‘The Soul and Heart of A Faithful Englishman is not Limited by Utilitarian Goals and Plans’: the Relations of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitskii with the Anglican Church 
To Brandon Gallaher
Metropolitan Anthony is rather a known quantity in terms of Russian church history. However, having had the opportunity to examine the Canon Douglas archive in Lambeth Palace Library in London and a variety of rare serials, I believe that there remain a few surprises, particularly with regard to his stance on Non-Orthodox Christians. Not everything from Anthony’s theological legacy can be accepted as an expression of the regula fidei. For example, this paper will argue that while Metropolitan Anthony called for restoration of the teachings of the Byzantine ecclesiastical Fathers, rejecting the ‘scholastic’ systems as Western imports to the Russian theological schools, he adopted a scholastic theological opinion in characterizing the baptism of schismatics as per se invalid—unless and until the empty forms of heterodox mysteries were filled with Grace at the moment of reception of a convert into the Orthodox Church. At the same time, Metropolitan Anthony was open to honest ecumenical dialogue, seeing it as an opportunity for uncompromising testimony to the Orthodox faith. He must be credited for this firmness because the persecuted state of the Church in Russia after the revolution and the distressed circumstances of the refugee bishops and flock could easily have paved the road to servility in relations with the state church of mighty British Empire. This paper will conclude by pointing out the controversial qualities of Anthony’s attitude toward Anglicans.
A Brief Historical Background
Despite the Crimean War, Russian Orthodox and Anglicans in the early twentieth century had no history of animosity; on the contrary, their relations were cordial. As far back as at the beginning of the eighteenth century, Emperor Peter the Great had served as a mediator between Anglican Non-Juror bishops and the Eastern patriarchs. The first half of the nineteenth century brought a fruitful correspondence between the Oxford don William Palmer, who sought to enter into communion with the Orthodox Church, and the Russian lay zealot of Orthodoxy Aleksei Khomiakov. I was fortunate to learn more about this correspondence from Richard Mammana’s presentation at the 2004 Holy Trinity Seminary Colloquium. According to Khomiakov, Western Christianity ‘ceased to be Christianity when it ceased to be the Church’. Khomiakov wrote to Palmer:
‘All Sacraments are completed only in the bosom of the true Church, and it matters not whether they are completed in one form or another. Reconciliation renovates the Sacraments or completesthem, giving a full and Orthodox meaning to the rite that before was either insufficient or heterodox, and the repetition of the preceding Sacraments is virtually contained in the rite or fact of reconciliation. Therefore the visible repetition of Baptism or Confirmation, though unnecessary, cannot be considered as erroneous, and establishes only a ritual difference without any difference of opinion. You will understand my meaning more clearly still by a comparison with another fact in ecclesiastical history. The Church considers Marriage as a Sacrament, and yet admits married heathens into her community without re-marrying them. The conversion itself gives the sacramental quality to the preceding union without any repetition of the rite. This you must admit, unless you admit the impossibility, that the Sacrament of Marriage was by itself complete in the lawful union of the heathen couple.’
This remarkable passage should be borne in mind inasmuch as it provides a remarkably clear example of the theory of sacramental oikonomia  elaborated by Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitskii.
The meeting between Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow and Pastor J. Young of the American Episcopal Church, in 1865, almost twenty years after the Khomiakov-Palmer correspondence, offers a different ecclesiological perspective. Metropolitan Filaret, in his conversations with Dr. Young envisioned the possibility of Eucharistic communion on the basis of unity of faith. Filaret considered that because members of the Anglican Church were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they could be received into the Orthodox Church without rebaptism, even though they were not immersed during baptism. However, such people were to be chrismated because Anglicans did not consider confirmation to be a sacrament.
