Articles Canon Law Non-Orthodox Other Orthodox Slesarev, Alexander V.

Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad at the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Congress

Archbishop Alexander (Nemelovskii), the fourth from the right next to Patrirarch Meletios (Metaxakis)

Issues 2 and 4 of Orthodox Life, 1994 contain the study by Bishop Photius of Triditsa dedicated to the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Congress. The author used vast bibliography but did not show any interest in understanding his opponents. In this case, the volume, A Quest for Reform of the Orthodox Church: The 1923 Pan-Orthodox Congress published in 2008 by Patrick Viscuso, became a standard academic point of reference. Without endorsing this congress, Prof. Slesarev in his article continues in the steps of objective scholarship.

Preparations for a Pan-Orthodox Council have been one of the most pressing issues in inter-Orthodox relations in the 20th and early 21st centuries. The first practical step towards bringing this idea to fruition was the so-called Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople in 1923. Studying the materials from and circumstances of this gathering is relevant not only in the context of contemporary trends in inter-Orthodox relations, but also in order to grasp the historical journey of the Russian diaspora church. This relevance is borne out by the fact that it was attended by such notable hierarchs of the Russian Church as Archbishop Anastasy (Gribanovskii), First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) from 1936–1964, and Archbishop Alexander (Nemolovskii), head of the Diocese of Brussels from 1936–1960. It should be noted that the role of Russian bishops in the proceedings and decisions of the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Congress has not been sufficiently covered and understood in modern historiography.[1]Vetoshnikov, K. Istoriia Konstantinopolʹskogo Patriarkhata v XX veke [History of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 20th Century]. Cand. theol. thesis. Sergiev Posad: Moscow Theological … Continue reading The present paper aims to fill this gap. This translation has been made possible by a grant from the American Russian Aid Association – Otrada, Inc.

The main source of information that allows one to get an idea of the involvement of Russian Orthodox Church hierarchs in the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Congress is the Greek-language anthology of documents titled “Minutes and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople (May 10–June 8, 1923)”. Published by the Constantinople Patriarchal Printing House in 1923, it includes not only texts of official resolutions of the Congress, but also minutes of sessions that reflect the positions of the Russian hierarchs on the issues discussed.[2]Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (10 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). … Continue reading

The Patriarchate of Constantinople tried to force a rapprochement with the Church of England in the face of the Greco-Turkish War of 1919–22 and the preparations for the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne (July 24, 1923), which was the most important motive for preparing for the Pan-Orthodox Congress. The development of Orthodox–Anglican dialogue was perceived by the Greek side as a means of attracting political support from Britain in the post-war restructuring and determination of the border between Turkey and Greece.[3]For details, cf.: K. Vetoshnikov. Istoriia Konstantinopolʹskogo Patriarkhata v XX veke [The History of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 20th Century. p. 49; A. V. Slesarev,  … Continue reading

At the time, Patriarch Meletios IV (Mataxakis) of Constantinople was seeking to bring to fruition the wishes expressed in the Circular Letter (Encyclical) “To the Churches of Christ throughout All the World” (“Пρός τάς ἁπαντάχου Ἐκκκλησίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ”), which was issued in January 1920 by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, with Metropolitan Dorotheos (Mammelis) of Brusa presiding.[4]Ελευθέριος Γκουτζίδης. Ἔλεγχος καί ἀνατροπή τῆς διδακτορικῆς διατριβῆς τοῦ «Δημητριάδος» Χριστόδουλου … Continue readingThis encyclical, which was published at the height of the Greek-Turkish War, was a pitch for Orthodox-Anglican rapprochement. It expressed a special hope for productive ecumenical dialogue aimed at doing away with disagreements in the relations among disparate Christian denominations in order to “make preparations for and facilitate the cause of the full – in time, with God’s help – blessed reunion of all the Churches”.[5]“Okruzhnoe sobornoe poslanie Konstantinopolʹskoi Tserkvi «K tserkvam khristianskim, vo vsem mire obretaiushchimsia” [“Encyclical of the Church of Constantinople ‘To the Churches of Christ … Continue reading The Encyclical stated that one means of achieving inter-Christian unity was “to adopt a common calendar such that the great Christian feasts may be celebrated at the same time by all the Churches” (“διὰ τῆς παραδοχῆς ἑνιαίου ἡμερολογίου προς ταυτόχρονονον ἑορτασμὸν τῶν μεγάλων χριστιανικῶν ἑορτῶν ὑπὸ πασῶν τῶν ̉Εκκλησιῶν”). The Encyclical was published in Greek, English, French, and Russian, and sent to all the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches and heads of non-Orthodox confessions.[6]Ἐλευθέριος Γκουτζίδης. Ἔλεγχος καί ἀνατροπή τῆς διδακτορικῆς διατριβῆς…, p. 54; “Okruzhnoe sobnornoe poslanie…”, p. 37. For many years to come, all further work of the Patriarchate of Constantinople would be based on the ecumenical principles set out in this Encyclical.

