Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky)
The Free Part of the Russian Church
His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret, First Hierarch of the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, gave this interview
to the West German Catholic weekly "Publik." The
journal published this interview on 30 October 1970.
-Your Eminence, what is the ecclesio-canonical basis for
the independence of the Russian Orthodox Church which does
not submit to the Moscow Patriarchate?
-Anticipating the looming situation under which the "Supreme
Ecclesiastical Authority...for some reason would cease its
activity," the Holy Synod and the Supreme Ecclesiastical
Council of the Russian Church, with the blessing of His
Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, on 20 November 1920, through
a special decree, obligated all the bishops of the Russian
Church who preserve their freedom to "organize a supreme
instance of Ecclesiastical Authority for several dioceses
which find themselves in similar conditions." The responsibility
for the organization of such a body was placed by the Decree
of 20 November 1920 on "the senior in the aforementioned
group by rank of bishop." The Decree of 20 November
1920 was executed to the letter by the eldest of the 34
bishops of the Russian Church who found themselves abroad,
the blessed Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev and Galizia. The
Decree foresaw that the conditions necessitating such a
decision "will assume an extended or even permanent
character," and stipulated the term of activity of
any measures and authorities emanating from the Decree as
until a normally-operating central Church authority in Russia.
Various suspensions and sanctions imposed by the Moscow
Patriarchate upon the organization abroad were all issued
under conditions of captivity and of the imprisonment of
the Patriarchate and so could not repeal the ecclesio-canonical
foundation for the existence of the free part of the Russian
Church abroad--the Decree of 20 November 1920. This document
did not "grant the right" to the free bishops
to self-rule, but was a mandate for a very specific path
upon which, under any circumstances, they were obligated
to follow until the Church in Russia itself became free
and convened a free Local Council, to whom and only to whom
was the Russian Church abroad to be answerable.
-What circumstances hinder the communion of the part of
the Russian Church which is abroad with the Moscow Patriarchate?
The Moscow Patriarchate in its present form consists of
persons selected by the atheist state and is absolutely
controlled by the latter and imprisoned. The main feature
of this imprisonment of the Patriarchate is that it not
only does not glorify the countless New Martyrs of the Russian
Church, but even mocks their memory, stating that there
are no persecutions of the Church in the USSR and that there
have been no such persecutions.
It is not the Church that speaks through their mouths, but
the "deceiver and father of deceivers." Communion
with them would mean communion with him.
-Along with the officially-recognized church organization
in the Soviet Union, there are other groups of church opposition.
What is the cause of this?
The reasons for the formation of such secret "Tikhonites,"
"Josephites," "True Orthodox Christians,"
are the same that prevent the free part ofthe Russian Church
to commune with the present leaders of the Patriarchate.
-Is it safe to assume that the Russian Church in the decades
to follow will try to transform ethical and moral underpinnings
of Christianity into socio-political demands?
The late Parisian historian of the Church, Professor Anton
Vladimirovich Kartashev, in his book "The Reestablishment
of Holy Rus'," proposed the notion that the traditional
effort of Orthodox consciousness towards creating a "symphony"
between the Church and the State, in the future, if the
government remains secular, will need to find its manifestation
not in the mutual relationship of the Church with the State,
but in the mutual activity of the Church and society. The
vehicles of this mutual activity, according to Prof. Kartashev,
could be brotherhoods of Orthodox laymen. Brotherhoods,
guided by the Church, but independent in their concrete
activities, have more than once played a role in the history
of Russia and the Russian Church.
The Orthodox Church leaves the initiative in deciding socio-political
matters in the hands of the laity. The initiatives of laymen
which correspond to the spirit and teachings of the Church
may be blessed and supported by the Church.
-The Roman Catholic Church strives towards a brotherly dialog
with the Russian Orthodox Church. Might one expect that
contacts and cooperation will overcome purely formal relations?
That, which the Orthodox Church strives for, is not described
by the word "dialog," since dialog is usually
understood as the effort to reach compromise. In the spiritual
realm, compromises to not draw one towards Truth. We strive
to live in Christian love, to respect the Christian soul
in every baptised Christian, to overcome those divisions
that do not relate to the witnessing of the faith, but might
be viewed as the relics of historical mistunderstandings.
Hasty actions, whether from Moscow (for political reasons),
or Constantinople (for other, but possibly also political,
reasons), do not contribut to a genuine healing of schism,
which is possible only through the mercy and grace of God
in Spirit and Truth.
-How would you evaluate certain trends in the Roman Catholic
Church which arose along with the changes in the relationship
between the Church and society?
We are wary of chasing apparent populatiry, we see the dangers
arising from the application of inadequate methods towards
the mission and ministry of the Church, we fear chasing
the times. The Church is outside of time. The Church knows
that heaven cannot exist on Earth, but that the Kingdom
of God is real. The sole aim of the Church is to bring its
children to this Kingdom.
"Pravoslavnoye delo," issue No. 1, 1971.