The cordial relations between Anglicans and Russian Orthodox continued to develop throughout the rest of the nineteenth century. In 1888 Metropolitan Platon of Kiev, in his response to felicitations on the nine-hundredth anniversary of the conversion of Rus to Christianity, wrote to the Archbishop Benson of Canterbury:
If you also, as appears from your letter, desire that we may be one with you in the bonds of the Gospel, I beg you to communicate to me distinctly and definitely upon what conditions you consider the union of your and our Churches would be possible.
Due to its centuries-long conflict with Rome, the Anglican Church was in need of attention from the Orthodox Church. As the now Metropolitan Kallistos put it:
“After the condemnation of Anglican orders by Pope Leo XIII in 1896 in his encyclical Apostolicae Curae, many Anglicans hoped to counterbalance this by persuading the Orthodox Church to recognize the validity of their priesthood and episcopate.” 
The subsequent ‘diplomatic attitude’ of the Russian Orthodox Church—when Bishop William Maclagan of York visited Russia in 1897, he was greeted, on different occasions, with the singing of Eis polla eti, despota— was considered promising by Anglicans. Such is in very broad terms the historical context prior to Anthony’s correspondence with Gardiner, which became the final exposition of Russian theological thought on Non-Orthodox Christians before the Russian Revolution.
Anthony’s Correspondence with Gardiner
Metropolitan Anthony’s views on Non-Orthodox Christianity are clearly stated in a letter of 1915 responding to an invitation from its secretary, Robert S. Gardiner of the Episcopalian Church in the United States, to participate in the conference on Faith and Order:
The Church’s anathema throws disobedient persons from the salvific flock of Christ, which remains with the same fullness of grace-filled gifts (…) The Orthodox Church always taught through the mouth of the holy fathers and the canons of the Ecumenical Councils that there is no communion with grace-filled life in Christ outside her and that one receives His [Christ’s] gifts only in her bosom and that outside of her there are no bishops, nor priests, nor mysteries.
From 1915 to 1916 Archbishop Anthony sent three letters to Gardiner. In his second letter  Anthony notes that the Orthodox Church receives Catholics, Protestants, and Anglicans without baptizing them, as the Quinisext Council, in Canon 95, prescribed for the reception of Arians and Monophysites. Anthony referred to Canon 31 of the Council in Laodicea and Canon 95 of the Quinisext Council to demonstrate that ecclesial bodies that not in communion with the Orthodox Church cannot be called Christians. All honorific salutations to non-Orthodox Christians which may be found in the epistles of Orthodox hierarchs throughout history are only diplomatic niceties.
Anthony viewed his ecclesiological position—that outside the Orthodox Church there is no sacramental grace—as a return to the norms of the ancient Church. However, while considering all non-Orthodox Christians as heretics, Anthony maintained broad pastoral and practical aims. In the same reply to the above-mentioned invitation to participate in an ecumenical conference, he stated that a friendly relationship with Anglicans and representatives of heterodox confessions is pleasing to God. In his third letter  Anthony notes that the previous correspondence had been fruitful. To Gardiner’s argument that there is no point in holding the conference if the Orthodox Church shares Anthony’s beliefs, Anthony expressed his positive attitude toward this conference: “Indeed, we are not going to concelebrate there, but shall have to search together for a true teaching on the controversial points of faith.” The third and last letter concluded with these words:
“[C]onviction in the rightness of one’s own Church and that all heretics and schismatics are void of grace does not impede an objective and patient discussion on issues of faith and absolutely cannot instill in the adherents of these views a proud and a disdainful mood”.
Anthony considered the reception of an Anglican bishop into the Orthodox Church without re-ordination feasible. However, he may remain a bishop only if his flock is willing to join the Orthodox Church along with him. The recurring leitmotif of Anthony’s correspondence is this: only one Church is genuine.
After the Collapse of the Russian Empire
The relationship with the Anglican Church had a special meaning for Russian Church refugees. The Anglican Church enjoyed the status of the established religion of Great Britain, which had been Russia’s ally in World War I and later supported the White Army. Some of the appeals from representatives of the Russian Church to members of the Anglican Church were forwarded to the British government. At the same time, the financial hardships of Russian refugees would have been eased by the assistance of the Anglican Church. These opportunities explain why the Anglican Church became the main partner of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) in the inter-confessional dialogue during the period before World War II.
