The Separated Eastern Churches 159333110X, 9781593331108

Citation preview

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES

THE

SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES By

The Rev. Père Janin Translated by

The Very Revd. Canon P. Boylan, M.A., D.Litt., D.D.

GORGIAS p r e s s 2004

First Gorgias Press Edition, 2004. The special contents of this edition are copyright €> 2004 by Gorgias Press LLC. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey. This edition is a facsimile reprint of the original edition published by Sands & Co., London, 1933.

I S B N 1-59333-110-X

GORGIAS PRESS

46 Orris Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com

Printed and bound in the United States of America.

PREFACE THE important question of the union of the Churches is now more than ever the topic of the hour. Since the Great War the nations have keenly felt the need of understanding each other better, and to many of them the Church has seemed to be the power most capable of establishing an international Entente that would serve as a pledge of peace and security. As a preliminary to such an Entente the various Christian groups would all, of course, have to strive to re-establish among themselves the union which the course of centuries has disrupted. Catholics have never ceased to work for Christian reunion, and Protestants and Orientals have in our days deliberately joined in the movement for reunion; and if the preoccupations that spring from nationalism and particularism can be put out of sight, and truth alone be sought after, that movement may produce fruitful results. But, on the other hand, if the movement is not so directed as to exclude arrièrepensée, it may only tend to intensify division and to prolong the schism. Some Catholics have held that the most effective method of establishing union was to ignore the points of doctrine denied, or doubted, by the dissenters, and to concentrate on the points on which the Churches were agreed. These Catholics entered into direct relations with the dissenters and made no secret of their sympathy for the "Pan-Christian movement." Pius XI, in his encyclical Mortalium Animos of 6th January, 1928, pointed out the dangers of this policy, 5

PREFACE and reaffirmed the teaching of his predecessors that the union of all Christians can be effected only on the basis of truth, and by complete and unreserved submission to the Sovereign Pontiff, the Visible Head of the Church, and Christ's Vicar on earth. Catholics ought, therefore, to make it their aim to instruct and to bring back those who have strayed away. For this it is first of all necessary to know thoroughly the wayward ones, so as to be able to adopt towards them the attitude which will produce the most favourable results. The West is sufficiently informed about the Protestant sects, but familiarity with the Eastern Churches it leaves to a small group of specialists. Manuals of Church history either pay no attention to the Eastern Churches subsequently to the schism of Michael Cerularius (1054), or content themselves with supplying incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, information concerning them. It was not always thus. In the sixteenth and the eighteenth centuries several works on the Oriental Churches were published by very competent authorities. In this department the greatest service has been given to the Church by men like Allatius, Baronius, Le Quien, Renaudot, Goar and Assemani. This tradition of scholarship was almost completely interrupted towards the close of the eighteenth century by the French Revolution. During the last thirty years it has been solidly resumed, and the greatest efforts are being made by various religious institutions to maintain and develop it. The erection at Rome of the Congregation Pro Ecclesia Orietitali and the foundation of the Pontifical Oriental Institute (1917), the encouragement given to specialist congresses aiming at the reunion of the Churches, and the encyclical, Rerutn 6

PREFACE Orientalium of His Holiness, Pius XI (8th September, 1928) which deals with Oriental ecclesiastical studies, are all clear evidences that an interest in the East which is full of promise has been again aroused, and that the Holy See expects from that revival of interest consoling results. It is in the hope of contributing in some slight way to that revival that we have undertaken the publication of this work—which aims at making more widely known the Separated Eastern Churches. R. JANIN.

Constantinople, June 29th, 1929.

7

CONTENTS Chapter

Page

PREFACE

I. II. III.

5

INTRODUCTION

II

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN GENERAL .

17

THE INDIVIDUAL CHURCHES

38

ORTHODOX

GREEK .

65

V.

THE CHURCHES OF SERBIA AND BULGARIA .

122

VI.

THE RUMANIAN AND GEORGIAN CHURCHES

147

THE ARMENIAN CHURCHES

.

173

VIII.

THE SYRIAN AND NESTORIAN CHURCHES .

191

IX.

THE COPTIC AND ETHIOPIAN CHURCHES .

211

IV.

VII.

THE ORTHODOX MELKITE CHURCHES THE RUSSIAN CHURCH

BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX

.

. .

93

.

. .

9

.

. .

. .

- 2 3 5 .

237

INTRODUCTION THE EASTERN CHURCHES

Their Origin. By the Eastern Churches we usually understand the Christian groups of Eastern Europe, nearer Asia, and North-East Africa, which are the heirs of the primitive Christian communities of those countries, and follow a rite differing from that which, because of the language it uses, is known as the Latin Rite. This definition, which is based chiefly on geography, is not quite satisfactory, for the Latin Church and the Protestant sects both possess compact groups of adherents in the East, and many of the Orientals have settled outside their homeland, in Western Europe, and above all, in America. We shall, however, use the traditional designation, for want of a better. The Various Eastern Churches. The diversity of Eastern Churches does not date from our time. Already in the fifth century we can see the movement taking shape which was to lead nations to establish national Churches independent of one another. Some national Churches were the outcome of heresy. Others were set up for reasons of national selfinterest. Some of them disappeared as a result of political developments; but the reawakening of nations since the first quarter of the nineteenth century and the events which, during the past hundred years, have shaken and transformed the East, have had the effect, II

INTRODUCTION not merely of reviving ancient Churches, but of creating new ones. The East was never so divided ecclesiastically as it is to-day. At the beginning of the fifth century the Byzantine Empire had three Patriarchates—Alexandria, and Antioch—which were regarded as being of Apostolic origin—and Constantinople, which was founded in 381, and obtained its definitive constitution at the Council of Chalcedon (451). The Patriarchate of Jerusalem was established in 451. The Churches of Persia and Iberia (Georgia) depend nominally on the Patriarchate of Antioch. The Patriarchate of Alexandria exercises suzerainty over Ethiopia. The Church of Armenia has already freed itself from obedience to Caesarea of Cappadocia, the metropolitan authority of which directed its primitive organisation. The Church of Persia was the first to plunge into schism. It gave a favourable reception to the heresy of Nestorius in its School of Edessa, and then the heresy spread rapidly in the country, and became the official creed. The bishops went so far as to obtain enactments from the Shahs of Persia making the profession of Nestorianism obligatory for all the Christians of their realms, and thus abolishing such sympathy for the Roman Empire as the Christians might otherwise entertain. By the end of the fifth century the schism was complete. The Church of Persia is quite autonomous, and has its Katholikos, or Patriarch, at Seleucia— Ctesiphon. Nestorianism aroused a violent reaction which led to Monophysism. This heresy, which was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (451), had many supporters among the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, and spread rapidly in these centres, in spite of the persecutions of the Byzantine emperors. The mass of the

12

INTRODUCTION people, seeing in the heresy a means of shaking off the yoke of the Greeks, willingly followed their religious chiefs in schism and heresy. Yet it was found impossible to establish separate individual churches until the sixth century. Then began the Jacobite Church in Syria and Mesopotamia, and the Coptic Church in Egypt. The Armenians early adopted Monophysism, and proclaimed their complete independence in 491. The heresy was carried into Ethiopia by the religious rulers who were sent thither, according to tradition, from Egypt. Thus at the close of the sixth century the southern provinces of the Byzantine Empire were schismatical and heretical, with the exception of a small minority who remained loyal to the official teaching of Constantinople. Monothelism, which was an attempt at reconciling Monophysism with Catholic teaching, enjoyed for forty years the imperial favour; it succeeded afterwards, however, in maintaining itself only in the Lebanon mountains, among the Maronites. It disappeared completely when the Maronites became Catholic. It was not heresy but political considerations which led the really Greek Church to separate from Rome. The Patriarchate of Constantinople had gradually acquired a dominant influence in the Byzantine Empire. The Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch had lost much of their importance through heresy, and that of Jerusalem never was very important. All these had fallen under the power of the Moslem Arabs in the seventh century. Constantinople became thus the official Church. Not satisfied with uncontested control of the East, it developed steadily a tendency towards disregard of Rome. From the fourth to the seventh century it was several times in schism, either on

INTRODUCTION account of matters concerning its own government, or as the result of heresies patronised by the Court. The more and more definitely pronounced separation between the East and West after the invasion of the barbarians, the independent growth of each Church, and, finally, the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire of the West (800) had gradually set up an unfortunate antagonism of which Photius took advantage to precipitate division. The schism existed already in men's minds. As soon as it became popular among the monks, whose influence over the people was profound, it was solidly established. Union, maintained with difficulty after the time of Photius, was broken again, and this time without opposition, by Michael Cerularius. The Councils of Lyons (1274) Florence (1439) set up merely ephemeral reconciliations which were really dictated by political needs. The Iberians, or Georgians, had followed the example of the Greeks. The Slav peoples who had come to the Christian faith through the agency of Constantinople (the Bulgars and Serbs in the ninth, and the Russians in the tenth centuries), followed their teachers in schism, so that at the time of the Crusades, the whole East was in separation from Rome. The Popes, however, did not lose interest in their wayward children. They sent to them first the Franciscans and Dominicans in the thirteenth century, and later on, various other religious orders—Carmelites, Capuchins, Jesuits, etc., who succeeded in organising the Catholic Churches of the Eastern rite. In the tenth century the Bulgars, in the thirteenth the Serbs, and in the sixteenth the Russians established for themselves autonomous Patriarchates. The Bulgar and Serb Patriarchates, after many vicissitudes, were, at last, absorbed in that of Constantinople (eighteenth 14

INTRODUCTION century). The Patriarchate of Moscow steadily developed, and imposed its jurisdiction on all Russian lands. The nineteenth century witnessed tha revenge of the enslaved peoples. The Serbs, Greeks, Rumanians and Bulgars in turn shook off the jurisdiction of Constantinople, and gave themselves National Churches. The recent peace treaties have still further increased the number of Christian groups. There are at present more or less autonomous communities in Finland, Esthonia, Poland, etc. Others have been created in Czecho-Slovakia, Albania, America, etc. The Church of Iberia has regained its independence, and the annexation of various provinces by Serbia and Rumania has made it possible to concentrate into one Church a number of Churches which owed their origin to territorial divisions. In the result, however, the Eastern Churches are more numerous than ever. Difference of Rite. Schism and heresy are not the only ground of the diversity of Eastern Churches. Rite must also be taken into account. During the first centuries certain cities had the privilege of supplying the Christian communities in their neighbourhood with the formulae and ceremonies of worship. In the East, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Caesarea of Cappadocia were such cities. Constantinople exercised no influence of this kind until the fourth century, but she then quickly acquired a preponderating influence. The rite of Antioch was preserved with certain modifications by the Jacobite Church, and became the Syrian Rite, properly socalled. The Church of Persia modified that rite for its own use, and thence has come the Chaldaean Rite. In Egypt the rite of Alexandria prevailed among the Copts, and made its way with them into Ethiopia, IS

INTRODUCTION where it has undergone certain changes. The Armenians borrowed their rite from Caesarea of Cappadocia, and from Antioch, but they gave it a peculiar form. The Byzantine Rite which developed at Constantinople from the fourth to the tenth century, gradually imposed itself on the whole Empire. It even crossed the border of the Empire, and established itself among the Slavs—making use of their language. An analogous development took place in Iberia (Georgia). In modern times this rite uses such various national languages as Rumanian, Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese, Japanese, Finnish, etc. Yet it varies very little in the different Churches that follow it. This rapid historical survey shows how complicated is the study of the Separated Eastern Churches. At the first glance it seems difficult to find one's way through this maze of rites, nationalities, beliefs, and hierarchies. It is only by a thorough familiarity with ecclesiastical history that one can move here at ease. At the moment unfortunately, there exists no work that deals fully with the whole matter, and the preparation of such a work is exceptionally difficult on account of the insufficiency of data available for the study of the subject.

16

CHAPTER

I

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN GENERAL

I. Orthodox Teaching THE great majority of Oriental dissenters—160 million out of 172—belong to the Byzantine Rite. Though the various groups of these Churches are not bound together by any bond of mutual dependence, they all claim, nevertheless, to belong to the same Church— chiefly it would seem, because they all accept the same religious teaching. They call themselves "Orthodox," and it has become customary to concede to them that title—at least as a distinguishing epithet. It is to be noted, however, that the other Oriental dissenters also proclaim themselves "Orthodox." This, of course, is inevitable, for no group of Christians can admit that it is in error, without giving up thereby its right to exist. T h e doctrine of the Orthodox differs from that of Catholics in a certain number of dogmatic points. Differences of Canon Law and Liturgy which exist, and about which the Orthodox often make complaint against us, cannot here be considered. T h e essential point of difference concerns the nature of the Church. T h e Orthodox refuse to admit that the Church must be One externally: each nation, they say, has the right to give itself a special religious organisation of its own, but all remain subject to the same invisible Head, our Lord Jesus Christ. In virtue of this principle they recognise no authority in the Pope outside his PatriarchB 17

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES ate, and a fortiori they reject Papal Infallibility as an innovation involving denial of the right of an Oecumenical Council. Here lies the central point of their schism. The other dogmas rejected by the Orthodox— the Filioque, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, etc., are of course, sufficiently important, but when the whole question is closely examined, the controversy on these matters will be found to have a mainly historical interest. If the Orthodox came to admit the necessity of unity for the Church under the rule of the Pope, they would be easily led by the mere perusal of the Eastern Fathers to accept the other points of Catholic Dogma. It is to be noted, in passing, that the Orthodox display a natural tendency to minimise the importance of certain doctrines in proportion as the Roman Church tends to give them special prominence. This one finds to be true in particular of the Immaculate Conception and the Primacy of St. Peter and his successors. Liturgical texts have been changed or suppressed simply because they expressed too clearly the belief of the Ancient Eastern Church in these two truths. In many important points the faith of the Orthodox is at one with the faith of the Catholics. But it is certain that the infiltration of Protestant and Rationalist ideas has already considerably modified the beliefs which the Orthodox have received from their ancestors. The doctrine of free private inquiry has made undoubted progress among them, and rationalism has gained many adherents among their educated ecclesiastics.

18

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN GENERAL II. The Various Orthodox Groups The Churches of the Byzantine Rite recruit their members from six peoples chiefly—Greeks, Slavs, Syrians, Rumanians, Georgians and Albanians. The Greeks hold the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Synodal Church of Greece, and the Archbishopric of Cyprus. The Syrians, or Melkites, are practically the only subjects of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem; in the Patriarchate of Alexandria they are in the minority because of the strength of Greek immigration. The Archbishopric of Sinai may be regarded as Greek: its importance is very slight. The Slavs form the great bulk of the "Orthodox"— 138 millions out of 160. There are 125 millions of Russian Orthodox—but these are divided at the moment into several rival Churches—not to speak of numerous sects. The Serbs, who formerly were divided into five ecclesiastical groupings, form since 1920 a single Church. The Bulgars have had a National Church since 1872. The Rumanians were divided into four groups before the Great War; but in 1925 they established a National Patriarchate which includes practically all the Orthodox of Rumanian race. The Georgians possessed a National Church for many centuries. In 1811 they were forcibly incorporated in the Russian Church; but in 1917 they shook off that yoke and re-established the national Katholikate. In 1929 the Orthodox Albanians, without obtaining permission from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, set themselves up as an independent Church.

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES

III. Mutual Relations of the Orthodox Churches For many centuries the Patriarchate of Constantinople has vainly sought to have its sovereign authority over all the East acknowledged, as the authority of the Pope is accepted in all the West. It has not succeeded in preventing the establishment of National Churches, for these Churches are products of the spirit which produced the Church of Constantinople itself. Willingly, therefore, or otherwise, Constantinople has come to recognise these new communities. It has, however, succeeded in maintaining a primacy of dignity and in holding a sort of special prestige in the eyes of the Orthodox throughout the world. Moreover, no other Church, as a rule, makes an important decision without reporting it to Constantinople. T o Constantinople also belongs the initiative in summoning that General Orthodox Council which the circumstances of the time seem conspiring to postpone. T h e Patriarchate of Constantinople has no right to intervene directly in the government of the Churches which have become autonomous. Attempts of the Constantinople Patriarchate to intervene in the affairs of other Churches under pretext of giving fraternal advice have been very unfavourably received by the Churches concerned. Official relations among the various Churches are normally slight. T h e nomination of every religious head—patriarch or archbishop—is notified to all the Churches by letters which are called Letters of Peace, but replies are not always sent to these letters. In the next place certain Churches have the right of supplying to others the Holy Chrism. Formerly the Patriarch of Constantinople alone had the right to bless the Chrism. Russia obtained that privilege in the 20

T H E ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN GENERAL seventeenth century; the various Churches of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire obtained it somewhat later, and in 1882 Rumania received it. Quite recently it was customary for the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Churches of Bulgaria and Montenegro to seek the Chrism from Petrograd. In 1923 the Bulgars received it at Bucharest. Nowadays only the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem, the Archbishopric of Cyprus, and the Church of Greece, and some of the new autonomous Churches make application for it to Constantinople. In our days relations among the Orthodox Churches are generally cordial—doubtless owing to the settlement of questions that used to cause irritation. It was not always thus, and the nineteenth century in particular witnessed many a dispute about the independence of the National Churches, and many a conflict of jurisdiction. Often indeed politics played a greater part than religion in such matters, and not even yet have all grounds of disagreement been removed. Since 1872 the Greek Churches have looked on the Bulgars as schismatics, and will hold no official communication with the Holy Synod of Sofia. The other Churches have never approved of this attitude, and they keep up fraternal relations with the alleged schismatics. For ten years the Greek Churches refused to acknowledge the native Patriarch whom the Melkites of Antioch set up for themselves in 1899. In 1909 the Greek Churches broke off relations with the Patriarch of Jerusalem—a Greek, alleging that his policy was injurious to the Greeks. The Patriarch of Alexandria kept up the attitude of ignoring that Prelate for more than a quarter of a century (1897-1923). In 1925 the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Jerusalem approved of the Synodal Church of Moscow: there 21

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES followed on this strained relations between the Church of Tichon and the Synod of Carlovtsi—which claims to govern Russian exiles. Moreover, the young Church of Albania, proclaimed as independent in 1929, has, so far, failed to secure the official recognition of any of its sister Churches. The reform of the Calendar has also occasioned disagreements. The Churches of Constantinople, Greece, Cyprus, Poland, and Rumania put the reform into practice in 1924; the Church of Georgia did so in 1927, and that of Alexandria in 1928. The Patriarchate of Antioch decided to adopt it at the end of 1928. But the Russians, Serbs, and Bulgars, as well as the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, still remain faithful to the Julian Calendar. This question of the Calendar is to be discussed at the next General Orthodox Council—as well as the question of the Bulgarian schism, that of the remarriage of priests, and many other questions, which have long been awaiting a solution. This Council was projected in 1920, but it has had to be put off to more propitious times. If it is ever held, it will be the first held by the Orthodox since their separation from the West. This Council is all the more to be desired because at present no Church dares to take any grave decision—even provisionally—because the bishops fear opposition from the laity. The reform of the Calendar, despite its comparative unimportance, has already led to unpleasant incidents in Greece, Rumania and Cyprus, and this experience seems to have a discouraging effect on the well-intentioned. It is hoped that a plenary Council of Orthodox Bishops will have more authority to establish reforms regarded as necessary. These few facts suffice to show that the Orthodox Churches possess no central authority capable of 22

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN GENERAL smoothing away difficulties and compelling the adoption of reforms which individual Churches feel themselves unable to enforce. This follows inevitably from the principle implied in the existence of independent National Churches. IV. Relations of the Orthodox with Catholics It must be admitted that speaking generally the relations of the Orthodox with Catholics are seldom marked by cordiality. This is due to many reasons. The chief of these is undoubtedly the incredible mass of prejudice which the dissenting Orthodox entertain against everything that remotely or proximately belongs to the Roman Church, and especially against the Pope. They accuse the Pope of despotism; they charge him with aiming at fashioning the whole Christian world on the model of Rome, and at suppressing the venerable customs—and especially the rites—which antiquity has handed down to the Eastern Churches. In a word the chief aim of the Pope, they think, is to "Latinise." Papal Infallibility is incessantly attacked in books, reviews, and magazines. Some Orthodox writers pretend to believe that Catholics are bound to accept not merely the infallibility of the Pope, but his impeccability as well. Catholic dogmas are often travestied in the Orthodox Catechisms. In all this high example is followed. A Council held at Constantinople in the eighteenth century proclaimed that Latin baptism was invalid, because it is given by infusion and not, as when Christ was baptised by St. John the Baptist, by immersion. A great number of Orthodox regard Catholics as not being genuine Christians. In fact the Greek clergy rebaptise such Roman Catholics as pass over to Orthodoxy. The Russian clergy, however, 23

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES content themselves with reconfirming such "converts." T o prejudice must be added historical bitterness. The Crusades and the domination of the West during the Middle Ages have left painful memories amongst the Easterns—particularly among the Greeks. It is the policy of the Orthodox on the one hand, to keep alive the memory of everything evil—every act of unjust and futile violence—done by the West, and, on the other, to suppress all reference to everything done by the Western world to free their forefathers from Moslem domination. An official review does not hesitate to say that the Holy See offered prayers for a Turkish victory over the Greeks in 1922, and that it would prefer to see the Crescent, rather than the Orthodox Cross, shining over the Ancient Church of St. Sophia at Constantinople. In Russia the memory of its struggles with Poland plays the same part as the memory of the Crusaders among the Orthodox of the old Turkish Empire. Politics everywhere influence the relations of the Orthodox with Catholics to a degree which can scarcely be imagined in the West. In most of the Eastern nations religion and politics have been for centuries so identified that it will be difficult in the future to hold them apart. In the eyes of many dissenters it is not possible for a man to be a true Greek, Serb, Bulgar, Rumanian, or Russian unless he belongs to the Orthodox Church. Hence to fight against Catholicism is to fight against the foreigner, against the national enemy. There is still another important ground of disharmony. This is the more or less direct apostolic effort to which Catholic religious devote themselves in their educational establishments and in their works of 24

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN GENERAL charity. Orthodox Patriarchs and Bisjiops are for ever warning their people against the dangers of the "propaganda" in the schools directed by the Catholic congregations. It is to be said, however, that parents are very little affected by these warnings. Yet, whenever a boy or girl goes over to the Catholic Church, the conversion is made the occasion of noisy demonstrations, and violent press-campaigns. The special enmity of the militant Orthodox is directed against the Eastern clergy who are united to Rome. They accuse them of treason against their country—merely because they try to bring back dissenters to the Unity of the Church. The Orthodox ecclesiastical reviews seek to discredit the Uniate clergy, and to represent them as a hybrid institution holding a middle position between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. They seem to think that Catholics must be Latin, and cannot be Eastern. The purpose underlying all this polemic is, obviously, to prevent Christians from recognising the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. While this attitude is intelligible enough from the Orthodox point of view, it supplies no justification for certain methods of Orthodox self-defence—such, for instance, as calumny. Catholic books are generally excluded from the seminaries on the pretext that they are dangerous for Orthodox faith. Students who wish to take their theological degrees in the West are nearly always recommended to go to the Protestant universities of England, Switzerland, or Germany. However, at the present day, one sometimes sees young Orthodox Rumanians, Bulgars, and Russians studying in the Faculty of Catholic Theology of Strasbourg, or in other similar institutions. There can be no question, obviously, of official relations between the Orthodox Churches and the Holy 25

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES See. In modern times every advance made by the Popes has been deliberately rejected. When Pius I X invited the Eastern dissenters to the Vatican Council the reply of the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, Anthimus V I , took the form of an impertinent letter to his flock. Similarly when Leo X I I I , in his encyclical Praeclara of June 20th, 1894, discussed the means of putting an end to the schism between East and West, Anthimus V I I , Patriarch of Constantinople, and his Synod issued a letter which is a monument of historical make-believe. There has been no official reply to the encyclical Mortalium Animos on the Unity of thé Church, of January 6th, 1928, nor to the Rerum Orientalium of September 8th, 1928, dealing with Oriental studies. These encyclicals were not directly addressed to the dissenters, but the ecclesiastical reviews, especially among the Greeks, did not fail to take advantage of the occasion and to use those encyclicals as a pretext to misrepresent the intentions of His Holiness, Pope Pius X I , and to attack once again that "propaganda" of Rome which they described as "Satanic" and "anti-Christian." T h e higher Orthodox clergy are, in general, hostile to the Church of Rome, but happily there are many among them who do not share in that hostility. In many districts the Orthodox priests, and even the orthodox bishops, keep up friendly relations with the Catholic clergy—at all events with those of the Latin rite. The ordinary Orthodox faithful, when they are not stirred up by fanatics, have no difficulty in maintaining good relations with Catholics. Even in countries of mixed religion, where the two Churches have stood over against each other for centuries, there has come about an obvious easing of the situation since the Great War. The fuller intercommunications of the peoples 36

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN GENERAL during the war, and as a result of the peace, and their common endurance of suffering have led them to a better mutual understanding. This is particularly true in the case of the Russian exiles, for they are gradually giving up their anti-Catholic prejudices. It is clear, nevertheless, that those who are interested in any way —even though that interest is based only on a blind sentiment of patriotism—in prolonging the schism, will always look on Rome's attempts to bring the schism to an end as a positive menace. V. Relations tvith Protestants and Other Dissenters During the past half century there has been going on a manifest revision of the Orthodox attitude towards the different Protestant sects. Several times from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century their ancestors condemned the doctrines of Luther and Calvin, but nowa-days the Orthodox seek every opportunity of approach towards the sects who have adopted those doctrines. The various Orthodox Churches maintain friendly relations with the High Church of England, with the Episcopalian Churches of the United States, and with the Protestant sects of Germany, Switzerland and Northern Europe. They also keep up constant relations with the Jansenists of Holland, and the Old Catholics of Switzerland and Germany. It must, of course, be admitted that the initiative for this has not always come from the Orthodox, and that, for half a century, the Protestants have been seeking deftly to make advances towards them, either for purely religious purposes, or with the arriére-pensée of thus exercising political influence. The Anglican and Eastern Association established in 1913 by a fusion of the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox 27

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES Churches Union and the Eastern Churches Association, has secured numerous adherents among the Orthodox bishops—such as the Patriarch Tichon of Moscow (1925), Mgr. Meletios Metaxakis, the present Patriarch of Alexandria, Mgr. Cyril, Archbishop of Cyprus, Mgr. Dimitri, Patriarch of Serbia, etc., etc. The Orthodox have taken part officially in reunions organised by Protestants to bring about the friendly collaboration of all the Christian Churches. They have attended the Lambeth Palace Conferences, and those of Stockholm (1925) and Lausanne (1927). At the Lausanne Conference, however, the delegation representing the Patriarchate of Constantinople declared that the Orthodox Churches would remain inflexibly loyal to the teaching of the first seven Oecumenical Councils, and that they could never unite with the Protestants in the domain of faith. Yet they make no difficulty in collaborating with Protestants, and they give official support to the so-called "Pan-Christian" movement which Pius X I condemned in his encyclical Mortalium Animos (January 6th, 1928). Orthodox prelates write for The Christian East—which is one of the chief Pan-Christian organs—and for other Protestant reviews. Moreover, the practice of inter-communion has begun to find supporters, and the view has been put forward that the Orthodox laity when they are in foreign countries should be allowed to seek the ministrations of the Anglican clergy, and that Anglicans living in the East should, similarly, seek the ministrations of the Orthodox clergy. In fact, on December 25th, 1927, the Patriarch of Serbia himself gave communion to a number of important Anglicans. This action, however, has been universally censured. Protestant doctrines are finding their way more and 28

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN GENERAL more into the Orthodox seminaries, partly through the professors who, in many cases, have graduated in the universities of England or Germany, and partly through the manuals used. Every day the indications of Protestant influence become more and more noticeable. Both Modernism and Rationalism have many supporters among the professors, and the teaching is no longer in full harmony with Orthodox traditions. Even though Orthodox bishops occasionally denounce Protestant proselytising, they struggle against it far less vigorously than they do against that of Catholics. The Y.M.C.A.—as a particular case in point—is steadily increasing the number of its centres in the Balkan countries, and yet has nowhere met with opposition from the ecclesiastical authorities except in Bulgaria, where the Holy Synod holds it in suspicion. The great institution known as the Robert College at Constantinople has always devoted itself to religious propaganda without ever incurring the censure of the Greek Patriarchate. The Orthodox, generally speaking, maintain relations of mere courtesy with the other dissenting Eastern Churches. The Greeks and Armenians of Turkey, however, united their efforts after the revolution of 1908 to defend their common interests as Christians. The possibility of union between the two Churches was contemplated at that time, but nothing practical resulted. Old time enmities, sprung from the schisms of the fifth and sixth centuries, and from racial antagonism, have greatly diminished in the course of time. Besides, it is accepted as a perfectly normal arrangement that each nationality should have its own Church. It thus comes about that a man may be an Armenian, Copt or Jacobite without being discredited in the eyes 29

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES of the Orthodox. Yet when a member of these dissenting Churches seeks to pass over to Orthodoxy he is subjected to practically the same conditions as a Latin. VI. Organisation of the Orthodox Churches The central government is exercised not by a single dignitary, but by an assembly of bishops called the Holy Synod. The number of members of the Synod and the method of nominating them are different in each country, but the functions of the Synod are everywhere practically the same. The Holy Synod has the duty of taking measures for maintaining order generally in spiritual matters; it deals officially with the State, and with other Churches, and it appoints, deposes, or transfers bishops, etc. In most countries the Government exercises control over the Synod by means of a commissioner, who, in many cases, can oppose by his veto the adoption of particular measures. This sometimes, of course, involves friction between the State and the Synod. In spite of his title the Patriarch is merely the President of the Holy Synod, and cannot undertake anything without its approval. In financial matters the Patriarch depends either on a council, which may be mixed or purely lay, or—by a simpler arrangement—on the Minister of Public Worship, who administers ecclesiastical property. He is thus a purely constitutional ruler. As the State often interferes in the nomination of bishops, these are sometimes mere tools of a political party, and as such lose a great deal of influence. This system of State control exists nearly everywhere and does much damage to religion. The Orthodox Churches tend to place all dioceses on an equal footing. Ecclesiastical provinces are disap30

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN GENERAL pearing gradually and, as a general rule, nothing of them survives but the mere title of Metropolitan— that of Archbishop being, most frequently, merely honorary. Provincial Councils do not exist except in certain countries—like Crete. National Councils are rarely held. Certain Churches—for instance, the Russian and Bulgarian—admit to active membership of the National Councils not merely bishops, but also priests and the laity. In other Churches—such as that of Rumania, there is no provision at all in the statutes of organisation for a National Council. The dioceses are modelled more or less on the central See of the Church. The bishop is usually assisted by two councils—one to deal with matrimonial cases (dispensations of marriage, divorce proceedings, etc.), and another to look after financial affairs and to administer ecclesiastical property. The bishop is the president of both these councils, but he can make no decision without the agreement of a majority of the councillors. Confirmation is administered immediately after baptism by the ordinary clergy, and pastoral visitation is therefore less frequently necessary than in the Latin Church. In governing his diocese the Orthodox bishop employs the assistance of a vicar general (protosynkellos) or of an auxiliary bishop. We find councils also in the ordinary parishes. The parish priest is dependent on the ephory, or parish council. The ephory receives the revenue of collections and stole fees, and administers the parish property. In some Churches the ephory appoints the parish priest; in other Churches this is done by the lay assembly— but the approval of the bishop is always required. The bishop can reject a candidate who, in his opinion, is lacking in the necessary qualifications. It is clear, then, that as things stand, the Orthodox 31

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES clergy possess very little freedom of action, and one cannot expect from them that capacity of successful initiative which is so common in Western countries. Not merely may the clergy not initiate any activity without the approval of the ephory; they are actually forbidden to celebrate any unusual ceremonial without the authorisation of the ephory, and the priest does not even always hold possession of the church-key. The clergy are often nothing more than mere officials, wretchedly paid for the carrying out of public worship.

VII. The Orthodox Secular Clergy The secular clergy is almost universally a married clergy, and some Churches—notably that of Greece— formally exclude celibate priests from the parochial clergy. Priests who are widowers are in a very unpleasant position for, in spite of the noisy demand of those concerned—especially in Serbia and Bulgaria— no Orthodox Church has, up to the present, authorised the clergy to remarry. In country districts candidates for the priesthood are secured in a very simple fashion. When a parish priest dies, the ephory, or the laity generally, select some father of a family who has a little education, and send him to the bishop, so that he may learn the essential priestly functions. This stage lasts for some weeks— at the most, for some months—just long enough to give him some familiarity with the ceremonies and with liturgical chant: there is no question of his studying any other branch of ecclesiastical knowledge. After his ordination the new priest provides the parish with the ceremonial of public worship, but, at the same time, carries on his former occupation. 32

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN GENERAL In the towns a higher standard of knowledge is demanded from the secular clergy. Unfortunately there are still but few seminaries. In many of these the teaching covers only a brief course of religious instruction. Other seminaries are better organised, but all the students in those seminaries do not enter the ecclesiastical profession, and their training in spirituality leaves much to be desired. On the whole, only a very small minority of the clergy are really educated. Those who take degrees in theology—and they are not numerous—usually spend little time in the parochial ministry. They are generally chosen for work in diocesan administration, or in the higher schools, etc.—pending their appointment to the episcopate. For the lack of seminaries and the inferior quality of those that exist, the blame often lies with the governments, for they have little interest in raising the standard of the national clergy, and they often impede the teaching of the seminaries by vexatious regulations. Prior to 1914 there were no seriously organised seminaries to be found except in Russia and among the orthodox of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Efforts are now being made to meet the lack of education in the clergy, but financial troubles make all this reformwork difficult. As a general rule, the clergy are poor in all the Orthodox countries—especially in the rural areas; and when they have to support a large family their condition is sometimes very miserable indeed. They receive a small subvention either from the State, or from the diocese or parish, paid out of the revenue on ecclesiastical property. They have to rely on their own toil, or on the generosity of the faithful, for means to keep up a suitable standard of living. This wretched condition of the priests, especially in Greece, is due to the confiscac 33

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES tion by the State of the great bulk of the vast estates which the Church formerly owned, and which even the sultans left untouched. In the towns the material condition of the clergy is better than in the country. VIII. Monastic Life In the past the Orient had numerous and populous monasteries. Even to-day, though vocations are becoming fewer, certain countries still have flourishing religious houses. This was particularly true of Russia before the war—but at the present moment the Russian religious communities live in very precarious conditions. Mount Athos, in the peninsula of Chalcis, still retains its quaint republic of monks. Contrary to what is generally believed, and often asserted in writing even in the West, the Orthodox monks do not belong to religious orders properly socalled. Certain monasteries have indeed many sketai— in which genuine religious in varying numbers reside, but these "sketai" are merely dependencies of the chief house. As a rule each monastery is governed according to constitutions of its own. One cannot say that they follow the Rule of St. Basil, for even though their principles of religious life take some of their inspiration from the ascetic writings of St. Basil, they are, nevertheless, based chiefly on tradition, which constitutes their essential rule. The monasteries are subject to the local bishop except the so-called Stauropegiac monasteries, which are directly under the Head of the Church. Apart from occasional hermits who are still to be found in different countries, Orthodox monks adopt one of two kinds of life—-the cenobitic or idiorrhythmic. The cenobitic monks live together in the same house 34

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN GENERAL under the direction of a Hegumenos, or Superior. Religious profession, which is not made until after ten years, binds the monks to the three ordinary religious vows. The Superior, who is usually nominated by a chapter of the professed monks, is assisted by a similarly chosen Council of Elders. The idiorrhythmic monks lead a very special kind of life, which is found practically only at Mount Athos. It is based on two essential principles—private ownership, and family life. The monks keep their own property and live in groups—each group having its own house, and an elder who becomes its Proestos. The different groups have little to do with each other, and rarely meet except in the common Church. The assembled Proestos constitute the central council, which deals with matters that concern the community generally. When a Proestos dies his disciples separate and attach themselves to other groups. The life of the monks has for aim their own personal sanctification, and is not directed towards apostolic work. It is divided between attendance at the choral functions, which are often very long, and manual work. Intellectual work is not held in high esteem, but the fine arts are represented by the painting of ikons. Fasting is rigorous and the life generally is painfully severe. Religious service is provided for only by a small number of priests; the priesthood is not greatly valued in the monasteries. The special spiritual exercises consist almost exclusively in the reading of the Bible, of the lives of the Fathers of the desert, and of the ancient ascetic writings. Many monks, however, are still to be found who have never learned to read. Besides the regular monasteries there still exist others which are almost without inmates. One or two religious occupy them to look after their temporalities. 35

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES Usually such houses are attached to convents that maintain the religious life, and in that case they are called "Metokhia" or dependencies, like the other estates situated outside the monastic boundary. IX. The Laity What was said above about the secular clergy will make it easy to realise that the religious training of the people is sadly neglected. Religious instruction is given in the schools by teachers who not always have the faith; and the school programmes for these schools are the work of governments which usually refuse to religious instruction the place it deserves. However, a beginning has been made with the establishment of regular courses of catechism in different centres—particularly in Athens. Preaching is almost unknown in the country districts, for the priests in those districts are incapable of preaching. The situation is better in the towns, for they usually have an educated clergy. The higher grades of society do not give any example of fervour. This is partially due to their contempt for the clergy who are mostly sprung from the people, and poorly educated. But it is especially due to the self-styled Liberalism of thought which has come in from Germany and elsewhere. Atheism and materialism are making considerable progress everywhere, especially since the Great War. The Protestant sects are making use of the general disorder of minds to extend their propaganda. The ordinary folk, however, still remain true to the faith of their forefathers. If their piety is not as enlightened as one could wish, the fault in general is not to be imputed to them. It must be remembered that certain countries had to endure for many centuries the Turkish yoke, which extinguished 36

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN GENERAL among them every intellectual activity, and that instruction is either not widely extended or is badly organised, and that the clergy are not yet equal to their task, in spite of their praiseworthy efforts to escape from their ignorance. It has become a fixed custom to receive communion four times a year—at Christmas, Easter, the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul, and the Assumption. But there is no formal precept in regard to reception of communion. Confession, of course, must precede communion, but it is not governed by the same rigorous rules as in the Catholic Church—especially in regard to its completeness. Assistance at Mass on the Sundays and holidays is not regarded as obligatory. On the other hand, the fasts are observed—at least in the country districts— in spite of their great severity. The cult of images is intense, and pilgrimages are popular. Yet piety is often merely external, and does not perceptibly affect the conduct of the faithful. Almost everywhere one meets superstitions which the clergy are far from combating as earnestly as one might expect. Solid religious teaching would, no doubt, eliminate these serious defects. The good faith of great numbers is, moreover, unquestionable, and largely excuses the contrast which one notices between their fervour in the Church and their conduct in the ordinary affairs of life.

37

CHAPTER

II

THE INDIVIDUAL ORTHODOX GREEK CHURCHES

IN the fifth century all the Christians of the Byzantine Empire were regarded as belonging to the official Church, even though the natives of Syria and Egypt were already claiming religious autonomy. When these made themselves independent, Greek Orthodoxy retained only a comparatively small minority of the faithful. This is practically the existing situation. The majority of the Christians of Egypt belong to the Coptic Church, the heir of the Monophysites. In Syria the Jacobites—less numerous than the Copts—have a similar origin. By the side of these dissenters there live almost 220,000 native ¡Orthodox of the Syrian race whose language is Arabic. These are the Melkites. They have three Patriarchs—at Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria respectively. The Greeks have the majority at Alexandria, as the result of strong Greek immigration. The Archbishopric of Sinai includes altogether about thirty monks. It is more to the north, then, that we must seek the genuinely Greek Churches. There are three of them: the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Synodal Church of Greece, and the Archbishopric of Cyprus. The second of these is of recent origin, but the other two date their independence back at least to the fourth century. Their subjects speak modern Greek, with the exception of about 200,000, who usually speak Albanian, Aromanian, or Turkish.

