Orthodox Life magazine 1981 (3)
The Restoration of the Patriarchate in Russia
by Constantine Nikolaev
From the time of the baptism of Rus', the Russian metropolitan see was a diocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople who consecrated Russian metropolitans with the title "of Kiev and All Rus'." When Vladimir-on-the Kliazma, which had been elevated by the holy Prince Andrew Bogoliubsky, became the capital of the "Russian land" in the sense of the whole of Rus', Kiev was changed into one of the independent cities to which the metropolitan from Vladimir came from time to time. When in the reign of lvan I Kalita, Moscow began to gain supremacy in Rus', the Metropolitan, St. Peter, transferred the cathedra to Moscow (1325). In the following year, the church dedicated to the honorable and glorious Dormition of the All-holy Mother of God was built.
The Dormitionl cathedral, "the most brilliant luminary of Rus'," fell into disrepair and was completely renovated by Ivan III in 1480. eight years after his marriage to Sophia Paleologus. It was erected by the famous Aristotle Fioraventi.
The Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' in Moscow was the head of the whole Russian Church in view of the fact that he was the first bishop of the people, in accordance with the 34th Apostolic Canon. The canon states:
It behooves the bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognize him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by the territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit: the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Nine years after the conclusion by Metropolitan Isidore, a Greek, of the Union of Florence, Isidore came to Moscow and was dismissed by Grand Prince Vasily II. Metropolitan Jonah was appointed by the Council of Russian Bishops without the participation of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
In the words of the S. Soloviev, "The rejection by Muscovite Rus' of the Union of Florence is one of those great decisions which determine the destinies of nations for many centuries ahead. Loyalty to ancient piety, advocated by Grand Prince Vasily Vasilievich, maintained the independence of south-eastern Rus' in 1612, made impossible the accession to the throne of the Polish king, led to a struggle for the Faith in the Polish possessions, produced the union of Little Russia with Great Russia, caused the collapse of Poland, the aggrandizement of Russia and the connection of the latter with the peoples of the Balkan peninsula who were of the same religion."
Thus Grand Prince Vasily II protected Orthodoxy for centuries. The Russian Church became a witness of dreadful events. One after another Orthodox kingdoms lost their independence and were conquered by the Turks. In addition. there is the sorrowful fact of the capture of the ancient patriarchates by the infidels: Antioch fell in 63, Alexandria in 640, Jerusalem twice, in 637 and once and for all fell into infidel hands in 1187. The great Serbian kingdom of Dushan and Lazar fell in 1448, the Bulgarian kingdom before that in 1393, and Byzantium, or more precisely the remnants of Byzantium, fell in 1453.
As a result of these tragic events, only one Orthodox kingdom was left –– Moscow. It accepted the legacy of Byzantium. In 1472, Ivan II entered into wedlock with the Byzantine princess Sophia Paleologus who, contrary to the expectation of Rome, became a faithful daughter of the Orthodox Church. She created a link with Byzantium and brought with her the sovereign symbol –– the double headed eagle on a yellow background.
What else did the thinkers and sociologists of those times need so as to be able to say, as did the Elder Philotheus of the Pskov-Eleazar Monastery to Vasily III: "Hearken for the sake of the Lord, for every Christian kingdom will be subsumed in your kingdom." From this came the statement that Moscow was the third Rome.
The metropolitan had immense spiritual strength. His power and honor were great. At the behest of the patriarch of Constantinople. the Grand Prince showed to the metropolitan "reverence, obedience and dutiful submission." The prince went out many versts to meet the metropolitan. The metropolitan had a vast staff of servants and his own bailiffs, he sat in judgment on all Orthodox people who violated Church law, and he punished his own servants for all crimes. He signed the religious regulations of the princes and deeds of state, signing "by the mercy of God." He had his own seal. Together with the Holy Council of bishops, archimandrites and abbots, he participated in the Provincial Councils.