Already in Russia, the future refugee bishops had started appealing to the Anglican Church. On December 30, 1918, Metropolitan Platon of Odessa sent a letter to Archbishop Randall Davidson of Canterbury in which, in addition to an account of persecution, Platon informed him of the arrest of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitskii by Petliura government. The letter concludes:
‘All my efforts to liberate this innocent martyr led to nothing. I implore Your Eminence and your body of bishops to help free the Metropolitan from the hands of his persecutors and the Church from the frightful agonies which she is enduring.’
In his reply (published in the article referred to in footnote 19, supra), the Archbishop assured Metropolitan Platon that he was doing all he could and at the same time called upon the dioceses of the Anglican Church to read a special prayer for the persecuted Russian Church.
When the Russian refugees became too numerous for the small Embassy Chapel in Welbeck Street, the Bishop of London turned over to them St. Philip’s Church on Buckingham Palace Road, which had been closed for Anglican worship.
The Trial of Patriarch Tikhon
For their part, the Anglicans, in their polemics with the Catholic Church, were able to point to their relations with representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad as a movement toward the recognition of Anglican orders.
Canon John A. Douglas was the Anglican Church liaison with the Orthodox Churches. Although it is known that he acted in the spirit of imperial diplomacy, i.e., divide et impera, I have not seen evidence that his relations with the ROCA caused it any harm.
On May 5, 1922, Patriarch Tikhon was put on trial in Moscow for his opposition to the confiscation of Church assets by the state and the next day was placed under house arrest. At its meeting of May 30, 1922, the Higher Church Authority Abroad (HCAA) resolved to address all the heads of the Orthodox and heterodox Churches with a special appeal to protest about the violence carried out against Patriarch Tikhon. Appeals to the heads of states and of Christian Churches were sent on June 15, 1922.
Metropolitan Anthony received a response from Archbishop Davidson of Canterbury to the effect that he had brought this matter up in the House of Lords, and that he had contacted Moscow directly to protest the injustice toward Patriarch Tikhon.
On May 8, 1923, Great Britain’s ambassador to Moscow, Sir Robert Hodson, delivered to the Soviet government an ultimatum prepared by the British Foreign Minister, Lord Curzon. Its twenty-first paragraph contained a protest against the suppression of religion in Russia: ‘A country in which faith is persecuted and the servants of the altar have been crucified must be struck off the list of civilized countries…’ According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who later told him as much, Anthony’s own letters were responsible for the release of Tikhon from prison on June 30, 1923. In fact, as I have discovered, the key orchestrator of the campaign in the United Kingdom for the liberation of Patriarch Tikhon was none other than Canon Douglas. The note written by Douglas on March 10, 1954, is worth reproducing:
“At the risk of egregious vanity, I say here that in rousing public opinion in England and in bringing about a practically unanimous protest in the House of Commons which being construed as intimating that if the Patriarch were ‘executed’ war would follow, I played the principal part. (…) Raczynski [count Edward, Polish diplomat] learnt by secret means of the (…) execution of Cieplak [Roman Catholic Archbishop] and others the night it happened and informed me. I informed Archbishop Davidson and the Foreign Office and Slesser, the former Attorney General and The Times. In result we staged a dramatic scene in the Commons the next afternoon when even George Lansbury, who had been apologetic for the Bolshevik Government, could not get a hearing. Krassin [Soviet Ambassador], the opposite number of Sir Robert Hodson, who was in Berlin, came to London by airplane and (I refused to call on him at this invitation) came to call on me and asked, ‘How can we fend off war?’ Slesser was with me and I answered: ‘By releasing Tikhon and stopping the shooting of the Roman Catholic Archbishop!’ Krassin went off and rang me two hours later that the advice had been accepted in Moscow.” 