38

INDIVIDUAL ORTHODOX GREEK

CHURCHES

I. The Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople History. Since the end of the sixth century the Church of Constantinople has been always at pains to maintain its apostolic origin, and to ascribe its foundation to St. Andrew, the "first-called" apostle. The facts are quite different. No bishop is known in Byzantium for certain before the early part of the fourth century, though it is probable that there were bishops there before that date. In any case, it was its promotion to the rank of capital of the Empire with the name Constantinople that secured the pre-eminence of Byzantium both religiously and politically. The Bishop of the "God-guarded City" took advantage, in the first place, of the proximity of the court to free himself from the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Heraclea in Thrace; and then he established his own authority in the provinces round about. The Second Oecumenical Council, held at Constantinople in 381, approved of those encroachments by its third disciplinary canon, thus: "The Bishop of Constantinople ought to have precedence of honour after the Bishop of Rome, for this city is the second Rome." The principle here appealed to is in no sense ecclesiastical, but its application was extended as far as possible. It met with little opposition except in the Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, which had already an established position acquired in apostolic times, and were determined not to lose it. St. John Chrysostom was, perhaps, of all the Bishops of Constantinople at that period, the one who exercised most frequently an effective jurisdiction, not only in 39

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES Thrace at the expense of Heraclea, but also in Asia Minor, where Ephesus and Caesarea of Cappadocia grouped the different provinces under their supreme authority. A struggle soon burst forth between Constantinople and Alexandria. The Patriarch of Alexandria had behind him the whole episcopate of Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis; and he was determined to maintain his prestige. Solicitude for truth was not, perhaps, always the chief motive that induced either side to take a definite stand in regard to heresy. Constantinople was at first vanquished at the Council of Ephesus (431) through the condemnation of its bishop, the impious Nestorius. Twenty years later the situation was completely reversed. Dioscorus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, saw himself condemned with the Monophysites at the Council of Chalcedon (451). Anatole of Constantinople at the same time secured the adoption by the Fathers of the twenty-eighth canon, which legalised the usurpations of his predecessors. The Bishop of the Metropolis was recognised as holding jurisdiction over Thrace, Asia and Pontus—that is, over half the Eastern Empire: he was authorised, moreover, to consecrate the bishops of the Byzantine provinces then occupied by the barbarians. In this way the Patriarchate of Constantinople was officially constituted. The protests of St. Leo and his successors against the twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon remained without effect. There was no further obstacle to the ambitions of the Bishops of Constantinople. The Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch were a prey to the Monophysite disputes which were to end in the formation of the Coptic and the Jacobite Churches. From that side, then, there was nothing to fear. At the end of the sixth 40

INDIVIDUAL ORTHODOX GREEK CHURCHES century John the "Faster," officially took the title of "Oecumenical" Patriarch, and maintained it in spite of the remonstrances of St. Gregory the Great. In the eighth century Constantinople took advantage of the favourable political situation to extend its jurisdiction over that western portion of the Balkan Peninsula known as Illyricum, which had always depended on the Roman Church. She tried to deal similarly with the provinces of Southern Italy, and with Sicily, which belonged to the Byzantine Empire, and in this policy she was frequently successful. In general, relations with Rome were often on a tense footing. From the death of Constantine (337) until the triumph of Image-worship (843) the Byzantine Church was in schism for two hundred and thirty-two years—that is during nearly half that period. Little by little it developed the habit of doing without Rome. Everything impelled to this attitude—imperial policy, national pride, and national ambition. The cleavage made in the fifth century between East and West by the invasion of the barbarians became wider and wider. It was two opposed civilisations and nationalities that henceforth faced each other. The Byzantines refused to recognise the authority of a pope, who was at one time subject to the empire, and at another the vassal of the barbarian kings. The foundation of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 brought the disagreement to its climax, because it put an end to Byzantine ambitions in the West. Photius had little difficulty in getting his schism accepted, because it already existed more or less in men's minds. Yet union was re-established long before his death, and was maintained one way or another until 1054, when the Patriarch Michael Cerularius broke it up for centuries. This was all the easier because the 41

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES monks, whose influence over the people was considerable, had already become disaffected towards the Roman Church. The Crusades and Frankish rule in the Levant helped only to intensify existing hostility. The unions brought about by stress of political necessity at Lyons in 1274 and at Florence in 1439 lasted only a few years. The capture of Constantinople by the Turks did not change the position of the Patriarchs as much as might be expected. They were, of course, constantly menaced by intrigue and exposed to death by violence, but the Sultans recognised their jurisdiction over all the orthodox of the Empire, not merely in religious, but even in civil affairs. From the Phanar quarter, where they established themselves at the end of the sixteenth century, they extended their authority from the Danube to the island of Crete and from Dalmatia to the frontiers of Persia (seventeenth century). The previously independent Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria had to accept from them their titularies, and Melkites, Serbs, Albanians, Bulgars, and Rumanians now had, almost exclusively, Greek bishops, and the Monasteries of Mount Athos and elsewhere found themselves endowed with princely gifts. It was the great period of the Greek race. A reaction was inevitable. In proportion as the oppressed nationalities raised their heads, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which had bound up its cause with that of the Turkish Empire, lost not only its prestige, but its authority. In 1830 the Serbs, in 1833 the Greeks, in 1856 the Rumanians and in 1870 the Bulgars, proclaimed their religious independence. The Phanar was in the end compelled to give way, and to accept the fait accompli. The only exception made was

42

INDIVIDUAL ORTHODOX GREEK CHURCHES in regard to the Bulgars, who were declared schismatics in 1872. At the end of the nineteenth century it was necessary to recognise the established independence of the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem. The defeats inflicted on the Turks from 1912 on still further narrowed the sphere of authority of the Church of Constantinople. The provinces annexed by the Greeks now depend on Athens religiously as well as politically. Serbia annexed several metropolitan sees, and Bulgaria acted similarly. Italy is endeavouring to secure autonomy for its possessions in the Aegean, and the Government of Tirana has organised a National Church for the Albanian Orthodox. Finally the defeat of the Greeks in 1922 cleared Anatolia and Eastern Thrace of their Christian inhabitants. The sympathy which the Greeks of Turkey showed to their brethren in the Empire, as well as the open assistance which they gave to the Hellenic armies in Asia Minor, and the imprudent demonstrations in which they indulged, produced the natural effect of intensifying Turkish hostility against the Greek elements which still remained in the country. If it had depended on the Turks alone, that element would have been exterminated. But the presence of the allied troops held them at first in check. The treaty of Lausanne (1923) compelled the Turks to keep the Greeks who had settled in Constantinople since 1918, and to acknowledge their right to organise themselves religiously in their own fashion. The Turks, however, sought in every way to evade these clauses of the treaty. They supported—if, indeed, they did not inaugurate— the opposition made to the Phanar by an Anatolian priest named Papas Efthym, who called himself "Head of the Orthodox Turks," and took possession of two 43

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES churches in the Galata quarter. In January, 1925, they expelled the new Patriarch, Constantine VI, on the pretext that he was removable. They advised influential laymen to induce the Greeks to renounce the Treaty of Lausanne in matters which regarded their personal status. In a word petty oppressions of the administration were of constant occurrence and the Turkish Press took advantage of every least incident violently to attack the Holy Synod, and to throw suspicion on the loyalty of its members. The recruiting of the clergy is becoming increasingly difficult, and many people fear that the Patriarchate is dying of slow decline. The future looks dark, and one cannot see how the "Great Church" of Constantinople can regain any importance except through a political volte-face, the possibility of which it is at the moment difficult to forecast. One cannot help being astonished at a fall so great from a splendour which had endured for fifteen centuries. II. Organisation Extent of Jurisdiction. At the beginning of the tenth century the Patriarchate of Constantinople had jurisdiction over six hundred and twenty-four episcopal sees. The Turkish conquest extinguished most of these. In 1820 there were only eighty metropolitan sees and fifty bishoprics or suffragan archbishoprics in the Balkan Peninsula, the Grecian Islands, and Asia Minor. The establishment of the National Churches brought these figures still lower. Just before the Balkan wars (1912) there were but eighty-seven metropolitan sees, including the four of Bosnia—Herzegovina, and the five (really suppressed) 44

INDIVIDUAL ORTHODOX GREEK CHURCHES of Bulgaria, and sixteen suffragan archbishoprics. Of these one hundred and three dioceses Serbia has annexed ten and Bulgaria seven; the Italians have four in their Aegean possessions, and four belong to Albania; thirty-four disappeared from Turkey in the Greek débàcle of 1922; the remainder have practically passed over to Greece, and have been provisionally attached to the Holy Synod of Athens (1928). At the present day the "Oecumenical" Patriarchate has direct authority over four metropolitan sees only—Dercos, Imbros, Chalcedon, and Prinkipo. This last was founded in 1922. The Holy Synod. In spite of this exiguous number of dioceses the Patriarchate is always governed by a Holy Synod of twelve members, of whom the Patriarch is de jure president. To provide a quorum it was necessary to create titular metropolitan sees: there are no less than fourteen of these at the present moment. According to the constitutions of 1860-1862 all the metropolitans of the Patriarchate could in turn form a portion of the Synod—half of the members of which had to be newly appointed each year. After a number of years during which the situation was obscure, this principle has been re-established (1928). The six senior members of the Synod must, each year, make way for six new members. The Holy Synod is the real religious authority of the Patriarchate. It is charged with all the spiritual affairs of the Orthodox in Turkey. It nominates the metropolitans and preachers; it examines the qualifications of candidates for orders; it controls religious instruction, grants matrimonial dispensations, and acts as final court in matrimonial cases. It maintains relations with other Churches, and with the Turkish Government. 45

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES It meets three times weekly under the presidency of the Patriarch. The Patriarch. The election of a Patriarch takes place fifty days after the See has become vacant. Up to 1922 the election took place in three stages, and the laity shared therein by means of delegates. Since the suppression of civil privileges this procedure has been abandoned. In 1926 the metropolitans living in foreign areas sent their votes in writing, but the laity took no part in the election. At present, as the Patriarchate includes only bishops residing in Turkey, the right of electing the Head of the Church belongs to these bishops exclusively. At the moment the task of reforming the regulations of 18601862, which are no longer applicable, is being taken in hand. The Patriarch must be a Turkish subject; he must be of sufficiently advanced age, and he must have governed a diocese for at least seven years. In fact, the Patriarch exercises no personal authority, for the Holy Synod is the essential organ of the Church's government. T h e Patriarch resides at Constantinople in the Phanar quarter on the Golden Horn: there, too, are the various offices of the Patriarchate. As in former days he still calls himself "Archbishop of Constantinople the new Rome, and Oecumenical Patriarch." Various Committees. Besides the Holy Synod there used to be a mixed council composed of four members of the Synod and eight lay delegates, which dealt with the material interests of the Patriarchate (ecclesiastical property, schools, orphanages, hospitals, etc.). It has not yet been replaced by the Lay Committee that has been promised. 46

INDIVIDUAL

ORTHODOX GREEK

CHURCHES

On the other hand there exist still some of the many committees established by the Regulations of 18601862. Moreover there is always a Grand Protosynkellos or Vicar General, a Grand Archdeacon charged with the supervision of the clergy, a Grand Ecclesiarch, etc., etc. The painful situation which has arisen for the Patriarch will probably lead to the suppression of many of the commitments inherited from the Byzantine Empire, which have no raison d'être in a Church of so greatly diminished resources. Metropolitans. As was said above, the Patriarchate of Constantinople controls directly only four dioceses. These are Dercos (seat of residence, Therapia), Chalcedon (Kadikoy), the Princes' Island (Prinkipo), and Imbros. The Metropolitan of Imbros may not reside there. There is no suffragan bishop. The laity number at most 120,000. The Italians have set up a claim for the complete independence of the four metropolitan sees of thè Dodecanese: Rhodes, Leros-Calymnos, Cos, and Carpathos-Cassos—with their 105,000 laity. Discussions have been going on for several years, but so far have not led to a solution satisfactory to both parties. The four metropolitan sees in Albania: Dyracchium (Durazzo), Belgrade (Berat), Argyrocastro and Corytsa, are a part of the new National Church of Albania, organised in February, 1929, in spite of the opposition of the Phanar. The metropolitans are elected by the Holy Synod. They must be at least thirty years old; they must hold a degree in theology, and they must have exercised the ministry for at least five years. Each of them in his diocese is the spiritual head of the people and the clergy. He has full authority as judge over the priests 47

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES and monks, but he cannot confer the sacrament of orders until the candidates for orders have received the approval of the Holy Synod. He appoints to curial positions, but takes account in doing so of lay advice. He is assisted by an ecclesiastical commission which concerns itself primarily with the clergy, and by an ecclesiastical tribunal which gives judgment in canonical trials. Each parish has one or more priests according to its importance, and one or more deacons—at least in the towns. The secular clergy are very unequally educated. In 1923, according to the statement of Meletios IV, scarcely a dozen priests out of one hundred and thirty-five of the Diocese of Constantinople were capable of giving religious instruction. There has been, however, a Theological Academy at Halki (Princes' Islands) since 1844. But, on the one hand, that establishment was the only one of the kind for the whole of the then very extensive Patriarchate, and, on the other, the majority of its students did not enter the ecclesiastical state, and those that did had chiefly in view ecclesiastical dignities. Out of two hundred and thirty-five students who finished here from 1901 to 1912, twenty-three were already bishops in 19x3. At the present time about fifty young people are making their classical studies at Halki, while only a few have begun theology. Up to 1923 the Patriarchate used to publish twice monthly an official review, "Ecclesiastical Truth": but in 1922 the Turks seized on the printing works and all the documents of this periodical. Since 1927 it has published a new official review, "Orthodoxia," which appears at the end of each month.

48

INDIVIDUAL

ORTHODOX GREEK

CHURCHES

III. Mount Athos Though the Patriarchate gave over to the Holy Synod of Athens the right of governing the metropolitan sees of provinces annexed by Greece since 1912, it has not abandoned its authority over the monastic republic of Mount Athos. The "Holy Mountain," as the Orthodox call it, began to be inhabited by hermits about the tenth century. The first monastery established there, the Laura, was built in 962. Since that date nineteen other monasteries have been added: Vatopedi, Iviron (primitively Georgian) Khilandar (Serbian), Dionysiou, Cutlumusiou, Pantokrator, Xiropotamo, Zographou (Bulgarian), Dokhiar, Carakalou, Philotheou, Simopetra, St. Paul, Stavronitika, Xenophon, Grigoriou, Esphigmenou, Rossicon or St. Panteleimon (Russia), and Castamonites. These twenty monasteries do not house more than half of the monks; the remainder occupy twelve Sketai, or convents of lower rank, and two hundred and four Kellia or cells. The Sketai and Kellia are merely dependencies of the monasteries proper. Further, there are about four hundred and fifty-six hermitdwellings. The federal system of all the monasteries is governed by a council of twenty members which sits at Karyes, the capital of the Peninsula. Each of the twenty monasteries, whatever the number of its inhabitants, sends one delegate to the council. By this system the Greeks always have a majority of seventeen out of twenty. For the transaction of current affairs the council delegates its authority to a committee of four, selected from the twenty monastic delegates in such fashion that each of the monasteries is represented on D

49

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES the committee every five years. The seal of the committee is in four parts, and each of the members of the committee holds one. Thus the presence of all four is necessary to legalise the acts of the committee. In 1913 there were 3,742 monks in the twenty chief monasteries, 1,043 the Sketai, 893 in the Kellia and 667 in the hermitages—that is, a total of 6,345 monks. Of these 3,243 were Greeks, 1,914 Russians, 706 Bulgarians, 379 Rumanians, 89 Serbians and Montenegrins, and 14 Georgians. Since then the situation has changed greatly—particularly in regard to the Russians, for there were only 464 Russians in 1928. According to the official census of the "Holy Mountain" in 1928, it had then 4,858 inhabitants. The Greeks have 17 monasteries, 7 Sketai, 54 Kellia, and the great bulk of the landed property—so that their predominance is unquestionable. Formerly the Athos monasteries received important donations in the various Orthodox countries. These have now been sequestered or confiscated almost everywhere. This has been done frequently by Greece, particularly in recent years, and she has payed only the most contemptible indemnities. Thus the material condition of Athos has ceased to be brilliant. The Russians at Mount Athos (464 in 1928) are in a specially miserable condition, for they are receiving nothing from their own country. The monks display at times a fierce independence. Most of the convents have refused to adopt the new Calendar. In the autumn of 1928 the Patriarchal Commission found its right of making canonical visitation opposed by seventeen out of twenty delegates. The inhabitants of the Sketai are looking for a reform of the constitution, and are demanding the right to share in the government of the federation. The chief 5o

INDIVIDUAL

ORTHODOX

GREEK

CHURCHES

cause of existing difficulties is the exaggerated traditionalism of the monks. In one monastery they destroyed the plant which had been installed to provide electric light, and in another the printing machinery, on the pretext that these things were incompatible with religious life. Scholars who go to Mount Athos to study manuscripts and works of art have to face many difficulties, and sometimes they are not permitted to enter. In general it is not easy to gain admission to the "Holy Mountain," and women are inexorably excluded. IV. Greek Colonies Abroad Economic difficulties in their own country and the spirit of adventure have driven many Greeks to emigrate. They are to be found to-day all over the world— as far off even as Oceania. Most of the Greek emigrants, however, have settled in the United States of America. T h e Greek colonies have been the cause of a longsustained quarrel between the Phanar and the Holy Synod of Athens. T h e Phanar has claimed the support of the twenty-eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon for its right to exercise jurisdiction over all the Orthodox believers residing in countries in which there was no formally established Orthodox Hierarchy. T h e Holy Synod of Athens claimed the emigrants as its subjects, because most of them were of Greek origin. After half a century of dispute an agreement was concluded on March 21st, 1908, which gave the Athenian Synod jurisdiction over all the Greeks of the " D i s persion" except those of Vienna and Venice. After the Great War the Phanar tried every expedient to recover its authority over the emigrants, and on March 14th, 192a, the Patriarch, Meletios IV; took them again under 5i

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES his sway. Athens finally accepted this situation both for the sake of peace and to preserve some measure of importance for the Oecumenical Patriarchate so sorely reduced by the exodus of Greeks from Turkey. This same Meletios established a metropolitan see of Western Europe with London as its seat, and he, further, organised an autonomous Church in North America (1922). His successor nominated an Archbishop for Australia at Sydney, and a metropolitan for Central Europe at Vienna. The Church of North America is the only one of these that claims our attention; and we shall speak of it later in connection with the different ecclesiastical autonomies which have been set up since the war. It is to be noted that the Greek colonies in Africa are connected with the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and not with that of Constantinople. II. The Synodal Church of Greece (1) History The revolt of the Greek against Turkish rule ought to have led logically to the separation of the Greeks from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, for that still remained in the power of the Sultans, and was compelled nolens vilens to accept their policy. In 1828 the presiding Capo of Istria appointed a committee of three bishops to deal with the spiritual interests of the liberated provinces. The Regency Council which governed during the minority of King Otho continued that policy. It gave to the Church of Greece a constitution based on that of the Russian Church. On August 4th, 1833, bishops assembled at Nauplia proclaimed the religious independence of the new kingdom, and decreed that it should be henceforth governed by a Holy 52

INDIVIDUAL ORTHODOX GREEK

CHURCHES

Synod. For almost twenty years the Patriarchate of Constantinople refused to recognise the fait accompli. After many discussions it gave way, and on July n t h , 1850, it published a decree; officially accepting the autocephalous character of the Church of Greece. The Church of Greece accepted only one of the obligations which were attached to this decree, viz. the duty of requesting the Holy Chrism from Constantinople. All the other obligations remained a dead letter, and the Phanar took no steps to secure their observance. On July 21st, 1852, a law was enacted organising the Holy Synod in a new fashion. It was now to be composed of five members—the Metropolitan of Athens, who was to be the de jure president; and four bishops designated according to seniority by the government, who should act for a year and then be replaced by four others. The State was represented in the Holy Synod by a royal commissioner, without whose approval no decision could be made, or carried out. The title of Metropolitan was reserved to the bishop of the capital. Many bishoprics were suppressed, following the new acquisitions of territory (the Ionian Isles in 1864, a portion of Thessaly and Epirus in 1882). The king had the right of nominating as bishop one out of a list of three candidates submitted by the vacant diocese. The dependence of the Church of Greece on the State has often made it the slave of the State, and the victim of the political parties who in turn have held power: an inevitable result of this dependence is an attitude of disrespect to the Church on the part of the laity. There have been numerous unpleasant incidents during the last fifteen years. In January, 1917, the Holy Synod solemnly anathematised Venizelos to gratify King Constantine. A few months later the situation was completely reversed. Venizelos, who had returned to 53

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES power, caused the Metropolitan of the capital and several bishops to be deposed. Then he invited Mgr. Meletios Metaxakis to take the See of Athens. The new metropolitan set about a number of daring reforms: but they met with great opposition and he had not time to carry them through. The fall of Venizelos brought with it that of the metropolitan: he was deposed at the end of 1920 and withdrew into exile. In 1922 another coup was executed. The party which overthrew King Constantine in September sent back to private life the old Metropolitan of Athens, Theoclitus, who had been overthrown in 1918 and restored in 1920. In March, 1923, he was succeeded by Mgr. Chrysostom Papadopoulos. In 1922 the title Metropolitan was resumed by all the bishops except the Bishop of the capital, who adopted the title "Archbishop of Athens and of all Greece." The provinces conquered by the Turks since 1912 remained up to 1928 under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Many difficulties resulted from this arrangement, because, on the one hand, the government of Angora denied to the Phanar all authority outside the frontiers of Turkey, and on the other, there were great differences of ecclesiastical organisation between the old provinces and the new. An agreement was ultimately arrived at in which the Patriarchate, while declaring delegated to the Holy Synod of Athens its powers over those metropolitan sees of Greece which were still subject to it, reserved its rights for the future. A law enacted on July 10th, 1928, fixed the conditions of this union which had been sought for several years.

54

INDIVIDUAL ORTHODOX GREEK CHURCHES (2) Organisation of the Church The Church of Greece at the moment lives under the rule of the Constitution which it received on December 31st, 1923, as modified both by the decree of September 25th, 1925, and the law of July 10th, 1928. The original text of the Constitution suppressed the Holy Synod, and gave power instead to the plenary assembly of the bishops—which was to be held each year during October, or oftener if necessary. In September, 1925, the Dictator, Pangalos, suppressed this assembly and replaced it by a Holy Synod of seven members with the Archbishop of Athens as de jure President. The law of July 10th, 1928, made the number of members nine— four representing the metropolitan sees recently annexed, and five, including the president, representing the other metropolitan sees. Holy Synod. It includes, besides the Archbishop of Athens, its non-removable president, eight metropolitans who are changed each year according to seniority. Its powers extend to all questions of general importance. It gives all necessary decisions on matters dogmatic, liturgical and disciplinary. It controls the religious instruction of the people, concerns itself with the clerical schools, etc., etc. The Government Commissioner is always present at its meetings, but no longer has any right of veto, which is a great step forward, as compared with the past. By the Civil Constitution the Holy Synod is assured of the help of the secular arm in case of need. But, as a set-off to this, the Civil Constitution binds the Holy Synod to act in concert with the Minister of Public Worship and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in its dealings with other Churches. 55

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES Metropolitan Sees and Metropolitans. The metropolitan sees of the Church of Greece, with one exception, have no suffragan bishoprics. The exception is Crete which has seven (a decision arrived at in 1929 will reduce these to four). The Holy Synod appoints all the metropolitans. The Government intervenes only to approve of the list of candidates for the episcopate, and to authorise a transfer from one see to another. A candidate for the episcopacy must be between thirty-three and fifty-five years old: he must have a degree in theology; he must be able to preach; and he must possess a sufficient amount of administrative knowledge. The Government has often made fruitless attempts to have a retiring age for bishops fixed. The outcome of its efforts so far is that the Synod compels those bishops to retire who, through age or illness, are no longer able to discharge the duties of their office. All bishops, whether active or retired, receive an allowance from the general treasury of the Church. There are eighty-two metropolitan sees in Greece, thirty-three in the old provinces and forty-nine in the new. The former, apart from the archdiocese of Athens, are Aetolia-Acarnania (Missolonghi); Argolis (Nauplia); Arta (Arta); Gortynia-Megalopolis (Dimitsana); Gytheion-Oetalus (Gytheion); Dimitriados (Volo); Zante (Zante); Ileias (Pyrgos); ThebesLevadia (Levadia); Thyra (Santorin); CalavrytaAigialia (Calavryta); Carystias (Kymi); CorcyraPaxos (Corfu); Cephalonia (Argostoli); Corinth; Kythera (Cerigo); Larissa-Platamon (Larissa); LeucasIthaca (Leucas); Mantineia-Kynouria (Tripolis); Messenia(Kalamata); Monemvasia-Lacedemonia (Sparta); Naupactos-Eurytania (Naupactos) ; Paronaxias

56

INDIVIDUAL ORTHODOX GREEK

CHURCHES

(Naxos); Patras, Syra-Tinos-Andros-Kea (Syra); Trikkis-Stagon (Trikkala); Trifilias-Olympia (Kyparissia); Hydrae-Spetzae (Hydra); PhanarionThessalyotis (Karditza); Phthiotis (Lamias); Phocis (Amphissa); Chalcis (Chalcis). Of the forty-nine metropolitan sees of the new provinces thirty-nine are on the mainland: Janina; Nicopolis-Preveza (Preveza); Dryinoupolis-Pognoiana (Delvinaki); Paramythia, Philiates-Geromerion (Philiates); Metsovo, Bella-Conitsa (Vella); Grevena; Elasson, Castoria; Sissanios-Siatista (Siatista); Neopelagonia (Kailar); Servia-Cozani (Cozani); Fiorina; Kitros (Ecaterini); Salonika; BerrheaNaussa (Verria); Cassandria (Polygyros); Langada; Polyane (Kilkis); Edessa; Yenitsa-Gumenitsa (Yenitsa); Ardamerion; Campania; Hierissos-Mount Athos;* Nigrita; Serres; Drama; Zichna (Ziliashovo); Siderocastron (Demir-Hissar); Nevrocop (Zernovo); Eleutheropolis (Pravishta); Kavalla; Xanthe; Maronia (Gumuldjina); Alexandrupolis (Dede-Agatsh); Sufli; Didymoteikhos (Demotika); Nea-Orestias. There is one in Crete-Candia; and there are nine in the Aegean Islands: Thasos; Lemnos; Mitylene Plomarion (Potamos); (Akhyron); Methymne; Khios (Kastron); Cardamyla; Samos (Vathy) and Nicaria. The seven suffragan bishoprics of Crete are Kydonia—Apocoronos (Canea); Petra; LampeSphakia; Retimo; Kissamo; Chersonisso; Viano. The last three of these are to be suppressed. A campaign has been started to lessen the number of metropolitan sees. It is thought that the present number of eighty-two is excessive for territory of 127,000 square kilometres, and an orthodox population • Ardamerion, Campania and Hierissos-Mount Athos will disappear with the death of their present incumbents.

57

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES of scarcely six millions. It is estimated that thirty-five— one for each department—would be sufficient. Each metropolitan see has an auxiliary bishop appointed by the Holy Synod. Charges made against priests or monks in disciplinary matters are tried by an ecclesiastical court of five members over whom the metropolitan presides de jure; he alone is responsible for its decisions. There are several courts of appeal composed of metropolitans of the district generally: these judge appeals against the decisions of the diocesan courts, and deal with offences that involve grave penalties. In Athens there is a supreme court consisting of the Archbishop, who is the de jure president, and twelve metropolitans designated by the Synod. This courts deals with episcopal trials and with appeals from decisions of the regional courts in grave matters. The General Assembly of the metropolitans judges appeals from episcopal trials. In each metropolitan see there is a Finance Council, consisting of the metropolitan as de jure president, and four laymen. It deals with the economic interests of the diocese, and controls parish accounts. The general treasury of the Church founded in 1910 centralises certain revenues in order to meet general expenses. The Parishes and the Secular Clergy. The organisation of parishes is ruled by the law of December 14th, 1923. Every parish possesses civic personality. The administration of the parish is confided to the Epitropia or parish council, which consists of three to five members, according to the population. The parish priest belongs ex officio to the council. The other members are chosen by the parishioners and hold office for three years. For the setting up of a parish in a 58

INDIVIDUAL

ORTHODOX G R E E K

CHURCHES

town there must be four hundred to six hundred families: in a village fifty families suffice. The electors choose the ministering clergy, but the metropolitan may always declare an election void, or reject a candidate if he regards him as unfit for the ministry. The level of a candidate's education determines the sort of parish he may hope to secure. Celibates are excluded from the parish ministry. Every priest must retire when he is seventy-five years old. The training of the clergy is carried out in a number of clerical schools—in which the courses frequently last only during the season of bad weather. Athens has a seminary, the Rhizarion, founded in 1844, and a Faculty of Theology at the University. Another Faculty is to be established at Salonika. The need of seminaries is now making itself painfully felt. Out of 4,432 priests in Old Greece (1921) three fourths had never got beyond the primary school, 323 had come from the Lyceums, 197 from the Rhizarion or other similar institutions, and about 30 had taken a degree in theology. The situation is no better in the new provinces and, unfortunately, financial difficulties make the erection of new seminaries almost impossible. Furthermore, the clergy are in actual want. The Government having acquired at a wretchedly low price the great bulk of the landed property on which the Church used to live, now refuses, for reasons of Statefinance, to pay a suitable allowance to the parochial clergy. The many ministers who have followed one another in quick succession since 1922 have, so far, given the clergy nothing more than promises. Many priests, in order to live, are compelled to practise a trade, or to beg from their parishioners.

59

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES Monasticism. In the little Greece of 1830 there were no fewer than 593 convents, inhabited by 3,000 monks and nuns. In 1833 the Government suppressed all religious houses that had not at least five inmates. There remained after this only 82 monasteries of men and three of women. The figures went up again as a result of gains of territory, but a return to the old huge figures seems impossible. In 1919 Old Greece had 151 monasteries of men and 8 of women, containing 1,562 monks and nuns, and 217 novices. Out of 1,180 monks, a quarter lived outside the convents, and half of those in the convents were over sixty years of age. There are about 150 monasteries in the new provinces, but they do not contain more than 500 monks and nuns. Each regular convent is governed by a Hegumenos (Superior), assisted by a council of elders chosen by the professed monks, and approved of by the local metropolitan. The most celebrated monasteries of men are the Meteora in Thessaly and the Megaspileon in the Peloponesus. The most important monastery of women is that of the Assumption at Tinos; there are here about 50 nuns, and it is a popular place of pilgrimage. Laity. The Orthodox Church of Greece, reinforced by the numerous emigrants who have come from Turkey, has about 6,000,000 members out of a total population of 6,204,684 (1928). In general the laity show attachment to the church of their fathers; but neglect of religious practices is becoming habitual among them, especially in towns. Communism is gaining many adherents, as a result of economic difficulties. The Protestant sects, especially the Millenarists, are very active among them, 60

INDIVIDUAL

ORTHODOX

GREEK

CHURCHES

and not without success. Religious instruction has a place in the school programmes, but the Government is giving it less and less importance, so that, at last, the Archbishop of Athens has been forced to establish courses of catechism (in 1928.) The higher ranks of society are often imbued with materialistic ideas, and display indifference towards religion. Freemasonry makes recruits easily in the laity and even among the clergy. Religious ignorance goes hand in hand with an excessive traditionalism. The reform of the Calendar has been the occasion of constant trouble—but has not produced any gravely unpleasant incidents. The energy of the higher clergy is directed against the propaganda of the Millenarists, and of the Uniates— that is, the Catholics of the Byzantine rite. The Government turns always a deaf ear to the Holy Synod's appeals against these two movements. It would seem, indeed, as if the Government does not give to the Church all the support which is guaranteed to it by the Civil Constitution. Several ecclesiastical Reviews are published in Greece: of these the more outstanding are Theologia, a quarterly, and Ekklesia, a weekly, appearing at Athens, and Gregorios Palamas, a monthly, published at Salonika. The general union of the clergy has for its organ the bi-monthly Hieros Syndesmos. Mention may also be made of Zoi and Anaplasis, published at Athens. III. Archbishopric of Cyprus 1. History The Island of Cyprus was first evangelised by St. Paul and St. Barnabas (about A.D. 45). Barnabas, who was by birth a Cypriote, returned to Cyprus about 51 61

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES and organised several churches there. He is, therefore, regarded as the apostle of the country. The evangelisation of Cyprus was interrupted by the Jewish revolt in A.D. 115. Syrian missionaries, however, soon took it in hand again, and the Church of Cyprus reached a flourishing condition. The best known among its bishops was Epiphanius of Salamis, who made himself famous at the end of the fourth century by his opposition to heretics. The early history of the Church in Cyprus was marked by a struggle with the Patriarchate of Antioch, which sought to include Cyprus in its jurisdiction. The Council of Ephesus in 431 decided against the claim of Antioch; but it was not until 488 that the independence of the Cypriote Church was proclaimed by the Emperor Zeno. The Archbishop of Cyprus received the title of "Beatitude," the right of consecrating his fourteen suffragans, and other special marks of distinction. The Arab invasion dealt a dreadful blow to the Christians of Cyprus. T o rescue them from the results of the invasion the Emperor Justinian II transferred them to the district of Cyzicus, and established for them the Metropolitan See of Neojustinianopolis, which was united with the Archbishopric of Constantia (682). Seven years later the Cypriotes were able to return to their homes, but soon they fell once again under the Moslem yoke. From this they were not rescued until the first half of the tenth century, when Nicophorus Phocas restored to them their freedom for a little time. The Latin domination which was begun by the conquest of the Island by Richard Coeur de Lion (1191) lasted for nearly four centuries. The Greek clergy were made subject to the Latins, and were often unfairly treated by over-zealous prelates. This condition 62

INDIVIDUAL ORTHODOX GREEK

CHURCHES

of subjection led them to welcome the Turks with joy (1571), but these feelings of gladness quickly underwent a change, for a terrible persecution burst forth against the Christian inhabitants and continued for almost three centuries. In 1825 clerics and important citizens were massacred on the pretext that they were aiding the Greek rebellion. It became necessary to reorganise the hierarchy which had well nigh disappeared. Order was not fully restored until the English occupation in 1878. In 1925 this occupation was developed into complete annexation. The Cypriotes, with the clergy as leaders, keep on demanding union with Greece—but in vain. Between 1900 and 1909 a competition between two metropolitans for the archiépiscopal see gave rise to a long fought out struggle, which led at last to an intervention of the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Alexandria, which the Cypriotes did not desire. England put an end to the struggle by forcing the acceptance of her own candidate. Since that time internal peace has been disturbed only by the resistance offered in 1924 to the reform of the Calendar. 2. Organisation of the Church The Island of Cyprus is divided into four dioceses; one of these is an archbishopric, and there are three metropolitan sees. The archbishop is called Archbishop of Constantia (Famagusta), Neojustinianopolis and Cyprus. He resides at Nicosia, and has as suffragans the Metropolitans of Paphos, Kition (Larnaka), and Kyrenia. The government of the Church is in the hands of these four prelates. They meet in Synod in the spring and autumn, and oftener, if necessary. The constitution of the Church is not yet formally established; nor is the manner of election of the archbishop fully determined.

63

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES The National Council, consisting of clergy and laity has met several times since 1911 to discuss these two questions, but up to the end of 1929 no point in connexion with them has yet been decided. The clergy are fairly numerous (in 1914 there were 825 priests), but they are very uneducated. The Normal School for Seminarists (the Hierodidaskalion), which was established in the Monastery of St. George at Larnaka in 1910 to train priests for the country districts and teachers, has not given all the results which its founders expected. Hence the Holy Synod is projecting the foundation of a real seminary. The material condition of the clergy was wretched during the Turkish regime. During the past fifty years it has improved considerably, but it cannot yet be regarded as brilliant. There are at present only four monasteries in the Island. Of these three are strauropegiac—that is, directly subject to the archbishop; the monks number from seventy to eighty. Only one convent carries out monastic life fully; the others are in a condition of decay. The Orthodox population of Cyprus is increasing rapidly (183,239 in 1901; 213,500 in 1911; 249,000 in 1921) in spite of a fairly considerable emigration of which Egypt is mainly the goal. There are 607 churches and chapels. In 1910 Monsignor Meletios Metaxakis founded at Larnaka an ecclesiastical Review called the Ekklesiastikos Keryx: in 1918 the founder went to Athens, and the Review was thenceforward published in Athens until 1921, when it began to be published in America. In Cyprus its place was taken by the Apostolos Barnabas, a monthly, the publication of which has been frequently interrupted. 64

CHAPTER

III

THE ORTHODOX MELKITE CHURCHES

(Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, and the Archbishopric of Sinai) The Melkites THE Byzantine Empire was never completely Hellenised. T h e great majority of the faithful subject to the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem were of the native Syrian stock, while most of the subjects of the Alexandrian Patriarchate were Egyptian. T h e remainder of the faithful in those Patriarchates were made up of officials, merchants and colonists of Greek origin. By Monophysism the patriots sought to regain something of their lost independence. It would seem, indeed, as if their adoption of the Monophysite heresy was motived far less by religious conviction than by opposition to the imperial government. In spite of the severity with which they were frequently treated, they succeeded in the sixth century in setting up for themselves National Churches. In the Patriarchate of Antioch was established the Jacobite Church, and in that of Alexandria, the Coptic. T h e Patriarchate of Jerusalem, after a series of tragic events, remained true to the official teaching. T h e minority that still remained Orthodox consisted of Greeks, and of natives who were loyal to the Empire. T h e Monophysites gave these contemptuï

65

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES ously the title "Melkites"—or Imperialists. The Melkites maintained themselves as long as the Byzantine domination was sufficiently powerful. The overwhelming invasion of the Moslem Arabs drove a great many of the Melkites to abandon their country in order to seek refuge within the Empire. Only a small minority remained, but these made a much better resistance than the Monophysites to Islamism. The Melkites came ultimately to abandon their ancestral ritual and to adopt that of Constantinople, so that henceforth only the use of their native language distinguished them from the Orthodox of the Byzantine Empire. Persecutions and mass emigrations cleared them almost completely out of Egypt. They maintained themselves better in Syria and it is there chiefly that they are found to-day. From Syria they have gone out in great numbers to Egypt, and have established there important colonies. I. Patriarchate of Antioch (i)

History.

