on transubstantiation was essentially that of the Roman Catholic Church and thus a major impediment to reunion with the Church of England. Moyes, “The Great Eastern Church and Transubstantiation,” Tablet, October 7, 1922, 453–55. 61. “Most of those who came in contact with him [at the Lambeth Conference],” wrote Douglas in his translation of Komnenos’s article, “will agree that he gave little indication as to the far-reaching conclusion which he was approaching.” In his preface to this article Douglas offered a little celebratory taunt directed at Roman Catholics who portrayed Orthodox theologians

313

314

|

Notes to Pages 81–82

at the conference as concealing their true, pessimistic feelings about the possibility of rapprochement. 62. Panteleimon Comnenos, “Anglican Ordinations,” Christian East 2, no. 3 (1921): 107–16. Also available as Panteleimon Comnenos, “Anglican Ordinations,” in Orthodox Statements on Anglican Orders, ed. E. R. Hardy (New York: Morehouse-Gorham, 1946). 63. As is any notion of the “absolute or conditional reordination of those of the clergy of that Church who may accede to Orthodoxy.” Comnenos, “Anglican Ordinations,” 37. 64. “In itself this justly conceived action of our Church would produce an increasingly favourable disposition towards us and ours among the adherents of this Church.” “Very many of the lay and clerical members of the Anglican Church are inclined to be Orthodox in mind and would gladly enter into union with our church, or otherwise fully communicate with her, if the non-recognition of their Priesthood did not stand before them as an insurmountable obstacle.” Ibid., 46, 47. 65. Ibid., 41–43. Komnenos suggested that even Cranmer would not have rejected the eucharist as a Sacrifice. Comnenos, “Anglican Ordinations,” 45–46. 66. Such as Arians. 67. Comnenos, “Anglican Ordinations,” 48–49. 68. Komnenos was careful to indicate the following: “In regard to the formulation of reception of the least definition of truths fundamental to belief, which are indispensable for the unity and communion of the Churches, I am of the opinion that agreement among the doctrinally consentient Churches [i.e., the other Orthodox churches] is indispensable.” This caution did not pay off. 69. “Terms of Intercommunion Suggested between the Church of England and the Churches in Communion with Her and the Eastern Orthodox Church,” in Documents on Christian Unity: A Selection from the First and Second Series, 1920–30, ed. G. K. A. Bell (New York: Oxford University Press, 1955), 25–30. 70. The Terms did garner the attention of the Karlovatskii Synod, which printed them in its journal without any comment other than Archbishop Gore’s caveat that they should be considered “neither official nor final,” coupled with his assurance that they “express the general understanding of the Anglican Church.” “Osnovy vzaimoobshcheniia,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 21–25. 71. A. C. Gloucester, “Lambeth and Reunion,” Church Quarterly Review, no. 222 (1931): 214.

Notes to Pages 82–83

|

72. “I am quite convinced that nothing has been said in relation to the Orthodox which could not be accepted by any loyal member of the Church of England.” Ibid., 216. 73. Douglas, The Relations of the Anglican Churches with the Eastern Orthodox. 74. Nikolai Glubokovskii, “Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism,” Christian East 3, no. 1 (1922): 21, 23. 75. “I can say with confidence that the Eastern-Orthodox authorities will never assent to his project of union on the basis of the Nicene Creed, with each Church retaining its differences of dogma even in regard to the priesthood and sacraments, and particularly the ‘transubstantiation’ in the Eucharist.” Ibid., 24. 76. “[Douglas] prefers to reach a Pan-Anglican agreement beforehand on the basis of the Eastern-Orthodox symbol of faith, with a view to subsequent union of the Anglican and Eastern-Orthodox Churches. I have little hope of a successful result, because in Church matters generally I do not rely on the power of human beings, and by what other means could such a Pan-Anglican agreement be reached previous to and apart from union with Eastern Orthodoxy?” Ibid., 26. 77. Douglas seemed to hope that an accumulation of private cases of intercommunion would generate some sort of momentum that would move the process forward. 78. Glubokovskii, “Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism,” 27. 79. In an obituary for Komnenos, Douglas wrote that during the ecumenical patriarchate’s delegation to the 1920 Lambeth conference, Komnenos “expressed himself to me as practically satisfied in regard to the all-important matter of Anglican doctrine as to the Sacred Ministry. His one reservation was that he desired proof that a large number of our clergy interpret our formularies in a sense compatible with Orthodoxy. I asked him how many. He replied: ‘About a thousand.’ In consequence of that I published a book containing a draft Declaration which he collaborated with me in preparing, and which in its main substance was afterwards adopted by the E.C.U., and, having been signed by nearly five thousand of the Anglican clergy, proved an important factor in inducing the Holy Synod of Constantinople to take its historic action. . . . In preparing the draft of the Declaration Professor Komnenos was always anxious to make the minimum statement, remembering, as he said, that there are many schools of thought within the Anglican Church.” J. A. Douglas, “A Great Theologian: Death of Prof. P. Komnenos,” Church Times, April 27, 1923, 470. There is no evidence that any of those criticizing the Declaration prior to this admission by Douglas had any knowledge that

315

316

|

Notes to Pages 84–86

Komnenos had a hand in producing it. Had Protestant Anglicans been aware of this, their reaction would certainly have been even fiercer. 80. “The English Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (An Entente Cordiale),” Church Times, May 26, 1922, 543. See also “Declaration of Faith,” in Bell, ed., Documents on Christian Unity, 1920–4, 90–92. 81. “With such a basis nothing can stand in the way of a blessed union.” Alexander, “The Russian Orthodox and Christian Unity,” 24. 82. “Anglicans and the Orthodox Churches,” Tablet, June 3, 1922, 697; original emphasis. “Reunion obtained through the misrepresentations of an unofficial but powerful party in the Church as to the Church’s official teaching would not weigh a scruple in the balance of truth which alone influences the Catholic Church” (698). The Tablet went on to note those aspects of the Thirty-nine Articles that found no expression in the Declaration, as well as the Declaration’s failure to mention “the black rubric” in the Prayer Book (i.e., the injunction that “no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto Sacramental Bread and Wine . . . or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s Natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain . . . and therefore may not be adored, and the natural Body and Blood of Our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here”; original emphasis). 83. One correspondent for the Church Times was willing to accept this diminution of the Thirty-nine Articles. But while conceding that some articles were problematic, he assured his readers, “The rest are most important.” Douglas Macleane, “The ‘Declaration of Faith,’ ” Church Times, June 2, 1922, 565. 84. In the Edinburgh Review, April 1923. Quoted in Pulvertaft, “Lambeth 1920 and After,” 176–77. 85. Arthur Headlam, “Reunion with the Eastern Church,” Church Times, July 14, 1922, 42. Headlam had written another, more conservative document. Bell, Randall Davidson, 1005. 86. Headlam, “Reunion with the Eastern Church,” 42. 87. “I think it is important to emphasize this fact, as at the head of the signatures comes the name of Bishop Gore who is Chairman of the Committee for negotiation on behalf of the Church as a whole with the Eastern Church. It is therefore necessary to say that this document has never been before that Committee or received any support from it.” Ibid.

5.

Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics

Portions of this chapter appeared as Bryn Geffert, “Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57, no. 2 (2006): 270–300.

Notes to Pages 86–87

|

1. “Consistency and Orthodox Policy,” Orthodox Catholic Review 1, no. 2 (1927): 49. 2. Bell, Randall Davidson, 44. 3. For a short history, see Theofanis G. Stavrou, “The Orthodox Church of Greece,” in Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, ed. Pedro Ramet (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1988), 183–207. 4. The Christian East, generally supportive of Meletios, called the anathema “an undisguised attempt to use religion as a political lever.” “Athens Letter,” Christian East 5, no. 2 (1924): 87. 5. In 1923, shortly before Meletios was forced from Constantinople by the Turks, the Greek government sent the metropolitan of Athens to meet with Meletios at Thessaloniki to urge him to resign. 6. It also plunged the Greek Orthodox Church in the United States into chaos. Supporters of Meletios in the United States refused to obey the royalist archbishop of Athens. Churches and dioceses divided over allegiances to royalists and Venizelists. Demetrios Constantelos, Understanding the Greek Orthodox Church: Its Faith, History, and Practice (New York: Seabury Press, 1982), 139–42. 7. R. F. Borough, Anglican chaplain of the Memorial Church in Constantinople and a correspondent for the Christian East, reported, “Naturally the [Constantinople] Synod and the Mixed Council are extremely angry at this unwarrantable interference by Civil Governments, and are determined to assert their independence.” R. F. Borough, “Constantinople Letter,” Christian East 2, no. 4 (1921): 199–200. 8. Relations between Athens and Constantinople, however, were never hopeless. For example, the Greek church and government agreed in 1922 to leave a number of Greek islands under the authority of the ecumenical patriarchate in order to promote its dignity. John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in the World Today, trans. John Chapin (New York: Pantheon Books, 1962), 146. 9. Van Dusen, “Some Relations,” 48. 10. Davidson recounted a conversation with Meletios, remembering that “he spoke very interestingly about his election, professing to be genuinely surprised that he should have been elected, especially when he was absent in America, and attributed it to two causes—first, that he had been a sufferer for the cause of freedom, and of all that Venizelos represented during the war, and had thus a claim on recognition as a sort of martyr; and secondly, because the wrongs of the Greeks who were friendly to the Allies, were widely and deeply felt, and that he was known to represent with Venizelos the cause of those who had thus suffered.” Bell, Randall Davidson, 1095.

317

318

|

Notes to Page 88

11. Ibid. 12. The Church Times editorialized, “It will be the great anxiety of all Anglican well-wishers of the Eastern Orthodox Church to maintain friendly relations with both parties in this dispute, and we are confident that all our Eastern Orthodox friends will realize that we are neither competent nor called upon to form any opinion on a matter of canonical controversy in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and that nothing would be more improper than for us to intrude our opinions on that matter.” “Eastern Notes: Probable Visit of the Patriarch-Elect,” Church Times, January 6, 1922, 7. Yet only a month later the Church Times indicated its clear preference for Meletios, noting his “attractive programme for the development of Orthodoxy and the Reunion of Christendom.” “The Eastern Church: Enthronization of the Oecumenical Patriarch,” Church Times, February 24, 1922, 206. 13. Davidson wrote to Gore on January 6, 1922, “In no case should I think it right to say anything betokening partisanship in so delicate a situation.” Davidson also met with Chrysanthos of Trebizond, who wanted Davidson to support a special synod of Orthodox bishops in Jerusalem (under British administration) to rule on the election controversy. Davidson told Chrysanthos that he would not interfere: “It is quite clear that these are technical points that even if those belonging to the Church of England were qualified to express an opinion, it is undesirable that they should do so.” Bell, Randall Davidson, 1096. 14. Meletios visited Lloyd George and, according to Davidson, came away with the impression that the British government was likely to convey him on a British gunboat to Constantinople. The boat never materialized. For a brief account of the incident, see Van Dusen, “Some Relations between the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches,” 46–49. 15. “The enthronement of Meletios IV as Archbishop of Constantinople and Œcumenical Patriarch passed off with the great éclat and amidst scenes of the wildest enthusiasm. Never have I witnessed such indescribable excitement since I first arrived here over twelve years ago—Meletios is unmistakably the chosen one of the overwhelming majority of Byzantines. . . . His Holiness is winning steadily, and in the long run the Athens Synod will have to climb down and give him their whole-hearted recognition—it is only a matter of time and political events.” R. F. Borough, “Constantinople Letter,” Christian East 3, no. 3 (1922): 140. 16. The statement concluded that the ordination of Matthew Parker was valid, that subsequent Anglican ordinations were valid, and that “Orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions.” “The Encyclical of the Oecumenical

Notes to Pages 88–89

|

Patriarch, Meletios, to the Heads of All Orthodox Autokephalous Churches,” in Hardy, ed., Orthodox Statements on Anglican Orders, 4. 17. In his letter informing Davidson of the decision, Meletios listed Orthodox theologians who declared that they accepted Anglican orders as valid. Meletios IV, “Letter of the Oecumentical Patriarch to the Archbishop of Canterbury [February 16, 1923],” in Bell, ed., Documents on Church Unity: A Selection from the First and Second Series, 1920–30. Bell argues that Meletios was influenced by Komnenos’s study. 18. Douglas, “The Purport of the Recent Orthodox Delegation,” 105. 19. Although many argued against sending it to Constantinople, Douglas’s Declaration nevertheless reached Meletios. Just before issuing his recognition, Meletios received the American Episcopal priest W. C. Emhart, who was traveling in the Near East with a mission from the American Episcopal Church to promote the cases of American Episcopal churchmen. Bell, Randall Davidson, 1106. 20. He wrote to Venizelos in April 1922, “All of us here in Smyrna and in Athens are struggling in the dark and hitting out at friends and enemies without any definite aim any more, since we are desperately divided even in our conception of the general interest of the country.” Mews, “Anglican Intervention in the Election of an Orthodox Patriarch,” 295. 21. On December 22, 1922, Meletios wrote to Archbishop Davidson, “Join with us, O brother beloved, and with all the Orthodox bishops, together with your own brethren, both in prayer to God and in protest to the [Lausanne] Conference for the averting of the wrong which is being wrought against the whole Orthodox Church.” “Lambeth and the East: Interchange of Important Messages,” 683. 22. The ecumenical patriarch, Joachim III, for example, wrote in 1902 that the desire for unity with the Western churches “comes up against the unbroken persistence of these churches in doctrines on which, having taken their stand as on a base hardened by the passage of time, they seem quite disinclined to join a road to union, such as is pointed out by evangelical and historical truth.” Patriarch of Constantinople Joachim III, “Patriarchal and Synodal Encyclical of 1902,” in Patelos, ed., The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, 30. 23. Archbishop of Athens Meletios, “Translation of Letter of His Holiness, the Patriarch of Constantinople, to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, in re Anglican Ordinations,” Christian East 3, no. 3 (1922): 112. 24. The hierarchy, Florovskii declared, “is an organ of the catholic unity of the Church.” An “injury to faith cannot but be reflected in one way or another in the hierarchy of such communities in which the apostolic ‘deposit

319

320

|

Notes to Page 89

of faith’ has not been safeguarded.” Georges Florovskii, “The Sacrament of Pentecost: A Russian View of Apostolic Succession,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 23 (1934): 29, 34. Bulgakov identified unity in apostolic succession as one of the three unities to which churches should strive (the other two being unity in faith and unity in sacramental life). Sergei Bulgakov, “One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 12 (1931): 18. 25. In September 1921 Douglas warned, “There are indications that the authorities of one or more of the other autocephalous Churches might dissent from Professor Komnenos’s view that the Great Church of Constantinople could or, if it could, should take action in this matter independently of the others.” Douglas worried in particular that Athens or Jerusalem would call Constantinople to task. J. A Douglas, “Editorial,” Christian East 2, no. 3 (1921): 105. Nine years later, reflecting on the discord generated by the announcement, Douglas wrote that “a strong current of opinion exists in the Churches which are characteristically Greek, no less than in Rumanian and Slav Churches that, though the prescriptive function of the Œcumenical Patriarchate [almost no reputable Orthodox theologian of the twentieth century would attribute a ‘prescriptive function’ to the ecumenical patriarch] warranted its informing the other autocephalous Churches of the decision at which it had arrived, its action in notifying that decision publicly to the Archbishop of Canterbury was mistaken.” Douglas, “The Purport of the Recent Orthodox Delegation,” 101. 26. Meletios noted in his letter to Davidson, “It is necessary that the rest of the Orthodox Churches should be found to be of the same opinion (in the matter) as the most Holy Church of Constantinople.” Meletios, “Translation of Letter of His Holiness,” 112. And in his report to the other Orthodox churches, Meletios claimed that he made his announcement “in order that opportunity might be given them also to express their opinion, so that through the decisions of the parts the mind of the whole Orthodox world on this important question might be known.” “The Encyclical of the Oecumenical Patriarch, Meletios, to the Heads of All Orthodox Autokephalous Churches,” 5. 27. “[It] will indeed be the work of the devil,” wrote Borough, “[if ] political complications prevent the unanimous acceptance of Komnenos’s report on Anglican ordinations by all the autocephalous Orthodox Churches.” Borough, “Constantinople Letter,” 199, 200. 28. J. A. Douglas, “The Limits of Agreements Reached by the Orthodox Delegates to the Lambeth Conference,” Christian East 11, no. 4 (1930–31): 178. 29. Mews, “Anglican Intervention in the Election of an Orthodox Patriarch,” 296.

Notes to Page 90

|

30. Douglas described Serbia as “faithful even in her ‘big sister’s’ adversity.” J. A Douglas, “The Oecumenical Patriarchate,” Christian East 4, no. 4 (1923): 189. Ties between Antonii and the Serbian patriarch were particularly close, especially after Serbia’s decision to allow Antonii to establish his synod in the patriarch’s canonical jurisdiction. 31. The Karlovatskii Synod termed the Living Church’s sobor a “false sobor” full of “false bishops.” Mitropolit Antonii, “Otzyv Vysokopreosviashchennieishago Mitropolita Antoniia o Moskovskom soborishche,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 9– 10 (1923): 10– 1 1. The synod pleaded with the patriarch not to send a representative to the Living Church’s sobor and thus “increase Church discord within Russia.” “Po voprosu o vozmozhnosti uchastiia Vselenskago Patriarkhata v sozyvaemom v Moskve lzhe-soborie,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 7–8 (1923): 3. Antonii’s disciple, Nikon, went so far as to claim that Meletios was under the influence of the Soviets. Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, Mitropolita Kievskago i Galitskago, 10:40. The year 1922 was an awful time to recognize anything associated with the Soviet regime’s religious policy. Christmas Day, for example, witnessed the first “Komsomol Christmas,” a carnival staged in 417 towns, with an afternoon procession that parodied the Russian Orthodox Christmas procession and included house-tohouse caroling with antireligious songs. William Husband, “Godless Communists”: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917–1932 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2000), 48. Paul Anderson of the YMCA, a great friend of Russian Orthodox émigrés, termed the recognition of the Living Church hasty and ill advised and “the chief cause of the failure of this attempt at advancing Church unity.” Paul B. Anderson, People, Church, and State in Modern Russia (New York: Macmillan, 1944), 182. 32. “The Greek Orthodox Church can have no intercourse with the false sobor calling itself the Living Church.” Mitropolit Athinskii Khrisostom, “Mitropolita Athinskago i Ekzarka Ellandskago khrisostoma—ob otnoshenii k Moskovskomu lzhe-sobor, osudivshemu Sv. Patriarkha Tikhona,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 15–16 (1923): 5. 33. Mitropolit Athinskii Khrisostom, “Gramota Mitropolita Athinskago i Ekzarka Ellandskago Khristostoma,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 13– 14 (1923): 2. 34. A representative to the Serbian metropolitan presented a report that asked the congress to “condescend to the feebleness of the widowed clergy” and allow them, through economy, to marry after the death of a spouse. A representative for the Karlovatskii Synod (before withdrawing from the congress) termed such a move an “indulgence” (poslablenie), an “abnormality,” and a “wavering [kolebanie] of one of the main bases of the canonical organization

321

322

|

Notes to Page 91

of the Church.” The Karlovatskii Synod later voted to “reject completely” any such indulgence. “Po voprosu o utorobrachii dukhovenstvo,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 13– 14 (1923): 10. 35. “Ob otozvanii predstavitelei Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi iz Konstantinopol’skoi Mezhdupravoslavnoi Komissii,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 19–20 (1923): 6. 36. Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, 10:36. 37. Jerusalem wrote, “A change in the Church Calendar is of no use and will not be accepted by our Patriarchate because it would place us in an unfavorable position in relation to the holy places of pilgrimage and to the Latins.” Quoted in Bishop of Triaditsa Photius, “The 70th Anniversary of the PanOrthodox Congress in Constantinople: A Major Step on the Path Towards Apostasy,” in The Orthodox Church Calendar (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1996; reprint, Orthodox Life 44 [January–February 1994]: 36–45), 21. “The Jerusalem Patriarchate has expressed itself as being in no way opposed on principle to the new Calendar, but has not adopted it for the avowed reason that the greatest inconvenience would arise in the Holy places if the Orthodox fixed feasts coincided with the Latin.” “The Orthodox Reformed Calendar,” Christian East 10, no. 1 (1929): 35. 38. The Holy Synod of Antioch called the new calendar “erroneous” and insisted that the question be referred to an ecumenical council. Patriarkh Antiokiiskii Grigorii, “Kopiia telegrammu Sviatieishago Patriarkha Antiokhiiskago, ot 10-go oktiabria 1923 goda, na imia Vysokopreosviashchennieishago Mitropolita Antoniia,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 19–20 (1923): 2. 39. Mews, “Anglican Intervention in the Election of an Orthodox Patriarch,” 296. 40. Photius, “The 70th Anniversary of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople,” 25. 41. The Christian East attributed Serbia’s refusal to the strength of Antonii’s influence. “The Orthodox Reformed Calendar,” 35. 42. A number of Orthodox in the Greek Constituent Assembly submitted a protest that termed the reform a “Popish or Protestant heresy.” “Petitsiia Obshchestva Pravoslavnykh vysokochtimomu Uchreditel’nomu Sobraniiu Gretsii otnositel’no unichtozheniia nastunivshago v Tserkvi raskola,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 1–2 (1925): 10–12. 43. An Anglican correspondent for the Christian East reported on Orthodox nuns and monks who insisted, “I tell you the truth, the Blessed Virgin does not like this new Calendar.” “What if we say prayers on days when there are no saints to hear them?” W. A. Wigram, “Present-Day Problems of the Orthodox Church,” Christian East 7, no. 4 (1926): 165.

Notes to Pages 91–92

|

44. On January 14 a fight broke out between supporters of the old style and the new style in a commune near Chisinau. “The New Style Calendar of Rumania,” Times, January 26, 1929, 11. 45. A few members of the Greek Constituent Assembly filed a protest, calling the calendar “an innovation in the Eastern Orthodox Church,” while reminding their colleagues what the Sixth Ecumenical Council “says about innovators, ‘Three times anathema on every novelty and thing contrary to Church tradition and teaching and the holy rule and blessed memory of the Fathers.’ ” “Anathema if someone breaks any kind of written or unwritten tradition of the Church.” “Petitsiia Obshchestva Pravoslavnykh vysokochtimomu Uchreditel’nomu Sobraniiu Gretsii otnositel’no unichtozheniia nastunivshago v Tserkvi raskola,” 11. 46. Photius, “The 70th Anniversary of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople,” 19. 47. He praised Meletios’s action as indicative of one who “is devoting every energy to the promotion of Christian unity; and who would willingly give all his strength, even his life for affecting unity with the Eastern Church.” “Pan-Orthodox Conference in Constantinople,” Christian East 4, no. 4 (1923): 166–68. 48. He wrote in 1925 to Meletios’s successor, Patriarch Constantine VI, “Although it is physically impossible for our Russian patriarch to raise his voice, I, the humble metropolitan of Kiev, standing second to him as recognized by the great all-Russian sobor in Moscow in 1917– 1918, and according to the recognition of all 32 Russian bishops abroad, have the heavy but inevitable duty to filially remind your holiness about the illegal activities of your predecessors—Meletios and Gregory VII.” Mitropolit Antonii, “Skorbnoe Poslanie Sviatieshemu; Blazhennieishemu Arkhiepiskopu Konstantinopolia— Novago Rima; Vselenskomu Patriarkhu Kir-Kir Konstantinu VI,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 11– 12 (1925): 2. 49. Association with Anglicans, according to a treatise published by the Holy Trinity press in Jordanville, NY (the seminary that today upholds the legacy of Antonii’s synod), was little more than heresy. The 1920 encyclical on church unity represented “ecumenical heresy.” “The close connection with European politics after the war, with the ecumenical movement, and with Masonic circles in Greece and abroad brought about by the hierarchy’s nationalistic strivings in Constantinople produced the most bitter fruit at the beginning of the 1920’s.” “The leaders of Church circles in Constantinople fell under the political-nationalistic spirit of the political allies of Venizelos.” Photius, “The 70th Anniversary of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople,” 8–9.

323

324

|

Notes to Page 92

50. Ibid., 6. Photius also complains of “ecumenical expansiveness” (23). 51. The Christian Century appeared to confirm such fears when it printed an article on the reforms titled, “Eastern Churches Try Western Ways.” “Disaster and weakness have a wonderful way of breaking up our confidence in traditional ideas. They make us open to suggestions from any one who will help us in the time of need. As we have said, even before the war many laymen in eastern churches and some of the clergy had recognized that, however much western non-ritualistic Christianity might fall short in beauty, it did, somehow, tend to produce sound character. That feeling, the weakness that followed the war, and the dread of the Roman Catholic invasion, are leading many of the strongest ecclesiastics in the eastern churches to say, mostly in private, but sometimes in public, that they want to add to their own noble Christian heritage the good things in western church life.” Henry Strong Huntington, “Eastern Churches Try Western Ways,” Christian Century 44 (1927): 301. 52. “Prime factors which encouraged the Throne of Constantinople towards ideas of ecumenism were the national-political interests of the hierarchs of Constantinople, their hopes of receiving help from the members of the Entente against Turkey, the ever spreading plague of Christian liberalism, the ecumenical movement which developed in the post-war years and the direct interference of politicians and Masonic hierarchs in the affairs of the Church.” Photius, “The 70th Anniversary of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople,” 8. 53. Here the current Russian Orthodox Church Abroad becomes even more conservative than its members at the time. Antonii at this point was still happy to consort with Anglicans. But Jordanville criticized Meletios for doing just that when, on December 17, 1921, he “vested, took part in an Anglican service, knelt in prayer with Anglicans, venerated their Holy Table, gave a sermon, and later blessed those present.” Ibid., 10. 54. “The calendar reform,” he wrote, “cannot be accepted by the Russian Church inasmuch as it contradicts the holy canons and ancient tradition of Church practice sanctified by the Ecumenical Councils.” Ibid., 25. Besides, argued the synod’s journal, the Gregorian calendar can be made to work— why consign it to the scrap heap and risk innovation when it can be reformed to suit their needs? Sergei Chetverikov, “Slieduet-li pravoslavnym prinimat Grigorianskii kalendar, kogda legko i prosto mozhno ispravit Iulianskii s tochnost’iu, v 26 raz prevyshaiushchei tochnost Grigorianskago kalendaria?” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 1–2 (1925): 9–10. 55. The Karlovatskii Synod repeatedly noted the absence of other Orthodox churches in its condemnations of the calendar change. In an action such as this, the “voice of the entire, Holy, Ecumenical, Soborny, Apostolic

Notes to Pages 92–93

|

Church and its decision cannot have the strength of mandatory directives for the Orthodox Church.” “Po povodu postanovlenii Mezhdupravoslavnoi Komissii v Konstantinople,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 17– 18 (1923): 5. The synod also criticized the inclusion of representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church whom the Karlovatskii Synod had not “authorized.” 56. Antonii called for a patriarch in Constantinople who would prove to be a successor to the “great” ecumenical prelates of antiquity and reestablish the Byzantine Empire. Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, 10:39, 46. Convinced that Constantinople was not able to take up the task, he turned his attention to Jerusalem, hoping that it would pick up the mantle. Ibid., 4:164. 57. The synod’s journal nervously noted the inclusion of Archbishop Aleksandr, stationed in South America, who attended as a representative of the Russian church without the authorization of the Karlovchane. “Po povodu postanovlenii Mezhdupravoslavnoi Komissii v Konstantinople,” 5. 58. The synod had the difficult task of explaining Tikhon’s own interest in calendar reform and had to argue that the ecumenical patriarch’s approach was not consistent with Tikhon’s letter of January 19, 1919, to the ecumenical patriarch, supporting an examination of just those issues Meletios raised at the pan-Orthodox congress. Tikhon, the synod’s journal argued, asked only that relations be established with Eastern patriarchs to explore the questions taken up by the synod; Tikhon’s letter lost its significance when three patriarchs failed to show. Ibid. 59. Antonii, “Skorbnoe Poslanie Sviatieshemu; Blazhennieishemu Arkhiepiskopu Konstantinopolia—Novago Rima; Vselenskomu Patriarkhu KirKir Konstantinu VI,” 1. Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, 10:40. 60. An article by Makharoblidze, a regular and often bombastic polemicist for the Karlovchane, argued that Russia’s efforts on behalf of Constantinople during the Great War should increase Russia’s influence in the region. E. Makharoblidze, “Polozhenie Vselenskago Patriarkha i Patriarkhii,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 19–20 (1923): 14. 61. Douglas observed that Antonii and his followers viewed such action as “not only anti-canonical, but it cuts at their national feeling.” Douglas, “The Oecumenical Patriarchate,” 189. 62. It is terrible to risk a schism over this issue, he wrote, at a time when we are suffering persecution “from the enemies of Christ.” “Po povodu postanovlenii Mezhdupravoslavnoi Komissii v Konstantinople,” 5. 63. “Can it be that Europe will not stand up for what is for us and all Orthodox Christians the highest authority, and not protect the world center of

325

326

|

Notes to Pages 93–95

our religion for 200 million Christians throughout the world?” Mitropolit Antonii, “Obrashchenie Arkhiereiskago Sinoda k Lozannskoi konferentsii s protestom protiv udaleniia Vselenskoi Patriarshei kathedru iz Konstantinopolia,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 1–2 (1923): 2. 64. Ibid. 65. Makharoblidze, “Polozhenie Vselenskago Patriarkha i Patriarkhii,” 14. 66. In his indictment of the calendar reform Photius noted that those who organized the pan-Orthodox congress of 1923 retained close ties with American and English Protestants. 67. “Ukaz Vrem. Arkh. Sinoda po voprosu otnoshenii zapadno-evropeiskhikh rus. pravosl. tserkvei k Ekzarkhu Vselen. Patriarkha v Z. Evropeie,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 16– 17 (1922): 2. 68. In response the synod published an ukaz affirming that the Russian Orthodox Church in Western Europe was subordinate to Evlogii, who was still on relatively good terms with the Karlovchane. Ibid., 3. 69. An invitation to Anglican representatives “will unquestionably meet with wide and strong sympathy in this country.” Yet, the Times added, “the right of Greek priests to get their hair cut, and the cloth and colour of their clothes in daily life, the permissive transfer of certain feasts to the Sunday . . . are interesting in themselves, but they are hardly subjects upon which representatives of the Church of England could advise with advantage to their Orthodox brethren or to themselves.” “A Year of Church Councils,” 13. The Times printed the entire text of the resolution changing the calendar. “A Reformed Calendar,” Times, August 27, 1923, 6. 70. Photius, “The 70th Anniversary of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople,” 20–21. Emphasis added. Photius notes with contempt that Meletios asked Gore “to inform the Archbishop of Canterbury that we are well disposed to accept the New Calendar which you in the West have decided upon.” 71. Ibid., 20. 72. The text of letters from the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Cyprus can be found in Hardy, ed., Orthodox Statements on Anglican Orders. 73. Daphne Tsimhoni, “The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem during the Formative Years of the British Mandate in Palestine,” Asian and African Studies 12, no. 1 (1978): 85. 74. Ibid., 90. 75. J. B. Barron, “The Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem,” Nineteenth Century and After 95 (1925): 284. 76. Tsimhoni, “The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem,” 107.

Notes to Pages 96–98

|

77. The Times followed the controversy avidly and printed many letters to the editor. See, e.g., “The Haifa Orthodox Congress,” Times, July 20, 1923, 11; “The Patriarchate of Jerusalem,” Times, July 28, 1923. 78. Few journals would join the Christian East in arguing for greater British involvement in Jerusalem’s religious politics. See “The Deadlock at Jerusalem,” Christian East 17, nos. 1–2 (1937): 2–4. Blackfriars remarked that such chaos tended to make the British public see a “tendency to disunion,” among the Eastern churches. Vacancies in the patriarchate of Jerusalem, it wrote, “have always tended to produce an ecclesiastical crisis, whose effects are felt outside the ranks of the religious body immediately concerned.” Donald Atwater, “The Orthodox of Jerusalem,” Blackfriars 13 (1932): 71. The Tablet chortled, “Once again the Orthodox Church exposes to the world the deplorable result of having no final authority over her members. . . . So we have the situation, common in the Orthodox Church, of a foreign Oligarchy commanding the whole position, jealously keeping to itself all control of all the good appointments, strictly excluding the whole body of the native Church from any share in anything but the duty of submitting and obeying.” The Roman Catholic Church is, of course, the article continued, the church “protected against anarchy in faith and discipline by such a central authority.” “The Quarrel at Jerusalem,” Tablet, April 22, 1922. The Church Quarterly Review sided with the Arab laity over the Greeks. Philip Usher, “Recent Tendencies in the Eastern Orthodox Church,” Church Quarterly Review, no. 207 (1927): 12–13. 79. “The Quarrel at Jerusalem,” 498. 80. The official journal of the Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church in North America, founded by conservative Russian Orthodox bishops in the United States. 81. “Consistency and Orthodox Policy,” 51. 82. “News, Notes, and Comment,” Orthodox Catholic Review 1, no. 3 (1927): 142, 141. 83. It added that the recognition demonstrated the “hopeless condition of chaos” in the Jerusalem patriarchate and “the helplessness, the insolvency and the misfortunes of the Orthodox Church.” Godric Kean, “The Orthodox Recognition of Anglican Orders,” Tablet, August 6, 1927. 84. The Russian Student Christian Movement’s organ noted with dismay the “happiness and celebration” with which the letter was received by authorities in the Soviet Union. “Obnovlencheskaia tserkov,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 2 (1926): 23. 85. John Douglas addressed just such accusations leveled by Michel d’Herbigny in the Christian East. Lloyd George had supported Venizelos, as did

327

328

|

Notes to Pages 98– 101

most progressives in the English Parliament. See Tretjakewitsch, Bishop Michel d’Herbigny, 184–87. 86. Usher, “Recent Tendencies in the Eastern Orthodox Church,” 13. 87. Riley, “Anglican and Orthodox,” 128. 88. “Reforming the Calendar,” Times, May 10, 1923, 13. 89. “An Oecumenical Council in Jerusalem: Will It Meet Next Year?” Church Times, August 7, 1925, 149. 90. J. A. Douglas, “Anglikanskoe i Pravoslavnoe priblizhenie k vozsoedineniiu,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 16. 91. Van Dusen, “Some Relations,” 53. 92. He wrote to the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem on March 24, 1923, “We are glad to receive any information as to what the Patriarchate has decided, but we do not ask for it in such a manner as to suggest that there is any hesitation on our part, or that we are dependent on the opinions which are expressed respecting our position and orders.” Bell, Randall Davidson, 1108. 93. Ibid. 94. From a summary provided by a correspondent for the Times. “Soviet War on Religion: Bishops’ Protest,” 9. 95. Matthew Spinka, “Post-War Eastern Orthodox Churches,” Church History 4 (1935): 104–5. 96. “Mgr. Meletios IV at Mytilene,” Times, July 13, 1923, 11.

6.

Jubilee, 1925

1. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 536. 2. The major Christian magazine in the United States still wondered in 1927 whether the Orthodox were even Christians. E. T. Colton, “Is the Russian Church Christian?” Christian Century 42 (1925): 602–4. (It concluded that it was.) 3. E. Makharoblidze, “K Nikeiskim torzhestvam v Anglii,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 7. 4. “The Patriarchs in England: The Banquet of Honour,” Church Times, July 10, 1925, 55. 5. Still, the article was hopeful: “One can but trust that in due time their visit will produce some result worthy of the ringing faith of Christendom, and that in this producing the British Empire may have played a mediatory and directing part.” “Britain and Eastern Christendom,” 63. 6. Lockhart, Cosmo Gordon Lang, 356.

Notes to Pages 101– 102

|

7. In a private interview with G. L. M. Clauson of the Colonial Office on June 18, 1925, Archbishop Davidson claimed that the bishop of London had extended the invitation on the advice of the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem, unaware of the problems in the patriarchate. Once in London, Davidson helped Damianos make contact with the Colonial Office, but Damianos seems not to have gotten very far. Tsimhoni, “The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem,” 12, 13 fn. 57, 16. 8. Makharoblidze, “K Nikeiskim torzhestvam v Anglii,” 7. 9. Antonii reported, “[Douglas] had with me prolonged conversations as to the sympathies of the most authoritative section of the Anglican Church with Orthodoxy and Russia. He made me give my word to visit England: and when I told him that, as a refugee, I had not at my disposal even the price of a second-class ticket, he informed me that arrangements would be made for the expenses of my journey. In general, I do not like traveling, and any kind of a journey is a burden to me; but in this case the cordial invitation of our friend Dr. Douglas was reinforced by yet another motive, namely, the Primate of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, thanks to whose efforts our Most Holy Patriarch Tikhon was protected from violence and contumely from the side of the Bolsheviks, and lived two or three years longer than was agreeable.” Metropolitan Antonii, “Impressions of England: Interview with the Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev,” Church Times, August 7, 1925, 149. 10. The best study of this issue is Stephen Batalden and Michael Palma, “Orthodox Pilgrimage and Russian Landholding in Jerusalem: The British Colonial Record,” in Baltalden, ed., Seeking God, 251–63. 11. Sviataia zemlia (Holy Land). Ibid., 255. 12. Ibid., 256. 13. The Church Times praised him to the heavens, noting his “brilliant academic career” and the “vicissitudes and hardships” he suffered “at the hands of the Poles.” “Sixteenth Centenary of Nicaea: Celebration in London,” Church Times, June 19, 1925, 734. 14. “Not a fortnight ago the Bishop of Birmingham, former Canon of Westminster Abbey, preaching in this Abbey upon the present state of the Church, said the following: ‘As Christianity became Catholicized, it also took over from the mystery faiths most of their magical sacramentalism. Religion became contaminated by magic; the spiritual degraded to the mechanical. The Catholicizing of Christianity was the paganizing of it.’ ” G. Bennigsen, “An Open Letter to the Metropolitans Anthony and Evlogi,” Tablet, June 27, 1925, 864. A subsequent article suggested giving “the distinguished visitors” a translation of the sermon. “News and Notes,” Tablet, June 27, 1925, 859.

329

330

|

Notes to Pages 103– 104

Bennigsen’s article also quoted from the writings of W. R. Inge, dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral, who questioned the literal truth of the Virgin birth and the physical resurrection. Such writings, said Bennigsen, “cannot but revolt every faithful Christian.” 15. Bennigsen, “An Open Letter,” 864–65. 16. G. Bennigsen, “Count Bennigsen’s ‘Open Letter,’ ” Tablet, July 18, 1925, 94. 17. “Two Hoaxes?” 6. 18. Douglas also tried to convince Roman Catholics in England that the Orthodox visit was not an attempt to form an anti-Catholic bloc, as the Tablet suggested. “I want to assure those desiring rapprochement between England and Rome . . . that their apprehension is groundless.” Douglas, “Anglikanskoe i Pravoslavnoe priblizhenie k vozsoedineniiu,” 17. 19. The Tserkovnyia viedomosti was incensed by other, unnamed sources that claimed that Antonii had kissed the archbishop of Canterbury’s hand and that, in consorting with Anglicans, he had rejected the eucharist, the ecumenical councils, and the veneration of the Mother of God. Makharoblidze, “K Nikeiskim torzhestvam v Anglii,” 10. 20. “Rome and the Orthodox,” 42. 21. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 534. 22. “Eastern Prelates’ Programme,” Church Times, July 3, 1925, 26. A parliamentary commission in the House of Lords spoke with Antonii, Glubokovskii, and Alivizatos about rapprochement, but the discussions appear to have produced no firm results. Makharoblidze, “K Nikeiskim torzhestvam v Anglii,” 8. 23. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 534. He was especially impressed with the monastery at Kelham. 24. Nikolai Glubokovskii, “Riech professora N. N. Glubokovskago proiznesennaia na torzhestvennom obiedie v Oksfordskom Universitetie 23 iunia st. st.,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 33. 25. “[He made] an especially favorable impression on me.” Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 534. 26. According to Zernov, Frere “learned enough Russian to speak and read the language.” Like Evlogii, Zernov considered Frere “a catholic in the deepest and truest sense of the word” and marveled that such “a man of the West” whose “family, tradition, his interests, his upbringing, his mentality” and whose “very gifts were all rooted in the Western Tradition” could be so taken with the Eastern church. Nikolai Zernov, “Bishop Frere and the Russian Orthodox Church,” in Walter Howard Frere, ed. C. S. Phillips (London:

Notes to Pages 104– 105

|

Faber & Faber, 1947), 186, 89. The Russian Society was founded in 1912 as a parallel body to the Anglican and Eastern Church Union founded in England in 1906. 27. Frere argued against the 1662 communion rite and advocated experimenting with more primitive forms of the eucharist. Christopher Cocksworth, Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 87. 28. According to E. K. Talbot, the appearance of the Mirfield Manuals “was the occasion of an outburst of Protestant agitation which for several years attended the evangelical efforts of the ‘Mirfield Monks.’ The archbishop of Canterbury, at that time a visitor of the community, became much perturbed; and Frere was involved in long correspondence with him, in which he upheld the refusal of the community to censor the publications and utterances of its members.” E. K. Talbot, “Mirfield,” in Phillips, ed., Walter Howard Frere, 58. 29. Talbot recalls the installation of the first electric light in the Mother House at Mirfield, which “drew from [Frere] a fear lest the community should insensibly slip into luxury.” Ibid. 30. “The Patriarchs at the Abbey: Nicene Commemoration on St. Peter’s Day,” 25. Evlogii was equally excited, terming the ceremony a “historic moment.” Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 535. 31. The Orthodox responded with a patronizing tone. One archbishop argued that the Gallic liturgy of St. Patrick distinguished itself from the Roman liturgy by its “Eastern Character” and lamented the “weakening” of the independence of British churches as the Roman liturgy became more prominent in the ninth and tenth centuries. This appearance of the Eastern patriarchs in London, he suggested, was a step toward again setting things right. Arkhiepiskop Valliiskii, “Riech Arkhiepiskopa Valliiskago na priemie Vostochnykh Ierarkhov,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 19–20. 32. Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, 7:83. 33. Bell, Randall Davidson, 1113. 34. Makharoblidze, “K Nikeiskim torzhestvam v Anglii,” 8. 35. Mitropolit Evlogii, “Riech Mitropolita Evlogiia pri vstriechie Sviatieishikh Patriarkhov Fotiia i Damiana v russkoi tserkvi v Londonie 22 iiunia st. st.,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 28. 36. Mitropolit Evlogii, “Riech Mitropolita Evlogiia skazannaia pri posieshchenii s Patriarkhiami Anglo-Katolicheskago Kongressa,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 18. 37. Douglas, “Anglikanskoe i Pravoslavnoe priblizhenie k vozsoedineniiu,” 16.

331

332

|

Notes to Pages 105– 106

38. Antonii, “Impressions of England,” 149. 39. Mitropolit Antonii, “Riech Mitropolita Antoniia na zavtrak u korolevskago Dukhovnika v Windsor’ie,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 18. 40. Mitropolit Antonii, “Otvietnaia riech Mitropolita Antoniia Arkhiepiskopu Valliiskomu,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 20. 41. Makharoblidze, “K Nikeiskim torzhestvam v Anglii,” 7. 42. Mitropolit Antonii, “Riech Mitropolita Antoniia, skazannaia na torzhestvennom obiedie v Holborn Hotel’ie v otviet na riech Ministra Aviatsii Sir Samuel Hoare,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 17. 43. Two years earlier Antonii had written an article for Novoe Vremia (published in Belgrade), arguing that Anglicans wishing to unite with the Orthodox Church could be received into the Orthodox Church according to the “third rite”—that is, through “the penitential act of renunciation of error”—much in the same way that the Orthodox Church received the heretical Nestorians and Donatists. The Church Times reported on this article in 1924, but few Anglicans seemed to be aware of Antonii’s pronouncement and greeted his speech at the Holborn Hotel as a welcome surprise. “The Russian Church and Anglican Orders: Opinion of the Metropolitan Anthony,” Church Times, February 8, 1924, 152. Douglas also noted in 1924 that Antonii had, at some earlier, unspecified date, ordained a French Canadian who had received deacons’ orders from an Anglican bishop in Palestine. “Chronicle and Causerie: The Metropolitan and Anglican Ordinations,” Christian East 5, no. 2 (1924): 54–55. 44. Antonii was not always consistent on this score. When political issues were at stake, he was more interested (if not enthusiastic) about fraternization with other confessions. When a world conference on faith and order was first proposed in 1914, Antonii agreed to accept an invitation even though he, in Florovskii’s words, “bluntly” declined to recognize any non-Orthodox as Christians. “Indeed,” wrote Antonii to Robert Gardiner, “we are not going to concelebrate there, but we shall have to search together for a true teaching on the controversial points of faith.” (Florovskii approved of such an attitude.) Georges Florovskii, “The Orthodox Church and the World Council of Churches,” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 2, no. 4 (1954): 14. In 1916 Antonii suggested that recognizing a lack of grace in other confessions did not necessarily mean that Orthodox could not consort with members of those confessions. See, for example, Mitropolit Evlogii, “Otviet na tret’e pis’mo sekretaria Vsemirnoi Konferentsii Episkopal’noi Tserkvi v Amerikie,” Viera i razum, nos. 8–9 (1916): 893. That same year Antonii insisted, “In order to love one another we must get to know one another; in order to unite we must

Notes to Pages 106– 107

|

love.” Archpriest of Khabarovsk Antonii, “Chetvertoe pis’mo k Arkhiepiskopu Antoniiu Sekretaria Vsemirnoi Konferentsii Episkopal’noi Tserkvi v Amerikie Roberta Gardinera,” Viera i razum, no. 12 (1916): 1448. 45. Christian East (February 1922); quoted in F. W., “Outstretched Hands,” Month 165 (1935): 174. 46. Antonii, “Riech Mitropolita Antoniia, skazannaia na torzhestvennom obiedie v Holborn Hotel’ie v otviet na riech Ministra Aviatsii Sir Samuel Hoare,” 17. 47. Makharoblidze, “K Nikeiskim torzhestvam v Anglii,” 8. 48. Douglas, “Anglikanskoe i Pravoslavnoe priblizhenie k vozsoedineniiu,” 16. 49. Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, 7:82. 50. “The Russian Church and Anglican Orders: Opinion of the Metropolitan Anthony,” 159. 51. Converts to the Orthodox Church under the first rite are those whose baptism is questionable and who thus require rebaptism. The second rite is for those whose confessions have not maintained the apostolic succession— they can be received in their baptism but require chrismation. 52. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 536. Evlogii also noted that Patriarch Photios of Alexandria took a more limited view, even permitting intercommunion with Anglicans. 53. Antonii drew up an extended statement on the matter for the Christian East in 1927. In this study Antonii compared Anglicans to Donatists, who, the Carthaginian Council decided in its Seventy-ninth Canon, should be received if they, in Antonii’s words, “correct their disposition and desire to come to Catholic unity.” The article is difficult to follow and seems to embody a number of contradictions. At points Antonii appears to recognize apostolic succession in the Church of England, yet he quotes St. Basil the Great in decreeing that “no schismatics have any succession and cannot have any; hierarchs falling away from the Church ‘become laymen and cannot confer the grace of the Holy Spirit, of which they are themselves devoid.’ Therefore, in judging of one or the other rite of reception, the question of schismatical succession is in any case secondary if not quite irrelevant [original emphasis].” In another section he suggests, “The manner of admitting the various apostates depends not so much on the quality of the heresy, as on the spiritual disposition of the candidate, and on the expected benefit to the Holy Church.” The upshot seems to be that the extent of Anglican heresy is difficult to determine, but economy can allow the reception of penitent Anglicans through the third rite. Mitropolit Antonii, “Why Anglican Clergy Could be Received in Their Orders,” Christian East 8, no. 2 (1927): 60–69.

333

334

|

Notes to Pages 107– 111

54. It is easier, he said, to talk about the unity of Christianity than the unity of the church. Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, 7:85. 55. “The Patriarchs in England: The Banquet of Honour,” 55. 56. Antonii, “Impressions of England,” 149. 57. Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, 86. 58. “Two Hoaxes?” Tablet, July 4, 1925, 6. Douglas responded with a letter to the editor, which, while indignant, did not really address the implications of the question. J. A Douglas, “Two Hoaxes?” Tablet, July 18, 1925, 93. 59. Douglas, “Anglikanskoe i Pravoslavnoe priblizhenie k vozsoedineniiu,” 16. 60. Antonii, “Impressions of England,” 149; emphasis added. Evlogii, too, easily recognized the divisions in the Church of England. He recalled in his memoirs seeing a placard reading, “Down with the Bishops,” and remarked, “Such is the temper of Free England.” Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 536. 61. “Anglikane i Pravoslavnye,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 11–12 (1926): 8. 62. Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, 7:94, 92. He praised the Anglican Church primarily for not trying to exploit the “weakened state” of the Orthodox Church (92). 63. Hoffman Nickerson, “Historical Scholarship and the Reunion of Christendom,” Christian East 6, no. 2 (1925): 90. 64. Alexander, “The Russian Orthodox and Christian Unity,” 22–26. 65. Wellington, The English Church, 119. 66. Nikolai Glubokovskii, “Khristianskoe edinenie i bogoslovskoe prosvieshchenie v pravoslavnoe perspektivie,” Put’, no. 4 (1926): 142. 67. N. K., “Snosheniia Anglikanskoi tserkvi s Pravoslavnoiu,” Put’, no. 5 (1926): 28.

7.

The Russian Student Christian Movement

1. Mitropolit Antonii, “Otviet Mitropolita Antoniia na privietstvie, poslannoe emu IV obshchim siezdom R. S. Kh. D. zarubezhom,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 10 (1926): 26. 2. Marc Raeff called the Viestnik a “more popular and democratic version of Put’.” 3. When a split developed between inclusivists and evangelical exclusivists, much of its evangelical membership left to form a rival organization. Adrian Hastings, A History of English Christianity, 1920–1985 (London: Collins, 1986), 88–89.

Notes to Pages 111– 114

|

4. Bird, “In Partibus Infidelium: Sergius Bulgakov and the YMCA (1906– 1940),” 94, 96. 5. Ibid., 100. Original emphasis. 6. Bulgakov would admit that at this date he was still far from considering himself a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. Sergei Bulgakov, Sviet nevechernii: sozertsaniia i umozrieniia (Moskva: Put’, 1917), 10. 7. In 1909 Bulgakov would complete his contributions to Vekhi (Signposts), a groundbreaking, antirevolutionary work by former radicals questioning the individualism at the root of Russian revolutionary thinking and arguing for a return to Christian values. Nikolai Berdiaev, ed., Vekhi: sbornik statei o russkoi intelligentsii (Moskva: Tip. V. M. Sablina, 1909). 8. The secretary of the World Student Christian Federation noted, “[Bulgakov is] apparently afraid of us having a too Protestant colour. He asked me many questions about the place the Church of England takes in our movement etc.—& asked for my own personal opinions of Church life etc.” Bird, “In Partibus Infidelium: Sergius Bulgakov and the YMCA (1906–1940),” 105. 9. Greta Lagenskjold, Baron Paul Nicolay: Christian Statesman and Student Leader in Northern and Slavic Europe, trans. Ruth Evelyn Wilder (New York: George H. Doran, 1924), 135. 10. Bird, “In Partibus Infidelium: Sergius Bulgakov and the YMCA (1906– 1940),” 94. 11. Miller, “The Russian Ministry of the YMCA,” 54. 12. Sergei Bulgakov, A Bulgakov Anthology, ed. James Pain and Nicolas Zernov (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976). 13. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 228. 14. Sergei Chetverikov, “Miesto Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia v pravoslavnoi tservi,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 6 (1932): 13. 15. Sherwood Eddy, A Century with Youth: A History of the Y.M.C.A. (New York: Association Press, 1944), 379. 16. Zernov attributed Evlogii’s success in winning support for the Theological Institute in Paris to his presence at the 1924 RSCM conference in Ageron, France. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 231. 17. Ibid., 229. 18. Ibid., 232. Metropolitan Antonii attended this conference, and we can only assume that he supported this resolution. 19. N. A. Klepinin, “Bratstvo i puti Pravoslavnogo Studentcheskago Dvizheniia,” Put’, no. 3 (1926): 129, 131. 20. L. Zander, “S”iezd v Khopovie,” Put’, no. 2 (1926): 120.