A Turning Point in the Ecclesiology of the ROCA
File No. 169 (started on September 20 of 1923), listed in the ‘Inventory of Files Kept in the Chancery of the Higher Church Authority Abroad/Synod of Bishops’ relates to the Anglican Church: ‘On the reception of the Anglican missionary Joseph Côté into Orthodoxy and his ordination to rank of deacon’. Information on this event appeared in The Christian East. The anonymous author of this correspondence argued against the logic of certain Roman Catholic theologians in holding that the Russian Church ‘rejects’ Anglican orders. The author explains that the Orthodox Church does not possess a ‘clear-cut’ policy on heterodox ordinations:
They are free to accept them or, even though they possess all outward marks of the Apostolic Succession, to refuse to do so. (…) Reception of adherents to Orthodoxy in their Orders or their reordination is to the Orthodox a matter in which the Church is at liberty as a wise steward to exercise discretion or economy.
Considering that one of the editors of The Christian East was in Belgrade a few days after Côté’s ordinations, this understanding of sacramental oikonomia must have proceeded from Metropolitan Anthony’s statement in Novoe Vremia. Anthony also observed that, since the Russian Patriarch Tikhon had not pronounced on Anglican ordinations,
he [Anthony] felt bound not to create a precedent and that, though Roman orders possessed the outward marks of Apostolic succession, he should re-ordain any Roman priest or bishop who came to him, even the Pope himself.
This last remark speaks volumes about the ecclesiology of Metropolitan Anthony, and Anthony’s statement became a turning point for further developments in ROCA. To make a comparison, the Church in Russia in the Synodal period had received Roman Catholic clergy in their existing rank, and the rite for such receptions (i.e., for reception without ordination) was composed by Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow.
Later the journal Irenikon claimed that Metropolitan Anthony’s statement led to the signing of the 1924 appeal for the Rapprochement with ‘Easterners’ by Bishop Gore and 3,715 members of the Anglican clergy.
A Pan-Orthodox Chief Procurator
Anthony took the activity of Anglicans on behalf of the Orthodox Church as a manifestation of their noble spirit, which he pointedly distinguished from the egoistic foreign policy of Great Britain. He offered this view in his article ‘A Friend in Need and Danger is A Friend Indeed’, published in early 1924. Anthony wrote that the Anglicans rightly interceded with the Patriarchate of Constantinople in order to repudiate the decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923. According to Anthony, Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis wanted to please the Anglicans, but they (the Anglo-Catholics) pointed to the unwholesome character of the proposed reforms, which Meletios then rejected. Anthony noted that hopes for the unification of Western nations with the Orthodox Church were connected with just such trends of British spiritual life, but not with Latin superstitions. Anthony concludes again that it was proper to receive the Anglicans into the Orthodox Church by the third rite, i.e., in their clerical ranks. Such recognition of the possibility of the reception of Anglicans without reordination was the most valuable church-political concession that Douglas could obtain from the widely respected leader of the refugee Russian Church. For his part, Anthony saw Douglas as an intercessor, rather like a chief procurator of the Russian Most Holy Governing Synod. In his letter of July 20, 1924, Anthony had asked Douglas to assist in obtaining from the principal secretary of State for the Colonies permission for the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Palestine to sell some of their fallow lands.
In his response of February 20, 1925, to Douglas’s query as to whether an ecumenical patriarch may, according to canonical regulations, reside outside Constantinople, Anthony comments:
Of course he can, and the inhabitants of the Capital are bound to continue to count him as their Chief Pastor, and are bound to obey him as we our Holy Patriarch (…)
When the rumours reached Metropolitan Anthony that the British government wanted to install Patriarch Meletios on the Jerusalem see instead of Patriarch Damianos, Anthony wrote to Douglas persuading him not to support Meletios.