Antioch played a great role during the four first Christian centuries. Capital of all the East it had a flourishing Church from the Apostolic period, and from Antioch numerous missionaries went forth to evangelise the neighbouring countries. The Bishop of Antioch naturally exercised a great influence on his colleagues of Syria. As it was already the civil metropolis, Antioch became also the religious metropolis. Many other Churches adopted the ceremonial of Antioch, and that ceremonial supplied the chief elements of the Byzantine Rite, which was soon adopted by the whole Empire. At the beginning of the fifth century the jurisdiction of Antioch extended to Syria, Palestine, Arabia, and Mesopotamia, and there were W VJ

ORTHODOX M E L K I T E CHURCHES subject to it eleven ecclesiastical provinces with more than one hundred and fifty suffragan bishoprics. Antioch exercised also a real suzerainty over the Churches of Persia and Georgia which she herself had founded. She had no rival in the Empire except Alexandria. But Antioch soon lost this position of eminence. First Arianism, and then internal schisms, greatly weakened it during the greater part of the fourth century. The creation of a new capital at Byzantium deprived Antioch of the prestige which it had frequently derived from the presence of the Imperial Court. The Council of Ephesus (431) proclaimed the independence of the Archbishopric of Cyprus, over which the Patriarchs of Antioch had exercised a jurisdiction more or less direct. The Council of Chalcedon (451) established, at the expense of Antioch, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Further, the Church of Persia, which had become Nestorian, broke off its connexion with Antioch; and finally the Menophysite heresy greatly hastened its decay. The majority of the faithful went over to heresy, and ended by establishing a rival Church which maintained itself in strength in spite of the persecutions to which it was subjected by the civil authorities. Finally the Monothelite heresy succeeded in bringing together a group of partisans who in turn formed themselves into a special Church. The Arab invasion put the finishing touch to the ruin of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. The faithful who did not abandon their country along with the imperial armies were naturally subjected to constant vexations because of their sympathy with Byzantium. The Patriarchal see was often—even for long periods—without an incumbent. The conquest by Nicephorus Phocas of a portion of Syria in 969 67

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES restored a little vitality to the Melkites. The Crusaders did not permit the Greek Patriarch to reside in their territory, but they did not molest in any way the orthodox laity. When the Moslems returned to power in 1269 the Head of the Church was permitted to return. He had, however, no fixed residence, and could not establish himself at Antioch. Finally, in the sixteenth century, he set up his residence in Damascus. The Phanar took advantage of the Sultan's protection to exercise a real jurisdiction over the Church of Antioch. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries nearly all the occupants of the see were of Syrian origin: but in 1724 the See of Antioch was formally reserved to Greeks. Yet the bishops were often selected from among the natives. The Patriarchs nominated by the Phanar concentrated their energy on opposing the development of the movement for return to the unity of the Church, which had begun to make itself felt in Syria at the middle of the seventeenth century,, and on combating the efforts of the Latin Missionaries (Jesuits, Carmelites, Capuchins, and Franciscans) who directed the movement. To this end there were sometimes violent persecutions —especially during the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The Orthodox Syrians at last grew weary of always having a Greek prelate at their head, and in 1885 they tried to have a man of their own race appointed. In this, however, they failed, despite the open assistance given to them by Russia, who was anxious to make the native peoples sympathetic to its imperialistic plans. But in 1899 they had their revenge. The holder of the see, a man named Spiridon had been compelled to resign in January, 1878. At the beginning of the following year the Melkite bishops selected as his successor one of 68

ORTHODOX MELKITE CHURCHES their own people, Mgr. Meleke Doumani. For a whole year the Phanar endeavoured to prevent the recognition by the Sultan of the new Patriarch. But Russia succeeded in securing victory for the Melkite cause. The result of this was a sort of schism. For ten years the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria broke off all relations with the Church of Antioch on the ground that its head was an intruder. Mgr. Doumani was not disturbed by this attitude, and got rid of four bishops of Greek stock who had remained in the patriarchate. In 1906 he was succeeded by another native prelate, Mgr. Gregory IV Haddad (died December 12th, 1928), and in 1909 the Greeks had to accept the existing situation as a fait accompli. Since that time relations with the other Churches have been friendly. Five of the existing metropolitans of the Patriarchate of Antioch have made their studies at the Theological School of Halki and this naturally contributes to good relations between the Patriarchates. The persecutions of Syrian Christians by the Young Turks during the Great War, and the fall of the Russian Empire which was the chief financial support of the Orthodox of Syria, have dealt a fatal blow to the Patriarchate of Antioch. From this it cannot recover without the greatest difficulty, for its financial condition is exceedingly unsatisfactory. During the past fifty years large numbers of the faithful, driven by poverty or drawn by the hope of wealth, have emigrated to the United States, Brazil, and the Argentine. They have founded in these countries prosperous colonies, and over these the Patriarch of Antioch exercises a jurisdiction which, in consequence of the confusion brought on his rivals— especially those in Russia and Constantinople—by the upheaval of the Great War, stands unchallenged. 69

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES (2) Organisation of the Church. The Patriarchate of Antioch has no definite constitution. It may be said, however, that the authority in the Church belongs to three powers—the Patriarch, the Holy Synod, and the Mixed Council. The Patriarch. The Patriarch bears the title "Beatitude" and holds third place among the heads of the Orthodox Churches —following Constantinople and Alexandria. In the Liturgical acclamations he is addressed as: "Patriarch of Antioch the City of God, of Cilicia, of Iberia, of Syria, of Arabia and of all the East, Father of Fathers, Pastor of Pastors, thirteenth Apostle." His residence is at Damascus. He is assisted in the administration of his diocese by two titular metropolitans with the office of Patriarchal Vicars, one of whom is in Antioch and the other in Damascus. According to the regulations established by Mgr. Meleke Doumani in 1900, the Patriarch is elected in the following manner. The metropolitans first appoint a patriarchal administrator during the ten days which follow the vacation of the see. The new Patriarch must be chosen within forty days. There are thirty-eight electors, of whom fourteen are ecclesiastics (viz. the twelve metropolitans in office, the Patriarchal Vicar of Antioch, and a priest of Damascus), and twenty-four laymen (one delegate from each of the twelve metropolitan sees, three for the city of Antioch and nine for the city of Damascus). The plenary assembly makes out a list of three candidates, and from these the metropolitans in Synod select the new Patriarch. He must be at least forty years old; he must be a metropolitan in the Patriarchate of Antioch, and he must have ruled a 70

ORTHODOX M E L K I T E

CHURCHES

diocese for seven years. It is also required that he be educated, pious and zealous. It is not necessary that he should have any kind of theological degree. T h e last Patriarch Gregory I V Haddad was almost altogether self-taught, for practically the only school-instruction he had received was that of the primary school. Under the Turkish regime the list of candidates had to be submitted for approval, in the first instance, to the Sultan, and it was the Sultan who gave to the Patriarch the investiture of office. Such a double formality seems now to have been completely discarded—though of course the Syrian Government might at some time seek advantage from its revival.

The Holy Synod. T h e Holy Synod has the Patriarch for its president. Besides him it includes four members—the two Patriarchal Vicars and two resident metropolitans selected according to seniority—one from the senior metropolitans, the other from the juniors. In theory the Holy Synod is the genuine ruling authority in the Church. It deals with all matters of general importance, it controls religious instruction, preaching, the publication of pious books, etc. In fact the Holy Synod has never yet functioned regularly. Mgr. Gregory Haddad did not convene it at all during the four years prior to his death at the end of 1928. He himself, in spite of the regulations, exercised direct and sovereign authority. Above the Holy Synod, or rather outside it, there is a Plenary Council of Bishops. This meets from time to time when especially serious measures have to be taken. Though its existence is not foreshadowed in the regulations, it is probable that it will soon be put on a legal footing; for the metropolitans who are now in office are manifesting a very decided intention of 7i

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES giving their Church the fixed constitution which the last Patriarch always refused to consider. Mixed National Council.

This consists of twelve members—the four metropolitans or the Holy Synod, and eight laymen, of whom three are from Damascus and one from Antioch. The other lay members are chosen two by two by each of the dioceses in rotation. The Patriarch is the de jure president. The Mixed Council deals especially with temporal affairs; it administers the estate of the Patriarch, and concerns itself with the schools, and with the charitable institutions common to the whole Church. It was created shortly before the Great War, but for the most part it has existed merely on paper—especially during the past ten years. The new constitution of the Church will, without doubt, summon it to a more active existence. Ecclesiastical Divisions.

Besides the diocese of Antioch-Damascus, which is governed by the Head of the Church and his two vicars, the Patriarchate includes twelve metropolitan sees: Beirut, Lebanon (El-Nadad), Tripolis, Epiphania (Hama), Aleppo, Hauran (Bostra), Seleucia (Zahle), Tyre and Sidon (Rassaia), Arkadia (Shaikhtaba), Emesus (Homs), Laodikea and Amida (Diarbekr). The last named see is no longer actually in being—for the incumbent of the see has been compelled to withdraw with his people into Syria. The two metropolitan sees of Tarsus-Adana and Theodosiopolis (Erzerum) have also disappeared through persecution and the flight of the Christians. The colonies in America have been organised into dioceses. Of these two are in the United States (with 85,000 laity, 62 priests and 72

ORTHODOX MELKITE CHURCHES 65 Churches), and one is in Brazil. T h e erection of a third in the Argentine is being planned. T h e three dioceses of Beirut, Lebanon and Tripolis are the only ones that have material resources sufficient for their needs. The rest are unable to maintain their churches and schools. The Syrian Government allocates to the Patriarch annually x 00,000 francs. The metropolitans have no State support: they live on the offerings received during their pastoral visitations, and on certain ecclesiastical revenues. In this way they have from 20,000 to 25,000 francs per annum. T h e three metropolitans of Beirut, Lebanon and Tripolis receive much more than this: the revenue of the metropolitan of Beirut is estimated at 200,000 francs. The Clergy. There are about 350 secular priests: they receive no allowance, except at Beirut where they have an allowance of 3,000 francs yearly. The other clergy live by manual work, and on offerings received from the faithful. The education of the clergy leaves much to be desired. There used to be an ecclesiastical school in the Monastery of Balamand, but it was closed in 1912 and was only re-opened on January 1, 1929, by the Plenary Council of the Bishops. Most of the priests have only received the instruction of a primary school, and, as a rule, they are unable to preach, or to teach catechism. Some of the metropolitans do not reside in their dioceses, and come to them only at visitation-time. Thus the clergy are left largely to themselves. In other respects, too, they get unsalutary example. A t the present moment eight out of the twelve metropolitans are publicly known to be Freemasons. The Patriarchate of Antioch has still fourteen monasteries, of which some are reasonably well

73

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES peopled with inmates, and others are almost empty. Four of the monasteries are stauropegiac—that is, directly subject to the Patriarch: three are subject to the Metropolitan of Tripolis and seven to the metropolitan of the Lebanon. The Monastery of St. George, which is stauropegiac, has considerable estates which are valued at forty million francs. The property of the convents is, as a rule, poorly administered, so that the monks have scarcely the necessary means of subsistence. The Laity. The Patriarchate of Antioch includes 150,000 laity in Syria, the Lebanon, and Transjordania. The numbers of emigrants established in the two Americas is estimated at about 100,000. Some tens of thousands are settled in Egypt, and are subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria. These Melkites are nearly all of Syrian origin, and their vernacular is Arabic. They have but two Lyceums—one at Beirut and the other at Homs, and their elementary schools are quite inadequate in number. Hence they readily send their children to foreign establishments—Catholic or Protestant. They are, as a rule, deeply attached to their religion, even when they do not carry out all the obligations which it imposes. In certain districts—the Hauran in particular —they show a disposition to return to the unity of the Church, and the Catholic Melkites are gaining many earnest recruits amongst them. II. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem (1) History. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem dates only from the fifth century. The Holy City was of course deeply venerated by Christians from the beginning on account 74

ORTHODOX M E L K I T E CHURCHES of the glorious memories which it recalled, but its influence never had been great. The coming of the Roman armies in 70 had caused the fervent community that dwelt at Jerusalem to emigrate to Pella. It was unable to return until the city had been reconstructed by Hadrian in 135—and then only with great circumspection. Caesarea had meanwhile become the civil and religious metropolis of Palestine. The Bishop of Jerusalem, however, in spite of all this, continued to enjoy certain special distinctions. Thus he always held, for example, a place of honour in the councils. From the fourth century the Jerusalem prelates made it their aim to secure for their see a wider sphere of authority. Some of them did not hesitate to usurp metropolitan rights and this was a source of ever recurring disputes. Juvenal manoeuvred things so well that the Council of Chalcedon (451) established a Patriarchate of Jerusalem by detaching from the Antiochian Patriarchate three ecclesiastical provinces containing about sixty bishoprics. From the fourth century up to the Arab invasion in the seventh Palestine enjoyed extraordinary prosperity. Through the munificence of the Imperial Court and of wealthy private individuals she was covered with shrines. Pilgrims from the most remote countries thronged to Palestine to venerate the Holy Places. Religious life flourished everywhere—especially in the Judaean desert and along the Jordan—and produced remarkable saints. Ecclesiastical learning was worthily represented by St. Cyril and St. Jerome and by other scholars of lesser importance. So attached were the monks to the Orthodox teaching that the Monophysite heresy could get no hold on the land. But decay began quite suddenly. Scarcely had Palestine recovered from the Persian invasion of 614 75

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN

CHURCHES

when it was conquered by the Arabs in 637. Some shrines here and there were respected by the conquerors, but most of the Churches and monasteries were sacked. T h e Christians soon found themselves under persecution; and while many fled the country, others embraced the religion of the conquerors. Some monasteries, however—like that of St. Sabas—succeeded in maintaining their existence amid perpetual alarms. Frankish control restored freedom to the Christians, but the Greek Hierarchy was made subject to the Latin Episcopate. T h e Patriarch lived outside the country, and was not able to return until long after the recapture of Jerusalem by Saladin in 1187. Many of the titularies resided at Constantinople; and this made it possible for the Patriarch of Constantinople to exercise authority over Palestine—even the Head of the Palestinian Church was designated by him. Conflicts about the Holy Places arose frequently between the Latins and the other Christians in the East; and the vitality of the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem displayed itself almost exclusively in these futile disputes. A status quo was at last established in the nineteenth century, but not so completely as to make an end of clashes. T h e yoke of the Phanar had always weighed heavily on the Patriarchs of the Holy City, and in the course of the nineteenth century they at last succeeded in shaking it off. After the Young Turk revolution in 1908 a new crisis began, which is not yet over. In 1909 the laity, who were practically all natives, tried to free themselves completely from the Greeks—who had reserved to themselves the bishoprics and the administration of ecclesiastical property. T h e Patriarch Damianos was deposed by his Synod, because he had been willing to make some concessions. He succeeded, however, in

76

ORTHODOX M E L K I T E CHURCHES maintaining himself in power in spite of the intervention of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch. For a short time the storm ceased. Then the people succeeded in obtaining what they had long striven for— a mixed council to administer Church property, as was now the custom in most Orthodox countries. This institution, however, on account of the opposition of the Greeks, was never able to function regularly. The Great War was fatal to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The important financial help which it was accustomed to receive from Russia, and the offerings of thousands of Orthodox pilgrims ceased all at once. T o live and to maintain the activities of the Church it was found necessary to borrow on very unfavourable terms. The financial situation has continued to grow worse since 1918. The burden of debt on the Patriarchate in 1922 was estimated at ¿600,000. The High Commissioner of Palestine was compelled to intervene to restabilise the tottering finances of the Patriarchate, and to put an end to abuses. In this process huge estates were sold—chiefly to the Zionist organisations. These various incidents embittered men's minds. At the end of 1918 the Synod deposed the Patriarch, Mgr. Damianos, but he braved the storm and maintained his position.* The intervention of the English in the affairs of the Patriarchate, and their unconcealed intention of establishing a really effective mixed council displeased the Greeks. The faithful generally sought to get rid of the Greeks, and to make their Church genuinely National. It is not impossible that the Greeks may one day be ousted from Palestine altogether, as they have been ousted from Syria. • Mgr. Damianos died on August 14, 1 9 3 1 . (Translator's note).

77

THE SEPARATED EASTERN

CHURCHES

(2) Organisation of the Church. T h e Patriarch shares his power with a permanent Synod which includes twelve bishops and nine archimandrites. Only two bishops have actual dioceses— the Metropolitans of Ptolemais (St. John of Acre) and Nazareth. T h e rest are titular archbishops, usually in charge of religious service in some important shrine of Jerusalem or its neighbourhood. T h e titles usually held b y them are: Gaza, Jordan, Kyriakupolis (Kerak), Lydda, Madaba, Pella, Petra, Philadelphia, Sebasteia, and Mount Thabor. The Patriarch. T h e Head of the Church bears the titles: "Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and of all Palestine, of Syria, Arabia, Transjordania, of Cana in Galilee, and of Holy Sion." In reality his authority extends only to Palestine and the greater part of Transjordania. Besides, he has suzerainty over the autonomous Archbishopric of Sinai, of which we shall speak later. T h e method of electing the Patriarch has not been changed since the days of Turkish domination. A t that time the election took place as follows: a list of twelve candidates was drawn up by an assembly consisting of all the professed monks in Jerusalem and of twelve native priests from the twelve real and titular dioceses, each diocese being represented by a delegate. T h i s list was submitted for approval to the Sublime Porte. W h e n it was sent back the same electoral body drew up another list of three candidates from among those approved of by the Turkish Government. T h e Plenary Synod of the Bishops proceeded then to a third election in the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre. It is likely that this method of election will be modified in the direction 78

ORTHODOX MELKITE CHURCHES of securing for the native elements a fuller representation, but it is possible that the High Commissioner will continue to insist on the Government's right of approval. Mixed Council. Though it was established in 1911 it has never yet functioned regularly, because in the pre-war period the Greeks systematically obstructed its activity, and since the war the English High Commissioner has continued to submit the patriarchal finances to a commission of experts. Until this commission has completed its work the Mixed Council will have no raison d'être, for the commission really discharges the functions of such a council. Confraternity of the Holy Sepulchre. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem recruits its chief officers from an institution called the Confraternity of the Holy Sepulchre. This was originally established to serve the Holy Places, and to defend them against the other Christian groups; but at the close of the sixteenth century it succeeded in getting control of the government of the Church. From its members all the bishops are chosen. It administers the estates of the Patriarchate, because they consist in the main of pious offerings made to the shrines which the Confraternity protects. The Patriarch is its head and all the members of the Holy Synod belong to it. It is this Confraternity which, in effect, governs the Church. Its members are recruited almost exclusively among the Greeks and so, for the past twenty years, it has met with constant hostility from the native Orthodox. The Confraternity is governed by a mild system of monastic rules. It has seventeen convents in Jerusalem and eighteen in the country, but there is not a community in every convent. The two chief convents are 79

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES those of St. Constantine and St. Helena—which are quite close to the Holy Sepulchre and connected together so as to form a group for themselves. Here the Patriarch and most of the members of the Synod reside; here are the Church offices, the library (which is very rich in MSS.), the printing press, the administration of the review Nea Sion, etc., etc. There are here usually eighty monks or prelates. The Monastery of the Holy Sepulchre houses about fifteen monks who are attached to the service of the Basilica: the Monastery of the Nativity at Bethlehem has about a dozen monks. The other convents are empty and serve chiefly as lodging-houses for Orthodox pilgrims. There is only one regular monastery—that of St. Sabas—in a gorge of the Judaean desert. The monks of St. Sabas lead a life like that of their brethren at Mount Athos. They do not belong to the Confraternity of the Holy Sepulchre. There still exist four convents of women at Jerusalem, but they have only a small number of religious. The Orthodox Greeks occupy important shrines— for instance, the greater portion of the Basilicas of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem and of the Nativity at Bethlehem, half of Calvary, the Tomb of the Blessed Virgin at Gethsemane, etc. Before the Great War each year brought to the Holy Places about 15,000 Orthodox pilgrims, mostly Russian, who left behind them generous offerings. But the pilgrimages have greatly declined since the war, and with them the resources of the Patriarchate. Clergy. The monks of the Confraternity of the Holy Sepulchre have sole charge of the Shrines in the Holy Places. The Parish Churches (about sixty in number) 80

ORTHODOX M E L K I T E

CHURCHES

are usually left to the native priests, who have received no real training, and are mostly without any means of livelihood. There used to be a theological school in the Monastery of the Holy Cross near Jerusalem, but in 1909, when opposition was roused against the Patriarch Damianos, that school was closed. Some young men go to make their studies to Athens or elsewhere. The Laity.

T h e Patriarchate of Jerusalem scarcely includes 45,000 laity—in Palestine and Transjordania. Among those are about 250 Greeks—for the most part in comfortable circumstances. T h e remainder are of Syrian origin, and speak Arabic. They use Arabic in the Liturgy, and in some shrines they have a choir of their own over against the Greek choir. For the past twenty years they have been trying to oust the Greeks from the government of the Church so as to restore to their Church its national character. But the Greeks are stubbornly defending themselves, and they pose as delegates of the entire Orthodox world, commissioned to protect the Holy Places. U p to the present the English have shown a tendency to support the claims of the natives. Yet after the ten years' study which the English have given to the matter no reform has yet been made. There is a Lyceum at Jerusalem which is available chiefly to the Greeks. T h e natives have only primary schools—and only an insufficient number of these. T h e schools formerly founded by the Russians have disappeared since the Great War. A certain number of children attend the Catholic or Protestant Schools. T h e Russians have nothing left but their convents and their hostels for pilgrims—both of which are empty—and their means of subsistence are scant. F

81

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN

CHURCHES

III. Patriarchate of Alexandria (i) Historical. Tradition ascribes to St. Mark the Evangelisation of Alexandria. Christianity spread rapidly in Egypt—at all events in the towns—but it did not, apparently, take root deeply everywhere. T h e Bishop of Alexandria exercised great influence, not only over Egypt, but also over Cyrenaica and Libya. He had ultimately under his jurisdiction nine ecclesiastical provinces with about a hundred bishoprics. This arrangement was sanctioned by the Council of Nice (325). Alexandria enjoyed great prestige and influence also on account of its school and library. It was Alexandria that fixed the date of Easter, and made it known by letters addressed to the Churches; and sometimes it took advantage of these communications to give instruction on matters theological. T h e Patriarch of Alexandria could usually reckon among his subjects thousands of monks living in the desert: Egypt was indeed the cradle of monasticism in all its forms. Among the hermits and cenobites the most famous were St. Paul, St. Anthony, St. Pachomius, St. Ammonius, the two Saints Macarius, etc., etc. Egypt did not succeed in defending herself satisfactorily against heresy. She suffered from Gnosticism in the second century and from Sabellianism in the third. It was at Alexandria that Arius began to spread his errors. These were vigorously opposed by St. Alexander and with very special energy by St. Athanasius, who was several times driven into exile because of his loyalty to the true faith. T h e Arian persecution fell with equal severity on clergy and laity, especially during the reigns of Constantius and Valens. 82

ORTHODOX M E L K I T E

CHURCHES

T h e increasing prosperity of the Church of Constantinople was a source of dissatisfaction to the Church of Alexandria. From the middle of the fourth century the two Churches began to dispute with each other the religious supremacy of the East. Three Egyptian Patriarchs made themselves especially remarkable by their zeal in defending the prestige of their Church— Theophilus (395-412), St. Cyril (412-444), and Dioscorus (444-451). Theophilus went so far as to cause St. John Chrysostom to be deposed at the Conciliabulum of the Oak (403). Dioscorus presided over the Robber Council of Ephesus (the Latrocinium Ephesinum) which condemned St. Flavian of Constantinople (449); but he himself was deposed at Chalcedon (451) for favouring heresy. Dioscorus and the Egyptian bishops had, in effect, declared in favour of Monophysism. Though imperial power succeeded in maintaining Orthodoxy in spite of their opposition, Monophysism became, in a sense, the refuge of Egyptian nationalism. T h e Patriarchal See was often the centre of the struggle—passing, as it did, from the Orthodox to the Monophysites, and back again to the Orthodox. A t last in the sixth century the Egyptians succeeded in setting up a special Church of their own which included the majority of the faithful and the monks. This Church was the Coptic Church, and its influence went on steadily increasing. A t the time of the Arab invasion (638) the Orthodox were but a feeble minority in Egypt. It took a year for the Moslems to conquer Egypt. Even though it has not been proved that the Copts gave active assistance to the invaders, it is true that they were treated benevolently by the conquerors. T h e Moslems ruthlessly persecuted the Orthodox who had not followed the Byzantine armies in their retreat. For

83

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES nearly a century the Patriarchal See was vacant. The Melkites were unable to reorganise it until about 730: they were treated harshly by all those who successively made themselves masters of Egypt. The Patriarchate of Constantinople profited by this to intervene in Alexandria. After the Turkish conquest in 1 5 1 7 it was prescribed that the Head of the Orthodox Egyptians should live near the Sultan—a situation which naturally favoured the usurping activities of the Phanar. There were, moreover, but few Orthodox remaining in Egypt, and they had at their head nothing higher than a simple Archimandrite. The situation changed under Mohammed Ali (18061849). This viceroy caused Hierotheus I I to be appointed Patriarch in spite of the intrigues of the Phanar (1846). The Phanar, however, succeeded in getting its candidates appointed up to the end of the nineteenth century. But in 1899 the Greeks in Egypt selected as Patriarch, Photius—a prelate by no means disposed to be in tutelage to Constantinople. Russia supported energetically the candidature of Photius in order to keep him out of Palestine, for he had designs on the See of Jerusalem. The Phanar yielded with a bad grace, and henceforward maintained rather strained relations with the Church of Alexandria. Photius tried to organise the Patriarchate and to give it a constitution, but the constitution never saw the light. He created, however, a number of metropolitan sees—more titulary than actual—so as to have a Holy Synod. Extensive immigration from Greece and Syria increased the number of the faithful, and of the parishes. Many educational and benevolent institutions were founded by private individuals. Administration, however, left much to be desired, and the Patriarch found himself unable to repress abuses. At his death, 84

ORTHODOX MELKITE CHURCHES on September 5th, 1925, the need of aradical reform was acutely felt. After a varied career Mgr. Meletios Metaxakis, who had been successively metropolitan in Cyprus, metropolitan of Athens, and Patriarch of Constantinople, was elected by a small minority vote as successor of Photius on May 10th, 1926. The Orthodox of Syrian origin, dissatisfied with the small number of votes assigned to them, refused to vote. Mgr. Meletios was then in retirement near Athens. He procured for himself Egyptian citizenship, and made his entry into Alexandria on June 3rd. At once he announced a programme of serious reforms, to which, in the result, he has loyally adhered. He began by re-establishing ecclesiastical discipline which, during the easy-going patriarchate of Photius, had become somewhat lax; he established an ecclesiastical school and an orphanage, and sent back to their convents most of the monks who were serving in the parishes; he called to order the Archbishop of Sinai, who was refusing to recognise the rights of the Patriarchate, procured the adoption of a Calendarreform, etc., etc. There still remained delicate matters to be settled. The Orthodox Syrians who had settled in Egypt and had, in general, accepted Egyptian citizenship, were dissatisfied because the Patriarchate had become an exclusive possession of the Greeks. For a quarter of a century they had been making fruitless efforts to make their protests heard. The Egyptian Government at last espoused their cause and laid down as a condition for approval of the Patriarchal election that Mgr. Meletios should come to a genuine agreement with the Syrians. The Patriarch made an attempt at a conciliation which at first seemed impossible—for the Syrian demands were excessive, and the Greeks refused to 8S

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES forgo anything of what they asserted to be their rights. The discussions lasted a year and a half. At last—on December 8th, 1927, Mgr. Meletios was recognised by a royal decree as the Patriarch of Alexandria. At the same time he published the result of the negotiations which had hitherto been kept secret. The Syrians were given a metropolitan of their own race, and there was conceded to them a system of Patriarchal regulations calculated to meet their demands. The Greeks, however, gave expression to well-founded apprehensions, and blamed Mgr. Meletios for having kept them in ignorance of these important changes. They were forced, however, to accept the fait accompli; and there now remains the task of elaborating the much talked of regulations which will ultimately determine the form of Church-government, and the method of electing the Patriarch. (2) Organisation of the Church The Patriarch. In the Orthodox Hierarchy he comes immediately after the Patriarch of Constantinople. He is addressed with the titles: "Father and Pastor, Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, of Libya, the Pentapolis, Ethiopia, and all the land of Egypt." He has the privilege of wearing two stoles in celebrating Mass, one above, and the other beneath the sakkos, and a sort of tiara or headgear of red velvet. He resides usually in the Monastery of St. Sabas at Alexandria; but occasionally he stays at Cairo in the Monastery of St. Nicholas (Namzrawi quarter). The method of electing the Patriarch has not been always the same, but it will soon be much more definite than it used to be. Mgr. Meletios was elected by the 86

ORTHODOX M E L K I T E CHURCHES plenary assembly of the electors, viz. the metropolitans and the delegates of the clergy and of the laity (parishes and public bodies). There was but a single stage in the election. The Holy Synod. This comprises all the metropolitans of the Patriarchate. It meets usually twice in the year—after Easter, and after Christmas. It may hold extraordinary sessions if the need for these should arise. It has the same privileges as the other Orthodox Synods, for it is the Synod in fact that governs the Church. Mgr. Meletios, however, is regarded as being able to make the assembly accept his views. Ecclesiastical Divisions. These have been modified on three separate occasions since the beginning of this century. The last change was made in 1927. Besides the Patriarchal Diocese, which includes the districts of Alexandria and Cairo, there are eight metropolitan sees: (1) Tripoli or Libya—the titular of which is also Patriarchal Vicar at Alexandria and lives at Alexandria; (2) Leontopolis (residence, Zagazig); (3) Pelusium (residence, Port Said); (4) Hermopolis (residence, Tantah); (5) Ptolemais (residence, Minieh)—the titular of this see is also Patriarchal Vicar at Alexandria and resides in that city; (6) Axum in Ethiopia—re-established in 1927 for the Syrian metropolitan—with residence at Addis-Abeba; (7) Joannoupolis (Johannesburg) for South Africa (residence, Johannesburg); (8) Nubia (residence, Khartum)—(this see was not provided for at the last change). These eight metropolitan sees are beginning to function, but they are not yet fully organised.

87

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES The Clergy. Most of the clergy are Greek in race and speech. There are scarcely ten of Syrian origin. Many are exiles who have come from Turkey or Greece. Their training up to the present has been very defective, for there has not been until recently a single seminary or ecclesiastical school in the whole Patriarchate. In 1926 Mgr. Meletios founded the Hierodidaskalion of St. Athanasius at Alexandria—which is to supply priests for the parishes, and teachers for the primary schools. The course is of five years, with one preparatory year. Ecclesiastical subjects do not, however, take up a quarter of the time given to study. This institute had in 1929 forty-six students, ten of whom were Syrians and the rest Greeks. The five monasteries which still exist in the Patriarchate have no religious life. A number of regular clergy, however, are still to be found in the administration or in the bureaus. Laity. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the Patriarchate of Alexandria had only a few thousand laity. The rapid growth of Egypt under the government of the viceroys, has stimulated a strong movement of immigration, especially from the neighbouring countries. At the moment there are in the country about 100,000 Greeks and 30,000 or 40,000 Orthodox Syrians. During the past thirty years the antagonism of the two races has given rise to a number of unpleasant incidents. The Syrians complain of being treated like pariahs, and of being excluded from all share in the business-matters of the Church. They have built some churches for themselves so as not to be 88

ORTHODOX M E L K I T E CHURCHES bullied by the Greek clergy. At the present moment their demands are becoming more urgent. As most of them are Egyptian subjects, they are claiming that the Patriarchate is a national institution, and seek to exclude the Hellenes from the Episcopate, and from the general administration of the Church. Their claims have already received a measure of satisfaction, but it is likely that they will not remain satisfied with what they have secured. Indeed it does not seem impossible that in the more or less near future they will push out the Greeks completely. The Greeks, for the most part, retain the nationality in which they were born, and in all matters concerning their status they deal only with their own consular authorities. Thus they remain foreigners and, according to the Syrians, they should have no claim to the control of the national patriarchate. It is obvious that this kind of argument is in keeping with the Orthodox theory on autocephalous Churches. The great majority of the laity in the Patriarchate live in Egypt—especially in the towns, where they devote themselves to trade and industry. They have fifty-six churches. There are laity of the Patriarchate in the Egyptian Sudan with six churches; in North Africa (Tripoli, Tunis, Algeria, Morocco) with six churches; in the Belgian Congo, in South Africa (three churches); East Africa (two churches); in Ethiopia (two churches); in Erythrea (two churches); at Jibuti (one church). In Egypt and the Sudan they own about a hundred schools, including twenty-eight private schools—with 16,000 pupils of both sexes— two hospitals (at Alexandria and Cairo respectively), four orphanages with five hundred children, a hospice for the aged, and several benevolent societies. Many of these institutions have been established by private 89

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES individuals, who have devoted considerable sums to this purpose. But in spite of praiseworthy efforts much remains to be done. The religious authorities complain of the great number of children who attend foreign and, particularly, Catholic, schools. It is to be noted, further, that in the territory of the Patriarchate there are ten Greek Freemason lodges, and that certain metropolitans are themselves Freemasons. Since 1908 the Patriarchate has published a Theological Review which was at first a monthly and afterwards became a quarterly—the Pharos Ekklesiasiikos, and a sort of religious weekly, called the Pantainos— which is the official organ of the Church. One cannot help wishing, however, that the editors of these periodicals would learn to maintain a greater degree of calm when they discuss the Pope and Catholicism. IV. Archbishopric of Sinai (1) Historical. This autonomous Church owes its origin to the prestige which the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai long enjoyed in the history of Christianity. Hermits established themselves there at a very early period, and pilgrims thronged there to venerate the scene of the interviews of God with His servant, Moses. In 527 the Emperor Justinian strongly fortified the monastery so as to make it secure from desertbandits. In the next century a Hegumenos of the Monastery made himself famous under the name of John Climachus—or "John of the Ladder"—by his treatise of "The Heavenly Ladder" of the thirty steps. The Moslems did not destroy the monastery, but the monks were compelled to erect therein a mosque. In the course of time the little bishoprics of Pharan and 90

ORTHODOX M E L K I T E

CHURCHES

Raithu were united to the monastery and the Hegumenos became the titulary of these sees. Bit by bit they proclaimed their autonomy—but not without protests from the Patriarchs of Jerusalem. T h e independence of the archbishopric was solemnly recognised by the Holy Synod of Constantinople, first in 1575, and again in 1782. A new struggle began in 1859, when Archbishop Cyril tried to repudiate obedience to Jerusalem and to proclaim himself autocephalous. In spite of the support of the Phanar, Cyril was deposed by a Synod held at Jerusalem on September 5th, 1867, and his diocese was forced to admit the suzerainty of the Holy City. (2) Organisation. T h e Hegumenos, or Superior, of the Monastery of St. Catherine is at the same time, Archbishop of Sinai— Pharan—Raithu. He is elected by the Synaxis, or Chapter of the Convent, but he must be consecrated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and he has to insert the Patriarch's name in the liturgical services. A t his election he makes a sort of contract with the Synaxis to determine his rights and duties. In reality he has scarcely any personal authority, for he cannot appoint to any office, nor go on a journey without the approval of the Synaxis. T h e Synaxis alone can administer the property of the Monastery. T h e Archbishop has been accustomed to reside at the Metokhion, or daughterhouse, at Cairo, which is also governed by a synaxis. But, as a result of disagreements with the Patriarch of Alexandria in 1928, he withdrew to the Monastery of St. Catherine where for half a century his predecessors had only occasionally resided. T h e Synaxis of the Cairo Metokhion ceased to exist at the same time, and its church has become a simple oratory for the monks 91

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES who may not use it, however, for the celebration of Mass.* The authority of the Archbishop extends only to the twenty-seven religious of St. Catherine's Monastery, some other religious living at Cairo and elsewhere, and about fifty Beduins. Thus he governs the smallest of the Orthodox Churches. Formerly the Monastery of Mount Sinai had numerous estates in Russia, Turkey, Cyprus, and the Balkan countries. As a result of forced expropriation it has lost nearly all of them and finds difficulty in procuring even the ordinary means of subsistence. One great treasure at least it still guards— the numerous manuscripts preserved in its library. * Translator's note. In Nov. 1930 the Holy Synod of Alexandria agreed that the monks might carry out their Liturgy and celebrate Mass in the Metokhion—provided that all liturgical functions are finished by sun-rise, except on the Feast of St. Catherine. T h e monks, however, may not resume their customary worship until the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Archbishop of Sinai have signed an agreement, based on this decision of the Synod. See Pantatnos Nov. 20: Dec. 4 , 1 9 3 0 . Echos d'Orient, Jan-Feb. 1 9 3 1 .

92

CHAPTER VI THE RUSSIAN CHURCH

I.