335

336

|

Notes to Pages 114– 116

21. G. G. Kul’man, “Protestantizm i Pravoslavye,” Put’, no. 5 (1926): 94. Kullmann became almost obsequious, complaining that Protestants “in the name of evangelical purity” too often place justificational purity higher than the sacraments (25). 22. Zander, “S”iezd v Khopovie,” 121, 120. 23. The Karlovatskii Synod failed to note the irony inherent in their condemnation of an organization whose members in Russia faced persecution by the Soviet authorities, authorities against whom the Karlovchane constantly defined themselves. 24. Nikolai Zernov and Militsia Zernov, Za Rubezhom: Belgrad, Parizh, Oksford (Khronika Sem’i Zernovykh) (Paris: YMCA Press, 1973), 217. Long before 1926 the Karlovchane issued dire warnings about the dangers of contacts with Protestantism. A meeting between representatives of the American Methodist Church and the Living Church in Russia in the early 1920s prompted accusations about conspiracies by “Christ-selling Jews” (presumably under the guise of Methodism) to pillage God’s church. Ek. M., “Chego khochet ‘Zhivaia Tserkov’?” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 1–2 (1923): 6–7. 25. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 234. 26. Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 9 (August 1926): 11. Quoted in Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance. 27. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 234. 28. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 562. 29. Such a meeting occurred in Athens in 1930. One Orthodox bishop at the Athens conference proclaimed, “Life is life, not a monastery, not a parochial school. Life is changing. Somehow we must find a balance between the Church and the Christian life on one side, and changing modern life on the other.” Donald Lowrie, “Christian East Meets Christian West,” Christian East 11, no. 1 (1930): 31–36. Such a sentiment would have been anathema to many of the Karlovatskii bishops. 30. Berdiaev, Zenkovskii, Fedotov, Florovskii, Gillet, and Chetverikov were all present at the sixth conference of the RSCM in 1929. 31. Zernov, Za Rubezhom, 218. 32. Donald Davis, “The American YMCA and the Russian Emigration,” Sobornost 9, no. 1 (1987): 32. 33. Miller, “The Russian Ministry of the YMCA,” 61. Bird, “In Partibus Infidelium: Sergius Bulgakov and the YMCA (1906– 1940),” 98. 34. Davis, “The American YMCA and the Russian Emigration,” 29. 35. “We depart sharply from them in our conception of the value that the Church provides for the attainment of intercourse with our Savior.” For the Protestants, “ecumenism is achieved either in an extra-church manner

Notes to Pages 116– 118

|

[nadtserkovno] —that is, interconfessionally—or by breaking down the fences of earthly church societies.” But neither solution was viewed as acceptable. “Protestantskoe studenchestvo i tserkov,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 4 (1926): 15. 36. Including Bulgakov, Zernov, Zenkovskii, Bezobrazov, Berdiaev, Zander, Kullmann, and Laurie and Anderson of the YMCA. 37. L. N., “Sekretarskii otchet ob obshchei godichnoi chetvertoi konferentsii Russkago Studencheskago Khristianskago Dvizheniia za rubezhom, sentiabria 1–5 1926 g. shato B’ervil’, bliz Parizha,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 10 (1926): 21. 38. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 236. 39. N., “Sekretarskii otchet,” 20–21. 40. V. V. Zenkovskii, “The Russian Student Christian Movement Outside Russia,” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 28, no. 6 (1927): unnumbered pages. 41. Since 1921, he wrote, there had been a “significant evolution” of the YMCA for the better, an evolution that “is little known to the sobor.” (He does not note what sort of evolution). Antonii noted that even he had participated in the publication of materials subsidized by the YMCA: “In the past one to five years I did not encounter any anti-Orthodox propaganda in the publications of the [YMCA] or in the Paris Theological Institute subsidized by the YMCA, or in [the YMCA’s] attitude toward Russian youth.” Antonii praised representatives of the YMCA such as Gustave Kullman who “openly recognize their friends in the Orthodox Church” and whose “influence on Russian students is only gratifying to us.” Mitropolit Antonii, “Obrashchenie Mitrop. Antoniia R. S. Kh. dvizheniiu,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 10 (1926): 25. 42. “Naturally, the regional Orthodox sobor . . . acting through the written opinions of 32 hierarchs in three parts of the world could not give its official blessing to any institution except those that call themselves Orthodox.” Antonii argued that although the resolution prohibited any member of the synod from remaining under the “spiritual leadership” of the YMCA “as an institution,” it did not officially forbid its flock “from becoming members of the YMCA.” This seems a distinction without a difference. Ibid. 43. Antonii, “Obrashchenie Mitrop. Antoniia R. S. Kh. dvizheniiu,” 25. Note the use of “your” rather than “our” in describing an organization over whose conference he once presided. 44. Sheila Kaye-Smith, Anglo-Catholicism (London: Chapman and Hall, 1925), 26. Emphasis added. 45. Antonii, “Otviet Mitropolita Antoniia na privietstvie,” 26.

337

338

|

Notes to Pages 118– 119

46. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 236. 47. An article published in 1931 is typical of the RSCM’s cautious approach to the question of the validity of other confessions. Aleksandr Kalashnikov suggested that those belonging to other confessions who believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God have “the hope” of salvation, but Kalashnikov refused to state with certainty whether one belonging to another confession is assured of salvation: “We may not categorically assert that in other confessions salvation is impossible, especially in the presence of the pious life, and, importantly, in the all-powerful help of Christ the Savior.” To be sure, salvation outside of the church, he said, was impossible, but we do not know where God draws the boundaries of the church. Thus Kalashnikov questioned Father Ioann of Kronstadt’s assertion that other confessions reside outside salvation, quoting Matthew 3:30: “Do not presume to say to yourselves ‘We have Abraham as our father; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children of Abraham.” But even if one were to concede that salvation is possible outside Orthodoxy (a question that remained open for Kalashnikov), such a hypothetical concession should not “lead to an indifferent equalization of all Christian confessions.” The movement should “open up” to other confessions the “full beauty” of Orthodoxy. Aleksandr Kalashnikov, “Pravoslavie i inoslavie,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 7 (1931): 5–8. 48. A. N., “S”iezd Sovieta Dvizheniia (27 maiia–iiunia 1931),” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 7 (1931): 26–30. 49. “Disput o Russkom Studencheskom Khristianskom Dvizhenii,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 2 (1932): 18, 19. 50. Chetverikov, “Miesto Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia v pravoslavnoi tservi,” 15. 51. “Salvation comes only in the church and only through the church.” V. V. Zenkovskii, “Ekumenicheskoe dvizhenie i religioznaia rabota s molodezh’iu,” in Khristianskoe vozsoedinenie: Ekumenicheskaia problema v pravoslavnom soznanii (Paris: YMCA Press, 1933), 158, 150–51, 159. 52. Chetverikov admitted that the movement’s canonical relation to the church was complicated. Chetverikov, “Miesto Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia v pravoslavnoi tservi,” 14. 53. Mitropolit Antonii, “ ‘Kogda eto konchitsia?’: vopros na vopros,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 2 (1934): 21, 20. The attack was provoked by an article in the Viestnik opposing capital punishment. He noted that all twenty-two books of Deuteronomy demand that Israel slaughter its enemies.

Notes to Pages 119– 122

|

54. Sergei Chetverikov, “Nieskol’ko slov po povodu zamietki ‘kogda eto konchitsia?’ Blazhennieishago Mitropolita Antoniia,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 2 (1934): 22, 23. 55. “Disput o Russkom Studencheskom Khristianskom Dvizhenii,” 18. The Viestnik responded, “Every ecclesiastical figure determines his own relationship to the movement.” “The relationship to the movement is a matter of conscience for every priest. . . . We can only hope and ardently pray that a large number of Orthodox pastors support the movement.” 56. T. Tatlow, “The Russian Student Christian Movement in Emigration,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 14 (1931): 11– 13. 57. In 1933 Bulgakov largely dismissed Antonii’s relevance to the ecumenical movement since Antonii, in denying “absolutely the validity of the sacraments outside a particular confession,” excluded “the very question of any union in the Sacraments.” Bulgakov, “Ways to Church Reunion,” 23. Antonii received a little press when, in 1933, he wrote to the Christian East to suggest that Roman Catholicism might be reunited with Orthodoxy if it were to renounce its “pseudo-dogmas,” in particular, the doctrine of papal infallibility, indulgences, and purgatory. We cannot, of course, believe that Antonii had any hope that Rome would heed his advice. Mitropolit Antonii, “The Orthodox Church and the Papacy,” Christian East 5, no. 1 (1934): 24–25. 58. Mitropolit Antonii, “Chiem otlichaetsia pravoslavnaia viera ot zapadnykh isnoviedanii,” Pravoslavnaia Karpatskaia Rus’ 14 (1932): 2. And in 1934 he reminded his flock that the real obligation of émigrés is “to preserve Russian Orthodoxy for the future.” Mitropolit Antonii, “Ko vsiem russkim pravoslavnym liudiam zarubezh’ia,” Pravoslavnaia Karpatskaia Rus’ 11–12 (1934): 6. 59. Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, 7:100. 60. Ibid., 7:101.

8.

The Prayer Book Crisis, 1927– 1928

1. “An Anglo-Catholic Looks at the Prayer Book,” Outlook 59 (1927): 651. 2. If (the argument went) one believes that the elements undergo a change that would be efficacious for later sacramental use, then one believes in a change against which article 28 of the Thirty-nine Articles spoke: “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.” The English Review noted that it is “difficult

339

340

|

Notes to Pages 122– 123

to dissociate Reservation of any kind from the idea of some physical change in the elements, such as is taught in the dogma of Transubstantiation.” H. W. Collins, “The House of Commons and the Prayer Book Measure,” English Review 46 (1928): 183. Thus Evangelicals, Protestants, and others in the church who disputed Christ’s actual presence in the elements naturally opposed reservation. The Church Times insisted, “The authorized formularies of the Church leave no place for any kind of Reservation since the language of the XXVIIIth Article cannot be taken otherwise than as condemning the practice altogether.” The Churchman quoted the upper house of Convocation of 1885, which stated that “the wise and carefully revised order of the Church of England, as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer, leaves no place for the practice of Reservation, and that no Reservation for any purpose is consistent with the rule of the Church of England.” It also quoted Cranmer’s condemnation of “keeping the host under lock and key” as a means of “leading the people into all error and idolatry, not bringing them by bread unto Christ, but from Christ to bread.” C. Sydney Carter, “Reservation,” Churchman 53, no. 3 (1939): 118, 22. 3. Ian Machin, “Reservation under Pressure: Ritual in the Prayer Book Crisis, 1927– 1928,” in Continuity and Change in Christian Worship, ed. R. N. Swanson (Rochester, NY: Boydell, 1999), 448. 4. “Advertising Disunion,” Churchman 32, no. 148 (1918): 200. 5. Bell, Randall Davidson, 798. 6. Collins, “The House of Commons and the Prayer Book Measure,” 188. 7. Machin, “Reservation under Pressure,” 448–49. 8. “If further provision be needed in order to secure that any sick person in his last hour may not lack the benefit of the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Priest, if the Bishop shall so permit, may to that end when the Holy Communion is celebrated in the church, reserve so much of the consecrated Bread and Wine as is needed for the purpose.” National Assembly of the Church of England, The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments & Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the Use of the Church of England, together with the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; the Book of 1662 with Permissive Additions & Deviations approved in 1927 (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1927), 283. 9. Robert Currie, “Power and Principle: The Anglican Prayer Book Controversy, 1927– 1930,” Church History 33, no. 2 (1964): 193. 10. Kenneth Hylson-Smith, Evangelicals in the Church of England, 1934–1984 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 236–37.

Notes to Pages 123– 126

|

11. “Convocation Again,” Churchman 31, no. 138 (1917): 323. 12. Yet “the Bishops (or a majority of them) claim the right, by virtue of their much-vaunted jus liturgicum, to override the present rubrics and to allow Reservation for the Sick.” “Reservations,” Churchman 31, no. 137 (1917): 259. 13. “Offending the Evangelicals,” Churchman 32, no. 148 (1918): 199. 14. Collins, “The House of Commons and the Prayer Book Measure,” 183. 15. “Prayer Book Revision,” Churchman 35, no. 4 (1922): 230. 16. Carter, “Reservation,” 189. 17. Bishops: 34 to 4. Clergy: 53 to 37. Laity: 230 to 92. Hylson-Smith, Evangelicals in the Church of England, 1934–1984, 233. The passage by all three houses of Convocation was, indeed, “a spectacular vindication of the rights of the Commons of England as against the House of Bishops and the House of Lords.” “The Rejected Prayer Book,” Spectator 140 (1928): 81. But it was also a triumph by Parliament over Convocation’s House of Clergy, House of Bishops, and House of Laity. 18. Not everyone took an interest in the debate. One Labour MP remarked, “I want to say this, on behalf of the great mass of the workers of the country, that they are more interested in the rent book than they are in the Prayer Book.” Hansard: House of Commons, 211, col. 2652; quoted in Machin, “Reservation under Pressure,” 459. 19. The following language in the 1927 revision was removed from the 1928 revision: “All other questions that may arise concerning such Reservation shall be determined by rules, framed by the Archbishop and Bishops of the Province, or by Canons lawfully made by the Convocation of the Province, and subject to any such rules and Canons, by the directions of the Bishops.” The 1928 Prayer Book also required the following: “Immediately after the ministration to the sick person, or to the last of the sick persons (if there be more than one), any of the consecrated Elements that remain shall be reverently consumed at the place of such ministration, or if the reservation be under the second rubrick of the Order, may be taken back to the church.” 20. Currie, “Power and Principle,” 198. 21. Machin, “Reservation under Pressure,” 454. 22. Bell, Randall Davidson, 1339. 23. “The Prayer Book Revision,” Spectator 140 (1928): 156. 24. Machin, “Reservation under Pressure,” 449, 459. 25. J. M. Kensworthy, “The Revised Prayer Book,” Outlook 61 (1928): 495. 26. Hansard: House of Commons, 211, col. 2559; cited in Machin, “Reservation under Pressure,” 459.

341

342

|

Notes to Pages 126– 127

27. Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, “Official Report, Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons” (London: HMSO, 1909–37), June 14, 1928, 212. Such a stance, of course, was abhorrent to most Orthodox observers, who could never approve a doctrine in the name of tolerance merely to accommodate contradictory views on the church’s sacramental life. 28. W. P. Colfox, “The Rejected Prayer Book,” Spectator 140 (1928): 15. 29. “A close examination of the new Book will show that in many other respects the Church of England has, even in these latter days, found it necessary to draw her liturgy (we regret to say without acknowledgement) from the norm which nineteen centuries of Catholic liturgists have generously placed at her service. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the Congregation of Rites is evidently in good odour at Lambeth.” Alan McDougall, “The Revised Prayer Book and Its Sources,” Tablet, February 19, 1927, 235. 30. Hylson-Smith, Evangelicals in the Church of England, 1934–1984, 237. 31. The Spectator credited the speeches by Joynston-Hicks, Thomas Inskip, and Rosslyn Mitchell with defeating the measure. “Parliament and the Prayer Book,” Spectator 139 (1927): 1112. 32. Hansard: House of Commons, 211, cols. 2543–44; quoted in Machin, “Reservation under Pressure,” 458. 33. House of Commons, “Official Report, Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons,” June 14, 1928, 209. Those who thought Orthodoxy a deviation from Christian truth made the same argument against the use of icons. 34. Davidson asserted, “Nothing that we have suggested makes any change in the doctrinal position of the Church of England.” Chronicle of the Convocation of Canterbury, 7/vi, 17– 18 (February 7, 1927); cited in Machin, “Reservation under Pressure,” 451. 35. House of Commons, “Official Report, Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons,” June 14, 1928, 207. 36. Ibid., 1062. 37. “This Ineradicable Protestantism,” New Statesman 30 (1928): 484. 38. “We are expressing no opinion on the Bishops’ proposals, which only the Bishops know. . . . The Bishops may err, but if only infallible authority is to be regarded, then we must either be anarchists or Papists: a description which very well fits some extremists at either end of the Church of England.” “Prayer Book Revision and Anglican Unity,” Saturday Review 143 (1927): 73. 39. “Withdraw the Prayer Book,” Outlook 61 (1928): 426. 40. “Far from carrying out the will of the people I believe the majority in Parliament carried out the will of a minority in the Church of England. . . . The Ecclesiastical Committee had sat for several weeks, had heard all objec-

Notes to Pages 127– 128

|

tors, and had weighed the case for and against the book on its legal side with great care.” Ibid., 495. 41. Currie, “Power and Principle,” 199. 42. Ronald Jasper, “Christian Initiation: The Anglican Position,” Studia liturgica 12, nos. 2–3 (1977): 118. 43. The Spectator’s analysis of the vote showed that among English MPs, 199 voted for the measure and only 175 against. “The Prayer Book Measure was therefore thrown out, not by the votes of Members representing English constituencies, but by the votes of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and all the members of the Liberal Party, with two exceptions, voted against it.” Thus the measure was defeated “by the votes of members of the disestablished Churches and Free Churches in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and by the votes of Christian Scientists, Theosophists and others.” “Parliament and the Prayer Book,” 1112. See also E. R. Hardy, “Liturgical Developments in the Church of England since 1928,” Worship 49, no. 3 (1975): 135. 44. House of Commons, “Official Report, Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons,” June 14, 1928, 1082. 45. Kensworthy, “The Revised Prayer Book,” 495. 46. House of Commons, “Official Report, Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons,” June 14, 1928, 249. 47. Ibid., June 14, 1928, 267. 48. J. S. Bezzant, “Establishment and Alternatives,” Modern Churchman (1929): 456. 49. Church Times, December 23, 1927, 749–50; cited in Machin, “Reservation under Pressure,” 462. 50. Austin Hopkinson, “Parliamentary Infallibility,” English Review 47 (1929): 23. 51. House of Commons, “Official Report, Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons,” June 13, 1928, 1061. 52. Orthodox theologians at the time — like most Anglo-Catholics— insisted that the reservation of the sacrament did not imply the adoration of the sacrament, which they associated with Roman Catholic notions of transubstantiation, and viewed it as a potential threat to the Orthodox understanding of metousiosis (i.e., John of Damascus’s and Gregory of Nyssa’s notion that the body and blood of Christ are changed spiritually rather than in their substance; the bread and wine exist in both an earthly and in a heavenly sense). See Michael Meerson, “The Doctrinal Foundation of Orthodoxy,” in Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, ed. Pedro Ramet (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1988), 23. Germanos, for example, explained

343

344

|

Notes to Page 129

to his Anglican colleagues that in reserving the elements for the communion of the sick, the elements “are neither presented by the Church to the faithful for the purpose of adoration, nor do the faithful make the Holy Sacrament a subject of special adoration.” Archbishop Germanos, “Speech at the Albert Hall by Germanos, Metropolitan of Thyatira,” Christian East 8, no. 4 (1927): 166. This distinction between reservation and adoration is the same distinction employed by Anglican moderates who supported the Prayer Book revision and who sought to assure their skeptical Anglican colleagues that reservation would not lead to adoration. See also J. A. Douglas, “Reservation in the Eastern Orthodox Church,” Christian East 7, no. 2 (1926): 86. 53. Auaqewvrhiı tou> Nou E v uvcologivu Agglikanou> (The Recent Revision of the Anglican Prayer Book) (Constantinople, 1928). 54. J. A. Douglas, “Archbishop Germanos on Anglicanism,” Christian East 10, no. 1 (1929): 15, 11. 55. Douglas was eager to convince the Orthodox that “the differences of belief [in the Church of England] in reality are more on the surface” and are “knit together by a common spiritual life, by common spiritual experiences, by common inspiration and vocations, and above all by common love.” “No doubt our Romanizers and Modernists are fundamentally divided from the rest of us, but the distinctions among the great mass of Anglicans are superficial and not fundamental.” At times Douglas seemed to despair of convincing the Orthodox to place any hope in his Church of England’s bickering factions. “Comprehensiveness,” Douglas wrote, “is something incomprehensible to anyone who finds himself outside its orbit.” “We do not quarrel with the Archbishop’s description of Anglican Comprehensiveness as incomprehensible to a non-Anglican.” Yet Douglas remained ultimately optimistic: “When by God’s goodness we Anglicans . . . shall find that our differences belong to that region of theologoumena, i.e., of doctrinal opinions, as to which Archbishop Germanos predicates permissibility, and our domestic controversies will disappear in the realization of our unity of principle, i.e., of faith and experience in the Lord Jesus as our personal Saviour, and in His Church as the covenanted medium and extension of His Grace.” Ibid., 17– 19. 56. Basil Jellicoe, “Knights of the Holy Table,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 4 (1929): 17. 57. H. L. Goudge, “The Biblical Conception of the Church in Relation to the World,” in Mascall, ed., The Church of God. “There is nothing necessarily wrong in a close connection between the Church and the State,” wrote Goudge, “so long as the clear distinction is maintained between the work and methods of the one and the work and methods of the other” (48).

Notes to Pages 129– 130

|

58. Report of the Second Anglo-Russian Student Conference Held at the Diocesan Retreat House, St. Albans, 28th Dec., 1927, to 2nd Jan., 1928 (London: Student Christian Movement of Britain and Ireland, 1928), 8. 59. “The state has no more right before God to dictate to the Anglican how he should worship than it has to dictate to the Roman Catholic or the Methodist,” fumed an Anglican member. Kenneth E. Kirk, “Church Establishment and Spiritual Authority,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 13 (1931): 5. Kirk’s views about establishment were complex. He went on to insist that an established church “is not incompatible with complete religious toleration” (8). In fact, Establishment can be justified if one believes that the government should be concerned “not only about the material but also the spiritual welfare of its citizens.” Karpov, “Piataia Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia: Heigh-Leigh, 16–23 Aprielia 1931,” 65. Kirk tried to soothe Orthodox fears about the unruly Anglicans in an article written specially for Put’. Anglicans know, he wrote, that current relations between the British government and the Church of England are “harmful,” if not for the national well-being, then for the “freedom and dignity of the Church.” They present an obstacle to reform. But they do not indicate a hopeless situation. Granted, for those outside the Anglican Church, the differing voices within the church appear to emanate from a tower of Babel. But “a member of the Anglican Church is not embarrassed by that; he knows that these differences in his church only indicate the zeal with which it tries to solve its problems, and these problems . . . are the problems of the entire world.” Kenneth E. Kirk, “Idealy Anglikanskoi tserkvi,” Put’, no. 32 (1932): 88. 60. Cunningham, A Vanquished Hope, 11. Cunningham points out that the canons of the Eastern Orthodox Church—derived from Byzantine notions of proper church-state relations—guaranteed administrative autonomy to the church and thus flew in the face of Peter the Great’s Ecclesiastical Regulation of 1721. Members of the Religious and Philosophical Society, a society that Berdiaev sought to replicate in exile, called in 1902 for a “complete liberation from the nightmare of the Christian state.” Bogoslovskii viestnik (May 1906): 35–37; quoted in John Shelton Curtiss, Church and State in Russia: The Last Years of the Empire, 1800–1917 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940), 79. 61. The Bill of Rights drafted by the Russian Orthodox Church sobor in 1917 stated that the Russian government should recognize the hierarchy of the church and the regulations of the church as defined by the church. Government laws affecting the church should be created with the advice and consent of proper church authorities. James Cunningham, “The Orthodox Church and the Russian Revolution,” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 7 (1991): 210 fn. 69.

345

346

|

Notes to Page 130

62. Bishop of Durham, “The Church and the Modern State,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 11 (1931): 13. 63. Early in his Christian life Bulgakov hoped for some kind of symphonic unity of church and state but eventually came to view state politics as an impediment rather than a solution to the problem of the church’s rightful influence in the social and political realm. See Catherine Evtuhov, The Cross and the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997). 64. Kartashev made a speech to the 1931 conference of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius outlining the problems spawned by the subordination of the Russian church to the state. But he did not advocate strict separation. Protestant churches, he said, “suffer, beyond doubt, from an over-close union with national states.” Yet the church must be “an active, spiritualizing force in national life.” A. V. Kartashev, “The Church and National Life,” in Mascall, ed., The Church of God, 207–8. Kartashev believed in a form of symphonia and warned against the church’s “eschatological denunciation” of either the world or the government. Karpov, “Piataia Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia,” 64. 65. “The situation of the church in a contemporary government demands, above all, preservation of its freedom.” Fedotov, “Oksford,” 59. 66. Hopkinson, “Parliamentary Infallibility,” 21. 67. The secular head of the Russian Orthodox Church appointed by Peter the Great. 68. Aleksandr Kalashnikov, “Kniga bogosluzhenii v Angliiskom parlament,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 7 (1928): 23. 69. “The dissention within the Russian church is closely connected to the problem of relations between the church and state.” A close connection between the government and the church usually means that the church will become subject to government demands. Nikolai Berdiaev, “Problema khristianskago gosudarstva,” Sovremennyia zapiski 31 (1927): 303, 288. 70. Zernov was never consistent on this issue. In 1935 he argued that the canonical system in England still “guaranteed spiritual independence.” Nikolai Zernov, “Kanonicheskii stroi tserkvi v Anglii,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 8 (1935): 8. But in 1938 he argued, “The Church in fact can exercise its proper influence upon the country only if it is a disestablished body forming an organic part of the Catholic Fellowship of free and self-governing Churches.” The Church of England has not experienced the “disintegration” of the Russian church, but it does need more “independence.” Nikolai Zernov, “Peter the Great and the Establishment of the Russian Church,” Church Quarterly Review 125 (1938): 292.

Notes to Pages 130– 131

|

71. Evlogii attributed the Prayer Book’s defeat to the influence of “the low church and Protestants” and noted, sadly, that Davidson was “deeply upset” by the defeat and “soon died.” Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 536–37. 72. Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, 7:99. 73. N. K., “S”iezd v St. Albans: 11–15 Ianvaria 1927 goda,” Put’, no. 7 (1927): 108. 74. It lamented Elizabeth’s Protestant sympathies, yet argued that the Church of England remained faithful to the Catholic faith “in many things”: “Despite the primarily Protestant character of Anglican theology, it still preserves a significant number of prayers, symbolic acts, and ceremonies that Protestantism does not tolerate.” Some Anglican churches continued to display holy images (the article conceded the suspicion with which the low church viewed these images and noted that Anglican priests consecrate baptismal water and remit the sins of penitents during confession). Kalashnikov, “Kniga bogosluzhenii v Angliiskom parlament,” Put’, no. 7 (1928): 25–28. 75. Kalashnikov acknowledged Protestant fears that the revision would tilt the balance toward Catholic teaching and thus, possibly, toward Rome, but he gave little credence to such fears: “[An] extremely significant number of believers in the Anglican Church who do not strive towards the Roman Catholic Church of the Pope share the Orthodox view of the Sacraments and the Liturgy, as do many Bishops.” Ibid., no. 8 (1928): 20–21. 76. Ibid., 18. 77. Here the Tserkovnyi viestnik quotes a member of the House of Lords who spoke in favor of the Prayer Book. Ibid., 19. 78. Ibid., 18. Kalashnikov’s argument was not entirely consistent. He wanted to argue simultaneously that (a) the Church of England is hopelessly divided (an assertion undermined by his acceptance of the archbishop of York’s claim that the Prayer Book was the expression of a united church) and (b) the House of Commons overturned a measure supported by an overwhelming majority of “true Church people.” 79. Ibid., 19. 80. Ibid., no. 7 (1928): 27. 81. Kalashnikov claimed, with no evidence, that the laity greeted the passage in the House of Lords with delight and were distressed by the defeat in the House of Commons. Ibid., 22. 82. Ibid., no. 8 (1928): 18. 83. Ibid., no. 7 (1928): 26. Fed up with the whole mess, Kalashnikov concluded by suggesting an Orthodox solution: appoint a “patriarch” responsible for the Church of England. Ibid., no. 8 (1928): 22.

347

348

| 9.

Notes to Pages 132– 133 Lausanne, 1927

1. “World Conference on Faith and Order: The Nicene Creed the Only Hope of Reunion,” Church Times, August 12, 1927, 177. 2. The Roman Catholic Church sent no representatives. The next year Pope Pius XI issued Mortalium animos condemning such conferences as “a false Christianity quite alien to the one Church of Christ” and warning Roman Catholics not to take part in “pan-Christian activities.” 3. Major figures included Photios, patriarch of Alexandria; Damianos, patriarch of Jerusalem; Metropolitan Germanos (who served as exarch of the ecumenical patriarch for Western Europe from 1922 to 1951); Professor Alivizatos of the University of Athens; Metropolitan Ambrosios of the Athens synod; the Greek theologians Professor Dyovouniotes and Professor Balanos; the metropolitan of Poland; Metropolitan Evlogii; Bishop Veniamin of Sevastopol; Professors Glubokovskii and Bulgakov of the Paris Theological Institute; Nikolai Arsen’ev; Bishop Irninei of Serbia; Metropolitan Stefan of Bulgaria, and Professor Stefan Tsankov of the University of Sofia, Bulgaria. Arabs, Armenians, Georgians, and Romanians also took part. 4. The two groups, according to Bishop Headlam, “fraternized most amicably.” Bishop of Gloucester, “The Lausanne Conference and the Orthodox Eastern Church,” Christian East 8, no. 4 (1927): 186. 5. Gore wrote, “It must not be forgotten that the deeper differences at the Conference will not be only those represented by long-standing denominational divisions. The protestant churches have widely abandoned their old confessions. ‘Fundamentalism’ may make its voice heard affirming the doctrine of the Infallible Book, in which it joins hands with the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.” “Faith and Order: Dr. Gore and the Conference,” Church Times, July 29, 1927. 6. “To an English Churchman this was sadly irreverent, but I was glad to note that four of our own delegates, including a well-known Bishop, knelt down and crossed themselves, a pious action which seemed to have surprised, if not shocked some Protestants sitting near by.” “World Conference on Faith and Order: The Nicene Creed the Only Hope of Reunion,” 177. 7. Ibid. 8. Wrote Gore, “The object of the discussions is guarded by calling attention to the fact that the Churches which have agreed to participate in the Conference are in no way bound by any conclusions reached at the Conferences or opinions expressed by the representatives there, and no statement by the Conference is to be allowed which is not passed at least nemine contradicente.” “Faith and Order: Dr. Gore and the Conference,” 145.

Notes to Pages 133– 134

|

9. Sergei Bulgakov, “The Papal Encyclical and the Lausanne Conference,” Christian East 9, no. 3 (1928): 120. 10. Bulgakov, “K voprosu o Lozanskoi Konferentsii,” 77. 11. Bulgakov, “The Papal Encyclical and the Lausanne Conference,” 121. 12. Bulgakov, “K voprosu o Lozanskoi Konferentsii,” 80. 13. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 533. 14. See his speech to the 1925 Stockholm Conference on Life and Work: “It is necessary that mutual distrust among the various churches, a mistrust which is created by the assumption that one’s Church has a more correct conception of the substance of Christianity than another, and fostered and augmented by proselytizing by one Church among members of another, should be done away with.” “The principle of liberty always maintained by the Orthodox Church with regard to secondary matters should be widened so that, without prejudice to the peculiarities of any single Church, none shall despise what is different or dissimilar in another.” Metropolitan of Thyatira Germanos, “Methods of Cooperation and Federative Efforts among the Churches,” in Patelos, ed., The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, 127–31. 15. “World Conference on Faith and Order: The Nicene Creed the Only Hope of Reunion,” 177. 16. Germanos, “Call to Unity,” 134. 17. Ibid., 135. 18. Glubokovskii referred repeatedly to the proceedings of the conferences between the Church of England and the free churches from 1921 and 1925. G. K. A. Bell, The Church of England and the Free Churches: Proceedings of Joint Conferences Held at Lambeth Palace, 1921–25 (London: Oxford University Press, 1925). The free churches, said Glubokovskii, claim that “the essentials of the Church are . . . in the Gospel, not in organization.” They regard the church “as a secondary institution, relegated to a lower plane, in fact a superfluous institution, if every individual has the experience of direct access to God, and a personal and self-sufficing sense of the influence of Jesus Christ, and is endowed with ‘liberty in all spiritual matters.’ Does not such a liberty border on a license, which threatens the Holy Scriptures themselves and destroys the very foundation of our faith?” They agree “in acknowledging the absolute and unconditional authority of the Word of God; but a little later they demand freedom in its interpretation just as in any other ‘intellectual research.’ ” Nikolai Glubokovskii, “The Church’s Message to the World: The Gospel,” in Patelos, ed., The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, 151–60. 19. Archbishop of Sofia Stefan, “Fundamental Conditions for the Unification of the Christian Churches,” Christian East 8, no. 4 (1927): 138.

349

350

|

Notes to Pages 134– 136

20. J. A. Douglas, “The Metropolitan of Sofia on Reunion: A Caveat against Compromise,” Church Times, August 5, 1927. 21. Stefan Zankov, “The Church’s Common Confession of Faith,” in Patelos, ed., The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, 162–63. 22. Not to mention Roman Catholics, who would have been deeply offended by his attempts to contrast sobornyi Orthodoxy with hierarchical Rome. 23. Sergei Bulgakov, “The Church’s Ministry,” in Patelos, ed., The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, 170, 168, 170, 169. 24. This became a common theme with Bulgakov. At the second conference of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius he said, “The Mother of God is the heart of the Church. This heart suffers and is wounded by the divisions in the Church; eager it is to overcome them, and it is to Her now, also, that our prayers must be directed, that She may unite us under Her protecting veil in the one Church of Her Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ.” Report of the Second Anglo-Russian Student Conference, 13. 25. Nikolai Arsen’ev, “Lozanskaia Konferentsia,” Put’, no. 10 (1928): 106. 26. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 537–38. 27. E.N.C.S., [Review of The Orthodox Church by Sergei Bulgakov], Christian East 15, nos. 3–4 (1935): 125. 28. H. N. Bate, ed., Faith and Order: Proceedings of the World Conference, Lausanne, August 3–21, 1927 (London: Student Christian Movement, 1927). 29. Lukas Vischer, A Documentary History of the Faith and Order Movement, 1927–1963 (St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1963). 30. “Some hold that the invisible Church is wholly in heaven; others include in it all true believers on earth, whether contained in any organization or not.” “Some hold that one or other of the existing Churches is the only true Church; others that the Church as we have described it is to be found in some or all the existing communions taken together.” “Some, while recognizing other Christian bodies as Churches, are persuaded that in the providence of God and by the teaching of history a particular form of ministry has been shown to be necessary to the best welfare of the Church; others hold that no one form of organization is inherently preferable; still others, that no organization is necessary.” “Reports of the World Conference on Faith and Order,” in Convictions: A Selection from the Responses of the Churches to the Report of the World Conference on Faith and Order, Held at Lausanne in 1927, ed. H. N. Bate (London: Student Christian Movement, 1934), 230. 31. The Committee on the Church’s Common Confession of Faith wrote, “Notwithstanding the differences in doctrine among us, we are united in a common Christian Faith which is proclaimed in the Holy Scriptures and is

Notes to Pages 136– 137

|

witnessed to and safeguarded in the Ecumenical Creed, commonly called the Nicene, and in the Apostles’ Creed, which Faith is continuously confirmed in the spiritual experience of the Church of Christ.” “It must be noted also that some of the Churches represented in this Conference conjoin tradition with the Scriptures, some are explicit in subordinating Creeds to the Scriptures, some attach a primary importance to their particular Confessions, and some make no use of Creeds.” Ibid., 231. 32. “There are among us divergent views, especially as to (1) the mode and manner of the presence of our Lord; (2) the conception of the commemoration and the sacrifice; (3) the relation of the elements to the grace conveyed; and (4) the relation between the minister of the sacrament and the efficacy of the rite.” Ibid., 236. 33. Archbishop of Nubia Nicholas, “An Orthodox Impression of the Lausanne Conference,” Christian East 8, no. 4 (1927): 191. 34. Bulgakov, “K voprosu o Lozanskoi Konferentsii,” 72. 35. Metropolitan of Thyatira Germanos, “The Orthodox Delegation at Lausanne and Its Declaration,” Christian East 9, no. 1 (1928): 11. Several years later, once the continuation committee began its work, Lausanne seemed to him less Protestant. “It is difficult to believe when listening to speeches by Protestant delegates at the Lausanne meetings that they are truly Protestant” because they speak so strongly about “tserkovnost.” Nikolai Arsen’ev, “Dvizhenie k edineniiu Khristianskikh tserkov i problema sovremennago mira,” Put’, no. 31 (1931): 77. 36. Nikolai Arsen’ev, “Lozanskaia Konferentsia,” Put’, no. 10 (1928): 106–7. 37. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 566. 38. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 262. 39. “The Orthodox at Lausanne: The Bishop of Gloucester’s Criticism,” Church Times, February 3, 1928, 133. Headlam attributed Greek conservatism to the fact that “the people of Greece are in continuous conflict with their clergy, who appear to them to compromise the Orthodox faith. Under those circumstances it was quite necessary that the Eastern delegates, unless they were to be repudiated at home, should make it clear that they were not going to sacrifice any fundamental principles.” Gloucester, “The Lausanne Conference and the Orthodox Eastern Church,” 187. Headlam’s article elicited a response from Germanos, who was eager to present the Orthodox at Lausanne as completely unified. “Serious” divisions, he argued, did not exist. There was no strife between the Greek clergy and laity, and the Greek clergy risked no fallout at home by voting on the reports. Germanos, “The Orthodox Delegation at Lausanne,” 9– 15.

351

352

|

Notes to Pages 137– 139

40. Ibid., 11. 41. Even Bulgakov, one of the strongest proponents of Orthodox ecumenism, supported the Declaration. Bulgakov, “K voprosu o Lozanskoi Konferentsii,” 76. 42. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 538. 43. Germanos, “The Orthodox Delegation at Lausanne,” 11. 44. The Declaration has been widely reprinted: “Declaration on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox Church,” in Bell, ed., Documents in Christian Unity: A Selection from the First and Second Series, 1920–30, 182–87; “The Declaration of the Orthodox at Lausanne,” Christian East 8, no. 3 (1927): 147–50; Bate, ed., Faith and Order, 382–80. 45. “The Declaration of the Orthodox at Lausanne,” 148, 149. 46. Bate, ed., Faith and Order, 387. 47. J. A. Douglas, “World Conference on Faith and Order,” Christian East 8, no. 3 (1927): 116– 17. 48. Two days before the declaration the Church Times noted, “There has been also much eagerness to entertain the delegates of the Orthodox Church, who, I am informed on good authority, have been threatening daily to withdraw from the Conference on account of some heretical doctrines put forward. This certainly disposes of the common view that the Easterns are at Lausanne merely for a political purpose.” “World Conference on Faith and Order: Divergencies of View,” Church Times, August 19, 1927, 201. 49. Gloucester, “The Lausanne Conference and the Orthodox Eastern Church,” 188, 187. “The Orthodox Church,” Headlam concluded, is “putting forward a proposition which is historically untenable and merely shows a certain amount of historical ignorance” (189). 50. “We Orthodox console ourselves with the thought that the religious uneasiness which we felt was not felt by us alone; for both the Lutherans and the Calvinists made parallel, though quite independent Declarations.” Germanos, “The Orthodox Delegation at Lausanne and Its Declaration,” 10. 51. “For even if the creed of Nicæa-Constantinople be taken as the basis of Reunion, as the Right Revd. Bishop desires it to be taken, it must be admitted that in it there are included other and most important truths which constituted the essential expression of Faith of the ancient Christian Church.” Ibid., 9. 52. Ibid., 13. 53. Pulvertaft, “Lambeth 1920 and After,” 180. 54. Nicholas, “An Orthodox Impression of the Lausanne Conference,” 192. 55. “While one section would look upon Intercommunion as the first step towards unity and was, in fact, much disappointed that the Conference

Notes to Pages 139– 140

|

did not end with a corporate communion, there was another section which would hold no less strongly that intercommunion must be regarded as a sign of completed unity.” Report of the Committee Appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to Consider the Findings of the Lausanne Conference on Faith and Order Pursuant to the Resolution of the Church Assembly Passed at the Summer Session, 1928, together with Various Memoranda (Westminster: Press and Publications Board of the Church Assembly, 1930), 13. 56. “We should, indeed, consider it unwise to demand or expect as a term of communion the acceptance of any one theory of the origins of the ministry.” Ibid., 22. 57. “Owing to much misunderstanding of the Anglican position we should welcome an authoritative statement of the sense in which the articles of the Lambeth Quadrilateral are to be understood.” “We press especially for an explanation of the term ‘Historic Episcopate.’ ” Ibid., 30. 58. Ibid. 59. Indeed, a good chunk of the report consisted of dissenting appendices. The report seemed to despair of achieving intercommunion. Even relations based on economy had not been “formally sanctioned by the Orthodox authorities.” J. A. Douglas, “Economic Intercommunion Between the Anglican and the Orthodox Churches,” in Report of the Committee Appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, 143. Since the Orthodox “hold that the admission of an individual to Orthodox communion in sacris would be tantamount to his recognition as a member of the Church, and that the establishment of its Intercommunion with another church would be tantamount to union with that church, they hold as in principle that no one not a member of the Orthodox Church can be admitted to its communion in sacris and that an act of union between the Orthodox and any other church must precede Intercommunion between them.” Douglas, “Economic Intercommunion,” 129; original emphasis. 60. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 537–38. 61. Arsen’ev, “Lozanskaia Konferentsia,” 109. 62. Bulgakov, “K voprosu o Lozanskoi Konferentsii,” 72, 81. 63. Bulgakov supported Heiler’s proposal to establish an ecumenical institute or academy where Christian theologians from various confessions could study questions that divided them. The proposal never amounted to anything. Bulgakov’s suggestion that Mariology serve as the institute’s first topic of study certainly could not have engendered support among Protestants. 64. Bulgakov, “K voprosu o Lozanskoi Konferentsii,” 78, 79. 65. Gamil’kar Alivisatos, “Kak na dielie osushchestvit’ soedinenie Tserkvei?” in Khristianskoe vozsoedinenie: Ekumenicheskaia problema v pravoslavnom soznanii (Paris: YMCA Press, 1933), 138, 139.

353

354

|

Notes to Pages 140– 141

66. The patriarchate of Alexandria refused to consider the Lausanne reports at its synod of 1930, stating only, “The opinion of the Orthodox Church was clearly and unanimously expressed at Lausanne by its representatives in a special Declaration. . . . Any further replay on our part would be superfluous because the Orthodox Church, including all the diverse autocephalous bodies, has but one mind and one desire upon questions of Faith, including those referred here.” A definitive response can only come from a pan-Orthodox synod. “The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria,” in Bate, ed., Convictions, 214. 67. A year after Lausanne it ran an article deeply critical of the Baptists: if Baptists did not consider baptism a sacrament, then it would lose all significance and become “blasphemous.” A. K., “O sektantstvie,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 18 (1928): 25. 68. Questions for Study on the Nature of the Church, the Church’s Ministry, the Sacraments, Based on Reports III, V, VI of the Lausanne Conference of 1927 (Geneva: Continuation Committee, 1929), 8, 14. 69. Questions for Study on the Unity of Christendom and the Relation thereto of Existing Churches, Based on Report VII of the Lausanne Conference of 1927 (Boston: Continuation Committee, 1930), 4. 70. Arsen’ev, “Lozanskaia Konferentsia,” 110. 71. “World Conference on Faith and Order: Important Orthodox Manifesto, Pan-Protestant Plans Entirely Defeated,” Church Times, August 26, 1927, 226. 72. Douglas asked an American Methodist at Lausanne, “Are you really prepared to unite with a Church such as the Orthodox which teaches that in the Eucharist the bread is changed to be the Body of Christ, that a priest has power to forgive sins, that to invoke the Blessed Virgin and the Saints is efficacious?” “Yes,” he replied, “if I am left free to combat those opinions.” Douglas, “World Conference on Faith and Order,” 115. 73. “World Conference on Faith and Order: Divergencies of View,” 201. Gore apparently grew disheartened on more than one occasion. Christopher Palmer, a reporter for the Church Times, claimed that he charmed Gore out of a fit of bad temper at Lausanne by lending him an Edgar Wallace thriller. Bernard Palmer, Gadfly for God: A History of the Church Times (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1991), 161. 74. “The Bishop of Gloucester . . . spoke ably on his idea of religion, which implied a glorified Church of England throughout the world, having a glorious comprehensiveness and including all Christians. Whether this would be practical he did not say. For instance, he thought that there might be

Notes to Page 141

|

several bodies all communicating at the parish church, but each going to its own place for worship. The Salvation Army might be attached to the Church in the same way as the Church Army is. But he quite forgot the fact that the Salvation Army denies any grace in, or necessity for, the Sacraments.” “World Conference on Faith and Order: Divergencies of View,” 202. 75. Regarding a speech by Dr. S. Parkes Cadman of New York, the Church Times observed, “Dr. Cadman’s idea of the Church seemed to be a vague conception of numbers of professing Christians, belonging to several denominations, whose difference did not matter very much, and who were making progress whither they were not quite sure.” “World Conference on Faith and Order: The Nicene Creed the Only Hope of Reunion,” 178. 76. “World Conference on Faith and Order: Important Orthodox Manifesto, Pan-Protestant Plans Entirely Defeated,” 225. 77. “World Conference on Faith and Order: The Nicene Creed the Only Hope of Reunion,” 178. 78. “The opening words were the unqualified statement: ‘There are seven Sacraments in the Church Militant on earth: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Ordination, Marriage and Unction.’ This was in striking contrast to Dr. Vernon Bartlett who followed and confined himself to two. . . . Bishop Nikolai’s paper, as might well be expected coming from him, was a most wonderful exposition of mysticism, yet at the same time marvelously simple.” “World Conference on Faith and Order: Divergencies of View,” 201. 79. Douglas wrote, “[The] Protestant point of view was predominant and became more and more insistent until any demur to the petitio principii . . . seemed to be a discordance.” The services of the conference “were altogether Protestant and Calvinist,” he said, “and I could not help thinking how different would have been the impulse of the Conference if the Centre of those services had been our own High Altar in St. Paul’s and not the lofty pulpit draped with its big Swiss flag and surmounted by the Vaudois coat of arms in the nave of the Lausanne Cathedral.” Douglas, “World Conference on Faith and Order,” 114, 110. Douglas also credited the Orthodox Declaration with saving the Anglican Church from disaster, a contention for which he gave no explanation. J. A. Douglas, “After Lausanne: A Retrospect and an Impression,” Church Times, September 2, 1927, 260. 80. “World Conference on Faith and Order: Divergencies of View,” 201. 81. “World Conference on Faith and Order: Important Orthodox Manifesto, Pan-Protestant Plans Entirely Defeated,” 225–26. 82. “Why should we not think that a time is coming when the Catholic nucleus which always existed in the Anglican Church should not prevail

355

356

|

Notes to Pages 142– 144

over the whole body, so that it would appear in that form which would make reunion with our Orthodox Church possible?” Pulvertaft, “Lambeth 1920 and After,” 177. 83. H. Richard Niebuhr, “Churches That Might Unite,” Christian Century 46 (1929): 259.

10.

The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius

Portions of this and the next chapter first appeared as Bryn Geffert, “Sergii Bulgakov, The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, Intercommunion, and Sofiology,” Revolutionary Russia 17, no. 1 (June 2004): 105–41. 1. H. L. Goudge, “Authority and Freedom in the Church,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 12 (1931): 40. 2. Nikolai Zernov, “Notes on the 4th Anglo-Russian Conference,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 9 (1930): 25. 3. Zernov, Za Rubezhom, 220. 4. Nikolai Zernov, “S”iezd v St-Albans’ie: 11– 15 Ianvaria 1927 goda,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 3 (1927): 9. 5. The Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius never limited its membership to confessing Anglicans or Orthodox, but it would eventually require its members to attend Anglican or Orthodox liturgical worship services. Austin Oakley, Nicolas Zernov, and John Findlow, “The Anglican and Eastern Churches Association and the Fellowship,” Sobornost, no. 32 (1945): 21. It did include a few Orthodox Greeks, Serbs, Romanians, Bulgarians, Armenians, and Arabs, as well as several Lutherans and other Protestants. Five Roman Catholics attended the 1939 conference. One of them wrote an article for Irenikon and spoke favorably of the “intellectual rigor” of the Fellowship but concluded, “As for the community of thought, it was manifested only in a negative way, if such an expression can be used, by an absence of contradiction.” L. M., “A Roman Catholic View on the Fellowship Conference,” Sobornost, no. 21 (1940): 16–20. 6. It was in Nyborg that the so-called Nyborg Resolution was passed, the first statement officially endorsing the existence of non-Protestant bodies within the SCM. Extract from the Minutes of the General Committee, April 1935, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files, Oxford, U.K. 7. Evelyn Underhill, who joined the Fellowship in 1935, was a perfect example of a young Anglican drawn to the spiritualism and mysticism of Eastern Orthodoxy. Her spiritual director, Walter Frere (himself an active

Notes to Page 144

|

member of the Fellowship), probably cultivated her interest in Orthodoxy. Dana Greene, Evelyn Underhill: Artist of the Infinite Life (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 103. 8. Bulgakov and other delegates at the first meeting of the Fellowship were quite aware that Orthodox critics of such ecumenical gatherings had no trouble producing evidence to support their condemnations. In 1931 Bulgakov wrote a piece for the American Church Monthly in which he frankly acknowledged that “the Church altogether forbids church fellowship with heretics,” noting in particular St. Nicephorus the Confessor’s prohibition against prayer with the non-Orthodox. But, as was typical with Bulgakov, he was willing to argue with the church fathers. He asked, rhetorically, “When at the present time Protestants, and generally speaking non-Orthodox, come to our services, is it in accordance with the spirit [emphasis added] of the canons to prevent their presence at the service on the base of the forbidding of fellowship in prayer with heretics?” Obviously not, he concluded. Church practice had often differed from official church teaching in this matter: the type and degree of contact with non-Orthodox ought to depend on the “extent of the falling away or estrangement of the particular confession” with which the Orthodox are communing. There can, however, “be no fellowship with a heretic or a dissenter in so far as he self-asserts himself in his opposition to the Church.” Sergei Bulgakov, “Outlines of the Teaching about the Church,” American Church Monthly 30, no. 6 (1931): 411–23. Original emphasis. 9. The balance of English student life impressed Evlogii, especially the time set aside for sports. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 533. 10. Zernov, Za Rubezhom, 220. Russian participants at later conferences would rave about the posh accommodations in English dormitories, where each student occupied a separate room that was extremely “komfortabil’no.” Arsen’ev, “Religioznye s”iezdy u N’iukastl i Kembridzh,” 89. Arsen’ev was delighted to wander the haunts of Erasmus, Marlow, and Fletcher. 11. “It seems to me,” wrote Bezobrazov, “that nowhere have I seen such pure, such healthy children’s faces.” S. Bezobrazov, “Vstriecha,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 3 (1927): 15. During the first years of the Fellowship, Russians remarked repeatedly on the wealth they witnessed in England. “I was greatly impressed,” wrote a Russian conferee in 1933, “by the excursion to Cadbury’s chocolate works. The splendid and healthy conditions of labour and the smiling faces of the women lead one to think that a capitalist’s undertaking can also be well organized, if the owner of the enterprise is a Christian.” Boris Spasskii, “Letter to the Editor,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 21 (1933): 6.

357

358

|

Notes to Pages 144– 147

12. “During the first day, despite the goodwill and wish to understand one another, a common language had not been found and foreignness was felt.” N. K., “S”iezd v St. Albans,” 109. 13. Zernov, “S”iezd v St-Albans’ie,” 9. 14. Paul B. Anderson, “Anglo-Russkoe sodruzhestvo v imia sv. muchenika Albaniia i prep. Sergeia Radonezhskago,” Put’, no. 10 (1928): 112. 15. “The relationship remained that of a fellowship, a fraternity, with each partner acknowledging the identity of the other, and respecting its sacraments, while agreeing to work out common positions on ecclesiastic as well as social questions.” Raeff, Russia Abroad, 138. 16. “Although they talked about uniting the Church, they did not consider it an important subject of their meetings.” Van Dusen, “Some Relations between the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches,” 58. 17. V. R., “Otzyvy o konferentsii,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 3 (1927): 17. 18. Andrei Karpov, “Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia v High-Leigh: s 25-go do 30-e Aprielia 1930 g,” Put’, no. 24 (1930): 95. 19. Gore also urged the participants to strive toward this goal. Bezobrazov, “Vstriecha,” 15. 20. Eric Mascall, “Worship and Reason,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 2 (1928): 21. 21. Zernov, “Notes on the 4th Anglo-Russian Conference,” 24. 22. Clarke, “Things New and Old,” 21. 23. I could not determine the date these forms were adopted but discovered one in the Fellowship’s files in a batch of documents from the early 1930s. Form of Application for Membership, n.d., Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 24. Zernov, “Notes on the 4th Anglo-Russian Conference,” 24. 25. “Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Statement of Aims & Basis,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 19 (1933): 35. 26. N. K., “S”iezd v St. Albans,” 110– 11. 27. Russian émigrés worked furiously to overturn such naive notions. Fedotov in 1928 published a work that portrayed the Living Church as a Soviet attempt to “establish a dictatorship in the Church similar to that existing in the universities and in literature.” Fedotov, The Russian Church since the Revolution, 52. 28. Zernov, “S”iezd v St-Albans’ie,” 9. 29. N. K., “S”iezd v St. Albans,” 109. 30. Zernov, Za Rubezhom, 221.