On February 3, 1923, in an attempt to realize the desire expressed in the Encyclical, Patriarch Meletios IV (Mataxakis) of Constantinople issued Encyclical No. 872/467, “To the Blessed and Honored Primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Serbia, Cyprus, Hellas, and Romania” (“Πρὸς τοὺς Μακαριωτάτους καὶ Σεβασμιωτάτους Προέδρους τῶν Ἁγίων Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν Ἀλεξανδρείας, Ἀντιοχείας, Ἱεροσολύμον, Σερβίας, Κύπρου, Ἑλλάδος καὶ Ρουμανίας”). In this message, Patriarch Meletios stated that there were many pressing issues in contemporary church life that required pan-Orthodox discussion and resolution, and he emphasized the need to bring the Church’s timekeeping into conformity with the Gregorian Calendar adopted in Europe and America. Moreover, the necessity of reforming the Orthodox calendar was explained in terms of the importance of achieving Christian unity in the celebration of the Nativity of Christ and the Resurrection.[7]Πρὸς τοὺς Μακαριωτάτους καὶ Σεβασμιωτάτους Προέδρους τῶν Ἁγίων Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν Ἀλεξανδρείας, … Continue reading The Patriarch of Constantinople proposed that a ‘Committee’ (or ‘Commission’, Ἐπιτροπή) be convened in Istanbul after the Easter holidays, with one or two representatives from each of the local Churches mentioned above, in order to discuss the issues at hand.[8]Πρὸς τοὺς Μακαριωτάτους καὶ Σεβασμιωτάτους Προέδρους τῶν Ἁγίων Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν. p. 6–7.

By the time the Constantinople Committee was convened, the ROCOR Synod of Bishops had established a good, constructive relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which found expression in terms of mutual support in political and ecclesiastical matters. One example of this can be seen in the joint efforts of Patriarch Meletios of Constantinople and Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitskii), the chairman of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops, to oppose the Renovationist (Living Church) Schism in the Russian Church. For instance, on May 5, 1922, the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople adopted a Memorandum in defense of persecuted Christians in Asia and Russia, in which it condemned the Bolshevik campaign to expropriate church treasures and the arrest of Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and All Russia.[9]“Memorandum Vselenskoi Patriarkhii v zashchitu gonimykh khristian v Azii i Rossii” [“Memorandum of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Defense of Persecuted Christians in Asia and Russia”], in: … Continue reading The text of the Memorandum, which was distributed to the leaders of all the Christian Churches, was also sent to Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitskii) with a request that it be forwarded to Patriarch Tikhon.[10]“Gramota Sviateishego Meletiia, Patriarkha Vselenskogo, na imia Predsedatelia b. Vysshego Russkogo Tserkovnogo Upravleniia zagranitsei” [“Letter of His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios to … Continue reading This circumstance demonstrates that Metropolitan Antony was recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople as a representative and spokesman for the interests of the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church in the diaspora.