He was the principal adviser to the prince's family and had unquestionable authority. The tragic fate of Metropolitan Philip, who is now numbered among the saints because he refused a blessing to Ivan the Terrible and demanded that the Tsar rid himself of the oprichnina (personal bodyguard of terrorists), a "sacrilegious thing," testified to the moral heights which the Russian hierarchy had attained; and the martyr's death of Patriarch Germogen testified to his stand for national interests. Patriarch Nikon's clash with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was not only a clash of character, but an assertion of the advantage of, in the words of Augustine, "a spiritual sword over a secular," of the patriarch's power over that of the tsar to the detriment of the principle of "symphony" in which lay the strength of the Moscow principality. The participation of the Eastern hierarchs fanned this conflict into a raging fire of enmity, but in the end both the Patriarch and the Tsar wept.
What was most important, in that it had universal historical significance, was that the title of Metropolitan of Kiev and "All Rus'," being the canonical norm, united within itself the whole of independent Rus' at a time when there was not even a thought about the political unity of Rus'.
In 1562, Ivan the Terrible won the recognition of his royal crown from the Patriarch of Constantinople. "The Moscow sovereign," says Prof. Kapterev, "together with the royal title, in this way received universal Orthodox significance. He was not simply the Sovereign of Moscow (the custodian and defender of Orthodoxy in Rus'), but the Tsar of all Orthodox peoples: the spokesman, guardian and protector of the whole of eastern ecumenical Orthodoxy."
A new center was formed in Moscow which was "unlike the former Byzantium and was even rather hostile to it." "But this is not all. This new center of Orthodoxy was Slavic, not Greek. Together with Moscow, the Slavs moved into first place in the Orthodox world" (Kapterev, The Character of the Relationship of Russia with the Orthodox East in the 16th and 17th Centuries, First edition, pp. 33, 37). The ecumenical role of Moscow in the life of the Orthodox Church had begun.
"Thus everything which previously gave Constantinople paramount significance as the capital of the whole Orthodox world –– royal dignity, patriarchal dignity, abundant holy things revered by all –– all of this was now carried over to Moscow" (ibid., pp. 85, 102) .
The Metropolitan of Moscow crowned Ivan IV in whose reign a new legal code (1550) was published to supercede the obsolete code of Ivan III (1497). This was the first book of laws on a "Pan-Russian" scale. The Lives of the Saints were compiled, canonization of Russian saints took place, and the famous Hundred Chapter Council was convened.
Now in the words of the academician S.F. Platonov, "the downfiall of tradition" occurred in the reign of Peter the Great, for there came about the collapse not only of secular traditions but of ecclesiastical ones as well.
All this grand structure became unsteady. The tsar dressed in German clothes, surrounded himself with heterodox and, after the death of the Patriarch, devised an unprecedented institution –– the Most Holy Governing Synod. After more than twenty years of the widowhood of the patriarchal cathedra, on the advice of a clerical person, Archbishop Feofan (Prokopovich) of Novgorod (1681- 1736), a fundamental reform was made of the Church's central administration. The Spiritual Regulations were composed and only one "commission" was recognised –– the Most Holy Governing Synod.
But the reforms were not thought out. The "first bishop" of the people was removed, a most glaring breach of the 34th Apostolic Canon. None of the three metropolitans -–– of St. Petersburg, Moscow or Kiev -–– was canonically the "First bishop." In accordance with basic law, both before the Act of October 17, 1905, and after it, the power of the Sovereign Emperor was put into effect by the civil administration through the Governing Senate -–– that amazing Petrine institution -–– and ecclesiastical administration was carried out through the Most Holy Governing Synod.
As Tsar of Moscow, the Sovereign Emperor was not the Head of the Church, either in the dogmatic or canonical sense as understood by the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the capacity monarch, a position which could only be filled by a person of the Orthodox Faith, the Sovereign, under a fundamental law, was the defender of the sacred dogmas and of the good order of the Holy Church. That was all. He was not a bishop. He did not take part in the discussion of dogmatic and canonical questions nor officiate at times in divine services as was the case in Byzantium. On one occasion only, during the service of Coronation. did he enter the sanctuary through the Holy Doors and receive Communion according to the rite for a priest.
To thinking Orthodox people, the question naturally arose; was the current leadership of the gigantic Russian Orthodox Church, the Church of so many millions of faithful, proper?
Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitslcy) had this thought in mind from his youth and he believed that these irregularities could and should be corrected. As he had chosen a spiritual way of life and had given evidence of exceptional spiritual and moral gifts, when he became a bishop he devoted himself to the question of the restoration of the Patriarchate.
However, it is necessary to note and emphasize the following in particular Vladyka Anthony taught that despite all the practical harm brought to the Russian Church by the synodal reform, that Church had preserved its blessed vigor and had remained the true Church of Christ.
Metropolitan Anthony wrote to the Old Believer schismatics:
"It is not our Church that is paralyzed. The central administration of the Church was not set up entirely correctly, but the administration is not the Church. With us, Church life is conducted according to the canons. We have apostolic succession; life has shown us that along with the sins of some bishops. there have been lofty examples of sanctity among others. Latter-day saints of God shine again and again, and together with Theodosius, Seraphim and Joasaph who have been newly glorified in the Kingdom of the saints, no one can object to the glorification also of Pitirim of Tambov and Sophronius of lrkutsk, so strikingly does the Lord testify to their sanctity by new miracles and signs" (17).
The biographer of Metropolitan Anthony, Archbishop Nikon. explains:
While defending the Russian Church at the same time Vladyka pointed out that the abolition of the Patriarchate in the reign of Peter I brought a change in the ecclesiastical administrative order. The Russian Church was deprived of a personal, unifying, spiritual center. Vladyka Anthony said that the Church in Russia was in some way wounded by these reforms. Her capacity for beneficial influence on the people was diminished. She found herself in the position of a man whose hands are bound (idem).
And this is beyond doubt. But above all, it is especially important to note this fact, that the synodal hierarchy and clergy of the Church which, in the opinion of the Russian liberal intelligentsia, lay "in paralysis," provided crowds of martyrs in our time –– and only she provided them!
This certainly is the guarantee of a future revival.
The restoration of the Patriarchate meant the restoration of the canonical order of the Church. This was a holy truth, to the cause of which Metropolitan Anthony devoted himself.
Reforms were planned by K. P. Pobedonostsev, the Procurator-general of the Synod, who resigned his position in l905 at the age of 78. In turn, the public agitation of this stormy period, the decree of religious toleration and the discussion of ecclesiastical questions in educated circles, raised this particular question.
On 17 December, 1905, at Tsarskoye Selo, Emperor Nicholas II received the three metropolitans, Anthony of St. Petersburg, Vladimir of Moscow and Flavian of Kiev, "for the direct granting of the royal decrees for the forthcoming convocation of the local Council of the Pan-Russian Church" (121). There was no mention of the Patriarchate, as Archbishop Nikon had supposed.
On 27 December, the Emperor addressed a mandate in the name of Anthony, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, inviting him together with Metropolitan Vladimir of Moscow and Metropolitan Flavian of Kiev 'to set a time for the convocation of this Council which was awaited by all the faithful sons of the Church.' At the beginning of 1906 there was established a 'Synodal Office from the representatives of the Church hierarchy and other spiritual and saintly persons, renowned for their scholarly works and knowledge in the field of theology, Church history, canon law and Church practice.' The matter was stated correctly and widely. Subsequently, this body was called 'the Pre-Conciliar Office.' It was set up 'with the aim of successfully working out and preparing for the discussion at the local Pan-Russian Council of the questions which originally were envisaged and now had arisen.'
The question of the patriarchate turned out to be one which "immediately arose again" and stood at the center of all business.
The Pre-Conciliar Office was opened on 6 March, 1906, at the Lavra of St. Alexander Nevsky by Metropolitan Anthony of St. Petersburg. A moleben was served by all three metropolitans, with the participation of Bishop Arseny of Pskov and Bishop Stephen of Mogilev, who said a few words on behalf of the whole episcopate. Bishop Stephen subsequently voted for "Patriarch" as the name of the head of the Church.