History

RUSSIA did not embrace Christianity until the end of the tenth century. Even if the evangelisation of Scythia by St. Andrew actually took place, as tradition asserts, it probably left no deep traces, since for many centuries there was no Christianity except in the Greek colonies of the Tauris and the districts adjacent. St. Ignatius of Constantinople and his rival, Photius, sent missionaries into Russia, especially for the purpose of evangelising the Khazars—a group which at the time showed Judaising tendencies. Progress in evangelisation was slow. The Princess Olga received baptism at Constantinople in 957; but her example was not followed. Her grandson Vladimir embraced Christianity in order to marry the Byzantine Princess Anna; and he compelled his people to follow his example (989). Bulgarian priests made translations of the Scriptures and the Liturgical Books, and secured permission for the celebration of the Byzantine Rite in Slavonic, as they already had it among their own people. Constantinople retained all its rights over the new Church, and its metropolitan, who resided at Kiev, was always a Greek. Little by little the Russian Church substituted its own clergy for the Bulgarian and Byzantine prelates of the early period; but it was unable to release itself completely from obedience to Constantinople until the end of the sixteenth century. 93

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN

CHURCHES

Through the unremitting efforts of the Greek metropolitans the schism took root gradually in the country, yet the Grand Dukes kept up friendly relations with the Popes, and in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries hopes were entertained of the return of the Russians to Christian unity. Unfortunately, owing to the political rivalries of the Grand Dukes with the neighbouring Catholic States, all attempts in that direction only ended in misunderstandings, which tended to become more and more serious. T h e Union of Florence triumphed at Kiev, but it was rejected by the Grand Duke Vassili II, at Moscow. Vassili succeeded even in securing the recognition of the metropolitan whom he had established in his capital as independent, and the Moscow metropolitan thus became the Head of the dissident Russian Church. Patriarchate Established. T h e capture of Constantinople by the Turks, and the marriage of Ivan III with Princess Zoe, roused in the Russians the ambition of taking the place of the vanished Byzantine Empire. It became increasingly repugnant for them to be the subjects of an Oecumenical Patriarch who was the slave of infidels. T h e idea of an absolutely independent National Church made headway, and in 1589 it was realised by the all-powerful minister, Boris Godunoff. Jeremias II, the Patriarch of Constantinople, came on a questing tour, and Godunoff seized the opportunity to obtain from him the establishment of a Patriarchate in Moscow (January 23rd, 1589). T h e Greeks made futile protests—but the only concession made to them was the agreement that the Head of the Russian Church would demand investiture from the Oecumenical See. 94

T H E RUSSIAN CHURCH This condition, however, was never observed, and it was abrogated in 1663. T h e Patriarchs of Moscow profited by their prestige, and by the victories of the Grand Dukes, to gather under their jurisdiction the various sections of the Russian people—so as to exercise a preponderating influence over all the East. Unfortunately, however, they were absolutely in subjection to the civil power which had established them. T h e struggle between Church and State finally brought about the suppression of the Patriarch by Peter the Great in 1700. Reforms of Nikon. T h e most celebrated of the Patriarchs was Nikon. Through the favour of Tsar Alexis Romanof, this man, who was the son of a peasant, was raised to the See of Moscow (1652). A t once he set about realising two objects which he had in view—the reformation of the Church and the establishing of the Church's independence of civil authority. T h e Slavonic version of the Sacred Sepulchre contained a great number of inaccuracies, and the text of the version in use was not everywhere uniform. Furthermore, a considerable variety of practices had been introduced in the course of centuries which greatly affected the purity of the ritual. T h e Greeks did not miss the opportunity of blaming the Russians for these defects, and a Patriarch of Constantinople went so far as solemnly to denounce them. In 1654 Nikon convened a council at Moscow, in which Greek bishops took part. This assembly decreed the suppression of the liturgical usages which had been criticised, and ordered the correction of the Bible and the Liturgical Books. T h e people and the inferior clergy gave no cordial 95

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN

CHURCHES

welcome to these reforms because, in their ignorance, they ascribed a sort of magical power to the traditional formulae. They rejected every change proposed, and blamed the Patriarch for having allowed himself to be influenced by the Greeks—who were the slaves of the Turks, and had become tainted through the Ruthenians with the "Latin heresy." A further council, however, held in 1666, confirmed the reforms of 1654. Nikon was then no longer the Head of the Russian Church. His efforts to free the Church from the domination of the Tsars and the boyards had caused such dissatisfaction in government circles that he withdrew voluntarily into exile. T h e council of 1666 deposed him, though, at the sam$ time, it sanctioned his reforms. T h e civil power gave its support ruthlessly to the changes in religious practices advocated by Nikon. Those who refused to accept them were treated with great severity during a period of more than ten years. In the end it was found necessary to leave in peace those whose submission the violence of repression could not secure. These were only a minority, but that minority was made up of the more fervent elements among the monks, the priests, and the laity. T h e Official Church regarded this minority movement as a schism (raskol), but the adherents of the party called themselves the "old believers" (Starovery). They did not long preserve their unity, and the movement finally broke up into a number of sects. Regulations of Peter the Great (1720). Nikon's efforts to secure the Church's independence in relation to the civil power, had offended the Tsars, who wished to dominate the country completely, and would brook no opposition. Peter the Great, in 96

T H E RUSSIAN CHURCH particular, worked steadily to enfeeble the Church which dared to oppose him. When the Patriarch Adrian died (October 15th, 1700), instead of appointing his successor, Peter contented himself with nominating a "Guardian of the Imperial Throne" in the person of Stephen Iavorsky—the man whom he had selected to carry through the ecclesiastical reforms he had in view. It took twenty years to produce them, for Peter had no desire to have over again, at his own expense, the experiences of Nikon. At last, in 1720 appeared the famous regulations which gave to the Russian Church its new constitution. The bishops had to sign them willingly or unwillingly. In 1723 the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias I I I , with his Synod, approved of them. Instead of a Patriarch, the Supreme Head of the Church, there was now only a Holy Synod as governing authority, and the members of the Synod were nominated by the Tsar. All bishops were put on the same level of rank; but the titles Metropolitan and Archbishop were to be used as rewards which the Sovereign might give to prelates for special services. The secret of the confessional was abolished in the case of high treason, and when a scandal might by its abolition be prevented. Men were prohibited from making religious vows before their thirtieth, and women before their fiftieth, year. Though civil government underwent considerable evolution in the meantime, most of these reforms were maintained for two centuries. Thus the Church became simply a wheel in the Government machine. The Tsars had the proceedings of the Synod supervised by a procurator-general, who could veto any decision that might cause trouble to the State. Some of these procurators made themC

97

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES selves remarkable by their bigotry towards the nonorthodox—whom they sought to bring into the official Church on the pretext that only thus could they be regarded as genuine Russians. In this reference, special mention should be made of Count Protassof, a cavalry officer under Nicholas I, of Count Dimitri Tolstoi, under Alexander II, and of Pobedonotsef (1880-1905). The Ruthenian Catholics were the first victims of Russian orthodoxy. Since the time of Catherine II, almost all the Russian sovereigns have sought to abolish the Union concluded at the end of the sixteenth century. Thus millions of the faithful were torn from the Roman Church by violent persecutions. In 1 8 1 1 the Georgians lost their religious independence, and were forcibly incorporated into the official Church. The Armenians, too, regarded by the Orthodox as heretics and schismatics, were persecuted up to the end of the nineteenth century. As for the Poles—they were subjected to a regime still more severe. The complete dependence of the Orthodox Church on the civil power deprived it, not merely of its vitality, but also of the respect which it had hitherto enjoyed in society. The bishops were no longer anything but State officials—ecclesiastical prefects. The secular clergy, badly trained in the seminaries, and generally very poor, were unable to maintain any prestige among the people. They were recruited from a caste-like group, the traditions of which it was difficult to break through. The bishops were mostly from better circles, but they sometimes treated the clergy harshly, and thus relations between bishops and clergy were strained. The revolution of 1905 brought about a relaxing of the persecution of the non-orthodox, and made it 98

T H E RUSSIAN

CHURCH

possible to entertain ideas of reform. T h e Press called for the immediate convening of the National Council, which was to be charged with the adoption of numerous changes in Church government and, above all, with the re-establishment of the Patriarchate. But when the central power regained its authority these projects of reform were, for the moment, abandoned. But there remained a sullen rancour both against the political regime, and against the Church which had too often made itself the more or less voluntary supporter of the State. This fact explains, to some extent, the indifference shown by the people to the severe persecution of the clergy by the Soviets during the years following the Revolution of October, 1917. Re-establishment of the Patriarchate. After the fall of the Empire, Russian patriots could see nowhere but in the Church a power capable of restoring the situation which the feebleness of Kerensky had compromised. They procured the convocation of the National Council—which met at Moscow on August 15th, 1917. T h e Assembly included a strong minority of laity. It adopted a body of reforms which aimed at giving the Church a greater independence and vitality; but through the tragic happenings which overwhelmed the country, these reforms remained a dead letter. T h e only reform which was carried out was the restoration of the Patriarchate, which had been suppressed for two hundred years; but the personal power of the Patriarch was not re-established. T h e supreme authority in the Church devolved on the National Council. This body was to meet regularly at fixed intervals. It was to consist of bishops, clergy and laity. T h e Patriarch, who was to be responsible to the Council, would have the direction of ecclesi99

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN

CHURCHES

astical affairs; on purely religious matters he was to act conjointly with a Holy Synod of twelve bishops; and in administrative affairs, school questions, etc., he was to co-operate with a Supreme Ecclesiastical Council.This Council was to include fifteen members— three bishops of the Holy Synod, an Archimandrite, five secular priests, and six laics. T h e Patriarch was to be de jure president of both these assemblies. Thus would be maintained the principle of conciliar authority (sobornost)—the government of the Church by a Synod—which has come to be an officially accepted theory among the Orthodox. In fact, however, neither the Holy Synod nor the Supreme Ecclesiastical Council was even nominated, for the revolutionary disorders dispersed the members of the Council in September 1918, before they had completed their task. Persecutions. On October 28th, 1917, the National Council had elected as Patriarch Mgr. Tichon Belavine, Metropolitan of Jaroslav and Rostov. This prelate became at once immensely popular through his inflexible opposition to the Communist intrigues. He did not hesitate solemnly to denounce the enemies of the Church, and their excesses, and he preached to the clergy and people resistance to the new iniquitous laws. Bitter persecution burst forth against the Church. In a few years 28 bishops, 1,200 priests and tens of thousands of the laity paid for their loyalty to religion by death; others in huge numbers were cast into prison or exiled; the treasures of the churches and monasteries were put up for sale on the pretext of raising funds to help the victims of the drought; religious—men and women— were disbanded; many places of worship were given 100

T H E RUSSIAN CHURCH over to profane uses, etc., etc. One could make a long list of crimes committed by the Soviets against the National Church. T h e official reason alleged for these severities was always the necessity of combating the counter-revolution—but, in reality, the whole policy was a war against religion, as can easily be seen from the systematic organisation of atheistic teaching through schools, lectures, the press, the cinema, etc. T h e Patriarch Tichon was ultimately interned in the monastery of Donskoi on May 19th, 1922. In the following year he publicly made submission to the revolutionary government, and was permitted to resume his patriarchal functions. These he exercised until his death on April 7th, 1925. Internal Divisions.

As soon as the Empire disappeared, definitely separatist tendencies—not merely in politics, but also in religion—began to show themselves in many districts. A t the end of May 1918 the Georgian Church proclaimed its independence. In October 1921 the Archpriest Yassili Lipkovskij organised his PanUkrainian Church—which had to dispense with bishops because no one could be found to consecrate them. Subsequently other autonomous groups were formed. T h e Patriarchal Church itself gave an example of dissensions. T h e Soviets did not need to seek long for discredited or ambitious ecclesiastics able to assist them in their struggle against the influence of Tichon. In 1921 a party was formed strong enough to demand radical reforms. Immediately prior to his imprisonment (May 18th, 1922) the Patriarch had designated Agathangelus, Archbishop of Jerusalem, as head of the Church in his absence. But the second day after 101

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES this Bishop Antonin Granovskij and his group formed themselves into a Provisional Supreme Ecclesiastical Government—which soon came to be called the Living Church. They proceeded at once to make important changes in ecclesiastical discipline, and showed clearly their intention of disregarding even Dogma itself. The first reform introduced was the granting of permission to married priests to enter the episcopate, and to marry a second or even a third time, if their wives died. In the end, however, Bishop Antonin left the Living Church, and organised a new party which showed more respect for tradition, viz., the "Ecclesiastical Renaissance." This group in turn separated from the "Federation of the Communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church," founded in 1922. The Patriarchal Vicar, Agathangelus, Archbishop of Jaroslav, was unable to take up the control of the Church, and, as a result, there developed a certain amount of wavering among the partisans of Tichon. The reformers took advantage of this to strengthen their own position. In May 1923 they held a sham National Council which declared Tichon deposed, suppressed the Patriarchate, and appointed in its stead a Supreme Ecclesiastical Council of eighteen members to govern the Church. A month later the Patriarch was set at liberty after making his submission to the Soviets. He condemned the innovators immediately—and they split up into several rival groups. In spite of this, however, they set up a Synod which was soon recognised by several Greek Patriarchs. This new organisation called itself the "Church of the Orthodox Renewal," or the "Renewal," simply. It is now called the Synodal Church. It made attempts to become united to the Patriarchal Church—but in vain. 102

T H E RUSSIAN CHURCH Though his submission to the Soviets had caused much uneasiness among his supporters, Tichon still retained most of his prestige and influence. Many ecclesiastics and laity who had been misled by the apparent legitimacy of the Synod set up at Moscow, returned to obedience to Tichon. T h e Church of the Renewal, however, strong in the freedom given to it by the Government, organised itself solidly under the direction of Vvedenskij—a married archpriest, who had become Bishop of Moscow. T h e recognition of this man by Gregory V I I of Constantinople and Damianos of Jerusalem slightly weakened the confidence of the laity in Mgr. Tichon. T h e Patriarch, on his part, protested against the undue interference of the Greek Churches in the religious affairs of Russia, and forbade the mention of the "Eastern Patriarchs" in the public worship. Tichon died in semi-captivity on April 7th, 1925, having designated as Patriarchal Vicar, Peter, the Metropolitan of Krutitza. II.

Present Condition

It is difficult to give an exact and complete picture of the religious situation in Russia. On the one hand, we have not enough information about the points of real interest, and, on the other, new incidents are constantly happening that change the whole state of things. W e shall, however, try to group round each of the communities that have emerged from the old State Church the most reliable details that we have been able to ascertain. Of the old "Apostolic Church" and of the "Workers' Free Church," we shall say nothing, for these are now only memories. T h e "Living Church," founded in 1922, after playing an important part at its inception, 103

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN

CHURCHES

is now in its death agaony. Its Head is Vladimir Krasnitzkij. It is still necessary to reckon with the "Ecclesiastical Revival"—though it, too, is threatened with an early demise. T h e real Churches of Russia are the Patriarchal Church, the Synodal C h u r c h — which has ramifications in various districts—the National Ukrainian Church, and the Church of the Exiles. (i) The Patriarchal Church When the Patriarch Tichon died on April 7th, 1925, the government of the Church fell to Peter of Krutitsa, whom Tichon had appointed Patriarchal Vicar. This Prelate, who was formerly a functionary of the Imperial Holy Synod, and had only recently taken orders, was regarded in an unfriendly fashion by both clergy and laity. He did not long govern the Church, for in December, 1925, he was cast into prison for "counterrevolutionary" activities. He named as his successor Sergius Starogrodskij—Metropolitan of Nijni-Novgorod, who, however, was ordered by the Government to remain provisionally in his diocese. A t Moscow the bishops had profited by the existing situation to organise a Supreme Ecclesiastical Council, but this coup d'état met such opposition in the hierarchy that the Bishops were forced to abandon their attitude. Towards the end of 1926 Sergius of Nijni-Novgorod was thrown into prison in his turn, and various bishops sought to take in hands the direction of affairs. Sergius was released in the spring of 1927, and began to negotiate with the Soviets. On July 29th he announced in a formal circular that he had obtained legal authority for the general control of the Church. At the same time he declared unlawful every act that might be directed against the existing political regime. He invited the 104

T H E RUSSIAN

CHURCH

clergy in exile to give up all politics immediately, and to sign a formal recognition of the Soviet government; refusal to do this would involve exclusion from the Church. This decree aroused opposition, not merely abroad, but also in Russia. Many bishops refused to obey, and were harassed by the police. Others, apparently, were deposed by Sergius, and by the Synod which he had set up at Moscow. In the autumn of 1927 the Patriarchal Vicar ordered that mention should be made publicly of the Soviet Government in the liturgical functions. This gave rise to new protests and then to still further measures of coercion. T h e concessions made to the political regime by Mgr. Sergius did not put an end to persecution, but they made it possible for him to organise the government of the Church. A t its head are a Patriarchal Vicar and a Synod—until such time as events permit the still hoped-for re-establishment of the Patriarchate. There are about two hundred bishops, for each of the rival Churches has multiplied sees in order the better to establish its power; but many of the prelates are still either exiled or in prison. It is certain that the Church which is loyal to the memory of Tichon is recognised by the majority of the Orthodox in Russia—doubtless because it embodies better than any other the national traditions. It also reflects excellently the spirit of the old State Church, except in so far as it accepts the principle of the Patriarchate, and submits to the de facto government, declaring that religion is independent of the various forms of political regime. It treats the other Orthodox, and particularly the reformers, just as the raskolniks were treated in the old regime—that is, it rebaptises, re-confirms, and re-ordains them according to circumstances, and reconsecrates their Churches.

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES (2) The "Ecclesiastical Revival" This represents the radical element among the reformers. Its founder was Bishop Antonin Granovskij. It sprang from the "Living Church," and separated from the "Ecclesiastical Renewal" after the Council of 1923—but it carried with it only a small minority of the faithful. Its innovations were too radical to win popular sympathy. It not merely granted to widower ecclesiastics the right of marrying again, but also made far-reaching changes in the Liturgy, and in the administration of the Sacraments: the reforming Synod even deposed Bishop Antonin for having corrupted traditional doctrine, by teaching that the essence of the sacraments consists in uniting men morally with God. It is probable, too, that that prelate looked on the mass as purely symbolical, and that he did not admit transubstantiation. The "Ecclesiastical Revival" never had many adherents. At the Congress which it held in 1925 Bishop Antonin had to admit that it had only one bishop, five priests, and fourteen parishes. This Congress made itself remarkable chiefly by its protestations of loyalty to the Soviets, and its violent diatribes against its adversaries—the Tichonians, reformers, and exiles. At the close of 1926 the Head of the Ecclesiastical Renewal, who had fallen seriously ill, besought the pardon of the reforming Synod, and begged that he might be granted episcopal burial. Though Antonin had not despatched the retractation in writing which had been demanded from him, the Synod assisted corporately at his funeral (January 15th, 1927). The death of its Head has disorganised the "Ecclesiastical Revival"; it still has some adherents, but its days are probably numbered. 106

THE RUSSIAN CHURCH (3) Ecclesiastical Renewal Strengthened by the approval of Gregory VII, Patriarch of Constantinople, given to it at the beginning of 1924, the "Ecclesiastical Renewal" intensified its propaganda under the leadership of the Metropolitan Alexander Vvedenskij—a gifted orator whose words reached all classes. The movement drew with it for a while the majority of the Russian people, whose confidence in the Patriarch Tichon had been shaken by the intervention of the Phanar. It must be remembered, too, that the "Renewal" held to the tradition of Peter the Great in keeping the Synod at the head of the Church. The Soviets showed it official favour, both to set the orthodox against each other, and to ruin the prestige of the Patriarch. It was enabled to open a Theological Institute at Leningrad and an Ecclesiastical Academy at Moscow, and to issue a Review called the "Messenger of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church." At the end of 1924 it had only 9,939 churches, 11,057 priests, and 176 bishops; in October 1925 it had 16,000 churches, 17,000 priests and 200 bishops. At this latter date it held a Synod at Moscow which marked the zenith of its success. It permitted, however, the establishment of an Autocephalous Synodal Church in the Ukraine—an example which was taken up by other districts—after the model of the Federation of the Socialist and Soviet Russian Republics. Since autumn 1925 the "Renewal" has been slowly on the decline. In spite of the death of Tichon, and the difficulties connected with the Patriarchal succession, the people have come to stand more and more behind the head of the Patriarchal Church— especially of late, since an understanding between the 107

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES two parties has become impossible. The "Renewal" must have lost over 3,000 parishes in three years. In the great Russian Provinces which are more loyal than others to the national traditions, it has very few adherents among the peasantry. The Ecclesiastical Renewal reflects the tendencies of the old White, or married, clergy. The supreme authority is vested in the Synod of Moscow, which is made up of eighteen members—bishops, priests, and lay men. The "Renovators" are opposed to the reestablishment of the Patriarchate, and to the personal control of a single prelate. For them conciliar government is one of the marks of the true Church, and for that reason they are called "Synodalists." They have to be loyal to the Soviets, but it is difficult to decide how far their loyalty is sincere. They have abolished the obligation of celibacy in bishops, and allowed ecclesiastics who become widowers to marry again. The abolition of episcopal celibacy has not been well received by the laity. The "renovators" have adopted the new Calendar; they have decided that the Epistle and the Gospel in the Mass are to be chanted in Russian, and they are preparing other reforms in the Ritual and in Canon Law. The Holy Synod of the "Renovators" of Moscow has under its immediate jurisdiction fifty-seven dioceses grouped in seven Metropolitan areas: Moscow, Leningrad, Voronezh, Kazan, Nijni-Novgorod, Tashkent and Tula. Eight other provinces depend on the Moscow Synod more or less loosely: White Russia (five dioceses); Far East (six dioceses); North-West (fourteen dioceses); North Caucasus (nine dioceses); Crimea (three dioceses); Transcaucasia (two dioceses); Siberia (twelve dioceses); Ural (eleven dioceses). In 1926 more than a third of the incumbents of these sees 108

THE RUSSIAN CHURCH were married. In the Far East five out of the six bishops were married; and in Siberia eleven out of the twelve—these being the countries in which the reform has gained most adherents. The Synodal Church of the Ukraine has not yet broken off relations with the "Renovators" in Moscow, but it maintains its own independent self-government. The Synod of the "Renovation" has made attempts to organise groups in the various countries where Russian emigrants have settled. Such groups have been formed with some success in the United States, and certain courts have accepted the right of such groups to the ownership of Churches built under the old regime. In other places the "Renovators" have been implacably opposed. (4) Church of the Exiles It is estimated that more than two million Russians succeeded in escaping from the revolutionaries, and settling in various countries of Europe and America. More than twenty bishops met at Constantinople in June 1920 and decided to set up for themselves an independent Church—pending the possibility of renewing relations with the Patriarch Tichon. These bishops accepted the hospitality generously offered by Serbia, and set up at Carlovtsi a Holy Synod under the presidency of Anthony Khrapovitskij, one-time Metropolitan of Kiev. Bishops then established themselves in various places to organise religious service for the exiles. This naturally gave rise to disputes about jurisdiction with the local orthodox authorities. These disputes became particularly acute at Constantinople and the Oecumenical Patriarch succeeded in compelling the departure from Constantinople of the Russian prelates who had settled there. 109

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES The Synod of Carlovtsi experienced much opposition in exercising the authority which it had given to itself. On May 5th, 1922, the Patriarch Tichon solemnly condemned the Synod—most likely because its political activities for the restoration of the Romanoffs made the Soviets more hostile to the Orthodox Russians, whom they suspected of complicity in those activities. Even among the exiled prelates themselves it met with opposition. Tichon had appointed two Exarchs to govern the exiled Russians—the Metropolitan Eulogios at Paris for Western Europe, and the Metropolitan Plato for North America. These two Prelates had many difficulties with the Synod of Carlovtsi. The dispute became acute in 1926 when they finally refused to recognise its authority. In January 1927 the Synod dismissed them, and appointed administrators to govern their dioceses. The two prelates refused, however, to submit, maintaining that they held their power from the real Head of the Russian Church—the Patriarch Tichon. The Greek Synods of Athens and Constantinople approved of their action, and the bulk of the clergy and laity joined them in their opposition to Carlovtsi. A manifesto from the Metropolitan Sergius (July 29th, 1927) enjoining on the priests and bishops in exile to refrain from all political activity, and to send in their formal submission to the Soviet regime, was a further cause of trouble. The Synod of Carlovtsi replied with a categorical refusal. Then on May 9th, 1928, the Metropolitan Sergius declared the Synod unlawful and devoid of jurisdiction. This sentence had little effect. But the Metropolitan Eulogius had shown himself more astute than the refugee prelates in Serbia. Protesting that he stood aside from all questions of political regime, he demanded that he should not no

THE

RUSSIAN

CHURCH

be separated f r o m the National C h u r c h . Sergius acceded to his request, and b y the same decree of M a y 9th, 1928, released him f r o m the sentence of dismissal pronounced against him b y the S y n o d of Carlovtsi, and confirmed h i m in the authority w h i c h he had received f r o m the Patriarch T i c h o n . * (5) The Pan-Ukrainian National Church T h e fall of t h e Russian E m p i r e vigorously aroused the various forms of nationalism that had been dormant under the rule of the Tsars. T h i s was specially true of the Ukraine w h i c h had been in sullen subjection since its conquest in the seventeenth century. I n 1 9 1 7 an active campaign for Ukrainian political and religious independence began. O n January 1st, 1919, the Rada proclaimed the freedom of the National C h u r c h , b u t * T h e Synod of Carlovtsi (presided over by M g r . Anthony of Kiev), the Synodal Church of Moscow, and the Patriarchal Church of Moscow (under Sergius) have all claimed jurisdiction over the Russian Exiles, Eulogius, residing at Paris, exercised jurisdiction, as Metropolitan of Western Europe, over the Russian Exiles of Western Europe in the name of Sergius until 1930. He was then excommunicated by Sergius for having disobeyed the express orders of the latter in reference to political activity. Eulogius was then taken up by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and recognised by it as Exarch, with authority over all the Russian Exiles of Western Europe. T h i s action of Constantinople was resented by the exiles, and the Synod of Carlovsti issued a formal protest against it. Some months later K i n g Alexander and the Patriarch Barnabas gave to Anthony of Kiev, President of the Synod of Carlovsti, the title Makariotatos—which is regarded as the special title of Heads of Patriarchal Churches, thus implicitly supporting the protest of Carlovsti against Constantinople. Further, Barnabas has requested the Phanar to invite the Synod of Carlovtsi to send delegates to the Council to be held at Mount Athos. If the Patriarchate of Constantinople grants this request, it will be an admission that Constantinople acted incorrectly in the case of Eulogius. Meanwhile the Exiles are transferring their allegiance from Eulogius to Eleutheros, Metropolitan of Lettonia, who has been appointed Exarch of the Russian Churches in Western Europe. (Translator's note.) ill

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES no concrete result followed from this proclamation for more than two years. A Council held in October 1921 decided that the Ukrainian Church should be organised on a democratic basis—with heads chosen by the people. As no bishop would accept this point of view, the members of the Council (priests and laymen) proceeded themselves to the consecration of the Archpriest Vassili Lipkovskij—who thus became "Metropolitan of Kiev and of the whole Ukraine." Lipkovskij then in turn carried out further consecrations, so as to organise a pseudo-episcopacy. For this reason his partisans are known as the "selfconsecrated." Not only was marriage made lawful for the pseudobishops, but several important changes were made in ecclesiastical discipline (viz.: the laity were given preponderance in Church administration; appointment to ecclesiastical offices was to be by election). The liturgy from now on was to be celebrated in Ukrainian, and all the national customs abolished by the Russians were reintroduced. The new Church met with such success that in 1923 it had twenty-five "bishops" and three thousand parishes. Since then it has had a chequered career. The Soviets have regarded unfavourably its struggle for independence, and sometimes have treated it with great harshness. In October 1925 a genuine bishop, named Tarnovskij, joined the nationalist movement, and brought with him a considerable number of adherents. The Church of Lipkovskij has still to reckon with the Synodal Church (of which we are about to speak), and with the Patriarchal Church, which still has followers in the Ukraine, especially in the Kiev district.

112

THE RUSSIAN CHURCH (6) The Ukrainian Synodal Church This is a branch detached from the "Ecclesiastical Renewal." At the Council of 1925 the bishops of the Ukraine asked leave to organise themselves as an autocephalous Church—partly, no doubt, to meet the wishes of the people, and partly to keep them away from the Church organised by Lipkovskij. The Council willingly authorised the separation and the Ukraine got its special Synod at Kharkov, and arranged its government along the same lines as the "Ecclesiastical Renewal." It seems, however, to have retained some respect for tradition, so that, for instance, in the Ukrainian Church there are very few married bishops. Indeed, the Council that met in Kharkov in May 1928 decided to reserve to a future general council the question of permitting married priests to enter the episcopate. The Council decided also not to break off relations completely with the Synod of Moscow. The Ukrainian Synodal Church includes forty dioceses, of which two are metropolitan sees, viz.: Kharkov and Kiev. Most of the people obey the National Synodal Church, and it seems to have the best hope of a future in the country, for it has shown itself to be relatively conservative while satisfying national sentiment. (7) The Raskol We have seen that the reforms introduced by the Patriarch Nikon in the seventeenth century met with strong opposition among the ordinary clergy, the monks and the laity. For those ignorant people every change in the text or in the rite of the ceremonial was looked on as a veritable heresy. The civil power then H

"3

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES was forced to cease its persecutions when it found itself unable to break down popular opposition. The dissenters were treated as raskolniks ( = "schismatics"). Their number was increased by the reforms of Peter the Great. Soon they separated into two branches, the Popovtsy ( = Presbyterians) and the Bezpopovtsy (the "Priestless"). It is not possible to ascertain the exact number of the raskolniks, and they themselves do not know it. It is supposed that they number about fifteen millions—twelve million popovtsy, and three million bezpopovtsy. Apart from the adherents of certain sects these raskolniks are among the most pious and sincere of the Orthodox. The Popovtsy. For fifty years they had no hierarchy, and were forced to accept the ministrations of the priests who had left the official Church. For this reason they were also dubbed bieglopopovtsy (i.e. followers of the runaway priests). The laity had from the beginning, and still hold, great influence in the government of the community. The centre of the movement was at first at Yiatka, in the Mohilev district, and later at Starodub, north of Tchernigov. In 1816 the Metropolitan, Ambrose of Bosnia, who had been deposed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, settled at Bielokrinitsa in the Bukovina, and consecrated bishops for the raskolniks. But all did not recognise his authority, and many refused to obey the hierarchy which he set up. The dissenting Popovtsy have recently (1926) put at their head a genuine bishop—Nicholas of Saratov. The others had ten dioceses in 1914. It is probable that the fall of the Empire and the divisions in the official Church have increased the number of the Popovtsy; but exact information regarding them is not 114

THE RUSSIAN CHURCH attainable. Attempts made to secure the fusion of the two hierarchies have not yet succeeded. Before the fall of the Empire the Holy Synod of Petrograd had secured the submission of a number of Popovtsy, but was not able to suppress their peculiar usages. These Popovtsy are known as the Edinovertsy (the "Unbelievers"). The Bezpopovtsy. Deprived of a priesthood they soon came to admit only one sacrament—baptism; and they were unable to form themselves into a Church for want of a hierarchy. As was inevitable, they split up into a great number of sects, some of which profess very peculiar doctrines. The most numerous of the sects are the Theodosians, and the Pomortsy—which are fairly conservative. Others are anarchists and revolutionary —such as the Philippovtsy and the Straniki ("Wanderers"). Other sects are the Moltchalniki ("Dumb"), the "Deniers," the Nemoliaki ("non-praying"), etc. (8) Sects not Derived from the Raskol Russia is to-day, as it formerly was, the great land of sects. In spite of all the severity employed against them by the imperial police, they never ceased to multiply as the centuries went on. This is partly due to the character of the Russian people, with its tendency to a vague mysticism that does not shrink from the most outlandish systems. Recent proofs of this can be seen in the vogue of the 'Onomatolaters," or worshippers of the Name of Jesus, before the War, and in the popularity of the infamous Rasputin during the War. The real cause, however, of it all is the lack "5

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES of solid religious instruction. Christianity has never reached the depths of the Russian soul; indeed, it has remained quite on the surface, and here we find the genuine explanation of the profusion of sects, and their persistence in the face of persecution. The fall of the Empire and the powerlessness of the Church in regard to the sects since she has lost the support of the secular arm, have helped to increase their activity. This can be shown clearly in regard to several of them. There are three groups of sects that have not sprung from the Raskol. These are (a) the Mystics—who have connections with paganism and with the heresies of the early centuries, especially Manichaeanism; (b) the Rationalists—imbued with Protestant ideas; (c) the Judaisers. (а) The Mystics have different systems for securing union of the soul with God. The Khlysti ("Flagellantes") who call themselves liudi Bojii ("men of God") believe that Divinity becomes from time to time incarnate in a creature—and that creature they worship. The Skakuni ("Jumpers") have usages like those of American Quakers. The Skoptsy ("eunuchs") mutilate themselves to free themselves from temptations of the flesh: they call themselves bielie golubi ("white doves"). Accusations of immorality are brought— and not without probability—against these various sects, yet they have found recruits even in the highest ranks of society. (б) Protestantism has been parading its teachings in Russia since the time of Peter the Great. It has found numerous adherents among the Orthodox. The Dukhobortsy ("Warriors of the Spirit") and the Molokany ("Milk-drinkers") profess a spiritualised Christianity, and prohibit external ritual. The 116

THE RUSSIAN CHURCH Stundists, or Evangelists, who are widely spread in the south, are akin to the Anabaptists. For several years the Baptists, helped by their numerous coreligionists in America, have been carrying on a fierce propaganda and, thanks to the material resources at their disposal, are gaining considerable success. The Adventists are, as yet, few in number, but very active, and subsidies coming from America make them hopeful of increasing their strength in the near future. (c) Finally there are sects which have felt, to a certain extent, the influence of Judaism—for instance, the Subbotniki ("Sabbatarians") who have substituted Saturday as a day of rest for Sunday. It is very difficult to discover the exact number of members belonging to these sects. The Mystics probably number not more than some hundred thousands. The Dukhobortsy are reckoned at a million, the Molokany at two millions, the Stundists at a million, the Baptists at a million, and the Adventists at twelve thousand only. Taken together these sects would thus have about six million adherents. Logically, of course, the Bezpopovsty should be reckoned with them. (9) The Russian People It might have been thought that the Russian people would make a poor resistance to the fierce war that for several years has been waged by the Bolsheviks against religion. Yet it is evident to-day that Communism has broken itself against the passive resistance of the masses. Out of the 147 million inhabitants of the U.S.S.R. in 1928 the party in power had to admit that there were not more than 800 thousand Communists, and 500 thousand "candidates"! Not even all of these 117

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES could be reckoned as unbelievers, for the Anti-God Association included not more than 120 thousand members, of whom a considerable number were not Orthodox by birth. In the country districts especially, the Soviet State has to reckon with the people—who make use of every device to escape from government tyranny. Even though the Bolsheviks have massacred bishops, priests, monks, and nuns, they have not been able to extinguish religious sentiment. The churches are again open and crowded—and new churches are being built, even in the workmen's districts amid the Government factories; and monks and nuns are grouping themselves again under various designations; processions and pilgrimages are being resumed, and ikons are being publicly venerated. Before this passive resistance the Bolshevik regime has been forced to capitulate—especially as the economic position of the whole country depends largely on the attitude of the peasant population. Yet the official teaching of Atheism in the schools, the system of mixed education, immoral plays, and public lectures on so-called hygienic themes have already wrought great havoc—particularly in the towns. The teaching of religion to young people less than eighteen years old is forbidden, and preaching, which in any case is very rare, is under police supervision. Catechism can be learned only at home in the family—and there only in very primitive fashion, for education is not widely spread among the people. Then again, one has to take into account false notions of religion, too exclusive attachment to merely exterior practices, the scandals caused by the contentions among the various hierarchies that have sprung from the official Church, the lack of propriety in the conduct of 118

T H E RUSSIAN CHURCH many ecclesiastics who are favoured by the existing political regime, etc., etc. It is thus probable that coming generations will be less Christian than those of the past. Y e t the Bolsheviks proclaim in vain that "religion is the opiate of the nations," they will not succeed in destroying it as they planned to do. In the 145 million inhabitants of the Soviet Republics about 105 millions acknowledge the authority of one or other of the communities that have arisen from the old Church. Raskol has about 15 millions in its different branches, and the sects properly so-called have about 6 millions. T h e remainder of the population consists of Moslems (17 millions), Protestants (3 millions), Jews (3 millions), Catholics (1,500,000), Armenians (1 million), Pagans (1 million), Buddhists (500,000), etc. T h e Russians in exile are being actively canvassed by the Protestant sects—those in the United States, especially, by the Baptists. T h e Y . M . C . A . takes advantage of the material assistance which it guarantees them, to carry on active propaganda among them. It is not yet possible to estimate the results of this propaganda. A minority is turning more and more towards Catholicism, and is gradually abandoning the age-long prejudices in its regard. Various institutions have been established to prepare the way for the union of such Orthodox with Rome—for example, the Benedictine Monastery of Amay (Belgium). There are also special seminaries—particularly at Rome—for the training of a Catholic Russian clergy of Byzantine Rite.

119

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES (10) Conclusion Since the fall of the Empire the Russian Church has been passing through a crisis from which she will find it difficult to recover. In losing the support which civil power used to give her so consistently, she has found herself without weapons in the face of daring innovators whose voice in the old days would have been stifled by rigorous measures. These have succeeded in declaring publicly their demands, and even in having them carried into effect by the creation of dissenting Churches. They have not, it is true, attained ail the success which they hoped for, but they have, nevertheless, greatly lowered the prestige of religion, and sadly shocked the masses of believers. The intervention of the Greek Patriarchates in the ecclesiastical affairs of Russia has only added a further bitterness to disputes and has in nowise improved the situation. It is intelligible that many people are asking themselves with deep uneasiness where genuine Orthodoxy is to be found. The government of the different Churches and the training of the clergy have become very difficult through the obstacles raised by the Soviets. In any case, after two centuries of subjection to the civil power the Churches no longer know how to make use of freedom. They will, no doubt, continue for a considerable time to struggle among themselves for supremacy; but—apart from the ecclesiastical organisations of half independent districts, like the Ukraine— the only rival churches to be considered will really be the Patriarchal Church and the Synodal Church; for the others have no chance of success. Even if the Communist regime were to end abruptly, it is practic120

THE RUSSIAN CHURCH ally certain, in view of the irreconcilable antagonism of certain points of view, that unity could only very slowly be restored. It is, moreover, very doubtful whether any authoritative government could succeed in imposing a State Church on all. The times have changed. As the hope of setting up a normal regime becomes more and more remote the division of minds becomes more and more acute. This is the inevitable outcome of the absence of a religious authority capable of pointing out to all the way of truth.

121

CHAPTER

V

THE CHURCHES OF SERBIA AND BULGARIA

I. The Serbian Church Historical Note. THE Serbs are Slavs whose ancestors were encamped in the fifth century between the Carpathians and the Dniester. In the sixth century they crossed the Danube and began a process of infiltration into the Balkan Peninsula. Heraclius (610-641) established them on Byzantine Imperial territory to make them serve as a barrier against the Avari. At the same time he took in hand their conversion to Christianity and requested the Pope to send missionaries among them; for the district which they occupied was under the immediate jurisdiction of Rome. Apparently, however, the evangelisation thus inaugurated had little success. It was resumed under the Emperor Basil the Macedonian (867-886)—but this time by Byzantine missionaries; for the Patriarchate of Constantinople had managed to extend its authority to the Illyrian provinces in spite of the protests of the Popes. Thus the Serbs were brought within the orbit of Constantinople, while their brethren, the Slovenes and Croats, who had been converted by Latin missionaries, turned towards Rome. Little by little the Serbs shook off Byzantine control, and formed little states which Stephen Nemanya, for his own advantage, grouped together at the end of the twelfth century. His son, Stephen II, broke with the 122

CHURCHES OF SERBIA A N D BULGARIA Greek Church' and had his brother Sabbas made Metropolitan of Serbia with ten suffragans. After the disappearance of the Latin Empire of the East the Serbs made approaches to the Byzantines, and lapsed gradually into schism. King Duchan (1331-1335), who was ruler of Serbia and of a large section of Macedonia, decided to establish the freedom of the National Church, so that he might have a Patriarch who would crown him Tsar (Emperor). In 1346 Joannice was consecrated by the Bulgarian Patriarch of Tirnovo, and the Graeco-Bulgar Archbishop of Okhrida. He established himself at Petsh (Ipek) with jurisdiction over Serbia, properly so-called, Bosnia, the Herzegovina, Montenegro, the south of Dalmatia, and a portion of Macedonia and Bulgaria which had been detached from the Patriarchate of Tirnovo and from the Archbishopric of Okhrida. T h e Church of Constantinople protested in vain against the step taken by Duchan, but, in the end, it was compelled to accept the fait accompli (1375). Decline quickly ensued. Defeated at the Battle of Kossovo (1389) Serbia was first reduced to the condition of a vassal, and then (1459) annexed by the Turks. A t this latter date the Patriarchate was suppressed, and for a century the bishops were dependent on the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Okhrida. While the ordinary people generally remained loyal to the Christian Faith, the nobility—in order to preserve their estates—went over to Islam. In 1557 the Grand Vizier, Mehmed Sokolovitch, a Serb renegade, restored the Patriarchate of Ipek, and gave it to his brother, the monk Macarius. Tcherna Gora (Montenegro, "the Black Mountain") maintained a certain amount of political independence, but remained under the jurisdiction of Ipek in religious matters. T h e struggle of 123

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES the Imperialists against the Turks induced, however, an important change in Serbia at the end of the seventeenth century. The Christians of Serbia who had assisted the Austrians were forced in part to emigrate when the Austrians retreated. The Patriarch, Arsenius III Tchernoievitch, passed over with 36,000 families into Slavonia(i69o), and founded anew Church—that of Carlovtsi. This emigration was reinforced by another in 1737. The Greeks, who had become all-powerful at the Court of the Sultan suppressed the Patriarchate of Ipek in 1766, and frequently appointed prelates of their own race in Serbia. These bishops leagued themselves at times with the Turks in order to bring about the failure of the various attempts at securing independence made by Cara-George and Miloch (1804-1829). This caused deep resentment among the Serbs; and when the Peace of Adrianople (1829) gave them political freedom, they were not slow in adding thereto religious independence. The Sultan Murad granted them the right of choosing the Metropolitan of Belgrade, and the bishops. The metropolitan, however, had to go to Constantinople to be consecrated; to the metropolitan belonged the right of giving investiture to his suffragans. This situation lasted from 1830 to 1879. At this latter date Prince Milan Obrenovitch obtained from the Patriarch Joachim III, the complete autonomy of the Church (November 1st, 1879). The other fractions of the Serbian people continued to reside outside the new kingdom. Montenegro had never capitulated to the Turks and still continued to maintain its struggle for independence. In 1516, the last Prince, George V, before returning to Venice, handed over his power to the Vladika, or Bishop of Cetinje, who thus became the real head of the little 124

CHURCHES OF SERBIA AND BULGARIA nation. This situation continued for three centuries. The two-fold power—spiritual and temporal—soon became an appanage of the Petrovitch family, and was handed on from uncle to nephew until the death of Peter II, in 1851. Danilo (Daniel), the heir of Peter, renounced the dignity of Vladika in order to secure for his posterity the succession to the throne. From 1852 on the two powers were separated. In the territory of the Emperor of Germany there were only those Serbian families that had emigrated in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. After the Turkish conquest others had crossed the Save and the Danube to seek an asylum in Croatia; and there their colonies were reinforced gradually by fresh contingents. They had several bishops—but without any bond of connection among them. The Emperor Leopold I, granted to the refugee Archbishop, Arsenius III Tchernoievitch, the title of Archbishop, and invested him with civil authority over his spiritual subjects (1690). This condition of privilege lasted only for a while, for civil power was withdrawn from the Archbishop at the beginning of the eighteenth century. On the death of Arsenius the Patriarch of Ipek officially recognised the Serbian Metropolitan See of Austria (1708), which then gradually became independent. The head of this Church, after frequently changing his residence, finally fixed it at Carlovtsi in 1758. The Hungarians, however, sought to restrict the civil and religious rights of the Serbs, and the latter, therefore, marched along with the Croats against the Hungarians in the revolution of 1848. The Emperor Francis Joseph, though he did not fulfil all the promises which he had made to secure their support, gave the title of Patriarch to their archbishop, with jurisdiction over all the Orthodox in

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES the Empire. When the Rumanians of Transylvania attained religious autonomy in 1865, the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Carlovtsi became restricted to the Serbians. The division of the Empire into Cisleithan and Transleithan districts created a paradoxical situation. The Austrian provinces of Dalmatia and the Bukowina were detached from the Patriarchate of Carlovtsi, and the jurisdiction of the Patriarch was thus limited to Hungary. The two provinces in question constituted a new autonomous Church with the Metropolitan See of Tchernovitz and the two Dalmatian Bishoprics of Zara and Cattaro (1873). Thus the Serbians of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were in obedience to two different religious authorities. The Patriarchate of Carlovtsi found itself in difficulties frequently with the Hungarian Government, for the policy of that government aimed at precluding the revival of nationalities. Politics often intervened in the nomination of bishops, for the party in power was accustomed to demand episcopal support at the Parliamentary elections. This became a source of popular disaffection against the religious authorities, and regrettable incidents occurred just before the outbreak of the Great War. The two Serbian Bishoprics of Zara and Cattaro were united in 1873 with the half-Ruthenian, halfRumanian, Metropolitan See of Tchernovitz—as were also the Graeco-Serb colony in Trieste, and the Greek colony in Vienna. A Holy Synod, consisting of the titulars of the three sees, was held once a year in the capital. A third Serbian group was set up in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1880. As the result of what amounted to a concordat with the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Viennese government secured a special form of regime for Bosnia-Herzegovina. The 126