Notes to Pages 147– 148

|

31. Such naïveté was common among the English students. Paul Anderson wrote a pamphlet in the 1930s, which noted, “There has been a tendency among liberal Christians in the West to criticize the Russian Church for its outspoken enmity to the Communist Government during the first years of the Revolution and to consider this hostility as evidence of obdurate autocratic sympathy with the Tsarist form of government.” The pamphlet disputed these notions and portrayed the Living Church as a “usurping body.” Paul Anderson, Russia’s Religious Future: A Survey of the Situation with Documentary Evidence from Soviet Sources (London: Lutterworth Press, n.d.), 10, 6. 32. Zernov, Za Rubezhom, 221. 33. I. S., “Pis’ma iz Anglii,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 3 (1927): 16. 34. N. K., “S”iezd v St. Albans,” 107. 35. Ibid. 36. I. S., “Pis’ma iz Anglii,” 17. 37. Zernov, Za Rubezhom, 222. 38. Questions about the communion of saints proved remarkably persistent and cropped up again at the fourth conference. “The Russians simply could not understand,” wrote a conferee, “what they considered our very inadequate conception of Saints—at times we seemed at a dead-lock—‘what makes a saint a saint?’ ” Arthur Turner, “Some Impressions of the Fourth Annual Conference of the Fellowship of SS. Alban & Sergius,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 9 (1930): 21. 39. Karpov, “Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia v High-Leigh,” 95. The veneration of saints became less contentious as the Fellowship’s Anglican identity became more closely allied with Anglo-Catholicism. In 1934 D. J. Chitty could write, “We see the Communion of Saints as the primary vital force which makes the Church indeed a living body, and not a salvation-machine. Our Fellowship is our sharing in one great body of Saints united in the same Vision of God. And the ultimate test of Church Unity between two Christian bodies is their capacity for full and sincere mutual recognition of each other’s Saints down to the present time as sharing a single Vision of Holiness. For this vision must be retained, however obscured and hindered, down to the present day, if a continuity of Church Life is to be admitted.” D. J. Chitty, “The Communion of Saints,” in Mascall, ed., The Church of God, 168. 40. N. K., “S”iezd v St. Albans,” 110. 41. The Reverend O. F. Clarke, in his glowing report about the conference, never alluded to the speech, although he noted that the Orthodox “thirst for

359

360

|

Notes to Pages 148– 149

intercourse with outsiders . . . coexists with a strict and uncompromising devotion to the truth.” Ibid., 109. 42. Such issues continued to float around the Fellowship. Fedotov wrote in 1934: “The question of miracles is a religious question. No science—least of all historical science—can decide whether a certain fact is supernatural or natural. . . . The miraculous may be real, the natural may be legendary; for instance the miracles of Christ and the foundation of Rome by Romulus and Remus. A naïve belief in legend and a rational spirit denying miracles are equally alien to Orthodox historical science, I should even say to science in general.” G. P. Fedotov, “Orthodoxy and Historical Criticism,” in Mascall, ed., The Church of God, 96. 43. I. S., “Pis’ma iz Anglii,” 16. 44. Androutsos wrote in 1922, “The manner of the inspiration [of Scripture] has not been exactly defined, whether it be a literal dictation of the sacred conceptions, or only the overseeing care of the Holy Spirit protecting (the writers) from error; but the general acceptance of the books of Holy Writ as having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and as containing no contradiction or inaccuracy is acknowledged by the Fathers of the Church.” F. Gavin, “The Greek Orthodox Church and Biblical Criticism,” Christian East 3, no. 4 (1922): 164. Gavin admitted that Orthodoxy had little tradition of a critical approach to Scripture. Yet, like the optimistic Douglas for whose journal he wrote, he sought common ground, arguing that “the Orthodox Church is not in principle committed to the condemnation of that kind of study of the Bible which may be called the critical or historical method. The recognition of stages and strata in the history of revelation, the emphasis upon the principle of the development of doctrine, the absence of any theory of inspiration, and the protection afforded by the twofold basis for the dogmatic formulations of the church together with the doctrine of the church, leave open the way to utilize to the full the best results of modern Biblical scholarship” (171). 45. N. K., “S”iezd v St. Albans,” 109– 10. 46. I. S., “Pis’ma iz Anglii,” 16. 47. Zernov, Za Rubezhom, 223. Some of Zernov’s friends worried that he had fallen under the influence of Protestantism. 48. This is not to say that the Orthodox questioned the need for national churches. Far from it. Said one Russian delegate, “One of the principal props of the Orthodox Church is nationalism, and one of the chief bonds of spiritual union between it and the Anglican Church is the fact that the Anglican Church is the only national Church in Western Christendom. The history of Anglicanism is a glorious assertion of this national principle in the Church

Notes to Pages 149– 151

|

in a world of Church internationalism.” Report of the Second Anglo-Russian Student Conference, 11. 49. Ibid., 19. Yet, at the end of the second conference, one Anglican student reflected, “I wonder whether we Anglicans are right to yield to the popular clamour for shorter services, and whether future generations will not blame us for this.” Report of the Second Anglo-Russian Student Conference, 21. 50. Lloyd, The Church of England in the Twentieth Century, 279. 51. Report of the Second Anglo-Russian Student Conference, 6. 52. Ibid., 10, 6, 26, 11. 53. Ibid., 11, 26. 54. Anderson, “Anglo-Russkoe sodruzhestvo v imia sv. muchenika Albaniia i prep. Sergeia Radonezhskago,” 113. 55. Report of the Second Anglo-Russian Student Conference, 24, 8, 24. 56. The debate would continue in the first issue of the Fellowship’s journal, with a spirited defense of higher criticism by Gabriel Hebert. “I want to know,” wrote Hebert, “whether the events recorded in the Bible stand the test of investigation. Because I believe in God, I believe that the facts revealed in the study of history will not ultimately conflict with the truth that we have found in the practice of religion.” The Bible can be a “Book of the Holy Ghost” and still contain mistakes. Hebert insisted that the stories of the incarnation and resurrection must be accepted as literally true. But it must be recognized, he continued, that the account of creation in Genesis is similar to accounts of the Babylonians and other mythologies. Gabriel Hebert, “The Higher Criticism,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 1 (1928): 10– 15. Mascall also weighed in with a defense of higher criticism in the second issue: “We do not attempt to build up our theology on a critical basis because we doubt the truth of our religion, but because we have been forced by our opponents to meet them on this ground and because we wish to show them that their destructive conclusions are invalid.” Mascall, “Worship and Reason,” 20. 57. Report of the Second Anglo-Russian Student Conference, 22, 10, 22. 58. Zernov, Za Rubezhom, 222. 59. The Anglicans conducted the liturgy during the first two days of the conference, the Orthodox during the second two. 60. Iu. Koletin, “Arkhiereiskii sobor v sremskikh Karlovtsakh i zarubezhnyi tserkonvnyi razdor,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 1 (1934): 21, 22. 61. Report of the Second Anglo-Russian Student Conference, 14. 62. Bezobrazov, “Vstriecha,” 14. 63. Report of the Second Anglo-Russian Student Conference, 20–21.

361

362

|

Notes to Pages 151– 154

64. One Russian conferee described Gore as “sure of himself, yet filled with deep inner humility—which seems so distinct from the cold reserve which we often ascribe to the English character.” Report of the Second AngloRussian Student Conference, 15. 65. N. K., “S”iezd v St. Albans,” 110. 66. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 270. 67. V. R., “Otzyvy o konferentsii,” 17. 68. Florovskii remarked to his biographer, Andrew Blane, “Why [Gore] did this I do not know. Someone seems to have told him about me. Who it was I do not know, but I suspect it was Professor Arseniev. This happened early in 1928, after the second conference, and at the next conference I had to be included as a speaker.” Florovskii replaced Father Kassian, another professor at the Paris Theological Institute. This did not “improve relations between myself and Kassian,” said Florovskii. Blane, Georges Florovsky, 184 fn. 63. 69. E. L. Mascall, “George Florovsky (1893– 1979): Some Personal Memories,” Sobornost 2, no. 1 (1980): 69. 70. Paul Anderson, “Some Recollections,” Russian Orthodox Journal 42 (1968): 5. 71. Mascall, “George Florovsky,” 69. 72. Thomas Bird, “In Memoriam: Georges Florovsky, 1893– 1979,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 24 (1979): 349. 73. J. A. Douglas, “Chronicle and Causerie,” Christian East 27, nos. 3–4 (1937): 72. 74. Times, October 7, 1922, 9. 75. “These meetings taught me to appreciate the value and the potential of ecumenical dialogue, across the boundaries of denominational and cultural commitments.” Georges Florovskii, “My Personal Participation in the Ecumenical Movement,” in Haugh, ed., Ecumenism II, 169. 76. Blane, Georges Florovsky, 55. Evlogii encouraged him to seek ordination. 77. Report of the Second Anglo-Russian Student Conference, 16. 78. Zernov, “S”iezd v St-Albans’ie,” 10. 79. Bezobrazov, “Vstriecha,” 14. 80. “The West knows the Church in the vestments of the Roman Catholic Church,” he worried, and warned, “Catholicity in England quite often threatens to turn to Catholicism.” Ibid. 81. The journal had an informal, seat-of-the-pants appearance. “We are very anxious to know what you think about issue number 1,” wrote the editor of the first issue. “If you like it, please don’t bother to write and say so; if you don’t like it, and have some suggestions to make, we would be very glad if

Notes to Page 154

|

you would send them to the secretary, Miss X. Braikevitch.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 1 (1928): 1. 82. It began pleading for subscriptions in the third issue. Finances were a constant worry. “Will you pay your subscription for 1931 now? The Fellowship needs funds badly and we must make the Journal self-supporting. Will you send us your 2/6 or more if you can Now?” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 11 (1931): 10. 83. J. Guy Hetherington, “Church Music—Russian and Anglican,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 5 (1929): 23–24. 84. The article attempted to differentiate Russian monasticism from its Roman Catholic counterpart. Sergei Tchetverikov, “The Hermitage of Optino & Its Elders,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 5 (1929): 29–41. 85. “While I have been writing to you the separate peals of bells that have been all this time floating over Moscow have grown ever stronger and are now floating in on a mighty, triumphant wave of sound.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 1 (1928): 28. 86. A. A. Gorbold, “Impressions of an East End Diaconate,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 3 (1928): 25–27. 87. A. G. Hamilton, “The Holy Eucharist,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 4 (1929): 4–7. Arsen’ev argued that the eucharist is the “real source” of the “organic unity of the body of the Church”: “he who does not partake in the sacrament of the Eucharist has not only no part in the life of the Church but cannot even know what the nature of the Church is.” George Arsen’ev, “The Eucharist and the Unity of the Church,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 4 (1929): 8. 88. Fr. Hubert Northcott countenanced devotion to the Mother of God but worried about potential abuses of devotion. “She herself kept always in the background, never thrusting herself into prominence.” Hubert Northcott, “Our Lady,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 6 (1929): 7. Sergei Chetverikov of the Paris Theological Institute noted, somewhat defensively, “Protestants generally accuse Russians in their assumption that their love and hope in the Mother of God reach such an extent, that the Mother of God comes to overshadow even Our lord Jesus Christ. This assumption is not true. The Russian Orthodox people clearly understand the mutual relationship between the Mother of God and our Lord Jesus Christ. In our prayers She is called our first defender (interceder) after God; we pray to Her to ‘raise our prayers to Her Son and our God,’ but it is true that in practice, more often, we direct our prayers to the Mother of God, than to the Son of God,

363

364

|

Notes to Page 154

and this can be explained by the fact that recognizing our own sinfulness, we turn to her with greater daring (more bravely), than to the Son of God; through Her it is easier for us to turn to Him, than directly, but this does not at all mean that the Mother of God obscures from our view the Son of God.” Sergei Tchetverikov, “On the Veneration of the Mother of God by the Russian People (Nation),” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 6 (1929): 16. Original emphasis. 89. Bulgakov insisted on regarding penance as a sacrament: “It claims divine establishment for itself.” Sergei Bulgakov, “On the Sacrament of Penance in the Russian Orthodox Church,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 18 (1932): 12– 15. Kenneth Kirk, on the other hand, offered a rather wishy-washy argument for considering penance as a sacrament. Kenneth E. Kirk, “Penance, Discipline and Sacrament,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 18 (1932): 6– 11. 90. Chetverikov accepted the necessity of confession as a given. Sergei Tchetverikov, “Confession and Communion of Christ’s Mysteries in the Orthodox Church,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 18 (1932): 19–21. Fr. C. W. Anderson noted that in the Anglican Church the sacrament of confession is left “entirely to the consciences of . . . confirmation candidates” and suggested that the stress on liberty in the Anglican Church “weights the scales against the use”: “while sacramental confession is strongly entrenched in Anglican practice, the emphasis on the liberty, or rather the personal responsibility of penitents, is also strong and leads to the varying degrees of frequency with which the Sacrament is used in different parishes.” C. W. Anderson, “The Confessional in Practice,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 18 (1932): 16–19. Original emphasis. 91. Fr. Eric Graham discussed the difference of opinion within Anglicanism about divorce and contraception. Eric Graham, “The Sacrament of Marriage,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 19 (1933): 9– 14. Professors Troitskii and Illyin spoke far more confidently about Orthodoxy’s teachings on matrimony. Sergei Troitskii, “On the Sacrament of Marriage,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 19 (1933): 15–20; V. Illyin, “The Problem of Marriage and Its Crisis in Our Time,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 19 (1933): 21–24. 92. Kovalevskii argued that blasphemy cannot be pardoned. E. Kovalevskii, “What Is Sin?” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 7 (1929): 6– 10. Moss argued against a historical understanding of the Fall as portrayed in Genesis. C. B. Moss, “What Is Sin?” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 7 (1929): 1 1– 14. Bulgakov spoke of the natu-

Notes to Page 154

|

ral world as an orphan due to original sin. Sergei Bulgakov, “On Original Sin,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 7 (1929): 15–26. R. C. Langdon-Davies, “Sin and Man’s Freedom,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 7 (1929): 26–30. 93. Chetverikov sought to dispel notions that Orthodox asceticism meant self-torture or self-sacrifice. Sergei Tchetverikov, “Asceticism in the Lives of the Saints,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 10 (1930): 12– 16. Oscar Hardman tried to broaden the definition of asceticism to a more general notion of “sacrificial service” and, on this basis, outlined a tradition of asceticism in Anglicanism. Oscar Hardman, “What Is Asceticism?” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 14 (1931): 14–16. Hamilton Thompson noted St. Benedict’s dislike of anything “actually harsh or severe” and suggested that askesis means nothing more than the training of the body and mind. A. Hamilton Thompson, “Asceticism and Culture in the Mediaeval Western Church,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 14 (1931): 27–32. Florovskii described asceticism as “humility before God” and a form of liberating creativity. Georges Florovskii, “Asceticism and Culture in the Later Eastern Church,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 15 (1932): 8– 13. H. J. Carpenter criticized Luther and Calvin for trying to purge the church of ascetic practices and argued for a return of the “ascetic element” to Protestantism. H. J. Carpenter, “Some Tendencies in Asceticism and Culture in the Reformation and Post-Reformation Period,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 15 (1932): 14–18. A Benedictine member spoke strongly in favor of the ascetic tradition. Bede Frost, “Prayer and Reunion,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 23 (1934): 22–25. 94. A notable exception was the coverage given to the 1930 Lambeth conference. The journal reprinted an article by John Douglas, which portrayed the conference as a definite step on the path toward reunion. J. A. Douglas, “The Orthodox Delegation to the Lambeth Conference,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 10 (1930): 5– 11. The next issue of the journal reported on Florovskii’s warnings about what he viewed as too-rapid a rapprochement between Anglicans and Orthodox at Lambeth: no. 14 (1931): 6. 95. Most of Florovskii’s publications for the Fellowship were little more than attempts to teach the non-Orthodox about Orthodoxy. Florovskii offered little original research or thought and made almost no attempt to engage other faiths. Typical examples are “Abundance of Glory,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 9 (1930): 10–15; “Asceticism and Culture in the Later Eastern Church,” 8–13; “On the Veneration of the Saints,” Journal

365

366

|

Notes to Pages 154– 155

of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 2 (1928): 14–15; “The Sacrament of Pentecost: A Russian View of Apostolic Succession,” 25–28; “The Communion of Saints,” Sobornost, nos. 1 1– 12 (1937): 18–21; “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Revelation,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 17 (1932): 5– 16. 96. Karpov, “Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia v High-Leigh,” 90. 97. Although Bulgakov argued that these fallen-away churches still “preserve its inner seed.” “All Christianity, as such, remains more or less Orthodox in its faith and being, and the movement to Reunion may be nothing more than a restoration of the fullness of Orthodoxy and a removal of deterioration in it.” Bulgakov, “One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” 22. 98. Georges Florovskii, “Concensus Ecclesiae,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 24 (1934): 29. Original emphasis. 99. Karpov, “Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia v High-Leigh,” 95. 100. Karpov, “Piataia Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia,” 66. 101. Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 14 (1931): 10. 102. Durham, “The Church and the Modern State,” 12. 103. “Protestantism, whatever its merits may be, has never helped anyone to pray or grow in sanctity.” G. W. O. Addleshaw, “Our Domestic Difficulties,” Sobornost, no. 11 (1937): 28. 104. Beatrice Hamilton Thompson, “The Church of England and the Reformation,” Sobornost, no. 2 (1935): 41. 105. L. Gage-Brown, “The Importance of Sacramental Confession in the Christian Life,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 8 (1930): 15– 17. 106. The intercession of saints “emphasizes the unity of the Church of Christ.” “If my patron saint prays for me, so surely do my own faithfully departed.” W. M. Whitley, “The Intercession of the Saints,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 13 (1931): 19. 107. Michael Bruce, “The Necessity of Revelation,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 17 (1932): 18. 108. Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 20 (1933): 3. 109. Evangelicals participated in such small numbers that nobody seemed to know what this point of view might be: “That there is a definite Evangelical point of view no one will deny, though few of us seem to be thoroughly acquainted with it.” L. F. Williams, “Editorial,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 13 (1931): 1. 1 10. H. E. W. Turner, “Letter to the Editor,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 12 (1931): 16.

Notes to Pages 155– 157

|

111. G. Grubb, “Letter to the Editor,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 12 (1931): 15. 112. “I have the feeling that the presence of such a group would help, and not hinder, the complete understanding between Anglicans and the Orthodox. . . . I am quite convinced that many Free-Church Leaders have very erroneous impressions of the Orthodox, and these can only be dispelled by such fellowship the Conference provides.” W. Robinson to Eric Fenn, June 28, 1933, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. See also Robinson, “Letter to the Editor,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 21 (1933): 5. 113. “It may appear strange that a Presbyterian like Eric [Fenn] takes such a prominent part in our work, and I think that probably a good many members of the S.C.M. consider the position as rather abnormal because the Fellowship consists chiefly of Anglo-catholics and Orthodox.” Nikolai Zernov to R. C. Mackie, February 28, 1934, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 114. “Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Statement of Aims & Basis,” 35; emphasis added. 115. In 1934 members of the Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund discussed in detail a proposal that the fund provide money to Russian émigrés to enroll in Nonconformist colleges. Zernov supported the proposal, but John Douglas worried about offending conservatives in the émigré church. Father Fynes-Clinton “felt that the Fund would only increase the criticism directed by one section of the Russian Church against the Paris Academy if money were to be granted for this purpose.” Minutes of the General Committee of the Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund, December 5, 1934, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 116. Form of Application for Membership, n.d., Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 117. “You have to teach us the great lesson of stability, that in the midst of all the changes of our history and modern life you have continued to be rooted in the life of the first centuries of the Christian Church; and you will help us . . . not to be carried away by every wind of doctrine.” Cosmo Lang, “The Greeting of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Anglo-Russian Conference,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 9 (1930): 6. 118. “General Report of the Student Conference, 1933,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 20 (1933): 9. 119. Karpov, “Piataia Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia,” 66. 120. E. L. Mascall, “Christ and the Church,” in Mascall, ed., The Church of God, 5–6.

367

368

| 11.

Notes to Pages 158– 160 Intercommunion and Sofiology

1. A. F. Dobbie-Bateman, “Footnotes (IX)—In quos fines saeculorum,” Sobornost, no. 30 (1944): 7. 2. “General Report of the Fellowship Conference, June 1933,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 20 (1933): 12. 3. Nikolai Zernov, “Some Explanations of Fr. Bulgakov’s Scheme for Intercommunion,” n.d., Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 4. Sergei Bulgakov, “By Jacob’s Well,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 22 (1933): 11. 5. Dobbie-Bateman later recalled that the “crudity” of his original idea frightened members of the Fellowship. It took two years for Bulgakov to give it any degree of clarity. Dobbie-Bateman, “Footnotes (IX),” 7. Zernov offered three possible interpretations of the blessing: (1) an indication of doubt on the validity of Anglican orders; (2) a desire to assuage the suspicions of other Orthodox who opposed the recognition of Anglican ordinations; or (3) a “deeply felt need” to sanction an action that attempted to restore the “violated sacramental union of the Church.” Zernov accepted the third explanation. Zernov, “Some Explanations of Fr. Bulgakov’s Scheme for Intercommunion.” Bulgakov’s own thinking about the sacramental blessing changed over time. Shortly after his original proposal he tried to assure the Fellowship that a blessing should not be confused with reordination or conditional ordination— it merely expressed the need for some sort of sacramental action that would aid in restoring the violated sacramental unity of the church. It offered a “spiritual sign of grace” authorizing intercommunion. A. F. Dobbie-Bateman, “Summary of Position on Partial Intercommunion,” November 27, 1933, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files, 2–3. 6. Bulgakov, “The Church’s Ministry,” 170. 7. Bulgakov, “K voprosu o Lozanskoi Konferentsii,” 77. 8. Bulgakov, “One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” 22. 9. Florovskii had much the same attitude. “The Church of Christ is one in the Eucharist, for the Eucharist is Christ Himself, and He sacramentally abides in the Church, which is His Body.” “The Church is the unity of charismatic life. The source of this unity is hidden in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and in the mystery of Pentecost.” Georges Florovskii, “The Catholicity of the Church,” in The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, ed. Richard Haugh (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1972), 63, 65. In taking the eucharist, “we most truly unite with Christ, with Christ the God-Man.” “In the Holy Eucharist believers become the Body of Christ. And therefore the Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church, the sacrament of meeting. . . . Eucharistic par-

Notes to Pages 160– 161

|

ticipation is not only spiritual or moral unity, not only unity of experience, will and feeling. It is a real and ontological unity, the realization of a single organic life in Christ.” The eucharist “signifies the spiritual unity of the Church at hand, the indivisible catholicity of prayerful participation.” “In the Eucharist the fullness of the Church invisibly but truly reveals itself. Each liturgy is performed in connection with the entire Church and somehow on its behalf, not only on behalf of the people at hand.” Georges Florovskii, “The Eucharist and Catholicity,” in Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach, ed. Richard Haugh (Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989), 47–52. 10. “Eucharistic theology must serve as a basis for Christian Sociology,” he told the Fellowship. Sergei Bulgakov, “The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 21 (1933): 12. Original emphasis. 11. Sergei Bulgakov, “Evkharisticheskii dogmat,” Put’, no. 20 (1930): 3–46. Sergei Bulgakov, “Sviatyi Graal,” Put’, no. 22 (1932): 23–61. All quotes are from Boris Jakim’s English translation. 12. He quotes St. Irenaeus: “only in communion is union with Christ given to us.” Sergei Bulgakov, “The Eucharistic Dogma,” in The Holy Grail and the Eucharist, ed. Boris Jakim (Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Books, 1997), 120, 66, 33, 61. 13. Bulgakov, “The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society,” 15, 21. 14. Karpov, “Piataia Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia,” 66. 15. Nikolai Arsen’ev, “Ob obshchenii s Anglikanskoi Tserkov’iu,” Put’, no. 33 (1932): 44–51. 16. The report noted that certain exceptions might be possible (e.g., in instances where the ministrations of one’s own church may not be available for long periods), but such exceptions were not at all what Bulgakov had in mind. “Report on Relations to and Reunion with Episcopal Churches,” 220–21. 17. “Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Statement of Aims & Basis,” 35. 18. Arthur Headlam, “Healing of the Schism: The Report of the Fellowship Conference,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 25 (1934): 3. 19. “General Report of the Fellowship Conference, June 1933,” 15. 20. In 1929 the bishop of Fukien wrote that intercommunion represented the only way to reunion: the Lord’s Supper “was intended to be a means of preserving unity among His disciples or of recovering it if lost.” Fukien, “Proposed Schemes for Reunion,” 213; original emphasis. The principal of Ridley Hall, Cambridge, likewise argued that “our Lord instituted the rite as a

369

370

|

Notes to Pages 161– 162

means to attain that which could be attained in no other way.” J. Paul Gibson, “Inter-Communion,” Churchman 43, no. 3 (1929): 216; original emphasis. “Whether we think of Grindelwald in earlier days, or, more recently, the wonderful Communion Service held by the Jerusalem Conference on Easter Day, or the Bishop of Liverpool’s invitation to the whole Student Movement Quadrennial Conference at the beginning of this year, or of the special blessing of unanimity at the Y. W. C. A. Conference at Budapest, or whether we think of the long-tested experiment at Peradeniya, where Inter-Communion brought such an abundant blessing, in every case we are presented with a sudden and continued outburst of spiritual power, a drawing together of men not only in spirit but in mind and will.” Gibson, “Inter-Communion,” 218. 21. Dobbie-Bateman, “Summary of Position on Partial Intercommunion,” 4. 22. “General Report of the Fellowship Conference, June 1933,” 13. 23. Bulgakov, “Ways to Church Reunion,” 22. 24. Dobbie-Bateman, “Summary of Position on Partial Intercommunion,” 1. 25. There can be no communion, Florovskii wrote in 1950, if there is no common belief. Communion “presupposes ‘one mind’ no less than ‘one heart.’ ” A recognition of the historic episcopate [one of the facts that made intercommunion possible in Bulgakov’s mind] is not sufficient. Those who wish to join us in intercommunion must recognize not only the “historic episcopate” but also the “sacramental character of the priesthood.” What is required for intercommunion is “unity of faith and the integrity of the sacramental structure. Unless this is secured and avowed, no action should be taken.” Original publication: “Confessional Loyalty in the Ecumenical Movement,” Student World 43, no. 1 (1950): 59–70. Excerpted in Georges Florovskii, “Open Communion and Intercommunion,” in Haugh, ed., Ecumenism I, 149–50. 26. “General Report of the Fellowship Conference, June 1933,” 14. 27. Florovskii, “The Sacrament of Pentecost,” 34. 28. Lloyd, The Church of England in the Twentieth Century, 284. 29. Sergei Bulgakov, “Spiritual Intercommunion [open letter to Father Gillett],” Sobornost, no. 4 (1935): 4. 30. Bulgakov, “By Jacob’s Well,” 10. 31. Bulgakov, “Ways to Church Reunion,” 23. 32. Glubokovskii, “Khristianskoe edinenie i bogoslovskoe prosvieshchenie,” 140. 33. Bulgakov had strongly endorsed this notion of dogma as living action rather than written legalism earlier at the 1930 conference of the Fellowship. “The Church does not know dogma as contained in formularies,”

Notes to Pages 162– 164

|

he said, but instead recognizes “the dogma of life.” Karpov concurred: religion “begins not with theology, but with bogozhitie,” or “godly living.” Karpov, “Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia v High-Leigh,” 90. 34. Bulgakov, “Ways to Church Reunion,” 27. 35. Sergei Bulgakov, “The Spirit of Prophecy,” Sobornost, no. 19 (1939): 44. 36. Sergei Bulgakov, “The Church Universal,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 25 (1934): 20. 37. Ibid., 17. 38. Bulgakov, “Spiritual Intercommunion,” 5. 39. Bulgakov, “Ways to Church Reunion,” 28. 40. The place of the councils in Orthodoxy “does not give us the right to define the substance of Orthodoxy by the decrees of the seven Councils, for, on the one hand, Orthodoxy existed before them and, on the other, they are far from exhausting the content of Orthodoxy.” Bulgakov, “Does Orthodoxy Possess an Outward Authority of Dogmatic Infallibility?” 19. 41. Bulgakov, “Ways to Church Reunion,” 25. 42. Reunion cannot be achieved “merely between the higher organs of the hierarchy, without any active participation of the people of the Church. Such an approach is no less utopian than it was in the fifteenth century.” Ibid., 22. 43. Bulgakov wanted to make sure that such a statement did not imply a Protestant attitude toward communion: “Their Eucharist is not the same Eucharist which was appointed by Our Lord for the purpose of a full or complete union with Him, and through Him between ourselves. The so-called ‘Apostolic Succession’ combined with a faith in the true Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, represents an objective condition, independent of our will, for making Eucharistic fellowship possible or impossible.” Members of our Fellowship “have actually recognized the validity of Anglican orders not only in theory but in actual life.” Bulgakov, “Spiritual Intercommunion,” 5–6. 44. Ivan Young, “Eucharistic Worship,” in Mascall, ed., The Church of God, 119. “In the Eucharist Christ makes Himself known to us as Redeemer, and as such He confirms for us in the order of experience that fact. Here we are in touch with the ‘deep Universal Catholic Christianity’ ” (122). 45. This question, of course, was not exclusive to the Fellowship. A number of Roman Catholic scholars posed it as well. In 1936 T. G. Rogers concluded, “It is clear that further progress cannot easily be made without some reconsideration of the subject of intercommunion, and it can hardly be denied that this lack of intercommunion is a serious hindrance to the restoration and goodwill which are the essential preliminaries of reunion.” T. G. Rogers,

371

372

|

Notes to Page 164

“The New Catholicism I: Intercommunion,” in The Church in the Twentieth Century, ed. G. L. H. Harvey (1936; reprint, Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries, 1967), 176. 46. Nikolai Zernov, The Reintegration of the Church: A Study in Intercommunion (London: SCM Press, 1952). Always cautious, Zernov declined to discuss Bulgakov’s proposal and “its merits” in any detail, but he did argue for the “fundamental importance of his suggestions, as he was the first to state the necessity for corporate sacramental repentance as a preliminary condition tacitly omitted from other schemes of reunion” (70). The principal difficulty with Bulgakov’s proposal was finding a person who has the “liturgical authority” to sanction intercommunion. A local bishop would seem an obvious choice, “but under present conditions he is severely handicapped, either by his submission to the centralized authority of his confession, or the state or bureaucratic control” (70). The eucharist, Zernov argued, protects against selfishness and pride in both individuals and communities and thus serves as an ideal medium for reunion (51). “Universality” is “a distinct element of the Eucharist” (53). Christians are wrong to believe that they can “retain their close union with God and with one another without being constantly renewed and strengthened by sacramental grace” (58). Opposition to employing the eucharist as a means toward reunion “is really rooted in antipathy to repentance, which is an indispensable condition of the right to approach intercommunion” (66). 47. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 267. 48. Nikolai Zernov, “Deviatii Anglo-Pravoslavnyi S”iezd,” Put’, no. 49 (1935): 85. 49. A. V. Kartashev to the Executive Committee, October 15, 1933, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 50. “If groups of people in two Churches, for example Anglicans and Orthodox, were to dedicate themselves to a heroic feat of complete Church communion in the sacraments, having of course first agreed with a pure conscience on the identity of their faith in all essentials and its divergence only on secondary points [like Bulgakov, Kartashev was willing to define “essentials” rather narrowly], the only thing they would lack for their work to be recognized as fully of the Church Catholic, would be the consent and blessing of the respective bishops on both sides. If such bishops were found, then the line separating the two Churches would be broken at this part of the front. A kernel of unity would be formed, one which might attract others to itself.” A. V. Kartashev, “The Paths Towards the Reunion of the Churches,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 26 (1934): 12.

Notes to Pages 164– 166

|

51. Frere dismissed as dubious the bishop of Gloucester’s contention that the Lambeth resolution on intercommunion (see above) provided the needed authorization for Bulgakov’s proposal. William Temple also argued that the Lambeth statement would not approve of such action. A. F. Dobbie-Bateman, “Memorandum of a Conversation with the Bishop of Truro at Truro on 17th August, 1933,” 18 August 1933, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 52. Lloyd, The Church of England in the Twentieth Century, 283. E. Lambert, “The Fellowship and Anglican-Orthodox Intercommunion: A Restatement,” Sobornost, no. 21 (1940): 9. The conference of 1934 was given over to discussions of the proposal, but the series of conferences Frere envisioned never materialized. 53. Gabriel Hebert, “Open Communion,” Church Quarterly Review 122 (1936): 42. 54. Florovskii, “The Limits of the Church,” 117–31. 55. A. F. Dobbie-Bateman, “Confidential Note for the Executive, 21 October 1933,” Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files, 1–2. 56. Georges Florovskii to the Executive Committee, October 16, 1933, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 57. Dobbie-Bateman, “Confidential Note for the Executive, 21 October 1933,” 2. 58. Florovskii, quoted in Dobbie-Bateman, “Summary of Position on Partial Intercommunion, 27 November 1933,” Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files, 2. 59. Transcript of Discussion on Fr. Bulgakov’s Proposal for Intercommunion, n.d., Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 60. Ibid. 61. Indeed, negotiations on the recognition of Anglican orders were underway with the Romanian Orthodox Church, and, as Lloyd has noted, some hoped that the Serbian Orthodox Church might also recognize Anglican orders. Concern about creating further divisions among Russian émigrés was common in Anglican ecumenical musings. Anglicans never quite realized how deep was the split between the Russian émigrés in Paris and the Karlovatskii Synod and retained a persistent hope that the schism might be mended. 62. “Protokol zasiedaniia Anglo-Russkago sodruzhestva v Parizhie 2 fevralia 1934,” Georges Florovsky Papers, Princeton University. 63. Iu. Grabbe, a regular polemicist for the Karlovchane, was incensed that Bulgakov had suggested that members of the Fellowship engage in a “prayer of contrition” as part of intercommunion. The Orthodox were guilty of no sin and thus had no reason to be contrite, Grabbe fumed. It is “very

373

374

|

Notes to Pages 166– 169

characteristic of Bulgakov” to propose something “completely new, having no basis in Orthodox teaching.” This proposal is “completely antithetical to patristic teaching about the Church.” It will “seduce” Orthodox youth in the Fellowship, “drawing them into new falsehood.” Iu. Grabbe, “Nepravoslavnaia molitva nashikh ‘ekumenistov’,” Tserkovnaia zhizn, no. 3 (1936): 41–42. 64. Douglas, said Zernov, viewed them as newcomers to the church, full of ideas contrary to the Orthodox tradition, and thus suspect in the Eastern circles in which Douglas moved. Zernov, Za Rubezhom, 250. 65. Transcript of Discussion on Fr. Bulgakov’s Proposal for Intercommunion, n.d., Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 66. Ibid. 67. Ibid. 68. “Fr. Bulgakov feels that it is a prophetic call which has obliged him to change his former attitude almost completely. The idea of partial intercommunion seemed very foreign, now we have unexpected guidance that we must do it.” Ibid. 69. “Only this kind of prophetic action can vivify and make worth while the constitutional method.” Ibid. 70. Report of the Fellowship Conference at High Leigh, June 26–28, 1934, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 71. “In our Fellowship we have a case of necessity, not individual, but collective. We are a child of the Church and need food.” Ibid. 72. Ibid. 73. Ibid. 74. Intercommunion as outlined by Bulgakov is “a blind area from which there is no escape.” The paradox is that we are in union in the Holy Spirit but divided in the human element. We need therefore to work in this human element and not in intercommunion. Our duty in the human element excludes partial intercommunion ex principio. Report of the Fellowship Conference at High Leigh. 75. Ibid. 76. Ibid. 77. Ibid. 78. Ibid. 79. Ibid. 80. Ibid. 81. Ibid. 82. The proposal recommended that the Fellowship do all it could to promote reunion, continue to explore sacramental intercommunion, define the way in which the Fellowship understands the “Church,” organize a theologi-

Notes to Pages 169– 171

|

cal committee to explore questions raised by Bulgakov’s ideas, and ask Bulgakov to explain how the proposal would affect bishops, clergy, and laity. Headlam, “Healing of the Schism: The Report of the Fellowship Conference,” 6. 83. “The plain fact is that the proposal has scarcely moved one step forward during the discussion of the past year,” said Dobbie-Bateman. Lloyd, The Church of England in the Twentieth Century, 283. 84. H. L. Goudge, “Reunion and Intercommunion,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 26 (1934): 5. 85. This was exactly Bulgakov’s point. Ibid. 86. F. W., “Outstretched Hands,” 174. 87. Michael Ramsey, “Reunion and Intercommunion,” Sobornost, no. 2 (1935): 15. 88. Kartashev suggested that recognition of apostolic succession, plus the Anglican Church’s recognition of baptism, confirmation, and the eucharist, would be an acceptable minimum for intercommunion; he did not want to require Anglicans to recognize dogmas on the veneration of saints, the Virgin Mary, or icons. Reunion, he argued, should take the form of a federation. A. V. Kartashev, “Intercommunion and Dogmatic Agreement,” Sobornost, no. 4 (1935): 41–48. 89. Lev Gillet, “Intercommunion,” Sobornost, no. 3 (1935): 21, 22. 90. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 547. 91. Bulgakov, “Spiritual Intercommunion,” 3. 92. “The Nature of Catholic Action [report of the Fellowship Conference],” Sobornost, no. 3 (1935): 17. 93. Ibid., 20. 94. Lambert, “The Fellowship and Anglican-Orthodox Intercommunion: A Restatement,” 9. 95. “Do you think it advisable for a church to give permission to (a) individual members or (b) groups from another church to receive Holy Communion at its liturgy, before this privilege has been extended to all members of the church?” “If Intercommunion is desirable, in what form must the unity of faith be expressed?” “If intercommunion is desirable, who has the authority to sanction it?” 96. Wrote one, “Intercommunion is such an important matter, and one so closely related to what is deepest in the life of the Church, her sacramental life and unity, that it concerns the whole body of the faithful, who act through the authority which represents them, namely, the bishops.” Lambert, “The Fellowship and Anglican-Orthodox Intercommunion,” 16. 97. Reduced to sentimental gestures, Zernov suggested that Anglican priests occasionally administer the eucharist to Anglicans according to the

375

376

|

Notes to Pages 171– 172

Orthodox rite. Nikolai Zernov, “The Eucharist of the Eastern Rite and the Anglican Church,” Sobornost, no. 23 (1941): 20–23. The Fellowship would lionize Bulgakov after his death: “It is not too much to say that the very existence of the Fellowship is largely due to the inspiration and courage of this great Orthodox priest and thinker.” Sobornost, no. 30 (1944): 3. 98. Political motivations are apparent if we recall that Metropolitan Antonii had reported favorably on Pavel Florenskii’s elucidation of sofiology— which had many similarities with Bulgakov’s—back in 1915. Williams, “Georges Vasilievich Florovsky,” 28 fn. 36. 99. In Novyi vremeni, no. 1005 (September 4, 1924), Antonii accused both Bulgakov and Florenskii of promulgating “theological fantasy” and “heresy” in their teaching about a fourth hypostasis in the Trinity. However, on November 13, 1924, Vechernee vremia (no. 170) published a letter from Antonii saying that he lacked a sufficient basis not to trust Bulgakov and that “I wish him every success in his teaching and pastoral endeavors.” Antonii reversed course again in 1927, writing to Evlogii advising him to pay attention to Bulgakov’s teaching. Igumen Gennadii, Dolo prot. Sergiia Bulgakova: istoricheskaia kanva spora o Sofii (San Francisco: Globus Publishers, 1980), 5. That same year Bulgakov wrote to Evlogii to defend his sofianic theology, appealing to references to the Wisdom of God in the gospels, apostolic letters, and writings of the church fathers. Sergei Bulgakov, “Ob”iashenie o. Protoiereia S. Bulgakova,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 5 (1927): 21–30. 100. Bulgakov confused his critics by using both the term “hypostasis” and the term “hypostasicity.” In Sviet nevecherny (The Unfading Light) he referred to Sofia as a “fourth hypostasis,” indicating to some that he viewed Sofia as a fourth member of the Trinity. Bulgakov, Sviet nevechernii: sozertsaniia i umozrieniia. But he would later argue in “Ipostas’ i ipostasnost’ ” that “there is no fourth hypostasis at all equally honorable and consubstantial with the most Holy Trinity: there is not and there cannot be; the threesome is selfenclosed and allows no addition at all.” “Sophia cannot have her own hypostasis for that would indicate an original existence similar to the three hypostases, introducing a fourth into the Trinity.” Is Sofia, he asked rhetorically, a “separate ‘hypostasis’?”: “obviously such a question is absurd and impossible.” Yet a “denial of a hypostasis in Sophia still does not indicate a rejection of hypostasicity in her, reducing Sofia to an allegory or attribute of Deity.” Sergei Bulgakov, “Ipostas’ i ipostasnost’,” in Sbornik statei, posviashchennykh Petru Berngardovichu Struve ko dniu tritsadtipiatilietiia ego nauchno-publitsisticheskoi dieiatel’nosti, 1890–30 ianvaria, 1925 (Prague, 1925), 361. 101. In 1912–13 Bulgakov defended the “imia-bortsy” or “name-worshipers” (i.e., Logos worshipers) on Mount Athos when they were accused of heresy.

Notes to Pages 172– 173

|

Bulgakov argued, much as he did when defending his sofiology, that such personal speculation did not depart from Orthodox dogma and that every Orthodox believer had the right to participate in the formulation of dogma. Orthodoxy needed dogmatic creativity from all of its members. Sergei Bulgakov, “Afronskoe dielo,” Russkaia mysl’, no. 9 (September 1913): 37–40. See also Evtuhov, The Cross and the Sickle, 210– 13. 102. Evgenii Trubetskoi accused Bulgakov of perverting the doctrine of the Trinity by positing a fourth hypostasis. Evgenii Trubetskoi, Smysl zhizni (Berlin: Slovo, 1922), 129. 103. Even Paul Valliere’s recent study terms Bulgakov’s sofiology “moderate pantheism.” Valliere, Modern Russian Theology, 349. 104. Florovskii noted Solov’ev’s influence on Bulgakov’s sofiology: “Bulgakov’s typical problematics of religious or ecclesiastical culture and Christian construction in history were linked to Solov’ev, and from there the path led back to Schelling, the Neoplatonists, and also the experience of the Great Church—the Church of history, tradition, and patristics. The force of German philosophy greatly affected him, and the influence of Schelling’s philosophy of economics, and even Kantian transcendentalism, was particularly intense. . . . The power of German philosophy is also evident in Bulgakov’s limited romantic horizon, in his religious Naturphilosophie, and in his unrestrained lurch towards the ‘philosophy of identity.’ ” Georges Florovskii, Ways of Russian Theology, trans. Robert Nichols (Belmont: Nordland, 1972), 2:276. 105. Catherine Evtuhov provides a convincing account of the parallels between Bulgakov’s, Schelling’s, Goethe’s, and Solov’ev’s understanding of the “eternal feminine.” Evtuhov, The Cross and the Sickle, 55. 106. “MEMORANDUM on UKAZ concerning the Rev. SERGIUS BULGAKOV, 7 September 1935,” Georges Florovsky Papers (1935). See also appendix in Winston Crum, “The Doctrine of Sophia according to Sergius N. Bulgakov” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1965). Metropolitan Sergei’s ukaz did not pass “special judgment on Bulgakov,” since Bulgakov did not reside in Sergei’s jurisdiction; but it did state that should Bulgakov ever seek authorization for his orders from the Moscow Patriarchate, he would first have to present a written disavowal of his sofianic interpretations and “his other mistakes in the teaching of the faith.” 107. “The intellectual B. himself does not insist that his teaching is of the Church; he patronizes the tradition as a stage left behind. According to him theology, having become a dead thing in Byzantium, streams with new life in the heterodox West, particularly in Protestant kenotic theology.” His teaching has “no intention of reckoning with the tradition and in certain points adopts positions condemned by the Church.” Metropolitan Sergei,

377

378

|

Notes to Page 173

“The Decree of the Moscow Patriarchate to Eleutherius, the Metropolitan of Lithuania and Vilna [translation of O Sofii, premudrosti bozhiei: Ukaz moskovskoi patriarkhii i dokladnaia zapiski prof. prot. S. Bulgakova i Mitropolita Evlogiia],” Christian East 16, nos. 1–2 (1935): 48, 52. 108. Winston Crum writes, “No doubt, each condemnation was at bottom an ecclesiastical power play designed to discredit the entire jurisdiction to which [Bulgakov] belonged.” Winston Crum, “Sergius N. Bulgakov: From Marxism to Sophiology,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 27 (1983): 12. William Fletcher, on the other hand, argues that Metropolitan Sergei’s objections were entirely theological, although Fletcher himself appears to question his own assertion when he notes that Sergei may have condemned Bulgakov as a way to distance himself from émigrés who had participated with Anglicans in a prayer service for the suffering Russian church. William Fletcher, A Study in Survival: The Church in Russia, 1927–1943 (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 71. 109. Antonii addressed a personal letter to Evlogii outlining the synod’s objections to Bulgakov’s theology. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 580. 110. V. V. Zenkovskii, “Delo ob obvinenii o. Sergeia Bulgakova v eresi,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 49 (1987): 61–65. 111. Grabbe’s 1938 report accused Bulgakov, Kartashev, Florenskii, and Berdiaev of participating in left-wing circles responsible for “the rebirth of the gnostic concept of holy Sophia.” Put’ in particular, it insisted, was responsible for disseminating such nonsense. “All this pernicious intellectual fuss is now treated by the Paris theologians as a flowering forth of Russian theological science.” Bulgakov’s understanding of a fourth hypostasis was “completely antithetical to the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity.” “In every case, this teaching of Fr. Bulgakov is such that it clearly aims at overthrowing the age-old teaching of the Holy Church, which is expressed by the fathers, the Symbol of Faith, and the divine service books. It is incomprehensible how a commission headed by Metropolitan Evlogii could declare that the teachings of Fr. Bulgakov contain no heresy.” “It is beyond doubt that this whole doctrine constitutes—at best unconsciously, I hope—a sliding into the abyss of pantheism, and an enticing of scholars to the brink of this abyss.” It is based on Kabbalism and Solov’ev’s “demonic possession.” Paul Grabbe, “Concerning the False Teaching of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov: A Report to the Second Pan-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Which Met in Sremski-Karlovtsi, Yugoslavia, 1/14–11/24 August 1938,” Living Orthodoxy 16, no. 6 (1994): 15–28. 112. Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, 7:372.

Notes to Page 173

|

1 13. Evlogii objected to the very idea of a condemnation by an ecclesiastical hierarch, arguing that the Orthodox Church takes stands on issues through consensus rather than by degree. Such a condemnation is “not in keeping with the Church and the M. Sergius has not a Papal infallibility.” Mitropolit Evlogii, “Memorandum Presented by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov to the Metropolitan Eulogius [translated abridgment of part 2 of O Sofii, premudrosti bozhie],” Christian East 16, nos. 1–2 (1936): 53. Evlogii defended Bulgakov’s work as remaining entirely within church tradition and spoke of Bulgakov’s “unswerving loyalty to the teaching of the Orthodox Church” (58). In fact, Evlogii held up Bulgakov’s theological work as an example of the apostle Paul’s injunction not to be a slave to the sorts of canonical laws to which the Karlovchane appealed in their “Pharasitical attitude.” Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 601. Evlogii defended the dogmatic validity of Bulgakov’s writings. He mentioned the teachings of Saints Dionysus, Maxim the Confessor, and John of Damascus as promulgating similar teachings on Sofia. 114. The commission included Iakov Smirnov (chair and senior priest of the Kafedralnyi Cathedral in Paris), Sergei Chetverikov (a professor at the institute who became chair of the commission after Smirnov’s death), Archimandrite Kassian, Anton Kartashev, Vasilii Zenkovskii, Georges Florovskii, and B. I. Sove (a professor of the Old Testament at the institute). Kartashev and Sove wrote on the question of Sofia in the Old Testament, Kassian on Sofia in the New Testament, and Zenkovskii on the applicability of the term “gnosticism” and the understanding of Sofia as a “third being” between God and the world. Zenkovskii, “Delo ob obvinenii o. Sergeia Bulgakova v eresi,” 61–65. 115. Bulgakov had argued in 1927 that Byzantine churches and churches in ancient Rus’ were indeed dedicated to Sofia. Bulgakov, “Ob”iashenie o. Protoiereia S. Bulgakova,” 28. But Florovskii argued, “ ‘Wisdom’ has been and should be, clearly distinguished from Christ.” “Numerous churches were dedicated to the Holy Wisdom of God, in Byzantium and in Old Russia. What was the actual meaning of this dedication? To whom [were] these Sophia Churches . . . in fact dedicated? The answer seems to be easy and obvious. Christ, the Logos, was also ‘Sophia,’ the Hypostatic Wisdom of God. The Sophia Churches were dedicated to Christ.” Interpretations of these depictions as something other than Christ were due to the sofianic speculations of Vladimir Solov’ev, who erroneously and irresponsibly suggested that “ ‘by an amazing prophetic anticipation’ the people of Medieval Novgorod were dedicating their churches to the Holy Wisdom of God, ‘without knowing yet, who she was.’ ” Florenskii fell into the same trap. Georges Florovskii, “Sophia: The Wisdom of God (An Essay in Church Archeology),” unpublished ms., n.d.,

379

380

|

Notes to Page 174

Georges Florovsky Papers. Zernov disagreed and argued that early depictions of Sofia were an attempt to find “a link between the Mother of the Incarnate Lord and Mother Earth.” Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 285–86. 116. Rowan Williams, “George Florovsky (1893–1979),” Sobornost 2, no. 1 (1980): 72. If God infuses himself in creation through Sofia, how does one account for free will and human creativity in history? 117. Florovskii criticized Florenskii’s understanding of Sofia as a hypostasis. He accused Florenskii of an inaccurate understanding of the Logos (which, to Florovskii’s mind, appeared to replace Christ), criticized his approach to dogmatics as symbolism, and said that Florenskii was “foreign” (“chuzhoi”) to the Orthodox world. Georges Florovskii, “O knigie o P. Florenskago: Stolp’ i utverzhdenie istiny,” Put’, no. 20 (1930): 102–7. 118. Bird, “In Memoriam: Georges Florovsky, 1893– 1979,” 344. 1 19. “The whole history of Christological dogma was determined by the basic idea: the Incarnation of the Word as Salvation. In the Incarnation human destiny is completed.” God’s eternal purpose is accomplished, “the mystery from eternity hidden and to angels unknown.” The resurrection and the incarnation are the “grafting of immortality into the human composition.” Georges Florovskii, “The Lamb of God,” Scottish Journal of Theology 4 (1951): 17, 26. Why, then, the need for Sofia? 120. In a letter from 1926 Florovskii argued that there were two teachings about Sofia: the “real” (istinnyi i real’nyi) and the “imaginary” (mnimyi). The churches of Byzantium and ancient Rus’ were dedicated to this first teaching, while the musings of Solov’ev, the Masons, and the Gnostics were based on the latter. Solov’ev, wrote Florovskii, did not understand the true, “Church Sofia” (Tserkovnaia Sofia): rather, he knew the Sofia of the Kabbalists. “That Sofia is heretical.” Florovskii urged Bulgakov to abandon Solov’ev, fearful that Solov’ev would corrupt his understanding of Christology and Trinitarianism. Despite these criticisms, the letter was, on the whole, warm and friendly: it included greetings from Florovskii’s wife and reflected a candid friendship. Georges Florovskii, “G. Florovskii—S. Bulgakovu: Praha, Bubenic Buckova VI. 597 1926. VII. 22 (VIII. 4),” Simvol 29 (1993): 202–7. 121. Blane, Georges Florovsky, 66. 122. While critical of particulars in Bulgakov’s work, the majority defended his loyalty to the church and the fathers. Report of the Commission Appointed to Consider the Works of the Archpriest S. Bulgakov, n.d., Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. Father Florovskii (who, according to Zenkovskii, attended the first meeting and never showed up again) and Sergei Chetverikov found his sofiology troubling. Georges Florovskii and S. Chet-

Notes to Pages 174– 175

|

verikov, “Minority Report of the Commission Appointed to Consider the Works of the Archpriest S. Bulgakov,” n.d., Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 123. The incident also, Florovskii claimed, hurt his own standing in the émigré community. His position at St. Sergius, he said, became “unpleasant” and “precarious”; when he left they “blessed [his] absence.” Blane, Georges Florovsky, 68. 124. For a short account of the investigation, see Bryn Geffert, “The Charges of Heresy against Sergii Bulgakov: The Majority and Minority Reports of Evlogii’s Commission and the Final Report of the Bishops’ Conference,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49, nos. 1–2 (2005): 47–66. For Bulgakov’s refutation of the charges, see Sergei Bulgakov, “Eshcho k voprosu o Sofii, Premudrosti Bozhiei (po povodu opredieleniia Arkiereiskago Sobora v Karlovtsakh),” Put’, no. 50 (1936): prilozhenie 1–24. 125. Vladimir Losskii, Spor o Sofii: “Dokladnaia zapiska” prot. S. Bulgakova i smysl Ukaza moskovskoi patriarkhii (Paris: n.p., 1936). 126. Rowan Williams, ed., Sergii Bulgakov: Towards a Russian Political Theology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 176. 127. An article by I. Lagovskii argued that the denunciation stemmed from two debatable premises: (a) that there exists a single, unified dogmatic system in the church and (b) that those who condemned Bulgakov were competent to issue a final, definite “judgment,” or possessed some sort of “hierarchical infallibility.” The condemnation, Lagovskii argued, removed the “breadth and fullness” of theological experience from the church. Summarized in Gennadii, Delo prot. Sergiia Bulgakova: istoricheskaia kanva spora o Sofii, 20. 128. Nikolai Berdiaev, “Dukh velikago inkvizitora: po povodu ukaza mitropolita Sergeia, osuzhdaiushchago bogoslovskie vzgliady o. S. Bulgakova,” Put’, no. 49 (1935): 72, 81. See also Nikolai Berdiaev, “Ob avtoritetie svobodie i cheloviechnosti,” Put’, no. 50 (1936): 40. 129. The debate between Losskii, Chetverikov, and Berdiaev concerned the right of the hierarchy to enforce Orthodox teaching. Berdiaev was furious with Sergei for issuing a condemnatory decree: “Neither the decrees of Metropolitan Sergei, in which he clothes his questionable, personal theological opinions, nor even less the letters and proclamations of the Fotii Brotherhood [with which Losskii was affiliated] can determine the truth or error of Bulgakov’s teaching.” Nikolai Berdiaev, “Ob avtoritetie svobodie i cheloviechnosti,” Put’, no. 50 (1936): 40. Losskii, on the other hand, argued that the hierarchy had an obligation to protect Orthodox truth: “The defense of freedom

381

382

|

Notes to Pages 175– 176

of thought in the Church cannot assume the form of the defense of the freedom of my thought from the Truth, given in fullness to the Church by the Holy Spirit.” Vladimir Losskii, “Pis’mo V. Losskago N. A. Berdiaevu,” Put’, no. 50 (1936): 28. Chetverikov agreed: “The hierarchy has not only the right but also an obligation to guard the truth of Church teaching and to fight against its obstruction by false opinions.” While not happy with Sergei (who “talked incessantly about a subject with which he had not previously familiarized himself ” and whose “error, like the errors of the Karlovatskii Synod, lie in the fact that they hasten to their conclusions”), Chetverikov nevertheless defended in principal the hierarchy’s obligation to defend the truth. Sergei Chetverikov, “Otkrytoe pis’mo N. A. Berdiaevu,” Put’, no. 50 (1936): 33. 130. Evtuhov, The Cross and the Sickle, 133. Standing in front of the Hagia Sofia in Constantinople, Bulgakov said that his self disappeared. “My soul became the world: I am in the world and the world is in me” (232). 131. Sergei Bulgakov, “Ialtinskii dnevnik,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 170 (1994): 32. 132. In summer 1936 Florovskii served on a delegation with Bulgakov, Kartashev, Zenkovskii, and others that traveled around England giving speeches on topics of interest to Anglicans and Orthodox. Florovskii complained in letters to his wife that the delegation was very uncomfortable with Bulgakov’s speeches about Sofia and claimed that other delegates were trying to distance themselves from Bulgakov’s sofiology. A. E. Klimov, “G. V. Florovskii i S. N. Bulgakov: Istoriia vsaimootnoshenii v svete sporov o sofiologii,” in S.N. Bulgakov: Religiozno-filosofskii put’, ed. M. A. Vasil’eva (Moscow: Russkii put’, 2003), 98. 133. Bulgakov, Sviet nevechernii, 388. 134. Sergei Bulgakov, Avtobiograficheskiia zamietki (Paris: YMCA Press, 1946), 101. 135. Sergei Bulgakov, Sophia: The Wisdom of God (Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press, 1993), 146. 136. Bulgakov, “The Eucharistic Dogma,” 137. 137. Sergei Bulgakov, “Sofiologicheskoe istolkovanie evkharisticheskago dogmata,” Put’, no. 21 (1930): 32. This latter article focuses on Sofia as a mediator between God and man, the “corporeality” (telesnost’) of God, “existing in God and in the world.” 138. Sergei, “The Decree of the Moscow Patriarchate to Eleutherius, the Metropolitan of Lithuania and Vilna [translation of O Sofii, premudrosti bozhiei],” 48–52. Evlogii, “Memorandum Presented by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov to the Metropolitan Eulogius [translated abridgment of part 2 of O Sofii, premudrosti bozhie],” 52–59.