Counting on the support of the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches, including the Patriarch of Constantinople, Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitskii) sent them an Encyclical on February 18, 1923, appealing to them not to recognize the sacraments of the Renovationist and Ukrainian Autocephalous schisms.[11]“Poslanie Predsedatel’stvuiushchego Vremennogo Arkhiereiskogo Sinoda Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi zagranitsei – Sviateishim Patriarkham Vostochnym, Glavam Avtokefal’nykh Pravoslavnykh … Continue reading A little more than a month later, on April 24, 1923, the Holy Synod and the Joint Council of the Patriarchate of Constantinople adopted a Resolution forbidding the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Moscow from taking part in the trial of Patriarch Tikhon (Bellavin) of Moscow and All Russia.[12]“Postanovlenie Vselenskogo Patriarkhata po voprosu o sude nad Sviateishim Tikhonom, Patriarkhom Moskovskim i vseia Rossii” [“Resolution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the Trial of Patriarch … Continue reading It should be noted that at this time, the Second Local All-Russian Council (April 29–May 9, 1923), which was supposed to depose the Patriarch (who was under arrest), was about to commence. Furthermore, the resolution adopted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate recommended that Russian hierarchs refrain from participating in this condemnation, since “all Orthodoxy (ἅπασα ἡ Ὀρθοδοξία) looks to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia as a confessor (ὁμολογητὴν)”.[13]Ibid. This decree served as a basis for the ROCOR Synod of Bishops overturning a resolution adopted by the Renovationist Council.[14]“Otzyv Vysokopreosviashchenneishego Mitropolita Antoniia o Moskovskom soborishche” [“Response of His Eminence Metropolitan Antony to the Robber Council in Moscow”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti … Continue reading

One important aspect of the relationship between the ROCOR Synod of Bishops and the Ecumenical Patriarchate was the Russian hierarchs’ support for the latter’s foreign policy. On January 4, 1923, Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitskii) sent an official letter to the President of the Lausanne Conference expressing his concern that the Patriarchate of Constantinople might be displaced from Istanbul. The following explanation was given for why the Ecumenical Patriarch could not be relocated: “The Patriarch of Constantinople is the supreme judge for Orthodox Christians in all countries, and the abolition or denigration of this Apostolic See would be a profound offense and abasement for the entire Orthodox Church.”[15]“Predsedatel’stvuiushchii Arkhiereiskogo Sinoda Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi zagranitsei Prezidentu Lozannskoi Konferentsii” [“From the Chair of the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad to … Continue reading

Owing to this constructive cooperation between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the ROCOR Synod of Bishops, the Russian hierarchs in the diaspora initially took a positive stance on Patriarch Meletios’ initiative to convene a Committee of Representatives of the Local Churches. An first announcement about this planned gathering was first printed in Issues 5–6 (March 14–28, 1923) of Tserkovnye vedomosti, the official press outlet of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. In the appendix to the official part of the journal, the editors placed a brief note titled, “A Meeting on the New Style,” from which it followed that in the near future, Patriarch Meletios intended to hold a meeting in Constantinople with representatives of the Eastern Patriarchates and Autocephalous  Churches to discuss a reform of the Church calendar.[16]“Soveshchanie o novom stile” [“Consultation on the New Calendar”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti. 1923. 5–6. p. 9.

It is worth noting that the official annals of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia do not contain any information about sending a representative to the Committee of Local Churches. One might suppose that this was because the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church was not mentioned by name in Patriarch Meletios’ Encyclical of February 3, 1923, “To the Most Blessed and Honored Primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Serbia, Cyprus, Hellas and Romania”.[17]Πρὸς τοὺς Μακαριωτάτους καὶ Σεβασμιωτάτους Προέδρους τῶν Ἁγίων Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν Ἀλεξανδρείας, … Continue reading Nonetheless, the gathering was attended by Archbishop Anastasy (Gribanovskii) of Kishinev and Khotynʹ, the Administrator of the Russian Orthodox Churches in the Constantinople District,  and Archbishop Alexander (Nemolovskii), who was resident in Istanbul and until 1922 was the administrator of the North American Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The pan-Orthodox Council, organized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, was inaugurated in Istanbul on May 10, 1923. The evolution of the official name of the gathering is quite remarkable, and reflects the desire of the organizers and participants to raise the status of the event. As noted above, Patriarch Meletios’ Encyclical of February 3, 1923, called upon the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches to send their representatives to take part in a ‘Committee’ (Ἐπιτροπή). On the opening day, it was called a ‘Committee [Commission] of the Orthodox Churches’ (Ἐπιτροπή τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκλησιῶν).[18]“ΕΠΙΣΗΜΟΣ ΕΝΑΡΞΙΣΤΩΝ ΕΡΓΑΣΙΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΩΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΩΝ.” Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν … Continue reading Subsequently, the official name would undergo two further changes, as shall be discussed below.