CHURCHES OF SERBIA A N D BULGARIA three metropolitans of the two provinces were to be appointed by the Patriarch—but only when an understanding had been reached with the Austrian government. In fact the latter was able to compel acceptance of its nominee. In 1900 the number of metropolitans was raised to four. Government influence made itself felt in Bosnia-Herzegovina as in the rest of the Empire. T h e people blamed the bishops for being too docile to the orders of Vienna; they also demanded the right of taking part in the elections of their spiritual chiefs, as was the custom in many orthodox countries. From all this there developed a tension which lasted to the close of the World War. (2) Organisation T h e Serbs, who were for so long broken up into several groups, have at least succeeded in establishing their national unity after the defeat of the Central Powers. Outside their enlarged kingdom there are now only a few unimportant colonies. T h e Orthodox have had, of course, to face the problem of reuniting the various autonomous religious groups into a single Church, and this task has given rise to serious difficulties. Each group had its own laws and traditions, and was unwilling to sacrifice more of these than was absolutely necessary. Moreover, there was a Patriarchate at Carlovtsi, while Belgrade had only a metropolitan. Long discussions were needed before an agreement was reached in the summer of 1920. T h e Patriarchal See of Carlovtsi, which had been vacant for some years, was suppressed and an ordinary bishop was appointed there to administer the diocese. On the 16th May the Oecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople renounced for an annuity his rights over the Macedonian metropolitan sees which Serbia had annexed. 127

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES On June 30th was proclaimed the union of the five autonomous churches of Servia, Montenegro, Carlovtsi, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Dalmatia, into a Single National Church. Everyone, of course, began at once to think of re-establishing the old Patriarchate of Ipek, so as to give that Church a greater prestige A decree was passed making provision for this, and the Metropolitan of Belgrade, Mgr. Dimitije Pavlovitch was appointed Patriarch on November 12th, 1920. It was not, however, until August 28th, 1924, that he took possession, amid splendid festivities, of the historic See of Ipek. Two decrees issued respectively December 13th and 24th, 1920, decided the changes which the former autonomous Churches were to undergo, and determined the main features of the new ecclesiastical constitution. Patriarch. The Head of the Serbian Orthodox Church calls himself "His Holiness the Archbishop of Petsh (Ipek), Metropolitan of Belgrade and Carlovtsi, Serbian Patriarch." His election is carried out as follows: the General Assembly of Bishops draws up a list of three candidates from which the Electoral Congress must select the Patriarch. The members of this Congress are the bishops actually in office, the administrators of vacant dioceses, the archimandrites of monasteries, the superiors of the eight Lauras, the oldest archpriests of each district, the archpriests of Belgrade and Nish, the archpriests who are chaplains in the Army and Navy, the deputies who are priests, the Dean and the Professors of the Faculty of Theology, the heads of the ecclesiastical schools, etc., etc. Numerous laity are members of it also, but they must be Orthodox; other members are: ministers in office, 128

CHURCHES OF SERBIA AND BULGARIA former presidents of council, the President and VicePresident of the Parliament, the heads of the Army, the presidents of the Council of State, of the Court of Cassation, and of General Control, the Mayors of Belgrade, Skoplje, Carlovtsi, Petsh, etc. A royal decree fixes the date and place of the election. T h e powers of the Patriarch are rather limited. He represents the Serbian Church in official ceremonies, and in dealings with other Churches. He consecrates the bishops and gives them permission to absent themselves from their dioceses. He blesses the holy chrism for the whole National Church. He anoints and crowns the Head of the State of which he is, in a sense, the Chaplain-General. He must personally, or by delegate, carry out the chief religious ceremonies, such as baptism, marriage, obsequies, etc., for the King and his family. He presides de jure over the General Assembly of the bishops, and the Holy Synod; and he ratifies the decisions of these bodies. T h e distinctive mark of his office is a white veil (epanokamilafkion) adorned with a cross worn over his headgear. T h e Serbian Patriarch resides at Belgrade, and the government has undertaken to build for him there a palace and a cathedral. Assembly of the Bishops. This assembly consists of all the Orthodox bishops of the kingdom who actually have a diocese to govern; but it may bring in other persons—even laity—as consultors, in order to get information which it requires. It meets usually only once a year, under the presidency either of the Patriarch or of the Senior Metropolitan. It may, however, hold extraordinary meetings in case of need. This assembly is really the supreme legislative i 129

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN

CHURCHES

authority for all questions concerning faith, worship and ecclesiastical discipline. But its decrees cannot be executed in the forum externum unless they have been approved of by the Ministerial Council on the motion of the Minister for Worship. T h e Assembly has as its special task to propound the genuine Orthodox teaching, and to defend it against error, to determine the books suitable for religious instruction, to fix the conditions of appointment of candidates for ecclesiastical offices, and to organise schools for the clergy. It watches over all matters concerning cult, ecclesiastical chant, ornamentation of the churches, making of sacred images, etc., It also canonises saints, and makes regulations for their cult. It is a court of final appeal for matrimonial cases, and exercises supervision over the monasteries. It fixes the boundaries of dioceses and parishes, appoints bishops, and the members of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Court, controls the work of the Holy Synod, disposes of ecclesiastical revenues; it acts as court of final appeal in disputes of bishops with the Holy Synod and with the Patriarch, in cases of grave canonical delinquencies of the heads of the Church, in matrimonial cases of the Royal Family, etc., etc. The Holy Synod. This consists of the Patriarch, who is its de jure president, and of four bishops selected by the General Assembly of the bishops. These bishops are elected for two years—half of their number retiring each year. T h e Holy Synod is the supreme executive authority of the Church, but its decisions in the forum externum must be ratified by the Ministerial Council. It is in session the greater part of the year. Its main function is to see that the decrees of the Assembly of 130

CHURCHES OF SERBIA AND BULGARIA Bishops are executed, that unity of doctrine and discipline is maintained, that provision is made for the training of the clergy, and that religion is taught in the schools. It supervises the keeping of the registers of parishes, monasteries, dioceses, and the Patriarchate; it exercises a censorship of versions of Holy Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, and decrees of the councils. It enforces the observance of the traditional rubrics in the Liturgy; it controls the actions of the bishops, supervises the administration of ecclesiastical property, and is responsible for the relations of the Church to the State and to other Churches. It deals as court of first instance with legal proceedings between bishops, and with matrimonial cases within the Royal Family. The Chancellor. T h e State takes a very special interest in the government of the Orthodox Church—even though that Church is merely the Church of a not very great majority of the citizens. This Caesaro-Papalism sometimes makes itself felt in a fashion that is troublesome enough for the liberty of the Church. T h e Government gives its instructions to a Chancellor who is head of all the chancelleries of the Patriarchate, the Assembly of Bishops, the Holy Synod, and the Supreme Administrative Council. In this position he directs the administrative staff of these various bodies, and controls the financial transactions of the Assembly of Bishops, and of the Holy Synod. He assists at their sessions in a consultative capacity only, but it is difficult for the bishops to disregard his views. Though he is designated by the Plenary Council of the Episcopate, he is, in fact, a genuine State official, and is appointed by Royal decree at the instance of the Minister for Public Worship. 131

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN

CHURCHES

Supreme Ecclesiastical Court. Above all the ecclesiastical courts in each diocese there is at Belgrade a Supreme Court which deals, as court of final appeal, with matrimonial cases of the ordinary faithful, and with disciplinary offences of ecclesiastics of less than episcopal rank. It meets once a year. Besides the president and vice-president, who are chosen from among the bishops, it includes nine members of the secular clergy selected from the various districts of the kingdom. Dioceses. T h e unification of the Serbian Orthodox Church has involved a rearrangement of ecclesiastical boundaries. There are, at the moment, twenty-eight dioceses of which five are Metropolitan Sees, and twenty-three Bishoprics. T h e Metropolitan Sees are Belgrade and Skoplje (Uskub) in Serbia; Cetinje in Montenegro; DabroBosnia (Serajevo) and Banja-Luka in Bosnia. Of the Bishoprics, nine are in Serbia: Timok (Zajetchar), Jitsh (Tshatshak), Shabatz, Vranja (Pojarevatz), Nish, Prizren, Shtip (Istip), Ochrida, and Bitolje (Monastir); two are in Montenegro: Zahlumia Rascia (Nikshitsh) and Petsh (Ipek); six in Slovenia and Croatia: Bachka (Novi-Sad), Vrchatz, Srem-Mitrovitza (Carlovtsi), Buda (Darda), Gorniji-Carlovtsi (Plashki), Pakratz and Temesvar (Yelika- Kikindi); two in Dalmatia: Kotor (Cattaro) and Shibenik (Sebenico); and three in Bosnia-Herzegovina; Zvornik-Tuzla (Tuzla), Mostar and Bikatsh. On account of the attachment to their customs which is shown by the Orthodox of the districts formerly comprised in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it has not yet become 132

CHURCHES OF SERBIA AND BULGARIA possible to give a uniform organisation to all the dioceses. Indeed, one can see developing a tendency towards some kind of federal organisation of the old autonomous Churches, in which the peculiar historical character and traditions of each may be maintained, and government tutelage restricted. The dioceses have, then, in effect, practically retained the internal organisation which they possessed before the unification, and that organisation varies according to the different districts. Each diocese is divided into a number of Archpriest areas, or Deaneries, in which the parishes, in varying numbers, are grouped. The Secular Clergy. The secular clergy have not been trained in uniform fashion. In the old kingdom of Serbia, and in Montenegro their education is rather defective—though in the old Patriarchate of Carlovtsi it has been somewhat improved. Discipline is in the same position. In spite of the difficulties which they formerly had with their Episcopate, the clergy of the Austro-Hungarian provinces have shown more readiness than the clergy elsewhere to submit to ecclesiastical authority. The first years after the World War were marked by a condition of perpetual revolt in Serbia. The priests were constantly clamouring for reforms—often of a daring type. They sought to have acknowledged the right of a widower-priest to re-marry, in spite of the tradition to the contrary which, up to then, had been universally respected. They demanded reform of the Liturgy, the substitution of Serbian for Slavonic in religious ceremonial, retiring allowances sufficient for subsistence, etc., etc. By their unions, which are very powerful, they raised a dangerous agitation, and in many cases disregarded the prohibition of remarriage. *33

THE SEPARATED EASTERN

CHURCHES

Their paper, Vesnik Srpske Tzrkve, has a very considerable influence, and with this the Episcopacy has to reckon. For some years minds have been growing calmer, but sooner or later some of the demands of the clergy will have to be granted. Their spirit of independence is largely due to the deficiency of their ecclesiastical training. Only a small minority of the priests have taken a full course of theology; others have received only the barest essentials. T h e great majority —especially in Serbia and Montenegro—have attended only the primary or secondary schools, and have received practically no instruction in theology. To remedy this state of things the government founded in 1900 the Seminary of St. Sabas in Belgrade. This has since been transformed into a Faculty of Theology, and has one hundred and fifty students. Five other centres have each a Theological School: Carlovtsi, Serajevo, Bitolj, Prizren, and Cetinje, and in these five schools there are eight hundred students. Since, however, these students do not, by any means, all enter the ecclesiastical state, these various establishments furnish only a relatively small number of priests. Those who have taken degrees in theology are usually reserved for important posts in the ecclesiastical administration, which serve as stepping-stones to the Episcopate. T h e country districts have a fairly large number of uneducated priests. In any case, the secular clergy are too few in numbers to meet the needs of the people. In 1926 the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes contained 5,715,178 Orthodox, and for all these there were but 298 archpriests, 2,833 priests, and six deacons; and these had to serve 2,864 parishes with 3,178 churches or chapels.

134

CHURCHES OF SERBIA A N D

BULGARIA

Monasticism. Monasticism is decaying in the Serbian Church, as in all the Eastern Churches. In 1926 there still survived only 209 monasteries with 442 monks; and among the monks were some who were merely registered in the monasteries, while they carried on occupations of various kinds outside. For some years there has existed at Rakovitzi, near Belgrade, a school of preparation for the religious life. Since 1907 the Serbian monks have had a review called Dukhovna Straja ("Spiritual Sentinel"). A t present there are only two convents of women, and of these the one that has the larger community, Hopovo in Slavonia, is occupied mainly by Russian nuns. T h e National Monastery of Khilandar on Mt. Athos, partly peopled though it is by Bulgarians, has only ninety monks. The Laity. What has just been said about the secular clergy and the monks permits the inference that little fervour is to be expected from the Serbian people. Yet, in a general way, the Serbs are very much attached— sometimes, indeed, fanatically attached—to their religion: but ignorance and preoccupation with material interests often prevent them from practising it, especially in the towns. With the educated classes, indifference towards religion and materialistic tendencies are steadily growing. T h e poorer people of the country districts cling stoutly to the external ritual, for it has a vital importance in their eyes. Ignorance of religious truth is general—even though religious instruction is obligatory in the primary and secondary schools, and the ecclesiastical authorities select the handbooks to be used, and choose the i35

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES teachers. The clergy, it is true, are partly responsible for this state of things, though their reviews deplore it. Preaching is, in general, quite unheard of outside the principal feasts. The Patriarch now in office has been making laudable efforts since his appointment as Metropolitan of Belgrade in 1905, to struggle against existing conditions; but he has constantly met with vigorous resistance. The State, following its old tendencies, is inclined to regard the Orthodox Church as a mere wheel in the administrative machine. The protection which it gives the Church is offset by a rigorous control which paralyses all initiative. The clergy have been so long accustomed to look to the State that they are content simply to carry out the functions assigned to them, and have no ambition to shake off a troublesome tutelage. However, the entry of the autonomous Churches of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire into the National Church has already produced good results. These Austro-Hungarian Churches have a greater vitality, because their organisation was not dependent on the State, and their clergy were more carefully trained. Their presence, then, in the National Church of Serbia explains the existence, at the moment, of a steadily developing movement in favour of a regime which will leave the Church free to govern herself according to her own lights, without having to reckon with the opposition of a bureaucratic democracy, or with the pet theories of Ministers of Public Worship. It is probable, too, that the example of the Catholic Croats and Slovenes, determined as they are to defend their religious liberties, will, in time, exercise a healthy influence on their Orthodox fellow-citizens. The religious Press is not yet highly developed in the Serbian Church. The Holy Synod publishes a weekly 136

CHURCHES OF SERBIA AND BULGARIA official review, the Glasnik Srpske Patriarkhie ("Messenger of the Serbian Patriarchate"). The secular clergy publish a weekly, the Visnik Sprske Tzrke ("Journal of the Serbian Church"), and they issue to the people a monthly bulletin, Khristchanski Jivot ("Christian Life"). Moreover, each diocese has its own official news organ. The Association of St. Sabas at Belgrade, and other associations, edit religious works for the people. The Theological Faculty of Belgrade has also since 1925 its own official organ, Bogoslavie ("Theology"). II.

The Bulgarian Orthodox Church

(1) Historical Sketch. The Bulgarians are a people of Finnish-Turkish stock who, in the seventh century, were already settled in the country they now occupy, and in the neighbouring areas. They fused with the indigenous stock, and with Slavs who had settled in the country before themselves. They adopted the language of those Slavs, and for several centuries they waged a fierce war against the Byzantine Empire—though that Empire exercised over them a powerful attraction. Christianity was already established in the country before the Bulgars settled there, but they did not embrace the faith until the ninth century—and even then their reasons for accepting Christianity were based on politics rather than on religious conviction. The Bulgarian Tsar, Bogoris, or Boris, the First (852-888), had himself been baptised by Byzantine priests in 864-865, and compelled his subjects to follow his example. For many years he was under the influence of two opposing spiritual forces. On the one hand he turned towards Rome, hoping to receive from there an Archbishop who would conse137

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES crate him Emperor, and, to this end, he maintained friendly relations with Pope St. Nicholas the First. On the other hand, St. Ignatius and Photius succeeded in bringing him into submission to Constantinople, so that Bulgaria was attached in 870 to the Oecumenical Patriarchate. The young Bulgarian Church was at first under the exclusive influence of Byzantium. In 886 the disciples of St. Methodius, who had been driven out of Moravia, arrived in Bulgaria. Boris received them very favourably, and made use of them to introduce Slavonic into the Liturgy. The Greeks were then compelled to withdraw. At the beginning of the eleventh century the Bulgars were reconciled with Rome, and obtained from the Pope the title of Emperor for their sovereign, and that of Patriarch for their Archbishop (927). The Patriarch at first had no fixed residence, but in 972 he established himself at Ochrida in Macedonia. The Patriarchate, however, lasted only for a century; for the conquest of all Bulgaria by Basil the Second led to its suppression in 1020. It was replaced by a GraecoBulgar Archbishopric subject to Constantinople. The revolts of Bulgarian leaders brought advantage to the Church. Thus, for instance, the independence secured by the eastern Bulgars at the end of the twelfth century led to the erection of the Patriarchate of Tirnovo, which was recognised by Pope Innocent the Third. This Patriarchate lasted from 1204 to 1393— that is, as long as the new Bulgarian Empire lasted. The Turks suppressed both at the same time. By way of compensation the Archbishopric of Ochrida again received the designation Patriarchate. The Greeks, however, sought to secure the abolition of this Patriarchate, and from the seventeenth century onwards, they procured the appointment there of prelates, either 138

CHURCHES OF SERBIA AND BULGARIA of their own race, or such as had been won over to their own religious policy. Finally, on January 16th, 1767, the Holy Synod of Constantinople suppressed the Patriarchate and abolished the See of Ochrida. For more than a century, then, the Bulgars remained under the exclusive control of the Greeks, who devoted all their energy to their Hellenisation. This policy led inevitably to a violent reaction. It began with a language agitation in the first part of the nineteenth century. After the hatti-humanyun of February 16th, 1856, by which the Sultan, Abdul-Medjid, granted greater freedom to his Christian subjects, the Bulgars made claims which the Greek Patriarchate set aside without even examining them. In i860 the Bulgars began to omit the Memento for the Patriarch in the mass, and instituted a violent campaign against the Greeks. Seeing that there was little hope from Constantinople, where Russia was supporting the Oecumenical Patriarch, the Bulgars turned to Rome, and made advances to Pius the Ninth. The broad outlines of a great movement of reunion with Rome were then planned in Macedonia, but Russia brought about the failure of the movement, and the Bulgars were left entirely to their own resources. The Greeks took drastic action, and excommunicated the two bishops who were at the head of the reunion movement. The Bulgars responded by expelling the Greek metropolitans who governed them. In the end they obtained from the Sultan, Abdul-Aziz, a firman by which their religious independence was recognised (March 12th, 1870). They were to have a National Church governed by an Exarch, and a sufficient number of bishops. The Greeks implacably opposed the implementing of the firman, and by their intrigues the Turkish

139

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES Government was induced to withdraw some of the concessions which it had granted to the Bulgars. The Bulgars in turn raised a series of mutinies which forced the Sultan to maintain the firman. A National Assembly quickly chose (February 23 rd, 1872) as Exarch, Bishop Hilarion, who for many years had been a leader of the independence movement. The Greek Patriarch then convened a self-styled "Council of the Oriental Churches" to sit in judgment on the rebellious Bulgars. Only the Greek Churches, however, took part in the Council. The Bulgars were declared schismatics, and excommunicated (September 1872). This sentence, however, was never regarded as legal except by the Greeks, and their attitude was determined rather by politics than by religion. The other Churches refused to ratify it, and kept up friendly relations with the excommunicated Bulgars. Now, after more than half a century, the Greeks and Bulgars still persist in their antagonism in matters canonical, but their mutual animosity has greatly diminished. The firman of 1870 granted to the Bulgarian Church fourteen metropolitan sees—practically all situated in Northern Bulgaria. The attainment of political independence in 1878, and the annexation of Eastern Rumelia in 1885 led to certain changes. The Bulgars established several metropolitan sees in Thrace, and especially in Macedonia, where they carried on an active campaign against Greek influence. The Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 forced them almost completely out of those countries, and after their defeat in 1918 this movement of retreat became still more accentuated. Greeks and Serbs got rid of all the Bulgar prelates who had been established in the districts that were now handed over to themselves. On the other hand, the Bulgars had already in 1903 abolished the five Greek 140

CHURCHES OF SERBIA AND BULGARIA metropolitans who had up to then held office among them. At the present moment the Bulgarian Church includes only the Orthodox of the kingdom, and some few hundreds settled in Turkish Thrace. The Bulgarian State has never shown much thanks to the Church for its active share in the national revival. The various governments that have held office at Sofia since the setting up of the kingdom, have adopted towards the Church an attitude, sometimes of contempt, sometimes of hostility—as, for instance, under the dictatorships of Stambulov (1887-1894), and Stambuliski (1920-1923). Stambuliski pillaged the ecclesiastical estates, and suppressed numerous religious institutions, which were, however, later re-established. In 1921 he held a sort of National Council in which the laity had the majority. The boldest schemes were there proposed with the aim of democratising the Church. The legislative scheme of the Council was not submitted for approval to the Sobranie, and the fall of Stambuliski brought about an easier situation, which still continues. Yet the Church is finding it difficult to work back to its previous position, and it is doubtful whether it will ever regain the influence which it lost a generation ago. (2) Organisation. The Exarch. According to the terms of the firman of March 1870, and of the constitutions drawn up in November of the same year, the Bulgarian Church has as its Head an Exarch. This personage was intended to serve in particular as intermediary between the Turkish Government and the Bulgar Orthodox. For this reason he fixed his residence at Orta-Keui on the 141

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES Bosphorus, near Constantinople. When the Exarch Joseph, who governed the Bulgarian Church from 1877 to 1915, died, a new Exarch was not appointed, and since then there has been only a locum tenens. It is, however, likely that the Exarchate will sometime be re-established, and possibly also the Patriarchate of Tirnovo, so as to obviate an inferiority of status in the Bulgar National Church, as compared with the neighbouring Churches. The example of the Serbs, who have revived their old Patriarchate, and of the Rumanians who have instituted a Patriarchate of their own, inevitably affects the Bulgar mind; and, however indifferent to religious questions the mass of the Bulgarian people may be, they are not without their susceptibilities in this matter of prestige. For ten years agitation for a new Church constitution has been going on, but so far the many assemblies held in reference to this subject have produced no positive result. The Holy Synod. The Exarch is not really the Head of the Church, but only its chief ecclesiastical dignitary. The supreme authority belongs to the Holy Synod. Properly speaking the Exarch should act as President of the Synod, but the function of presiding over the Synod has been, for a long time, regarded as belonging to the Senior Metropolitan. Besides the president, the Synod includes four bishops chosen by their colleagues for a period of four years. The Synod plays practically the same part here as in the other Orthodox Churches —it concerns itself, that is, with religious matters generally, such as religious instruction, questions of morality, discipline, worship, etc. It serves also as a court of appeal in cases sent up from the diocesan courts. 142

CHURCHES OF SERBIA A N D BULGARIA Eparchies. T h e Bulgarian Church comprises eleven eparchies, or dioceses—the Metropolitan Sees of Lovetch, Nevrokop, Plovdid (Philippopolis), Rustshuk, Sliven, Sofia, Stara Zagora, Tirnovo, Varna, Vidin and Vratza. T h e election of the heads of dioceses involves two stages. In the first place the lay and ecclesiastical electors of the vacant eparchy make a list of two candidates which is sent to the Holy Synod, and the Synod selects the candidate of whom it approves. T h e new metropolitan, then, must obtain the approval of the Government before taking possession of his see. T h e metropolitan is the real Head of the Eparchy. He is assisted in his functions by an Ecclesiastical Council of four priests selected by the clergy. T w o of the four retire each year. Either the metropolitan or his Protosynkellos (Vicar-General) presides dejure over the Ecclesiastical Council. T h e eleven eparchies of the kingdom contain 2,452 parishes, with 2,721 churches or chapels, and 2,281 priests and seven deacons (in 1928). This is not an extravagant provision for an Orthodox population of 4,800,000. The Secular Clergy. Taken in the bulk the Bulgarian clergy, through the lack of seminaries, are still uneducated. Many candidates for the priesthood have received only very rudimentary religious instruction. According to a study published in the official review of the Holy Synod, the Tzerkoven Vestnik (February 18th, 1928 —v.s.), the following was the position of the clergy in regard to education: out of 2,215 priests on active H3

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES service 1,431 had received nothing more than a rudimentary training in the clerical schools, the primary schools, the pro-gymnasia, the pedagogical institutes, etc.—that is to say, they had received no more religious instruction than the ordinary faithful; 48 had partly followed the intermediate course of religion, 727 had completed that course, and at most 20 had made their studies in the theological faculties. The Seminary of Chichli (Constantinople), which was suppressed during the Balkan War 0 ^ 9 1 2 - 1 9 1 3 , has sent back its students to Bulgaria. There are at present two seminaries with courses of six years: that of Plovdiv (Philippopolis) with 250 students, and that of Sofia with 350 students. It is to be noted that the first four years are devoted almost exclusively to secular studies. Since 1923 ecclesiastical schools have been established also in the monasteries of Tsherepish and Batshovo, which have a four years' curriculum. Finally, the University of Sofia has a faculty of theology with nearly 200 students. In November 1928 the Ecclesiastical Council of the Eparchy of Sofia decided that thenceforth no candidates would be accepted for parishes vacant in the diocese except such as had completed their studies in a faculty of theology, a seminary, or a theological school. The Bulgarian clergy display generally a strong spirit of independence. Since the close of the Great War they have carried on an energetic campaign for reforms—such as the right to a second marriage, simplification of ecclesiastical dress, and of the Liturgy, etc. The power of the clergy is due to the Unions which they have established, for by these Unions they are often able to take a stand against the Episcopate. The Government is not averse to accepting the support of the clergy when it seeks to dominate the bishops. The financial condition of the lower clergy is often 144

CHURCHES OF SERBIA A N D

BULGARIA

very wretched. T h e priests live on an allowance which varies greatly according as they hold appointment in the towns or in the rural districts, and according as they have, or have not, completed their studies. They also receive legally fixed honoraria for certain religious ceremonies. But in general the revenue from these sources is not sufficient for the maintenance of a family, and it must not be forgotten that nearly all Orthodox priests are married. Monasticism.

Monastic life has been for a quarter of a century steadily on the decline. In 1905 there were 180 monks and 318 nuns in 89 monasteries; but in 1924 there were only 143 monks and 153 nuns. Many monasteries are used as summer holiday resorts, as most of them are in the mountains, and the invasion of worldlings which this brings into the quiet of the monasteries disturbs the regular Monastic life, and often leads to grave disorders. T o secure recruits the Bulgarian monks a few years ago opened a preparatory school at Troian. T h e curriculum here is of two years, and the best students are then sent on to the seminaries to continue their theological studies. The Laity.

T h e total population of Bulgaria is 5,600,000; of these 4,800,000 are Orthodox, who, apart from a few thousand Greeks, are all of the Bulgarian race. There is noticeable among them a steady decline of Christian life. T h e causes of that decline are manifold. T h e Bulgars have been so sorely tried by the melancholy events of their national life since 1912 that their main concern is with material conditions, and they have little interest left for spiritual realities. T h e decline is K

i4S

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN

CHURCHES

fostered by an official teaching which is frankly materialistic, and by the lack of respect shown by the State towards the Church. It is true, of course, that religious instruction is given in the primary and secondary schools; but it is given by teachers most of whom are unbelievers with very advanced views. Against all this the clergy, lacking prestige because of their ignorance, are unable to make a stand. T h e most subversive theories find partisans, and sects—often of Protestant origin—are springing up and establishing themselves firmly in the country. A reaction, however, seems to have begun to make itself felt in recent years —largely as a result of the strong feelings roused by Communist outrages of 1923. Besides the official weekly organ, the Tzerkoven Vestnik ("Ecclesiastical Messenger"), the Holy Synod publishes two reviews of more scientific character, the Dukhovna Kultura ("Spiritual Culture") and the "Ecclesiastical Archives." Each eparchy has its own special religious bulletin. T h e Association of Priestly Brotherhoods also publishes a weekly, the Pastirsko Delo ("Pastoral Action"), and a monthly review, Pravoslaven Pastir ( " T h e Orthodox Pastor.") Like the other faculties of the University the Theological Faculty publishes the work of its professors in a Godishnik (Year-Book). Under the auspices of the Holy Synod quite a large number of books, pamphlets and tracts for the propagation and defence of the Christian religion have appeared.

146

CHAPTER

VI

THE RUMANIAN AND GEORGIAN CHURCHES

I. The Rumanian Church (i) Historical Sketch. THE Rumanians, or Wallachians, are the most easterly branch of the great Latin family. They are the descendants of the Roman colonies which settled in Dacia after the conquest of that province by Trajan (105), and intermarried with the indigenous races— Dacians, Slavs, Bulgars, etc. They have kept their original language, though it is strongly impregnated with foreign words, especially of Slav origin. The invasions of the barbarians forced the Rumanians to withdraw into the mountain districts—the Carpathians and the Alps of Transylvania. Afterwards, when calm was restored, they returned gradually to the lowlands. They were joined by a group of their brethren who had settled south of the Danube, where there are still some hundred thousands of their descendants, particularly in the Pindus Massif, and even up to the immediate neighbourhood of Athens. The beginnings of Christianity among the Rumanians are still imperfectly known. It is thought that Christianity was first preached to them in the beginning of the third century. But the faith had not developed greatly among them when the Emperor Aurelian ordered the general withdrawal of Roman soldiers and officials in 270. It is, at all events, certain that the first evangelisation was the work of western missionaries, for in the

147

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES fourth and fifth centuries we find the Latin tongue and the Latin Liturgy established in the country. The Barbarian invasion and the Bulgarian conquest extinguished Rumanian Christianity, and when the conquerors themselves adopted the new faith in the ninth century, the Rumanians had to adopt the Eastern Liturgy, and to submit to Byzantine influence. For seven centuries their history was the same as that of the Bulgars, and both were subjected to the same religious control. However, in 1290 a principality was established in Wallachia, and in 1363 another was set up in Moldavia. The Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople did not begin to exercise a direct influence until after the fall of the Second Bulgarian Empire in the fifteenth century—the way for such exercise of influence having been prepared in part, at least, by the Greek monks who settled in the two principalities as a result of the Turkish conquests. The princes themselves actively encouraged that influence by the protection which they gave to the monasteries founded under the auspices of Constantinople, and by the subsidies which they secured for the Phanar. The jurisdiction of the Grseco-Bulgarian archbishopric of Ochrida, which had been exercised over the principalities after the disappearance of the Tirnovo Patriarchate, gradually ceased, but the precise date of its termination cannot be fixed. The Greeks became all-powerful; they frequently held the episcopal sees, and they introduced their own language into the Liturgy—at least in the Greek centres and in the monasteries. The monasteries became very numerous in the mountain districts, and they were richly endowed by the princes and the boyards. Large gifts of lands were also made to the holy places and to the chief monasteries of Mt. Athos, Jerusalem and Sinai. The 148

RUMANIAN AND GEORGIAN CHURCHES Hospodars, or governors, of the Principalities were friends of the Phanar in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and naturally favoured their own compatriots. At the beginning of the nineteenth century a fifth of the Rumanian soil belonged to Greek religious institutions. Apparently it was the destiny of the Rumanians, as of the Slavs, to live for centuries in groups separated from one another, and subject to foreign powers. While Moldavia and Wallachia become subject to the Turks, Transylvania and the Bukovina came under the control of the Emperors of Germany in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and Bessarabia was incorporated into Russia in 1812. But the victory of the Allies, and the collapse of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires have made it possible at last for the Rumanians to group themselves into a single kingdom—though there are still some hundreds of thousands of Rumanians outside its frontiers. We shall study separately the religious history of the different branches of the Rumanian family. Moldo- Wallachia. The Treaty of Paris (1856) proclaimed the political independence of the two Principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia, and the principalities proceeded without delay to form a union under a single head, Prince Alexander Cuza. It was from the beginning a dominant ambition of the liberated Rumanians to shake off the spiritual control of the Greeks, and to establish a National Church. T o meet an agricultural crisis, Prince Cuza initiated negotiations with the Phanar to carry through in friendly fashion the expropriation of the huge estates formerly granted to the Greek monasteries. He offered a sum of 27 million francs in 149

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES return for the estates. He met, however, with uncompromising opposition from the Phanar and the monks. Unable to reach an agreement he simply confiscated the estates, and the 27 million francs were returned to the State Treasury (January 1864). Soon he went further than this. Strengthened by the support of the Chambers of Government he proclaimed the independence of the National Church (January 1865), and obtained for this action the approval of a Rumanian Council. It took twenty years of negotiations to bring to an end what was regarded as an almost schismatical situation in the new Church. At last, on May 13th, 1885, Prince Carol obtained from the Patriarch, Joachim the Fourth, the recognition of the fait accompli. Long before this the Rumanians had substituted the national language for Greek and Slavonic in the Liturgy. Prince Cuza had made Rumanian obligatory in all the churches and monasteries of the principalities (1862). The Slav alphabet, which had previously been in use, was abandoned for the new Rumanian alphabet. Though it had achieved independence, the Church of the Kingdom of Rumania did not yet enjoy freedom. It was often a mere instrument in the hands of the party in power, and struggled without success to maintain a prestige, which the political services demanded from it only tended to compromise. The Liberal party sought to diminish its vitality by introducing reforms Protestant in tendency, which took from the bishops a portion of their authority and transferred it to the lower clergy. This antagonism between Church and State has continued since the Great War, and in spite of the unification of hitherto autonomous religious groups, it still seems to persist. 150

RUMANIAN AND GEORGIAN CHURCHES Transylvania. The Rumanians who had settled in the Carpathians and the Transylvanian Alps gradually pushed into the Hungarian Plain—devastated as it was by continual wars. In 1526 they succeeded in establishing a principality there, but it soon fell into the hands of the Hungarians. In 1688 the Hapsburgs incorporated Transylvania in the empire of Germany. At that time all the Rumanians were Orthodox. At different times they had possessed ephemeral bishoprics, and in 1599 the Archbishopric of Belgrade, or Alba Julia, had been re-established. The Hungarians kept the Rumanians in a veritable slavery—even after their annexation to the Empire, and on several occasions they tried to lead them into Protestantism. In 1700 a considerable minority accepted union with Rome. The rest were attached to the diocese of Buda, and thus, to the Serbian Church of Carlovtsi (1761). Yielding to their persistent demands for a bishop of their own race, the Emperor, Joseph the Second, appointed one, and assigned to him as residence the town of Sibiu (Hermannsstadt). This new prelate was subject to the Archbishopric of Carlovtsi, and was a member of the Holy Synod of the Serbian Church of Hungary. The revolution of 1848, in which the Rumanians played an important part, was the signal for their national awakening. But not for many years did they succeed in having their claims recognised. On January 5th, 1865, the Emperor, Franz Joseph, proclaimed their independence of the Serbian Patriarch of Carlovtsi, and granted them an autonomous metropolitan see. The new Church was governed by three prelates—the Metropolitan of Sibiu, and the Bishops !5r

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES of Arad and Karansebes. A statute approved of on May 28th, 1868, gave the Church a Constitution, which has maintained itself for more than fifty years. Bukovina. This province is the northern part of Moldavia; it was incorporated in the Empire of Germany by the Treaty of Kutshuk-Kainardji (1775). Up to 1781 the Orthodox of Bukovina continued to obey the Metropolitan of Jassy. They were then separated from him, and came under the rule of the Bishop of Radauti (Radautz), who transferred his see to Cernauti (Tchernovitz). In 1873 Bukovina as a Danubian province was united ecclesiastically with Dalmatia. There thus arose a new independent religious group, comprising the Metropolitan See of Cernauti, the bishoprics of Zara and Cattaro, and the Orthodox colonies in Triest and During the years Vienna (January 23rd, 1873). immediately preceding the World War, Bukovina was the arena of a vigorous struggle between the Rumanians and Ruthenians—the two practically equal sections of the whole Orthodox population. Bessarabia. This province was annexed to Russia, partially in 1812 and completely in 1878. It has never set up an autonomous Church. The Russians subjected the Metropolitan See of Chishinau (Kitshinev) to the official Church, and tried to assimilate the population by introducing colonists, and by educating the clergy. They had succeeded fairly well in this before Bessarabia united with Rumania in 1918. The majority of the people had, however, remained faithful to their ancestral traditions. 152

RUMANIAN A N D GEORGIAN

CHURCHES

(2) Organisation of the Church. T h e unification of the different sections of the Rumanian Church was, with great difficulty, accomplished on May 4th, 1925. But the legal establishment of a common regime did not succeed in abolishing completely all remnants of the earlier organisation, especially in Transylvania and the Bukovina. In February 1925 a national Patriarchate was created, which the Holy Synod of Constantinople hastened to recognise, even though the opinion of that Synod had not been sought in regard to the new Patriarchate. T h e organisation of the Orthodox Rumanian Church is very complicated—not merely at its centre, but even in its simplest parishes. It is based very largely on the Statute which governed the Metropolitan See of Transylvania since 1868, and which contained certain Protestant points of view. T h e central organisation comprises the Patriarch, the Holy Synod, the National Ecclesiastical Congress, the Central Ecclesiastical Council, the Ephory of the Church and the Central Spiritual Consistory. Patriarch. He is entitled "Archbishop and Metropolitan of Hungary-Wallachia, Patriarch of Rumania." His authority is purely nominal, for it is limited to presiding over the National Ecclesiastical Congress, and the Central Spiritual Consistory. He is elected by the National Ecclesiastical Congress, the Diocesan Assembly of Bucharest, and the Orthodox members of the Senate and of the Chamber of Deputies. T h e elective body is thus preponderatingly lay.

J53

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES Holy Synod. According to the law of May 4th, 1925, this is the highest authority of the kingdom in all spiritual matters and the Supreme Tribunal before which all ecclesiastical questions may be brought. The Synod consists of all metropolitans and bishops holding office, whether residential or titulary, and of the Chaplain-General of the land and marine forces. It holds usually but one session in the year, but it may meet more often in case of need. The Minister for Public Worship may assist, if he so wishes, at the sessions of the Synod, and has a consultative vote. The Synod may summon before it various kinds of ecclesiastics in matters which concern them. It has the duty of maintaining unity of dogma with the other Orthodox Churches, of promoting Christian life among the people, of training the clergy, of supervising from the standpoint of faith and morality the publication of literary work and of work dealing with religious art, of giving its opinion in reference to projected legislation concerned with the Church, of giving judgment on canonical faults of bishops, etc. The National Ecclesiastical Congress. Matters concerned with the administration of the Church, with educational activities, and with pious foundations, depend on the National Ecclesiastical Congress. It includes, in addition to the members of the Holy Synod, six representatives of each of the dioceses (two clerical and four lay), who are nominated for six years by the Diocesan Assemblies. The Congress has the duty of watching over the maintenance and the due management of ecclesiastical property; it controls teaching and charitable institutions, and gives them iS4

RUMANIAN AND GEORGIAN CHURCHES financial support; it procures the means of subsistence for poor churches; it organises questings and collections, and it audits the accounts and makes out the general budget of the Church. To it belongs also the right of determining the boundaries of dioceses, and of founding new eparchies. It meets only once in three years. The Central Ecclesiastical Council. The National Congress delegates a portion of its powers to a central Ecclesiastical Council of fifteen members (three for each metropolitan see, of whom one is a cleric, and two are lay), elected for six years. The metropolitans and bishops also may attend at its sessions. This Council is charged with the execution of the decrees of the Holy Synod and of the National Ecclesiastical Congress. Ephory of the Church. The Central Ecclesiastical Council secures the carrying out of its decisions by means of the Ephory of the Church, which consists of three members (one cleric and two lay), appointed for six years—one being nominated by the Minister for Public Worship and the other two by the National Congress. This Ephory administers the general funds of the Church, makes out the general budget, and distributes to the dioceses the Government grants; it also watches over the due functioning of ecclesiastical administration, etc. Central Spiritual Consistory. This tribunal, consisting of five priests, graduates in Theology and Canon Law, judges disciplinary and judicial cases already examined by the diocesan *55

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES spiritual consistories, concerning which an appeal has been made. The members of this tribunal are nominated by the Holy Synod—one being taken from each metropolitan see. Metropolitan Sees and Bishoprics.