Notes to Pages 176– 177

|

139. Bulgakov began by stating, “I do not wish to consider the actual question of my own particular case.” Sergei Bulgakov, “Freedom of Thought in the Orthodox Church,” Sobornost, no. 6 (1936): 33. 140. Including Florovskii, Dobbie-Bateman, Douglas, Eric Fenn, and Ivan Young. Paul Anderson to Georges Florovskii, October 10, 1935, Georges Florovsky Papers. 141. In this undated document Bulgakov insisted that Sofia is “the selfrevelation of the Holy Trinity, both in its separate hypostases and in its triunity,” although he sought to reassure those who feared that his emphasis on Sofia overshadowed the importance of Christ, the Logos. “According to the Chalcedonian dogma, the hypostasis of the Word in the God-man Christ unites in one life two natures: the divine and the human, which together possess two concordant wills and energies (Sixth Council) ‘inseparably and unconfusedly.’ This union of the two natures should be understood in the same way as the di-unity of the Divine and the created Wisdom (in their identity as well as in their diversity).” “Sophia, as God-manhood, is the Father’s revelation concerning the Son through the Holy Spirit.” Sergei Bulgakov, “A Summary of Sophiology,” n.d., Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files, 1, 2. 142. “Taking Thomism and Barthianism as typical respectively of the Catholic and the Protestant world outlook, the Sophianic attitude, opposed to both alike, alone remains to express the habit of thought typical of Orthodoxy.” L. Zander, “A Philosophical Discipleship,” Sobornost, no. 7 (1936): 20–25. 143. Sergei Bulgakov, The Wisdom of God: A Brief Summary of Sophiology (London: Paisley Press, 1937). 144. “It is indeed good news that English readers will at last have the opportunity of studying for themselves Fr. Sergius’s theories upon this important subject.” Sobornost, no. 10 (1937): 2. 145. Dobbie-Bateman asked, “Would he please use language more intelligible to ordinary people?” What does it mean when he says, “God and man are united and separated by some essence which does not exist apart from them, which is possessed by both without being either, which is the same in both but combines in that sameness all the difference between the created and the uncreated”? A. F. Dobbie-Bateman, “Footnotes (III)—Simple and Serious,” Sobornost, no. 13 (1938): 36–37. Dobbie-Bateman wrote a series of articles on Bulgakov’s sofiology. They are painful reading —a confused attempt by an Anglican layman to make sense of a difficult topic. A. F. DobbieBateman, “Footnotes (II)—After Two Years,” Sobornost, no. 12 (1937): 24–27; and “Footnotes (VI)—The Double Paraclete,” Sobornost, no. 16 (1938): 25–27. After Bulgakov’s death Dobbie-Bateman became rather ashamed of himself

383

384

|

Notes to Pages 177– 179

and those who reacted with such confusion. “When he named the existential problem Sophia, we behaved like Greeks who thought that Anastasis was a goddess.” Dobbie-Bateman, “Footnotes (IX)—In quos fines saeculorum,” 7. 146. John Young to Georges Florovskii, January 2, 1935, Georges Florovsky Papers. 147. “MEMORANDUM on UKAZ concerning the Rev. SERGIUS BULGAKOV,” September 7, 1935, Georges Florovsky Papers, 4. 148. Dobbie-Bateman, “Footnotes (III),” 38. 149. Dobbie-Bateman to Georges Florovskii, April 10, 1937, Georges Florovsky Papers. 150. Dobbie-Bateman to Georges Florovskii, July 12, 1937, Georges Florovsky Papers. 151. Klimov, “G. V. Florovskii i S. N. Bulgakov,” 98–99. 152. J. A. Douglas, “Most Strictly Private & Highly Confidential: Condemnation of the Teaching of the Archpriest Sergius N. Bulgakov by the Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow,” n.d., Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files, 3. 153. Ibid., 2. I am grateful to Brandon Gallaher-Holloway for his discovery of a letter (which I missed) in the Fellowship’s files from Tudor-Pole, noting the fund’s decision to refrain “from intervention in domestic controversies of the Russian Church” and “to deal with and through the heads of the jurisdictions into which it is divided.” 154. Memorandum on Conversation between Eric Mascall, Eric Fenn (Representing the Fellowship), Major Tudor-Pole and George Mallet (Representing the R.C.A.F.), March 25, 1936, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 155. “Theology [bogoslovstvovanie] cannot exist without true freedom of theological discussion.” Bulgakov, “Ob”iashenie o. Protoiereia S. Bulgakova,” 30. 156. Bulgakov, “Freedom of Thought in the Orthodox Church,” 35, 36. 157. Bulgakov was incensed that the Anglican Doctrinal Commission appeared unconcerned by the fact that some Anglicans believe the incarnation “took place under the normal conditions of human generation.” The “simple assertion of the birth of the Word from Joseph and Mary is not only the absence of Christology but a complete denial of it.” To reject the incarnation on the grounds of “Higher Criticism” is to reject “the direct tradition of the Church, which has for long years glorified the Theotokos.” Sergei Bulgakov, “The Incarnation and the Virgin Birth,” Sobornost, no. 14 (1938): 32–34. 158. Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, 232. 159. Bulgakov, “Freedom of Thought in the Orthodox Church,” 33, 35, 26.

Notes to Pages 179– 181

|

160. Ibid., 37. 161. Sergei Bulgakov, Utieshitel’ (Paris: YMCA Press, 1936), 351. 162. Karpov, “Piataia Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia,” 62. 163. The Second Conference on Faith and Order Held at Edinburgh, August 3–18, 1937, ed. Leonard Hodgson (New York: Macmillan, 1938), 87, 88. 164. The Fellowship’s journal published several articles by Berdiaev: “The Problem of Orthodox Culture,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 14 (1931): 164–73; “About the New Christian Spirituality,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 25 (1934): 36–40; “The Christian and the Social Order,” Sobornost, no. 9 (1937): 5–9; “The Problem of Orthodox Culture,” 17–19, 32–34; “Sex, Marriage, and Love [extracts from Destiny of Man],” Sobornost, no. 2 (1935): 18–26; “War and the Christian Conscience,” Sobornost, no. 5 (1936): 5–13. 165. Zernov, “Deviatii Anglo-Pravoslavnyi S”iezd,” 83. 166. “Perverted sadists alone can defend war for its own sake as a higher value. It is obvious that as soon as we apply any kind of absolute moral standards, and especially any Christian standards, a radical condemnation of war becomes inevitable.” Berdia’ev, “War and the Christian Conscience,” 5. 167. Berdia’ev, “The Christian and the Social Order,” 6, 7. 168. Braikevitch and the Rev. Ambrose Reeves served as the Journal’s first two editors. Nikolai Zernov, The Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius: A Historical Memoir (Oxford: published by the author, 1979), 6. 169. “Marx prophesied what we see to-day: factories lying idle, workers idle, money idle, while millions of people lack the most elementary necessities of life.” O. F. Clark, “Christianity and Marxism,” Sobornost, no. 9 (1937): 14, 17. 170. Xenia Braikevitch, [Editorial on coming war in Spain], Sobornost, no. 8 (1936): 2. “With the growing class consciousness of the masses and the degeneration of capitalist society it becomes clearer and clearer that the enemy of the peasant or the worker is not the soldier on the other side, but the exploiters in his own camp. War, therefore, would inevitably lead to revolution.” Xenia Braikevitch, “War and Peace,” Sobornost, no. 4 (1935): 32. 171. Xenia Braikevitch, “Spain—What Next?” Sobornost, no. 9 (1937): 22. 172. Ambrose Reeves endorsed the “free expression that admitted this content, if not the content itself.” Eric Mascall wrote, “I hope we get a good controversy going.” 173. Walton Hannah, [Letter to the Editor in response to Braikevitch’s political editorials], Sobornost, no. 10 (1937): 29. 174. C. P. S. Clarke, [Letter to the Editor in response to Braikevitch’s political editorials], Sobornost, no. 10 (1937): 30.

385

386

|

Notes to Pages 181– 182

175. Lord Charnwood, [Letter to the Editor in response to Braikevitch’s political editorials], Sobornost, no. 10 (1937): 29. 176. J. D. C. Pellow, [Letter to the Editor in response to Braikevitch’s political editorials], Sobornost, no. 10 (1937): 27. 177. Sobornost, no. 10 (1937): 2. 178. Ramsey, “Reunion and Intercommunion,” 7– 15. 179. The journal published an article by Visser ’t Hooft, one of the leaders in the Faith and Order Movement: “While Christian leaders to-day are more convinced than they have been for centuries that they are called to work for the unity of the Church, they are at the same time more convinced than they have been for a very long time about the truth of the doctrines and confessions that hold them apart. . . . In some ways the [ecumenical] movement has come to an ‘impasse.’ ” W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, “Catholics and Protestants,” Sobornost, no. 1 (1935): 12– 13. 180. Sobornost, no. 6 (1936): 2. 181. Patrick Thompson, “Purgatory,” Sobornost, no. 7 (1936): 26–33. 182. V. A. Stuart, “Letter to the Editor,” Sobornost, no. 7 (1936): 37. 183. Robert Millar, “Letter to the Editor,” Sobornost, no. 14 (1938): 36. 184. Report for the Year June 1935–June 1936 of the Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund, n.d., Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 185. Thomas Parker, “The Vision of Unity: The Future, Hopes and Fears,” Sobornost, no. 16 (1938): 18. 186. Andrew Lossky, “The Fellowship Conference,” Sobornost, no. 16 (1938): 10. 187. Parker, “The Vision of Unity,” 14–20. 188. “We cannot unite on the basis of Episcopacy before we agree on what Episcopacy means.” Gabriel Hebert, “Schism, Outward and Inward,” Sobornost, no. 18 (1939): 8. 189. “The gravest is the diversity of opinion within the Anglican Communion about the number of the doctrines which are necessary in the future of the United Church.” “Negotiations with the Anglican Communion are usually made futile by the refusal of both sides to recognize the dogmatic differences between them.” C. B. Moss, “Present State of the Problem of Christian Unity,” Sobornost, no. 27 (1943): 11, 13. 190. Xenia Braikevitch to Members of the Executive Committee, January 15, 1936, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 191. Eric Fenn to Archbishop of Truro, April 9, 1934, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 192. “Many Anglicans have tended to sit at the feet of the Orthodox and to disparage our own Liturgy after discovering the spiritual treasures

Notes to Pages 182– 183

|

of the Eastern Rite. . . . [I]t is to be greatly deplored if Anglicans are so often lamenting the insufficiencies of their own Liturgy, which after all comes to us from a great spiritual heritage of which we have no reason to be ashamed.” V. T. Ducker, “Some Tasks for the Fellowship,” Sobornost, no. 23 (1941): 41–42. 193. “Review of The Church of God, an Anglo-Russian Symposium,” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1936): 100. 194. Extract from the Minutes of the General Committee, April 1935, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 195. “We could not help wondering,” wrote Eric Mascall, “why in the last few years the Catholicism of the worship had suddenly begun to worry the S.C.M. when in the earlier days it encouraged and actually provided it. It is not that we wish to keep the Movement exclusive; but the right thing seems to us to be to conserve what has been done on a basis of Catholicism and draw others into this milieu, not to alter the milieu which would involve a real abandonment of what has been already achieved. It seems to us that it is quite a reasonable thing for S.C.M. to go on the lines that once, however interconfessionally or intersectionally, you have got a really good thing going, the thing to do is to develop it. You cannot lay down rules beforehand. After all, the main question is—Has S.C.M. a place for Anglo-Catholics and Eulogian Russians?” Eric Mascall to R. C. Mackie, July 24, 1936, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 196. Extract from the Minutes of the General Committee, April 1935, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 197. “I have been progressively puzzled,” wrote Eric Fenn, “by the entire lack of relation between the Anglo-Russian Conferences (and the work that has grown out of them) and the main work of the S.C.M. Not only have very few members of staff been in touch with them, not only have they been regarded on General Committee as ‘a queer thing Eric does,’ but as I passed each year from the Anglo-Russian Conference to Swanwick, I was myself conscious of a complete break.” Ibid. 198. Zernov complained that most people could not explain the relationships between the Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund, the Fellowship, and the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association. Nikolai Zernov, “The Friends of the Russian Church: N. Z.’s Criticisms on the Proposals Put Forward at the Meeting at the Faith House on July 14th, 1936,” Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. The Fellowship considered amalgamating its journal, Sobornost, with the Christian East, but these talks failed and the Christian East folded in 1938. Zernov and Douglas did not get along; Douglas knew about Antonii’s attitudes toward Zernov and Bulgakov and thus wanted to distance Zernov

387

388

|

Notes to Pages 183– 184

from ecumenical activities. W. Tudor-Pole to Eric Fenn, June 22, 1934, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Files. 199. C. S. Lewis in 1945 emphasized the importance of a diverse membership. C. S. Lewis, “Membership,” Sobornost, no. 31 (1945): 4–9.

12.

Lambeth, 1930

1. “A Resume of the Proceedings at the Joint Doctrinal Commission of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches,” in Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission Appointed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Archbishop of Canterbury, 43. 2. Unlike maximalists such as Antonii, Aftimos argued for a “certain minimum of dogmatic agreement and an identity of teaching and belief in essential matters of the Faith.” Such minimal agreement, he argued, must be based on official proclamations from both churches. “Just as the sole authority in Orthodoxy capable of properly and authoritatively dealing with this matter is a council representative of every Orthodox Church and Diocese,” so the Orthodox “request and urge that the Churches of the Anglican Communion adopt and present to the Churches of the Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic Communion an official, authoritative, and absolutely binding statement on the dogmatic position and required teaching of Anglican Churches.” This statement should proceed from both the Convocation of York and the Convocation of Canterbury, be “ratified, authorized and promulgated by the Parliament of England, and proclaimed by His Majesty the royal Sovereign of England who by law is the Supreme Head of the Church of England.” Aftimos hoped this process would “eliminate some of the all too obvious Protestantism” from the Book of Common Prayer and “authorize a more Catholic form of service.” Also, “We need to be assured as to the officially binding interpretation of the ambiguities and uncertainties” in the Thirty-nine Articles. Aftimos asked the Church of England to sign on to a declaration indicating that “the Faith and Doctrine of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church are infallibly true, and are derived from or witnessed by the Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as sources and witnesses of equal authority and weight”; that the use of the filioque represents “no deviation from the true Orthodox doctrine as to the procession of the Holy Spirit”; that “in no manner or sense is it possible to derive, directly or indirectly, spiritual authority or jurisdiction from civil governors or Royal Sovereigns” and that “no evil assembly or parliament is able to define or establish formularies or standards of doctrine without the free action of the ecclesiastical assemblies of Bishops and clergy”; that

Notes to Pages 184– 185

|

“regular, canonical and valid Sacraments of the Church, as means of Grace, are necessary, and are divinely instituted for the salvation of Christians”; that “the number of Sacraments is seven, no more and no less”; that in the eucharist the bread and wine “are changed, transmuted, or transubstantiated into the true and real Body and Blood of Christ”; that the “terms Body and Blood of Christ are not taken or used in any metaphorical or figurative or typical sense, but actually and literally”; that penance is “necessary to the spiritual strength and life of a Christian and to the proper reception of the Holy Eucharist”; and that “in the Sacrament of the Priesthood alone lies the authority for administering all other sacraments.” Archbishop of Brooklyn Aftimos, “A Basis for Orthodox Consideration of Unity,” Orthodox Catholic Review 1, no. 6 (1927): 225–31. 3. Keating, “Anglicans and Orthodox,” 533. 4. The committee on reunion noted both sadness and anger over Mortalium animos. “Since the death of Cardinal Mercier, such Conversations [as those at Malines] have been forbidden, and Roman Catholics have, in the Encyclical letter Mortalium animos (1928), been prohibited from taking part in any Conference on unity. The Committee desires to express its conviction of the value of such Conversations and Conferences carried out in a spirit of loyalty, and it much regrets that by the action of the Pope all such meetings have been forbidden, and Roman Catholics have been prohibited from taking part in conferences on Reunion. This regret, they have reason to believe, is shared by many members of the Church of Rome. . . . The Committee also repeat and endorse [sic] the statement made in 1908 and again in 1920, ‘that there can be no fulfillment of the Divine purpose in any scheme of reunion which does not ultimately include the great Latin Church of the West, with which our history has been so closely associated in the past, and to which we are still bound by many ties of faith and tradition.’ ” “Report on Relations to and Reunion with Episcopal Churches,” 230. 5. J. A. Douglas, “The Orthodox Delegation to the Lambeth Conference,” Christian East 11, no. 2 (1930): 54. 6. Douglas, “The Purport of the Recent Orthodox Delegation,” 110. 7. Archbishop of Cernauti Nectarie, “Report of His Holiness Mgr. Nectarie, Archbishop of Cernauti and Metropolitan to the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Roumania,” Christian East 12, no. 1 (1931): 7. 8. J. R. Peacock went so far as to claim that the initiative for the Orthodox visit “was taken by the leaders of the Orthodox Church and not by the bishops.” He quoted Bishop David of Liverpool: “The Orthodox Church approached the Anglicans with a warmth which was most impressive. It was a unique thing that these patriarchs should have come to London to ask

389

390

|

Notes to Pages 185– 186

for closer fellowship. What else could we do but respond?” J. R. Peacock, “Dr. David, Lord Bishop of Liverpool, on the Lambeth Report,” London Quarterly Review 155 (1931): 256. 9. Nectarie, “Report of His Holiness Mgr. Nectarie, Archbishop of Cernauti and Metropolitan to the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Roumania,” 7. 10. Lang sent the invitation to Bulgaria only a few days before the conference began, and Bishop Païssie of Znepole thus arrived late to London. Metropolitan Stefan of Sofia, the usual Bulgarian representative to ecumenical conferences, might have been able to attend had the invitation arrived sooner. Douglas, “The Purport of the Recent Orthodox Delegation,” 116. 11. Ibid., 117. 12. In his letter inviting representatives of other Orthodox churches to join the delegation, Photios wrote of his decision to ask Moscow to send representatives “instead of the two representatives of the Russian parties, mentioned in the letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury.” We can only assume that Photios refers here to Evlogii and Antonii. Patriarch of Constantinople Photios, “Encyclical Letter sent by the Oecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to All Rulers of Orthodox Autocephalous Churches,” Christian East 11, no. 1 (1930): 69. 13. “It proved impossible—and I did not want to encourage the attempt— to get any representatives of the Russian Church. The difficulties with the Soviet Government and the rivalries of the two sections of the Church among the émigrés in Europe (Evlogie and Antonin) stood in the way.” Lockhart, Cosmo Gordon Lang, 346. Serbia recognized Antonii as the canonical president of the Russian church in exile, but the Karlovatskii Synod maintained no relations with the ecumenical patriarchate. And since Evlogii had recently placed his diocese under the ecumenical patriarch, he became, in effect, an exarch of the ecumenical patriarchate and thus, at least in theory, was represented by Constantinople’s representatives. “Chronicle and Causerie,” Christian East 12, no. 4 (1931): 118. 14. Photios, “Encyclical Letter sent by the Oecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to All Rulers of Orthodox Autocephalous Churches,” 69. 15. The delegation included Metropolitan Germanos, exarch for Constantinople in Western Europe; Meletios (now patriarch of Alexandria); Metropolitan Ignatius of Antioch; Archbishop Timotheus of Jerusalem; Metropolitan Leontios of Cyprus; Archimandrite Constantinides (chief priest of the Orthodox community in London) representing the Church of Greece; Metropolitan Irenæus of Serbia; Metropolitan Nectarius of Romania; and Metropolitan Dionysius of Poland. Nikolai Arsen’ev attended as a representative of the Orthodox Church in Poland. Photios, “Reply of the Ecumenical Patri-

Notes to Pages 186– 187

|

arch,” Christian East 11, no. 1 (1930): 67. Although the representatives from Bulgaria and Poland and Archimandrite Constantinides were listed as delegates by the committee of the Lambeth conference, they do not appear in any minutes of the discussions. 16. Arsen’ev, “Dvizhenie k edineniiu Khristianskikh tserkov i problema sovremennago mira,” 85–86. 17. Arsen’ev suggested Archbishop Anastasii, former rector of the Moscow Seminary, or Professor Glubokovskii. 18. At Lausanne the Orthodox rejected the possibility of reunion by compromise “in so far as matters of faith are concerned. They did this because they duly appreciated the dangers inherent in a purely mechanical reunion of that kind, dangers of irremediable strifes and divisions in the future. But by their declaration they did not remove all hope of reunion of Churches in faith and order. They dispelled the possibility of immediate reunion and showed that Reunion of the Churches in Faith and Order will be the outcome of a long and arduous evolution.” Archbishop Germanos, “Reunion of Christendom: The Orthodox Point of View,” Spectator 143 (1929): 433. 19. G. F. Pollard, “The Church of England and Reunion—With Whom?” Spectator 144 (1930): 233, 234. Others wrote to the Spectator to express hope that Lambeth would push the Church of England in a Catholic direction. One, for example, begged Protestants in the Church of England to observe sacramental confession and priestly absolution and to make the eucharist “the great central act of worship.” J. B. Pennington, “The Church of England and Reunion,” Spectator 144 (1930): 977. 20. A. H. T. Clarke, “Reunion and the Church of England,” Spectator 144 (1930): 1011. 21. “The Church of England and Reunion—With Whom?” 276. Pollard wrote back to assure his critic that he did not envision a reunion based on the subordination of one church to the other. G. F. Pollard, “The Church of England and Reunion,” Spectator 144 (1930): 667. He followed with a note seeking to demonstrate that the English reformers “did not follow the example of Martin Luther by henceforth styling the Church of England ‘Protestant.’ On the contrary, they retained not only the Catholic Creeds, but the Catholic Orders, the Catholic Sacramental System.” Pollard, “The Church of England and Reunion,” 819. 22. C. Sydney Carter, “The Church of England and Reunion,” Spectator 144 (1930): 741. 23. Here Carter quotes Bishop Hall. C. Sydney Carter, “The Church of England and Reunion—With Whom?” Spectator 144 (1930): 316. “I would remind [Pollard],” wrote Carter later that spring, “that the ‘teaching of the Church of

391

392

|

Notes to Pages 187– 188

England’ is to be drawn from its clearly defined Articles of Religion.” Pollard “endeavours to put a sacerdotal interpretation on the word ‘priest’ ” and “tries to force a mechanical ex opere operato interpretation on the language of our Baptismal service, but he forgets that this service was compiled by distinctly Protestant Reformers and was perfectly acceptable both to Puritans and the later Evangelicals and High Churchmen.” Is “Mr. Pollard quite sure that the language of our Catechism concerning ‘the body and Blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper,’ constitutes a ‘line of deep cleavage’ between us and our Free Church brethren? Is he aware that similar symbolical language is used in the definitely Puritan Prayer Book of 1584 which says ‘Take and eat, this bread is the body of Christ which was broken for us.’ ” Carter, “The Church of England and Reunion,” 903. 24. Germanos, “Towards Reunion: Being the Substance of Two Lectures Delivered during the Anglo-Catholic Pilgrimage to the Holy Land, 1933,” 9. 25. “In view of the various schemes of Reunion and other projects and advances towards union and intercommunion which have been the subject of discussion or negotiation, the Conference reminds the Church that it is a paramount duty to seek unity among Christians in every direction, and assures all who are working for this end of its cordial support in their endeavours.” “The Lambeth Conference 1930,” in Documents on Christian Unity: Third Series, 1930–1948, ed. G. K. A. Bell (New York: Oxford University Press, 1948), 7. 26. “Minutes of the Conference between the Orthodox Delegation and the Anglican Bishops,” Christian East 12, no. 1 (1931): 28. 27. Leeming noted, for example, that the Prayer Book of 1559 was imposed by Parliament without reference to the bishops in Convocation. The “plain fact is that the Bishops cannot alter a line of the Church’s formularies of Faith or a word in the Church’s rubrics or prayers, without decisive consent of Parliament. They could not legally allow the creed to be recited in an English Church without the Filioque, unless Parliament approved.” Leeming, “A Note on the Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission,” 540–41. 28. “Some Anglicans, indeed, have tried to minimize the importance of the rejection by denying that any doctrinal question was involved; thus Dr. J. S. Bezzant says that ‘the statement that the issues at stake affected the doctrine (sic) of the Church cannot be brought forward after the vote when before it the Archbishops again and again asserted that there was no question of any changing the doctrine of the Church of England.’ What was in question was merely the manner of expressing the doctrine, not the doctrine itself, and in consequence the rejection of the book in no way impairs the power of the Bishops to determine doctrine. Such a contention is in vain: the ultimate

Notes to Pages 188– 191

|

authority which decides what affects doctrine and what does not is Parliament and not the Bishops. The Book was rejected precisely upon doctrinal grounds; a majority of Parliament believed that the book did affect doctrine and therefore refused to sanction its use in any Church.” Ibid., 545–46. 29. Ibid., 546. 30. “Minutes of the Conference between the Orthodox Delegation and the Anglican Bishops,” 29. 31. “The fact is that the ultimate authority is the civil Court; at the Reformation the appeal that lay to Rome was transferred to the King’s Court: the jurisdiction which set up the court and finally dispensed judgment was transferred from the Pope to King.” Leeming offered a convincing argument that “the lay power has prevented the Bishops from excommunicating those whom they consider to hold opinions contrary to the Christian Faith.” Leeming, “A Note on the Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission,” 549–50. He quoted Yngve Brilioth, Eucharistic Faith and Practice, Evangelical and Catholic, trans. A. G. Hebert (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1930). 32. Georges Florovskii considered Mogila’s confession “ambiguous and unsuccessful,” creating a theological movement that was “completely bound by scholastic and Jesuit psychology. The theological system was built on a foreign foundation and it obstructed creative paths.” Florovskii faulted Mogila not only for his scholastic approach but also for his recognition of purgatory, his acceptance of creationism, and his agreement with Aquinas on original sin. Georges Florovskii, “Peter Mogila,” in Ecumenism II: A Historical Approach, ed. Richard Haugh (Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989), 59–62. The Churchman, on the other hand, found Meletios’s characterization absurd. Filaret’s catechism is, it argued, a very catholic document in which “a more important place is given to Tradition than to Scripture.” Johnson, “The Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Communion,” 197. 33. “Minutes of the Conference between the Orthodox Delegation and the Anglican Bishops,” 31. 34. Ibid., 31–32, 33. 35. Ibid., 35–36. 36. Ibid., 38. 37. Douglas summarized: “Their opinion is divided between those who hold that until the Orthodox Church has decided that [communion] is permissible with the Anglican Church, it may be authorized with great reserve in individual cases and those who hold that until then it ought not to be authorized at all.” Douglas, “The Purport of the Recent Orthodox Delegation,” 107. 38. “Minutes of the Conference between the Orthodox Delegation and the Anglican Bishops,” 41–42.

393

394

|

Notes to Pages 191– 193

39. “Steps to Reunion: Archbishop Germanos on the Lambeth Conference,” Times, April 27, 1931, 18. 40. Nikolai Arsen’ev, “Ob obshchenii s Anglikanskoi Tserkov’iu,” Put’, no. 33 (1932): 47. 41. Leeming summarized the 1930 conference thus: 1) “The Orthodox were given to understand that the Bishops of the Church of England had full authority to decide and rule in matters of faith.” 2) “The Anglicans gave the ‘Tractarian’ or ‘Anglo-Catholic’ interpretation to their formularies and ritual. It may be doubted if that interpretation be justified, and would be accepted by the majority of the members of the Church of England.” 3) “The Orthodox Delegation somewhat cautiously accepted that interpretation as regards Apostolic Succession and Holy Orders.” 4) “The Orthodox Delegation accepted that interpretation as regards the Eucharist, only ‘if an explanation were set out with all clearness.’ ” 5) “The Orthodox Delegation emphatically negatived [sic] any possibility of recognizing a non-Episcopal ministry.” 6) “The conference left the impression that the Joint Doctrinal Commission was to consider the ‘Terms of Intercommunion’ as a whole; and to this Commission was explicitly reserved consideration of the Eucharist and of Sacrifice, and of Icons.” “The impression left by the reading documents [sic] is that the Anglicans were clearly on the defensive; the Orthodox faith was regarded as unquestionable by both parties, while the Anglican was suspect to the Orthodox.” Leeming, “A Note on the Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission,” 571. 42. Arsen’ev would have been appalled by Douglas’s suggestion that, “In spite of the absence of Russian and Bulgarian delegates, the Orthodox personnel of the Commission cannot be regarded as other than adequately representative of the whole Orthodox Church.” “Chronicle and Causerie,” Christian East 12, no. 4 (1931): 119. 43. Arsen’ev, “Dvizhenie k edineniiu Khristianskikh tserkov i problema sovremennago mira,” 86, 87. 44. Arsen’ev, “Ob obshchenii s Anglikanskoi Tserkov’iu,” 45. 45. An addition to the 1552 Prayer Book that replaced wording referring to the “real and essential” presence in the elements to the “corporal” presence as a means of distancing Anglican eucharistic doctrine from transubstantiation. 46. He was especially concerned by articles 25 (the sacraments), 5 (the procession of the Holy Spirit), and 28 and 29 (the eucharist). He also asked that “unclear” and “confused” teachings “contrary to Orthodox teaching” be eliminated from articles 17, 19, 22, 23, and 31. He was, however, happy to accept the validity of apostolic succession in the Anglican Church, citing Meletios’s decision in 1922 and decisions by I. P. Sokolov (1902), A. Bulgakov

Notes to Pages 193– 196

|

(1906), Androutsos (1909), Chrysostom (1924), and Komnenos (1921). Arsen’ev, “Ob obshchenii s Anglikanskoi Tserkov’iu,” 47–49. 47. Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission, 8. 48. “Chronicle and Causerie,” Christian East 12, no. 4 (1931): 119. 49. Why he did not attend the Joint Doctrinal Commission is a mystery. Though ill late in life, Meletios still traveled regularly. One explanation for his absence may be his controversial bid while patriarch of Alexandria to be elected patriarch of Jerusalem with the promise to appoint local Arabs as priests and bishops. John Christodoulos Kallos, “Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis: A True Visionary” (s.l.: s.n., 1995), 19. On the other hand, his election as patriarch of Alexandria occurred four years earlier (he was enthroned in 1926), and his views about the Jerusalem Patriarchate were not new. 50. “A Resume of the Proceedings at the Joint Doctrinal Commission,” 20. 51. Ibid., 25. 52. Arsen’ev was willing to say, “There is nothing which is necessary for our salvation which could not be founded upon or deduced from Scripture.” “The Anglican and Orthodox Report,” Church Quarterly Review 114 (1932): 118. 53. “A Resume of the Proceedings at the Joint Doctrinal Commission of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches,” 27. 54. Ibid., 29, 30. 55. Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission, 8, 12, 10. 56. “A Resume of the Proceedings at the Joint Doctrinal Commission,” 32, 33. 57. Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission, 14. 58. An article in the Hibbert Journal in 1932 noted well the problem of sacramental thinking within the Church of England: “If Sacraments are ‘sure witnesses of God’s invisible working’ in us by which He ‘quickens and confirms our faith,’ then they obviously produce a specific change that would be absent without them. The Reformers cannot have it both ways. Either the Sacraments are not more than ‘symbols’ or ‘signs’ of a spiritual regeneracy proper to our condition as Christians and present apart from them, or this is a condition dependent upon them and miraculously renewed at each reception.” Reginald Rynd, “The Thirty-nine Articles: A Plea for Restatement,” Hibbert Journal 30 (1932): 578. 59. “A Resume of the Proceedings at the Joint Doctrinal Commission,” 35, 36. 60. Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission, 14. 61. “The Lambeth Conference 1930,” 7. 62. “A Resume of the Proceedings at the Joint Doctrinal Commission,” 39. 63. Ibid., 43.

395

396

|

Notes to Pages 196– 199

64. “We agree that the basis of Intercommunion should be a union of Faith, but we do not think that it is our function to determine what measure of divergence may be considered legitimate. We think that is a matter which may be determined by the bodies to which we would report.” Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission, 18. 65. “A Resume of the Proceedings at the Joint Doctrinal Commission,” 44. 66. Nicholas Hermopolis, “The Orthodox and Anglican Conjoint Doctrinal Commission: Report to the Holy Synod of Constantinople of the Church of Alexandria upon the First Session,” Christian East 13, nos. 3–4 (1932): 88. 67. Ibid. He also fretted that “the Anglicans carefully avoid specifying seven as the number of the Sacraments.” Hermopolis, “The Orthodox and Anglican Conjoint Doctrinal Commission,” 90. 68. Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission, 71. 69. “While no Orthodox can be such if he denies the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist after the consecration, irrespectively of whether he uses this or that term to explain its reality, the Anglican continues to be such whether he accepts the real Presence or denies it and inclines to the views of the Receptionist, or the Calvinistic or socalled symbolical views.” Germanos, “Towards Reunion,” 27. 70. Ibid., 24–25. 71. Leeming, “A Note on the Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission,” 578, 531, 552. 72. He cited Sydney Carter’s argument that the authors of the Prayer Book had no intention of signifying a true sacrament in the ritual of ordination but maintained episcopacy simply because it was amenable to the monarchy. C. Sydney Carter, The Anglican Via Media, Being Studies in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement and in the Teachings of the Caroline Divines (London: C. J. Thynne & Jarvis, 1927). 73. Leeming, “A Note on the Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission between the Anglican and the Eastern Orthodox Church,” 557, 559, 562, 580. 74. E. A. Knox, “Church Unity,” Times, May 31, 1931, 10. 75. Headlam responded by noting that the final document garnered signatures from three hundred bishops. He argued as well that the Orthodox invested Scripture with as much authority as did the Anglicans. “Church Unity: Lambeth Report on Discussions, Bishop of Gloucester’s Reply,” Times, May 18, 1931, 17. 76. Douglas called such thinking a “misconception” that results from “ignorance.” Douglas, “The Limits of Agreements,” 147. 77. Peacock, “Dr. David, Lord Bishop of Liverpool, on the Lambeth Report,” 254–57.

Notes to Pages 199–201

|

78. Thomas Opie, “The Christian Unity We Now Have,” Churchman, July 18, 1931, 10. 79. Take, for example, the statement on the episcopate: “We recognize that . . . we have much to learn and to gain from the traditions and customs of the non-episcopal Churches. But our special responsibility as an episcopal Church is to bring into the complete life of the united Church those elements which we have received and hold in trust. Chief among these, in the matter of Order, is the historic episcopate. In laying this emphasis on our own inheritance, we emphatically declare that we do not call in question the spiritual reality of the ministries now exercised in non-episcopal communion. On the contrary, we reiterate the declaration of the Lambeth Conference of 1920, that ‘these ministries have been manifestly blessed and owned by the Holy Spirit as effective means of grace.’ ” “The Lambeth Conference 1930,” 10. 80. It was, for example, deeply divided on questions of sex, marriage, contraception, and abstinence. See Kenneth E. Kirk, “The Lambeth Resolutions on Marriage and Sex,” Church Quarterly Review 111 (1930): 96– 110. 81. Cosmo Lang, “Encyclical Letter to the Bishops,” in The Lambeth Conferences, 1867–1948: The Reports of the 1920, 1930, and 1948 Conferences with Selected Resolutions from the Conferences of 1867, 1878, 1888, 1897 and 1903, ed. G. K. A. Bell (London: S.P.C.K., 1948), 156. 82. Patriarch of Alexandria Meletios, “The Patriarch Meletios on the Delegations’ Visit,” Christian East 11, no. 4 (1930–31): 187–88. 83. Ibid., 187–89. To his credit, Meletios also found Orthodox doctrine wanting: “When an Orthodox delegate engages in an official discussion with Anglicans he finds himself frequently embarrassed by the fact that while he cannot produce a formulated summary of the Doctrine of this church, he starts with the claim that he speaks in the name of a church which possesses a doctrine that has been formulated by the precision of the Œcumenical Councils” (189).

13.

Bucharest, 1935–1936

1. The Orthodox people, the article continued, are “in spiritual chains.” The ceremony of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem is evidence of “frenzied fanaticism.” W. Guy Johnson, “The Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Communion,” Churchman 51, no. 4 (October 1937): 195. 2. When the Orthodox priest receives the body and blood of Christ, wrote Aleksandr Rubets, he does so “in order that all Christian Churches

397

398

|

Notes to Pages 201–203

may unite in the one pastor: Christ.” Aleksandr Rubets, “Pravoslavie i ekumenizm,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, nos. 4–5 (1935): 26. 3. Gr. Pronevich’, “Ekumenicheskii Seminar’ v Zhenevie: 29-VII–18-VIII 1934,” Put’, no. 46 (1932): 51–59. 4. Ruth Rouse and Stephen Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517–1948 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 658. Georges Florovskii hoped that the conference might unite the feuding Orthodox churches, but the second world war prevented any continuation of the work begun in Athens. Georges Florovskii, “The World Council of Churches,” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 2, no. 4 (1954): 192–93. 5. The agreement had an easier time in York than in Canterbury, where it passed the lower house by only 16 votes (65–49) with an amendment noting, “The House, while expressing its cordial sympathy with the Church of Finland, is of opinion that further explanations of the Report presented to the House are needed.” “Finland and Rumania,” Church Quarterly Review 123 (1937): 325. The report passed the upper house of Canterbury (the House of Bishops) easily. 6. The bishop of Wakefield seemed relatively untroubled by this fact: “Here was a highly organized church faithful to episcopacy. Its system of episcopal visitation was very elaborate. The interruption of the succession in 1884 was not one for which the Church of Finland was entirely responsible.” The Church of England and the Church of Finland: A Summary of the Proceedings at the Conferences Held at Lambeth Palace, London, on October 5th and 6th, 1933, and at Brändö Helsingfors, on July 17th and 18th, 1934 (London: Press and Publications Board of the Church Assembly, 1935), 52. 7. Much of the discussions were consumed by questions about the episcopacy, and the Finns did all they could to express their reverence for it. The Anglicans seemed unwilling to press for specifics. The archdeacon of Auckland noted “that the Church of England tolerated differences of opinion about ordination provided that they were combined with uniformity of practice, and provided that nothing was officially done which would make impossible the tenets of . . .the three traditional schools of thought.” Ibid., 52–53. 8. The Finnish bishop of Tampere said that Presbyterian ordination is practiced in “exceptional cases” and seemed to imply that such ordinations were valid. Ibid., 52. 9. “Finland and Rumania,” 327. 10. Douglas, “The Limits of Agreements,” 151. 11. See Andrei Otetea, The History of the Romanian People (New York: Twayne, 1975), 542.

Notes to Pages 203–205

|

12. Hugh Wybrew, “Anglican-Romanian Orthodox Relations,” Religion in Communist Lands 16 (1988): 339. 13. The under-secretary for foreign affairs wrote to the Times in 1923: “I understand that the Bishop of Gibraltar, in the exercise of his diocesan duties, visited certain Balkan States in the autumn of last year, and that some illinformed and mischievous comments have since been made on the visit in one or two Rumanian newspapers, alleging the existence of a plan for a union between the Anglican and the Orthodox Churches. The idea that the Bishop was acting in any way whatever on behalf of his Majesty’s Government, or that the latter attempted through him to exercise influence of any sort in Eastern Europe, is not only untrue, but also too absurd to have imposed upon any persons not wholly ignorant both of the Anglican Church and of the methods of the British Government.” R. McNeill, “Anglican Bishops and Rumania,” Times, April 7, 1923, 7. 14. Antonii visited Bucharest for Miron’s enthronement in 1926, and Miron praised Antonii as “an apologist for Orthodoxy.” N. Rei, “Prebyvanie Mitropolita Antoniia v Rumynii,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 1–2 (1926): 8. 15. Alan Scarfe, “The Romanian Orthodox Church,” in Ramet, ed., Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, 209. 16. Ibid., 214. 17. Stephen Fischer-Galatai, “ ‘Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationality’ in the Twentieth Century: The Romanian Case,” East European Quarterly 18, no. 1 (1984): 26. 18. See Georges Castellan, A History of the Romanians, trans. Nicholas Bradley (Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1989), 180. 19. Report of the Conference at Bucarest from June 1st to June 8th, 1935, between the Rumanian Commission on Relations with the Anglican Communion and the Church of England Delegation Appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Westminster: Press and Publications Board of the Church Assembly, 1936). Available at http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/bucharest1935.html (accessed February 26, 2009). 20. Ibid. 21. “We agree that by Holy Tradition we mean the truths which come down from our Lord and the Apostles and have been defined by the Holy Councils or are taught by the Fathers.” Ibid. 22. “We agree that Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, the first as introducing us into the Church, the second as uniting us with Christ and through Him with the Invisible Church, are pre-eminent among the Divine Mysteries. We agree that because Holy Scripture and Tradition witness to their origin, Confirmation, Absolution, the Marriage Blessing, Holy Orders, and Unction

399

400

|

Notes to Pages 205–207

of the sick are also Mysteries in which, an outward visible sign being administered, an inward spiritual grace is received.” Ibid. 23. “The Rumanian Recognition of Anglican Orders,” Christian East 16, nos. 1–2 (1936): 14– 15. 24. “The Implementation of the Bucharest Report by the Convocations of Canterbury and York,” Christian East 17, nos. 1–2 (1937): 9. 25. Hugh Wybrew omits this term when quoting Convocation’s resolution. Wybrew, “Anglican-Romanian Orthodox Relations,” 338. 26. “The Implementation of the Bucharest Report by the Convocations of Canterbury and York,” 9. 27. “The statement made to the Rumanian Church that the meaning of the XXXIX Articles must be interpreted in accordance with the Book of Common Prayer has no authority for the Church of England beyond that of a Committee of the Lambeth Conference of 1930.” “Finland and Rumania,” 333. 28. Ibid., 334. 29. “The Bucharest Conference,” Churchman 51, no. 4 (1937): 181. 30. Ibid. 31. Johnson, “The Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Communion,” 203, 201, 193. “The Orthodox delegates have made it clear that they require a full acceptance of their position, while they themselves concede nothing. Their recognition of the validity of Anglican Orders was only given on the understanding that the Anglican delegation really represented the Church of England” (202). 32. Kenneth Brechin, “Towards 1940,” Sobornost, no. 13 (1938): 6. 33. “There will always be a small recalcitrant minority to oppose any movement of the Church of England towards closer unity with any other Christian body. The much advertised Anglo-Papal party, organized under the title of the Church Unity Octave, is plainly determined to obstruct any action which does not promote its objective—which does not, that is, prepare the way for the acceptance of Papal Supremacy and infallibility as the basis of reunion . . . and . . . promote the corporate reunion of the Church of England, or of a section within the Church of England, with the Holy See.” “Finland and Rumania,” 330. Although the British Catholic press did indeed continue its spirited campaign against Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement during the 1930s, there is little evidence that British Catholics shared the same level of concern over the report as did Evangelicals and Protestants in the Church of England. 34. Dom Bede Winslow, “Anglican and Rumanian Orthodox Relations,” Tablet, January 30, 1937, 156.

Notes to Pages 208–209 14.

|

Edinburgh, 1937

1. Georges Florovskii, “The Need for Patience,” in Haugh, ed., Ecumenism I, 19. 2. “Faith and Order at Edinburgh: Dr. Temple’s Sermon at St. Giles,” Church Times, August 6, 1937, 141. 3. The Second World Conference on Faith and Order Held at Edinburgh, August 3–18, 1937, ed. Leonard Hodgson (New York: Macmillan, 1938), 62. 4. Lev Zander attributed Serbia’s failure to send a representative to Patriarch Varnava’s death, but the more likely explanation is the Serbs’ general suspicion of the ecumenical movement. 5. Evlogii, Serafim, Bulgakov, Florovskii, Kassian, Zander, and Arsen’ev. 6. He wrote in his memoirs that he intended his presence to both “rally” his professors and “smooth over” their differences. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 539. 7. Alivizatos seemed particularly stung by such accusations at Lausanne. On the eighth day of the Edinburgh conference he told other delegates, “The close contact I have had with brethren and friends of other denominations has convinced me that the Greek Church, being regarded as a very old, traditional, and, to a certain extent, a petrified body, is by far more liberal than even extreme Protestant Churches of considerably younger age.” The Second World Conference, 86. 8. Ibid., 67. 9. “We are now put in a very awkward position, between two extremes, between theory and practice. On the one hand, practical people have told us there is an urgent need of reunion, because the Church is comprised in new lands and countries by these differences whose meanings are not quite comprehensible. On the other hand, theologians of all Churches would tell us that it is quite impossible to jump over all the doctrinal differences and that any attempt to achieve recognition by jumping over what, for centuries, has separated different Churches and denominations, would mean to substitute for reunion of Churches a confusion of Churches. We must have union because otherwise we compromise our Church’s name by arguing and quarrelling with one another and pretending that the truth is given to some. On the other hand, it would be foolish to declare that all differences were only misunderstandings, because it would be a heresy about Church history. Some say that Christian understanding was lost at Nicea with the first creation of a creed. I have no solution to suggest now, but we have to realize that we are in this extreme and dangerous position between two extremes, theory and practice, both of which are unacceptable.

401

402

|

Notes to Pages 209–210

“But what is theory and what is practice? What is theory? Only speculation about a thing? But theory is certainly the search for truth. Theologians are after divine truth and not mere human opinions. There is a danger and a difficulty about this point. We are in danger of modern disregard of theology. When two theologians meet one another there is always a controversy. The danger nowadays is over emphasis on non-intellectual elements. This means a kind of treachery to the truth. It used to be assumed that man is a reasonable animal. The modern idea seems to be that man is first and foremost a creature with a heart. I am not prepared, however, to give up my reason in connection with the things of God. . . . Certainly there is dogma implied in definitions, but words imply conceptions, and conceptions imply systems; definitions must be understood in some terms of philosophical meaning. It is simply futile to say that we can take dogma as something which can only be interpreted in one sense, but we must avoid the danger of substituting something new for the traditional and venerable doctrine of the past.” Ibid., 74. 10. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 543. 11. “I knew that Florovskii visited Canon Douglas for several days after the Oxford Conference and now felt that some kind of intrigue was being launched behind the scenes.” Evlogii was hypersensitive to any perceived slight to his favorite professor or himself. He complained that when dining at Edinburgh with the archbishop of York and the Greek theologian Mikhail Constantinides they disapproved of his “simple clothes” and never mentioned Bulgakov. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 543. 12. Ibid., 544. 13. Evlogii notes in his memoirs that the Church Times ran an article expressing bewilderment as to why Anglicans should gather money for the Theological Institute in Paris when it supported heretical professors such as Bulgakov. Ibid., 543. 14. The Second World Conference, 120. 15. Ibid., 123. 16. The most public controversy arose when Bishop Headlam (the sometime-bane of conservative Anglo-Catholics), in a debate on the church’s ministry, quoted from a pamphlet by Arsen’ev published just that year: Nikolai Arsen’ev, The Possibility of a United Christendom from the Eastern Standpoint (London: S.P.C.K., 1937). The Orthodox Church, read Headlam, “without pronouncing a definite judgment about the sacramental value of the Eucharist in other Churches (for the judgment of separate theologians or bishops, and even of groups of such, is not judgment of the whole Church which has not been pronounced in that case), maintains with utmost emphasis the necessity of full episcopal and regular Church orders for the orderly func-

Notes to Page 210

|

tioning of the sacrament, and more than that, for the full display of the sacramental riches of the real sacramental Presence of the Lord in His Holy Supper” (11). The Second World Conference, 187. Turning from Arsen’ev’s text, Headlam then opined, “That attitude seems to me to be a quite admirable one, because it brings before us the full value of the ministry and sacraments, and does not make any judgment upon others. Similarly the Church of England has never condemned other ministries and sacraments. . . . The Church takes proper care of its own ministry and pronounces no judgment upon others.” I cannot believe, he continued, that Jesus Christ “has one kind of grace to give to Episcopalians and another to non-episcopalians.” Germanos, listening to this, apparently became angry with both Headlam and Arsen’ev: “In the Orthodox Church it is allowed to have individual opinions, but in this case, referred to by the Bishop of Gloucester, I must openly say that the opinion expressed represents only the opinion of one member of the Orthodox Church, and not of the Church as a whole. . . . I call upon any of my Orthodox brethren except Professor Arseniev himself to say if they differ in the opinion expressed in this case by myself.” Arsen’ev replied, “I speak with the greatest reverence to Archbishop Germanos, but I am not alone in proffering the opinion that the Orthodox Church, being strictly bound in its own life to the episcopal orders which are the presupposition of the whole sacramental life of the Orthodox Church, is not bound to say there is no grace given through sacramental rites in other Churches. I quote the Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow who, when he was asked such a question about the other Churches, replied, ‘I do not know, according to their faith it shall be given to them.’ We are not bound to condemn or limit the possibility of the working of the grace of God in other bodies” (187–88). Shortly after the conference Arsen’ev tried to smooth over the disagreement (without capitulating) in a letter to the editor of the Church Times: “I have always maintained that from the Orthodox point of view only episcopally ordained priests have the right to administer the Sacraments, Baptism excepted. There has never been a dissension about this point between me and Archbishop Germanos. Our dissension was probably due to a misunderstanding on the part of the Archbishop. A passage had been quoted by the Bishop of Gloucester from a pamphlet of mine, where I am saying that while the Orthodox Church maintains the necessity of episcopal Orders as presupposition for the administration of the Sacraments, and while she is bound to say so, she is not bound to pronounce that no grace whatever is or can be given by God through the Sacraments, or sacramental rites, of the Protestant bodies which have not episcopal Orders. On this last point we have the right to be agnostics.” Nikolai Arsen’ev, [Letter to the Editor regarding episcopal orders], Church Times, August 27, 1937, 206.

403

404

|

Notes to Pages 210–211

17. The Second World Conference, 129. 18. “For according to Orthodox feeling nothing in the church can be achieved without her blessing and intercession.” Sergei Bulgakov, “A Brief Statement on the Place of the Virgin Mary in the Thought and Worship of the Orthodox Church Presented to Section IVc of the Edinburgh Conference,” Sobornost, no. 12 (1937): 29. 19. “The way in which the whole Protestant world suddenly ceased to venerate the Virgin Mary was the most mysterious and real spiritual event of the Reformation. This lack of feeling continues up to the present time, and one of the important preliminary conditions of the success of reconciliation is to overcome it.” Sergei Bulgakov, “The Question of the Veneration of the Virgin Mary at the Edinburgh Conference,” Sobornost, no. 12 (1937): 28. 20. L. Zander, “S”iezd Khristianskikh Tserkvei v Edinburgie,” Put’, no. 54 (1937): 67. 21. “We gladly think and feel that we are not alone in this life—we are not forgotten, neglected pilgrims on this earth, for heavenly people participate in our life: these bright stars shine on us and among us as a great Sun of Mercy and love.” The saints “are our first mentors, teachers, leaders, lights in the darkness of our everyday, worldly vanity. In spiritual life the saints are our heroes, geniuses, reformers of our life, the salt of the earth and the light of the world in the words of the Evangelist. Yes, we honor them, ask them for help, pray to them—of course not in the way we pray to God, but as to our blessed mentors and teachers and Godly friends.” Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 540–41. 22. In an open session one Sunday evening he explained to all who would listen: “To worship in the Orthodox Church is to be a member of that great community, all living in full communion with the ever-blessed Virgin Mary and the blessed saints, and who kneel humbly before the throne of the Mighty Father.” The Second World Conference, 89. 23. Clifford Nelson, a Lutheran, suggested, “We owe a debt of gratitude to the Orthodox for having brought [the communion of saints] before us.” Ibid., 152–53. Most other Protestants simply listened in silence. 24. “The Edinburgh Conference on Faith and Order: Affirmation of Unity,” Church Times, August 20, 1937, 162. 25. The final resolution, he wrote, emerged in a “perverted” and “warped” (iskalechennyi) state. Zander, “S”iezd Khristianskikh Tserkvei v Edinburgie,” 67. 26. “Final Report: Second World Conference on Faith and Order, August 3– 18, 1937,” in A Documentary History of the Faith and Order Movement, 1927–1963, ed. Lukas Vischer (St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1963), 44.