In his letter to Douglas on October 28, 1925, Metropolitan Anthony discussed prospective candidates for the vacant see of the Alexandrian Patriarchate. In an undated letter, Anthony advises Douglas that Anglicans should stand up for Metropolitan Sergii Stragorodskii, who was ‘the best and [the most righteous? – handwriting is illegible – A.P.] among all Russian bishops’. In the same letter Anthony requests the Anglican Church to protect Russian monks residing on Mount Athos against the oppression of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
We see, then, that from 1922 through 1926 Anthony maintained a close and mutually supportive relationship with Canon Douglas.
Nicene Celebration in Great Britain
A celebration held by the Church of England in June, 1925, to mark the 1600th anniversary of the Great Ecumenical Council of Nicaea offered Douglas an opportunity to reap the fruit of his friendship with Metropolitan Anthony. Having had such a prominent conservative theologian as a guest of the Anglican Church would certainly have been a testament to its public relations. In order to persuade Anthony to come to England, Douglas mentioned the possibility of raising funds for a newly established theological institute in Paris—a ‘pet project’ of the metropolitan. For the sake of others, the self-sacrificing hierarch accepted the invitation.
Besides Metropolitan Anthony (who was Chairman of the ROCA Synod of Bishops), Metropolitan Evlogii of Western Europe, and Bishop Veniamin of Sebastopol, the Orthodox Church was represented by Metropolitan Germanos of Thyateira (the Ecumenical Patriarchate), Patriarch Photios of Alexandria (representing, also, Patriarch Gregorios of Antioch), Patriarch Damianos of Jerusalem, Prof. H. Alivizatos (Church of Greece), Archpriest Radu (Romanian Patriarchate), and Prof. N. Glubokovskii (for the Bulgarian Church).
Anthony, among other Orthodox hierarchs, participated in the solemn procession headed by the Ecclesial Council of Canterbury. At a festive reception in the Holborn Hotel, in response to Sir Samuel Hoare’s speech on Christian unity, Anthony remarked that while the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church exists, at the same time Christianity—that is, individuals, religious communities, and entire communities who believe in Christ as God and recognize the Holy Scriptures—also exists. Such thoughts on the existence of the Church and Christianity make it appear that Metropolitan Anthony was not in full accord with what he had written earlier to Robert Gardiner. However, Anthony’s position on ecumenism is expressed in almost identical words in his correspondence with Gardiner:
‘Striving for unification [in faith] is the obligation of all those who have a zeal for the Word of God. Such unification should be expressed first of all in freeing our souls not only from all feelings of ill will toward those not of a like mind, but also from efforts in our own minds to prove them wrong. On the contrary, he among us will be more pleasing to God who puts forward an effort to clarify everything that unites us and who will strive not to reduce the number of such truths, but possibly to increase them, and especially in relation to those Christian bodies and confessions that come to meet our Church in friendship.’
According to the testimony of Evlogii, Anthony also expressed the following view: ‘All heterodox confessions are deprived of hierarchical grace, and one cannot exempt the Anglican Church from other Christian confessions, including the Catholic Church.’ However, at a visit to a seminary in Canterbury during the same celebration, Anthony said:
‘Look with reverence on your pastoral service as upon the highest service before the Lord, if you will be worthy to fulfil your high responsibility (…) Young people, chosen by God: you are called to the highest earthly service to God—to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth.’
For the first time in the history of the Russian Church, such representative delegations participated in ecumenical events. John Strickland considers the Nicene celebrations to be the formal beginning of ecumenism in the Russian Diaspora. On his way back to Serbia, Anthony stayed at the Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe Saint-Serge ‘long enough to deliver lectures’. Strickland even hypothesizes that Anthony’s account of the Nicene celebrations could have been an inspiration for the future ecumenical activity of Archpriest Sergii Bulgakov, who arrived in Paris that same summer. The following excerpt from a letter to Douglas dated September 8, 1925, vividly expresses Metropolitan Anthony’s ecumenical delight in British festivities:
It is very clear to me that the soul and heart of a faithful Englishman is not limited by utilitarian goals and plans, whether narrowly political or national. Heaven and afterlife have not been expelled from this heart; although, the theory of moral utilitarianism has been designed in England, so what? Despite the fact that Holy Russia gave to the world not just to St. Seraphim of Sarov, but also Lenin, it is still Holy Russia.