The Orthodox Church of Rumania contains at the moment eighteen dioceses grouped in five metropolitan areas. That of Hungary-Wallachia includes the Archbishopric of Bucharest and the Bishoprics of Ramnic-Noul-Severin (Ramnicu), Buzau, Argesh (Curtea d'Argesh) and Constanza. That of Moldavia and Suceava comprises the Archbishopric of Jassy and the Bishoprics of Roman, Hushi and Lower Danube (Galatz). That of Ardeal, Banat, Orisan and Maramures (Transylvania) consists of the Archbishopric of Alba-Julia-Sibiu (Sibiu) and the Bishoprics of AradJenapolia-Halmagia (Arad), Karansebes, Vadu-FeleacCluj (Cluj). The metropolitan district of Bukovina comprises only the Archbishopric of Cernauti (Tchernovitz) and the Bishopric of Hotin. That of Bessarabia consists of the Archbishopric of Chishinau (Kitshinev) and the Bishopric of Cetatea-Alba-Ismail (Cetatea-Alba, or Akherman). The Metropolitan district of Transylvania is the only one that has maintained its own peculiar organisation. This consists of a National Ecclesiastical Council of one hundred and fifty members (a third of which are ecclesiastics and two-thirds laymen), which meets once a year to discuss the affairs of the metropolitan district—especially all that concerns the schools and pious foundations; there is, further, a Metropolitan Consistory consisting of the metropolitan, the bishops, and a certain number of "assistants" appointed by the National Council. The Consistory is sub-divided into iS6

RUMANIAN AND GEORGIAN CHURCHES three bureaus—one of which gives judgment as appeal court in religious and matrimonial suits, another concerns itself with the schools, and a third deals with the ecclesiastical property of the metropolitan district. Each diocese has a Synod of fifty members (one-third ecclesiastical, two-thirds lay), which administers the property of the diocese, maintains the poor churches, finds means of support for the schools and charitable institutions, draws up the annual budget, supervises teaching, the clergy, etc. The other metropolitan areas have no special organisation. That of Bukovina, however, has maintained the "Rumanian Orthodox Ecclesiastical Board of Bukovina," which administers the property of that metropolitan district. There are three metropolitan spiritual consistories— one at Bucharest for Hungary-Wallachia, another at Jassy for Moldavia, the Bukovina and Bessarabia, and a third at Sibiu for Transylvania. Each diocese is governed by an archbishop or bishop, assisted by a vicar-general. Each metropolitan has, further, an auxiliary bishop (there are two at Bucharest). Each diocese has a Diocesan Assembly, a Diocesan Council, and a Diocesan Spiritual Consistory. The Diocesan Assembly consists of thirty to sixty members, according to the orthodox population (one-third ecclesiastical, two-thirds lay), elected for six years by the Parochial Assemblies. It concerns itself with all the aifairs of the diocese—especially in regard to the administration of property. It meets usually once a year. It delegates its powers to a Diocesan Council appointed by itself. This Council is divided into three sections, dealing with administration, schools and finance respectively; each section manages its own aifairs, but they meet together to deal with matters i57

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES that concern more than one section. The Diocesan Spiritual Consistory gives judgment in ecclesiastical cases which have been already examined by the courts of the archpriests. The Consistory consists of three priests with degrees in Theology and Canon Law, who are nominated for six years by the Diocesan Assembly. The dioceses are divided into archpriest areas of twenty to fifty parishes, which are governed by archpriests, assisted by an Assembly, by a Council, and by an Epitropy, or Commission, charged with the administration of the communal property. There is, moreover, an ecclesiastical court to give judgment in disciplinary affairs of the clergy in the archpriest area. Parishes.

For the erection of a new parish at least four hundred families are required in a town, and two hundred in the country. Each parish has an Assembly, a Council, an Epitropy and a Welfare Committee. The Assembly includes all the Orthodox voters and deals with the general affairs of the parish—particularly in connection with administration, and the schools. For this purpose the Assembly selects a Council of fifteen to thirty members which meets twice a year, under the presidency of the Parish Priest. The Epitropy keeps the accounts and administers the property of the parish. Finally, different welfare committees concern themselves with the upkeep and the decoration of the Church, with the sick, the poor, etc. The Secular Clergy.

The training of the secular clergy is far from uniform. In the old kingdom and in Bukovina the clergy generally have carried out a course of serious study, for at least half of them have followed a seminary 158

RUMANIAN AND GEORGIAN CHURCHES curriculum. But things are very different in Transylvania, and still worse in Bessarabia. Each diocese ought to have its own seminary. In fact, however, there are only a few seminaries altogether—for one is not entitled to give the name of "seminary" to the clerical schools which are found almost everywhere, and give merely a so-called secondary education. There are Faculties of Theology in the Universities of Bucharest, Cernauti, Cluj, and Chishinau. Unfortunately it is the State that appoints the professors— and that without consultation with the bishops. Some of the professors, as a result, are non-believers. Moreover, the ecclesiastical education that is given is very mediocre. The Patriarch once declared at a plenary meeting of the Senate that he had received a request from a group of Seminarists who styled themselves Atheists! Eager to secure a better training for his clergy, he has not hesitated to send about thirty pupils to the University of Strasbourg and to place them in a Catholic institution. The importance of parishes entrusted to the clergy varies with the level of education of the clergy. The Law demands a certificate of the completion of studies in a seminary from those who are to receive country parishes, and a Licentiate or Doctorate from those who seek town parishes; but this law has not yet been applied everywhere, and it will not be put in force generally for a long time—especially in Bessarabia. The clergy receive an allowance which is scarcely sufficient for subsistence, except in certain parishes which possess a good deal of property. Monasticism. Monasteries are subject to the local bishop; but they can neither be suppressed nor founded without a 1

S9

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES decree of the Holy Synod. The Bishop receives the Postulants when the habit is taken; it is he also who appoints the Superior from a list of three presented by the Convent, Chapter, etc. The Chapter includes all the religious who have taken perpetual vows; it controls the administration, examines candidates for profession, selects those who are to receive Holy Orders, etc. The Superior is assisted in the government of his monastery by a Spiritual Council in regard to monastic observance, and by a Finance Council in reference to worldly matters. Rumania has forty-four monasteries of men with about 1,500 monks, and twenty-four monasteries of women with about 1,850 nuns. Religious life is everywhere declining. In the old kingdom the number of religious has fallen by one-half in forty years. Transylvania has but a single convent, which contains but five monks. The custom of transforming monasteries into holiday resorts during the summer could scarcely be expected to promote fervour and recollection. In recent years attempts have been made to give a new impetus to Rumanian monasticism by imitating, to some extent, Catholic methods. The bishops have made appeals to the monks to take up apostolic work, especially with a view to the bringing back to Orthodoxy of the Uniates of Transylvania. Thè Law compels religious to establish in their monasteries schools of religious art, printing presses for the dissemination of pious and edifying books, orphanages, schools of Domestic Science, etc. Yet it appears to be difficult to get monks and nuns to abandon their worldly habits. 160

RUMANIAN AND GEORGIAN CHURCHES The Laity. Of the 17 million inhabitants of Rumania, about 12 millions belong to the Orthodox Church. They form the absolute majority of the population in the old kingdom and in Bessarabia; in the other provinces they form a relative majority. The people remain attached to the religion of their forefathers, though their knowledge of it, in general, is poor, and their practice of it no better. In some respects this attachment is excessive. Thus the reform of the Calendar introduced in October 1924 has not yet been carried through in Bessarabia and Bukovina on account of the inflexible opposition of the clergy and people. Religious instruction is included in all school programmes, but the provision made for it is very limited. In certain districts the clergy are inadequate both in numbers and education. In Transylvania it has been found necessary to organise a corps of voluntary catechists to make up for the lack of priests. Higher society shows little respect for religion, and is tending more and more towards Materialism, especially in the old kingdom. Divorce has become quite common. Disaffection towards the Church is due partly to the weakness of clerical influence, and partly to the attitude of the Church towards the State. Though Orthodoxy has been declared the dominant religion merely, and not the religion of the State, government control continues to be just as vexatious as formerly. The very large part given to the lay element in the government of the Church is a further source of the Church's weakness. The Episcopacy is accused of being the docile servant of the party in power, and of interfering in elections even at the risk of losing the l 161

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES little prestige which it still possesses. Well-informed Orthodox express the view that the establishment of a National Patriarchate has not strengthened the position of the Church. There are several ecclesiastical reviews. The chief are the Biserica Orthodoxa Romana ("The Orthodox Rumanian Church"), the Revista Theologica ("The Theological Review") of Sibiu, and the Candela ("The Watcher") of Cernauti. All these deal with questions of Theology and Canon Law, and Church history. The clergy have had for several years a weekly journal, the Crucea ("The Cross"). There are other ecclesiastical periodicals as well. At least a dozen of these appear in the old kingdom. The Rumanians have tried in vain to give bishops of their own race to their brethren in Jugo-Slavia and Greece. In the United States, on the other hand, they have organised parishes for their emigrants, who number a hundred thousand. The Holy Synod, moreover, created for these emigrants the bishopric of New York on December 15th, 1927. II. The Georgian Church (1) History. Georgia, or Iberia, was evangelised about 325 by missionaries from the Byzantine Empire, probably from the Patriarchate of Antioch—for that Patriarchate exercised a real suzerainty over the young Church of Georgia for several centuries. The Byzantine rite, like the Greek language, made its way into Georgia, but it was translated into Georgian in the fifth or sixth century. At this latter date new missionaries arrived from Syria to recommence the evangelisation of the country, which had remained incomplete. 162

RUMANIAN AND GEORGIAN CHURCHES It is probable that the Georgians had a Katholikos, or Patriarch, from the end of the fourth century, but they had no native Patriarch until the sixth century. Byzantine diplomacy succeeded in attracting them towards Constantinople, and they quietly submitted to its influence from the seventh century onwards. Their rite underwent the same evolution as that of Byzantium. Numerous Georgian monasteries were founded throughout the Empire, and served to keep the two churches closely united. This was particularly true of the Iberian monastery on Mt. Athos, for in that monastery a great number of Greek ecclesiastical works were translated into Georgian. Georgia was almost constantly familiar with war, either with outsiders or among its own citizens. Persians, Byzantians, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, in succession forced their way into it. The Moslem yoke made itself felt there for several centuries, greatly to the detriment of the faith. Furthermore, the country was divided into a number of rival principalities, and one of these appointed for itself a Katholikos of its own at the end of the fourteenth century. T o get help in his struggle with the Persians, King Heraclius I I made an alliance with the Russians in 1783. This was the prelude to annexation to the Russian Empire—and the annexation was carried out by Tsar Alexander in 1801. The National Church shared the fate of the country. In 18x1 the Katholikos, Antonius II, was compelled to reign, and his place was taken by an Exarch acting in the name of the Holy Synod of Petersburg. After 1817 this Prelate was always selected from among the Russian clergy. Thus the Georgians formed for a century an integral portion of the official Russian Church. They were despoiled of much of their ecclesiastical property, and 163

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES saw their country invaded by Russian clergy and monks, who sought to Russianise the Georgian population by using Slavonic in the Liturgy, and training a priesthood that would be docile to the guidance of the Holy Synod. All this did not, however, go smoothly, for the Georgians opposed a sturdy resistence to all attempts at Russianisation. There were even armed revolts—particularly at the time of the rebellion in 1905. The Exarch, Nikon, was assassinated in 1908. The fall of the Russian Empire permitted the Georgians to proclaim their political and religious independence. On the 18th May, 1918, the National Church was re-established with a Katholikos at its head. But soon the Bolshevists got hold of authority and in spite of the rebellion of 1924, brought the country definitely under the control of Moscow. The Church was bitterly persecuted, and the Katholikos and several bishops were condemned to prison. For several years a condition of calm has been maintained, but the Church can scarcely be said to enjoy more freedom than that of Russia. (2) Ecclesiastical Organisation The Katholikos resides at Tiflis where he presides over the Holy Synod, which is in principle the supreme authority of the Church. The Synod comprises all the active bishops. Besides the Katholikos, there are four bishops—the bishops of Imeretia (Koutais), of GouriaMingrelia (Batum), of Gori and of Sukhum (Sukhum Kale). It is difficult to ascertain the actual organisation of the dioceses, for - intercourse with Georgia is not easy. It is probable that the seminaries founded by the Russians at Tiflis and at Koutais have not been kept up on account of persecution. We can form an idea of the 164

RUMANIAN AND GEORGIAN CHURCHES importance of the Georgian Church from statistics established by the Russians in 1900. There were then 1,527 parishes and 2,455 churches and chapels, with 65 archpriests, 1,705 priests, 239 deacons and 1,822 lesser clergy; 27 monasteries of men with 1,098 monks and 7 of women with 286 nuns. These figures must now probably be greatly lowered as a result of persecution and of the departure of many Russian priests and monks. It is thought that the Georgian Orthodox number about 2,500,000. Revolutionary ideas, which developed strongly during a century of national opposition to Russia, have taken free course since the revolution of 1917, and have caused serious difficulty for the Church. Party conflicts and the violence of the Bolshevists have still further increased the instability of the national mentality. The people in general remain attached to religion, but they do not seem to show so much loyalty towards it as the people in Russia. III. New Independent Churches The oriental theory of National Churches has, of course, found new application as a result of the ethnic re-groupings that have followed the Great War. While, on the one hand, different independent churches of the same race have been fused into a single church, as in Jugo-slavia and Rumania, on the other new autonomous churches have been established, either by new States eager to withdraw their subjects from foreign influences, or by the faithful themselves. (1) The Orthodox Church of Poland. The most important of these autonomous churches is the Church of Poland. Poland contains about 3,000,000 Orthodox—chiefly Ruthenians and White Russians. 165

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES The government at Warsaw has made efforts to detach them from the Patriarchate of Moscow, but this has proved difficult, and opposition to it has sometimes taken a violent form. Thus the metropolitan George was assassinated by a fanatical monk on February 9th, 1923. The Patriarch Tichon agreed to give the Orthodox of Poland a certain amount of autonomy, but he refused to grant them complete self-government. Then the Polish Government quoted the Conventions established in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries regarding the Orthodox of the Ukraine, and obtained from the Patriarch of Constantinople the complete independence of the Polish Orthodox Church (November nth, 1924). This church is governed by a Holy Synod of five members, comprising the Metropolitan, and four bishops. The Metropolitan styles himself "Patriarch of Warsaw, of Volhynia and of all Poland." The country is divided into five eparchies (dioceses)— Warsaw-Cholm (with an auxiliary bishop at Lublin), Volhynia-Kremtzk, Vilna-Lida, Grodno-Novogrudsk, and Poliesia-Pinsk. The diocese of Volhynia-Kremtzk has not yet received a bishop; it is administered by the Metropolitan of Warsaw. Each diocese is governed by its bishop, and by a Consistory made up of four ecclesiastics selected by the Holy Synod and some laymen. There are two seminaries—one at Vilna and another at Krzemieniec, with about 500 students, and there is a Faculty of Theology at the University of Warsaw (with more than 150 students). There is an official review called Vesnik na pravoslavnite mitropolite v Polcha ("Journal of the Orthodox Metropolitans of Poland"), and there are two religious weeklies, one in Russian, the other in Ukrainian. 166

RUMANIAN AND GEORGIAN CHURCHES Though the Polish Government adopts a friendly attitude towards it, the new Church does not yet appear to be solidly established. The main source of its weakness is the clash of races. The Ukrainians or Ruthenians, who form the great majority of the Polish Orthodox, maintain a constant protest against the continuation of a system which is regarded with such special favour by the Holy Synod of Petrograd; they demand the use of their own language for the liturgy, in the translation of the Scriptures, and in the teaching of the seminaries, and they claim also the appointment of bishops of their own race. After an energetic campaign in 1927 their demands were rejected by the Metropolitan, but they still keep up a vigorous agitation against the exclusive use of Russian and Slavonic, and insistently demand decentralisation in their own favour. It is probable that their demands will ultimately be granted. (2) The National Albanian Church. As soon as the Young Turk revolution of 1908 gave a slight hope of greater freedom to the various peoples of the Ottoman Empire, the Albanian Orthodox began to manifest separatist tendencies. They had, however, to wait for the establishment of an independent State to have their aspirations realised. In 1918 an ordinary priest, Fan (i.e. Theophan) Noli, took the leadership of the movement. He was selected as Bishop by the Albanian Colonies of America, but could not secure consecration on account of the hostility of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This, however, did not prevent him from officiating pontifically, nor from being President of the Council of Ministers in 1924. In September 1922 a National Congress held at Berat proclaimed the independence of the Orthodox Church 167

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES of Albania. The Phanar, disturbed by this proclamation, sent a bishop to study the situation, but he went over to the separatists, and was joined by one of his colleagues—an Albanian, like himself. The Greek metropolitans having been forced to leave in face of the hostility of the people, the sees were partly refilled, and the young Church found itself in a condition bordering on schism. In 1924 the Holy Synod of Contantinople decided to recognise its autonomy, but for political reasons it abandoned this attitude. Discussion went on for a length of time, until at last the Government of Tirana suddenly finished with them in February 1929. A Serbian bishop in residence at Scodra (Scutari), and an Albanian bishop, who had been consecrated by emigrant Russian prelates, appointed two other bishops, and autonomy was proclaimed (February 18). The Patriarchate of Constantinople deposed the members of the new Holy Synod, but it had no power to have its sentence carried out. No Orthodox Church has so far officially recognised this religious coup d'etat, and several churches have formally condemned it. It has been alleged that Italy was not without influence on the decision of the Albanian Government, and that politics had more to do with it than religion. Albania contains about 180,000 Orthodox, who are mostly concentrated in the south. The country is divided into four metropolitan districts—Durazzo, Berat, Argyrocastro and Corytsa. The new Church is engaged at present in working out the details of its constitution. Albanian is to be substituted for Greek in the Liturgy—a reform which will demand delicate handling because of the linguistic problems involved.

168

RUMANIAN AND GEORGIAN CHURCHES (3) Greek Archbishopric of America. Greeks have emigrated in great numbers to the United States of America, and form there, at the moment, flourishing colonies. Meletios IV, Patriarch of Constantinople, granted them a considerable measure of religious autonomy in May 1922. This new Greek Church comprises the Archbishopric of New York and the three bishoprics Boston, Chicago and San Francisco. The incumbents of these four sees form the Holy Synod, which meets every year in spring and in autumn. A General Assembly consisting of the four prelates, and of twenty-four diocesan delegates (twelve ecclesiastical and twelve lay), holds a meeting every second year to discuss the general affairs of the Church. Each diocese has its own Assembly, composed in equal numbers of clergy and laity, and a spiritual court for canonical trials. The Holy Synod deals with appeals from the spiritual courts. There is appeal for the quashing of decisions to Constantinople. The Greek Church of America, on account of party struggles, has not yet attained a condition of peaceful calm. A metropolitan at strife with the Patriarchate of Constantinople has actually gone so far as to found a separate Church with thirty-five parishes and fiftysix priests; he upholds the Julian Calendar, which the official Church rejects. The official Church had in 1927, 160 parishes and 172 priests. About a score of parishes refuse allegiance to both of these Churches, and have declared themselves independent. The Seminary of St. Athanasius founded near New York in 1921 was compelled to close in 1924 for want of funds; in 1927 the General Assembly demanded that it be re-opened. There is an official ecclesiastical 169

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES review, the Ekklesiastikos Keryx ("Ecclesiastical Messenger"). In all there are about 200,000 Orthodox in the various groups. (4) The Metropolitan District of Esthonia. T h e separation of Esthonia from Russia led to a demand for autonomy from the Esthonian Orthodox. T h i s was refused to them by the Patriarch Tichon. T h e y made application then to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and were granted autonomy by it in July 1923. T h e metropolitan area depends—at least in theory—on the Holy Synod of Constantinople; it is governed by a metropolitan, who resides at Tallin (Reval), and it was intended that it should have three dioceses—at Tallin, Sarina (Tchorna) and Petshery (Petshory) respectively. So far, however, there are but two dioceses—the Metropolitan See of Tallin, which is Esthonian, and the bishopric of Narva, which is Russian. There are 134 parishes with 38 archpriests, 92 priests, 21 deacons and 113 cantors, for an Orthodox population of 210,000. There are two Russian monasteries—one of men at Petshery, and one of women at Kuremiaye. (5) Archbishopric of Finland. Finland is an essentially Protestant country. Among its inhabitants, however, are 69,300 Orthodox. Of these 7,500 are Russian. T h e government, anxious to withdraw its Orthodox subjects from the influence of Moscow, sought and obtained from the Patriarchate of Constantinople permission to have them organised as an independent Church. T h e decree of autonomy was published on the 9th July, 1923. T h e decree laid down the general lines of organisation, but these have been somewhat modified in the meantime. A law of 170

RUMANIAN AND GEORGIAN CHURCHES January 14th, 1926, promulgated new regulations. The Finland Government is friendly towards the native Orthodox Church, and supports it by subventions for the clergy, the churches, the teaching of religion, etc. The beginnings of the new Church were difficult on account of racial conflicts. The first archbishop, a Russian, was compelled to resign because he did not know a word of Finnish. The adoption of the new Calendar was vigorously resisted by the Russian monks of Valaamsky, and their hegumenos was expelled by the civil authorities. The situation has since been made stable by the triumph of the Finnish elements. The Orthodox Church of Finland has two dioceses —Carelia and Viborg. The head of the former bears the title "Archbishop of Carelia and of all Finland": he resides at Helsingfors. In his diocese, which includes 50,700 faithful, the only language used in the Liturgy is Finnish; but Slavonic is used throughout the diocese of Viborg, which has 18,600 faithful. Normally the Church is governed by the two bishops, and by a representative of the clergy, and a representative of the laity appointed by the Synod. The Synod consists of clergy and laity, and meets every five years to discuss matters of general importance. Its decisions are promulgated by state laws. A seminary maintained by the government has been established at Serdobol. There are three monasteries of men (at Valaamsky, at Konievietsky in the islands of Lake Ladoga, and at Trifonopetshievsky in the north of the country, respectively), with 514 monks; and there is one monastery of women which has 34 nuns. The Synod published in 1922 a common set of regulations for all the monasteries. 171

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES (6) The Orthodox Church of Czechoslovakia. After the establishment of the new State of Czechoslovakia, certain Latin priests of the country revolted against episcopal authority, and set up a National Church, which the Serbian Bishop of Nish undertook to organise, under the suzerainty of the Holy Synod of Belgrave. There was soon formed a cleavage in this group. The great majority of the people followed Dr. Farsky (11927), whose tendencies were definitely Protestant, while the rest (a few thousands only) continued to recognise as their head, the bishop, Gorazd Pavlik. On the other hand, the Orthodox of Czechoslovakia secured their autonomy from the Patriarchate of Constantinople on March 5th, 1923, and were given a bishop in the person of Mgr. Sabbazd. The latter was set aside on November 22nd, 1925, when Gorazd Pavlik was proclaimed Head of the Church. The Church admits the authority of the Serbian Patriarchate, and includes two classes of faithful—those of the nationalised Latin rite, and those of the Byzantine rite. Its main activity is directed towards inducing the uniates of Podcarpathia to become schismatic, and a seminary has been established for this purpose. The number of Orthodox in Czechoslovakia is reckoned at 45,000.

172

CHAPTER

VII

THE ARMENIAN CHURCHES (i)

History.

THE Armenians call themselves Hai (plural Haikh). They are an Indo-European people. Having settled in Phrygia after many wanderings they left it in the seventh century B.C. to continue their movement towards the East. They halted finally in the territory to which they have given their name—the mountain country south-west of the Caucasus. Later on they moved down as far as the Mediterranean and occupied Cilicia. Their independence was often threatened, and often destroyed by their powerful neighbours. The Parthians, then the Persians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Byzantians, the Neo-Persians and the Turks, in turn controlled the entire territory, or a considerable portion of their realm. The country was frequently the theatre of sanguinary struggles, and of revolutions. In 1828 and 1878 the Russians annexed the North of Armenia, while the Turks and the Persians divided the remainder of the country between them. The numberless calamities which they have had to endure for centuries, as well as their leaning towards adventure and their taste for business, have led thousands of Armenians to leave their native land. The terrible persecutions inflicted on them by the Turks since 1915 brought about the death of 800,000 Armenians and increased the tide of emigration. Of the

173

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES 1,700,000 Armenians who dwelt in Turkey at the outbreak of the Great War, not 100,000 remain there to-day. In 1926 there was a nucleus of about 871,000 in the Soviet Republic of which Erivan is the capital; the others are scattered over the world. In spite, however, of massacres and persecutions, it is estimated that there are still 3,000,000 Armenians. Of these 65,000 are Catholic, and 20,000 Protestant. The first evangelisation of Armenia is enveloped in an obscurity which is not likely ever to be completely dispelled. In general, the story of an apostolate of St. Bartholomew and St. Thaddaeus among the Armenians, is regarded as legendary, and the story of the Armenian pseudo-king Abgar is looked on as still more so. It may be admitted, however, that Christianity made its way into Armenia at a very early date across the borders of the Roman Empire. Cappadocia and Syria, with their flourishing centres, Caesarea and Edessa, always exercised a great influence on Armenia, which lay along their frontiers. It was through those two countries that the first missionaries entered Armenia. It was not, however, until the end of the third century that the conversion of Armenian made any definite progress. This was due to the work of St. Gregory, the Illuminator (in Armenian—Surp Krikor Lussavoritch). St. Gregory was brought up at Caesarea of Cappadocia. He induced King Trdat (or Tiridates) II and his family to accept Christianity. The people followed the example of their prince, but apparently not in their entirety. This was about 290295. St. Gregory was consecrated bishop at Caesarea, and became the first head of the new Church. The Church remained, however, under the suzerainty of the Metropolitan See of Cappadocia. The family of the Illuminator for a long time held the religious J

74

THE ARMENIAN CHURCHES control of the kingdom; and positions were often handed on from father to son, for canonical legislation about episcopal celibacy seems to have remained a dead letter during the first centuries of Christianity in Armenia. It is believed that the Church of this country proclaimed its independence towards the end of the fourth century, but it did not cease thereby to belong to the Catholic world. Its Liturgy had come under both Greek and Syrian influence. In the first quarter of the fourth century an important change took place. The Patriarch Sahag (Isaac), introduced into the public worship the national language, which the adoption of a special alphabet had rendered more generally accessible. The Liturgy developed gradually, attaining its full development some centuries later. Unfortunately the spread of monophysite errors and political troubles with the Byzantine Empire soon led the Armenian Church to separate itself from the rest of the Christian world. The official adoption of monophysism was regarded as the best means of breaking with the Greeks, whose aid had been sought in vain against the Persians. A council assembled at Vagarshapat solemnly condemned the Council of Chalcedon, and gave its blessing to the Schism (491). On several occasions union in faith with the Byzantinians was reestablished—especially under Heraklius and Justinian II—but agreement—probably because it was dictated by politics—never lasted long. When the Council of Trullo (692) condemned some of their religious practices, the Armenians refused to hear anything further about union—even in spite of the overtures of Photius in the ninth, and of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus in the twelfth century. It is to be noted that, during all this time and up to the Crusades, the Armenians 175

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES had practically no intercourse with the Roman Church. Their Church had already suffered many misfortunes. Persecution had often made martyrs, and more often still, apostates. There was not always harmony among the bishops, and the Katholikate was often the object of bitter rivalry. In favour of the clergy it must be said, however, that the country was almost always under the strain of opposing influences, and that intrigues were, therefore, only too natural. The Persians first, and then the Arabs, disputed hegemony with the Byzantines. T o this source of trouble were superadded division among the native chiefs, and the jealous control which they claimed to exercise over the Church. There were, however, several periods of genuine renaissance, but none of them was of long duration. The kingdom ended in 1064 with the sack of Ani, its capital. This only increased the general confusion. The Katholikoi had never had a fixed residence. At first they had resided at Ashtishat. Later they moved to different localities, and in the end they established themselves at Sis in Cilicia (1293). The arrival of the Crusaders in the country developed somewhat the attitude of the Armenians towards union of the churches. For several centuries the best relations subsisted between them and the warriors from the West. Several Katholikoi sincerely united themselves with Rome, but there were always irreconcilables who maintained that recognition of papal authority was opposed to the national traditions. A sort of Third Order of Dominicans, the Fratres Unitores, worked steadily for complete reconciliation between the two churches. But, unfortunately, they were unable to moderate their criticism in regard to the dissenters, whom they only exasperated by their excess of zeal. Union was solemnly proclaimed in 1198. But it 176

THE ARMENIAN CHURCHES proved to be of an unstable character, and it ceased altogether with the fall of the kingdom of Little Armenia in 1393. The National Church had already broken up into a number of allegiances, to which others were added in the course of time. It is necessary to discuss the history of each of these separately. Katholikate of Sis

The Katholikos of Sis, the legitimate heirs of the first religious leaders of the nation, saw their authority greatly diminished, first by the setting up of a Katholikate at Etchmiadzin at the foot of Mount Ararat (1441), then by the setting up of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (1461). Soon they had under their jurisdiction only Cilicia, Syria, Mesopotamia, and a portion of Asia Minor. Henceforth they played a very greatly diminished role. It seemed, however, at one time, as if they were about to recover their ancient influence. The Sultan, Abdul-Hamid, desirous of causing dissensions among the Armenians, whom he regarded as especially hostile to his tyrannical government, granted to Mgrditsh, Katholikos of Sis, civil authority over the subjects of his See (1880). The Patriarch of Constantinople, who was thus deprived of his rights, made a vigorous protest and, at last, gained his point. Mgrditsh was compelled to resign, and his successors did not venture to make any further claim to the exercise of civil authority. When Cilicia was evacuated by the French troops in 1922, the Katholikos of Sis fled to Syria with all that the Turkish persecutions had left to him of his subjects. Katholikate of Aghtamar.

In 1113, David, Archbishop of this district (an island in Lake Van) refused to recognise the Katholikos u 177

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES Krikor I I I Pahlavunni, and declared himself independent. Though he was excommunicated, he continued to act as head of the Lake Van district, and he had successors up to the end of the nineteenth century. The Shahs of Persia supported this revolt, for it helped their political schemes. Though the Katholikos of Aghtamar was ultimately released from excommunication, he never had more than a very limited authority. That authority extended to the island of Aghtamar, which was the seat of an important monastery, and to some other districts round about. There was only one suffragan bishop—the Bishop of Khizan. The See of Aghtamar, becoming vacant in 1895, was not filled again, and its administration was entrusted to a titular bishop. The persecutions of the Turks during the Great War, and the years which followed the War, brought about the complete dispersion of the 95,000 people who were subjects of the See in 1914. Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

A revolt of the monks in Jerusalem led to the establishment of a new independent Church in the Holy City (1311). Those religious refused to accept the decisions of the Council of Sis (1307), and proclaimed as Patriarch the Bishop who was ruling them at the time. The Sultans of Egypt showed themselves favourable to this movement, because it helped to facilitate their struggle against the kingdom of Little Armenia. The new Patriarchate, however, remained one in name only. After the conquest of Palestine by the Turks in 1516 the Patriarch could only be appointed by Constantinople. His jurisdiction extended over Palestine, and the Lebanon—countries where the Armenians never settled in large numbers. 178

THE ARMENIAN CHURCHES Katholikate of Etchmiadzin. After the election of Krikor I X Mussabeghian as Katholikos of Sis (1440), four bishops of Armenia, who had not taken part in the Synod, invited him to take up his residence at Etchmiadzin, which was regarded by an incorrect tradition as the place where St. Gregory the Illuminator had established his See. When Krikor I X refused this invitation, the bishops in question appointed a new Katholikos at Etchmiadzin, and grouped around him the majority of the people (1441). At present this Prelate is regarded as the supreme Head of the dissenting Armenian Church. In the sixteenth century the Katholikoi of Etchmiadzin showed a friendly attitude towards Catholicism, and several of them even united with Rome. In the seventeenth century the persecutions of the Shahs of Persia were frequent and very severe. The Armenians gave armed help to the Russians in order to free themselves from the tyranny of the Persians and Turks; but, in the event, they had little reason for self-congratulation on that account. As soon as they became masters of the country (1828) the Tsars tried to dominate the Armenian Church. A ukase of Nicholas I gave a new organisation to the Katholikate which put it in complete subjection to the State (1836). The protests of Armenians throughout the world held up for a considerable time the enforcement of this decree; but in 1882 the Russian government succeeded in having it applied. On July 12, 1903, a new ukase of Nicholas II aimed at despoiling the Armenian Church of its property. This ukase roused such a storm of opposition— a storm which was reinforced by the troubles of 19041905—that it could be only partially put in force. The Russian Government at all times displayed its desire to 179

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES bring the Armenian Church under its control. It even went so far as to cast into prison every non-orthodox priest guilty of having baptised a converted Moslem. The political independence of Armenia which sprang from the Russian Revolution of 1917 did not long endure. The country has fallen into the hands of the Bolshevists and the Bolshevists of Armenia show towards the Church the same contemptuous hostility as their Moscow colleagues who are their source of inspiration. In 1927 that hostility manifested itself in various measures of persecution devised against the Katholikos and his Council. In face of the courageous opposition of the Prelate, and the force of popular feeling, the government made certain concessions to establish a modus vivendi—but this modus vivendi is exceedingly unstable. Patriarchate of Constantinople. Mahomet II gave the same political status to the Armenians of his empire as to the Greeks. As their religious and civil head they had Bishop Hovaghim of Brussa, whom the Sultan made Patriarch of Constantinople in 1461. This innovation was, of course, unfavourably received by the other Heads of Churches, but the will of the sovereign had to be accepted. However, the Katholikos of Etchmiadzin maintained a veritable overlordship over the Patriarch of Constantinople. He gave him neither the power of blessing the Holy Chrism nor of consecrating bishops, but only that of presenting candidates for the episcopacy. Though the Patriarch of Constantinople was, from the ecclesiastical point of view, merely the first of all the Armenian archbishops of Turkey, he exercised considerable authority. His throne was the object of much competition—especially in the 17th and 18th centuries. The 180

THE ARMENIAN CHURCHES laity, as time went on, took an ever increasing part in ecclesiastical affairs, and sought to impose their will on the episcopate. Their efforts resulted in the adoption of the System of Regulations of 1680, in which in 150 articles the details of the Government of the Church were indicated. The laity were assigned therein a preponderating part. Supreme authority was given to an Assembly of 400 members, of whom only a seventh were ecclesiastics. Since the suppression by the Nationalists of Angora of the rights of religious minorities, this system of Regulations has fallen partially into desuetude. However, it permitted the Patriarchate of Constantinople to exercise for sixty years complete authority over all the Armenians of Turkey. III.

Common Organisation of the Churches.

Before giving an account of the individual Armenian Churches still existing, it will be well to say a word about their normal organisation, for they have certain common features which vary little as between different countries, and give a certain specific appearance to them all. Dioceses. Among the Gregorian 1 Armenians ecclesiastical districts are not necessarily governed by a bishop or an archbishop; they may be ruled by a simple vardapet,a or by an archpriest. Certain monasteries, too, have a jurisdiction analogous to that of the abbacies nuUius of 1 The non-Uniate Armenians give themselves this designation because of their tradition that St. Gregory the Illuminator organised an independent Armenian Church. History has proved the baselessness of that tradition. 1 The Vardapets are a special grade of the Armenian hierarchy; they receive a special blessing. 181

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN

CHURCHES

the Latins. A t the present moment there is but a single one of these in Transcaucasia—for persecution has caused the disappearance of the eight that were in Turkey. T h e ecclesiastical areas are not grouped into provinces; each of them is in direct relation with the Head of the Church—the Patriarch or Katholikos. T h e title "Archbishop" is purely honorific, and is usually given in view of the importance of a town; it confers no prerogative—not even that of precedence, for that goes altogether by seniority. T h e head of each diocese, the arachnord, has complete authority over his clergy. It is he that decides with his Council in matrimonial cases—except those of divorce, which are reserved to the Patriarch or Katholikos. T h e churches are grouped, in varying numbers, under the authority of an archpriest (avagheretz) who is responsible for their maintenance. Parishes. There are no parishes—as we understand that word in the West. Each church is served by one priest, or by several priests who officiate in turn, and must live apart from their families, while they exercise the sacred functions. T h e custom has been introduced—at least in the towns—that each family chooses its confessor wherever it pleases. He is usually the confessor of the lady of the house. He carries out for the family all the functions of a parish priest—baptism, confirmation, marriage, burial, etc.—even if he is not attached to the church of the place. Thus he becomes the taneretz or dzikhtar (master of the hearth) of the family that adopts him, and the family, in return, contributes to his maintenance. There results from this a diminution of apostolic freedom for the priest. T h e Ephory, or Parish Council, consists entirely of laymen. It arranges, 182

THE ARMENIAN CHURCHES in conjunction with the Archpriest, for all the ceremonies to be carried out in the church. Thus the local clergy may not organise any ceremony without its permission, nor have they the key of the church. It is the people who select their priests and the Bishop merely confirms their choice. The priests are attached for ever to a church, and the Bishop has not the right to remove them without the consent of the faithful. A priest cannot change his post unless he has been previously accepted elsewhere. The Bishop has not even the power to ordain a secular priest if the priest is not asked for by a church. The Secular Clergy. They are recruited almost exclusively from among the cantors and teachers. As there is no Seminary, in the proper sense, available, initiation into the sacred functions takes comparatively little time. The candidate for the ministry spends some time (from a few weeks to six months) in a monastery, or with an experienced priest, in order to learn the duties of the position —especially in regard to Church functions and the administration of the Sacraments. To be ordained priest a man must be married at least a year previously, for the unmarried are not admitted to the priesthood, unless they are monks. Ecclesiastics who have become widowers may marry again—in contradistinction to the tradition of the Orthodox, but if they re-marry they must give up the performance of sacred functions and return to the rank of the ordinary faithful. Though efforts have continued to be made since the beginning of the twentieth century to secure for remarried ecclesiastics the right of retaining their ministry, no Armenian church has so far accepted this policy. Married priests (derders) may become archpriests, but not 183

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES vardapets, or bishops, unless they are widowers, and have renounced the right of remarriage. The lack of seminaries is making itself keenly felt. The priests are usually just as ignorant as the laity in regard to theological matters. They are satisfied, in general, with carrying out the functions of divine worship, and no more than this is demanded of them. They are generally incapable of preaching—that being normally reserved to the vardapets. On the other hand the secular clergy alone can hear the confessions of the faithful generally: the regular clergy can hear the confessions only of the monks who are subject to them. Religious Life. The various Armenian Churches formerly possessed hundreds of flourishing monasteries. At the present moment the only monasteries still occupied by monks are in Transcaucasia and Palestine. The monasteries in Turkey have all disappeared as a result of the persecution begun in 1915. Vocations are becoming steadily fewer—particularly in connection with monasteries of women. As with the other Oriental Dissenters, the religious houses are not grouped in orders or congregations: each one is self-governed according to its traditions. Neither are there vows, properly so called. The mere fact of entering religion binds to celibacy, to fasting, to the office, and to the other monastic practices. Monks entering orders are excluded from parish work, and they can hear the confessions of the religious of their own convent only. Those who possess education can become deacons (sarkavaks) if they wish, at the end of three years. They cannot be ordained priests (abegha) until thev are twenty-two. They then receive the hood (veghar) which is the distinctive mark of the monastic 184

THE ARMENIAN CHURCHES clergy, and is worn also by the vardapets, the bishops, patriarchs and Katholikoi, who are all taken from among the celibate ecclesiastics. The monastic priests are not to be reckoned along with the laity, like their brethren of the secular clergy; they depend altogether on their superiors. The vardapets, whose main function is preaching, are not bound to live in the monasteries. They have the right to the pastoral cross, and they hold it in their hand while addressing the people. Laity. Armenians, as a general rule, are attached to their religion—some of them through conviction, others through the force of national tradition, because the Church has been the natural refuge of patriotism since the breaking up of the different kingdoms of Armenia. But ignorance and routine impede the growth of religious fervour among the people generally. Moreover, apart from fasting, the obligations imposed by the Church on the faithful are very vague. The misfortunes endured by the Armenians in Russia and Turkey have embittered many of them, and driven them into revolutionary associations. This helps to explain the presence of an unduly large proportion of Armenians in the leading ranks of Sovietism. In the towns the better classes are steadily abandoning the practice of religion, and attaching themselves to secret societies—particularly to Free Masonry. Freethinking and Protestantism have found many followers among them. The simple folk, in their ignorant simplicity, are much more Christian; and they showed this during the Turkish persecutions of the Great War period, and afterwards. Thousands of the people refusing to accept Islamism, have died for the faith. But the great enemy of religion among the people is 185

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES superstition, and no one seems to denounce it as offence against God. The bitter struggle which many Armenians have to wage for a bare subsistence, leaves them practically no time to assist at the ceremonies of public worship. These, however, are not very frequent. On week days Mass is not said except on Saturday; and feasts are usually transferred to the nearest Sunday. Pilgrimages always attract many—particularly pilgrimages to the Holy Places of Palestine and to the Church of St. Gregory, the Illuminator, at Etchmiadzin. III.