Notes to Pages 211–213

|

27. Ibid., 44–45. 28. Ibid., 46. 29. Ibid., 50. 30. Ibid., 56. 31. The “Ministry and the Sacraments” section proved too large and was divided into three subsections. Florovskii’s section contained about ninety people. 32. Florovskii was frustrated by the bureaucracy as well. He told Andrew Blane, “We sat for one week. And the interpreters failed, so I had to help interpret into French and German.” Blane, Georges Florovsky, 73. 33. The reports, he concluded, reflected “deep differences” between the conceptions of the Church in the Orthodox East and the Protestant West. Zander, “S”iezd Khristianskikh Tserkvei v Edinburgie,” 64–66. 34. The Second World Conference, 129. 35. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 541. 36. Shortly after the conference Florovskii complained, “At Edinburgh as before [at Lausanne], all differences were deliberately recorded anonymously in the reports. Some maintain thus and so to be true and others do not. Then there are still others. The very meaning of these divergences is completely betrayed by this unfortunate and conventional phrasing. It conveys the impression that these disagreements are of a private character or are disagreements between occasional groups. There is a very dangerous anti-historical and antitheological attitude behind this drafting method. . . . Secondly, it is a misleading procedure to take isolated and particular points in order to record agreements or disagreements according to them. For a doctrinal system is not a mosaic of disconnected parts but an organic whole, and the real meaning of any particular topic depends completely upon the spirit of the whole.” Florovskii, “The Need for Patience,” 20. 37. “It was sometimes very difficult to vote for or against historical statements, but sometimes we had before us such historical questions as whether the episcopate was formed early or late in the second century. There was not time to discuss these historical questions.” “We were asked to vote about validity, and we do not know quite well what validity means.” “So what we need now is not so much a vote or a practical step, but a new commission appointed not to give us their own opinions so much as to collect fresh material, and then it will be perhaps possible to get more agreement.” The Second World Conference, 142. 38. “The Edinburgh Conference on Faith and Order: Affirmation of Unity,” 178. 39. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 542.

405

406

|

Notes to Pages 213–215

40. C. Ryder Smith, “Christian Reunion—The Present Position,” London Quarterly & Holborn Review 165 (1940): 257. 41. The Second World Conference, 157. The Church Times printed the statement in full: “The Orthodox and Reunion: Important Statement by Archbishop Germanos,” Church Times, August 20, 1937, 195. 42. The Second World Conference, 155. 43. Ibid., 156–57. 44. “It is by the Church that the Scriptures are given to us.” Ibid., 155. 45. After the declaration Metropolitan Germanos and Marc Boegner of the French Reformed churches engaged in a sharp exchange in Section III (which had already abandoned any hope of finding language acceptable to all its members) about the relationship between Scripture and the church. Boegner was upset with Germanos and Alivizatos, who wanted the report to state that “some” believe that “The Church under the guidance of the Spirit is entrusted with the authority to explain, interpret, and complete the teaching of the Bible.” Boegner asked that the word complete be removed: “I appeal to the Orthodox members of the conference to meet our wishes here”; retaining the word, he said, is “equivocal and very dangerous.” Alivizatos tried to reassure Boegner that the Orthodox “do not mean that we want new elements which contradict the Bible” but rather “that the Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit can explain the truth in the Bible.” Boegner was not placated. Ibid., 161–62. 46. Arsen’ev claimed that Bulgakov and Kassian would also have stood in support had they not departed the day before. Arsen’ev, [Letter to the Editor regarding episcopal orders], 206. 47. The final report on the ministry and the sacraments noted, “The Old Catholics maintain that Episcopacy is of apostolic origin, and that it belongs to the essence of the Church. The Church is the bearer of the ministry. The ministers act only by the commission of the Church. The ministry is received, administered, and handed on in the same sense and in the same way as the Apostles handed it down to the Church. The Apostolic Succession means the inseparability of Church and ministry and the continuity of both. Certain other Churches of the East and some Anglicans would wish to be associated with one or other of the above statements. Other Anglicans would interpret the succession in a more general way to mean the transmission from generation to generation of the authority of ministerial oversight over both clergy and laity in the Church, and they regard it as both a symbol and a bond of unity.” “Final Report: Second World Conference on Faith and Order,” 59.

Notes to Pages 215–216

|

48. “Bishop of Llandaff and Reunion: The Right and the Wrong Way,” Church Times, October 22, 1937, 453. 49. The Second World Conference, 114. 50. Ibid., 94–95. 51. “The Conferences,” Church Times, August 6, 1937, 136. 52. The correspondent continued, “I am confident that Catholic interests are in safe hands. The Anglican delegation has some strong personalities in it. No longer, alas! have we Bishop Gore, who was so largely responsible for preventing the Conference of 1927 from going astray; but there are the Bishop of Lincoln, the Archbishop of Dublin, the Bishop of Monmouth, the Archdeacon of Monmouth, the Provost of Edinburgh Cathedral, Canon J. A. Douglas (always a tower of strength in any gathering of this sort), the Dean of Chichester, Dr. McDonald, Bishop Neville, Talbot, the Presiding Bishop of the American Church, Dr. Perry, and Mr. Peter Winckworth.” “Faith and Order at Edinburgh: Historic High Mass at St. Mary’s Cathedral,” Church Times, August 13, 1937, 163. 53. “I believe from my heart that we of that tradition are trustees for an element of truth concerning the nature of the Church which requires that exclusiveness as a consequence until this element of truth be incorporated with others into a fuller and worthier conception of the Church than any of us hold to-day.” “Faith and Order at Edinburgh: Dr. Temple’s Sermon at St. Giles,” 141. 54. “The Edinburgh Conference on Faith and Order: Affirmation of Unity,” 178. 55. Stefan and a number of other delegates signed a letter of protest. The Church Times complained of the incident in an article. 56. The Second World Conference, 179. The Church Times proudly described the Orthodox as being “under the care of ” John Douglas. “Faith and Order at Edinburgh: Historic High Mass at St. Mary’s Cathedral,” 163. 57. “Protestant Doubts: American Methodists and the Catholic Position,” Church Times, August 20, 1937, 196. 58. “We welcome, too, the explanation of the representative of the ancient Church of Malabar why his Church can have nothing to do with the South India Scheme.” [Untitled], Church Times, August 20, 1937, 175. 59. Zander, “S”iezd Khristianskikh Tserkvei v Edinburgie,” 63, 68. 60. “My general feeling about the Conference at Edinburgh,” wrote Anderson to Florovskii, “is that the work of the Conference itself was of far greater importance than the report which it produced. I feel that the work done in commissions, where there was such great freedom of expression and a great deal of give and take, was of real significance.” Paul Anderson to Georges Florovskii, September 21, 1937, Georges Florovsky Papers.

407

408

|

Notes to Pages 216–217

61. Florovskii, “My Personal Participation in the Ecumenical Movement,” 170. Florovskii echoed this sentiment several decades later, in 1963. “Failure to achieve agreement at this point was apprehended as a scandal by many participants in the deliberations and was attributed to the lack of theological comprehension and charity. In fact it was rather the most important positive achievement of the Edinburgh conference, at least from the Orthodox—or rather from the ‘catholic’—point of view. Under the impression of this drastic failure a decision was taken to concentrate further ecumenical study on the doctrine of the Church, including the doctrine of the ministry.” Georges Florovskii, “Apostolic Tradition and Ecumenism,” in Haugh, ed., Ecumenism I, 155. 62. G. Lomako, “Ob ekumenicheskom dvizhenii,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 9– 10 (1938): 14. 63. The ecumenical path, he argued, is for Protestants to return to the ancient church. Ibid., no. 8: 12– 13. Earlier he had argued that Protestants will realize the “saving grace of Orthodoxy” once they reach “full maturity.” G. Lomako, “Po povodu d-ra N. Zernova: ‘Apostol’skoe preemstvo Anglikanskoi ierarkii’,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 8 (1934): 13. 64. “Orthodox Christians must realize that the Holy Catholic Orthodox Church is the one and indivisible true Church of Christ. For this reason the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad forbids its children to take part in the oecumenical movement which is based on the principal of equality of all Christian religions and confessions.” The proclamation insinuated that the ecumenical movement was headed by Masonic societies and those sympathetic to Bolshevism. Archpriest G. I. Razumovsky, “The Ecumenical Movement and the Russian Orthodox Church,” in Major Portions of the Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of 500 Years of Autocephalicity of the Russian Orthodox Church, 8–18 July 1948 (Paris: YMCA Press, 1952), 152. 65. Gennadios Limouris, “The World Council of Churches and the Ecumenical Movement: Theological Contribution and Orthodox Witness,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 41 (1996): 172. 66. W. G. Woods, “The Greeks and Anglican Orders,” Sobornost, no. 21 (1940): 21. 67. The professors did decide that Orthodox priests could employ economy as they saw fit when it came to recognizing orders of Anglican priests wishing to enter the Greek church. But the Greek church itself could not apply economy a priori to all members of another Church. J. Gill, “The Orthodox Church of Greece and Anglican Orders,” Orientalia christiana periodica 6 (1940): 244. Originally published in Ekklesia, October 14, 1939, 315.

Notes to Pages 218–221 15.

|

Internal Divisions

1. Peacock, “Dr. David, Lord Bishop of Liverpool, on the Lambeth Report,” 255. 2. Nikolai Zernov, “Edinstvo Anglikanskoi tserkvi,” Put’, no. 47 (1935): 60. 3. Spinka, “Post-War Eastern Orthodox Churches,” 121. 4. “Fr. Georges Florovsky Dies: Priest, Renowned Theologian,” Russian Orthodox Journal 52 (1979): 5. 5. Nikolai Zernov, “The Fellowship and Its Place in Reunion Work,” Sobornost, no. 20 (1939): 13. 6. Kaye-Smith, Anglo-Catholicism, 133–34. 7. Attendance at the Anglo-Catholic congresses increased steadily from 1920 to 1933, from 18,000 to 70,000. The church hierarchy, however, was careful not to associate itself too closely with the congresses. Of the forty bishops invited to the 1920 congress, only two came. One attended the 1933 congress. Lang assured the 1930 congress that Anglo-Catholics were “a great body of eager and enthusiastic members of the Church.” But then he added, “I dare say some controversial things have been, or may be, said or done in your Congress, possibly some things of which I might not personally be able to approve. But I do not dwell on these matters.” W. S. F. Pickering, Anglo-Catholicism: A Study in Religious Ambiguity (New York: Routledge, 1989), 56–59. 8. Cocksworth, Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England, 94. 9. The Churchman proclaimed, “Evangelical Churchmen have always held—and rightly held—that the overwhelming majority of lay Churchpeople are in full sympathy with the Evangelical position.” X., “Proposals for the Self-Government of the Church,” Churchman 31, no. 134 (1917): 91. 10. Lockhart, Cosmo Gordon Lang, 281. He admitted “a liberal bent of mind but the evangelical strain in my blood prevented me from yielding to it” (67). 11. Douglas, “Prospects of Union between the Eastern and Anglican Churches,” 38. 12. Kirk, “Idealy Anglikanskoi tserkvi,” 88. 13. Kenneth E. Kirk, “Loyalty to the Church,” in Mascall, ed., The Church of God, 81. 14. “ ‘This is my body’ cannot mean ‘This has become my body.’ ” “The words imply no change in the elements.” Shofield, “The Lord’s Supper as Presented in Scripture: A Layman’s View,” Churchman 31, no. 138 (1917): 345. 15. “It is true that the Greeks are becoming increasingly careful not to commit themselves as to the manner of the change in the elements, but that a change takes place they do not doubt, nor do they hesitate to compare it

409

410

|

Notes to Page 221

with the change wrought by the Incarnation. Such teaching carries us a very long way beyond the Prayer Book.” E. A. Manchester, “Changes in the Communion Service,” Churchman 34, no. 172 (1920): 189. Protestant comfort with the personal interpretation of Scripture (what Berdiaev called the “school of Karl Barth”) “is not at all favorable to the ecumenical movement.” Berdia’ev, “Vselenskost i konfessionalizm,” 65. “We cannot,” wrote Florovskii, “assert that Scripture is self-sufficient; and this is not because it is incomplete, or inexact, or has any defects, but because Scripture in its very essence does not lay claim to self-sufficiency. We can say that Scripture is a God-inspired scheme or image (eikon) of truth, but not truth itself.” “The liberty of the Church is shackled by an abstract biblical standard for the sake of setting free individual consciousness from the spiritual demands enforced by the experience of the Church.” Georges Florovskii, “Sobornost: The Catholicity of the Church,” in Mascall, ed., The Church of God, 65–66. Bulgakov wrote a sharp critique of Protestant “biblism”—his term for the belief in the selfsufficiency of Scripture. We can love the word of God but must eschew the “one-sidedness and prejudice” it represents for Protestantism. Sergei Bulgakov, “Dorogoi Sobrat’ o gospod nashem’ Iisus Khrist Professor Ehrenberg!” Put’, no. 5 (1926): 91. The word of God “is not a book or document, but Holy Writ, which only exists in the Church and for the Church, which only lives and becomes real in the life of the Church. Outside the Church the Bible is an ordinary book which dies in dead hands, and becomes a mere object for smart criticism.” Sergei Bulgakov, “What Is Revelation?” in Revelation, ed. John Baillie and Hugh Martin (London: Faber & Faber, 1937), 148; original emphasis. Karpov argued that Anglicans must “overcome in full tserkovnost’ the Protestant belief that purity of faith is found only in the first centuries of Christianity.” Karpov, “Piataia Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia,” 67. Zernov could not accept the Protestant belief that salvation depends entirely on the mercy of God and that God needs no intermediary between himself and the human soul. Nikolai Zernov, “The Church and the Confessions,” in Mascall, ed., The Church of God, 212. 16. Nikolai Arsen’ev, “Sovremennoe Anglikanskoe Bogoslovie,” Put’, no. 35 (1932): 70, 71. Arsen’ev quoted approvingly from Moberly’s Atonement and Personality, Hobson’s The Incarnation, Thornton’s The Christian Conception of God, and Hicks’s The Fullness of Sacrifice, which, he believed, “breathe deeply with the true spirit of Orthodoxy” (81). 17. Zernov, “Edinstvo Anglikanskoi tserkvi,” 51, 58, 59. Zernov dismissed Anglican Evangelicals as plagued by a “deep spiritual crisis” and Anglican Fundamentalists as having “not one well known theologian in their midst” (51, 56). At least toward the end of the 1930s Zernov seemed to believe that one

Notes to Pages 221–222

|

could dismiss the Thirty-nine Articles when trying to make sense of Anglican theology: Focusing on them is “akin to an attempt to portray the social life of a people only by studying the text of their constitution and fundamental laws.” Zernov, “Anglikanskaia Rukopolozheniia i Pravoslavnaia tserkov’,” 63. 18. Bulgakov, “Freedom of Thought in the Orthodox Church,” 36. 19. Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 13 (1931): 2. 20. Addleshaw, “Our Domestic Difficulties,” 29. 21. Germanos, “Towards Reunion,” 25. 22. The meeting in Bristol, he wrote, was “poorly attended and fainthearted [maloodushevlennyi].” Its members had grown old, and its “youth supported it weakly.” Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 546. 23. Sydney, “The Historic Episcopate,” 418–25. W. St. Clair Tisdall, “The Christian Priesthood,” Churchman 31, no. 144 (1917): 734. J. J. Lias, “The Origin of the Episcopate,” Churchman 31, no. 135 (1917): 134–38; no. 136, 212– 17. 24. The notion of a priesthood of clergy distinct from Christian laity “has no foundation in Holy Scripture, nor does even a single trace of such a belief occur in the New Testament.” “Were Christians generally to delegate their spiritual priesthood to the clergy, that would practically amount to giving it up entirely, which would mean giving up the right to pray, the right to approach God through Christ—in a word it would be ceasing to be Christians in any true meaning of the word.” St. Clair Tisdall, “The Christian Priesthood,” 725, 731. 25. Irving Johnson, “The Policy of the Episcopal Church,” American Journal of Theology 24, no. 2 (1920): 169. 26. “When we are asked to accept the Historic Episcopate as a condition precedent to Union we want to know exactly what it means.” Fullerton, “The Free Churches and Lambeth,” 185. 27. Irwin, “The Possibilities of Reunion,” 474. For reunion we need “The Universal Acceptance of an Episcopacy reformed, purified, and appointed by the Church herself, and this with no insistence upon any theory of necessity as a channel of Grace.” Hanks, “The Possibilities of Reunion,” 621; original emphasis. 28. “Our own Communion in practice does not at the present recognize the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Communion in the non-Episcopal Churches, because it does not recognize their ministries owing to their lack of the Episcopal succession. We thus have a system of exclusion based on the character of the ministry.” G. Freeman Irwin, “Unity: The Ministry and the Sacraments,” Churchman 44, no. 2 (1930): 1 17. We cannot accept “that no Christian community which does not possess Episcopacy can justly claim to be part of the Church of Christ, or, in other words, that Ordination is

411

412

|

Notes to Pages 222–223

not valid unless conferred by a Bishop.” W. St. Clair Tisdall, “Episcopacy,” Churchman 34, no. 169 (1920): 26. 29. “The Position of the Episcopacy,” Churchman 32, no. 149 (1918): 261. 30. G. F. Handel Elvey, “Reunion: An Appeal for the Exclusion of Exclusiveness,” Churchman 47, no. 4 (1934): 290. “Any refusal to recognize nonEpiscopalian Churches is not a doctrine of the Church of England.” Greenup, “Lambeth and Unity,” 304. “There remains the objection that by communicating a non-Episcopalian we should seem to admit that our principle of episcopacy is not absolute. That may be so, but does our Church claim such absoluteness for the episcopal system? Not as a Church surely, though an influential school among us holds episcopacy to be not of the bene esse but the esse of the Church.” John Skrine, “Intercommunion,” Spectator 122 (1919): 659. 31. H. A. Hodges told the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius in 1947, “The eucharistic rite in particular, though in itself it is a protestant composition, can by a few judicious insertions be transformed into something which a Catholic-minded person can use without strain.” H. A. Hodges, Anglicanism and Orthodoxy: A Study in Dialectical Churchmanship (London: SCM Press, 1955), 22. 32. Herbert Peers, “Prayer Book Revision,” Spectator 140 (1928): 360. 33. F. J. Lys, “Prayer Book Revision,” Spectator 140 (1928): 419. Some wanted them considered with “reference to their historical context.” C. T. Dimont, “Prayer Book Revision,” Spectator 140 (1928): 455. 34. “At their ordination and licensing . . . the Clergy declare, ‘I assent to the 39 Articles of Religion and believe the doctrine of the Church of England, as therein set forth, to be agreeable to the word of God.’ I have never yet met a single clergyman of the Church of England among those whom I have questioned on the matter who meant this oath except with a great deal of mental reservation.” Michael Gedge, “The Clergy, the Articles and Truth,” Spectator 157 (1936): 675. A letter writer responded, “I cannot allow that to assent to the Articles is identical with affirming that one believes in the truth of each and every statement contained in the Articles. . . . That the honesty of their assent should be challenged because on certain points they do not agree with what stands written in the Articles does not appear to me to have any large measure of reason in it.” J. K. Mozley, “The Clergy, the Articles and Truth,” Spectator 157 (1936): 753. 35. Bell, Randall Davidson, 1144. 36. From Davidson’s letter to the commission, December 28, 1922. Doctrine in the Church of England: A Report of the Commission on Christian Doctrine Appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in 1922 (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1962), 19.

Notes to Pages 223–226

|

37. Ibid., 4. 38. Halfway through the task the Month chortled, “That mysterious ‘Archbishops’ Committee’ . . . has been engaged now for eight years in trying to determine what precisely is Anglican doctrine.” Keating, “Anglicans and Orthodox,” 534; original emphasis. 39. Doctrine in the Church of England, 82. 40. Ibid., 47. 41. Ibid., 126. 42. It refused to take a stand on the real presence. Ibid., 167. 43. Ibid., 213, 15. 44. Bell, Randall Davidson, 36. 45. “High Churchmen Assail Trend of Anglican Modernism,” Newsweek 11 (1938): 24. “English Anglo-Catholics Threaten Withdrawal,” Christian Century 55 (1938): 548–49. 46. Sobornost, no. 13 (1932): 2. 47. Lloyd, The Church of England, 1900–1965, 283, 337. 48. Nektatii Kotliareiuk, “Edinstvo Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi,” in Khristianskoe vozsoedinenie: Ekumenicheskaia problema v pravoslavnom soznanii (Paris: YMCA Press, 1933), 56. 49. Zernov, “Edinstvo Anglikanskoi tserkvi,” 63. 50. In a thorough survey of thinking about economy through the ages, Cannellopulos complained in 1923, “What this word ‘Oeconomia,’ economy, really means, it is difficult to say.” Different conceptions never received “any formal or informal acknowledgement.” Cannellopulos, “Christian Reunion from the Point of View of the Eastern Orthodox Church,” 270–71. 51. It lacked funds for the construction of churches and schools, for the religious education of the clergy and laity, and to provide welfare for its poverty-stricken members. Harry Psomiades, “Soviet Russia and the Orthodox Church in the Middle East,” Middle East Journal 11, no. 4 (1957): 375. 52. “The Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem,” Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law 1, no. 4 (1935): 284. 53. See Benedict Englezakis, Studies on the History of the Church of Cyprus, 4th–20th Centuries (Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1995). 54. Lockhart, Cosmo Gordon Lang, 325. 55. Spinka, “Post-War Eastern Orthodox Churches,” 105. 56. “Although it is physically impossible for our Russian Patriarch to raise his voice, I, the humble Metropolitan of Kiev, standing second to him as recognized by the great All-Russian Sobor in Moscow in 1917–18, and according to the recognition of all 32 Russian Bishops abroad, have the heavy but inevitable duty to filially remind your Holiness about the illegal activities of

413

414

|

Notes to Pages 226–228

Your predecessors—Meletios and Gregorios VII.” Antonii, “Skorbnoe Poslanie Sviatieshemu,” 2. 57. Pedro Ramet, “Autocephaly and National Identity in Church-State Relations in Eastern Christianity: An Introduction,” in Ramet, ed., Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, 13. 58. Philip Usher, “The Church of Greece,” in The Orthodox Church (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 193?), 23. 59. “Greek theologians do not entirely agree with some of the theories and developments of Russian theologians. The mystic element is naturally stronger amongst them, as clearness of thought is stronger amongst the Greeks.” Hamilcar Alivisatos, “The Greek Orthodox Church’s Unbroken Continuity with the Undivided Church,” Church Quarterly Review 118 (1934): 263. 60. Wigram, “Present-Day Problems of the Orthodox Church,” 168. 61. “Athens Letter,” 88. 62. Spas Raikin, “Nationalism and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church,” in Religion and Nationalism in Soviet and East European Politics, ed. Pedro Ramet (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1984), 187–88. 63. Philip Mansel, Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire, 1453–1924 (New York: St. Martin’s Griffen, 1995), 281. 64. Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, 169. 65. In 1989 the ecumenical patriarchate was still complaining about Bulgarian independence: “the uncanonical initiatives of the hierarchy of the Church of Bulgaria . . . were incited by excessive ethnicist-phyletist tendencies.” The Oecumenical Patriarchate: The Great Church of Christ, ed. Athanasios Paliouras, trans. G. D. Dragas and Helen Zigada (Geneva: Orthodox Centre of the Oecumenical Patriarchate, 1989), 301. 66. Wigram, “Present-Day Problems of the Orthodox Church,” 168. 67. Raikin, “Nationalism and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church,” 190. “And there the matter stands today,” observed a tract published in the 1930s trying to explain the Orthodox world to Anglicans. R. M. French, “The Churches of Roumania, Yugo-Slavia and Bulgaria,” in The Orthodox Church (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 193?), 30. 68. Spas Raikin, “The Bulgarian Orthodox Church,” in Ramet, ed., Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, 169. 69. J. A. Douglas, “The Metropolitan of Sofia on Reunion: A Caveat against Compromise,” Church Times, August 5, 1927. 70. Zernov, “The First Council of the Russian Church Abroad,” 167 fn. 7. 71. “Ukaz Vrem. Arkh. Sinoda,” 2. 72. Basilius Groen, “Eastern Orthodoxy in the Balkans, Nationalism and Reconciliation,” Exchange 27, no. 2 (1998): 133.

Notes to Pages 228–230

|

73. Alexander recounted a Serb Orthodox priest living in London in the late 1970s as saying he would have to find a very compelling reason to baptize a non-Serb into the Serbian Orthodox Church. Stella Alexander, “Religion and National Identity in Yugoslavia,” in Religion and National Identity: Papers Read at the Nineteenth Summer Meeting and the Twentieth Summer Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society, ed. Stewart Mews (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982), 592. 74. Not without cause. During the second world war the fears of the interwar period proved true: 370 priests—one-third of the Serbian Orthodox clergy—were killed. The number of bishops fell by half. Vasilije Tomic, “The Serbian Orthodox Church Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow,” Religion in CommunistDominated Lands 25 (1986): 120. 75. Groen, “Eastern Orthodoxy in the Balkans,” 134. 76. Stevan Pavlowitch, “The Church of Macedonia: ‘Limited Autocephaly’ or Schism?” Sobornost 9, no. 1 (1987): 42. 77. Athanasios Angelopoulos, “The Relations between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Serbia during the Period 1885– 1912,” Balkan Studies 13, no. 1 (1972): 119. 78. D. S. Maritch, “The New Law of the Serbian Orthodox Church,” Christian East 11, no. 2 (1930): 89. 79. Pedro Ramet, “The Serbian Orthodox Church,” in Ramet, ed., Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, 235. 80. At Antonii’s funeral in summer 1936, Varnava enthused, “To the Metropolitan [Antonii], now at rest with the blessed, Providence gave the task of gathering round him true [emphasis added] sons of Russia scattered throughout the world.” Antonii, Varnava continued, “gathered all the healthy, religious and national Russian emigration.” “The Metropolitan Antony of Kiev, R.I.P.,” Christian East 16, nos. 3–4 (1936): 71. 81. Sergej Flere, “Present Day Serbian Orthodoxy,” Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe 8 (1988): 2. 82. Ibid. 83. Justin Popovich, “Humanistic Ecumenism,” in Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, ed. Asterios Gerostergios (Belmont, MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1994), 189. 84. Elizabeth Hill, “Justin Popovic (1894–1979),” Sobornost, no. 2 (1980): 74, 77–78. 85. Popovich, “Humanistic Ecumenism,” 171, 169, 170. 86. The concordat promised the Roman Catholic Church the right “freely and openly to carry out its mission in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.” It promised that its members would be subject to Roman Catholic canon law; granted

415

416

|

Notes to Page 231

religious orders the right to “free organization” and to erect buildings; required ecclesiastical superiors to be notified when a Roman Catholic priest was accused of a crime; promised the church the right to acquire property; promised economic aid in proportion to that granted other confessions; offered to compensate the church for lands lost in agrarian reforms; agreed to recognize without further examination degrees obtained by Yugoslav subjects from Roman Catholic universities; required compulsory religious teaching for all Catholic youth in public and private schools; and required that children of mixed marriages be educated in the Roman Catholic faith. “Concordat: The Proposed Concordat between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Signed July 25th, 1935, and First Published and Submitted to the Skuptchina, July, 1937,” Christian East 17, nos. 1–2 (1937): 11– 17. 87. “Yugo-Slavia and the Concordat: Orthodox Protest against Persecution,” Church Times, September 3, 1937, 246. 88. Patriarkh Varnava, “The Serb Patriarch’s Protest against the Concordat,” Christian East 17, nos. 1–2 (1937): 19. 89. Metropolitan Dositheios, “An Interview with the Locum Tenens of Serbian Patriarchate, the Metropolitan Dositheios,” Christian East 17, nos. 1–2 (1937): 88. 90. “Serb Bishops and Vatican Pact: Attack on Premier,” Times, January 5, 1937, 11. 91. “Jugoslavia and the Concordat,” Spectator 157 (1937): 239. 92. “The Yugoslavia Concordat,” Tablet, July 17, 1937, 84. “Yugoslavia Accepts the Concordat,” Tablet, July 31, 1937, 151–52. 93. One section remained loyal to Patriarch Tikhon in Russia, a second to the Living Church, and a third—the “samosviatyi” or “self-consecrated” church—became independent, consecrating its own priests since it lacked any formal episcopal governance. Stefan Zankov, “The General Position of the Eastern Orthodox Churches at the Present Time,” Christian East 9, no. 3 (1930): 128. 94. Spinka, “Post-War Eastern Orthodox Churches,” 117. 95. William Husband has observed that until the cultural revolution of 1928, those within the government who counseled pragmatic restraint generally prevailed over those who favored the rapid repression of religion. Husband, “Godless Communists,” 37. But anti-Christian activities picked up thereafter. A five-year plan for antireligious propaganda was adopted in 1932, calling for at least one cell of the League of Militant Godless in every factory, government office, and school. Kolarz, Religion in the Soviet Union, 11. 96. The decree stated that religious organizations lack the rights of juridical bodies. It forbade them to create mutual aid banks or cooperatives, or

Notes to Pages 231–233

|

from offering any material aid to their members. It forbade them from holding special meetings among children, youth, and women “for prayer purposes and generally biblical, literary, needlework and other meetings for the teaching of religion.” It allowed churches to use houses of prayer only by contract with the government. It denationalized all church property, and forced the churches to turn over “all objects of historical, artistic, or museum value” to the Commissariat for education.” Walsh, Why Pope Pius XI Asked Prayers for Russia, 33–34. 97. Kolarz, Religion in the Soviet Union, 184. It was not the first time Pius XI criticized the Soviet regime. In 1924 he issued a statement asking that “all those who believe in the sanctity of the family and in human dignity may unite to avert from themselves and their fellows the grave dangers and inevitable injuries of socialism and communism.” Walsh, Why Pope Pius XI Asked Prayers for Russia, 23. 98. Coates, Religion in Tsarist and Soviet Russia, 33–34. Lang tried (without success) not to inflame political passions: “There is something more that must be said. Whatever our personal opinions may be, it is not our function here to criticize the political system or the economic principles of the Soviet Government. At the risk of being much misunderstood, I have carefully waited before making the protest I have made to-day until it could be clearly dissociated from any political issues in this country; and I have kept apart from any movements which might be regarded as propaganda against the present political regime in Russia” (39–40). 99. Mitropolit Sergei, “Intervi’iu s glavnoi patriarshei Pravoslavnoi tserkvi v SSSR, zamestitelem patriarshego mestobliustitelia Mitropolitom Sergiem i ego sinodom,” Izvestiia, no. 46 (1930): 2. “You ask whether we held proof that the statements of the Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury and others who joined the outcry were aimed at harming Soviet Russia. We find such a question most strange from representatives of the foreign press, for you surely know the foreign press is filled with bloodthirsty, unjust, unchristian attacks against Soviet Russia and appeals for action against Soviet Russia.” “Red Paper Boasts of ‘Godless State,’ ” New York Times, February 19, 1930, 20. 100. “Red Paper Boasts of ‘Godless State,’ ” New York Times, February 19, 1930, 20. 101. “I tried to defend him, saying that his words are not heresy, not a sin against the Orthodox order, not an attack on faith but a political action.” Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 568. 102. “Po dielu mitropolitu Evlogiia,” Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkii 2 (1931): 4.

417

418

|

Notes to Pages 233–234

103. Evlogii would claim in his memoirs that his trip had nothing to do with politics. He wrote Sergei to explain that his participation was a “religious” rather than a “political” protest, an impossible distinction given the circumstances. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 569. Evlogii told Sergei, “I consider it unworthy and impossible in good conscience to decline participation in the prayers of our English brothers for our church. . . . [But Moscow] demanded that I condemn my conduct in these relations with the Anglicans in prayer for our church and that I give my word that I would never repeat such activities. . . . I, of course, could not agree to that” (547). 104. The Karlovchane, recalled Evlogii, accused him of selling out to the Greeks, of transferring church property to Constantinople, of accepting money in exchange for this humiliation, and other “cock-and-bull stories.” Patriarch Varnava offered to serve as arbitrator between the Karlovchane and Evlogii, but Evlogii refused, knowing Varnava’s allegiance to the Karlovatskii position on this matter. Evlogii’s flock reacted well to the move, and Evlogii tried to sell it as a happy opportunity to bring the Russian church, “the daughter of the Greek church,” back to its mother. Ibid., 574–75. The Karlovchane, of course, seethed at such talk. 105. This would not, he emphasized, be a polemical article repeating the “radical” view that the Orthodox Church is the only true church of Christ, even though such a view is “closest to church teaching.” Metropolitan Sergei, “Otnoshenie Tserkvi Khristovoi k otdieliv shimsiia ot neia obshchestvam,” Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkii 2 (1931): 2. 106. “The Orthodox Church considers itself the church of Christ and only its sacraments bestow grace, and only its hierarchy possesses apostolic succession. Outside the Orthodox Church there is no absolution of sins, no sacraments, no grace, and no salvation.” Ibid., 5. 107. Mitropolit Sergei, “Znachenie apostol’skogo preemstva v insolavii,” Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkii 23–24 (1935): 6– 13. The text appears in translation as Metropolitan Sergei, “The Meaning of the Apostolic Succession in Non-Orthodox Faiths,” in Orthodox Statements on Anglican Orders, ed. E. R. Hardy (New York: Morehouse-Gorham, 1946), 52–70. Paul Anderson translated portions of the article in Anderson, People, Church, and State in Modern Russia, 184–88. 108. Sergei, “Znachenie apostol’skogo preemstva v insolavii,” 6. 109. All talk of such “validity,” wrote Antonii, was just “talmudist sophistries.” That which is outside Orthodoxy is “foreign to Christ’s redemption and possessed by the Devil.” See Zernov, “Anglikanskaia Rukopolozheniia i Pravoslavnaia tserkov’,” 66; Florovskii, “Russian Orthodox Ecumenism in the Nineteenth Century,” 150.

Notes to Pages 234–235

|

1 10. “1. I consider that the Synod of Karlovtsy, organized by Russian clergy and laymen abroad, is void of all canonical validity, and that its encyclical and the restoration of the Romanov dynasty and its appeal to the Genoa Conference do not represent the official view of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2. Since the Russian Church Administration Abroad is engaging in political demonstrations, and since the Russian Orthodox parishes abroad are already placed under the responsibility of Your Eminence [Metropolitan Evlogii] the Highest Church administration Abroad is to be suppressed.” Archbishop of Astrakhan Thaddeus, “The Apolitical Stand: Dissolving the Karlovtsy Administration (1922),” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 19, no. 1 (1975): 54. 1 1 1. Dimitry Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 1917–1982, 2 vols. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), 1:1 18, 135. 112. Cunningham, “The Orthodox Church and the Russian Revolution,” 197. 113. Zernov, “The First Council of the Russian Church Abroad,” 171. 114. The “idea of holy tsarist power burned in my spirit like a bright star.” “I felt that the tsar bears his power as the cross of Christ and that obedience to him may be Christ’s cross in his name.” Bulgakov, Avtobiograficheskiia zamietki, 82. 115. Ibid., 84. 116. Archbishop Serafim wrote to Antonii in 1925, Tikhon “suffers severely.” “He is weakening not only physically but also in his will.” Arkhiepiskop Serafim, “Arkhiepiskop Serafim—mitropolitu Antoniiu, 17 fevralia 1925 g.,” Otechestvennye arkhivy, no. 2 (1994): 27. 117. Mitropolit Antonii, “Otviet Mitropolita Antoniia Mitropolita Evlogiiu na ego pis’mo o Germanskoi eparkhii,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 15– 16 (1926): 7– 10; Mitropolit Antonii, “Pis’ma Mitropolita Antoniia k Mitropolitu Evlogiiu po povodu otstraneniia im ot dolzhnosti i zapreshcheniia v sviashchehnosluzhenii episkopa Berlinskago Tikhona,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 15– 16 (1926): 10– 11. 118. Sergei told the Karlovchane, “You ask me to be a judge in matters with which I am completely unfamiliar. I do not know of what your synod and sobor consist and what their rights are. I don’t know the points of difference between the synod and Metropolitan Evlogii.” M. V. Nazarov, “Tri vetvi russkogo zarubezhnogo pravoslaviia,” Voprosy istorii 6 (1997): 6–7. 119. He told Sergei he would sign if “loyalty” was interpreted as abstention from any political action by the clergy of his diocese but explained that his laity could not commit themselves as professing loyalty to the Soviet

419

420

|

Notes to Pages 235–236

state. Sergei accepted this manner of acceptance. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 219. 120. Valliere, Modern Russian Theology, 280. 121. Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 1:140. 122. Ibid., 1:258. 123. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 561. 124. Evlogii complained about attacks in both Tserkovnyia viedomosti and Karpatskaia Rus’. Mitropolit Evlogii, “Pis’mo Mitropolita Evlogiia Mitropolitu Antoniiu (ot 5 sentiabria 1934 g.),” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 9– 10 (1934): 4. 125. Koletin, “Arkhiereiskii sobor v sremskikh Karlovtsakh i zarubezhnyi tserkonvnyi razdor,” 14, 20. 126. Antonii wrote to Evlogii early in 1934 that he believed divisions in the Russian church abroad were lessening. Mitropolit Antonii, “Kakoe znachenie dlia vsiekh pravoslavnykh khristian imieet Velikaia Khristova Konstantinopol’skaia Tserkov i Vselenskii Patriarkh?” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 4 (1934): 6. That summer he spoke hopefully of Evlogii’s willingness to return to canonical relations with the “Russian church.” Mitropolit Antonii, “Vashe Vysokopreosviashchenstvo, Vysokopreosviashchennieishii Vladyko [letter to Evlogii],” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 8 (1934): 4. 127. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 567, 577. 128. Patriarkh Aleksandr III, “Pis’mo Antiokiiskago patriarka Mitropolitu Evlogiiu ot 14–27 sentiabria 1934 g.,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 11– 12 (1934): 1; Patriarkh Varnava, “Pis’mo Serbskago patriarkha Mitropolitu Evlogiiu 10–23 Oktiabria 1934 g.,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 11–12 (1934): 2. 129. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 579. 130. Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 261–62. 131. He observed slyly, “It made a strong but not a favorable impression.” Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 584. 132. Mitropolit Antonii, “Pis’mo Mitropolita Antonii,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 11– 12 (1935): 12. 133. How can this be, Evlogii asked Antonii in late 1934, after our reestablishment of relations: “I would expect a minimum of neighborly relations such as you have towards the other Orthodox churches, Greek, Romanian, and Serbian.” Mitropolit Evlogii, “Pis’mo Mitropolita Evlogiia Mitropolitu Antoniiu,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 11–12 (1934): 9. Antonii responded by insisting that the problems in Germany would end “only with your return to the Russian church.” “I think that the matter of

Notes to Pages 237–238

|

church peace in Wiesbaden depends much more on you than on me or on [Bishop] Tikhon [Antonii’s agent in Germany].” Mitropolit Antonii, “Otvietnoe pis’mo Mitropolita Antoniia za sent. (12 Oktiabria) 1934 g. No. 4172,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 11–12 (1934): 10. 134. “Sincerely grieving in my soul over this division, I have striven in vain since 1930 to mitigate our antagonism, and, if possible, completely fill up the moat between us.” “Megalomania,” he sniped, “does not serve to increase or strengthen [the synod’s] moral authority.” Mitropolit Evlogii, “Otkrytoe pis’mo Vysokopreosviashchennieishemu Mitropolitu Anastasiiu, predsiedateliu Arkhiereiskago Sinoda v Karlovtsakh,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 1–2 (1939): 11, 7. 135. Antonii viewed patriotic nationalism as an antidote to Jewish cosmopolitanism. See Mitropolit Antonii, “Byl li khristos spasitel’ kosmopolitom ili natsional’nym patriotom?” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 5–6 (1923): 7–8. 136. “Poslanie Sobora Arkhiereev Russkoi Pravoslavnnoi Tserkvi za zagranitsei ko vsiem viernym chadam Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, v razsieianii sushchim,” in Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, 7:291. 137. Evlogii, argued Berdiaev, was the antithesis of the Karlovchane, and no longer committed to the erroneous notion that the Church should be tied to politics. Berdiaev, “Problema khristianskago gosudarstva,” 303–5. 138. Nikolai Glubokovskii, “The Orthodox Theological Institute and Its International Significance,” Christian East 10, no. 1 (1929): 42. Support from other churches was badly needed. Students at St. Sergius lived hand to mouth. One inspector described their rooms as “monastic cells.” V. Korenchevsky, “My Visit to the Russian Orthodox Academy at Paris,” Christian East 8, no. 1 (1927): 39. Students often “ate around,” moving for meals from one émigré family to the next because they could not afford food. Lowrie, Saint Sergius in Paris, 28. The institute’s first-year budget was $12,000. V. V. Zenkovskii, “O pomoshchi Bogoslovskomu Institutu v Parizhie,” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 28, no. 4 (1927): 50–51. It always teetered on the financial brink. The 1937 budget was in the red, and the archbishop of Canterbury wrote a letter to the Times in 1938 expressing his concern that the institute was about to fold. Davis, “British Aid to Russian Churchmen, 1919–39,” 54–55. 139. Antonii lectured at the institute in 1925, and in 1926 the Karlovatskii Synod’s journal published an appeal from Evlogii for funds for the institute. Mitropolit Evlogii, “Upraliaiushchago russkimi pravoslavnymi tserkvami v Zapadnoi Evropie Vysokopreosviashchennago Mitropolita Evlogiia,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 1–2 (1926): 9– 10. 140. Nazarov, “Tri vetvi russkogo zarubezhnogo pravoslaviia,” 10. 141. Evlogii, Put’ moei zhizni, 560.

421

422

|

Notes to Page 238

142. On December 10, 1926, the Karlovchane refused to approve the institute’s statutes and appointed one of its own bishops to draft a replacement. Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 1:132 fn. 38. 143. Zernov huffed, “They regarded the Church as a place where services were held, sacraments administered, and venerable customs preserved. They longed for the restoration of the autocracy, which alone seemed to them to secure the continuity of Church life. They had no interest in the schemes discussed by the converts of the intelligentsia. They had no desire to make known to the West the treasures of Orthodox spirituality.” Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 238. They believed that “church government is commissioned exclusively to the bishops,” an opinion “widely spread among Western Catholics.” Nikolai Zernov, “The Russian Episcopate and Church Reforms,” Church Quarterly Review 118 (1934): 87. 144. Williams, “Georges Vasilievich Florovsky,” 26. 145. Zernov, “The First Council of the Russian Church Abroad,” 180. 146. John Meyendorff, “A. V. Kartashev-obshchestvennyi deiatel i tserkovnyi isterik,” Voprosy istorii 1 (1994): 170. 147. His belief in the ungrund —the “divine nothing” that gave birth to the Trinity—and his notion of reincarnation was every bit as troublesome as Bulgakov’s Sofia. N. O. Losskii, however, defended Berdiaev: “There are people who in their wish to be more Orthodox than Orthodoxy itself condemn Berdyaev’s work as dangerous to the Church. They forget that the historical life of Christianity, ecclesiastical practice and traditional theological teaching suffer from many defects which have driven wide circles of society away from the Church. By expressing the essential truths of Christianity in new and original terms, different from the style of traditional theology, such philosophers as Berdyaev awaken an interest in Christianity in many minds that have turned away from it, and may succeed in drawing them back to the Church.” Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, 250. 148. Nazarov, “Tri vetvi russkogo zarubezhnogo pravoslaviia,” 10. 149. Evlogii lionized Bulgakov at his funeral: “Because your theology was the fruit not only of your brain but also of the hard trials of your heart, it was perhaps inscribed in your destiny to be misunderstood, accused. . . . In your soul, the Holy Spirit turned Saul into Paul. You have been a true Christian . . . who taught not only by his speech but also by his very life in which—may I be so bold to say—you have been an apostle.” Constantine Andronikof, “Philosophy versus Theology in the Works of Father Sergius Bulgakov (with Particular Reference to the Eucharist Writings),” in The Holy Grail and the Eucharist, ed. Boris Jakim (Hudson, NY: Lindisfarme Books, 1997), 139.

Notes to Pages 238–239

|

150. Valliere, Modern Russian Theology, 281. We should not posit too deep a divide between Fedotov’s social concerns and those of Florovskii. Although Florovskii argued that the Church “is ultimately concerned with the change of human hearts and minds, and not primarily with the change of an external order,” he argued just as strongly that membership in the Church is a “recognition of an ultimate equality of all men. This egalitarian spirit is deeply implanted in the Eastern Orthodox soul. There is no room for any social or racial discrimination within the body.” Georges Florovskii, “The Social Problem in the Eastern Orthodox Church,” Journal of Religious Thought 8, no. 1 (1951): 44. 151. Williams, “Georges Vasilievich Florovsky,” 27–28. Trying to explain his strained relationship with Kartashev, Zenkovskii, Fedotov, and Bulgakov, Florovskii observed, “I was a youngster when the [Russian religious renaissance] was going on . . . [but] for most of these people their personal story was of a return to the believers, and thus from involvement in [the anti-Church]. . . . I never knew a period when I was dissatisfied with the Church as the foundation and pillar of truth. For me Christian truth had always been in the Church.” Blane, Georges Florovsky, 61. 152. Meyendorff portrays him as a representative of critical church history, much like V. V. Bolotov, E. E. Golubinskii, and A. P. Dobroklonskii. Meyendorff, “A. V. Kartashev-obshchestvennyi deiatel i tserkovnyi isterik,” 171. 153. Bradley Nassif, “Georges Florovsky,” in Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence in Western Thought, ed. Martin Klauber and Michael Bauman (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 453. 154. Florovskii, Ways of Russian Theology, 2:275, 245, 274, 276. 155. Ibid., 275. Indeed, Berdiaev had written that “patristic asceticism is now dead; it is a diseased corpse for modern men and modern times.” 156. Ibid., 275. 157. Count Grabbe praised Florovskii’s criticism in Ways of Solov’ev (and thus, by implication, of Bulgakov): Ways “deserves much greater attention and dissemination.” Grabbe, “Concerning the False Teaching of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov,” 17. 158. A. F. Dobbie-Bateman to Georges Florovskii, November 10, 1935, Georges Florovsky Papers. 159. Grabbe, “Concerning the False Teaching of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov,” 18. 160. “I told him it is very unpleasant to find my article next to zheltaia pressa (yellow press). Probably I was too strong, but there was this article by an old Russian gentleman on ‘A Chemical Analysis of the Bible,’ which had nothing to do with chemistry but rather argued that the Bible must be interpreted

423

424

|

Notes to Pages 240–242

in terms of some alchemic theory. Berdiaev was offended and accused me of being intolerant and intransigent.” Blane, Georges Florovsky, 55. 161. “Pis’mo N. A. Berdiaeva [to S. Bulgakov] ob ukhodie iz bratstva,” August 27, 1925, Georges Florovsky Papers. 162. Georges Florovskii to N. Berdiaev, n.d., Georges Florovsky Papers. 163. A. F. Dobbie-Bateman to Georges Florovskii, February 24, 1936, Georges Florovsky Papers. 164. Florovskii continued, “Bulgakov did not think this way. He was a large-spirited man, and although probably aggrieved that I did not follow him, he allowed full freedom of opinion and did not consider disagreement with him meant disloyalty.” Blane, Georges Florovsky, 63. 165. Georges Florovskii, “The Legacy and the Task of Orthodox Theology,” Anglican Theological Review 31, no. 2 (1949): 69. 166. “The Conclusion of the Court,” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 26, nos. 1–4 (1925): 4– 10; “Russians Divide on Platon Case: Church Members in America Stirred by Court Decision Ousting the Metropolitan and Recognizing Authority of Moscow Synod,” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 27, nos. 8–9 (1926): 102–4. 167. Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 289. 168. Michael Meerson, “The Orthodox Church in America,” in Ramet, ed., Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, 116–34. 169. Antonii, Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, 7:103. 170. Lomako, “Ob ekumenicheskom dvizhenii,” 8. 171. G. Lomako, “Edinstvo tserkvi i tserkovnyia razdieleniia Russkago zarubezhia,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 9–10 (1937): 7; nos. 11–12 (1937): 14. 172. Evlogii’s journal hoped that the synod might take on questions about the calendar, the newly autonomous churches, the paschal cycle, second marriages for priests, the jurisdiction of the various Russian churches abroad, relations with Roman Catholics and Protestants, and the Orthodox Church’s proper attitude toward the Anglican hierarchy. Petr Kovalevskii, “Sovremennoe sostoianie voprosa o sozyvie Vselenskago Sobora,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 12 (1930): 15. 173. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, 265. 174. Hamilcar Alivisatos, “The Attitude of the Orthodox Church to the Faith and Order Movement,” Christian East 10, no. 4 (1929): 150. 175. Metropolitan of Thyatira Germanos, “Anglican and Orthodox Reunion,” Christian East 4, no. 3 (1923): 125. 176. Metropolitan of Thyatira Germanos, “Progress towards the Re-Union of the Orthodox and Anglican Churches,” Christian East 10, no. 1 (1929): 30.

Notes to Pages 242–244

|

177. E. Makharoblidze, “Neobkhodimost’ sozyva Velikago Sobora,” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1923): 8. 178. Ibid. 179. Douglas, “The Orthodox Principle of Economy,” 40. 180. The “Orthodox Churches are in many ways at a serious disadvantage, owing to the political upheavals of the last fifteen years. The tragedy of Russia has reduced the Russian Church for the time being to a pathetic remnant. The tragedy of Greece with its annihilation abroad and its recurring revolutions and coups d’état at home, has left Hellenic Orthodoxy jarred and weak, and though, like Greece itself, the Church has shown signs of a surprising vitality, it is still only a convalescent. Roumania and Jugo-Slavia are, at least for the time being, weaker and distracted politically and ecclesiastically by reason of their large new territories and the novel problems and dangers which these extensions have brought with them. And Bulgaria at two important turning-points took the wrong road, as is now admitted; and not only is her political position less secure than her friends desire, but she has also to recover her place in Orthodoxy, and though it is unthinkable that any difficulty will be made about her doing so, it has to be done. This constitutes a real crisis, and who can doubt that just as a dignified Council of Orthodox Churches, meeting under ecclesiastical initiative solving spiritual problems on spiritual lines, and dominated neither by political influences, nor by its own extreme members, would raise Orthodox Christianity into a stronger position than it has held for centuries, so a failure now in the present condition of things must be a veritable catastrophe, involving not only to-day, but many a long day to come?” Bishop of Gibraltar, “The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Its Position,” 183. 181. Usher, “Recent Tendencies in the Eastern Orthodox Church,” 14, 6–7. 182. Paul B. Anderson, “Russia and the Ecumenical Movement,” Christendom 9, no. 4 (1944): 507. 183. Photius, “The 70th Anniversary of the Pan-Orthodox Congress,” 26. 184. Kovalevskii, “Sovremennoe sostoianie voprosa o sozyvie Vselenskago Sobora,” 12. 185. “The Orthodox Pro-Synod,” Church Quarterly Review 115 (1932): 117. 186. Anderson, People, Church, and State in Modern Russia, 180. 187. “Chronicle and Causerie,” Christian East 7, no. 2 (1926): 55. 188. “Chronicle and Causerie,” Christian East 12, no. 4 (1931): 134. 189. Alivisatos, “The Attitude of the Orthodox Church to the Faith and Order Movement,” 150. 190. Kovalevskii, “Sovremennoe sostoianie voprosa o sozyvie Vselenskago Sobora,” 11– 12.

425

426

|

Notes to Pages 244–245

191. A. V. Kartashev, “Raskoly russkoi terkvi,” Vozrozhdenie 41 (1925): 1. 192. Kovalevskii, “Sovremennoe sostoianie voprosa o sozyvie Vselenskago Sobora,” 14, 13. 193. Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission, 71. 194. Meletios, “The Patriarch Meletios on the Delegations’ Visit,” 190. 195. Patsavos, “The Status of Canon Law in the Orthodox Church Today,” in Orthodox Theology and Diakonia: Trends and Prospects, ed. Demetrios Constantelos (Brookline, MA: Hellenic College Press, 1981), 108–9. 196. Photius, “The 70th Anniversary of the Pan-Orthodox Congress,” 26. 197. William Fletcher attributes Sergei’s refusal to the ecumenical patriarchate’s continued contact with the Church of England. William Fletcher, Religion and Soviet Foreign Policy, 1945–1970 (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1973), 13. 198. “We cannot consider it convenient to accept this invitation,” he responded to the ecumenical patriarch’s representative in Moscow, because we do not want to be part of some “fait accompli.” “Furthermore, in its essence the question of the union of Churches demands the greatest degree of discernment. Here only that union will have real value which rests upon the complete unity of aspiration. We on our side cannot give up our belief that only our Orthodox Church, found in its completeness in the East, is the Church of Christ.” We can conceive of uniting our Church with some other body “only by the analogy of the saving of the drowning. It would be strange if the drowning, before accepting help from the ship, should begin to put forward some sort of conditions. This would be a clear evidence of the past that he either does not wish to be saved, or does not realize the hopelessness of his position.” Anderson, People, Church, and State in Modern Russia, 181–82. 199. An official history of the ecumenical patriarchate published in 1989 blamed the failure on unspecified “socio-political rearrangements of the Orthodox states.” The Oecumenical Patriarchate: The Great Church of Christ, 315. 200. The patriarch told the Messager d’Athènes that this preconciliar meeting would discuss representation for the Russian church at the synod, the education of the Orthodox clergy, the codification of the canons, ways to improve relations among the Orthodox churches, the situation of the Orthodox Church in America, monastic reform, sacred art, and relations between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox churches (he listed the Armenian, Coptic, Abyssinian, Old Catholic, and Anglican Churches). “We will study these relations and the means of defense against those non-Orthodox Churches that proselytize, such as the Roman Catholic, Protestant, Uniates, Millenarians, etc.” “Interv’iu s Vselenskim Patriarkom,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 3 (1932): 12–13.