At its first meeting, the Pre-Conciliar Ofiice dealt with a telegram of greeting to the Emperor. From him they received this answer, addressed to Metropolitan Anthony as chairman:
I sincerely thank you, Vladyka, and all the members of the Special Office, for expressing your sentiments to me. I am following your preparatory work for the coming local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church with keen attention. May the Lord bless your efforts for the renewal of our Church life.
Nicholas.
The Pre-Conciliar Office was divided into seven departments. The chairman of the First department –– "the structure of the local council, the order of discussion and resolution of matters at the council and the reorganization of the central administration" –– was Archbishop Dimitry of Kherson. The question of the Patriarchate was discussed in this department. It seemed that Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) would be given a place in this department, but he was made chairman of the sixth department: "Topics: the Orthodox dissenters, Old Believers and other questions of Faith." Accordingly, Vladylca Anthony could contend for the idea of the patriarchate only at the general sessions of the Pre-Conciliar Office. His power of persuasion and belief in divine providence gave him the joy of witnessing the acceptance by the Pre-Conciliar Office of the salutary idea of the patriarchate.
On 6 May, 1906, Vladylca Anthony was raised to the dignity of archbishop.
Discussion of the question of the Patriarchate began on 1 May, 1906, and continued on 3, 12, 17 and 19 May. The general meeting of the members of the Pre-Conciliar Office took place on 1 June. Of the total number of voters (48), 33 were in favor of the restoration of the Patriarchate.
The most stubborn opponent of the restoration of the Patriarchate was the well-known professor of Church law at Moscow University, N. S. Suvorov. After the final vote, Professor Suvorov expressed his opinion on seven points. The last of these read:
In the present sad state of political and ecclesiastical affairs in Russia, there undoubtedly arises the necessity for a concentration of forces, not in the person of the first hierarch of the Russian Church having the title of Patriarch, but in the person of the Orthodox Sovereign who alone can serve as a stronghold for the salvation of the perishing state and also for the preservation of the Church from collapse. With regrettable obviousness, the signs of the times point to the fact that soon, under the pretence of a struggle with bureaucracy, royal power will be shaken, all order will disappear and everything will vanish.
More than twenty members took part in the discussion of the question of the Patriarchate. Exchange of opinions often took on a tense note. All the metropolitans, archbishops and bishops, with the exception of Archbishop Nikander of Lithuania, supported the name "Patriarch" for the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. Opposed were Archpriests Maltsev and Titov, Priest Rozhdestvenslcy, Professors Nesmelov, Mashanov and Briliantov and the prominent laymen Aksaltov and Kuznetsov. Closing the debate, the honored professor, Dr. N. N. Glubokovsky, whose authority dominated the meeting, replied with particular force to the opponents of the Patriarchate. He delivered his speech to the Council on 17 May, as though foreseeing what would happen in our day.
It is impossible to conceal the fact that hard times are approaching when perhaps it will be necessary to defend our right to a special existence. We will need to rally around our sacred standard which someone must raise, hold aloft and hear before us. I personally do not fear Russian caesaro-papism, but the fact that, in the absence of a head and leader of Russian Church, at the fatal moment there will not immediately be found a willing man to whom we all, as with one voice, could say: Be our leader. It is imperative to remember that now and always it is possible there will be a burning need for a supreme archpastor to gather the scattered flock of the Russian Church and together exclaim, with the voice of firm faith and unashamed hope: 'Let Cod arise and let His enemies be scattered.'
The question of the restoration of the Patriarchate was resolved in a practical way more than ten years later. Who knows what might have happened to the monarchy in Russia if in those fatal days of turmoil, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia had stood beside the Tsar?
Professor N. N. Glubokovsky saw further and felt more deeply than Professor N. S. Suvorov.
After the vote for accepting the Patriarchate, Vladyka Anthony delivered his speech which Archbishop Nikon rightly called "historic." These are the closing lines:
But the morning star of hope has shone forth amid our darkness. Our assembly is not free to install the Patriarch, but the fact that it loudly spoke out for him after last year's declaration of the Most Holy Synod, arouses in us the shining hope that soon 'a bright day will follow the night,' and that our people's whole way of life will be transformed by the renewal of ecclesiastical order. It [i.e. their way of life] has diverged onto a false path of borrowing non-Christian rules of life from the West and from the time of the death of the last patriarch it has developed with logical consequence the self-loving, proud and sensual principles of pagan life. It developed a type of Russian nihilism, from the increase of which has arisen the present disgraceful rebellion against the motherland and against the Faith, which horrifies the whole universe.