Mutual trust of the better parts of the soul—that is the quality that draws both individuals and nations closer, freeing an intellectual exchange from suspicions and insincerity. These suspicions, which people usually have who discuss questions of confessional differences, are the main obstacles to rapprochement both in convictions and in life. Englishmen showed us the best parts of their souls, and we, in our turn, have to continue to study their theology and religious life.
As a consequence of Anthony’s trip to Great Britain, a special commission was formed by the Synod Abroad under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Anthony and including Archbishops Feofan and Sergii, Fr. N. Malakhov, and E. I. Makharoblidze, for the realization of the proposal for the rapprochement of Orthodox and Anglicans. However, the first meeting of the commission took place only in late 1926. One year later Anthony wrote to Douglas that, although the commission had performed some functions, it was hard for their members to meet, since they were residing in the three different countries.
The relations between Douglas and Anthony lapsed at the time of the division within the Russian Church Diaspora that took place in 1926. Although I do not have enough evidence to speculate on the reasons for this lapse, it is likely that continuing financial support by the Anglican Church of the theological institute in Paris, which became a stronghold of the ‘rival’ Metropolitan Evlogii, gave Metropolitan Anthony less impetus to deepen contacts with the Anglicans.
Nevertheless, in 1928 Metropolitan Anthony sent a letter of support to Archbishop Davidson in connection with his resignation. Anthony expressed his regrets that a new version of the Book of Common Prayer more compatible with Orthodox beliefs had not been approved by the parliament, and he expressed optimism regarding the possibility of a union of churches, although not in the near future.
In 1929 Anthony arrived in London for the consecration of Archimandrite Nikolai Karpov as Bishop in London. At the liturgy on June 29, two Anglican bishops were present as official representatives of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The first of these bishops stood vested throughout the liturgy next to the iconostasis wall while Canon Douglas held his crosier. On July 1, Anthony was received by Archbishop William Cosmo Gordon Lang. The latter, in his welcoming speech, expressed his deep regret for the sufferings of the Russian Church, especially the hierarchs and clergy. Anthony, in his response, reminded the primate of the Anglican Church about the memorandum which he had sent a month before their meeting. This memorandum contained a detailed report on the sufferings of the Russian clergy and described the Soviet concentration camp Solovki and its horrible execution section, Sekirka. Archbishop Lang replied that he would do all he could to help Russian clergy.
The Issue of Concelebrations in Australia
Various practices of other Orthodox Churches with respect to communion in prayer with the Anglicans raised the question of what guidelines to adopt for clergy of the ROCA. There was some correspondence regarding this controversial practice between Metropolitan Anthony and the ROCA clergy in Australia. From this correspondence it appears that Metropolitan Anthony sent an inquiry to Archimandrite Mefodii Shlemin in order to learn details of the concelebration of an Anglican Archbishop with a Greek Metropolitan. Mefodii noted that accounts of such cases rarely appeared in the press. It is interesting that according to this correspondence the use of the word “concelebration” is not limited to eucharistic communion. In this letter the word is applied to the case of an Anglican cleric who was present at the altar of a Syrian Orthodox church fully vested, and to whom, after the consecration of the Holy Gifts, prosphora was offered. At the same liturgy, the Epistle was read by a Catholic. It is obvious that Metropolitan Anthony did not welcome such ‘ecumenical’ gatherings, and Archimandrite Mefodii had to justify his own inaction by writing to Anthony, saying that if he (Mefodii) objected to such practices he would be reprimanded by other local clergy. Another ROCA cleric, Archpriest Valentin Antoniev, received a letter dated December 12, 1934 from Metropolitan Anthony saying that because the Anglicans are not united with the Orthodox Church and since there is no decision by the whole Orthodox Church concerning their orders, Fr. Valentin cannot pray with them while vested, but only while wearing the kamilavka. In response to this letter Archpriest Antoniev explained that good relations with Anglicans in Queensland were established by Protopresbyter A. Shabashev. Similarly, Canon Garland had often attended services at the St. Nicholas Cathedral (ROCA) in Brisbane wearing vestments granted to him by Patriarch Damianos of Jerusalem. Anthony’s correspondence with the clergy in Australia poses the following question: How are the cases that had been discussed with the Australian clergy different from having the Anglican bishops in London wear their vestments throughout the liturgy at Bishop Nikolai’s consecration?