Notes to Pages 245–250

|

201. The Christian East believed that a pro-synod was “definitely fixed” for Whit-Sunday, June 19, 1932, at the Vatopedion Monastery on Mount Athos. “Chronicle and Causerie,” Christian East 12, no. 4 (1931): 129. 202. C. M. Chavasse, “Lambeth and Reunion,” Churchman 43 (1929): 173. 203. Gore said, “We desire to affirm with all seriousness that any proposals for inter-communion between Churchmen and Nonconformists which ignore Catholic conditions of validity would, if carried in to effect, inevitably rend the Church of England in two.” “English Church Union: Our Relations with Nonconformists,” 337. Zernov once claimed in a less-than-lucid moment that further rapprochement between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches “would affect most favorably the solution of the Home Reunion problem in England.” Nikolai Zernov, “Letter to the Editor,” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 18 (1932): 25. 204. Nikolai Zernov, “Posieshchenie anglikanami Russkago Tserkovnago Parizha,” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 1 (1936): 10. 205. “Review of The Church of God, an Anglo-Russian Symposium,” 100. 206. A. J. Sherman, Mandate Days: British Lives in Palestine, 1918–1948 (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1998), 70. 207. Naomi Shepherd, Ploughing Sand: British Rule in Palestine, 1917–1948 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1999), 43. 208. Sherman, Mandate Days, 70–71. 209. J. A Douglas, “New Fire,” Christian East 4, no. 2 (1923): 91–94. 210. Nazarov, “Tri vetvi russkogo zarubezhnogo pravoslaviia,” 3. 211. Nikolai Zernov, “Puti sblizheniia mezhdu Pravoslavnoi i Anglikanskoi tserkvami,” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 10 (1934): 22.

Conclusion

1. Mews, “Anglican Intervention in the Election of an Orthodox Patriarch,” 297. 2. “May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:5–6). “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). “And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony”

427

428

|

Notes to Pages 250–253

(Col. 3:14). “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). All quotes from the New Revised Standard Version. 3. The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). “God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:11–13). “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). “Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth” (John 17:17). “[F]or those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury” (Rom. 2:8). 4. “Prebyvanie delegatsii Anglikanskoi tserkvi v Moskve,” Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkii 2 (1943): 19–21. 5. Metropolitan Nikolai visited London in 1945 and had a short audience with King George at Buckingham Palace. The archbishop of York received him in York, and spoke about the Vatican as a common enemy of both the Orthodox and Anglican Churches, sentiments that would have warmed Stalin’s heart. Dimitry Pospielovsky, “The ‘Best Years’ of Stalin’s Church Policy (1942–1948) in the Light of Archival Documents,” Religion, State & Society 25, no. 2 (1997): 153. 6. Oxana Antic, “The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad,” in Ramet, ed., Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, 140. 7. “It was a church appeal to and a church blessing on the historic enemy of Russia—Germany.” Patriarch Aleksii, “Obrashchenie Patriarkha Moskovskogo i vseia Rusi Aleksiia k arkhipastyriam i kliru tak nazyvaemoi Karlovatskoi orientatsii,” Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkii 9 (1945): 11. 8. Fletcher, Religion and Soviet Foreign Policy, 1945–1970, 26. Pospielovsky cites correspondence to the patriarchate in 1946 urging the patriarch to again subordinate other patriarchates to its sphere of influence. Pospielovsky, “The ‘Best Years’ of Stalin’s Church Policy,” 155. 9. Fletcher, Religion and Soviet Foreign Policy, 27. 10. Ibid., 27–28. 11. Major Portions of the Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of 500 Years of Autocephalicity of the Russian Orthodox Church, 8–18 July 1948 (Paris: YMCA Press, 1952), 15. 12. Archpriest Gabriel Kostelnik, “The Vatican and the Orthodox Church,” in Major Portions, 46. 13. “Knowing the traditionally conservative character of the English in general and the Anglican Church itself, it is hard to expect any early or basic

Notes to Pages 253–254

|

reforms in this realm.” “Report of the Plenary Session of July 9th, 1948, Dealing with Anglican Orders,” in Major Portions, 55. 14. N. F. Kolchitskii, “The Anglican Hierarchy and Its Validity,” in Major Portions, 70. 15. “Meetings of the Commission on the Question ‘Concerning the Anglican Hierarchy,’ ” in Major Portions, 186. 16. Kolchitskii, “The Anglican Hierarchy and Its Validity,” 66. 17. Ibid., 67. 18. Since “the Anglican Church is not officially in dogmatic unity with the Orthodox Church the complete and absolute recognition of its orders is in principle inadmissible. For the Orthodox Church to recognize in theory the sacraments which are administered outside her boundaries would be to deny the consciousness of her own infallibility as the unique and eternal depository of divinely revealed truths and grace and at the same time it would be contrary to the canons of the primitive Church of which she is the faithful continuation.” Ibid., 68. 19. “The conscience of the Orthodox theologian and canonist, in considering the historic act of the consecration of [Matthew] Parker, cannot overlook the transgressions of the obligatory canonical rules which guided the ancient Church when proceeding to elect, confirm and consecrate a bishop. This is why from the standpoint of the canons of the ancient Church the hierarchy of the Church of England cannot be regarded as legitimate.” “The incontestable errors in the insufficiently developed doctrine in the Church of England in the sacraments present also an obstacle to the recognition of the validity of the Anglican hierarchy, which can be removed only by a favourable declaration emanating from the Anglican Church itself.” V. S. Vertogradov, “On the Anglican Hierarchy,” in Major Portions, 90. 20. Archbishop of Kazan Hermogenes, “Papism and the Orthodox Church,” in Major Portions, 29. “Papism by its very nature is hostile to every nationality” (28). The “unchristian” and “even immoral essence of Papism” leads to “monstrous perversions” (21). “The Vatican has always endeavored to subjugate the Orthodox Churches.” Kostelnik, “The Vatican and the Orthodox Church,” 50. 21. Richard Salomon, “Orthodoxy, Ecumenical Movement, and Anglicanism: The Moscow Conference of 1948,” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 26 (1957): 159. 22. Archpriest I. Koman, “The Ecumenical Movement and the Orthodox Church,” in Major Portions, 102, 109. 23. Razumovsky, “The Ecumenical Movement and the Russian Orthodox Church,” 179, 158, 138, 178.

429

430

|

Notes to Pages 254–258

24. Metropolitan of Sofia Stefan, “The Oecumenical Movement and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church,” in Major Portions, 123–30. 25. “Protestantism seeks an ally for this struggle in the Orthodox Church so as to acquire for itself the significance of an influential international force.” “Resolution on the Question of the Ecumenical Movement and the Orthodox Church,” in Major Portions, 240. 26. “Resolution of the Moscow Conference of the Heads of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches on the Question of the Ecumenical Movement and the Orthodox Church, July 17, 1948,” in Documents on Christian Unity, Fourth Series, 1948–57, ed. G. K. A. Bell (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958), 241. 27. Yet Fedotov complained in his report on the 1938 Life and Work Conference in Oxford that Orthodox Christians “have become estranged from a social understanding of Christianity” and that a significant number of Russian emigrants approach social problems with “reactionary bitterness.” Fedotov, “Oksford,” 61. 28. Florovskii, “My Personal Participation in the Ecumenical Movement,” 171. 29. Georges Florovskii, “Ecumenical Aims and Doubts: An Address at the First Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Amsterdam 1948,” Sobornost, no. 4 (1948): 22. 30. Florovskii, “The Orthodox Church and the World Council of Churches,” 12– 13. 31. Georges Florovskii, “Orthodox Participation in the Amsterdam Assembly,” trans. Leyla Rouhi, in The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, ed. Richard Haugh (Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989), 174. 32. He later relented. Limouris, “The World Council of Churches and the Ecumenical Movement,” 172. 33. Quoted in Robert McAfee Brown, The Ecumenical Revolution (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967), 36. 34. Church and Ecumenical Relations: “The Toronto Statement” (Toronto: World Council of Churches, 1950). www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/ecumenical/ ts-e.html (accessed October 30, 2006). 35. Ibid. Original emphasis. 36. The Christian Hope and the Task of the Church: Six Ecumenical Surveys and the Report of the Assembly Prepared by the Advisory Commission on the Main Theme, 1954 (New York: Harper, 1954), 17. 37. I. Karmiris, The Orthodox Catholic Church and Her Relations with the Other Churches and with the World Council of Churches (W. C. C. Study Dept. 49E/607A, 1949), quoted in The Christian Hope and Task of the Church, 22.

Notes to Pages 259–263

|

38. At the 1950 meeting of the WCC’s Central Committee in Toronto, Florovskii argued hard (and prevailed) for the WCC to insist that membership “does not imply that each church must regard the other member churches as churches in the true and full sense of the word.” W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, “Fr. Georges Florovsky’s Role in the Formation of the WCC,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 23, nos. 3–4 (1979): 135–36. 39. Florovskii, “My Personal Participation in the Ecumenical Movement.” 40. Alexander Kyrlezhev, “Problems of Church Order in Contemporary Orthodoxy,” trans. Christopher Hill, Sourozh, no. 95 (2004): 14. Kyrlezhev’s article (pp. 1–21) offers an excellent summary of Moscow’s and Constantinople’s rival claims and appeals to canons and various commentaries. 41. Ibid., 15. 42. “Rift Threatens Orthodoxy,” Christian Century, March 20–27, 1996, 319; Alicja Curanovi´ c, “The Attitude of the Moscow Patriarchate towards Other Orthodox Churches,” Religion, State & Society 35, no. 4 (2007): 307. 43. Patriarch Alexis, “A Letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch Concerning the Situation of the Diaspora,” Sourozh, no. 99 (2005): 2, 5, 8. Certainly Meletios made such claims with unusual fervor, but he was by no means the first. 44. “Orthodox Dispute Spurs Protest in Estonia,” Christian Century, April 10, 1996, 394. 45. “Russian Church Delegation Quits Session of Commission on Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue Because of Disagreements,” PDS Russia Religion News, October 10, 2007. www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0710a.html. 46. Curanovi´ c, “The Attitude of the Moscow Patriarchate towards Other Orthodox Churches,” 305. 47. Katja Richters, “The Moscow Patriarchate in Estonia: Russian versus International Concerns,” Problems of Post-Communism 55, no. 1 (2008): 5. 48. Curanovi´ c, “The Attitude of the Moscow Patriarchate towards Other Orthodox Churches,” 304. 49. See Andrij Yurash, “Orthodoxy and the 2004 Ukrainian Presidential Electoral Campaign,” Religion, State & Society 33, no. 4 (2005): 367–86. 50. Curanovi´ c, “The Attitude of the Moscow Patriarchate towards Other Orthodox Churches,” 308. 51. See Janice Broun, “The Bulgarian Orthodox Church: The Continuing Schism and the Religious, Social, and Political Environment,” Religion, State & Society 32, no. 3 (2004): 209–45. 52. In 1931 members of the parish, like other Western-minded Russian Orthodox émigrés, placed themselves under the patriarchate of Constantinople. The parish returned briefly—along with its bishop, Evlogii—to the

431

432

|

Notes to Pages 263–266

Moscow patriarchate in 1945. When Evlogii, regretting his decision, returned to the patriarchate of Constantinople in 1946, the London parish remained with Moscow. “Report of the Communications Service of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Work of the Commission for the Investigation of the Crisis in the Diocese of Sourozh,” Religion in Eastern Europe 26, no. 4 (2006): 44–45. 53. Ibid., 47. 54. Ibid., 49. 55. Curanovi´ c, “The Attitude of the Moscow Patriarchate towards Other Orthodox Churches,” 309. 56. “Deepening of Schism: Some Clergy of the Diaspora Church Created Their Own Higher Church Administration,” PDS Russia Religion News, July 18, 2007. www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0707a.html#01. 57. See Zoe Knox, “Postsoviet Challenges to the Moscow Patriarchate,” Religion, State & Society 32, no. 2 (2004): 104–5. 58. “Documents from the Joint Sessions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR),” Sourozh, no. 101 (2005): 42–43. 59. Metropolitan Kirill, “No Freedom without Moral Responsibility,” Russian Social Science Review 47, no. 4 (2006): 53. 60. Kirill, “No Freedom without Moral Responsibility,” 51–52. 61. Metropolitan Kirill, “The Future of Europe and the Eastern Christian Tradition,” Sourozh, no. 91 (2003): 24. 62. Kirill, “The Future of Europe,” 21–22. 63. Ibid., 22. 64. Metropolitan Kirill, “Catholics and Orthodox Facing the Challenge of Ecumenism,” Sourozh, no. 94 (2003): 2. 65. “We cannot call ourselves one Body of Christ, because our theological differences are too strong.” “Russian Church Advocates Renunciation of Word ‘Ecumenism,’ ” PDS Russia Religion News, November 8, 2007. www.stetson .edu/~psteeves/relnews/0711a.html. 66. Vsevolod Chaplin, “Remaining Oneself in a Changing World: The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” Ecumenical Review 54 (2002): 115. 67. “Democracy as ‘Direct Result of Sin’ Must Be Opposed by ‘Conciliar Ideal of Unity of Church, Nation, and State,’ ” PDS Russia Religion News, August 17, 2007. www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0708c.html. 68. Chaplin, “Remaining Oneself in a Changing World,” 119. 69. Good overviews may be found in John Basil, “Church-State Relations in Russia: Orthodoxy and Federation Law, 1990–2004,” Religion, State

Notes to Pages 266–271

|

& Society 33, no. 2 (2005): 151–63; Zoe Knox, “Postsoviet Challenges to the Moscow Patriarchate, 1991–2001,” Religion, State & Society 32, no. 2 (2004): 87– 113. 70. An investigation by Moscow News, for example, revealed that in 1994 the state’s Humanitarian Aid commission granted the patriarchate the right to import tobacco as a form of “humanitarian aid,” thus circumventing the mandatory value-added tax. Wholesalers in Russia, working with the patriarchate, then sold the cigarettes and returned the proceeds to the patriarchate. 71. Zoe Knox, “Russian Orthodoxy, Russian Nationalism, and Patriarch Aleksii II,” Nationalities Papers 33, no. 4 (2005): 536. 72. “Epistle to the Flock from the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia,” Sourozh, no. 96 (2004): 23. 73. Metropolitan Kirill, “It Is Our Duty to Restore Church Unity,” Sourozh, no. 99 (2005): 17. 74. Ibid., 21. 75. “Epistle to the Flock,” 24. 76. “Ecumenical Relations,” Touchstone 19, no. 4 (2006): 48. 77. “Looking Back on Harare: The 8th General Assembly of the WCC in Harare, Zimbabwe,” Orthodox Christian Information Center. www.orthodoxinfo .com/ecumenism/harare.aspx. 78. Ibid. Original emphasis. 79. Ibid. 80. “Bulgarian Orthodox Church to Quit WCC,” Christian Century, August 12– 19, 1998, 255. 81. Janice Broun, “The Bulgarian Orthodox Church: The Continuing Schism and the Religious, Social, and Political Environment,” Religion, State & Society 32, no. 3 (2004): 216. 82. “World in Brief,” Washington Post, January 18, 2003, A22. 83. “Orthodox Suspend Ties with Episcopalians,” Christian Century, December 13, 2003, 12. 84. Ibid. 85. “Ecumenical Relations,” 48. 86. Kirill, “No Freedom without Moral Responsibility,” 52. 87. Martin Beckford, “Archbishop of Canterbury’s Rescue Plan for Anglican Communion Rejected,” Telegraph, August 29, 2008. www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/newstopics/religion/2646689/Archbishop-of-Canterburys-rescueplan-for-Anglican-Communion-rejected.html. 88. “The Bible alone is not enough and must be read in the context of the revelations of the day,” argues one Anglican proponent of homosexual ordination. Patsy McGarry, “Cultures Clash in Church Row over Gay Rights,” Irish

433

434

|

Notes to Pages 271–272

Times, August 5, 2008. www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0805/ 1217628546596.html. 89. After Archbishop Rowan Williams pleaded with the American church to cease ordaining gay clergy, the Reverend Susan Russell, head of the proordination group Integrity USA, responded, “It’s not going to change anything on the ground in California. We bless same sex unions and will continue to do so.” Martin Beckford, “Lambeth Conference Branded ‘Exercise in Futility,’ ” Telegraph, August 4, 2008. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ 2494592/Lambeth-Conference-branded-exercise-in-futility.html. GAFCON, a conference of breakaway Anglicans, cited as a reason for their departure “the manifest failure of the [Anglican] Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy. The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada, in proclaiming this false gospel, have consistently defied the 1998 Lambeth statement of biblical moral principle (Resolution 1.10) [original emphasis].” “GAFCON Final Statement: Statement on the Global Anglican Future,” June 29, 2008. www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_ content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=31. A “major cause” of the crisis over homosexuality, according to another Anglican opponent of ordaining homosexuals, “has been the fact that no discipline has been exercised within the Anglican communion (led by the Archbishop of Canterbury) on the Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church USA for their allowance of practising homosexual clergy.” Iain Murra, “The Church of England in Crisis.” www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/08/29/ the-church-of-england-in-crisis. 90. “It is the Anglican way, this wearing down of rigid positions through the application of the relentlessly pleasant until an acceptable level of fudge has been arrived at.” Patsy McGarry, “The Unbearable Politeness of Being at Lambeth Conference,” Irish Times, August 24, 2008, 11. Archbishop Williams recently acknowledged that “ ‘Anglicans are a profoundly diverse community who nonetheless live tolerantly with each other’: we’ve all said it, and it sounds wonderful, but it can conceal some fault-lines—and some wounds as well.” Rowan Williams, “Concluding Presidential Address to the Lambeth Conference,” August 3, 2008. www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1925. 91. “GAFCON Final Statement.” 92. Ibid.

Bibliography

I. PRIMARY SOURCES Archives

Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, Oxford, UK Includes correspondence, transcripts of Fellowship meetings, and personal papers. Holdings are much richer for the 1930s than the 1920s. Georges Florovsky Papers, Princeton University Includes significant material relating to Florovskii’s involvement in the ecumenical movement, as well as material Florovskii collected from others. Individual sources from these archives are cited in the notes. Major Periodicals

American Church Monthly American Journal of Theology Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik Anglican Theological Review Blackfriars Christian Century Christian East Church Quarterly Review Church Times Churchman Constructive Quarterly Dublin Review

|

435

436

|

Bibliography

English Review Foreign Affairs Hibbert Journal Izvestiia Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius London Quarterly & Holborn Review London Quarterly Review Mladorus’ The Month New Statesman New York Times Official Report, Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons Orthodox Catholic Review Outlook Pravoslavnaia Karpatskaia Rus’ Put’ Russko-Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik Saturday Review Sobornost Sovremennyia zapiski Scottish Journal of Theology Spectator Tablet Theology Theology Today The Times Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii Tserkovnyia viedomosti Viera i razum Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia Vozrozhdenie Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkii Books, Articles, Memoirs, Reports, and Correspondence

Addleshaw, G. W. O. “Our Domestic Difficulties.” Sobornost, no. 1 1 (1937): 22–31. “Advertising Disunion.” Churchman 32, no. 148 (1918): 200–201. Aftimos, Archbishop of Brooklyn. “A Basis for Orthodox Consideration of Unity.” Orthodox Catholic Review 1, no. 6 (1927): 225–31.

Bibliography

|

Aivazov, I. G. “O soedinenii tserkvei.” Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkii 5 (1945): 36–43. Aleksandr III, Patriarkh. “Pis’mo Antiokiiskago patriarka Mitropolitu Evlogiiu ot 14–27 sentiabria 1934 g.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 11– 12 (1934): 1–2. Aleksii, Patriarkh. “Obrashchenie Patriarkha Moskovskogo i vseia Rusi Aleksiia k arkhipastyriam i kliru tak nazyvaemoi Karlovatskoi orientatsii.” Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkii 9 (1945): 9– 12. Alexander, Archbishop. “Address Delivered by Archbishop Alexander at PanChristian Mass-Meeting Protesting against Persecutions of Eastern Christians by the Turks, Held in Carnegie Hall (New York) 1st of June 1922.” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 23, no. 12 (1922): 1. ———. “Appeals to American Christians to Save Russian Christians: Christians, How Can You Be Silent?” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 23, no. 19 (1922): 147. ———. “The Russian Orthodox and Christian Unity.” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 27, nos. 3–5 (1926): 22–26. Alexis, Patriarch. “A Letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch Concerning the Situation of the Diaspora.” Sourozh, no. 99 (2005): 1– 11. Alfeyev, Hilarion. “Orthodox Participation in the WWC Ninth Assembly.” Ecumenical Review 58, nos. 3–4 (2006): 261–64. Alivisatos, Hamilcar. “Aspirations towards Union.” Christian East 1, no. 3 (1920): 125–30. ———. “The Attitude of the Orthodox Church to the Faith and Order Movement.” Christian East 10, no. 4 (1929): 148–51. ———. “The Greek Orthodox Church’s Unbroken Continuity with the Undivided Church.” Church Quarterly Review 118 (1934): 261–75. ———. “Kak na dielie osushchestvit’ soedinenie Tserkvei?” In Khristianskoe vozsoedinenie: Ekumenicheskaia problema v pravoslavnom soznanii. Paris: YMCA Press, 1933. ———. “Roma Locuta Est.” Christian East 9, no. 3 (1928): 127–30. Anderson, C. W. “The Confessional in Practice.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 18 (1932): 16– 19. Anderson, Paul. “Anglo-Russkoe sodruzhestvo v imia sv. muchenika Albaniia i prep. Sergeia Radonezhskago.” Put’, no. 10 (1928): 112– 14. Androutsos, Chre¯stos. The Validity of English Ordinations from an OrthodoxCatholic Point of View. Translated by F. W. Groves Campbell. London: Grant Richards, 1909. “The Anglican and Orthodox Report.” Church Quarterly Review 114 (1932): 115– 19.

437

438

|

Bibliography

“Anglicans and the Orthodox Churches.” Tablet, June 3, 1922, 697–98. “Anglikane i Pravoslavnye.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 11– 12 (1926): 7–8. “An Anglo-Catholic Looks at the Prayer Book.” Outlook 59 (1927): 651–52. “Anglo-Catholics in Conference.” Churchman 34, no. 176 (1920): 407–8. Antonii, Archpriest of Khabarovsk. “Chetvertoe pis’mo k Arkhiepiskopu Antoniiu Sekretaria Vsemirnoi Konferentsii Episkopal’noi Tserkvi v Amerikie Roberta Gardinera.” Viera i razum, no. 12 (1916): 1447–48. Antonii, Metropolitan. “Impressions of England: Interview with the Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev.” Church Times, August 7, 1925, 149. Antonii, Mitropolit. “Byl li khristos spasitel’ kosmopolitom ili natsional’nym patriotom?” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 5–6 (1923): 7–8. ———. “Chiem otlichaetsia pravoslavnaia viera ot zapadnykh isnoviedanii.” Pravoslavnaia Karpatskaia Rus’ 14 (1932): 2–3. ———. “Kakoe znachenie dlia vsiekh pravoslavnykh khristian imieet Velikaia Khristova Konstantinopol’skaia tserkov i Vselenskii Patriarkh?” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 4 (1934): 6–8. ———. “Ko vsiem russkim pravoslavnym liudiam zarubezh’ia.” Pravoslavnaia Karpatskaia Rus’ 11– 12 (1934): 6. ———. “ ‘Kogda eto konchitsia?’: vopros na vopros.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 2 (1934): 20–21. ———. “Obrashchenie Arkhiereiskago Sinoda k Lozannskoi konferentsii s protestom protiv udaleniia Vselenskoi Patriarshei kathedru iz Konstantinopolia.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 1–2 (1923): 1–2. ———. “Obrashchenie Mitrop. Antoniia R. S. Kh. dvizheniiu.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 10 (1926): 25–26. ———. “The Orthodox Church and the Papacy.” Christian East 5, no. 1 (1934): 24–25. ———. “Otviet Mitropolita Antoniia Mitropolita Evlogiiu na ego pis’mo o Germanskoi eparkhii.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti nos. 15– 16 (1926): 7– 10. ———. “Otviet Mitropolita Antoniia na privietstvie, poslannoe emu IV obshchim siezdom R. S. Kh. D. zarubezhom.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 10 (1926): 26. ———. “Otvietnaia riech Mitropolita Antoniia Arkhiepiskopu Valliiskomu.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 20–21. ———. “Otvietnoe pis’mo Mitropolita Antoniia za sent. (12 Oktiabria) 1934 g. No. 4172.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 1 1 – 12 (1934): 10. ———. “Otzyv Vysokopreosviashchennieishago Mitropolita Antoniia o Moskovskom soborishche.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 9– 10 (1923): 10– 11.

Bibliography

|

———. “Pis’ma Mitropolita Antoniia k Mitropolitu Evlogiiu po povodu otstraneniia im ot dolzhnosti i zapreshcheniia v sviashchehnosluzhenii episkopa Berlinskago Tikhona.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 15– 16 (1926): 10– 11. ———. “Pis’mo Mitropolita Antonii.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 11– 12 (1935): 12. ———. “Riech Mitropolita Antoniia na zavtrak u korolevskago Dukhovnika v Windsor’ie.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 18. ———. “Riech Mitropolita Antoniia, skazannaia na torzhestvennom obiedie v Holborn Hotel’ie v otviet na riech Ministra Aviatsii Sir Samuel Hoare.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 17. ———. “Skorbnoe Poslanie Sviatieshemu; Blazhennieishemu Arkhiepiskopu Konstantinopolia—Novago Rima; Vselenskomu Patriarkhu Kir-Kir Konstantinu VI.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 11– 12 (1925): 1–4. ———. “Vashe Vysokopreosviashchenstvo, Vysokopreosviashchennieishii Vladyko [letter to Evlogii].” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 8 (1934): 4–5. ———. “Why Anglican Clergy Could Be Received in Their Orders.” Christian East 8, no. 2 (1927): 60–69. ———. Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, Mitropolita Kievskago i Galitskago. Edited by Archbishop Nikon. 17 vols. New York: Izdanie SeieveroAmerikanskoi i Kanadskoi eparkhii, 1956–69. Arsen’ev, George. “The Eucharist and the Unity of the Church.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 4 (1929): 8– 16. Arsen’ev, Nikolai. “Dvizhenie k edineniiu Khristianskikh tserkov i problema sovremennago mira.” Put’, no. 31 (1931): 76–88. ———. [Letter to the Editor regarding episcopal orders]. Church Times, August 27, 1937, 206. ———. “Lozanskaia Konferentsia.” Put’, no. 10 (1928): 102– 11. ———. “Ob obshchenii s Anglikanskoi Tserkov’iu.” Put’, no. 33 (1932): 44–51. ———. The Possibility of a United Christendom from the Eastern Standpoint. London: S.P.C.K., 1937. ———. “Religioznye s”iezdy u N’iukastl i Kembridzh.” Put’, no. 20 (1930): 89–92. ———. “Sovremennoe Anglikanskoe Bogoslovie.” Put’, no. 35 (1932): 69–80. “Athens Letter.” Christian East 5, no. 2 (1924): 85–89. Atwater, Donald. “The Orthodox of Jerusalem.” Blackfriars 13 (1932): 71–75. Barron, J. B. “The Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem.” Nineteenth Century and After 95 (1925): 278–87. Basden, G. T. “Some Parallels between Animistic and Catholic Beliefs and Practices.” Churchman 53, no. 3 (1939): 152–54.

439

440

|

Bibliography

Bate, H. N., ed. Faith and Order: Proceedings of the World Conference, Lausanne, August 3–21, 1927. London: Student Christian Movement, 1927. Bell, G. K. A., ed. The Church of England and the Free Churches: Proceedings of Joint Conferences Held at Lambeth Palace, 1921–25. London: Oxford University Press, 1925. Bennigsen, G. “The Anglo-Orthodox Rapprochement and the Catholic Church.” Blackfriars 13 (1932): 145–57. ———. “Count Bennigsen’s ‘Open Letter.’ ” Tablet, July 18, 1925, 94. ———. “An Open Letter to the Metropolitans Anthony and Evlogi.” Tablet, June 27, 1925, 864–65. Berdia’ev, Nikolai. “About the New Christian Spirituality.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 25 (1934): 36–40. ———. “The Christian and the Social Order.” Sobornost, no. 9 (1937): 5–9. ———. “Dukh velikago inkvizitora: po povodu ukaza Mitropolita Sergeia, osuzhdaiushchago bogoslovskie vzgliady o. S. Bulgakova.” Put’, no. 49 (1935): 72–81. ———. “Ob avtoritetie svobodie i cheloviechnosti.” Put’, no. 50 (1936): 37–49. ———. The Origin of Russian Communism. Translated by R. M. French. London: Geoffrey Bless, 1945. ———. “The Problem of Orthodox Culture.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 14 (1931): 17– 19, 32–34. ———. “Problema khristianskago gosudarstva.” Sovremennyia zapiski 31 (1927): 280–305. ———. “Sex, Marriage, and Love [extracts from Destiny of Man].” Sobornost, no. 2 (1935): 18–26. ———. “Vselenskost i konfessionalizm.” In Khristianskoe vozsoedinenie: Ekumenicheskaia problema v pravoslavnom soznanii. Paris: YMCA Press, 1933. ———. “War and the Christian Conscience.” Sobornost, no. 5 (1936): 5– 13. “Besieda so Vselenskim Patriarkhom.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 2 (1932): 16– 18. Bey, A. Rustem. “The Future of the Oecumenical Patriarchate.” Foreign Affairs 3, no. 4 (1925): 604– 10. Bezobrazov, S. “Vstriecha.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia 3 (1927): 14– 15. “Bishop of Llandaff and Reunion: The Right and the Wrong Way.” Church Times, October 22, 1937, 453. “Blazhennieishii Mitropolit Antonii i Karpatskaia Rus’ v dovoennoe vremia.” Pravoslavnaia Karpatskaia Rus’, September 30, 1935, 7–8.

Bibliography

|

Borough, R. F. “Constantinople Letter.” Christian East 2, no. 4 (1921): 199–200. ———. “Constantinople Letter.” Christian East 3, no. 3 (1922): 140–41. Braikevitch, Xenia. [Editorial on coming war in Spain]. Sobornost, no. 8 (1936): 2. ———. “Spain—What Next?” Sobornost, no. 9 (1937): 18–23. ———. “War and Peace.” Sobornost, no. 4 (1935): 29–33. Brandreth, Henry. “Anglican Eastern Associations: A Sketch.” Sobornost, no. 31 (1945): 10– 12. Brechin, Kenneth. “Towards 1940.” Sobornost, no. 13 (1938): 4– 12. “Britain and Eastern Christendom.” Near East and India 28 (1925): 63. Bruce, Michael. “The Necessity of Revelation.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 17 (1932): 17– 19. “The Bucharest Conference.” Churchman 51, no. 4 (1937): 181–84. Bukharin, Nikolai. Finance Capital in Papal Robes: A Challenge. Translated by Moissaye Olgin. New York: Friends of the Soviet Union, 1930. Bulgakov, Afanasii. O zakonnosti i dieistvitel’nosti Anglikanskoi Ierarkhii s tochki zrieniia Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi. Kiev, 1906. ———. The Question of Anglican Orders: In Respect to a “Vindication” of the Papal Decision, Which Was Drawn up by the English Roman Catholic Bishops at the End of 1897. Translated by W. J. Birkbeck. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1889. Bulgakov, Sergei. “Afronskoe dielo.” Russkaia mysl’, no. 9 (September 1913): 37–40. ———. Agnets bozhii. Paris: YMCA Press, 1933. ———. Avtobiograficheskiia zamietki. Paris: YMCA Press, 1946. ———. “A Brief Statement on the Place of the Virgin Mary in the Thought and Worship of the Orthodox Church Presented to Section IVc of the Edinburgh Conference.” Sobornost, no. 12 (1937): 29–31. ———. A Bulgakov Anthology. Edited by James Pain and Nicolas Zernov. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. ———. “By Jacob’s Well.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 22 (1933): 7– 17. ———. “The Church Universal.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 25 (1934): 10– 15. ———. “The Church’s Ministry.” In The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and Statements, 1902–1975, edited by Constantin Patelos, 166–71. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978. ———. “Does Orthodoxy Possess an Outward Authority of Dogmatic Infallibility?” Christian East 7, no. 1 (1926): 12–24.

441

442

|

Bibliography

———. “Dorogoi Sobrat’ o gospod nashem’ Iisus Khrist Professor Ehrenberg!” Put’, no. 5 (1926): 90–92. ———. “Eshcho k voprosu o Sofii, Premudrosti Bozhiei (po povodu opredieleniia Arkiereiskago Sobora v Karlovtsakh).” Put’, no. 50 (1936): prilozhenie 1–24. ———. “The Eucharist and the Social Problems of Modern Society.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 21 (1933): 10–21. ———. “The Eucharistic Dogma.” In The Holy Grail and the Eucharist, edited by Boris Jakim, 63– 138. Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Books, 1997. ———. “Evkharisticheskii dogmat.” Put’, no. 20 (1930): 3–46. ———. “Freedom of Thought in the Orthodox Church.” In Father Sergius Bulgakov, 1871–1944, 33–37. London: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1969. ———. “The Holy Grail.” In The Holy Grail and the Eucharist, edited by Boris Jakim, 23–62. Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Books, 1997. ———. “Ialtinskii dnevnik.” Vestnik Russkago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 170 (1994): 28–66. ———. “The Incarnation and the Virgin Birth.” Sobornost, no. 14 (1938): 32–34. ———. “Ipostas’ i ipostasnost’.” In Sbornik statei, posviashchennykh Petru Berngardovichu Struve ko dniu tritsadtipiatilietiia ego nauchno-publitsisticheskoi dieiatel’nosti, 1890–30 ianvaria, 1925, 353–71. Prague, 1925. ———. “Judas or Saul: Thoughts on the Russian People.” Slavonic Review 9 (1931): 525–35. ———. “K voprosu o Lozanskoi Konferentsii.” Put’, no. 13 (1928): 71–82. ———. “Na Putiakh dogmy: poslie semi vselenskikh soborov.” Put’, no. 37 (1933): 3–35. ———. Neviesta Agntsa. Paris: YMCA Press, 1945. ———. “Ob”iashenie o. Protoiereia S. Bulgakova.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 5 (1927): 21–30. ———. “On Original Sin.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 7 (1929): 15–26. ———. “On the Sacrament of Penance in the Russian Orthodox Church.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 18 (1932): 12– 15. ———. “One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 12 (1931): 17–31. ———. The Orthodox Church. Translated by Lydia Kesich. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988. ———. “Outlines of the Teaching about the Church.” American Church Monthly 30, no. 6 (1931): 411–23.

Bibliography

|

———. “The Papal Encyclical and the Lausanne Conference.” Christian East 9, no. 3 (1928): 116–27. ———. “The Question of the Veneration of the Virgin Mary at the Edinburgh Conference.” Sobornost, no. 12 (1937): 28–29. ———. Sophia: The Wisdom of God. Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press, 1993. ———. “The Spirit of Prophecy.” Sobornost, no. 19 (1939): 3–7. ———. “Spiritual Intercommunion [open letter to Fr. Gillett].” Sobornost, no. 4 (1935): 3–7. ———. “Sviatyi Graal.” Put’, no. 22 (1932): 3–42. ———. Sviet nevechernii: sozertsaniia i umozrieniia. Moscow: Put’, 1917. ———. Utieshitel’. Paris: YMCA Press, 1936. ———. “Ways to Church Reunion.” In Father Sergius Bulgakov, 1871–1944: A Collection of Articles by Fr. Bulgakov for the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius and Now Reproduced by the Fellowship to Commemorate the 25th Anniversary of the Death of This Great Ecumenist, 22–28. London: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1969. ———. “What Is Revelation?” In Revelation, edited by John Baillie and Hugh Martin, 125–80. London: Faber & Faber, 1937. ———. The Wisdom of God: A Brief Summary of Sophiology. London: Paisley Press, 1937. Cannellopulos, C. “Christian Reunion from the Point of View of the Eastern Orthodox Church.” Church Quarterly Review 96 (1928): 247–305. Canterbury, Archbishop of. “The Malines Conversations.” Church Times, February 8, 1924, 134. Carpenter, H. J. “Some Tendencies in Asceticism and Culture in the Reformation and Post-Reformation Period.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 15 (1932): 14–18. Carter, C. Sydney. The Anglican Via Media, Being Studies in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement and in the Teachings of the Caroline Divines. London: C. J. Thynne & Jarvis, 1927. ———. “The Church of England and Reunion.” Spectator 144 (1930): 741. ———. “The Church of England and Reunion—With Whom?” Spectator 144 (1930): 315– 16. ———. “Reservation.” Churchman 53, no. 3 (1939): 117–25. Cavarnos, Constantine. Father Georges Florovsky on Ecumenism. Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1992. Chaplin, Vsevolod. “Post-Soviet Countries: The Need for New Morals in Economy.” Ecumenical Review 58, no. 1 (2006): 99– 101. ———. “Religion and Conflict: The Roots of the Problem and Possible Solutions.” Dialogue & Alliance 15, no. 1 (2001): 38–41.

443

444

|

Bibliography

———. “Remaining Oneself in a Changing World: The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church.” Ecumenical Review 54, no. 1 (2002): 112– 129. Charnwood, Lord. [Letter to the Editor in response to Braikevitch’s political editorials]. Sobornost, no. 10 (1937): 29. Chavasse, C. M. “Lambeth and Reunion.” Churchman 43 (1929): 169–73. Chetverikov, Sergei. “Miesto Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia v pravoslavnoi tservi.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 6 (1932): 13– 16. ———. “Nieskol’ko slov po povodu zamietki ‘kogda eto konchitsia?’ Blazhennieishago Mitropolita Antoniia.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 2 (1934): 22–24. ———. “Otkrytoe pis’mo N. A. Berdiaevu.” Put’, no. 50 (1936): 33. ———. “Slieduet-li pravoslavnym prinimat Grigorianskii kalendar, kogda legko i prosto mozhno ispravit Iulianskii s tochnost’iu, v 26 raz prevyshaiushchei tochnost Grigorianskago kalendaria?” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 1–2 (1925): 9– 10. Chitty, D. J. “The Communion of Saints.” In The Church of God: An AngloRussian Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, edited by E. L. Mascall, 155–72. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934. The Christian Hope and the Task of the Church: Six Ecumenical Surveys and the Report of the Assembly Prepared by the Advisory Commission on the Main Theme, 1954. New York: Harper, 1954. “Christian Reunion: Strange Manifesto from Oxford.” Church Times, February 27, 1920, 229. “Chronicle and Causerie.” Christian East 6, no. 4 (1925): 220. “Chronicle and Causerie.” Christian East 7, no. 2 (1926): 55. “Chronicle and Causerie.” Christian East 12, no. 4 (1931): 117–42. “Chronicle and Causerie: The Metropolitan and Anglican Ordinations.” Christian East 5, no. 2 (1924): 54–55. Chrysanthos, Metropolitan of Trebizond. “The Relations of the Constantinopolitan and Anglican Churches.” Christian East 1, no. 2 (1920): 65–71. “The Church of England and Reunion—With Whom?” Spectator 144 (1930): 276–77. The Church of England and the Church of Finland: A Summary of the Proceedings at the Conferences Held at Lambeth Palace, London, on October 5th and 6th, 1933, and at Brändö Helsingfors, on July 17th and 18th, 1934. London: Press and Publications Board of the Church Assembly, 1935.

Bibliography

|

“Church Unity: Lambeth Report on Discussions, Bishop of Gloucester’s Reply.” Times, May, 18 1931, 17. Clarke, A. H. T. “Reunion and the Church of England.” Spectator 144 (1930): 1010– 11. Clarke, Bernard. “Things New and Old.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 22 (1933): 21–29. Clarke, C. P. S. [Letter to the Editor in response to Braikevitch’s political editorials]. Sobornost, no. 10 (1937): 29–30. Clarke, O. F. “Christianity and Marxism.” Sobornost, no. 9 (1937): 9– 17. Clinton, H. J. Fynes. “A Visit to Serbia.” Christian East 2, no. 4 (1921): 153–62. Coates, W. P. Religion in Tsarist and Soviet Russia. London: Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee, 1930. Colfox, W. P. “The Rejected Prayer Book.” Spectator 140 (1928): 15. Collins, H. W. “The House of Commons and the Prayer Book Measure.” English Review 46 (1928): 181–91. Colton, E. T. “Is the Russian Church Christian?” Christian Century 42 (1925): 602–4. Commons, Great Britain: Parliament: House of. “Official Report, Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons.” London: H. M. S. O., 1909–37. “Communicatio in Concione.” Tablet, March 13, 1920, 349–51. “Communion with Schismatics.” Churchman 34, no. 173 (1920): 234–35. Comnenos, Panteleimon. “Anglican Ordinations.” Christian East 2, no. 3 (1921): 107– 16. ———. “Anglican Ordinations.” In Orthodox Statements on Anglican Orders, edited by E. R. Hardy, 36–51. New York: Morehouse-Gorham, 1946. “The Conclusion of the Court.” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 26, nos. 1–4 (1925): 4– 10. “Concordat: The Proposed Concordat between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Signed July 25th, 1935, and First Published and Submitted to the Skuptchina, July, 1937.” Christian East 17, nos. 1–2 (1937): 11– 17. “The Conferences.” Church Times, August 6, 1937, 136. “Consistency and Orthodox Policy.” Orthodox Catholic Review 1, no. 2 (1927): 49–52. Constantinidis, Michael. “Letter to the Editor.” Christian East 10, no. 1 (1929): 9– 10. “Constantinople and Anglican Ordinations.” Christian East 3, no. 2 (1922): 100– 110. “Convocation Again.” Churchman 31, no. 138 (1917): 323.

445

446

|

Bibliography

Cotter, Patrick. “The Coronation of the Last Tsar: A Chapter in the History of Anglo-Orthodox Relations.” Sobornost, no. 5 (1936): 13–20. “The Cross and the Crescent.” Church Times, April 11, 1919, 353. “A Cry from the Russian Church.” Church Times, February 21, 1919, 177. Damala, N. M. “On the Relation of the Anglican Church to the Orthodox.” Orthodox Catholic Review 2 (1869): 177–83; 3–4 (1871): 32–43; 5–6 (?): 8–11. Davidson, Randall. The Lambeth Conferences of 1867, 1878, and 1888: with the Official Reports and Resolutions together with the Sermons Preached at the Conferences. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1889. Davison, W. T. “The Historic Episcopate.” London Quarterly Review 130 (1918): 145–62. “The Deadlock at Jerusalem.” Christian East 17, nos. 1–2 (1937): 2–4. “Declaration of Faith.” In Documents on Christian Unity, 1920–4, edited by G. K. A. Bell, 90–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924. “The Declaration of the Orthodox at Lausanne.” Christian East 8, no. 3 (1927): 147–50. “Declaration on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox Church.” In Documents in Christian Unity: A Selection from the First and Second Series, 1920–30, edited by G. K. A. Bell, 182–87. New York: Oxford University Press, 1935. Diggle, J. W. “On Some Parallels between a League of Nations and a Reunion of Churches.” Hibbert Journal 17 (1919): 203– 13. Dimitri, Archbishop. “Christians in the Near East.” Church Times, November 24, 1922, 538. Dimont, C. T. “Prayer Book Revision.” Spectator 140 (1928): 455–56. “A Disavowal.” Church Times, February 27, 1920, 217. “Disput o Russkom Studencheskom Khristianskom Dvizhenii.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 2 (1932): 18– 19. Dix, Dom Gregory. “The Prophet and the Church.” Sobornost, no. 29 (1939): 17–29. Dobbie-Bateman, A. F. “Footnotes (II)—After Two Years.” Sobornost, no. 12 (1937): 24–27. ———. “Footnotes (III)—Simple and Serious.” Sobornost, no. 13 (1938): 35–39. ———. “Footnotes (IX)—In quos fines saeculorum.” Sobornost, no. 30 (1944): 6–8. ———. “Footnotes (VI)—The Double Paraclete.” Sobornost, no. 16 (1938): 25–27. Doctrine in the Church of England: A Report of the Commission on Christian Doctrine Appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in 1922. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1962.

Bibliography

|

“Documents from the Joint Sessions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR).” Sourozh, no. 101 (2005): 38–50. Dositheios, Metropolitan. “An Interview with the Locum Tenens of Serbian Patriarchate, the Metropolitan Dositheios.” Christian East 17, nos. 1–2 (1937): 86–88. Douglas, J. A. “After Lausanne: A Retrospect and an Impression.” Church Times, September 2, 1927, 265–66. ———. “Anglikanskoe i Pravoslavnoe priblizhenie k vozsoedineniiu.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 14– 17. ———. “Archbishop Germanos on Anglicanism.” Christian East 10, no. 1 (1929): 11–20. ———. “Chronicle and Causerie.” Christian East 27, nos. 3–4 (1937): 66–78. ———. “The Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Orders.” Christian East 2, no. 1 (1921): 198–210. ———. “Economic Intercommunion Between the Anglican and the Orthodox Churches.” In Report of the Committee Appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to Consider the Findings of the Lausanne Conference on Faith and Order Pursuant to the Resolution of the Church Assembly Passed at the Summer Session, 1928, together with Various Memoranda, 124–28. Westminster: Press and Publications Board of the Church Assembly, 1930. ———. Editorial. Christian East 2, no. 3 (1921): 105–6. ———. “A Great Theologian: Death of Prof. P. Komnenos.” Church Times, April 27, 1923, 470. ———. “Its Historic Importance.” In The Orthodox Church, edited by P. Usher, J. A. Douglas, Dr. Frere, and R. M. French, 9– 13. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 193?. ———. “Its Importance in World Christianity.” In The Orthodox Church, edited by P. Usher, J. A. Douglas, Dr. Frere, and R. M. French, 5–8. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 193?. ———. “The Limits of Agreements Reached by the Orthodox Delegates to the Lambeth Conference.” Christian East 11, no. 4 (1930–31): 145–81. ———. “The Metropolitan of Sofia on Reunion: A Caveat against Compromise.” Church Times, August 5, 1927. ———. “New Fire.” Christian East 4, no. 2 (1923): 91–94. ———. “The Oecumenical Patriarchate.” Christian East 4, no. 4 (1923): 188–91. ———. “The Orthodox Delegation to the Lambeth Conference.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 10 (1930): 5– 11. ———. “The Orthodox Principle of Economy, and Its Exercise.” Theology 24, no. 129 (1932): 39–47.

447

448

|

Bibliography

———. “The Practice of the Orthodox Communion in the Matter of Divorce.” Church Quarterly Review 123 (1936): 105– 11. ———. “Prospects of Union between the Eastern and Anglican Churches.” Christian East 1, no. 1 (1920): 36–46. ———. “The Purport of the Recent Orthodox Delegation.” Christian East 11, no. 3 (1930): 97– 126. ———. The Relations of the Anglican Churches with the Eastern Orthodox, Especially in Regard to Anglican Orders. London: Faith Press, 1921. ———. “Roman Controversialists and Anglican-Orthodox Friendship.” Christian East 3, no. 4 (1922): 184–87. ———. “Two Hoaxes?” Tablet, July 18, 1925, 93. ———. “World Conference on Faith and Order.” Christian East 8, no. 3 (1927): 101–20. Ducker, V. T. “Some Tasks for the Fellowship.” Sobornost, no. 23 (1941): 41–43. Durham, Bishop of. “The Church and the Modern State.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 11 (1931): 6– 14. “The E. C. U. and the Lambeth Conference.” Churchman 35, no. 1 (1921): 7. E.N.C.S. [Review of The Orthodox Church by Sergei Bulgakov]. Christian East 15, nos. 3–4 (1935): 125–26. “The Eastern Church: Enthronization of the Oecumenical Patriarch.” Church Times, February 24, 1922, 206. “Eastern Churches Committee: Reception in Honour of Archbishop Germanos.” Church Times, July 28, 1922, 87. “Eastern Notes: Probable Visit of the Patriarch-Elect.” Church Times, January 6, 1922, 7. “Eastern Prelates’ Programme.” Church Times, July 3, 1925, 26. “The Edinburgh Conference on Faith and Order: Affirmation of Unity.” Church Times, August 20, 1937. Elvey, G. F. Handel. “Reunion: An Appeal for the Exclusion of Exclusiveness.” Churchman 47, no. 4 (1934): 290–94. “The Encyclical of the Oecumenical Patriarch, Meletios, to the Heads of All Orthodox Autokephalous Churches.” In Orthodox Statements on Anglican Orders, edited by E. R. Hardy, 2–5. New York: Morehouse-Gorham, 1946. “English Anglo-Catholics Threaten Withdrawal.” Christian Century 55 (1938): 548–49. “The English Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (An Entente Cordiale).” Church Times, May 26, 1922, 543. “English Church Union.” Church Times, June 20, 1919, 605–6. “English Church Union: Our Relations with Nonconformists.” Church Times, March 19, 1920, 307–8.

Bibliography

|

“Epistle to the Flock from the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.” Sourozh, no. 96 (2004): 22–25. “Essentials of Unity.” Churchman 34, no. 177 (1920): 466–67. Evlogii, Mitropolit. “Arkhiepiskopu Kenterberiiskomu.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 3 (1927): 18. ———. “Memorandum Presented by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov to the Metropolitan Eulogius [translated abridgment of part 2 of O Sofii, premudrosti bozhiei: Ukaz moskovskoi patriarkhii i dokladnaia zapiski prof. prot. S. Bulgakova i Mitropolita Evlogiia, Parizh, 1935].” Christian East 16, nos. 1–2 (1936): 52–59. ———. “Otkrytoe pis’mo Vysokopreosviashchennieishemu Mitropolitu Anastasiiu, Predsiedateliu Arkhiereiskago Sinoda v Karlovtsakh.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 1–2 (1939): 7– 12. ———. “Otviet na tret’e pis’mo sekretaria Vsemirnoi Konferentsii Episkopal’noi Tserkvi v Amerikie.” Viera i razum 8–9 (1916): 877–95. ———. “Pis’mo Mitropolita Evlogiia Mitropolitu Antoniiu.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 11– 12 (1934): 9– 10. ———. “Pis’mo Mitropolita Evlogiia Mitropolitu Antoniiu (ot 5 sentiabria 1934 g.).” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 9–10 (1934): 4–5. ———. Put’ moei zhizni: vospominaniia mitropolita Evlogiia (Georgievskogo), izlozhennye po ego rasskazam T. Manukhinoi. Moskva: Moskovskii rabochii, Izdatel’skii otdel Vsetserkovnogo pravoslavnogo molodezhnogo dvizheniia, 1994. ———. “Riech Mitropolita Evlogiia pri vstriechie Sviatieishikh Patriarkhov Fotiia i Damiana v russkoi tserkvi v Londonie 22 iiunia st. st.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 17– 18. ———. “Riech Mitropolita Evlogiia skazannaia pri posieshchenii s Patriarkhiami Anglo-Katolicheskago Kongressa.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 18. ———. “Upraliaiushchago russkimi pravoslavnymi tserkvami v Zapadnoi Evropie Vysokopreosviashchennago Mitropolita Evlogiia.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 1–2 (1926): 9– 10. “Faith and Order at Edinburgh: Dr. Temple’s Sermon at St. Giles.” Church Times, August 6, 1937, 141. “Faith and Order at Edinburgh: Historic High Mass at St. Mary’s Cathedral.” Church Times, August 13, 1937, 163. “Faith and Order: Dr. Gore and the Conference.” Church Times, July 29, 1927, 145. Farrer-Morgan, J. G. “Should Women Be Admitted to the Priesthood?” Churchman 32, no. 146 (1918): 108– 16. Fedotov, G. P. “Oksford.” Put’, no. 54 (1937): 57–62.

449

450

|

Bibliography

———. “Orthodoxy and Historical Criticism.” In The Church of God: An Anglo-Russian Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, edited by E. L. Mascall, 89– 104. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934. ———. The Russian Church since the Revolution. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1928. “Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius Statement of Aims and Basis.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 19 (1933): 34–35. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. Khristianskii katikhizis, pravoslavnyia kafolicheskiia vostochnyiia Greko-Rossiiskiia tserkvi. Sanktpeterburg: Sinodal’noi tipografii, 1823. ———. Razgovory mezhdu ispytuiushchim i uvierennym o pravoslavii vostochnoi Greko-Rossiiskoi Tserkvi, s prisovokupleniem. Moskva: Sinodal’naia Tipografiia, 1833. “Final Report: Second World Conference on Faith and Order, August 3– 18, 1937.” In A Documentary History of the Faith and Order Movement, 1927–1963, edited by Lukas Vischer. St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1963. “Finland and Rumania.” Church Quarterly Review 123 (1937): 322–36. Florovskii, Georges. “Abundance of Glory.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 9 (1930): 10– 15. ———. “Apostolic Tradition and Ecumenism.” In Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach, edited by Richard Haugh. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989. ———. “Asceticism and Culture in the Later Eastern Church.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 15 (1932): 8– 13. ———. “The Catholicity of the Church.” In The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, edited by Richard Haugh. Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1972. ———. “The Challenge of Disunity.” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 3, nos. 1–2 (1954–55): 31–36. ———. “The Communion of Saints.” Sobornost, no. 11 (1937): 18–21; no. 12 (1937): 3–4. ———. “Concensus Ecclesiae.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 24 (1934): 28–29. ———. “The ‘Doctrine’ of the Church Schism and the Branch Theory.” Edited and translated by Linda Morris. In Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach, edited by Richard Haugh, 34–35. Vaduz, Liechtenstsein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989. ———. “Early Russian Ecumenism.” In Ecumenism II: A Historical Approach, edited by Richard Haugh, 63– 109. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989.