Coming to the matter of the makeup of the Committee of Orthodox Churches, it must be noted not only that authoritative figures were present at it, but also that direct representatives of a number of autocephalous Churches were absent from it. In particular, there was nobody representing the Orthodox Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The plenipotentiary representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople were Metropolitan Kallinikos of Cyzicus, Professor Vasileios Antoniadis of the Halki Theological School, and Archimandrite Germanos, General Secretary of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Serbian Orthodox Church was represented by Metropolitan Gavrilo (Dožić) of Montenegro and Primorje, Patriarch of Serbia from 1938–1950, and Milutin Milanković, creator of the New Julian Calendar and Professor of Mathematics and Mechanics at Belgrade University; the representatives of the Romanian Orthodox Church were Archimandrite Julius Scriban, a professor from Bucharest Central Seminary, and Senator Petru Drăghici. The Orthodox Church of Greece was represented by Metropolitan Iakovos of Dyrrhachium. The authority to represent the Orthodox Church of Cyprus was delegated to a hierarch of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Metropolitan Basil (Georgadis) of Nicaea, later Patriarch of Constantinople from 1925–1929.[19]Ibid., pp. 11–12.

The issue of the status and authority of the Russian Archbishops Anastasy and Alexander, who took part in the Committee of Orthodox Churches, demands particular attention. In official Committee documents, they are portrayed as being hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church. Archbishops Anastasy and Alexander are referred to not as ‘representatives’ (ἀντιπροσωπευόντοι), but as ‘invitees of the Church of Constantinople’ (κατ’ αὐτεπάγγελτον πρόσκλησιν αὐτῶν ἀπὸ μέρους τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Κωνσταντινουπόλεως). At the same time, they came second in the list of participants after the representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.[20]Ibid., p. 11. Over the course of the meetings of Committee of Orthodox Churches (later renamed ‘Pan-Orthodox Congress’), the status of the Russian hierarchs changed. In a Resolution of the ROCOR Council of Bishops on June 4, 1923, they were recognized as delegates of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Pan-Orthodox Congress.[21]“Opredeleniia Sobora Arkhiereev Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi zagranitsei. Po voprosu o reforme pravoslavnogo kalendaria” [“Resolutions of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad. On … Continue reading

The opening ceremony of the Committee of Orthodox Churches is recorded in the minutes and resolutions of the same, as well as in the journal Tserkovnaia zhizn’. On May 10, 1923, at 10 a.m., representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches, members of the Holy Synod, and high-ranking officials of the Patriarchate of Constantinople gathered in the Great Patriarchal Throne Room. The Patriarchal Archdeacon greeted the representatives in each delegation and escorted them to seats specially prepared for them. Archbishops Anastasy and Alexander were accorded high honors. Even though they were not official delegates of the Russian Orthodox Church, they were seated directly behind the representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Half an hour later, Patriarch Meletios entered the hall, vested in the mandyas and carrying a paterissa, and preceded by two deacons carrying the trikirion and dikirion. Upon ascending the Patriarchal throne, he donned an epitrachelion and omophorion, after which he offered a short prayer service. Still seated on the throne, the Patriarch disrobed and gave a welcome address in Greek, in which he outlined the tasks facing the Committee of Orthodox Churches, among which he regarded reforming the Church’s system of timekeeping as one of the most important. Next, the Director of the Patriarchal Chancery read a Russian translation of the Patriarch’s address, and Archimandrite Lukakis read the same text in Romanian.[22]ΕΠΙΣΗΜΟΣ ΕΝΑΡΞΙΣΤΩΝ ΕΡΓΑΣΙΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΩΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΩΝ. pp. 11–14; Mezhdupravoslavnaia konferentsiia v Konstantinopole, in: … Continue reading