Edgar Moore’s Case
On October 26, 1935, the question of how an Anglican priest, Edgar Moore, should be received into the Orthodox Church, was reviewed at a meeting of the ROCA’s Bishops’ Council, under the presidency of Metropolitan Anthony. This question was posed by Archbishop Anastasii in his report, ‘since it is the first case in the ROCA’:
‘Moore belonged to the High Church and (the Orthodox Church has not spoken regarding its ordinations) while the Churches of Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Cyprus recognized Apostolic succession in the Anglican Church, the other Churches have not come to an agreement and Archbishop Chrysostomos [Church of Greece] was decidedly against it. The Russian Church did not solve this question positively either. Our scholars who researched the question of the Apostolic succession of the Anglican hierarchy did not decide upon the recognition of Anglican ordination as a Mystery in the teaching of [those] Anglicans who do not recognize priesthood as a Mystery.
It was resolved to recognize as binding the practice of the Church of Russia, particularly in America when the late Patriarch Tikhon was the Archbishop, as the precedent for the reception of Anglican clergy, and to receive Edgar Moore into the Orthodox Church through ordination.’
It is clear that Metropolitan Anthony’s proposal for the reception of Anglicans by the third rite was never accepted by the ROCA.
The Understanding of Sacramental Oikonomia
Given the ongoing discussions about Anglican ordinations, Metropolitan Anthony published the article ‘Why Anglican Clergy May Be Received in their Orders’ in The Christian East, which also presents his general position on the heterodox. I cannot review in this paper all the ramifications of Anthony’s canonical exegesis, and I will emphasize only a few of the most relevant points.
According to Anthony, the way heretics and schismatics are received depends on the relationship of the dissidents to the Church. Anthony considered the concept that heretics and schismatics have a certain grace to have been inherited from the Latins.
According to Anthony every mystery has two sides: the visible and the invisible. The latter is intrinsic only to the true Church. For ‘the edification of many’ it is permissible to join the Church without the repetition of baptism when the societies separated from the Church have preserved an outward form of the sacrament. In this case a convert is being received according to the notion of sacramental oikonomia, and he receives the grace of baptism in the mode of the reception in the Church (e.g., chrismation).
Only a bishop may perform the reception of a clergyman. However, a proper ‘outer’ form should be present for the practice of such oikonomia. The consideration of benefits to the Church should guide its methods of reception. For instance, the Church received Nestorians in the laxer way when ‘they had forsaken their fanaticism and sought reunion with the true Church’. In determining the manner of reception, socio-political circumstances should also be considered.
Although Anthony’s relationship with Anglicans was largely focused on the practical needs of Russian refugees, it would be fair to say that he did hold genuinely ecumenical hopes for the return of Anglicanism to Orthodoxy.
There is solid evidence of this desire in his correspondence with Gardiner, which took place while Russia was still the Orthodox Christian Empire. Anthony, in his dealings with non-Orthodox Christians, provides an outstanding example of an uncompromising ecumenical witness, and while he was expecting favours from the Anglican Church, he felt neither obliged to concelebrate with Anglicans in Australia nor compelled to await the return of the Anglican Church to Orthodoxy, and he consecrated the first Orthodox bishop holding the title of a British see since the eleventh century: Bishop Nikolai of London.