Bibliography

|

———. “The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement.” Theology Today 7, no. 1 (1950): 68–79. ———. “Ecumenical Aims and Doubts: An Address at the First Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Amsterdam 1948.” Sobornost, no. 4 (1948): 126–32. ———. “The Eucharist and Catholicity.” In Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach, edited by Richard Haugh, 46–57. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989. ———. “G. Florovskii—S. Bulgakovu: Praha, Bubenic Buckova VI. 597 1926. VII. 22 (VIII. 4).” Simvol 29 (1993): 199–216. ———. “The Historical Problem of a Definition of the Church.” In Ecumenism II: A Historical Approach, edited by Richard Haugh. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989. ———. “The House of the Father.” In The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, edited by Richard Haugh, 58–80. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989. ———. “The Lamb of God.” Scottish Journal of Theology 4 (1951): 13–28. ———. “The Legacy and the Task of Orthodox Theology.” Anglican Theological Review 31, no. 2 (1949): 65–71. ———. “The Limits of the Church.” Church Quarterly Review 117, no. 233 (1933): 117–31. ———. “My Personal Participation in the Ecumenical Movement.” In Ecumenism II: A Historical Approach, edited by Richard Haugh, 169–73. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989. ———. “The Need for Patience.” In Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach, edited by Richard Haugh, 556–59. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989. ———. “O knigie o P. Florenskago: Stolp’ i utverzhdenie istiny.” Put’, no. 20 (1930): 102–7. ———. “On the Veneration of the Saints.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 2 (1928): 14– 18. ———. “Open Communion and Intercommunion.” In Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach, edited by Richard Haugh, 149–50. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989. ———. “The Orthodox Church and the World Council of Churches.” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 2, no. 4 (1954): 11– 18. ———. “Orthodox Participation in the Amsterdam Assembly.” Translated by Leyla Rouhi. In The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, edited by Richard Haugh, 174–81. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989.

451

452

|

Bibliography

———. “Peter Mogila.” In Ecumenism II: A Historical Approach, edited by Richard Haugh, 59–62. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989. ———. “The Predicament of the Christian Historian.” In Religion and Culture: Essays in Honor of Paul Tillich, edited by Walter Leibrecht, 140–66. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959. ———. “The Problematic of Christian Reunification: The Dangerous Path of Dogmatic Minimalism.” In Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach, edited by Richard Haugh, 14– 18. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989. ———. “Russian Orthodox Ecumenism in the Nineteenth Century.” In Ecumenism II: A Historical Approach, edited by Richard Haugh, 112–63. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989. ———. “The Sacrament of Pentecost: A Russian View of Apostolic Succession.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 23 (1934): 25–28. ———. “Sobornost: The Catholicity of the Church.” In The Church of God: An Anglo-Russian Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, edited by E. L. Mascall, 51–74. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934. ———. “The Social Problem in the Eastern Orthodox Church.” Journal of Religious Thought 8, no. 1 (1951): 41–51. ———. “A Visit to Anglican Theological Colleges.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 21 (1933): 38–40. ———. Ways of Russian Theology. 2 vols. Translated by Robert Nichols. Belmont: Nordland, 1972. ———. “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Revelation.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 17 (1932): 5– 16. ———. “The World Council of Churches.” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 2, no. 4 (1954): 11– 18. Fortescue, Adrian. “The English Church and the Orthodox.” Tablet, April 10, 1920, 494–95. ———. “How the Orthodox Church Regards Our Sacraments.” Month 138 (1921): 104– 15. ———. “The Orthodox Church and Schismatical Ordination.” Month 137 (1921): 385–404. “French Catholicism in the Near East.” Church Times, September 8, 1922, 229–30. French, R. M. “The Churches of Roumania, Yugo-Slavia and Bulgaria.” In The Orthodox Church, 27–32. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 193?. “From the Encyclical Letter.” Christian East 11, no. 2 (1930): 73.

Bibliography

|

Frost, Bede. “Prayer and Reunion.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 23 (1934): 5– 10. Fukien, Bishop of. “Proposed Schemes for Reunion.” Churchman 43, no. 3 (1929): 209– 15. Fullerton, W. Y. “The Free Churches and Lambeth.” Churchman 43, no. 3 (1929): 181–87. “Future of Mosul: Turks’ Mood More Tractable.” Times, January 1, 1923, 10. “GAFCON Final Statement: Statement on the Global Anglican Future.” June 29, 2008. www.gafcon.org/news/gafcon_final_statement/. Accessed February 24, 2009. Gage-Brown, L. “The Importance of Sacramental Confession in the Christian Life.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 8 (1930): 15– 17. Garvie, Alfred. “A Congregationalist View of the Lambeth Appeal on Christian Reunion.” Constructive Quarterly 8 (1920): 551–63. Gavin, F. “The Greek Orthodox Church and Biblical Criticism.” Christian East 3, no. 4 (1922): 162–72. Gedge, Michael. “The Clergy, the Articles and Truth.” Spectator 157 (1936): 675–76. “General Report of the Fellowship Conference, June 1933.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 20 (1933): 11– 16. “General Report of the Student Conference, 1933.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 20 (1933): 6– 10. Georievsky, Ivan. “Rome and the Christian East.” Church Quarterly Review 131 (1940): 77– 101. Germanos, Archbishop. “Call to Unity.” In The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and Statements, 1902–1975, edited by Constantin Patelos, 132–36. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978. ———. “Reunion of Christendom: The Orthodox Point of View.” Spectator 143 (1929): 432–33. ———. “Speech at the Albert Hall by Germanos, Metropolitan of Thyatira.” Christian East 8, no. 4 (1927): 165–66. Germanos, Metropolitan of Thyatira. “Anglican and Orthodox Reunion.” Christian East 4, no. 3 (1923): 123–28. ———. “Methods of Cooperation and Federative Efforts among the Churches.” In The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and Statements, 1902–1975, edited by Constantin Patelos, 127–31. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978. ———. “The Orthodox Delegation at Lausanne and Its Declaration.” Christian East 9, no. 1 (1928): 9– 15.

453

454

|

Bibliography

———. “Progress towards the Re-Union of the Orthodox and Anglican Churches.” Christian East 10, no. 1 (1929): 20–31. ———. “Towards Reunion: Being the Substance of Two Lectures Delivered during the Anglo-Catholic Pilgrimage to the Holy Land, 1933.” Christian East 14, no. 1 (1933): 8–29. Gibraltar, Bishop of. “The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Its Position.” Theology 10, no. 58 (1925): 182–86. Gibson, J. Paul. “Inter-Communion.” Churchman 43, no. 3 (1929): 216–21. ———. “A Psychological Aspect of the Problem of Reunion.” Hibbert Journal 30 (1932): 580–90. Gill, J. “The Orthodox Church of Greece and Anglican Orders.” Orientalia christiana periodica 6 (1940): 239–44. Gillet, Lev. “Intercommunion.” Sobornost, no. 3 (1935): 21–23. Gloucester, A. C. “Lambeth and Reunion.” Church Quarterly Review, no. 222 (1931): 205–26. Gloucester, Bishop of. “The Lausanne Conference and the Orthodox Eastern Church.” Christian East 8, no. 4 (1927): 184–89. Glubokovskii, Nikolai. “Christian Fellowship in Life and Work.” In The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and Statements, 1902–1975, edited by Constantin Patelos, 138–50. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978. ———. “The Church’s Message to the World: The Gospel.” In The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and Statements, 1902–1975, edited by Constantin Patelos, 151–60. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978. ———. “Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism.” Christian East 3, no. 1 (1922): 21–28. ———. “Khristianskoe edinenie i bogoslovskoe prosvieshchenie v pravoslavnoe perspektivie.” Put’, no. 4 (1926): 139–44. ———. “The Modern Papacy and the Reunion of the Orthodox East with the Roman Catholic West.” Christian East 5, no. 3 (1924): 124–31. ———. “The Orthodox Theological Institute and Its International Significance.” Christian East 10, no. 1 (1929): 39–42. ———. “Papal Rome and Orthodox East.” Christian East 4, no. 4 (1923): 180–87. ———. “The Patriarch and Clergy of Russia under the Bolsheviks.” Christian East 3, no. 2 (1922): 83–93. ———. “Riech professora N. N. Glubokovskago proiznesennaia na torzhestvennom obiedie v Oksfordskom Universitetie 23 iunia st. st.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 19.

Bibliography

|

———. “Rome, Orthodoxy and Reunion.” Christian East 3, no. 4 (1922): 76–83. ———. “W. J. Birkbeck and Russian Orthodoxy.” The Constructive Quarterly 5 (1917): 568–92. Gorbold, A. A. “Impressions of an East End Diaconate.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 3 (1928): 25–27. Gore, Charles. “Catholicism and Roman Catholicism II: The Development of the Early Church.” Church Times, December 15, 1922, 651. Goudge, H. L. “Authority and Freedom in the Church.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 12 (1931): 32–43. ———. “The Biblical Conception of the Church in Relation to the World.” In The Church of God: An Anglo-Russian Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, edited by E. L. Mascall, 25–50. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934. ———. The Church of England and Reunion. London: S. P. C. K, 1938. ———. “Reunion and Intercommunion.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 26 (1934): 4–6. Grabbe, Paul. “Concerning the False Teaching of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov: A Report to the Second Pan-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Which Met in Sremski-Karlovtsi, Yugoslavia, 1/14– 11/24 August 1938.” Living Orthodoxy 16, no. 6 (1994): 15–28. “Graf Bennigsen i Mitropolit Antonii o soedinenii Tserkvei.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1923): 11. Graham, Eric. “The Sacrament of Marriage.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 19 (1933): 9– 14. “The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria.” In Convictions: A Selection from the Responses of the Churches to the Report of the World Conference on Faith and Order, Held at Lausanne in 1927, edited by H. N. Bate, 214– 15. London: Student Christian Movement, 1934. Greenup, D. D. “Lambeth and Unity.” Churchman 34, no. 174 (1920): 298–307. Greig, J. H. “Some Notes on the Position in Serbia.” Christian East 5, no. 4 (1924): 145–50. Grigorii, Patriarkh Antiokiiskii. “Kopiia telegrammu Sviatieishago Patriarkha Antiokhiiskago, ot 10-go oktiabria 1923 goda, na imia Vysokopreosviashchennieishago Mitropolita Antoniia.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 19–20 (1923): 2. Grinevich, V. “Religiozno-filosofskaia mysl’ Anglii.” Put’, no. 19 (1929): 79–92. Grubb, G. Letter to the Editor. Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 12 (1931): 15. H., E. “Review of Goudge, The Church of England and Reunion.” Churchman 52, no. 4 (1938): 1239–40.

455

456

|

Bibliography

“The Haifa Orthodox Congress.” Times, July 20, 1923, 11. Hamilton, A. G. “The Holy Eucharist.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 4 (1929): 4–7. Hanks, George. “The Possibilities of Reunion.” Churchman 32, no. 154 (1918): 614–22. Hannah, Walton. [Letter to the Editor in response to Braikevitch’s political editorials]. Sobornost, no. 10 (1937): 29. Hardman, Oscar. “What Is Asceticism?” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 14 (1931): 14– 16. Headlam, Arthur. “Healing of the Schism: The Report of the Fellowship Conference.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 25 (1934): 3–7. ———. “The Present State of the Serbian Church.” Christian East 7, no. 2 (1926): 49–55. ———. “Reunion with the Eastern Church.” Church Times, July 14, 1922, 32. Hebert, Gabriel. “The Higher Criticism.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 1 (1928): 10– 15. ———. “Open Communion.” Church Quarterly Review 122 (1936): 32–46. ———. “Schism, Outward and Inward.” Sobornost, no. 18 (1939): 3–9. Herbigny, Michel d’. L’Anglicanisme et l’Orthodoxie. Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1922. Hermogenes, Archbishop of Kazan. “Papism and the Orthodox Church.” In Major Portions of the Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of 500 Years of Autocephalicity of the Russian Orthodox Church, 8–18 July 1948. Paris: YMCA Press, 1952. Hermopolis, Nicholas. “The Orthodox and Anglican Conjoint Doctrinal Commission: Report to the Holy Synod of Constantinople of the Church of Alexandria upon the First Session.” Christian East 13, nos. 3–4 (1932): 87–91. Hetherington, J. Guy. “Church Music—Russian and Anglican.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 5 (1929): 23–24. Hichens, Canon. “Some Thoughts on Reunion with the Orthodox Church.” Christian East 1, no. 3 (1920): 117–20. “High Churchmen Assail Trend of Anglican Modernism.” Newsweek 11 (1938): 24–25. Hill, Elizabeth. “Justin Popovic (1894–1979).” Sobornost, no. 2 (1980): 73–79. Hitchcock, F. R. Montgomery. “Union with Rome Impossible.” Churchman 49, no. 1 (1935): 5– 15. Hodge, F. W. “Vladimir Soloviev: A Russian Newman, 1853– 1900.” Dublin Review 202 (1938): 149–58.

Bibliography

|

Hopkinson, Austin. “Parliamentary Infallibility.” English Review 47 (1929): 20–24. Huntington, Chaplain. The Homesick Million. Boston: Stratford Company, 1933. Huntington, Henry Strong. “Eastern Churches Try Western Ways.” Christian Century 44 (1927): 301–2. Ierei. “Chto spaset ob”edinit i vozvelichit Russkii Narod?” Pravoslavnaia Karpatskaia Rus’ 6 (1932): 1. Il’inskii, V. “Nasha Obiazannost.” Mladorus’ 1 (1922): 5–8. Illyin, V. “The Problem of Marriage and Its Crisis in Our Time.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 19 (1933): 21–24. “The Implementation of the Bucharest Report by the Convocations of Canterbury and York.” Christian East 17, nos. 1–2 (1937): 8– 10. “Interv’iu s Vselenskim Patriarkom.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 3 (1932): 12– 13. Irwin, G. Freeman. “Unity: The Ministry and the Sacraments.” Churchman 44, no. 2 (1930): 1930. Irwin, George. “The Possibilities of Reunion.” Churchman 32, no. 152 (1918): 470–77. Jellicoe, Basil. “Knights of the Holy Table.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 4 (1929): 17–21. Joachim III, Patriarch of Constantinople. “Patriarchal and Synodal Encyclical of 1902.” In The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and Statements, 1902–1975, edited by Constantin Patelos, 27–33. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978. Johnson, Irving. “The Policy of the Episcopal Church.” American Journal of Theology 24, no. 2 (1920): 161–79. Johnson, W. Guy. “The Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Communion.” Churchman 51, no. 4 (1937): 193–204. Johnston, Charles. “The Departure of Archbishop Platon.” Constructive Quarterly 2 (1914): 550–56. “Jugoslavia and the Concordat.” Spectator 157 (1937): 239–330. K., A. “O sektantstvie.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 18 (1928): 21–25. K., N. “S”iezd v St. Albans: 11–15 Ianvaria 1927 goda.” Put’, no. 7 (1927): 107–12. ———. “Snosheniia Anglikanskoi tserkvi s Pravoslavnoiu.” Put’, no. 5 (1926): 100– 103. Kalashnikov, Aleksandr. “Kniga bogosluzhenii v Angliiskom parlament.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 7 (1928): 21–27; no. 8 (1928): 17–23.

457

458

|

Bibliography

———. “Pravoslavie i inoslavie.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 7 (1931): 5–8. Karpov, Andrei. “Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia v High-Leigh: s 25-go do 30e Aprielia 1930 g.” Put’, no. 24 (1930): 87–97. ———. “The Personality and the Church: The Problem of Personality in the Light of Christian Teaching.” In The Church of God: An Anglo-Russian Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, edited by E. L. Mascall, 133–54. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934. ———. “Piataia Anglo-Russkaia Konferentsiia: Heigh-Leigh, 16–23 Aprielia 1931.” Put’, no. 30 (1931): 59–70. Kartashev, A. V. “The Church and National Life.” In The Church of God: An Anglo-Russian Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, edited by E. L. Mascall, 193–208. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934. ———. “Intercommunion and Dogmatic Agreement.” Sobornost, no. 4 (1935): 41–48. ———. “The Paths Towards the Reunion of the Churches.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 26 (1934): 7– 13. ———. “Raskoly russkoi terkvi.” Vozrozhdenie 41 (1925): 1. Kaye-Smith, Sheila. Anglo-Catholicism. London: Chapman and Hall, 1925. Kean, Godric. “The Orthodox Recognition of Anglican Orders.” Tablet, August 6, 1927, 169–70. Keating, Joseph. “Anglicans and Orthodox.” Month 157 (1931): 527–36. Kensworthy, J. M. “The Revised Prayer Book.” Outlook 61 (1928): 494–96. Khrisostom, Mitropolit Athinskii. “Gramota Mitropolita Athinskago i Ekzarka Ellandskago Khristostoma.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 13– 14 (1923): 2. ———. “Mitropolita Athinskago i Ekzarka Ellandskago khrisostoma—ob otnoshenii k Moskovskomu lzhe-sobor, osudivshemu Sv. Patriarkha Tikhona.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 15– 16 (1923): 4–5. Kirill, Metropolitan. “Catholics and Orthodox Facing the Challenge of Ecumenism.” Sourozh, no. 94 (2003): 1–6. ———.“The Future of Europe and the Eastern Christian Tradition.” Sourozh, no. 91 (2003): 20–26. ———. “It Is Our Urgent Duty to Restore Church Unity.” Sourozh, no. 99 (2005): 12–23. ———. “No Freedom without Moral Responsibility.” Russian Social Science Review 47, no. 4 (2006): 49–61. Kirk, Kenneth E. “Church Establishment and Spiritual Authority.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 13 (1931): 5– 11.

Bibliography

|

———. “Idealy Anglikanskoi tserkvi.” Put’, no. 32 (1932): 85–89. ———. “The Lambeth Resolutions on Marriage and Sex.” Church Quarterly Review 111 (1930): 96– 110. ———. “Loyalty to the Church.” In The Church of God: An Anglo-Russian Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, edited by E. L. Mascall, 75–87. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934. ———. “Penance, Discipline and Sacrament.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 18 (1932): 6– 11. Klepinin, N. A. “Bratstvo i puti Pravoslavnogo Studentcheskago Dvizheniia.” Put’, no. 3 (1926): 127–33. Knipe, John. “A Visit to Malines.” Churchman 38, no. 4 (1924): 290–92. Knox, E. A. “Church Unity.” Times, May 31, 1931, 10. Kolchitskii, N. F. “The Anglican Hierarchy and Its Validity.” In Major Portions of the Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of 500 Years of Autocephalicity of the Russian Orthodox Church, 8–18 July 1948, 60–72. Paris: YMCA Press, 1952. Koletin, Iu. “Arkhiereiskii sobor v sremskikh Karlovtsakh i zarubezhnyi tserkonvnyi razdor.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 1 (1934): 19–23. Koman, Archpriest I. “The Ecumenical Movement and the Orthodox Church.” In Major Portions of the Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of 500 Years of Autocephalicity of the Russian Orthodox Church, 8–18 July 1948, 93– 122. Paris: YMCA Press, 1952. Komnenos, Panteleimon. “The Question of Union with the Church of England.” Church Times, December 3, 1920, 562. Korenchevsky, V. “My Visit to the Russian Orthodox Academy at Paris.” Christian East 8, no. 1 (1927): 39–42. Kostelnik, Archpriest Gabriel. “The Vatican and the Orthodox Church.” In Major Portions of the Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of 500 Years of Autocephalicity of the Russian Orthodox Church, 8–18 July 1948, 32–51. Paris: YMCA Press, 1952. Kotliareiuk, Nektatii. “Edinstvo Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi.” In Khristianskoe vozsoedinenie: Ekumenicheskaia problema v pravoslavnom soznanii, 53–62. Paris: YMCA Press, 1933. Kovalevskii, E. “What Is Sin?” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 7 (1929): 6– 10.

459

460

|

Bibliography

Kovalevskii, Petr. “Sovremennoe sostoianie voprosa o sozyvie Vselenskago Sobora.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 12 (1930): 11–15. Kul’man, G. G. “Protestantizm i Pravoslavye.” Put’, no. 5 (1926): 93–96. Lagovsky, I. “World Godlessness.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 11 (1931): 31–37. Lambert, E. “The Fellowship and Anglican-Orthodox Intercommunion: A Restatement.” Sobornost, no. 21 (1940): 9– 15. “Lambeth and Episcopacy.” Churchman 34, no. 178 (1920): 525. “Lambeth and Reunion.” Church Times, October 1, 1920, 302–3. “Lambeth and the East: Interchange of Important Messages.” Church Times, December 29, 1922, 683. “The Lambeth Conference 1930.” In Documents on Christian Unity: Third Series, 1930–1948, edited by G. K. A. Bell, 1–7. New York: Oxford University Press, 1948. “The Lambeth Conference and Reunion.” Tablet, August 21, 1920, 237–38. “The Lambeth Conference and the Eastern Churches.” Church Times, November 5, 1920, 453. “Lambeth Conference Committee’s Report on the Eastern Churches.” Christian East 1, no. 3 (1920): 130–36. “The Lambeth Conference: Encyclical Letter.” Church Times, August 14, 1908, 205–8. “The Lambeth Conference: Encyclical Letter.” Church Times, August 20, 1920, 169–71. “The Lambeth Conference: Report of the Theological Committee of the E.C.U.” Church Times, December 10, 1920, 539–90. Lang, Cosmo. “The Greeting of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the AngloRussian Conference.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 9 (1930): 4–7. Langdon-Davies, R. C. “Sin and Man’s Freedom.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 7 (1929): 26–30. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. “The Problem of Realizing the Church Universal.” International Review of Missions 25 (1936): 297–305. Leeming, Bernard. “A Note on the Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission between the Anglican and the Eastern Orthodox Church.” Gregorium 13 (1932): 528–80. Leo XIII, Pope. “The English Text of Apostolicae Curae.” In Anglican Orders: Essays on the Centenary of Apostolicae Curae, edited by R. William Franklin, 127–37. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1996. Lewis, C. S. “Membership.” Sobornost, no. 31 (1945): 4–9.

Bibliography

|

Lias, J. J. “The Origin of the Episcopate.” Churchman 31, no. 135 (1917): 134–38; no. 136 (1917): 212– 17. Lilienfel’d, Andrei. “Da budut vsi edino.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 11 (1927): 17–20. “Loading the Dice.” Church Times, June 18, 1920, 605. Lofthouse, W. F. “Intercommunion and Reunion.” London Quarterly & Holborn Review 166 (1941): 467–72. Lomako, G. “Edinstvo tserkvi i tserkovnyia razdieleniia Russkago zarubezhia.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 9– 10 (1937): 4– 12. ———. “Ob ekumenicheskom dvizhenii.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 9– 10 (1938): 11– 18. ———. “Po povodu d-ra N. Zernova: ‘Apostol’skoe preemstvo Anglikanskoi ierarkii.’ ” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 8 (1934): 12–14. Losskii, Vladimir. “Pis’mo V. Losskago N. A. Berdiaevu,” Put’, no. 50 (1936): 28. ———. Spor o Sofii: “Dokladnaia zapiska” prot. S. Bulgakova i smysl Ukaza moskovskoi patriarkhii. Paris: n.p., 1936. Lossky, Andrew. “The Fellowship Conference.” Sobornost, no. 16 (1938): 4– 13. Lowrie, Donald. “Christian East Meets Christian West.” Christian East 11, no. 1 (1930): 31–36. Luscombe, Matthew. L’église romaine comparée avec la Bible, les pères de l’église et l’église anglicane, en six sermons. Paris, 1839. Lys, F. J. “Prayer Book Revision.” Spectator 140 (1928): 419. M., Ek. “Chego khochet ‘Zhivaia Tserkov’?” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 1–2 (1923): 6–7. M., L. “A Roman Catholic View on the Fellowship Conference.” Sobornost, no. 21 (1940): 16–20. Macleane, Douglas. “The ‘Declaration of Faith.’ ” Church Times, June 2, 1922, 564–65. Madras, Harry. “Church Union in South India.” Hibbert Journal 28 (1929): 149–57. Major Portions of the Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of 500 Years of Autocephalicity of the Russian Orthodox Church, 8–18 July 1948. Paris: YMCA Press, 1952. Makharoblidze, E. “K Nikeiskim torzhestvam v Anglii.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 7– 10. ———. “Neobkhodimost’ sozyva Velikago Sobora.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1923): 8.

461

462

|

Bibliography

———. “Polozhenie Vselenskago Patriarkha i Patriarkhii.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 19–20 (1923): 12– 14. Manchester, E. A. “Changes in the Communion Service.” Churchman 34, no. 172 (1920): 181–92. “The Mansfield Resolutions.” Christian East 1, no. 1 (1920): 84–85. Maritch, D. S. “The New Law of the Serbian Orthodox Church.” Christian East 11, no. 2 (1930): 88–89. Mascall, Eric. “Christ and the Church.” In The Church of God: An AngloRussian Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, edited by E. L. Mascall, 1–24. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934. ———. “Worship and Reason.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 2 (1928): 18–21. McDougall, Alan. “The Revised Prayer Book and Its Sources.” Tablet, February 19, 1927, 234–35. McNeill, R. “Anglican Bishops and Rumania.” Times, April 7, 1923, 7. “Meetings of the Commission on the Question ‘Concerning the Anglican Hierarchy.’ ” In Major Portions of the Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of 500 Years of Autocephalicity of the Russian Orthodox Church, 8–18 July 1948, 182–207. Paris: YMCA Press, 1952. Melbourne, Archbishop of. “The Lambeth Conference and the Orthodox Eastern Church.” Christian East 1, no. 3 (1920): 137–42. Meletios, Archbishop of Athens. “Letter from His Grace the Archbishop of Athens.” Christian East 1, no. 3 (1920): 9. ———. “Translation of Letter of His Holiness, the Patriarch of Constantinople, to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, in re Anglican ordinations.” Christian East 3, no. 3 (1922): 112– 13. Meletios IV. “Letter of the Oecumenical Patriarch to the Archbishop of Canterbury [16 February 1923].” In Documents on Christian Unity: A Selection from the First and Second Series, 1920–30, edited by G. K. A. Bell, 35. New York: Oxford University Press, 1955. “Meletios IV and the Great Betrayal.” Church Times, July 20, 1923, 77–78. Meletios, Patriarch of Alexandria. “The Patriarch Meletios on the Delegations’ Visit.” Christian East 11, no. 4 (1930–31): 181–92. Menas, Dionissios. “The Massacre of Nicaea.” Christian East 1, no. 4 (1920): 13. “The Metropolitan Antony of Kiev, R. I. P.” Christian East 16, nos. 3–4 (1936): 65–72. “Mgr. Meletios IV at Mytilene.” Times, July 13, 1923, 11. Millar, Robert. Letter to the Editor. Sobornost, no. 14 (1938): 36–37.

Bibliography

|

“Minutes of the Conference between the Orthodox Delegation and the Anglican Bishops.” Christian East 12, no. 1 (1931): 27–45. Moss, C. B. “Present State of the Problem of Christian Unity.” Sobornost, no. 27 (1943): 11– 13. ———. “What Is Sin?” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 7 (1929): 11– 14. Moyes. “The Great Eastern Church and Transubstantiation.” Tablet, October 7, 1922, 453–55. Mozley, J. K. “The Clergy, the Articles and Truth.” Spectator 157 (1936): 753. Murra, Iain. “The Church of England in Crisis.” www.anglican-mainstream .net/2008/08/29/the-church-of-england-in-crisis. Accessed February 24, 2009. N., A. “S”iezd Sovieta Dvizheniia (27 maiia–iiunia 1931).” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia no. 7 (1931): 26–30. N., L. “Sekretarskii otchet ob obshchei godichnoi chetvertoi konferentsii Russkago Studencheskago Khristianskago Dvizheniia za rubezhom, sentiabria 1–5 1926 g. shato B’ervil’, bliz Parizha.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 10 (1926): 16–25. “The Nature of Catholic Action” [Report of the Fellowship Conference]. Sobornost, no. 3 (1935): 12–20. “The Near East: Constantinople in the Present Crisis.” Church Times, October 13, 1922, 351. Nectarie, Archbishop of Cernauti. “Report of His Holiness Mgr. Nectarie, Archbishop of Cernauti and Metropolitan to the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Roumania.” Christian East 12, no. 1 (1931): 6–27. Nemo. “The Russian Church and Rome.” Church Times, April 6, 1923, 384. “The New Style Calender of Rumania.” Times, January 26, 1929, 11. “News and Notes.” Tablet, June 27, 1925, 859. “News, Notes, and Comment.” Orthodox Catholic Review 1, no. 3 (1927): 141–43. Nicholas, Archbishop of Nubia [Alexandria]. “An Orthodox Impression of the Lausanne Conference.” Christian East 8, no. 4 (1927): 190–93. Nickerson, Hoffman. “Historical Scholarship and the Reunion of Christendom.” Christian East 6, no. 2 (1925): 84–90. Niebuhr, H. Richard. “Churches That Might Unite.” Christian Century 46 (1929): 259–61. Nikolaev, K. N. Vostochnyi obriad. Paris: YMCA Press, 1950. Northcott, Hubert. “Our Lady.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 6 (1929): 7– 10. Oakley, Austin, Nicolas Zernov, and John Findlow. “The Anglican and Eastern Churches Association and the Fellowship.” Sobornost, no. 32 (1945): 20–22.

463

464

|

Bibliography

“Ob otozvanii predstavitelei Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi iz Konstantinopol’skoi Mezhdupravoslavnoi Komissii.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 19–20 (1923): 6. “Obnovlencheskaia tserkov.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 2 (1926): 23–24. “An Oecumenical Council in Jerusalem: Will It Meet Next Year?” Church Times, August 7, 1925, 149. “Offending the Evangelicals.” Churchman 32, no. 148 (1918): 199–200. Opie, Thomas. “The Christian Unity We Now Have.” Churchman, July 18, 1931, 10– 11. “The Orthodox and Reunion: Important Statement by Archbishop Germanos.” Church Times, August 20, 1937, 195. “The Orthodox at Lausanne: The Bishop of Gloucester’s Criticism.” Church Times, February 3, 1928, 133. “The Orthodox Delegates to Lambeth.” Tablet, August 5, 1922, 165–66. “An Orthodox Lourdes.” Church Times, January 15, 1937, 71. “The Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem.” Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law 1, no. 4 (1935): 284–86. “The Orthodox Pro-Synod.” Church Quarterly Review 115 (1932): 116– 18. “The Orthodox Reformed Calendar.” Christian East 10, no. 1 (1929): 34–35. “Osnovy vzaimoobshcheniia.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 21–25. Overbeck, J. J. “The Western Orthodox Catholic Church.” Orthodox Catholic Review 3–4 (1871): 45–48. P., R. “Ot redaktsii.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 1 (1932): 14– 18. ———. “Soedinenie tserkvei i politika Rima.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 1 (1931): 14– 18. Palmer, William. Notes of a Visit to the Russian Church in the Years 1840, 1841. London: K. Paul, 1882. Palmer, William, Aleksei Khomiakov, and W. J. Birkbeck. Russia and the English Church during the Last Fifty Years: Containing a Correspondence between Mr. William Palmer, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and M. Khomiakoff, in the Years 1844–1854. London: Rivington, Percival, 1895. “Pan-Orthodox Conference in Constantinople.” Christian East 4, no. 4 (1923): 166–72. Parker, Thomas. “The Vision of Unity: The Future, Hopes and Fears.” Sobornost, no. 16 (1938): 14–20. “Parliament and the Prayer Book.” Spectator 139 (1927): 1112– 13. “The Patriarchate of Jerusalem.” Times, July 28, 1923, 8.

Bibliography

|

“The Patriarchs at the Abbey: Nicene Commemoration on St. Peter’s Day.” Church Times, July 3, 1925, 25. “The Patriarchs in England: The Banquet of Honour.” Church Times, July 10, 1925, 55. “The Patriarch’s Peril.” Church Times, June 15, 1923, 689. Peacock, J. R. “Dr. David, Lord Bishop of Liverpool, on the Lambeth Report.” London Quarterly Review 155 (1931): 254–57. Peers, Herbert. “Prayer Book Revision.” Spectator 140 (1928): 360. Pellow, J. D. C. [Letter to the Editor in response to Braikevitch’s political editorials]. Sobornost, no. 10 (1937): 27–28. Pennington, J. B. “The Church of England and Reunion.” Spectator 144 (1930): 977. “Petitsiia Obshchestva Pravoslavnykh vysokochtimomu Uchreditel’nomu Sobraniiu Gretsii otnositel’no unichtozheniia nastunivshago v Tserkvi raskola.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 1–2 (1925): 10– 12. “Philaret and English Ordinations.” Christian East 3, no. 3 (1922): 116– 17. Photios. “Reply of the Ecumenical Patriarch.” Christian East 11, no. 1 (1930): 66–67. Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople. “Encyclical Letter sent by the Oecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to All Rulers of Orthodox Autocephalous Churches.” Christian East 11, no. 1 (1930): 68–69. Photius, Bishop of Triaditsa. “The 70th Anniversary of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople: A Major Step on the Path towards Apostasy.” In The Orthodox Church Calendar, 5–29. Jordanville, NY: The Holy Trinity Monastery, 1996. Reprint Orthodox Life 44 (January–February 1994): 36–45. Pius XI. “Mortalium animos.” In The Papal Encyclicals, 1903–1939, edited by Claudia Carlen, 313– 19. Wilmington, NC: McGrath, 1981. ———. “To His Venerable Bretheren, the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and Other Ordinaries of Places Having Peace and Communion with the Holy See on the 300th Anniversary of St. Josaphat the Martyr, Archbishop of Polock (of the Oriental Rite).” In Documents on Christian Unity, 1920–4, edited by G. K. A. Bell, 32–43. London: Oxford University Press, 1924. Platon, Archbishop. “Admitting All Impossibilities, Nevertheless Unity Is Possible.” Constructive Quarterly 1 (1913): 425–44. ———. “An Appeal of the Eastern Orthodox Greek-Catholic Hierarchy Representatives to Mr. President of the United States of America.” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 23, no. 9 (1922): 42–44.

465

466

|

Bibliography

———. “Faith as It Is Understood by an Orthodox Divine.” Constructive Quarterly 2 (1914): 167–87. ———. “A Message from the Russian Church.” Constructive Quarterly 1 (1913): 32–35. ———. “Moe mnienie.” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 17, no. 16 (1913): 335–42. “Po dielu mitropolitu Evlogiia.” Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkii 2 (1931): 4. “Po povodu osuzhdeniia lits rimsko-katolicheskago dukhovenstva.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 7–8 (1923): 2. “Po povodu postanovlenii Mezhdupravoslavnoi Komissii v Konstantinople.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 17– 18 (1923): 4–5. “Po voprosu o reformie pravoslavnago kalendaria.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 13– 14 (1923): 1. “Po voprosu o utorobrachii dukhovenstvo.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 13– 14 (1923): 1–2. “Po voprosu o vozmozhnosti uchastiia Vselenskago Patriarkhata v sozyvaemom v Moskve lzhe-soborie.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 7–8 (1923): 3. “Poiezdka Ego Vysokopreosviashchenstva Vysokopreosviashchennieishago Mitropolita Evlogiia v Angliiu.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 4 (1930): 14– 15. Pollard, G. F. “The Church of England and Reunion.” Spectator 144 (1930): 667. ———. “The Church of England and Reunion—With Whom?” Spectator 144 (1930): 233–34. Popovich, Justin. “Humanistic Ecumenism.” In Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, edited by Asterios Gerostergios, 169–96. Belmont, MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1994. “The Position of the Episcopacy.” Churchman 32, no. 149 (1918): 261–62. “Poslanie Sobora Arkhiereev Russkoi Pravoslavnnoi Tserkvi za zagranitsei ko vsiem viernym chadam Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, v razsieianii sushchim.” In Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, Mitropolita Kievskago i Galitskago, edited by Episkop Nikon, 7:286–93. New York: Izdanie SeieveroAmerikanskoi i Kanadskoi eparkhii, 1956–69. “The Prayer Book Revision.” Spectator 140 (1928): 156. “Prayer Book Revision.” Churchman 35, no. 4 (1922): 229–31. “Prayer Book Revision and Anglican Unity.” Saturday Review 143 (1927): 73–74. “Prebyvanie delegatsii Anglikanskoi tserkvi v Moskve.” Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkii 2 (1943): 18–23. “The Primate and the Russian Church.” Church Times, June 9, 1922, 599. “Progress in Palestine.” Churchman 31, no. 144 (1917): 707–8.

Bibliography

|

Pronevich’, Gr. “Ekumenicheskii Seminar’ v Zhenevie: 29-VII–18-VIII 1934.” Put’, no. 46 (1932): 51–59. “Protestant Doubts: American Methodists and the Catholic Position.” Church Times, August 20, 1937, 196. “Protestantskoe studenchestvo i tserkov.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 4 (1926): 15– 16. Puller, F. W. The Continuity of the Church of England before and after Its Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, with Some Account of Its Present Condition. London: Longmans, Green, 1913. Pulvertaft, Thomas. “Lambeth 1920 and After.” Churchman 43, no. 3 (1929): 174–80. ———. “The Sixth Lambeth Conference.” Churchman 34, no. 178 (1920): 530–38. “The Quadrilateral.” Church Times, March 5, 1920, 241. “The Quarrel at Jerusalem.” Tablet, April 22, 1922, 497–98. Questions for Study on the Nature of the Church, the Church’s Ministry, the Sacraments, Based on Reports III, V, VI of the Lausanne Conference of 1927. Geneva: Continuation Committee, 1929. Questions for Study on the Unity of Christendom and the Relation Thereto of Existing Churches, Based on Report VII of the Lausanne Conference of 1927. Boston: Continuation Committee, 1930. R., V. “Otzyvy o konferentsii.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 3 (1927): 17. Ramsey, Michael. “Reunion and Intercommunion.” Sobornost, no. 2 (1935): 15– 17. Razumovsky, Archpriest G. I. “The Ecumenical Movement and the Russian Orthodox Church.” In Major Portions of the Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of 500 Years of Autocephalicity of the Russian Orthodox Church, 8–18 July 1948, 131–82. Paris: YMCA Press, 1952. “Red Paper Boasts of ‘Godless State.’ ” New York Times, February 19, 1930, 20. “A Reformed Calendar.” Times, August 27, 1923, 6. “Reforming the Calendar.” Times, May 10, 1923, 13. Rei, N. “Prebyvanie Mitropolita Antoniia v Rumynii.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 1–2 (1926): 8. “The Rejected Prayer Book.” Spectator 140 (1928): 80–81. “Report of the Committee.” Christian East 11, no. 2 (1930): 79–81. Report of the Committee Appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to Consider the Findings of the Lausanne Conference on Faith and Order Pursuant to the Resolution of the Church Assembly Passed at the Summer Session,

467

468

|

Bibliography

1928, together with Various Memoranda. Westminster: Press and Publications Board of the Church Assembly, 1930. Report of the Conference at Bucharest from June 1st to June 8th, 1935, between the Rumanian Commission on Relations with the Anglican Communion and the Church of England Delegation Appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Westminster: Press and Publications Board of the Church Assembly, 1936. “Report of the Delegation of the Patriarchate Sent to the Conference at Lambeth, 1920.” Christian East 3, no. 1 (1922): 2–28. Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission Appointed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Archbishop of Canterbury for Consultation on the Points of Agreement and Difference between the Anglican and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1932. “Report of the Plenary Session of July 9th, 1948, Dealing with Anglican Orders.” In Major Portions of the Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of 500 Years of Autocephalicity of the Russian Orthodox Church, 8–18 July 1948, 51–92. Paris: YMCA Press, 1952. Report of the Second Anglo-Russian Student Conference Held at the Diocesan Retreat House, St. Albans, 28th Dec., 1927, to 2nd Jan., 1928. London: Student Christian Movement of Britain and Ireland, 1928. “Report of the Sub-Committee.” Christian East 11, no. 2 (1930): 74–76. “Report on Relations to and Reunion with Episcopal Churches: II, The Orthodox Eastern Church.” In The Lambeth Conferences, 1867–1948: The Reports of the 1920, 1930, and 1948 Conferences, with Selected Resolutions from the Conferences of 1867, 1878, 1888, 1897, and 1903, 230–37. London: S.P.C.K., 1948. “The Report on Reunion.” Church Times, August 20, 1920, 176–77. “Report on the Communications Service of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Work of the Commission for the Investigation of the Crisis in the Diocese of Sourozh.” Religion in Eastern Europe 26, no. 4 (2006): 43–53. “Reports of the World Conference on Faith and Order.” In Convictions: A Selection from the Responses of the Churches to the Report of the World Conference on Faith and Order, Held at Lausanne in 1927, edited by H. N. Bate, 226–43. London: Student Christian Movement, 1934. “Reservations.” Churchman 31, no. 137 (1917): 258–59. Resker, R. R. “The Sieges of Jerusalem.” Churchman 32, no. 146 (1918): 91–93. “Resolution of the Moscow Conference of the Heads of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches on the Question of the Ecumenical Movement and

Bibliography

|

the Orthodox Church, July 17, 1948.” In Documents on Christian Unity, Fourth Series, 1948–57, edited by G. K. A. Bell, 33–35. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958. “Resolution on the Question of the Ecumenical Movement and the Orthodox Church.” In Major Portions of the Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of 500 Years of Autocephalicity of the Russian Orthodox Church, 8–18 July 1948, 240–41. Paris: YMCA Press, 1952. “The Restoration of St. Sophia: Plain Speaking by the Bishop of Oxford.” Church Times, January 31, 1919, 101. “A Resume of the Proceedings at the Joint Doctrinal Commission of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches.” In Report of the Joint Doctrinal Commission Appointed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Archbishop of Canterbury for Consultation on the Points of Agreement and Difference between the Anglican and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, 20–73. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1932. “Reunion and the Roman Primacy.” Church Times, October 16, 1925, 423–24. “Review of The Church of God, an Anglo-Russian Symposium.” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1936): 99– 100. Riley, Athelstan. “Anglican and Orthodox.” Church Quarterly Review 101 (1925–26): 124–35. Robinson. Letter to the Editor. Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 21 (1933): 5. Rogers, T. G. “The New Catholicism I: Intercommunion.” In The Church in the Twentieth Century, edited by G. L. H. Harvey, 158–98. Reprint. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries, 1967. “Rome and the Orthodox.” Church Times, July 10, 1925, 41–42. Rubets, Aleksandr. “Pravoslavie i ekumenizm.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, nos. 4–5 (1935): 24–28. “The Rumanian Recognition of Anglican Orders.” Christian East 16, nos. 1–2 (1936): 14– 19. “The Russian Church and Anglican Orders: Opinion of the Metropolitan Anthony.” Church Times, February 8, 1924, 152. “The Russian Church and Its Patriarch: United Protest by the Christian Leaders of Great Britain.” Church Times, June 2, 1922, 584. “A Russian Layman on Reunion.” Christian East 1, no. 2 (1920): 86–94. “Russians Divide on Platon Case: Church Members in America Stirred by Court Decision Ousting the Metropolitan and Recognizing Authority of Moscow Synod.” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 27, nos. 8–9 (1926): 102–4.

469

470

|

Bibliography

Rynd, Reginald. “The Thirty-nine Articles: A Plea for Restatement.” Hibbert Journal 30 (1932): 570–79. S., I. “Pis’ma iz Anglii.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 3 (1927): 16– 17. Salomon, Richard. “Orthodoxy, Ecumenical Movement, and Anglicanism: The Moscow Conference of 1948.” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 26 (1957): 154–64. “The Sanctity of Marriage.” Church Times, June 25, 1937, 761. Scarfe, Alan. “The Romanian Orthodox Church.” In Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, edited by Pedro Ramet, 208–31. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1988. Scott-Hopper, Queenie. “The Betrayal of St. Sophia.” Christian East 2, no. 1 (1921): 13. The Second World Conference on Faith and Order Held at Edinburgh, August 3–18, 1937. Edited by Leonard Hodgson. New York: Macmillan, 1938. Selbie, W. B. “The Free Churches and the Lambeth Appeal.” Constructive Quarterly 9 (1921): 645–55. Serafim, Arkhiepiskop. “Arkhiepiskop Serafim—mitropolitu Antoniiu, 17 fevralia 1925 g.” Otechestvennye arkhivy, no. 2 (1994): 61–63. “Serb Bishops and Vatican Pact: Attack on Premier.” Times, January 5, 1937, 11. “Serbs in Oxford: A Slavonic Service in Christ Church.” Church Times, February 14, 1919, 142. Sergei, Mitropolit. “The Decree of the Moscow Patriarchate to Eleutherius, the Metropolitan of Lithuania and Vilna [translation of O Sofii, premudrosti bozhiei: Ukaz moskovskoi patriarkhii i dokladnaia zapiski prof. prot. S. Bulgakova i Mitropolita Evlogiia].” Christian East 16, nos. 1–2 (1935): 48–52. ———. “Intervi’iu s glavnoi patriarshei Pravoslavnoi tserkvi v SSSR, zamestitelem patriarshego mestobliustitelia Mitropolitom Sergiem i ego sinodom.” Izvestiia, no. 46 (1930): 2. ———. “The Meaning of the Apostolic Succession in Non-Orthodox Faiths.” In Orthodox Statements on Anglican Orders, edited by E. R. Hardy, 52–70. New York: Morehouse-Gorham, 1946. ———. “Otnoshenie Tserkvi Khristovoi K otdieliv shimsiia ot neia obshchestvam.” Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkii 2 (1931): 1–9. ———. “Znachenie apostol’skogo preemstva v insolavii.” Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkii 23–24 (1935): 6– 13. Sergei, Episkop Iamburgskii. “Chto nas razdeliaet so starokatolikami.” Tserkovnyi viestnik, November 7, 1902, 1411– 15. Seton, Walter. “The Basis of Reunion.” Hibbert Journal 17 (1918): 64–74.

Bibliography

|

“The Shame of Europe.” Christian East 3, no. 3 (1922): 97–99. Shofield. “The Lord’s Supper as Presented in Scripture: A Layman’s View.” Churchman 31, no. 138 (1917): 341–50. Simpson, John Hope. The Refugee Problem. London: Oxford University Press, 1939. “Sixteenth Centenary of Nicaea: Celebration in London.” Church Times, June 19, 1925, 734. Skrine, John. “Intercommunion.” Spectator 122 (1919): 659. Smith, C. Ryder. “Christian Reunion—The Present Position.” London Quarterly & Holborn Review 165 (1940): 257–70. Sokolov, I. P. “O diestvitel’nosti Anglikanskoi ierarkhii.” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 17, no. 12 (1913): 259–64; no. 13 (1913): 276–85; no. 14 (1913): 306–13; no. 15 (1913): 322–24; no. 16 (1913): 343–48; no. 19 (1913): 404–8; no. 20 (1913): 429–35; no. 21 (1913): 448–57; no. 22 (1913): 276–82; no. 23 (1913): 499–501. Sokolov, V. A. Ierarkhiia Anglikanskoi episkopskoi tserkvi. Sergiev Posad: 2-ia tip. A. I. Snegirevoi, 1897. Solov’ev, Vladimir. La Russie et l’église universelle. Paris: Stock, 1922. Solovyov, Vladimir. Russia and the Universal Church. Translated by Herbert Rees. London: G. Bless, 1948. “Some Nonconformist Critics.” Church Times, August 27, 1920, 198–99. “Soviet War on Religion: Bishops’ Protest.” Times, May 2, 1923, 9. Spasskii, Boris. Letter to the Editor. Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 21 (1933): 6. Spinka, Matthew. “The Catholic and Slav Orthodox Unionistic Congress.” Christian Union Quarterly 14, no. 2 (1925): 267–72. ———. “Post-War Eastern Orthodox Churches.” Church History 4 (1935): 103–22. St. Clair Tisdall, W. “The Christian Priesthood.” Churchman 31, no. 144 (1917): 721–34. ———. “Episcopacy.” Churchman 34, no. 169 (1920): 23–32. ———. “Why Not ‘A Church of the British Nation’?” Churchman 31, no. 140 (1917): 456–65. Stefan, Archbishop of Sofia. “Fundamental Conditions for the Unification of the Christian Churches.” Christian East 8, no. 4 (1927): 121–39. Stefan, Metropolitan of Sofia. “The Oecumenical Movement and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.” In Major Portions of the Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of 500 Years of Autocephalicity of the Russian Orthodox Church, 8–18 July 1948, 23–130. Paris: YMCA Press, 1952.

471

472

|

Bibliography

“Steps to Reunion: Archbishop Germanos on the Lambeth Conference.” Times, April 27, 1931, 18. Stuart, V. A. “Letter to the Editor.” Sobornost, no. 7 (1936): 37. “Suggested Terms of Intercommunion between the Church of England and the Eastern Orthodox Church.” Christian East 1, no. 3 (1920): 146–53. Sydney, C. “The Historic Episcopate.” Churchman 32, no. 151 (1918): 418–35. Szeptycki, Andrew. “How to Reunite Latin and Orthodox.” Month 141 (1923): 385–93. Talbot, E. K. “Mirfield.” In Walter Howard Frere, edited by C. S. Phillips, 43–60. London: Faber & Faber. Tasker, J. G. “Rome and Reunion.” London Quarterly Review 150 (1928): 99–101. Tatlow, T. “The Russian Student Christian Movement in Emigration.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 14 (1931): 11– 13. Tchetverikov, Sergei. “Asceticism in the Lives of the Saints.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 10 (1930): 12– 16. ———. “Confession and Communion of Christ’s Mysteries in the Orthodox Church.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 18 (1932): 19–21. ———. “The Hermitage of Optino and Its Elders.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 5 (1929): 29–41. ———. “On the Veneration of the Mother of God by the Russian People (Nation).” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 6 (1929): 14–18. “Terms of Intercommunion Suggested between the Church of England and the Churches in Communion with Her and the Eastern Orthodox Church.” In Documents on Christian Unity: A Selection from the First and Second Series, 1920–30, edited by G. K. A. Bell, 22–34. New York: Oxford University Press, 1955. “Tewkesbury Abbey Church.” Times, May 12, 1934, 14. Thaddeus, Archbishop of Astrakhan. “The Apolitical Stand: Dissolving the Karlovtsy Administration (1922).” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 19, no. 1 (1975): 53–55. “This Ineradicable Protestantism.” New Statesman 30 (1928): 484–85. Thompson, A. Hamilton. “Asceticism and Culture in the Mediaeval Western Church.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 14 (1931): 27–32. Thompson, Beatrice Hamilton. “The Church of England and the Reformation.” Sobornost 2 (1935): 36–44. Thompson, Patrick. “Purgatory.” Sobornost, no. 7 (1936): 26–33. To the Help of Russian Christians. London: Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund, 1938.

Bibliography

|

Tomic, Vasilije. “The Serbian Orthodox Church Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow.” Religion in Communist-Dominated Lands 25 (1986): 120–29. Troitskii, Sergei. “On the Sacrament of Marriage.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 19 (1933): 15–20. ———. “Vsemirnaia konferentsiia dlia obsuzhdeniia voprosov viery i ustroistva.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, no. 14 (1915): 462–67; no. 15 (1915): 508–13. Trubetskoi, Evgenii. Smysl zhizni. Berlin: Slovo, 1922. Tsankov, Stefan. “Tserkovnoe Edinstvo v sovremennom mirie.” In Khristianskoe vozsoedinenie: Ekumenicheskaia problema v pravoslavnom soznanii, 121–30. Paris: YMCA Press, 1933. Turner, Arthur. “Some Impressions of the Fourth Annual Conference of the Fellowship of SS. Alban & Sergius.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 9 (1930): 20–23. Turner, H. E. W. “Letter to the Editor.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 12 (1931): 16. “Two Hoaxes?” Tablet, July 4, 1925, 5–6. “Ukaz Vrem. Arkh. Sinoda po voprosu otnoshenii zapadno-evropeiskhikh rus. pravosl. tserkvei k Ekzarkhu Vselen. Patriarkha v Z. Evropeie.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 16– 17 (1922): 1–3. “Unto All the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Be.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 1, no. 1 (1954): 7–9. Usher, Philip. “The Church of Greece.” In The Orthodox Church, 18–23. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 193?. ———. “Recent Tendencies in the Eastern Orthodox Church.” Church Quarterly Review, no. 207 (1927): 1– 14. Valliiskii, Arkhiepiskop. “Riech Arkhiepiskopa Valliiskago na priemie Vostochnykh Ierarkhov.” Tserkovnyia viedomosti, nos. 23–24 (1925): 19–20. Varnava, Patriarkh. “Pis’mo Serbskago Patriarkha Mitropolitu Evlogiiu 10–23 Oktiabria 1934 g.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, nos. 11– 12 (1934): 2. ———. “The Serb Patriarch’s Protest against the Concordat.” Christian East 17, nos. 1–2 (1937): 18–24. Vertogradov, V. S. “On the Anglican Hierarchy.” In Major Portions of the Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of 500 Years of Autocephalicity of the Russian Orthodox Church, 8–18 July 1948, 72–90. Paris: YMCA Press, 1952. Visser ’t Hooft, W. A. “Catholics and Protestants.” Sobornost, no. 1 (1935): 12–18. Vitalii, Arkhimandrit. “Khotiat sudami zadushit Pravoslavie.” Pravoslavnaia Karpatskaia Rus’ 4 (1932): 1.