Metropolitan Gavrilo of Montenegro addressed Patriarch Meletios on behalf of the guests; in his speech, he offered his opinion on the particular significance of the Committee of Orthodox Churches, and referred to it for the first time as a ‘Pan-Orthodox Committee’ (Πανορθοδόξος Ἐπιτροπή) and ‘Pan-Orthodox Congress’ (Πανορθοδόξος Συνεδρίον).[23]ΕΠΙΣΗΜΟΣ ΕΝΑΡΞΙΣΤΩΝ ΕΡΓΑΣΙΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΩΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΩΝ. pp. 14–15.

On the same day, after a short break, the first session of the Committee of Orthodox Churches began, chaired by Patriarch Meletios of Constantinople. Quite predictably, the attention of the attendees immediately turned to the issue of the reform of the church calendar. During the ensuing discussion, Archbishop Anastasy stated that he had no instructions from the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR regarding the calendar issue and would refrain from giving a verdict on it. Archbishop Alexander, who was present at the meeting, did not state a position on the topic. Both hierarchs signed the minutes of the first session.[24]А´. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Πέμπτη, 10 Μαΐου 1923), Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου … Continue reading

At the second session of the Committee of Orthodox Churches on May 11, 1923, it was decided to form three sub-committees dedicated to studying the dogmatic and canonical, mathematical and astronomical, and practical aspects of the calendar reform in depth. The third sub-committee consisted of Metropolitan Gavrilo of Montenegro, Metropolitan Iakovos of Dyrrhachium, Archbishop Anastasy, and Archbishop Alexander. The head of the Patriarchal Chancery, C. Papaioannou, acted as Secretary.[25]В´. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Παρασκευή, 10 Μαΐου 1923). Ibid., p. 23.

That same day, Patriarch Meletios announced a list of issues that, in his opinion, required reflection and resolution at the pan-Orthodox level. In particular, he suggested considering the following: 1) the possibility of transferring celebrations of saints’ days from weekdays to the following Sundays; 2) impediments to marriage; 3) the admissibility of marriage for bishops, second marriages for widowed clergy, and marriage after ordination; 4) the acceptability of abbreviating and simplifying church services; 5) the regularization of fasting practices; 6) the frequency of convening Pan-Orthodox Councils.[26]Ibid., pp. 24–26. At the initiative of Metropolitan Gavrilo of Montenegro, the following questions were placed on the Committee’s agenda: 1) grounds for the dissolution of marriage; 2) conditions for mixed marriages; 3) canonical age of ordination to all degrees of the priesthood; 4) the possibility for Roman Catholic clergymen to be received into Orthodoxy contingent on their keeping their orders and being allowed to marry; 5) outward appearance and dress of clerics.[27]Ibid., p. 26.

During the second session, Archbishop Anastasy gave an address on the “Second Local All-Russian Council” in Moscow, whose members he characterized as “acting in full accord with the Soviet regime”.[28]Ibid., p. 28. Reporting on the non-canonical decision of this Renovationist Council to defrock His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and All Russia, Archbishop Anastasy called the Patriarch a symbol of Christian courage and bravery defeating the forces of hell acting against the Church of Christ. In the words of Archbishop Anastasy, the Pan-Orthodox Assembly (Πανορθόδοξος συνέλευσις) convened by the Ecumenical Patriarchate would only be able to fulfill its duty if it gave a resolute assessment of the events unfolding in Moscow. Calling upon those present not to remain indifferent to Patriarch Tikhon’s fate, Archbishop Anastasy proposed that the decisions of the Renovationist Council be declared null and void, and that an official statement by Committee of Orthodox Churches in support of Patriarch Tikhon be issued as soon as possible.[29]Ibid., pp. 28–29.

In a reply to Archbishop Anastasy, Patriarch Meletios stated that the gravity of the matter at hand left no room for haste in issuing such a statement. The Ecumenical Patriarchate believed it was necessary not only to condemn what had happened in Moscow, but also to achieve tangible practical results, which would required more complete information. While expressing hope that the representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Moscow would supply this information, Patriarch Meletios suggested moving back the deadline for adopting a resolution on the situation in the Russian Orthodox Church. The members of the Committee present at the meeting expressed their agreement with the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch.[30]Ibid., p. 29.