Metropolitan Anthony was a strict adherent of the ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian of Carthage that baptism performed outside the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church is not valid. By the time of the Russian Revolution, Russian theological thought regarding non-Orthodox Christians paralleled the position of Blessed Augustine, who stated that a baptism performed by the schismatics in the name of the Holy Trinity is legitimate, given that it comes from the Lord Himself, and that this sacrament begins to act fully for salvation only when the sin of schism is cured by joining the Church.
This position was a foundation for the opinion expressed by St. Filaret of Moscow in his conversation with Dr. Young.
St. Cyprian’s ecclesiology, that there are no mysteries outside the Church, was never refuted by the Orthodox Church. However, to the degree to which I am capable of judging, in the practical aspect of reception the internal logic of canons follows Augustine rather than Cyprian. The attempt to reconcile Cyprianic ecclesiology with existing grades of reception into the Church, known as sacramental oikonomia, was only partially attended to by the Church Fathers (St. Basil the Great, Blasteres, and St. Nikodemus the Hagiorite). I have not been able to find evidence that any of the fathers of the canons subscribed to the view of Khomiakov and Metropolitan Anthony that in the reception of baptism performed outside the Orthodox Church only the external form was accepted, and that this form might be filled by grace at the moment of reception. The earliest traces of this scholastic explanation can be seen only in the eleventh century.
Anthony’s profound point at the anniversary’s festivities in Great Britain that ‘there is Christianity and there is the Church’ could be extended to an explanation of the reception into the Orthodox Church without the repetition of baptism. Indeed, there is only one Church, but this Church, as Archpriest Georges Florovsky beautifully explains,
continues to work in the schisms in expectation of that mysterious hour when the stubborn heart will be melted in the warmth of God’s prevenient grace, when the will and thirst for communality and unity will finally burst into flame.
In sum, according to the Orthodox tradition, baptism performed outside canonical boundaries is either accepted as an entry into some kind of Christian life, one that requires a further rite of reconciliation with the Church, or it is not recognized at all, in which case the one seeking to join the Orthodox Church would be received by baptism.
Throughout this paper we have seen what Archimandrite Kiprian Kern meant when he wrote that Anthony ‘represented a typical Russian paradox’. While most of his life in Russia he had struggled against the domination of the Church by the State, in the diaspora he had been eagerly discussing the issues of inter-Orthodox affairs with an Anglican functionary. Similarly, while he had been fighting against the ‘pseudomorphosis’ of Russian theology in favour of a return to the mind of Holy Fathers, he challenged those points of Orthodox ecclesiology, which in fact were authentic and patristic. Furthermore, while his ecclesiological model of the Church could be fairly represented as a fortress under siege, his personal and spiritual broad-mindedness, his compassion for humankind, so vividly seen in his speech to the Anglican seminarians, did not allow this ecclesiology to result in self-sufficiency and narrow-mindedness.
 Archimandrite Ambrosius Pogodin, ‘On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches’, tr. Alvian N. Smirensky: the web site of Holy Trinity Cathedral in San Francisco, http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch0.html, accessed March 30, 2008; originally published in Russian in Vestnik Russkogo Khristianskogo Dvizheniia 173 (I-1996) & 174 (II-1996/I-1997). First the candidate is received into the Orthodox Church through the third rite, repentance; then the recognition of his clerical status is considered by the Synod; in the case of a positive resolution the candidate is received by vesting (Protoierei Konstantin Nikol’skii, Posobie k izucheniiu ustava bogosluzhenia Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi (1960), 685).
 There is fairly extensive archival material regarding Moore’s case in the Canon Douglas papers at the Lambeth Palace Library, which I have been unable to explore.
Metropolitan Antonii (Khrapovitskii): Archpastor of the Russian Diaspora, Conference Proceedings, V. Tsurikov, ed. (Foundation of Russian History, 2014), 92-113.