The word of God is fulfilled: 'I will smite the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.' But I have hope that, with the renewal of Church order as established by the Holy Spirit at the Ecumenical Councils, faith will again increase, hope will grow stronger and love will blossom in Christian Russia. just as the deprivation of the Church of her head led to a falling away from piety, so the restoration of her head will lead to a return of social life to true Christian principles. May this revival be even more glorious than in ancient Russia. May there be reborn the former zeal for salvation, the former evangelical humility and abstinence, knowledge and social development. May the divine glory of the Church shine again over our land and may our daily prayer be fulfilled: 'Thy kingdom come.'
Thus, the question of the restoration of the Patriarchate, placed by Vladyka Anthony on a Pan-Russian scale, satisfactorily passed its first preparatory stage. The realization of the Patriarchate was postponed and coincided with the Bolshevik Revolution, but the matter of the actual restorltion of the patriarchate to the glory of the Church is now a matter for the future and remains for all time Vladika Anthony's most glorious work.
Besides worrying about the restoration of the Patriarchate, Vladyka Anthony did a lot of work to carry out the program of the sixth department, of which he was chairman. The questions concerning the schism of the Old Believers and all the questions of internal disorders in the Church had to be resolved, and Vladyka strove for this with faith and love. The schism of the Old Believers was not only an ecclesiastical question, but also a political one. The Old Believers did not accept the empire as a new order. But for two hundred years many had held a different view, and Old Believers had entered the political and economic life of the great empire; the political question no longer arose. The decree of toleration was, in effect, the recognition of the right of Old Believers to exist. Vladyka Anthony aspired to reconcile the Old Believers to the Orthodox Church through an acceptance of their external forms (yedinovereye).
In 1912, on the initiative of the sixth department of the Pre-Conciliar Office, under the chairmanship of Vladyka Anthony, there was set up in St. Petersburg a congress of dissenters. Vladyka Anthony devoted much attention to institutions of spiritual education; he carried out a revision of the Kiev Theological Academy and his soul suffered over the revolutionary discontent which was attacking the school. His wonderful speech, "On the spiritual gifts of youth," was delivered on September 5, 1899, before the commencement of the academic year, in the church of the Kazan Theological Academy. It was full of faith in and love for young people. In it he pointed out the way of spiritual upbringing. He thought it would be beneficial to form a special Theological Academy for those who had entirely given themselves up to both moral and scholarly perfection and who, in the main, were already in holy orders.
Let us conclude our account with the words of Archbishop Nikon, the author of the biography of Metropolitan Anthony.
Thus, Vladyka Anthony proposed a clear, historical, logical and scientifically valid program for the transformation of the Russian Orthodox Church. The return to the Church of that Sovereign power which was illegally taken away from her two hundred years ago –– the Patriarchate; the convocation by the Patriarch of All Russia of a Church Council only of bishops who, certainly, in the necessary manner, would have collected all the forces of the Russian Church and organized them in the proper manner; the reorganization of the whole system of both education and upbringing of pastors by means of the reorganization of the theological institutions: Vladyka Anthony had a clear plan of reorganization in his mind and he offered to work out a program of subjects of study and of the internal modus vivendi for all theological educational institutions and schools for readers. According to his plan, this would attract to the pastoral ministry not only children of the clergy but also the best representatives of the people and upper classes.
The transfigured Russian Orthodox Church would have poured new spiritual forces into the Russian people and the Revolution of 1917 would not have been possible. After the reformation of the Russian Orthodox Church according to Vladyka Anthony's scheme, an Ecumenical Council would have had to be convened which would have raised the light of Orthodoxy on high, and the course of world history would have been different.
Such was the program of reform of the great hierarch, Vladyka Anthony Khrapovitsky, first hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad.
No comments:
Post a Comment