473

474

|

Bibliography

Vitalii, Arkiepiskop. “Besieda s Baptistom o kreshchenii.” Russko-Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 31, no. 7 (1930): 94–96. W., F. “Outstretched Hands.” Month 165 (1935): 153–76. Wallis, C. S. “Fellowship of the Churches: In the Mission Field.” Churchman 34, no. 175 (1920): 387–97. Walsh, Edmund. Why Pope Pius XI Asked Prayers for Russia on March 19, 1930: A Review of the Facts in the Case, together with Proofs of the International Program of the Soviet Government. New York: Catholic Near East Welfare Association, 1930. Wellington, J. E. C. The English Church. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1926. “What Does Lambeth Mean?” Tablet, August 28, 1920, 268–70. Whatton, G. A. C. “Anglican Ritual Variations: An Explanation.” Sobornost, no. 6 (1936): 16– 19. Whitley, W. M. “The Intercession of the Saints.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 13 (1931): 17–22. Wigram, W. A. “Present-Day Problems of the Orthodox Church.” Christian East 7, no. 4 (1926): 164–73. Williams, L. F. “Editorial.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 13 (1931): 1–2. Williams, Rowan. ”Concluding Presidential Address to the Lambeth Conference.” August 3, 2008. www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1925. Accessed February 24, 2009. Winslow, Dom Bede. “Anglican and Rumanian Orthodox Relations.” Tablet, January 30, 1937, 154–56. “Withdraw the Prayer Book.” Outlook 61 (1928): 426. Woods, W. G. “The Greeks and Anglican Orders.” Sobornost, no. 21 (1940): 20–23. Woolf, Virginia. A Change in Perspective. Edited by Nigel Nicolson. Vol. 3, The Letters of Virginia Woolf. London: Hogarth Press, 1977. “World Conference on Faith and Order: Divergencies of View.” Church Times, August 19, 1927, 201–2. “World Conference on Faith and Order: Important Orthodox Manifesto, Pan-Protestant Plans Entirely Defeated.” Church Times, August 26, 1927, 225–26. “World Conference on Faith and Order: The Nicene Creed the Only Hope of Reunion.” Church Times, August 12, 1927, 177–78. X. “Proposals for the Self-Government of the Church.” Churchman 31, no. 134 (1917): 87–97. “A Year of Church Councils.” Times, June 25, 1923, 13.

Bibliography

|

Young, Ivan. “Eucharistic Worship.” In The Church of God: An Anglo-Russian Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, edited by E. L. Mascall, 105–32. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934. “Yugoslavia Accepts the Concordat.” Tablet, July 31, 1937, 151–52. “Yugo-Slavia and the Concordat: Orthodox Protest against Persecution.” Church Times, September 3, 1937, 246. “The Yugoslavia Concordat.” Tablet, July 17, 1937, 84. Z., F. “The Lambeth Conference on Reunion.” Church Times, August 20, 1920, 173. Zander, L. “A Philosophical Discipleship.” Sobornost, no. 7 (1936): 20–25. ———. “S”iezd Khristianskikh Tserkvei v Edinburgie.” Put’, no. 54 (1937): 63– 71. ———. “S”iezd v Khopovie.” Put’, no. 2 (1926): 116–21. Zankov, Stefan. “The Church’s Common Confession of Faith.” In The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and Statements, 1902–1975, edited by Constantin Patelos, 161–65. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978. ———. “The General Position of the Eastern Orthodox Churches at the Present Time.” Christian East 9, no. 3 (1930): 127–30. Zenkovskii, V. V. “Delo ob obvinenii o. Sergeia Bulgakova v eresi.” Viestnik Russkago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 49 (1987): 61–65. ———. “Ekumenicheskoe dvizhenie i religioznaia rabota s molodezh’iu.” In Khristianskoe vozsoedinenie: Ekumenicheskaia problema v pravoslavnom soznanii. Paris: YMCA Press, 1933. ———. “O pomoshchi Bogoslovskomu Institutu v Parizhie.” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 28, no. 4 (1927): 50–51. ———. “The Russian Student Christian Movement Outside Russia.” Amerikanskii Pravoslavnyi viestnik 28, no. 6 (1927). Zernov, Nikolai. “Anglikanskiia Rukopolozheniia i Pravoslavnaia tserkov’.” Put’, no. 59 (1939): 57–73. ———. “Apostol’skoe preemstvo Anglikanskoi ierarkhii.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 5 (1934): 7– 11. ———. “Bishop Frere and the Russian Orthodox Church.” In Walter Howard Frere, edited by C. S. Phillips, 185–98. London: Faber & Faber, 1947. ———. “The Church and the Confessions.” In The Church of God: An AngloRussian Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, edited by E. L. Mascall, 209–27. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934. ———. “Deviatii Anglo-Pravoslavnyi S”iezd.” Put’, no. 49 (1935): 82–85.

475

476

|

Bibliography

———. “Edinstvo Anglikanskoi tserkvi.” Put’, no. 47 (1935): 51–65. ———. “The Eucharist of the Eastern Rite and the Anglican Church.” Sobornost, no. 23 (1941): 20–23. ———. “The Fellowship and Its Place in Reunion Work.” Sobornost, no. 20 (1939): 10– 15. ———. The Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius: A Historical Memoir. Oxford: n.p., 1979. ———. “The First Council of the Russian Church Abroad in Sremski Karlovtsi (21 November–2 December 1921): The Notes of One of the Participants.” Eastern Churches Review 7, no. 2 (1975): 164–85. ———. “Kanonicheskii stroi tserkvi v Anglii.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 8 (1935): 5– 12. ———. “Letter to the Editor.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 18 (1932): 25–26. ———. “Notes on the 4th Anglo-Russian Conference.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 9 (1930): 24–27. ———. “Obstacles and Opportunities.” Sobornost, no. 17 (1939): 11– 16. ———. “Peter the Great and the Establishment of the Russian Church.” Church Quarterly Review 125 (1938): 265–93. ———. “Posieshchenie anglikanami Russkago Tserkovnago Parizha.” Tserkovnyi viestnik zapadno evropeiskoi eparkhii, no. 1 (1936): 9– 10. ———. “Pravoslavie i Natsionalizm.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 10 (1927): 16– 18. ———. “Pravoslavye i Anglikanstvo.” Put’, no. 43 (1934): 49–61. ———. “Psychological Barriers to Reunion.” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 2 (1928): 22–25. ———. “Puti sblizheniia mezhdu Pravoslavnoi i Anglikanskoi tserkvami.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 10 (1934): 19–22. ———. The Reintegration of the Church: A Study in Intercommunion. London: SCM Press, 1952. ———. “A Report of Ten Months’ Work in the Field of Church Unity (Eastern & Western).” Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 16 (1932): 2– 10. ———. “The Russian Episcopate and Church Reforms.” Church Quarterly Review 118 (1934): 80–97. ———. The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. ———. “S”iezd v St-Albans’ie: 11– 15 Ianvaria 1927 goda.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 3 (1927): 9– 11.

Bibliography

|

———. Sunset Years: A Russian Pilgrim in the West. London: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1983. ———. “The Unity of the Church and the Reunion of Churches: A Study of the Problem of Church Unity from the End of the First till the Close of the Fourth Century.” Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford University, 1932. ———. “Vozmozhno li soedinenie s pravoslaviem zapadnykh khristian.” Viestnik Russkago studencheskago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 4 (1934): 12– 19. Zernov, Nikolai, and Militsia Zernov. Za Rubezhom: Belgrad, Parizh, Oksford (Khronika Sem’i Zernovykh). Paris: YMCA Press, 1973.

II. SECONDARY SOURCES

Alexander, Stella. “Religion and National Identity in Yugoslavia.” In Religion and National Identity: Papers Read at the Nineteenth Summer Meeting and the Twentieth Summer Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society, edited by Stewart Mews, 591–607. Oxford: Blackwell, 1982. Alexandris, Alexis. “The Expulsion of Constantine VI: The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Greek-Turkish Relations, 1924– 1925.” Balkan Studies 22, no. 2 (1981): 333–63. Altholz, Josef. “Anglican-Orthodox Relations in the Nineteenth Century.” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 18– 19 (2002–3): 1– 14. Anderson, Paul. People, Church, and State in Modern Russia. New York: Macmillan, 1944. ———. “Russia and the Ecumenical Movement.” Christendom 9, no. 4 (1944): 505– 15. ———. Russia’s Religious Future: A Survey of the Situation with Documentary Evidence from Soviet Sources. London: Lutterworth Press, n.d. ———. “Some Recollections.” Russian Orthodox Journal 42 (1968): 4–6. Andronikof, Constantine. “Philosophy versus Theology in the Works of Father Sergius Bulgakov (with Particular Reference to the Eucharist Writings).” In The Holy Grail and the Eucharist, edited by Boris Jakim, 134–46. Hudson, NY: Lindisfarme Books, 1997. Angelopoulos, Athanasios. “The Relations between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Serbia during the Period 1885–1912.” Balkan Studies 13, no. 1 (1972): 119–27. Antic, Oxana. “The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.” In Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, edited by Pedro Ramet, 135–45. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1988.

477

478

|

Bibliography

Batalden, Stephen, and Michael Palma. “Orthodox Pilgrimage and Russian Landholding in Jerusalem: The British Colonial Record. In Seeking God: The Recovery of Religious Identity in Orthodox Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia, edited by Stephen Batalden, 251–63. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1993. Beckford, Martin. “Archbishop of Canterbury’s Rescue Plan for Anglican Communion Rejected.” Telegraph, August 29, 2008. www.telegraph.co .uk/news/newstopics/religion/2646689/Archbishop-of-Canterburysrescue-plan-for-Anglican-Communion-rejected.html. Accessed February 24, 2009. ———. “Lambeth Conference Branded ‘Exercise in Futility.’ ” Telegraph, August 4, 2008. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2494592/LambethConference-branded-exercise-in-futility.html. Accessed February 24, 2009. Bell, G. K. A. Randall Davidson: Archbishop of Canterbury. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1935. Bezzant, J. S. “Establishment and Alternatives.” Modern Churchman (September–November 1929): 450–66. Bird, Robert. “In Partibus Infidelium: Sergius Bulgakov and the YMCA (1906– 1940).” Symposion 1 (1996): 93– 113. Bird, Thomas. “In Memoriam: Georges Florovsky, 1893– 1979.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 24 (1979): 342–50. Blane, Andrew. Georges Florovsky: Russian Intellectual and Orthodox Churchman. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1933. Boerneke, LeRoy. “The Dawn of the Ecumenical Age: Anglican, Old Catholic, and Orthodox Reunion Negotiations of the 1870’s.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1977. Broun, Janice. “The Bulgarian Orthodox Church: The Continuing Schism and the Religious, Social and Political Environment.” Religion, State & Society 32, no. 3 (2004): 210–45. Brown, Robert McAfee. The Ecumenical Revolution. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967. “Bulgarian Orthodox Church to Quit WCC.” Christian Century, August 12–19, 1998, 745–46. Byrnes, Robert. Pobedonostsev: His Life and Thought. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968. Castellan, Georges. A History of the Romanians. Translated by Nicholas Bradley. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1989. Cocksworth, Christopher. Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Bibliography

|

Congar, Yves. Dialogue between Christians: Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966. Constantelos, Demetrios. Understanding the Greek Orthodox Church: Its Faith, History, and Practice. New York: Seabury Press, 1982. Crum, Winston. “The Doctrine of Sophia according to Sergius N. Bulgakov.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1965. ———. “Sergius N. Bulgakov: From Marxism to Sophiology.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 27 (1983): 3–25. Cunningham, James. The Gates of Hell: The Great Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1917–1918. Minneapolis: Minnesota Mediterranean and East European Monographs, 2002. ———. “The Orthodox Church and the Russian Revolution.” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 7 (1991): 169–215. ———. A Vanquished Hope: The Movement for Church Renewal in Russia, 1905–1906. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1981. Curanovic´, Alicja. “The Attitude of the Moscow Patriarchate towards Other Orthodox Churches.” Religion, State & Society 35, no. 4 (2007): 301– 18. Currie, Robert. “Power and Principle: The Anglican Prayer Book Controversy, 1927– 1930.” Church History 33, no. 2 (1964): 192–205. Curtiss, John Shelton. Church and State in Russia: The Last Years of the Empire, 1800–1917. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940. Davis, Donald. “The American YMCA and the Russian Emigration.” Sobornost 9, no. 1 (1987): 24–41. ———. “British Aid to Russian Churchmen, 1919–39.” Sobornost, no. 1 (1980): 42–56. “Deepening of Schism: Some Clergy of the Diaspora Church Created Their Own Higher Church Administration.” PDS Russia Religion News, July 18, 2007. www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0707a.html#01. Accessed February 24, 2009. Democracy as ‘Direct Result of Sin’ Must Be Opposed by ‘Conciliar Ideal of Unity of Church, Nation, and State.’ ” PDS Russia Religion News, August 17, 2007. www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0708c.html. Accessed February 24, 2009. “Ecumenical Relations.” Touchstone 19, no. 4 (2006): 48. Eddy, Sherwood. A Century with Youth: A History of the Y.M.C.A. New York: Association Press, 1944. Edmondson, Charles, and Barry Levis. “Archbishop Randall Davidson, Russian Famine Relief, and the Fate of the Orthodox Clergy, 1917–1923.” Journal of Church and State 40, no. 3 (1998): 619–37.

479

480

|

Bibliography

Englezakis, Benedict. Studies on the History of the Church of Cyprus, 4th–20th Centuries. Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1995. Evtuhov, Catherine. The Cross and the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997. Fischer-Galatai, Stephen. “ ‘Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationality’ in the Twentieth Century: The Romanian Case.” East European Quarterly 18, no. 1 (1984): 25–34. Flere, Sergej. “Present Day Serbian Orthodoxy.” Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe 8 (1988): 1– 11. Fletcher, William. Religion and Soviet Foreign Policy, 1945–1970. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1973. ———. A Study in Survival: The Church in Russia, 1927–1943. New York: Macmillan, 1965. “Fr. Georges Florovsky Dies: Priest, Renowned Theologian.” Russian Orthodox Journal 52 (1979): 4–5. Fredrickson, Anne. “The Anglican Crisis of Identity: The Case of William Palmer, 1811– 1879.” Senior thesis, University of Minnesota, 2000. Gaut, Gregory. “A Christian Westernizer: Vladimir Solovyov and Russian Conservative Nationalism.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1992. Geffert, Bryn. “Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics: John Douglas, Patriarch Meletios, and Metropolitan Antonii on Anglican Orders and Reunion.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57, no. 2 (2006): 270–300. ———. “The Charges of Heresy against Sergii Bulgakov: The Majority and Minority Reports of Evlogii’s Commission and the Final Report of the Bishops’ Conference.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 49, nos. 1–2 (2005): 47–66. ———. “Sergii Bulgakov, the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, Intercommunion, and Sofiology.” Revolutionary Russia 17, no. 1 (June 2004): 105–41. Gennadii, Igumen. Delo prot. Sergiia Bulgakova: istoricheskaia kanva spora o Sofii. San Francisco: Globus Publishers, 1980. Greene, Dana. Evelyn Underhill: Artist of the Infinite Life. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Groberg, Kristi. “Vladimir Sergeevich Solov’ev: A Bibliography.” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 14– 15 (1998–99): 299–398. Groen, Basilius. “Eastern Orthodoxy in the Balkans, Nationalism and Reconciliation.” Exchange 27, no. 2 (1998): 121–40. Hardy, E. R. “Liturgical Developments in the Church of England since 1928.” Worship 49, no. 3 (1975): 135–48.

Bibliography

|

———, ed. Orthodox Statements on Anglican Orders. New York: MorehouseGorham, 1946. Hastings, Adrian. A History of English Christianity, 1920–1985. London: Collins, 1986. Hayes, Nicholas. “The Intelligentsiia-in-Exile: Sovremennye Zapiski and the History of Russian Emigre Thought.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1976. Hodges, H. A. Anglicanism and Orthodoxy: A Study in Dialectical Churchmanship. London: SCM Press, 1955. Hopkins, C. Howard. John R. Mott, 1865–1955: A Biography. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979. Husband, William. “Godless Communists”: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917–1932. DeKalb: Northern Illinois, 2000. Hylson-Smith, Kenneth. Evangelicals in the Church of England, 1934–1984. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. Istavridis, V. T. Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. Translated by Colin Davey. London: S.P.C.K., 1966. Jasper, Ronald. “Christian Initiation: The Anglican Position.” Studia liturgica 12, nos. 2–3 (1977): 116–25. Kallos, John Christodoulos. Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis: A True Visionary. s.l.: s.n., 1995. Kazmina, Olga, and Olga Filippova. “Re-Imagination of Religion in PostSoviet Society: Challenges and Responses (Russian and Ukrainian Case Studies).” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 73, no. 4 (2005): 1049–76. Klimov, A. E. “G. V. Florovskii i S. N. Bulgakov: Istoriia vsaimootnoshenii v svete sporov o sofiologii.” In S. N. Bulgakov: Religiozno-Filosofskii Put’, edited by M. A. Vasil’eva, 86– 114. Moskva: Russkii Put’, 2003. Knox, Zoe. “Postsoviet Challenges to the Moscow Patriarchate, 1991–2001.” Religion, State & Society 32, no. 2 (2004): 87– 113. ———. “Russian Orthodoxy, Russian Nationalism, and Patriarch Aleksii II.” Nationalities Papers 33, no. 4 (2005): 534–45. ———. “The Symphonic Ideal: The Moscow Patriarchate’s Post-Soviet Leadership.” Europe-Asia Studies 55, no. 4 (2003): 575–96. Kolarz, Walter. Religion in the Soviet Union. New York: St. Martin’s, 1961. Kyrlezhev, Alexander. “Problems of Church Order in Contemporary Orthodoxy.” Translated by Christopher Hill. Sourozh, no. 95 (2004): 1–21. Lagenskjold, Greta. Baron Paul Nicolay: Christian Statesman and Student Leader in Northern and Slavic Europe. Translated by Ruth Evelyn Wilder. New York: George H. Doran, 1924.

481

482

|

Bibliography

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. World Service: A History of the Foreign Work and World Service of the Young Men’s Christian Associations of the United States and Canada. New York: Association Press, 1957. Limouris, Gennadios. “The World Council of Churches and the Ecumenical Movement: Theological Contribution and Orthodox Witness.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 41 (1996): 161–77. Lloyd, Roger. The Church of England in the Twentieth Century. 2 vols. New York: Longmans, Green, 1950. ———. The Church of England, 1900–1965. London: SCM Press, 1966. Lockhart, J. G. Cosmo Gordon Lang. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1949. Lossky, N. O. History of Russian Philosophy. New York: International Universities Press, 1951. Lowrie, Donald. Saint Sergius in Paris: The Orthodox Theological Institute. New York: Macmillan, 1951. Machin, Ian. “Reservation under Pressure: Ritual in the Prayer Book Crisis, 1927–1928.” In Continuity and Change in Christian Worship, edited by R. N. Swanson. Rochester, NY: Boydell, 1999. Mansel, Philip. Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire, 1453–1924. New York: St. Martin’s Griffen, 1995. Mascall, Eric. “George Florovsky (1893– 1979): Some Personal Memories.” Sobornost 2, no. 1 (1980): 69–70. McGarry, Patsy. “Cultures Clash in Church Row over Gay Rights.” Irish Times, August 5, 2008. www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0805/ 1217628546596.html. Accessed February 24, 2009. ———. “The Unbearable Politeness of Being at Lambeth Conference.” Irish Times, August 24, 2008, 11. Meerson, Michael. “The Doctrinal Foundation of Orthodoxy.” In Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, edited by Pedro Ramet, 20–36. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1988. ———. “The Orthodox Church in America.” In Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, edited by Pedro Ramet, 116–34. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1988. Mews, Stuart. “Anglican Intervention in the Election of an Orthodox Patriarch, 1925–6.” In The Orthodox Churches and the West: Papers Read at the Fourteenth Summer Meeting and the Fifteenth Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society, edited by Derek Baker, 293–307. Oxford: Blackwell, 1976. ———. “Religious Life between the Wars, 1920– 1940.” In A History of Religion in Britain, edited by Sheridan Gilley and W. J. Sheils, 449–66. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1994.

Bibliography

|

Meyendorff, John. The Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in the World Today. Translated by John Chapin. New York: Pantheon Books, 1962. ———. “A. V. Kartashev-obshchestvennyi deiatel i tserkovnyi isterik.” Voprosy istorii 1 (1994): 169–73. Miller, Matthew. “The Russian Ministry of the YMCA, 1899– 1939.” M.A. thesis, Wheaton College, 1994. “Moscow Patriarchate Confirms Intention to Refrain from Participation in Joint Services with Nonorthodox.” PDS Russia Religion News, May 12, 2008. www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0806a.html. Accessed February 24, 2009. “Moscow Patriarchate Hopes Romanian Church Will Give Reasonable Explanation Regarding Romanian Metropolitan’s Taking Communion with Catholics.” PDS Russia Religion News, May 30, 2008. www.stetson.edu/ ~psteeves/relnews/0806a.html. Accessed February 24, 2009. Nassif, Bradley. “Georges Florovsky.” In Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence in Western Thought, edited by Martin Klauber and Michael Bauman, 449–68. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Nazarov, M. V. “Tri vetvi russkogo zarubezhnogo pravoslaviia.” Voprosy istorii 6 (1997): 3– 13. Nichols, Robert. “Metropolitan Filaret and the Awakening of Russian Orthodoxy.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1972. Nikon, Episkop. Zhizneopisanie blazhennieishago Antoniia, Mitropolita Kievskago i Galitskago. 17 vols. Edited by Archbishop Nikon. New York: Izdanie Seievero-Amerikanskoi i Kanadskoi eparkhii, 1956–69. The Oecumenical Patriarchate: The Great Church of Christ. Translated by G. D. Dragas and Helen Zigada. Edited by Athanasios Paliouras. Geneva: Orthodox Centre of the Oecumenical Patriarchate, 1989. “An Orthodox Church Leaves the WCC.” Christian Century, June 4– 11, 1997, 554–55. “Orthodox Dispute Spurs Protest in Estonia.” Christian Century, April 10, 1996, 394–95. Otetea, Andrei. The History of the Romanian People. New York: Twane, 1975. Palmer, Bernard. Gadfly for God: A History of the Church Times. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1991. Patsavos, Lewis. “The Status of Canon Law in the Orthodox Church Today.” In Orthodox Theology and Diakonia: Trends and Prospects, edited by Demetrios Constantelos, 103– 14. Brookline, MA: Hellenic College Press, 1981. Pavlowitch, Stevan. “The Church of Macedonia: ‘Limited Autocephaly’ or Schism?” Sobornost 9, no. 1 (1987): 42–57.

483

484

|

Bibliography

Pelikan, Jaroslav. “The Eastern Orthodox Quest for Confessional Identity: Where Does Orthodoxy Confess What It Believes and Teaches?” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 14– 15 (1998–99): 21–36. Peterson, Rodney. “Local Ecumenism and the Neo-Patristic Synthesis of Father Georges Florovsky.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 41, nos. 2–3 (1996): 217–42. Pickering, W. S. F. Anglo-Catholicism: A Study in Religious Ambiguity. New York: Routledge, 1989. Pospielovsky, Dimitry. “The ‘Best Years’ of Stalin’s Church Policy (1942–1948) in the Light of Archival Documents.” Religion, State & Society 25, no. 2 (1997): 139–62. ———. The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 1917–1982. 2 vols. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984. Pravoslavnaia bogoslovskaia entsikolpediia. 12 vols. Petrograd, 1900– 1911. Psomiades, Harry. “The Ecumenical Patriarchate under the Turkish Republic.” Balkan Studies 2, no. 1 (1961): 47–70. ———. “Soviet Russia and the Orthodox Church in the Middle East.” Middle East Journal 11, no. 4 (1957): 371–81. Raeff, Marc. Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919–1939. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Raikin, Spas. “The Bulgarian Orthodox Church.” In Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, edited by Pedro Ramet, 160–82. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1988. ———. “Nationalism and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.” In Religion and Nationalism in Soviet and East European Politics, edited by Pedro Ramet, 187–206. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1984. Ramet, Pedro. “Autocephaly and National Identity in Church-State Relations in Eastern Christianity: An Introduction.” In Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, edited by Pedro Ramet, 2– 19. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1988. ———. “The Serbian Orthodox Church.” In Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, edited by Pedro Ramet, 232–48. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1988. Richter, Katja. “The Moscow Patriarchate in Estonia: Russian versus International Concerns.” Problems of Post-Communism 55, no. 1 (2008): 3– 11. Ridley, Katharine. “A Pioneer in Reunion—William Palmer.” Sobornost, no. 18 (1939): 9– 18. “Rift Threatens Orthodoxy.” Christian Century, March 20–27, 1996, 319–21. Rouse, Ruth, and Stephen Neill. A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517–1948. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.

Bibliography

|

“Russian Church Advocates Renunciation of Word ‘Ecumenism.’ ” PDS Russia Religion News, November 8, 2007. www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/ 0711a.html. Accessed February 24, 2009. “Russian Church Delegation Quits Session of Commission on OrthodoxCatholic Dialogue Because of Disagreements.” PDS Russia Religion News, October 10, 2007. www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0710a.html. Accessed February 24, 2009. “A Russian Layman on Reunion.” Christian East 1, no. 2 (1920): 92–93. Sawatsky, Walter. “Prince Alexander N. Golitsyn (1773– 1844): Tsarist Minister of Piety.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1976. Scarfe, Alan. “The Romanian Orthodox Church.” In Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, edited by Pedro Ramet, 208–31. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1988. Shepherd, Naomi. Ploughing Sand: British Rule in Palestine, 1917–1948. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1999. Sherman, A. J. Mandate Days: British Lives in Palestine, 1918–1948. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1998. Stavrou, Theofanis G. “The Orthodox Church of Greece.” In Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, edited by Pedro Ramet, 183–207. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1988. Stoeckl, Kristina. ”The Lesson of the Revolution in Russian Émigré and Contemporary Orthodox Thought.” Religion, State & Society 35, no. 4 (2007): 285–300. Tavard, George. Two Centuries of Ecumenism: The Search for Unity. Translated by Royce Hughes. Notre Dame, IN: Fides, 1960. Tretjakewitsch, Leon. Bishop Michel d’Herbigny, S.J., and Russia: A PreEcumenical Approach to Christian Unity. Wurzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1990. Tsimhoni, Daphne. “The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem during the Formative Years of the British Mandate in Palestine.” Asian and African Studies 12, no. 1 (1978): 77– 121. Valliere, Paul. Modern Russian Theology, Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov: Orthodox Theology in a New Key. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Van Dusen, Duncan. “Some Relations between the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches.” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 28, no. 1 (1959): 41–65. Vischer, Lukas. A Documentary History of the Faith and Order Movement, 1927–1963. St. Louis, MO: Bethany Press, 1963. Visser ’t Hooft, W. A. “Fr. Georges Florovsky’s Role in the Formation of the WCC.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 23, nos. 3–4 (1979): 135–38.

485

486

|

Bibliography

Williams, George. “Georges Vasilievich Florovsky: His American Career (1948– 1965).” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 11, no. 1 (1965): 7– 107. Williams, George Hunston. “Georges Florovsky’s Vision of Ecumenism.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 41, nos. 2–3 (1996): 137–58. Williams, Rowan. “George Florovsky (1893– 1979).” Sobornost 2, no. 1 (1980): 70–72. ———, ed. Sergii Bulgakov: Towards a Russian Political Theology. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999. Wohl, Robert. The Generation of 1914. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. Wybrew, Hugh. “Anglican-Romanian Orthodox Relations.” Religion in Communist Lands 16 (1988): 329–44. Yannaras, Christos. “Orthodoxy and the West.” Eastern Churches Review 3 (1971): 286–306. Yurash, Andrij. “Orthodoxy and the 2004 Ukrainian Presidential Electoral Campaign.” Religion, State & Society 33, no. 4 (2005): 367–86. Zacek, Judith Cohen. “The Russian Bible Society, 1812– 1826.” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1964. Zenkovskii, V. V. “Delo ob obvinenii o. Sergeia Bulgakova v eresi.” Viestnik Russkago khristianskago dvizheniia, no. 49 (1987): 61–65. Zürcher, Erik. Turkey: A Modern History. New York: I. B. Tauris, 1993.

Index

Aleksandr, bishop of North America appeal to President Harding for assistance, 287n.45 believes First World War will promote church unity, 32 hopes for church unity in 1926, 109 Aleksei, patriarch of Moscow on ecumenism, 267 marginalizes liberal wing of church, 264 Alivizatos, Hamilcar declares Anglican orders invalid, 217 optimism on AnglicanOrthodox rapprochement, 71–72 theological exploration and freedom of thought, 178–79 Androutsos, Christos Anglican orders, 23–24 in debate between Douglas and Fortescue, 67 Anglican Church, overview of divisions, 220–24

Anglican Evangelicals definition, 2 hostility to Orthodox theology, 47 Anglican orders Damianos’s recognition in 1923, 96–99 —reactions of Orthodox Catholic Review, 96 Meletios IV’s recognition in 1922, 88–90, 97–99 —reaction of Karlovatskii Synod, 90 —reaction of other Orthodox churches, 89–90, 94 Anglican Protestants definition, 2 Anglicans. See Anglican Evangelicals; Anglican Protestants; Anglo-Catholics Anglo-Catholics definition, 2 Anastasii, Bishop (member of Karlovatskii Synod) on Anglo-Catholicism and unity with Anglicans, 108–9

|

487

488

|

Index

Antonii, Metropolitan. See also Karlovatskii Synod on Anglican orders, 107, 332nn.43, 44, 333n.53 condemns Bulgakov’s sofiology. See sofiology distances self from ecumenical movement, 120 endorses rapprochement with Anglicans, 106–9 enjoys England, 105–6 motives for attending 1926 Jubilee in London, 101–3 opposition to Meletios IV and his reforms, 92–93 on Roman Catholicism, 63 on Russian Student Christian Movement. See Russian Student Christian Movement Apostolicae curae (papal encyclical of Anglican orders), 21–22, 53 Arsen’ev, Nikolai anger at Russian church’s absence from 1930 Lambeth Conference, 186 on Bulgakov’s intercommunion proposal. See Bulgakov, Sergei, intercommunion proposal on disarray of the Anglican Church, 221 at Faith and Order Conference in Edinburgh (1937), 210, 214 —argument with Germanos, 402n.16 at Faith and Order Conference in Lausanne (1927), 136, 140 Athens conference on Orthodox theology, 201–2 Athens, University of statement on Anglican orders, 217

Basil, Bishop moves diocese from Moscow to Constantinople, 263 Berdiaev, Nikolai active in Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 180 Berdiaev Colloquium, 57 Bolshevik Revolution as God’s judgment, 34 founds Free Religious and Spiritual Society, 46 founds Put’, 46 on Karlovatskii Synod, 237 relations with Russian émigré community, 239–40 Bezobrazov, Sergei attacks Living Church at Fellowship conference, 146 Birkbeck, W. J. travel to Russia, 18 Bolshevik Revolution impetus toward church unity, 33–36 Braikevitch, Xenia on Bulgakov’s intercommunion proposal. See Bulgakov, Sergei, intercommunion proposal Marxist sympathies, 180–81, 385nn.169, 170 —reactions in Fellowship, 180–81 branch theory of the church, 11 Brenchaninov, Archimandrite meeting with William Palmer, 12 British diplomatic aid to Greece against Turkey. See Greek-Turkish relations to Russian émigrés, 42

Index British mandate in Palestine. See also Jerusalem, patriarchate of Antonii’s designs on, 102 British parliament. See Prayer Book crisis Bulgakov, Afanasii on the Thirty-nine Articles, 22–23 Bulgakov, Sergei. See also sofiology attitude toward Anglicanism, 221 attitude toward Roman Catholicism, 59–60 Bolshevik Revolution and Russia’s sins, 34 on communing with heretics, 357n.8 discovered by Baron Pavel Nikolai, 111– 12 at early Fellowship conferences, 148, 151, 154 at the Faith and Order Conference in Edinburgh (1937), 210– 11 at the Faith and Order Conference in Lausanne (1927), 133–34, 135–36, 140 intercommunion proposal, 158–71, 181–82 —debate on the proposal (especially Arsen’ev, Braikevitch, Dobbie-Bateman, Douglas, Florovskii, Frere, Gillet, Glubokovskii, Goudge, Kartashev, Zander, Zernov), 160–71 —details of the proposal, 158–60, 368n.5 —Karlovchane condemn the proposal, 166 on Karlovatskii Synod, 178

on Russian Student Christian Movement, 113, 116 theological exploration and freedom of thought, 178–79 calendar reform. See pan-Orthodox conference (1923) Chaplin, Archpriest opposition to the West, 266 Chrysanthos of Trebizond contest with Meletios to become ecumenical patriarch, 87–88 Clarke, Bernard Marxist sympathies, 180–81 colonialism and imperialism impetus toward church reunion, 38–40 Commission on Christian Doctrine (Church of England), 223–24 reactions to report, 224 Constantinople, patriarchate of accepts Evlogii’s diocese, 236 decline between the wars, 225 Council on Eastern Churches. See Eastern Churches Committee Damalas, N. N. assessment of Anglican Church, 16– 17 Damianos, patriarch of Jerusalem abduction by Turks, 94–95 problems with Britain, 95 Davidson, Randall, archbishop of Canterbury lobbied by Greeks and Arabs in dispute over Jerusalem patriarchate, 95 manages expectations for reunion, 100

|

489

490

|

Index

Davidson, Randall, archbishop of Canterbury (cont.) on Meletios’s recognition of Anglican orders, 98 petitioned by Meletios and Chrysanthos to support their candidacies for patriarch, 87–88 position on Bolsheviks, 291n.85, 292nn.86, 88 position on Greek Christians in Turkey, 293n.94, 308n.6 troubled by practice of reservation, 122–23 “Declaration of Faith” (English Church Union), 83 reaction from English Roman Catholic press, 84 reactions from Anglicans, 84–85 signatories, 84 terms, 84 Dobbie-Bateman, A. F. on Bulgakov’s intercommunion proposal. See Bulgakov, Sergei, intercommunion proposal Döllinger, J. J. von formation of Old Catholic Church, 16 Dorotheos, locum tenus of the ecumenical patriarch appeal to Randall Davidson for assistance against Turks, 73 Douglas, John admiration for Orthodox at Lausanne (1927), 141 on Bulgakov’s intercommunion proposal. See Bulgakov, Sergei, intercommunion proposal

on doctrinal divisions between Anglicans and Orthodox, 83 feud with Adrian Fortescue over Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement, 66–68 founds The Christian East, 71 hopes for Lambeth Conference (1930), 185 on Meletios IV’s recognition of Anglican orders, 89, 98 on modernity and reunion, 36 on Prayer Book crisis, 129 response to Androutsos on Anglican orders, 24 support for Meletios IV’s reforms, 91–92 World War I and reunion, 33 Eastern Churches Association (ECA) founded by John Mason Neal, 14 mission and early work, 15 Eastern Churches Committee (Church of England). See also “Terms of Intercommunion” charged by Archbishop Davidson to draft “Terms of Intercommunion,” 82 foundation, 72 Ecclesiam Dei (papal encyclical on Uniats) anger generated among Orthodox, 55 economy Douglas and Glubokovskii disagree on its utility, 83 overview and principles, 27, 282n.94

Index patriarch of Antioch administers communion to an Anglican, 285n.19 Roman Catholic assessment of economy, 306n.98 Edinburgh Conference (1937). See Faith and Order Conference at Edinburgh (1937) emigration, Russian, 37 relief efforts by Anglicans, 37–38 English Church Union (ECU). See also Lambeth Conference (1920) condemnation of Mansfield statement, 74, 309n.15 produces its own “Declaration of Faith” (1922). See “Declaration of Faith” World War I and reunion, 33 establishment. See also Prayer Book crisis efforts in England to end, 41 efforts in Russia to end, 41, 129–30 Evlogii, Metropolitan assessment of pre-war efforts toward unity, 29 attitudes toward Roman Catholicism, 60–61 delighted by England, 103–4 at Faith and Order Conference in Edinburgh (1937), 209, 211, 213 feud with Antonii and Karlovatskii Synod, 234–37 optimism for AnglicanOrthodox rapprochement, 104–5

|

places self under patriarchate of Constantinople, 235 shifting attitudes toward Metropolitan Sergei and church in Moscow, 233, 235 Faith and Order Conference at Edinburgh (1937), 208– 17 Anglican divisions, 215 Anglo-Catholic response to Orthodox position, 215 Anglo-Catholic unhappiness with the conference, 215 divisions among confessions, 211– 12 on Mother of God, 210– 11 Orthodox contributions to reports, 210– 11 Protestant reactions to AngloCatholics and Orthodox, 215 tensions within Orthodox delegation, 209– 10, 213 unhappiness of Orthodox delegates with declaration, 213– 14 Faith and Order Conference at Lausanne (1927), 132–42 Anglican divisions, 139 Anglican reactions to Orthodox position, 138–39 Anglo-Catholic responses to Orthodox position, 141 reports, 136 unhappiness of Orthodox delegates with declaration, 136–38 Filaret, Metropolitan ecumenical sympathies and catechism, 10– 11 meeting with William Palmer, 12, 13

491

492

|

Index

Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 143–57, 158–71, 176–83. See also Bulgakov, Sergei, intercommunion proposal; sofiology first conference, 146–49 Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, foundation and early issues, 154–56 membership, 356n.5 rejects Protestant orientations, 155–56 second conference, 149–52 strained relations with other Christian organizations, 182–83 filioque Damalas, N. N., objections to, 17 definition, 4 Finnish-Anglican negotiations, 202 Florovskii, Georges alienates Orthodox colleagues, 239 Bolshevik Revolution as God’s judgment, 34 at Faith and Order Conference in Edinburgh (1937), 210, 212, 401n.9, 405nn.36, 37, 408n.61 on freedom of thought in Orthodoxy, 179–80 on intercommunion in general, 370n.25 —on Bulgakov’s intercommunion proposal. See Bulgakov, Sergei, intercommunion proposal joins Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 152–53, 262n.68

reactions to his Ways of Russian Theology, 238–39 on sofiology. See sofiology work for and opinion of World Council of Churches, 255–56 Fortescue, Adrian on Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement, 66–68 free churches. See also Lambeth Conference (1920) discussions with Church of England on episcopacy, 310n.35 Frere, Walter, bishop admired by Orthodox, 104 on Bulgakov’s intercommunion proposal. See Bulgakov, Sergei, intercommunion proposal Garbett, Cyril, archbishop of York visits Moscow patriarchate, 251 Germanos, Archbishop attitude toward Anglicanism, 221 at Faith and Order Conference in Edinburgh (1937), 213– 14, 406n.45 —argument with Arsen’ev, 402n.16 at Faith and Order Conference in Lausanne (1927), 134 threat of modernity Gillet, Lev on Bulgakov’s intercommunion proposal. See Bulgakov, Sergei, intercommunion proposal Global Anglican Futures Conference. See homosexuality

Index Glubokovskii, Nikolai assault on free churches at Lausanne (1927), 134 on Bulgakov’s intercommunion proposal. See Bulgakov, Sergei, intercommunion proposal hopes for church unity, 109 hostility toward Roman Catholicism, 61–62, 303nn.71, 72, 75 praise for John Douglas, 83 Gore, Charles, bishop on Anglican reunion with Roman Catholicism, 69 Goudge, Canon on Bulgakov’s intercommunion proposal. See Bulgakov, Sergei, intercommunion proposal Greek-Turkish relations interest of Orthodox and British Christians, 42–46 Halifax, Lord. See Malines conversations (1921–25) Headlam, Arthur, bishop of Gloucester authors “Terms of Intercommunion,” 82 d’Herbigny, Père Michel on Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement, 65 Holy Synod of Russia on Anglicanism, 21 homosexuality Anglican divisions over, 270–72 and criticism by Moscow patriarchate —of discussions at WCC meeting in Harare, 268

—of discussions within World Council of Churches, 270 —of ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson, 270 Institut de Théologie de Paris. See Russian Orthodox Theological Institute (Paris) Jerusalem, patriarchate of Antonii’s fears about its independence from Russia, 97 overview of patriarchate (1920s), 94–97 parallels with patriarchate of Constantinople, 95–96 tensions between Greek hierarchy and Arab laity, 95 Joint Doctrinal Commission (1931), 193–97 Anglican reaction, 198 issues —definition of dogma, 193–94 —formation of Commission at Lambeth Conference (1930), 193 —Nicene Creed and filioque, 195 —sacraments, 195–96 —Scripture, 194–95 Orthodox reaction —Germanos, Archbishop, 197 —Hermopolis, Nicholas, 197 Roman Catholic reaction. See Leeming, Bernard Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius. See Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius

|

493

494

|

Index

Jubilee negotiations between Anglicans and Orthodox (1926), 100– 109 English Roman Catholic press attempts to dissuade Russians from attending, 102–3 problems with invitations, 101 Julian calendar. See pan-Orthodox conference (1923) Karlovatskii Synod affiliation with patriarchate of Serbia, 229 attacks on Russian Orthodox Theological Institute (Paris), 237–38 feud with Constantinople, 226 feud with Evlogii and Russian Church in Western Europe, 234–37 forbids Orthodox from participating in ecumenical movement, 216 opposition to Meletios IV and his reforms, 92–93 relations with ecumenical patriarchate, 93 on Roman Catholicism, 62 on Russian Student Christian Movement. See Russian Student Christian Movement Karpov, Andrei on Roman Catholicism, 62–63 Kartashev, Anton on Bulgakov’s intercommunion proposal. See Bulgakov, Sergei, intercommunion proposal

Khomiakov, Aleksei correspondence with William Palmer, 13 on non-Orthodox confessions, 276n.21 on Roman Catholicism, 49–50 Kikuyu conferences (1908–26) response from Anglo-Catholics and Orthodox, 39–40 Kireev, Aleksandr, and Slavophiles on reunion with Anglicans, 277 Kirill, patriarch of Moscow criticisms of ecumenical movement, 265–66 criticisms of the West, 265 Komnenos, Panteleimon treatise on Anglican ordinations, 81 —influence of on Meletios, 88 Kullmann, Gustav urges Russian Student Christian Movement not to become insular, 114 Kutnevik, Vasilii, archpriest examination of William Palmer, 12– 13 Lambeth Conference, power of, 278n.50 Lambeth Conference (1888) resolution on Orthodox Churches, 18–20 Lambeth Conference (1897) discussions about Orthodox Churches, 20 Lambeth Conference (1908) appointment of committee on relations with Orthodox, 20–21

Index Lambeth Conference (1920) affirms Lambeth Quadrilateral, 75 delegation from ecumenical patriarchate, 73 encyclical on church unity, 32–33 on non-episcopal ministries, 76 Orthodox delegation. See also Joint Doctrinal Commission —agreement to form Joint Doctrinal Commission, 80 —final report on Lambeth Conference, 79–80 reactions —from Anglo-Catholics, 77–78 —from English Church Union, 77–78 —from English Roman Catholic press, 80–81 —from free churches, 76–77 “Report on Relations to and Reunion with Episcopal Churches,” 73 Lambeth Conference (1930), 185–97. See also Joint Doctrinal Commission concerns of free churches, 187 eschewal of Malines conversations, 58 negotiations between Anglicans and Orthodox, 187–92 —apostolic succession, 189 —authority in Church of England, 188 — economy, 190–91 — enforcement of Anglican doctrine, 188

|

— eucharist, 190 —Orthodox statements of faith, 189 —prayers for the dead, 190 —sacraments, 189 —“Terms of Intercommunion,” 187–88 —Thirty-nine Articles, 189 reaction from Orthodox —Arsen’ev, 192–93 —Meletios, 199–200 reactions from English press, 186–87 reactions from free churches, 199 Lambeth Quadrilateral. See also Mansfield Statement defended at Lambeth Conference (1920), 75 issuance, 19–20 reaction of evangelicals and free churches, 279n.57, 280n.60 Lang, Cosmo Gordon, archbishop invites Orthodox to Lambeth Conference (1930), 185 on Soviet treatment of Russian church, 231–32, 417n.98 urges Joint Doctrinal Commission to be cautious, 193, 196 Lausanne Conference (1927). See Faith and Order Conference at Lausanne (1927) Leeming, Bernard assessment of Joint Doctrinal Commission, 197–98 assessment of Lambeth Conference (1930), 188

495

496

|

Index

Living Church (Soviet concoction) attacked and defended at Fellowship conference, 146–47 attacked by Karlovatskii Synod, 321n.31 recognition by Meletios IV, 90 Lucaris, Cyril rapprochement with Protestantism, 10 Malines conversations (1921–25), 57–59 Mansfield Statement reactions from Anglo-Catholics, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, 74 terms, 74 Meletios, patriarch of Alexandria. See Meletios IV, patriarch of Constantinople Meletios IV, patriarch of Constantinople assumption to patriarchal throne of Constantinople, 86–88 —as a Venizelist, 87 deposition as patriarch, 98–99 feud with Metropolitan Antonii, 91–93 physical description, 86 recognition of Anglican orders. See Anglican orders “Unto All the Churches” (1920 encyclical), 36, 72 Mercier, Désiré. See Malines conversations (1921–25) Miron, patriarch of Romania, 203 missions, Christian impetus toward church reunion, 38–40

modernity church unity as defense against, 35–37 Mortalium animos (papal encyclical on ecumenical movement) Anglican and Orthodox reactions, 53–54 Moscow conference of 1948 (500th anniversary of Russian autocephaly), 252–55 condemns ecumenical movement, 254–55 condemns Karlovatskii Synod, 254 condemns Roman Catholic Church, 254 dismisses Anglican orders, 253–54 Moscow patriarchate. See also Orthodox churches between the wars feuds with Orthodox churches —in Britain, 263 —in Bulgaria, 262 —in Constantinople, 261 —in Estonia, 261–62 —in Ukraine, 262 relations with World Council of Churches, 268 Mott, John. See also YMCA co-founds Russian Student Christian Movement, 111 Murav’ev, A. N. meeting with William Palmer, 12 Neale, John Mason translation of Eastern Orthodox liturgies, 14

Index Nicene Creed Jubilee celebration in London (1926). See Jubilee negotiations between Anglicans and Orthodox (1926) Nikolai, Baron Pavel co-founds Russian Student Christian Movement, 111 Old Catholic Church formation, 15– 16 negotiations with Anglicans and Orthodox, 16 questions on Anglican orders, 25–26 ordination of women Protestant Episcopal Church (United States), 269–70 Orthodox Church (overview of divisions), 224–45 Orthodox churches between the wars Cypriot Church, 225 Greek Church, 226–27, 228 Karlovatskii Synod. See Karlovatskii Synod patriarchate of Antioch, 225 patriarchate (disputed) of Bulgaria, 227–28, 229 patriarchate of Constantinople. See Constantinople, patriarchate of patriarchate of Jerusalem, 225 patriarchate of Moscow. See Russian Orthodox Church patriarchate of Serbia, 228–31 Russian Orthodox churches in the United States, 240–41

|

Orthodox conference (1923). See pan-Orthodox conference (1923) Orthodox divisions after World War II, 261–64 Overbeck, J. J. desire to form a Western Orthodox Church, 13– 14 Oxford movement overview, 276n.30 relations with Roman Catholicism, 51–52 Palestine. See also Jerusalem, patriarchate of interest of Anglicans, 44 Palmer, William, 11– 13 pan-Orthodox conference (1923), 90–94 calendar reform, 90–92 pan-Orthodox synod, failed attempts to organize, 184, 241–45 failure to schedule preparatory conference, 243–44 as means to promote ecumenical agreements, 241–42, 244–45 papal infallibility implications for ecumenism, 52–53 reactions from Anglicans and Orthodox, 52–53 Parker, Matthew overview, 274n.10 study by I. P. Sokolov on whether Parker’s ordination was valid, 25 Parliament, British. See Prayer Book crisis

497

498

|

Index

Pius XI, pope protests Soviet treatment of Russian Church, 231 Platon, Archbishop accusations against Rome, 304n.76 appeal to President Harding for assistance, 287n.45 response to I. P. Sokolov on Anglican orders, 27–28 Popovich, Justin aversion to ecumenism and Western Europe, 230 Praeclara gratulationis (papal encyclical on reunion of churches under Rome) reaction from Orthodox, 53 text, 298n.12 Prayer Book crisis, 122–31 Church of England Assembly Act, 124 compromise solution, 123 Evangelical reaction, 126 fears of Roman-Catholic incursions, 126 Joynston-Hicks, William, opposition to new Prayer Book, 126 Protestant Alliance, 125 Protestant’s Pilgrimage in Defense of the Reformation, 125 questions about establishment, 127–28, 130 reactions by Orthodox to defeat of revised Prayer Book, 128–31 transubstantiation, 123–24 pro-synod. See pan-Orthodox synod, failed attempts to organize

Pusey, Edward on church reunion and Roman Catholicism, 51–52 reservation (of the eucharistic elements) overview, 122, 339n.2, 340n.8, 341n.19 practice and controversy, 122–23 Roman Catholic ecumenical efforts between the wars, 57–59 Roman Catholic press on Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement, 64–69 Romanian-Anglican negotiations, 204–7 explanation for agreement, 205–6 reactions from Protestant Anglicans, 206–7 terms of agreement, 204–5, 339n.22 Romanian-Vatican concordat, 204, 415n.86 Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund establishment, 37–38 potential effects from Bulgakov’s sofiology, 178 Russian Orthodox Church Metropolitan Sergei. See Sergei, metropolitan of Moscow Patriarch Tikhon. See Tikhon, patriarch of Moscow splits in Poland and Ukraine, 231 Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. See also Karlovatskii Synod act of communion with Moscow patriarchate, 264

Index attitude toward World Council of Churches, 267–68 relations with other Orthodox bodies, 267 Russian Orthodox Theological Institute (Paris) divisions among its faculty, 238–39 foundation, 38 Russian Revolution. See Bolshevik Revolution Russian Sobor of 1917 on Anglican Church, 73 support for ecumenical activity, 46 Russian Student Christian Movement (RSCM), 110–20 Antonii, Metropolitan, on, 117– 18, 119, 120 Chetverikov defends, 119 foundation, 111 Karlovatskii Synod on, 114– 15, 117– 18 —resolution condemning RSCM, 114 relations with Russian and nonRussian churches, 112– 14, 116 relations with YMCA, 116 support for Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 119 Zenkovskii defends, 117, 118– 19 Zernov defends, 115, 116 Saint Sergius Theological Institute. See Russian Orthodox Theological Institute (Paris) secularization. See modernity Serbian students studying in England, 40–41 Serbian-Vatican concordat, 230–31

|

Sergei, metropolitan of Moscow. See also Evlogii, Metropolitan; sofiology on apostolic succession, 234 demands Evlogii sign loyalty oath, 235 dismisses Evlogii as head of Russian church in Western Europe, 233 on ecumenism, 233 loses credibility with other Christian churches, 232–33 opposes pan-Orthodox synod, 245 praises patriotism of Anglican clergy, 251 on splinter Russian Orthodox groups in United States, 241 sobornost definition, 275n.20 Sofia. See sofiology sofiology, of Bulgakov (theories and proposals) defense of —by Berdiaev, 175 —by Put’, 175 —by Viestnik, 175 —by Zander, 177 Evlogii’s commission on, 173–74 inspiration and vision of Sofia, 175 outline of Bulgakov’s theory, 172, 176, 376n.100, 379n.115, 383n.141 reactions —Antonii, 173, 376n.99 —Chetverikov, 174–75 —Dobbie-Bateman, 383n.145 —Evlogii, 379n.113 —Florovskii, 172, 173–74, 377n.140, 379n.115, 380n.120

499

500

|

Index

sofiology, of Bulgakov (theories and proposals) (cont.) —Grabbe, Count, 173, 378n.111 —Lagovskii, 381n.127 —Loskii, 174–75 —Sergei, metropolitan of Moscow, 172–73, 377n.107 worries about implications for the Fellowship, 177–78 Sokolov, I. P. study of Anglican orders and the Thirty-nine Articles, 24–27 Sokolov, V. A. on Anglican orders and the Thirty-nine Articles, 22 Solov’ev, Vladimir on Roman Catholicism, 50–51 Stalin, Iosif treatment of Russian Orthodox Church after World War II, 251, 252 Stefan, metropolitan of Bulgaria at World Conference of Faith and Order in Lausanne (1927), 134 Student Christian Movement (SCM) founded in Britain, 111 “Terms of Intercommunion” (Eastern Churches Committee), 82–83 Thirty-nine Articles. See also Androutsos, Christos; Bulgakov, Afanasii; Damalas, N. N.; Sokolov, I. P.; Sokolov, V. A. explanations to Orthodox, 312n.49 overview, 275n.15

Tikhon, patriarch of Moscow, 231–32 Treaty of Lausanne (1923). See Greek-Turkish relations Troitskii, Sergei on church reunion, 28 Tsankov, Stefan at the Faith and Order Conference in Edinburgh (1937), 214 at the Faith and Order Conference in Lausanne (1927), 135 Turkish-Greek relations. See Greek-Turkish relations Turkish Orthodox Church parallels with Soviet Living Church, 44 Uniatism and Uniats overview, 54, 299n.22 suspicion of Roman intentions among Anglicans and Orthodox, 54–57 Vatican-Romanian concordat, 204, 415n.86 Venizelos, Premier Eleftherios relations with Greek Orthodox Church, 87 support from Meletios, 87 World Council of Churches (WCC) 8th general assembly in Harare (1988) —Orthodox disunion at, 268 9th general assembly in Porto Alegre (2006) —Orthodox praise for limited aims, 268–69

Index as affirmation of ecumenical movement’s failings, 255–58 Bulgarian Orthodox Church criticizes, 269 Florovskii’s work for. See Florovskii, Georges, work for and opinion of World Council of Churches Georgian Orthodox Church withdraws from, 269 World War I impetus for reunion, 30–33 World War II ends reunion hopes, 218– 19 YMCA activities in Russia, 277n.34 as publisher of Russian Orthodox literature, 46

Zander, Lev on Bulgakov’s intercommunion proposal. See Bulgakov, Sergei, intercommunion proposal at Faith and Order Conference in Edinburgh (1937), 212, 214, 216 Zernov, Nicolas attitudes toward Anglicanism, 221 attitudes toward Roman Catholicism, 61 on Bulgakov’s intercommunion proposal. See Bulgakov, Sergei, intercommunion proposal at first Fellowship conference, 147, 148–49

|

501

BRYN GEFFERT is USMA Librarian and associate professor of history at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York.