Existing Armenian Churches.

There are, at the moment, five Gregorian Armenian Churches, more or less independent of one another. These are the Katholikates of Etchmiadzin and Sis, the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Jerusalem, and the Archbishopric of Bulgaria. The Katholikate of Aghtamar has been non-existent for about ten years, and, probably, will never be restored—even should the Armenians succeed in establishing themselves again in the Van district. The Katholikate of Etchmiadzin. The Katholikate of Etchmiadzin, established in a huge monastery at the foot of Mt. Ararat, some kilometers distant from Erivan, is regarded as the supreme authority over all Gregorian Armenians. Its jurisdiction extends directly over Transcaucasia, Russia, Rumania, Persia, India, Europe, and America. Besides, it is to it that the other churches have recourse in all especially serious questions. It is for the Katholikos of Etchmiadzin, also, to bless the Holy Chrism, and to consecrate bishops for all the churches—except for 186

THE ARMENIAN CHURCHES the Katholikate of Sis, which is now-a-days greatly reduced. The Katholikos calls himself, "Servant of God, Supreme Patriarch and Katholikos of all the Armenians." According to the constitutions imposed on him by the Russian government, he is assisted by a Council of bishops and other ecclesiastics. The laity had no right of intervention during the Tsarist regime, and apparently they have not acquired such right since the 1917 revolution. The Katholikate includes twenty-eight territorial divisions, which are not all dioceses in the canonical sense of that word. There are eight archdioceses, twelve dioceses, seven districts administered by vardapets, and one monastery with jurisdiction—Tathev. The archdioceses are Erivan (governed by the Katholikos), Tiflis, Chouchi (Karabagh), Chamaghi, Astrakan, Ispahan, Tabriz, Rumania. The dioceses are: Nakhitchevan, Alexandrapol, Kars, Gori, Akhaltzikhe, Khantzak (Elisabethpol), NorNakhitchevan, Nukhi, Ghzlar, Calcutta, Paris, and Worcester (United States of America). A good number of these dioceses situated in Russia are at the moment, vacant, as a result of the persecutions. In 1914 there were about 2,250,000 Armenian subjects of the Katholikos of Etchmiadzin. This figure has changed in the meantime—but, to what extent, it is almost impossible to ascertain. The majority of the Gregorians reside outside the Republic which has been set up in Transcaucasia. They are numerous in Georgia, in Azerbeidjan, in northern Russia and in North America. Thus, as was said above, the Katholikos has much difficulty in exercising his authority on account of the hostility shown towards the Church by the Bolshevist rulers of Erivan. 187

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES Katkolikate of Sis. The Katholikos of Sis gives himself as title; "Servant of God, Patriarch and Katholikos of Little Armenia, minister of the right hand and of the throne of St. Gregory the Illuminator. There were fourteen ecclesiastical districts in 1914: now there remain of these only the dioceses of Aleppo and Antioch. Since the exodus of 1922 the Katholikos has resided at Aleppo, and he is working there to reorganise his Church. In 1910 the Katholikos had 285,000 subjects: at present he has not more than 80,000, and since 1922 practically all these have settled in Syria. Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The Patriarch is always appointed by the National Assembly of Constantinople out of a list of three candidates presented by the Armenian community of the Holy City. He lives on Mount Sion, in the monastery of St. James, of which he is the Superior. An Archbishop usually acts as Patriarchal Vicar. There is also an Administrative Council, consisting of four bishops and two vardapets. The Patriarchate includes only the diocese of Jerusalem, which comprises Palestine, the Lebanon, and the district of Damascus. The Island of Cyprus, which would normally belong to it, has been put under the control of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. There are eighteen parishes, eighteen churches and about 50,000 laity—of whom the majority are exiles settled since 1922 in the Lebanon and at Damascus Patriarchate of Constantinople. Its jurisdiction extends, at least theoretically, over most of the territories formerly subject to the Ottoman Empire, Turkey—Bulgaria, Egypt, Cyprus. In reality 188

T H E ARMENIAN CHURCHES however, it has lost nearly all its importance since the almost complete disappearance of Armenians from Turkey. In 1915 it had about 1,350,000 subjects, nearly all of whom were in Turkey. At present it has about 100,000 subjects in Turkey, and about 50,000 in Greece, Egypt, and Cyprus. Thus the patriarchate has lost nine-tenths of its people either directly through the bloody persecutions, or through the emigrations en masse which the persecutions have brought about. T h e Patriarchate is still governed by the regulations established in i860—though many of these have become obsolete. T h e 400 members of the National Assembly have been reduced to 66—14 of whom are priests and 52 laymen. This Assembly deals with general affairs and appoints the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem. It is elected for ten years and usually delegates its powers to two Councils of fourteen members each. T h e Ecclesiastical Council, which is recruited altogether from the clergy, deals with purely religious affairs, and the Lay Council administers the property, and the various institutions—the schools, hospitals, i.e. of the community. All this is a merely provisional system, but it may continue for a considerable time, for the government of Angora is not observing loyally its promises to permit the religious minorities to set up their own organisations. In 1915 Turkey included forty-six Armenian territorial areas, including twelve archdioceses, twenty-four dioceses, and six monasteries that possessed jurisdiction. Practically all that remains of all this in Turkey to-day is the diocese of Constantinople, which is governed by the Patriarch. Nearly all the faithful are grouped round Constantinople, and the few Armenian colonies that survive in the provinces have difficulty in maintaining themselves there. Bishops have been 189

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES appointed to govern the different quarters of Constantinople, and to take part in the Patriarchal Council. There is still an Archbishop in Egypt for the 15,000 Gregorians who are settled there. Greece has no bishopric, though it has 40,000 Armenian residents— residents, however, whose departure the Greek government is willing enough to facilitate. Archbishopric of Bulgaria. Bulgaria contains a certain number of Armenians who settled there formerly, and others who have recently arrived. Up to 1927 these Armenians were subject to Constantinople, and had as their immediate superior, only an ordinary priest. The arrival of considerable numbers of refugees from Turkey since 1920 increased the importance of the Armenian community and in 1924 the leading Armenians of Sofia began to demand the establishment of a bishopric in that city. The Patriarchate of Constantinople rejected the demand for what seemed to it to be a dangerous innovation. Then the Armenians applied to the Katholikos of Etchmiadzin, but he did not reply to their demand. Disregarding these authorities the Bulgarian Armenians selected as their head a venerable archbishop who had emigrated from Turkey; and the Bulgarian government hastened to give its recognition to this new Church Authority. Recognition was also granted in 1928 by the Katholikate of Etchmiadzin so that, in spite of the unfriendliness of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the situation was regularised. The Armenian Archbishopric of Bulgaria forms then an independent Church with its own hierarchy and organisation. So far this Church possesses only one suffragan bishop, twenty-five priests, and about 45,000 laity. 190

CHAPTER VIII THE SYRIAN AND NESTORIAN CHURCHES

I.

The Syrian Jacobite Church

i. History. The Schismatical Syrians are the descendants of the Christians of the Antiochian Patriarchate who separated from the Church completely in the sixth century. The antipathy of the native Syrians to the Greeks, which had been for a long time dormant, showed itself emphatically towards the end of the fourth century. T o the conflict of the two races there was added the struggle for religious precedence between Antioch—an apostolic See hitherto universally respected in the East— and Constantinople, the bishop of which had been assuming a steadily increasing importance since that city had become the capital of the Empire. The Monophysite struggle seemed to the Syrians to afford them a favourable opportunity to give vent to their discontent and to their desire of independence. When the Council of Chalcedon (451) had anathematized the errors of Eutyches in regard to the union of the two natures in Christ, a great number of clergy in Syria, just as in Egypt, rejected the definition of the Council, and professed their adherence to the incomplete formula of Cyril of Alexandria: " A single nature of the Incarnate Word." Yet these clergy were not monophysite in the strict sense of the word, for they— like the orthodox—rejected the errors of Eutyches. 191

T H E SEPARATED E A S T E R N

CHURCHES

Monophysism, however, real or nominal, took root in Syria. From 451 to 518 the See of Antioch was held by orthodox and heretical Patriarchs in turn—according as the Emperor was or was not hostile to the heresy. The most remarkable of those Patriarchs was Severas; he was the theologian of his party, and gave it considerable impetus. The heretical movement was vigorously supported by the monks—who were both numerous and popular. The Emperor Justin (518-527) took sides definitely against every form of Monophysism. His nephew Justinian (527-565) went much further; he seized and imprisoned all the bishops of his Empire who were suspected of favouring the heresy. By thus suppressing its hierarchy he sought to give the deathblow to Monophysism. His action had, however, only a momentary effect. The Empress Theodora, who secretly favoured the heresy, permitted two monks, Theodore and Jacob Zanzalos or Barada'i, to receive episcopal consecration, and to set up a new hierarchy (543). Jacob Baradaii developed tremendous activity; in various disguises he traversed Syria, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor, consecrating bishops and setting up a full hierarchy after the model of the official hierarchy. In recognition of his work the Syrian Monophysites like to style themselves "Jacobites." Imperial persecution did not succeed in repressing this new extension of the heresy—bound up as it was with the national aspirations of Syria. The Jacobite Church had on its side the majority of the people. Hence, when the Moslem Arabs penetrated into Syria in 633, the imperial troops could not count on the loyalty of the Syrians. The invaders were looked on by many as liberators, and were supported in many treasonable fashions. Yet it cannot be said that col192

SYRIAN A N D NESTORIAN

CHURCHES

lu9ion of the Monophysites with the Moslems was general. The Jacobites organised themselves henceforth according to their own choice, holding to the observance of the Antiochian rite, which, however, underwent a gradual modification. The Orthodox of the Patriarchate introduced the Byzantine rite. Ecclesiastical science was held in respect, and produced many remarkable works. During the first years of Arab control the Monophysites could congratulate themselves on their attitude towards the conquerors. They became allpowerful at the court of the Caliphs, and often used their influence to have the Orthodox persecuted. Many of the Monophysites, however, went over to Islamism and this movement of defection was intensified when all Christians, without distinction, came to be treated as "infidels" (ninth century). The Jacobites did not even succeed in preserving union among themselves, and schisms in their body were frequent and violent. The Patriarch had no fixed residence, and he could never establish himself at Antioch on account of Moslem hostility. Usually he resided at Amid (Diarbekr), or at the monastery of Barsoumas, near Melitene. When Nicephoris Phocas reconquered a part of Syria in 968, the Byzantians tried to bring back the Jacobites to Orthodoxy; but neither the concessions made to them, nor the rigorous measures used against them availed to re-establish religious unity. On the other hand, however, the Monophysite Syrians maintained good relations with the Crusaders, and behaved as loyal subjects in the various Frankish Principalities. Towards the close of the twelfth century the Patriarch, Michael the Syrian, fixed his residence at Mardin. Latin missionaries sent by Rome in the thirteenth century tried to bring about the union of the Jacobites N

193

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES with the Catholic Church. They secured the adhesion of certain Patriarchs and bishops, but they had little effect on the body of the Monophysites. Internal dissensions constantly disturbed the Church. The Patriarch had to reckon with the Mafrian, his traditional legate in Persia, who often set himself up as a rival. In 1293 there were as many as three different jurisdictions, and this situation lasted for two centuries. The Jacobites continued to diminish in number and in influence. In the sixteenth century began the movement which brought about the establishment of a Catholic Church in 1662. The Monophysites subjected it to every kind of persecution, but were unable to destroy it. Since that time the Syrian Jacobite Church has steadily diminished in vigour. It has often been decimated by the Moslems. The events which have occurred since 1915 have completed its destruction by causing the disappearance of the faithful in thousands; for the Turks persecuted not merely the Armenians, but also Christians of every confession. Most of the survivors have taken refuge in Syria and Iraq, and there they are now attempting to reorganise themselves. II. Ecclesiastical Organisation The Syrian Jacobites distinguish eleven grades in the hierarchy of the Church—cantor, lector, subdeacon, deacon, archdeacon, priest, chor-bishop, periodeutes, bishop, metropolitan, patriarch. These do not all require the imposition of hands. There are three minor orders: cantorate, lectorate and subdiaconate; and three major orders: diaconate, priesthood and episcopate. The archdeacon is a priest charged with the supervision of the clergy; the chorbishop is practically the same as a mitred abbot, or as 194

SYRIAN AND NESTORIAN CHURCHES the archpriest or dean of the Latin Church. The periodeutes is a chor-bishop who has the duty of visiting the parishes. Patriarch. He is elected by the Synod, but each bishop is bound to consult his people before choosing his candidate for the office. Under the Turkish regime the Synod used to present a list of three candidates, and the government selected as patriarch from these three the candidate who seemed most satisfactory from its point of view. Since the Syrian Jacobites live now almost entirely outside the borders of the Turkish Republic, and since the patriarch can no longer occupy his traditional residence—the monastery of Deir Za'faran, near Mardin—it is likely that this State intervention is doomed to cease. The Synod always chooses a member of the episcopacy—and, most usually, the Mafrian—a dignitary peculiar to the Jacobites. The Head of the Church calls himself Patriarch of the city of Antioch and of all the territory subject to the Apostolic See (i.e. the See of St. Peter). To the name he takes on the day of his election he adds that of Ignatius, in memory of the great Martyr Bishop of Antioch. He exercises jurisdiction over all the Monophysite Syrians of Syria, Mesopotamia, Turkey, etc. He has also a sort of suzerainty over the Jacobite Christians of Malabar, of whom we shall speak later. He appoints the Mafrian, the metropolitans, and the bishops, and consecrates them himself; he can transfer and depose them. He alone can bless the Holy Chrism. Yet he is not quite free in his movements. He is expected to take the advice of his Council—though this is not a Synod, properly so-called. If he wishes 195

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES to absent himself from the territory of the Patriarchate, he must secure the consent of all the Episcopate, and of the National Assembly to his departure before he sets out. The Mafrian. This personage originally had supreme authority over all the bishops of Persia and Arabia who were outside the Byzantine Empire. He ruled them as a delegate of the Patriarch, with plenipotentiary power. He could appoint, consecrate, transfer, and depose bishops, and bless the Holy Chrism. It is intelligible that the possession of all this authority by the Mafrian was bound to give rise to frequent disputes between the Mafrian and the Patriarch, and to make the Mafrian at times the rival of the Patriarch. At present the Mafrian has no special jurisdiction, and acts simply as the vicar of the Patriarch. His title is purely honorary. Metropolitans and Bishops. The Syrian Jacobites have now no ecclesiastical provinces, so that the title "metropolitan" does not connote any special authority. Metropolitans and bishops have the same rights, and the same obligations. They are chosen always from among the monks, and it is the Patriarch who consecrates them. All are bound, like the Patriarch, to perpetual abstinence. They are, as a rule, poorly educated, and confine themselves to the work of carrying out the necessary ordinations, and visiting their subjects. They do not administer confirmation, for in all the Oriental churches that sacrament is conferred by the priest, immediately after baptism. 196

SYRIAN AND NESTORIAN CHURCHES Dioceses. The Jacobite Church at one time had as many as twenty metropolitan sees and 103 bishoprics. By the end of the sixteenth century it was reduced to twenty dioceses. At the present day there are still eleven metropolitans and three bishops, but many of these have no jurisdiction. The following are the metropolitans: the Mafrian who is titular of Jerusalem, and governs his diocese by means of a chor-bishop, or of an ordinary priest, while he himself resides with the Patriarch; the metropolitan of Mosul, of the monastery of Cheh-Matti near Mosul, of Mardin, of Edessa (Orfa), of Kharput, of Djezireh, of Emesa (Homs), and of Amid (Diarbekir). Two other metropolitans called tibeloye ("universal") possess no diocese, but are members of the Patriarch's council. Three bishops rule the monasteries (Midyat, Der-el-Eumer and Tur-Abdin), and the faithful of the Tur-Abdin district in the Jebel-Tor (Taurus). In recent years, however, this state of things has been changing. Many of the dioceses just named, which were in Turkish territory, are now abandoned, and their pastors have taken refuge in Syria and Iraq. The Church has not yet been reorganised, and probably will not be reorganised until the question of frontiers has been definitively settled and the general situation stabilised. The Secular Clergy. In the Jacobite Church a boy of ten, if he can read, may receive the sub-diaconate. For the diaconate the age of twenty-five is required; a candidate for the priesthood must be thirty, and a candidate for the episcopate thirty-five. These, at all events, are the requirements of Canon Law. In practice, however, 197

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES clerics are not infrequently ordained before they have reached the canonical age. Contrary to the usage of practically all oriental churches, a deacon may contract marriage after his ordination. If a priest becomes a widower, and marries again, he must give up all ecclesiastical functions, and return to the rank of an ordinary layman; but his marriage is valid. Thus his position is the same as it would be among the Gregorian Armenians. There exists no seminary, and so the training of the clergy is concerned merely with what refers to the service of the altar, and the administration of the Sacraments. The material condition of the parish priests is often no better than that of the peasants and labourers, among whom they live. Religious Life.

Formerly the Jacobite Church possessed great numbers of monks—imitators of the ascetics of the early centuries. There were Stylites in the Jacobite Church as late as the close of the sixteenth century. The monasteries were, for a long time, the centres in which ecclesiastical learning was developed. Today most of them are empty. Not more than about ten are occupied by communities; several have only a very precarious existence on account of the difficulties which are made for them by the Turks. The principal monasteries are Deir-Za'faran near Mardin, the Patriarchal residence, and centre of the Church even in recent times; Mar Mattai (St. Matthew) near Mosul, Midyat, Ba-Sabrinna, Tur-Abdin in Jebel-Tor and St. John Mark at Jerusalem. The Laity.

There are now not more than 80,000 Jacobite Syrians. Apart from about 10,000 who are settled in 198

SYRIAN AND NESTORIAN CHURCHES Syria and the Lebanon, the majority live in Iraq, and in the southern provinces of Turkey. They are, however, gradually leaving Turkish territory on account of the vexations to which they are subjected by the authorities. Poor and ignorant generally, they show a deep attachment to their religion, and they are loyal to the religious duties which tradition has handed down to them. They protested vehemently against the Protestantising reforms which the Patriarch Abdallah Sattuf tried to introduce at the end of the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth. The various Protestant sects, however, continue to intensify their efforts to attract the Jacobite Syrians. The reigning Patriarch, Elias Shakir, after having for a long time rejected Anglican advances, has for some years seemed less indifferent to their proposals. The schools are for the Protestants the best means of proselytising; but there is always to be reckoned with the inevitable reaction of national conservatism. It is only the notabilities among the laity who intervene in matters of Church government, and sometimes they force their points of view on the Patriarch and Bishops. The National Assembly, however, has not yet any great influence. II.

The Nestorian Chaldean Church

i.

History. Christians of Chaldea and Mesopotamia are called Nestorians, because their ancestors favoured the errors of Nestorius: they themselves object to the designation, and call themselves simply "Syrians" (suraye). They are the descendants of Christians who were subject to the Persians in the early centuries. Their dependence on Antioch, which was in Roman 199

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES territory, was more than once a ground for persecution at the hands of the Persians, who accused them of collusion with their enemies. The hierarchy took definite form only at the beginning of the fourth century. The bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon became Katholikos or delegate of the Patriarch of Antioch, with jurisdiction over all his colleagues. Union with the rest of the Church did not last for more than a century. A Council of Seleucia proclaimed the complete independence of the Church in Persia, and declared that that Church would not have any further recourse to Antioch (424). The rupture was accentuated by still another cause. The Theological School of Edessa, which had become the chief centre of Nestorian error, was frequented by a great number of Christians from Persia. When, then, the Emperor Zeno closed that school in 489, most of its professors and students passed over into Persia, and exercised there a profound influence. Nestorianism became gradually the official creed of the Church, and this completed the separation of that Church from the rest of the Christian world. The Christian communities of Persia retained the rite of Antioch, but they have modified it so greatly in the course of centuries that it now presents a very peculiar physiognomy. The evolution of the Church has been altogether from within, for the Shahs tolerated no dealings with the outside world. The Arab invasion, which was helped by a certain number of Nestorians, was at first advantageous to Christianity. The Nestorians became the advisers, physicians and functionaries of the Khalifs of Bagdad, and determined the character of the brilliant literary and artistic movement which spread from Mesopotamia to Spain. The favourable attitude of the 200

SYRIAN AND NESTORIAN CHURCHES conquerors made it possible for Nestorian missionaries to evangelise Tartary, Mongolia, China and India. The famous Christian inscription of Si-ngan-fu in China is Nestorian. In the thirteenth century the Chaldean Church contained more than 230 dioceses grouped in twenty-seven metropolitan areas, and extending over all Central Asia and the neighbouring lands. Ecclesiastical learning developed equally with apostolic enterprise. Religious life also expanded rapidly and reached even the most distant districts. This brilliant condition of things which had developed in the thirteenth century, degenerated rapidly as a result of the invasion of Tamerlane at the end of the fourteenth century. Most of the Christian churches of Central Asia were swept by that scourge. In Mesopotamia too the situation had changed. The Moslems had begun to harass and persecute the faithful. The never ending conflicts between the Turks and Persians completed the downfall of the Nestorians. Many of them had, moreover, embraced Islamism in the course of centuries. Practically all the believing remnant gradually withdrew into the mountains of Kurdistan. There they lived in independence up to the nineteenth century. In 1843 and 1846 great numbers of them were massacred by the Kurds. The Turkish government took advantage of these massacres to impose its laws on most of the Nestorian tribes. The Patriarch, who had left Seleucia-Ctesiphon to settle at Bagdad in the eighth century, installed himself in the sixteenth century in the neighbourhood of Mosul, and then at the end of the seventeenth century, took refuge at Qudshanes, in a gorge of Kurdistan, that was very difficult of access, Since the sixteenth century there have been three rival series of Patriarchs—two of which became Catholic. 201

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES The assistance which the Nestorians gave to the Russians and English in the Great War hastened the last phase of their decay. Many of them were massacred by the Turks, and thousands died in the concentrationcamps. The Katholikos himself, Simon X I X , was executed by the Turks on December 2nd, 1917. Most of the survivors sought refuge in the Mosul district under the protection of the English. The ruling Patriarch Simon X X I was taken to England in January 1925 to make his studies there. This implies that the Anglicans are gaining steadily in influence with the Nestorian Chaldeans. II. Ecclesiastical Organisation Katholikos. The Head of the Nestorian Church is called "Katholikos and Patriarch of all the East." The Katholikos consecrates bishops and metropolitans, blesses the Holy Chrism, and the ass-skin which, with the Nestorians, takes the place of the antimension or corporal,— reforms the ritual, appoints preachers, etc. He always adds to his name the name Simon. For many centuries the Katholikos has always been taken from the same family—the succession being normally from uncle to nephew. It sometimes happens that a new incumbent is a mere infant. Simon Benjamin X I X , who was massacred by the Turks in 1917, ascended the throne in 1903 at the age of eighteen, and took more interest in his amusements than in ecclesiastical affairs. Simon Paul X X reigned for only three months after Simon Benjamin XIX, and was succeeded in 1918 by his young brother, Simon Jesse XXI, who was scarcely eleven years old. The heads of the nation are seeking to deal with this state of things in which the guidance 202

SYRIAN AND NESTORIAN CHURCHES of the Church is given over to children, and the interests of the Church are compromised, but so far no measures have been taken to bring it to an end. Metropolitans and Bishops. T h e dignities of metropolitan and bishop, like that of Patriarch, have become hereditary. This tradition is so deeply rooted that the few bishops who were appointed during the nineteenth century outside the episcopal families were regarded by the faithful as intruders. It happens occasionally that a mere infant is appointed to the government of a diocese in virtue of the law of heredity. T h e Katholikos usually consecrates the bishops and metropolitans, but he can delegate his power of consecrating. As the ecclesiastical provinces have completely disappeared, the metropolitan has no longer any special authority, and his title is nothing more than a souvenir of a glorious past. Bishops and metropolitans govern their dioceses, with the same rights and the same obligations as in other churches. All are bound to rigorous abstinence. There has been no synod for a long time, though the Canon Law prescribes that the Synod should meet twice a year in the dioceses, once a year in the metropolitan areas, and every four years for the whole Church. Dioceses. The Nestorian Church has so far been unable to reorganise itself fully since the afflictions which it endured during the World War. Hence the Hierarchy does not correspond exactly to the diocesan titles. In 1914 there were only five dioceses—apart from that ruled by the Katholikos—Gunduk, Jelu, Beruari, Be-Shems-Din and Urmiah. This last diocese, which 203

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES is in Pereia, alone survives. The others, which were in Turkish Turkistan have been abandoned by the clergy and faithful. The heads of these dioceses at the moment live in Iraq, and concern themselves with their flocks, but fixed residences have not yet been assigned to them. Each diocese has a chor-bishop, an arch-priest and an arch-deacon. The chor-bishop visits the churches and investigates the state of the clergy and the faithful. The archpriest is usually the chor-bishop of the Episcopal town, and takes the place at ceremonies of the Head of the diocese when he is absent, or prevented from functioning. The archdeacon, who is always a priest, is in fact the vicar-general who governs the diocese and administers its property. It is he who appoints and removes parish priests. Clergy. The Nestorian clergy are comparatively numerous— as there is usually one priest for thirty or forty families. As they are all married, it often happens that the parochial charge passes from father to son for several generations. Contrary to the custom of the other dissenting oriental churches, a widower-priest can marry again—and marry even a widow—without having to give up his priestly functions. This liberty was formerly granted to bishops also, but celibacy has again been imposed on them. The education of the clergy is, of necessity, very mediocre, for no seminary is available. All that is demanded of them is that they should be able to preside at Church functions, to say mass, and to administer the Sacraménts. Most of them are very worthy of respect, and usually enjoy considerable esteem. Most of the deacons and sub-deacons remain in these orders all their life, and many families 204

SYRIAN AND NESTORIAN CHURCHES regard it as an honour to have at least one member in one of these orders. There is here moreover an ecclesiastical dignity which is unknown in the other churches—that of the "Awakener" (Shahara), who presides over the night-office or Vigil. The "Awakener" who is usually chosen from the cantors, receives his dignity by a special ceremony. Religious life, which formerly flourished greatly, has in our days completely disappeared. Laity. The Nestorians, 80,000 in number, show the greatest attachment to their religion, in spite of the deep ignorance in which most of them live. The presence of the Moslems in their near neighbourhood has introduced among them superstitions and practices which cannot easily be reconciled with the teaching of Christ; yet no one seems able to extirpate them. The practice of confession has fallen into complete desuetude and the faithful approach Holy Communion with no other preparation than that of fasting. Schools are few, and education is to be found practically only among the better-class families, which send their children to the foreign schools—Catholic or Protestant. The Urmiah mission founded by the Russians in 1897, in spite of the establishment of schools and of huge subventions, has not succeeded in strongly attracting the Nestorians of Persia to oriental orthodoxy. The Protestants have made similar efforts in Kurdistan, but with no more success. Since the Great War, however, they seem to have gained ground. The quasi-official protection given by the High School, and the sojourn of the Katholikos for purposes of study in England, lead one to think that the Nestorians will be gradually led on towards 205

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES the Anglican Church. Yet it is to Catholicism that they turn most readily. They are gradually swelling the ranks of the Catholic Church of their own rite, which was founded in the sixteenth century, and has developed remarkably during the last thirty years. III. The Christians of Malabar i. History. On the western coast of India, in the kingdoms of Cochin and Travancore, one meets an important group of separated Christians of the Chaldean rite side by side with a more numerous group of Catholics of the same rite who have been united with Rome for three centuries. All are of the Hindu race and speak Malayalam, a Dravidian language widely spread in South India. They have, however, retained Chaldean as the language of their liturgy. Those Christians claim to be the descendants of the natives converted by the Apostle St. Thomas, but this story of their origin is still strongly disputed— though it is not quite impossible. It is certain that there were Christian communities on the west coast of India in the fourth century. Nestorianism made its way into this district with the bishops who came from Mesopotamia; for India was dependent on the Katholikos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Syrians came later— notably in the ninth century—to reinforce the native Christian communities, and these Syrians actually established an independent principality. The history of the Church of Malabar remains, however, obscure up to the time when the Portuguese arrived at the end of the sixteenth century. A Synod convened at Udiamparur (Diamper) in 1599 solemnly condemned the errors of Nestorius, 206

SYRIAN AND NESTORIAN CHURCHES proclaimed union with Rome, and made important reforms in the rite. These somewhat hasty reforms occasioned a violent reaction which took the form of an almost complete schism in 1653. The Carmelites brought back about two-thirds of the Schismatics to the Church; but the remainder organised themselves into a distinct community, not however under the suzerainty of the Nestorian Katholikos, who had disowned them, but under that of the Jacobite Syrian Patriarch of Antioch. A new schism developed among the dissenters in the nineteenth century, and at the same time there was formed a third group, which had grown up from within the Catholic Church. (2) Churches. "Orthodox" Jacobites. Thomas Parambil, an archdeacon who rebelled in 1653, made a vain attempt to set up again the old relations with the Nestorians. He appealed to the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch, and that Prelate sent to him the archbishop of Jerusalem to consecrate him bishop. His adherents received at the time the designation "Jacobites," but they abandoned neither their former beliefs nor their rite. A first schism developed among them in 1751 in regard to a practical matter. Mar Thomas V refused to pay the travelling expenses of the bishops who consecrated him, and one of these bishops then conferred bishop's orders on a priest who immediately got up a community of his own. In the nineteenth century division went deeper still. The Protestant missionaries succeeded in attracting to themselves a good number of the faithful who, in the end, separated completely from the rest and established the "Reformed" Church. 207

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES The twentieth century brought a new schism. The Patriarch of Antioch, Abdallah Sattuf, having quarrelled with the Metropolitan Mar Dionysius V in regard to ecclesiastical property, excommunicated him, and appointed Mar Cyril (1909) in his place. Half of the faithful recognised the suzerainty of Antioch, while the opposing party grouped itself around Mar Dionysius V. When Mar Dionysius died his partisans turned to Abdul-Masih, a rival of Abdallah Sattuf. Abdul-Masih who had been at one time Patriarch, came to India at the end of 1912, proclaimed the complete independence of the Jacobite Church of Malabar, and gave to the Head of that Church the title Katholikos. These arrangements had the effect of unifying the majority of the faithful who were subject to the Patriarch of Antioch, but dissensions have not yet been completely eradicated. There are about 250,000 "orthodox" Jacobites. The Katholikos calls himself "Patriarch of Antioch," not intending: of course, by that to claim jurisdiction over Syria, he resides at Kottayan. He has five suffragans, and he reserves to himself the right of consecrating these suffragans. The secular clergy is a married clergy, and the priests are, as a rule, very uneducated, for there is no real seminary. Up to quite recently religious life was unknown. In 19x2 a priest named Gevorgese (George) founded a sort of congregation with the name "Imitation of Jesus Christ." It includes about a score of religious—six of whom are priests. These priests concern themselves chiefly with apostolic work among the numerous non-caste inhabitants of the country. A congregation for women was founded in 1925 through the influence of an Oxford Mission sister. This congregation has about ten religious, who devote themselves to the education of young girls. 208

SYRIAN AND NESTORIAN CHURCHES "Reformed" Jacobites. The work of English missionaries among the Jacobites in the nineteenth century produced gradually an atmosphere favourable to Protestant ideas. There soon developed two parties—that of the "Orthodox," who rejected every kind of innovation, and that of the "Reformed," who submitted in docile fashion to the influence of the English missionaries. A bishop named Mar Matthew Athanasius was expelled from the Jacobite Church, and set up a community which proclaimed itself autonomous. Though they were condemned in 1875, by the Patriarch of Antioch, Abdul Masih, these "Reformed" Jacobites, through the support of the English authorities, made rapid progress. They eliminated from their Liturgy every vestige of the cult of the Blessed Virgin and the saints; they abandoned also prayers for the dead, transubstantiation, etc. Their numbers have grown considerably through leakage from the "Orthodox." In 1901 they were 38,000, in 1911 they were 75,000 and in 1926 115,000. This rapid growth is largely due, on the one hand, to the wish to gain the good graces of the English authorities, and, on the other, to the influence of the Protestant schools. Besides, the "Orthodox" are already beginning to show themselves, in general, less intransigent; they maintain friendly relations with the High Church, and especially with the AngloCatholics, whose doctrines are obviously so similar to their own. The "Reformed" Jacobites have three bishops. Nestorians or Mellusians. For more than half a century there has been on the Malabar coast a third group of dissenting oriental o 209

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES Christians. This group sprang from a schism within the Catholic Church of the Chaldean rite. Anthony Thondatta, a priest who had rebelled against his bishop, procured for his adherents from Joseph V I Audo, Patriarch of Babylon in 1858, a bishop named Mar Roccos—who, however, stayed only four years at Malabar. In 1863 Anthony Thondatta himself made submission, and later sought to have himself made bishop. He was rejected by Joseph V I Audo who was then better informed, and appealed to the Nestorian Katholikos of Qudshanes. This prelate consecrated him bishop with the name Abdjesus. He submitted a second time, and his schism would probably have come to an end had not the Patriarch of Babylon again intervened. In 1874 Joseph V I Audo, who was then in revolt against the Holy See, sent to Malabar a new intruder, named Mar Melius. Mar Melius set about reorganising the sect. Then when Joseph V I Audo had made his reconciliation with Rome and recalled Mar Melius (1877), Anthony Thondatta put himself a third time at the head of the schismatics. In 1900 Anthony died and the sect remained without a head for several years. In 1906 the Anglicans secured for it a head in the person of Mar Abimelech Timotheus, an archdeacon of the Katholikos of Qudshanes. This new head took the title, "Metropolitan of Malabar and India." The various attempts of this prelate to remove from the public worship all features condemned by Protestantism have met with unyielding opposition from the faithful. The Nestorians of Malabar are, in fact, Nestorians only in name, for they have retained practically all the Catholic dogmas. They are about 15,000 in number, and they are ruled by a bishop who resides at Trichur. 210

CHAPTER

IX

THE COPTIC AND ETHIOPIAN CHURCHES

I. The Coptic Church. (i) History. The Copts are the descendants of the Egyptian Christians who accepted Monophysism in the fifth and sixth centuries, and then refused to accept the creed of Islam which the majority of their fellow-countrymen adopted. The designation which they bear to-day was given to them by the Arab conquerors who called them "Gypts" (a corruption of the Greek Aigyptios). " G y p t " became Qibt in Arabic and the Arabic designation has given rise to the form "Copt"—adopted by Europeans. When Eutyches was teaching at Constantinople his errors about the union of the two natures in Christ, Dioscuros, Patriarch of Alexandria, though condemning Eutyches, was showing a tendency towards Monophysism—possibly through his over-loyal devotion to the formula of his predecessor, St. Cyril. When the Council of Chalcedon in 451 condemned Monophysism and deposed Dioscuros, the Egyptians rejected the dogmatic formula of the Council, and refused to submit to the decision of the Fathers. With their refusal to submit, there was intermingled a strong feeling of resentment against the Byzantine Empire, whose yoke they were seeking in every way to shake off. Worldly antagonism made use of the religious problem to work more successfully for political independence. Mono211

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES physism—either genuine or merely verbal—became the creed of the majority of the people, while the rest, the Greek officials and merchants, remained loyal to official orthodoxy. For a century and a half there went on a constant struggle for the possession of the Patriarchal throne. The Catholics were bitterly persecuted by the Monophysites when the latter secured control of affairs. The rigorous measures adopted by the Emperors never succeeded in bringing back to the Orthodox Church the heretics who had become fanatical through the influence of the monks. In vain were they excluded from civil, military and ecclesiastical functions; nothing could break their resistance. When the Moslem Arabs invaded Egypt in 638 they could count, as in Syria and Mesopotamia, on considerable native support: but it has not been established that the Copts, as a body, betrayed the Christian cause. They enjoyed at first the favour of the conquerors, while the Orthodox were under suspicion of intriguing with the Byzantians. But it was not long until the Monophysites were as badly treated as the Orthodox— for the majority of the population went over to Islamism —either through fear of persecution, or because their Christianity was generally very superficial. From the end of the seventh century the Copts were more harassed and oppressed than any other Oriental people at the hand of the Moslems: they had to endure robbery, slavery, exclusion from all public employment, the wearing of a special dress, etc., etc. Their enslavement lasted for centuries, and destroyed all ecclesiastical learning—so that two Patriarchs actually abolished confession, and circumcision became obligatory (twelfth century). The fear of their masters kept the Copts out of the Crusades, and missionaries 212

COPTIC AND ETHIOPIAN CHURCHES sent to them by Rome to bring them back to union never could attain any considerable success—though, of course, individuals did return to union with Rome. In the nineteenth century the Copts at last attained to freedom after the accession of Mohammed 'Ali. Of this freedom they made abundant use, securing for themselves by their energy and industry advantageous positions. They were now able to enter the administration, and to hold the highest posts. Unfortunately many of the more notable people, who had received their education in English or American Protestant schools, were not slow to urge against the traditional teaching of the Church doctrines quite subversive of established order. They organised a reform party the purpose of which was to press upon the Patriarch important changes in the government of the Church. The clergy, however, backed by the people, set up a stout resistance, and many conflicts ensued. The Patriarchal administration, on its part, had already gravely compromised the Church's finances. The laity succeeded, then, in having a Council established to supervise the management of ecclesiastical property (1873). They went even farther than this, and demanded that they should themselves receive all the revenues, keep charge of the parochial registers, select candidates for ordination, etc., etc. Finally, they succeeded in procuring the banishment of the Patriarch Cyril V in 1892. In the following year, however, that Prelate had to be recalled to calm the outburst of popular feeling. Cyril V lived on until August 7th, 1927, and died without having carried out even one of the many reforms which the laws had tried to force upon him. His death brought on a violent crisis which lasted 213

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES fully fifteen months, and was accompanied by press polemics and manifestations of different kinds. The lay reformers, who had the majority in the National Council, wanted to take the place of the episcopacy, and to govern the Patriarchate during the vacancy of the See. The bishops, supported by most of the faithful, appointed one of their own body as Patriarchal Administrator and worked out a scheme of Church organisation opposed to that of the National Council. As this struggle threatened to become perpetual, the Egyptian government, pressed as it was by both parties, itself at last determined the conditions of Patriarchal election, and nominated the electors. On December 9th, 1928, Amba Yohannes, bishop of Alexandria, head of the Conservative party, was elected by a large majority. He was forced, however, to promise certain reforms—such as the reorganisation of the ecclesiastical school at Cairo, the sending of young people abroad for the purpose of taking degrees in theology, etc. The Church has still to receive the constitutional charter which it has hitherto lacked. (2) Ecclesiastical Organisation. The Monophysite Coptic Church which calls itself "orthodox" is governed in spiritual matters by a Patriarch, Metropolitans, and an Ecclesiastical Council. In temporal matters it is governed by the National Council, which consists of distinguished laymen and of members of the Ecclesiastical Council. Patriarch. The Head of the Coptic Church is styled: "Most Holy Father, Patriarch of Alexandria, of all Egypt, of Nubia, Ethiopia, the Pentapolis and all the country evangelised by St. Mark." Originally he resided at 214

COPTIC AND ETHIOPIAN CHURCHES Alexandria: towards the eleventh century he fixed his residence at Cairo. It was formerly the custom to select the Patriarch from among the monks of at least fifty years old, and not from among the bishops. Until quite recently he was usually selected from the monks of the monastery of St. Anthony near the Red Sea. The electors were the Metropolitans, the Bishops, the Superiors of Monasteries, and a certain number of the notabilities of Cairo. The intervention of this last group was sometimes so tyrannical that the See at certain periods remained a long time vacant. In view of lay demands this method of election has been recently modified. The election of the Patriarch now in office was made by ninety-six electors (the twenty-four metropolitans, bishops, and heads of monasteries, the twenty-four members of the National Council, and forty-eight lay notabilities nominated personally by the King). The ecclesiastics had thus only a quarter of the votes. By a further departure from the old tradition, the candidate selected was not a monk, but a metropolitan. When the new titulary is approved of by the government, he takes possession solemnly of his throne. When he has made his profession of faith, everybody comes to offer him submission; bishops kiss him on the mouth, priests kiss his hand, inferior clerics and the ordinary faithful kiss his foot. The Patriarch's jurisdiction extends over his fellow countrymen and also over the Monophysites of Ethiopia, among whom he is represented by a Metropolitan bearing the title Abuna ("Our Father"). The Patriarch consecrates bishops, and blesses the Holy Chrism for the entire Patriarchate, he watches over the purity of faith and the observance of traditions; he cannot modify either the Canon Law or the Liturgy. 215

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES Several titular bishops assist him in the government of the Church and of his diocese, Cairo. He cannot act independently of the Spiritual Council and the National Council. Tradition condemns him to an austere life, and, in particular, to an abstinence so rigorous that it forbids even fish. He resides in the Old Cairo quarter. Spiritual Council. This Council consists of four bishops nominated by the Patriarch in his private Council. The Head of the Church, or his delegate, presides over this council: it deals with religious affairs of all kinds, but it cannot be altogether equated with the Holy Synods of the Orthodox Churches, for here the Patriarch has much more liberty in his decisions. It is, however, likely enough that the example of the other dissenting Oriental churches will, in the near future, lead to a diminution of the Patriarch's authority and to a corresponding increase in the influence of the Spiritual Council. National Council. By the terms of the Law of July 22nd, 1927, this Council consists of twelve members chosen by the Coptic National Assembly which comprises delegates from all the parishes of Egypt. It concerns itself with all matters referring to the administration of ecclesiastical property, schools, benevolent institutions. The management of monastic property—which is extensive—was taken out of its hands by a decree of December 2nd, 1928. On account of the opposition of the bishops, the National Council has not yet been organised in accordance with the law of July 1927. Further modifications will have to be made in that law to 216

COPTIC AND ETHIOPIAN CHURCHES prevent conflicts between the clergy and this Council, which claims to be the sovereign authority. Metropolitans and Bishops. Almost all the heads of dioceses are metropolitans but none of them has a suffragan. Candidates for the episcopate must be fifty years old, celibate, and of good repute. The rule regarding age is, however, seldom observed in these days. The clergy and the important laity of a vacant diocese select their metropolitan from among the monks—sometimes accepting the Patriarch's nominee. Hitherto it has been customary for metropolitans and bishops to rule their people in very independent fashion—without any obligation of accounting for their administration to any authority—even that of the Patriarch himself. But this state of things is undergoing a change, and in the end a much greater uniformity will be established in the various dioceses. Bishops are bound by tradition to complete abstinence—just like the Patriarch. Ecclesiastical learning is generally at a very rudimentary level; it sometimes amounts to no more than a capacity to read Coptic and a knowledge of the elements of religion. The distinctive mark of bishops and metropolitans is a bronze pectoral cross. Dioceses. Ancient Egypt with its various provinces included as many as a hundred bishoprics. These the Copts, of course, inherited. Arab persecutions and wholesale apostasies, however, considerably diminished that number and at the close of the sixteenth century there were only ten dioceses. The freedom granted to Christians by the Viceroys made it possible to re-establish a number of bishoprics in the nineteenth century. 217

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES The Patriarch rules the diocese of Cairo, either directly, or through a Patriarchal Vicar. Outside the Patriarchal See there are at present eleven metropolitan sees and two bishoprics properly so called, but there is no longer any ecclesiastical province. The primary metropolitan see is that of Jerusalem. The titulary of the see resides in the Holy City, or at Jaffa; he governs not only the Coptic colonies of Palestine, but also the provinces of north-eastern Egypt. At Jerusalem the Copts have a little chapel in close connection with the Holy Sepulchre, and a large church not far from the church of the Holy Sepulchre. The other metropolitan sees are: Besherieh and Anufieh (residence at Alexandria); Bene-Suef; Minieh and Eshmun (Minieh); Sanabu and Casliam (Deirut); Qina and Dus (Qina); Esne and Luxor (Esne); Assiut; Abu-Tig; Akhmin and Graga (Akhmin); Khartum and Nubia (Khartum). The two bishoprics are, Fayum and Gizeh (Fayum); Abnub and Manfulut (Manfulut). The Superiors or Ghomos, of the four monasteries, St. Anthony, St. Paul, Muharraq and Baramus have the title of "bishop" but they have jurisdiction only over their own religions. Ghomos and Archdeacons. The Coptic Hierarchy includes a special grade— that of Ghomos. This word is derived from the Greek hegoumenos; it designates not merely the head of a monastery, but also the archpriest or dean who exercises the chief supervision over a number of churches. The ghomos wears a black hood. The archdeacon acts as master of ceremonies, and assigns to each individual his liturgical function: he wears an iron pectoral cross.

218

COPTIC AND ETHIOPIAN CHURCHES Secular Clergy. The Coptic clergy are greatly lacking in religious education and ecclesiastical training. It has to be admitted that the seminary erected at Cairo towards the end of the nineteenth century has never functioned regularly and has produced only very meagre results. This is the outcome of the opposition of the Patriarch Cyril V, and of the episcopate. Most of the priests have received no education but that of the primary school, and do not understand the liturgical language. They are selected usually from among married artisans, and, as the ecclesiastical revenues are not sufficient to provide for their subsistence, they carry on their trade after ordination. They must be thirty years old to be ordained; yet one often meets priests who are only twenty or less. Though they are uneducated and often avaricious, they nevertheless stand high in the estimation of the poorer classes: the upper classes, on the other hand, often treat them with contempt. This state of things will go on until the Cairo seminary succeeds in sending out a sufficient number of educated priests. According to the project set forth by the present Patriarch at the time of his election, the Seminary is to be reorganised under a Coptic bishop with the cooperation of Greek professors from Athens. Henceforth only such candidates for the priesthood will be ordained as shall have been trained in this school. A certain number of students, when they have finished their studies at Cairo, will be sent abroad to take degrees in theology. The lay members of the National Council were anxious that such students should be sent to England, but probably they will be sent to Athens. Though the Canon Law prescribes that there be 219

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES not more than six deacons for each church, the Copts have a great number of deacons. Each family aims at having one of its members among the clergy, and though the age prescribed for reception of the diaconate is twenty-five, children are often ordained before they are ten. In ordinary life deacons, subdeacons, and lectors are not distinguished from the ordinary faithful. The priests wear a black turban and a long black robe. Religious Life. Egypt formerly possessed a great many monasteries the inmates of which often intervened in religious disputes. But persecution brought about the disappearance of most of those monasteries. At present there are only about ten houses that maintain the religious life. The chief monasteries are those of St. Anthony and St. Paul near the Red Sea, four in the Nitrian desert (Deir Baramus, Deir es-Suryan, Deir Amba-Bisha'i, Deir Amba Maqar) and that of Muharraq near Manfulut. The essential monastic obligations are perpetual abstinence, and assistance at the divine services. Intellectual work is almost completely neglected, and manual work is limited to what is strictly necessary. Poverty is only relative, for each monk has his peculium which he can dispose of at pleasure. The dress consists of a tunic of brown wool, a black cloak with long sleeves and a leathern girdle. The head-covering is a turban with streaks of blue and white: this is never taken off—not even in the church. Finally they wear the askim, which marks them off from the secular clergy. This is a little band of black serge two fingers wide which hangs down from the turban to the nape of the neck. During the divine services the monks lean on a cross in the form of a T . 220

COPTIC A N D ETHIOPIAN

CHURCHES

T h e monasteries usually have considerable property —which greatly rouses the covetousness of tne laity. T h e Law of July 22nd, 1927, which entrusted the administration of monastic estates to the National Council, has not been enforced on account of the resistance of the heads of monasteries and the bishops. A "commission for the toaqfs of monasteries" controls this administration, and draws up the annual budget of each monastery. This commission consists of the Patriarch, who is its de jure chairman, and six members of whom four are appointed by the National Council from within itself, and two are bishops nominated by the Patriarch. It is hoped that all conflicts will be prevented by this arrangement. It is to be noted that several monasteries have made large gifts of land to the Church in the interest of schools and charitable institutions. There are still five monasteries of women, but their inmates are steadily diminishing in number. Laity. In the census of 1926 the "orthodox" Copts numbered 859,670; 30,000 appeared as members of the Catholic Church, and 25,000 registered themselves as belonging to different Protestant sects. In 1820 the Copts were reckoned at not more than 100,000. It thus appears that they have made full use of the freedom given to them by Mohammed 'Ali. They have increased, not merely in numbers, but also in influence. They are eager for education, and they willingly make use of the Government schools, and the various educational establishments of the Catholic and Protestant missionaries. Their energy and their address have opened up to them important administrative positions, and given them great influence in the 221

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN

CHURCHES

economic life of the country. They have formed an alliance with the Moslems to shake off the control of England, and have taken an active part in the Wafd— the Nationalist movement founded by Zaghlul Pasha. This rapid development has been unfortunately counterbalanced by a disconcerting retrogression. T h e higher classes have become imbued with Protestant or Rationalist ideas, and carry out the practice of religion simply because it is traditional. T h e bulk of the people continue to live on in a condition of religious ignorance. Coptic schools are few, and the clergy are incapable of imparting a knowledge which they do not possess. Confession has, for centuries, fallen into disuse — a s far at least as the clergy and people under fifteen years of age are concerned. Communion is rarely received, and there is no precept regarding its reception. A s a result of the ignorance of the clergy the validity of baptism has become very doubtful. Close contact with Moslems has brought in many practices out of harmony with Christianity. Thus, for instance, circumcision is practised in the country districts. T o find an excuse for such a condition of things, one has only to remember that the Copts endured eleven centuries of slavery in order to remain loyal to Christianity and that thousands of Copts have died for the faith. However unenlightened their devotion to religion may be, it is, none the less, deep and sincere. W e said above that the better classes are, in general, ill-disposed towards the Church. This is not because they are hostile to religion, but because they want to make spiritual rule democratic, and to secure for themselves a dominating influence in ecclesiastical affairs. T h e disputes of the last half century have all been caused by the pursuit of this policy. T h e Egyptian government after having supported for a while the demands 223

COPTIC AND ETHIOPIAN CHURCHES of the laics, seems at last to have returned to a more equitable view of the true interests of the Church. Its most recent measures have aimed at strengthening the authority of the episcopate, and restricting the intervention of the laity in ecclesiastical affairs. II. The Ethiopian Church. i. History. The Ethiopians refuse to accept the name Abyssinian which is usually given to them, because it emphasises too much the medley of peoples (Arabic habesh— "heap of sweepings") which is to be seen in their country. The Ethiopian apostolate of the Eunuch of Candace, and of the Apostles St. Bartholomew and St. Matthew is now regarded as nothing but a legend. It is certain, however, that Christianity penetrated into Ethiopia during the first half of the fourth century as a result of the capture of two young men of Tyre, Frumentius and Aedisius, who, becoming officials of the Ethiopian Court, were permitted to preach their religion. Frumentius went to Alexandria to ask for a bishop from St. Athanasius, and the saint appointed Frumentius himself to that office (about 340-346). Probably in this fact we must see the beginning of that relation of dependence on Alexandria in which the Church of Ethiopia so long continued to exist, and of the custom of sending an Egyptian metropolitan to govern the Ethiopian Church. The appointment of this prelate passed out of the hands of the Orthodox Patriarch into those of the Monophysite Coptic Patriarch at a time which cannot be precisely determined, but which must have been prior to the seventh century. The Christianity preached by St. Frumentius did 223

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES not reach the great mass of the people. Towards the end of the fifth century the evangelisation of the country was resumed by nine monks who are supposed to have come from Syria, and who are regarded by some as Monophysites, and by others as Catholics. From this time on Christianity was the State religion. It was necessary to keep up an almost incessant struggle for its defence—on the one hand against the pagans, and, on the other, against the Moslems, who succeeded in establishing themselves in the north of the country. After the Arab conquest relations with Egypt became difficult, and for a long time the Church of Ethiopia had no Pastor, because the traditional Abuna, the only member of the clergy who had episcopal orders, could not be sent to it from Alexandria. All the sacred books and many works of the Fathers were early translated into Ge'ez, now a dead language, features of which are preserved in the modern Tigre. The Liturgy of Alexandria was introduced from the beginning; but it has undergone considerable modification—without, however, losing its original character. Religious life which began to spread in Ethiopia in the sixth century, developed to an extraordinary extent. The monasteries became the centres of ecclesiastical learning, and also of violent theological disputes, which lasted on even into the nineteenth century. The fourteenth century was an especially brilliant period of intellectual activity and of missionary work among the heathen. Various attempts at initiating an approach to Rome were made from the sixteenth century onwards. The Portuguese Jesuits succeeded in converting King Susneos or Sisinnios (1607-1632) and a large section of the people, but after the king's death there was a violent reaction and the missionaries were forced to 224

COPTIC AND ETHIOPIAN CHURCHES depart. Apparently the missionaries had compromised the work of reconciliation by precipitating reforms which offended the national feeling. The theological conflicts which had been started with the Jesuits were taken up afresh among the Ethiopians themselves, and often degenerated into mere party struggles—even in the second half of the nineteenth century. Sometimes these disputes led to very sanguinary civil wars, in the course of which three Abunas were killed. Other heads of the Church greatly offended the faithful by their scandalous lives—notably the Abuna Salama (1841-1867) who was both simoniacal and profligate, and made it his sport to persecute the Catholics. T h e last Abuna was Matewos (1885-1926): he showed himself favourable towards the attempts made by the Russians in the first years of the twentieth century to bring the Ethiopians within their religious orbit. The Greeks, on their part, also made overtures to the Ethiopians, but it was not until 1928 that they succeeded in establishing a metropolitan at AddisAbeba. Relations with the Copts are now no more friendly than they used to be. As a result of the growth of national consciousness and pride, the Ethiopians aim at the exclusion of all subjection to Cairo. They claim, moreover, the monastery of Deir-es-Sultan at Jerusalem which the Copts have occupied for centuries. They desire, above all, to secure complete religious independence. A strong movement to this end has been developing for some years, particularly among the young men associated with the Negus Taffari. The Conservatives, grouped around the Empress Zaoditu, the daughter of Menelik, are opposed to any change in the relations with the Coptic Church. The former party seems likely to win the day. After a long series of p 225

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES negotiations the Ethiopian government in March 1929 obtained the concession that the Coptic Patriarch should consecrate several native bishops to govern the Ethiopian Church under the control of a new Abuna who should come from Egypt and be fully subject to the Church of Cairo. This is a first step towards complete liberty. The attainment of that liberty is only a question of time, and suitable opportunity; for the Ethiopians are finding it more and more intolerable that the rule of their Church should be entrusted to a foreigner, at a time when all the other Oriental peoples have secured ecclesiastical autonomy. (2) Ecclesiastical Organisation. Up to our days the Church of Ethiopia has remained in the condition of a mission. The Coptic Patriarch has always ruled it by means of a metropolitan of his own race—the only bishop for a huge country of more than a million square kilometres. There were no dioceses, nor was there a hierarchy of any kind. The appointment of four Ethiopian bishops, whose number will probably be increased, will bring a complete change in the general situation and introduce at least a rudimentary organisation. The Abuna. Up to 1929 the Abuna sent by the Coptic Patriarch was the only bishop in the country. He was taken, as a rule, from among the monks of St. Anthony, and it was customary to select fairly young monks for the position, so that the titulary might not be frequently changed. The Abuna resided normally at the capital Addis-Abeba, and he enjoyed exceptional privileges, so that more than one Abuna was able to intervene i n internal politics and to hold his own with powerful 226

COPTIC AND ETHIOPIAN CHURCHES native chiefs. Dependence on the Coptic Church is more nominal than real, for the Abuna rules his Church according to his own notions without reference to his hierarchical superior, the Patriarch of Cairo. The Abuna carries out all the ordinations, anoints the Emperor, and dispenses from vows. Ordinations have afforded opportunity for many abuses—such as, simony, conferring of orders on children, etc., etc. The authority of the Abuna has never been limited by any Council. The secular authority alone could impose any restraint upon him, but many a time it too has been compelled to give way before his threats of excommunication. It will not be thus, in all probability, in the near future, for the appointment of four bishops will necessarily modify the constitution of the Church by the creation of dioceses, and, perhaps, by the establishment of a Holy Synod. Nor is it impossible that, in future, the Head of the Church shall be chosen from the nation itself, instead of being sent from Egypt. The Secular Clergy. The secular clergy comprises two clearly distinguished categories—the debtara, or lay clerics (scholars or literary men) and the ecclesiastical clerics. The former who have the charge of the chant and the public worship of the Church are clerics by inheritance or by personal choice. They despise the ecclesiastical clerics because of their traditional ignorance. The ecclesiastical clerics form a sort of Levitical caste, and are generally the children of clerics. These clergy are, from every point of view, the most wretched to be found in the Oriental churches. They are not specially chosen for ordination, and they have not to undergo any examination. The candidates for any rank of the hierarchy visit the Abuna in a body, and by means ot 227

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES gifts, determined by tradition—usually two blocks of salt, they procure for themselves ordination. The sacrament of orders is often invalid or, at least, doubtful, because there is not material contact during the imposition of hands. Thousands of priests are indistinguishable from the body of the faithful, and very rarely perform the sacred functions. Some of them cannot even read. The rest have first to find a village that will receive them before they can exercise their ministry. That ministry is limited to the ceremonies of worship, and to the administration of the sacraments which are still in use. The education of the priests is very mediocre—amounting generally to no more than reading of the sacred texts, and the knowledge of the liturgy and the chant. Scarcely any of them understand Ge'ez. Liturgical vestments are usually in a lamentable condition. Indeed it may be said that sheer barbarism prevails in many places, in the sanctuary. The morals of the clergy are so unsatisfactory as to scandalise the faithful—though the latter are not very exacting in that respect. This condition of things is bound to disappear gradually, for the Ethiopians show too pronounced an interest in study and too profound a devotion to their religion, to fail to leave it unreformed. So far there is no clerical school, but the Government is already making plans for the establishing of a school that will provide the clergy with at least a minimum of training. Religious Life. In distinction from the secular priests the monks enjoy great prestige, because their lives are usually more deserving of respect, and they have the reputation of being savants. They have, in fact, preserved some trace of the intellectual activity of past centuries. They 228

COPTIC AND ETHIOPIAN CHURCHES carry on either the cenobitic or the hermit life. Common life, however, exists only in principle, for apart from the morning services, the monks do not come together for any exercise—not even for meals. Many stay a while in the most celebrated convents to complete their studies, or to make trial of a new kind of life; but most frequently they haunt the castles, the court, or the camps of the feudal lords. Religious life, properly so-called, is very severe, especially as regards fasting and abstinence. Two orders are to be distinguished—the Ewostatewos and the Taklahaimanot or Dibra-Libanos. This latter, which was founded in the thirteenth century, is governed by the 'Itshage, an ecclesiastical superior who has often ruled the Church during long periods in which the See of the Abuna stood vacant. The 'Itshage who lives as a rule at Gondar, has the administration of very important ecclesiastical property. The order of Ewostittewos has no superior general, but the Abbot of Dabra Bizan has the right of precedence. The monasteries of women belong to one or other of these two orders, and usually are in the immediate neighbourhood of the monasteries of men—an arrangement which has occasioned many scandals. Laity. Most Ethiopians belong to the Monophysite church. In the absence of census returns it is difficult to estimate their number. It is generally reckoned at seven or eight millions. The country contains also several hundred thousand pagans and Moslems —the latter being exceedingly active, so that their propaganda makes headway in spite of Government opposition. 229

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES Judging by appearances one would regard the Ethiopian people as deeply religious. In fact, however, Christianity has no serious effect on their conduct. Jewish practices, such as circumcision, distinction of lawful and forbidden meats, observance of the Sabbath, etc., which were made obligatory in the fifteenth century, still remain in honour. The Sacraments of Confirmation and Extreme Unction have fallen into disuse—possibly because of the difficulty of procuring olive oil. Confession is still practised, but, as a rule, only at the hour of death. Marriage is not held in respect, for polygamy is not uncommon—especially among the grandees; and the same is true of divorce, free love, and infanticide. Slavery exists in fact—if not legally—though in a mitigated form. Yet, in spite of their vices and their manifest failure to comprehend Christianity, the Ethiopians may be called a sincerely religious people. They have often displayed heroic courage in defending their faith against the Moslems. If the clergy were educated, and virtuous, the level of public and private morality would rapidly rise, and religious instruction would develop to the advantage of all. Conclusion This rapid survey of the separated Eastern Churches can only give a very faint idea of the various problems which arise in their regard. There is, at present, fortunately, no lack of works that discuss these problems with full competence, but these works are far from exhausting the extraordinarily abundant material. The Bibliography indicates the more easily procurable works that will help towards a deeper study of the whole matter. The following list of the churches 230

COPTIC AND ETHIOPIAN CHURCHES grouped according to rite and nationality, will give the reader an idea of the variety and the importance of these churches. i. Byzantine Rite I Greeks: Patriarchate of Constantinople Synodal Church of Greece Archbishopric of Cyprus Archbishopric of America

225,000 6,000,000 250,000 200,000 6,675,000

I I Melkites: Patriarchate of Antioch Patriarchate of Jerusalem . . Patriarchate of Alexandria. . Archbishopric of Sinai

252,000 45,000 125,000 100 422,100

I I I Slavs: Russia: Various Churches Raskol and Sects . . Serbs: Patriarchate Bulgars: Exarchate Poland: Metropolitan district Esthonia: „ ,, Finland: Archbishopric Czecho-Slovakia: „

105,000,000 20,000,000 5.715.178 4,800,000 3,000,000 210,000 70,000 45,000 138,840,178

IV Rumanians: Patriarchate V Georgians: Katholikate V I Albanians: Archbishopric Total, Byzantine Rite

12,000,000 2,500,000 180,000 160,617,278

2. Armenian Rite Katholikates of Sis and Etshmiadzin, Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Constantinople, Archbishopric of Bulgaria 3. Syrian Jacobite Patriarchate of Antioch

231

3,000,000

Rite 80,000

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES 4. Chaldaean Rite I Nestorian Katholikate . . II Christians of Malabar: "Orthodox" Jacobites Reformed" Jacobites Nestorians or Mellusians . .

80,000 250,000 115,000 15,000 460,000

5. Coptic Rite I Copts: Patriarchate of Cairo II Ethiopians

859,700 7,000,000 7,859,700

This table gives a grand total of 172,016,978 dissenters. Thus 172 millions of Christians whose ancestors were Catholics are, at the present moment, separated from the See of Peter. There is, of course, in each of these churches a minority united with Rome, but the sum total of Catholics of the Oriental Rite is only eight millions—that is, scarcely 4.4 per cent, of the whole. The number is not negligible, since there is question of souls to be saved, but it is small in comparison with the huge body still to be restored to the unity of the Church. The Oriental problem thus remains almost in its entirety after centuries of efforts to solve it. All sorts of reasons have been advanced to explain the various Oriental schisms, but the factor of nationalism has not perhaps been sufficiently emphasised. The entire policy of the Basileis was dominated by the desire to keep the uneasy provinces of the East and South within the framework of the Byzantine Empire. When we call to mind the manifold concessions made to the Syrians and Egyptians at the time of the Christological controversies, the various attempts to frame conciliatory formulae—which were rejected both by the Orthodox and the heretics, the weakness of the 232

COPTIC AND ETHIOPIAN CHURCHES Court for the Isaurians during the Iconoclastic troubles, we understand more fully how greatly nationalism influenced the origin and maintenance of the various schisms. Heresy seemed to many peoples the best means of weakening Central power, and working towards the reattainment of the independence which they had lost and never ceased to regret. Similar preoccupations of a political order dominated the Greek schism. The Byzantines were reluctant to subject themselves to the Roman Pontiff—surrounded, as he was, by barbarians, and cut off from the Roman Empire, whose splendour and power were embodied in Constantinople. It is true that the intervention of certain individuals did much to bring about the separation; but it would not have lasted long if the popular mind had not been already gradually dissociated from Catholicity. It has been remarked that the schism was already ripe on the day when the monks, who were of the people and influential with the people, were no longer in sympathy with the Pope. This phenomenon began to be noticeable after the defeat of Iconoclasm, and it gave powerful support to the religious policy of Photius. Two centuries later the development was complete, and Michael Cerularius could count on the support of the whole nation in the setting up of the schism for good. The union concluded at Lyons was maintained with difficulty up to the death of Michael VIII Paleologus—and indeed almost entirely by the will of that Emperor, for he found but few prelates to support him. The Union established at Florence had not even that ephemeral duration, for the two churches had lived too long in separation to permit of a perfect agreement. Then the Greeks, the spiritual leaders of the Slavs and Rumanians, naturally led these peoples into schism, and imparted to them their 233

THE SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES own prejudices. To all this were added exasperations arising from politics. The Latins in general were involved in the hatred which the Russians, Rumanians and Serbs fostered against the Teutons, Poles, and Hungarians, their natural enemies—who were also Catholics. Nationality and religion were confused to the detriment of harmony among the peoples. The Oriental peoples evolved, then, in a setting different from that of the rest of Christianity. Their religious notions were modified little by little by various influences—the intervention of civil power, the personal ambition of certain prelates, hostility towards Catholicism, and, later, the infiltration of Protestant and Rationalist theories. For certain peoples enslavement—sometimes century-long—to the Moslems did not fail to produce profound changes in their ideas and morals, and an instinctive distrust of the westerners. All this should make it clear why it is so difficult at present for a Catholic of West Europe to understand exactly the mentality of the Oriental dissenters, and why it is similarly difficult for the Eastern dissenters to form a sane appreciation of the Roman Church. It is time to break down these barriers of prejudice and ignorance, and to make an honest attempt at a mutual understanding so as, at least, to reach a sincere agreement in religious outlook. This would be a pledge of the maintenance of world-peace. The unity of all Christians in the same faith and under the authority of the same Head, would give the Church a greater power of expansion; and to those souls outside the common fold who sincerely admire Christian truth, it would bring the certitude that the Church possesses in its fulness the Revelation brought to the world by the Incarnate Son of God. 234

BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY FORTESCUE, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, Catholic Truth Society, 1920). The Lesser Eastern Churches (London, Catholic Truth Society, 1913). The Uniate Eastern Churches (London, Burns & Oates, 1923). JANIN, Les églises orientales et les rites orientaux (2nd. Ed., Paris, La Bonne Presse, 1925). SCOTT, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy (London, Sheed & Ward, 1928). DIB, L'Église Maronite (Vol. I, Paris, Letouzey et Arte, i93o)STROTHMANN, Die Koptische Kirche in der Neuzeit (Tuebingen, Mohr, 1932). KIDD, The Churches of Eastern Christendom (London, Faith Press, 1927). KONCEVICIUS, Russia's Attitude Towards Union toith Rome (Ninth to Sixteenth Century) (Washington, Catholic University, 1927). JUGIE, Theologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium (Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1926). The pertinent articles in The Catholic Encyclopedia, the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, and the Dictionnaire d'Histoire et de Geographie éccléstastiques deserve to be consulted.

PERIODICALS Echos d'Orient (edited by the Augustinians of the Assumption in Constantinople. Gives in its Chronique des eglises excellent accounts of developments in the Eastern Churches). Oriens Christianus (edited by priests of Campo Santo College, Rome. Harrassowitz, Leipzig). Orientalia Christiana (Biblical Institute, Rome).

INDEX Abdul-Aziz, 139 Abdul-Masih, 208 Abdul-Medjid, 139 Abdalla Sattuf, 208 Abuna, the, 226 Abgar, 174 Agathangelos, Archbishop, 101 seq Aghtamar, Katholikate of, 177 Albania, Church of, 2 2 , 1 6 7 Alexandria, Patriarchate of, 12 Tsar, 163 America, Greek Archbishopric of, 169 A m b a Yohannes, 214 Ambrose, Metropolitan, 114 America, Greek Archbishopric of, 169 Antioch, Patriarchate of, 12, 66 Antonius II, 163 Arab invasion, 62 Archbishopric of Bulgaria, 190 Cyprus, 38, 61 Finland, 170 N e w Y o r k 169 Sinai, 78, 90 Armenia, Church of, 12 Evangelisation of, 174

Armenian churches, 173, 190 Armenian History, 173 Rite, 231 Arsenius I I I , 124, 125 Askim, the, 220 Ba-Sabirnna, Monastery of, 198 Balamand, Monastery of, 73 Baptism, Manner of administering, 23 Baradai, Jacob, 192 Belavine, M g r . Tichon, 100, seq. Berat, National Congress of, 167 Bessarabia, 152, 161 Bezpopovtsy, the, 114 Boris I, 137, 138 Boston, Bishopric of, 169 Bukovina, 161 Bulgaria, Armenian A r c h bishopric of, 190 Bulgarian Orthodox Church, 137-146 Byzantine Empire, 12 Missionaries, 122 Rite, 16, 66, 93, 231 Calendar, Reform of, 22 Carlovtsi, Synod of, n o ,

237

in

THE SEPARATED EASTERN Carol, Prince, 150 Cenobite monks, 34 Central Ecclesiastical Council, 15s S p i r i t u a l Consistory, *55 Cerularius, Michael, 14,41 Chalcedon, Council of, 12, 67 Chaldean Rite, 232 Chicago, Bishopric of, 169 Chrism, Blessing of, 20 Church of Albania, 22 Bulgaria, 122-146 Constantinople, 83 Exiles, 109 Iberia, 109 Persia, 12, 15 Serbia, 122-146 Churches, Eastern (definition), 11 Chrysostom Papadopoulos, 54 Clergy, the, 59-73, 80,88, 204 Common Organization of Church, 181 Communion, Reception of, 37 Confraternity of the Holy Sepulchre, 79 Constantine 41 Constantinople, Patriarchate of, 20 Second (Ecumenical Council of, 39 Council, General Orthodox, 20, 22 Coptic Church, 13, 83, 211 and Ethiopian churches, 211-234

CHURCHES

Coptic Rite, 232 Crisis in Russian Church, 120 Crusades, Effects of, 24 Cuza, Prince, 149 Cyprus, 18, 61 seq. Cyril V, 213 Cyril, Mgr. 28, 91 Czechoslovakia, Orthodox Church of, 172

Damianos, Mgr. 76,77 Debtara, 227 Deir Za'faram, Monastery of, 195 Difference of Rite, 15 Dimitri, Mgr. 28 Dioceses, 181, 197, 203, 317 Dioscorus, 83. Dogmas Rejected by the Orthodox, 18 Doumani, Mgr. Meleke, 69, 70 Deir, Amba-Bishai, Monastery of, 220 Amba-Maqar, Monastery of, 220 Deir Baramus, Monastery of, 220 Deir -es-Sultan, 225 Deir-es-Suryan, 220 Eastern Churches, Origin of, 11 Ecclesiastical Divisions, 72,87 Organisation, 164, 194, 202, 214, 226

INDEX Ecclesiastical Renewal, 107, 109 Reviews 61 Revival, 106 Edessa, School of, 12, 200 Elias Shakir, 199 Encyclicals—Praeclara—Mortalium Animos, Rerum Orientalium, 26 Eparchies, 143 Ephesus, Council of, 67 Ephory of the Church, 155 Esthonia, Metropolitan District of, 190, 155 Ethiopian Church, History of, 223, 230 Eulogius, n o Ewostatewos, 229 Exarch, the, 141 Farsky, 172 Filioque, 18 Finland, Archbishopric of, 170 Florence, Council of, 14 Francis Joseph, Emperor, 125 I5 1 Frankish control, 76 Frumentius, St., 223 Georgian Church, 162,172 Ghomos and Archdeacon, 218 Granovsky, Bishop Antonin, 102, 106 Greece, Synodal Church of, 18

Greek Archbishopric of America, 169 Clergy, 189 Colonies abroad, 51 Freemason lodges, 90 Gregory IV, 71 VII, 107 Halki, Theological School of, 69 Heraclius II, 163 Hierotheus II, 84 History of Russian Church, 93-121 Serbian Church, 122127 Historical Sketch of Rumanian Church, 147-149 Holy Cross, Monastery of, 81 Holy Sepulchre, Confraternity of the, 79, 80 Monastery of, 80 Synod, 45, 55, 71, 87, 100, 108, 129, 130,142, 154 Hilarion, Bishop, 140 Iberia (Georgia), Church of, 12 Iberians, 14 Idiorrhythmic monks, 34, 35 Immaculate Conception, 18 Internal divisions, 101 Iavorski, Stephen, 97 Ivan III, 94 Itshage, 229 Imitation of Jesus Christ, Congregation of, 208 239

THE

SEPARATED EASTERN

Jacob Baradai, 192 Jacobite Church, 1 3 , 1 9 2 Jacobites, Orthodox, 207 Reformed, 207, 209 Jansenists, 26 Jeremias III, 97 John Climachus, 90 Justin, Emperor, 192

Katholikate of Aghtamar, 177 Etchmiadzin, 179,186 Sis, 177, 188 Khrapovitskij, Anthony, 109 Kossova, Battle of, 123

Laity, the, 36, 60, 74, 81, 88, 135. H 5 . 161, 185 Latin domination, 62 Latin missionaries, 68 — — Rite, 11 L e o X I I I , 26 Leopold I, 125 Letters of Peace, 20 L y c e u m of Jerusalem, 81 Lyons, Council of, 14 Malabar, Jacobites of, 195 Christians of, 206 Mafrian, 194, 196 M a r Mathew Athanasius, 209 M a r Mattai, Monastery of, 198 M a r Melius, 210 Maronites, 13

CHURCHES

Matewos (Abuna), 225 Meletios, Mgr., 64,85, 86 Meletios I V , 5 1 , 1 6 9 Melkites, the, 18, 21, 38, 65, 66, 68 Melkites, Patriarch of, 7, 21 Mellusians, 209 Menelik, 225 Methodius, St., 138 Michael the Syrian, 193 Midyat, Monastery of, 198 Mixed Council, 79 Mohammed Ali, 84, 213, 221 Moldo-Wallachia, 149 Monasticism, 145, 159 seq. Monophysism, 12, 13, 65, 66, 83 Monothelism, 13, 67 Monophysite heresy, 75 Moscow, Patriarchate of, 15 Synodal Church of, 21 Mount Athos, 34, 49 seg. Muharraq, Monastery of, 220 Mutual Relations of the Orthodox Churches, 20

National Albanian Church, 167 Churches, 15 Council, Mixed, 72, 216 Ecclesiastical Congress, 154 Nestorian Chaldaean Church, 167 Nestorius, 12 N e w Independent Churches, 165 240

INDEX New York, Archbishopric of, 169 Bishopric of, 162 Nicephorus Phocas, 67 Nikon, Patriarch, 95 seq., 164 Old Catholics, 26 Olga, Princess, 93 Organisation of the Church, 70, 78, 86, 9 1 , 1 2 7 , 1 4 1 , 153 Orthodox Churches, 30 Origin of Eastern Churches, 11 Orthodox Church of Czechoslovakia, 172 Poland, 165 Rumania 156 Churches, difference in doctrine from Catholics, 17 in general, 19-37 Mutual relations of, 20 Relations with Catholics, 23 Protestants, 27 Secular clergy, 32 Various groups, 19 Melkite Churches, 65, 92 Syrians, 85 Teaching, meaning of, 17 Pan-Christian Movement, 28 Pan Ukranian National Church, h i

Papal Infallibility, 18, 23 Papas Efthym, 43 Parambil, Thomas, 207 Parishes, 50 Patriarchates, Bulgar, 14 Serb, 14 Patriarch, the, 86, 158, 182 Gregory, 71 of Rumania, 153 Patriarchate of Alexandria, 12,13,21,82,92 Antioch, 12, 13, 66, 67, 7°. 73 Constantinople, 12, 13, 20, 76, 180 Jerusalem, 12, 74, 77, 178, 188 Moscow, 15 Pavlovitch, Mgr., 128 Peace, Letters of, 20 Persia, Church of, 12 Katholikos of Church of, 172 Peter of Krutitsa, 104 Peter the Great, 90 Photius, 14, 84 Pius IX, 26 Pius X I , 26 Pobedonotsef, 98 Poland, Orthodox Church of, 165,166 Popovtsy, the, 1 1 4 Present conditions, 103 Primacy of St. Peter, 18 Protassof, Count, 98 Purgatory, 18

T H E SEPARATED EASTERN CHURCHES Saint Athanasius, Seminary of, 169 Saint Gregory, 174 Saint John Mark, Monastery of, 198 Raskol, the, 113, 115 Re-establishment of Patriar- Saint Paul, Monastery of, 220 Saint Sabas, Monastery of, 80 chate, 99 Seminary of, 134 Reform of the calendar, 22 San Francisco, Bishopric of, Reforms of Nikon, 95, 113 169 Regulations of Peter the Salama (Abuna), 225 Great, 96 Religious Life, 184, 198, 220, Schism, Bulgarian, 22 Secular Clergy, Orthodox, 32 228 Sergius, Mgr., 104,105,110 Rhizarion Seminary, 59 Severus, Patriarch, 192 Rites, Alexandrian, 15 Shahara, 205 Armenian, 16 Si-Ngam-Fu, inscription of, Byzantine, 16 201 Chaldaean, 15 Sis, Katholikate of, 177, 182 Difference of, 15 Soviets, 101, 112, 118 Jacobite, 15 Spiritual Council, 216 Latin, 11 Stambulov, 141 Rumanian and Georgian Stambulovski, 141 Churches, 147, 172 Syrian Jacobite Churches, Rumanians of Transylvania, 191 126 Nestorian Churches, Russian Church, the, 93-121 191, 210 Patriarchate in Moscow, Rite, 231 Serbian Church, Assembly of 94 Bishops, 129 People, the, 117 Chancellor of, 131 Ruthenian Catholics, 98 Dioceses, 132 Laity, 135 Monasticism, 135 Sabbazd, 172 Organization of, 127, Sacred Sepulchre, the, 95 128 Sahag, 175 Patriarch, 128,129 Saint Anthony, Monastery of, Secular Clergy, 133 220 24a

Qudshanes, 201

Monastery

of,

INDEX Serbian Church, Supreme Ecclesiastical Court, 132 Taklahaimot, 229 Tamerlane, 201 Tarnovskij, Bishop, 1 1 2 Teaching, Orthodox, 17 Thondatta, Anthony, 210 Tichon, Belavine, 104 Patriarch, 28,100, n o Tolstoi, Count, 98 Transylvania, 151, 161 Trdat, King, 174 Treaty of Lausanne, 43 Trifonopetshievsky, Monastery of, 171 Trullo, Council of, 175 Tur-Abdin, Monastery of, 198

Udiamparur, Synod of, 206 Ukranian Synodal Church, "3 Urmiah, Mission, 205 Vagarshapat, Council of, 175 Valaamsky, Monastery of, 171 Various Eastern Churches, 11 Orthodox Groups, 18 Vassili, Grand Duke, 94 Venizelos, 53 Vladimir, 93 Vvedenskij, Alexander, 107 Y.M.C.A., 29, 119 Zaghlul, Pasha, 222 Zaoditu, Empress, 225

243

F O R MORE GORGIAS PRESS R E P R I N T S , SEE WWW.GORGIASPRESS.COM.