At the third session of the Committee of Orthodox Churches on May 18, 1923, Metropolitan Iakovos of Dyrrhachium, a hierarch of the Church of Greece, expressed the opinion that the names ‘Inter-Orthodox Committee’ (Διορθόδοξος Ἐπιτροπή) and ‘Committee of Orthodox Churches’ (Ἐπιτροπή τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν) did not befit the status of the event. He suggested that the meeting instead be called the ‘Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople’ (Τὸ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον) or ‘Congress of the Orthodox Churches in Constantinople’ (Τὸ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Συνέδριον τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν).[31]Γ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Παρασκευὴ, 18 Μαΐου 1923). Ibid., p. 48-49.

During discussion of this point, Archbishop Anastasy agreed with Metropolitan Gavrilo of Montenegro that it was advisable to rename the ‘Committee’ of Orthodox Churches a ‘Congress’ or ‘Conference’. Archbishop Alexander, who was present at the meeting, abstained from voicing his opinion on the matter. The discussion resulted in a resolution to call the council a ‘Pan-Orthodox Congress’ (Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον).[32]Ibid., p. 49.

On the same day, the subcommittee for the study of practical aspects of the calendar reform, with the ROCOR hierarchs among its members, put forward the results of its work for consideration by the Pan-Orthodox Congress. According to the conclusions presented by the subcommittee, not only the fixed feasts of the annual cycle, but also the Orthodox Paschalia, ought to be brought into alignment with real astronomical time. The use of an imperfect calendar led to discrepancies in the celebrations of the great feasts across Christian countries, which was not right. At the same time, the members of the subcommittee noted in their final report that there might be criticism of the calendar reform from conservative church circles. It is worth nothing that Archbishop Alexander was among the signatories the final document of the subcommittee on practical issues, along with Metropolitan Gavrilo of Montenegro, Metropolitan Iakovos of Dyrrhachium, and Secretary C. Papaioannou. Archbishop Anastasy, while present at the meeting, did not put his signature on the subcommittee’s report. However, both of the Russian bishops signed the final minutes of the third session of the Pan-Orthodox Congress on May 18, 1923.[33]Ἔκθεσις τῆς Ἐπιτροπῆς τοῦ πρακτικοῦ μέρους. Ibid., pp. 54–58.

At the fourth session of the Pan-Orthodox Congress, on May 21, 1923, Patriarch Meletios made a speech stating that it was necessary to bring the Church’s timekeeping into alignment with the civil calendar and that there were no canonical impediments to reforming the calendar. At the same time, he suggested switching to the New Calendar to calculate the immovable feasts starting as early as October 1923, while leaving the Paschalia alone.[34]Δ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Δευτέρα, 23 Μαΐου 1923). Ibid., p. 66–68. After Patriarch Meletios’ speech, Archbishop Anastasy took the floor, pointing out the possible negative consequences of the calendar reform. Changing the system of timekeeping would lead to temptation in the Local Churches, Archbishop Anastasy thought; above all, this problem would affect the Jerusalem Orthodox Church, which the Russian Orthodox people had come to perceive as the protector and guardian of Orthodox traditions.[35]Ibid., p. 68–69. By this, Archbishop Anastasy meant possible confusion of Orthodox pilgrims who linked the descent of the Holy Fire at the Holy Sepulchre with Easter as calculated according to the Julian Calendar.

In his rebuttal to Archbishop Anastasy, Patriarch Meletios referred to his own correspondence with the Patriarch of Jerusalem on the calendar reform. In particular, he quoted a fragment of a telegram in which the latter spoke of the relevance of calendar issue for his Patriarchate in the context of the opposition of Orthodox and Roman Catholic feast days. It was further pointed out that the Patriarch of Jerusalem objected to celebrating Easter with the Catholics and that he was in favor of a collective decision of the Local Churches on the matter of the calendar.[36]Ibid., p. 69.

During the discussion, there were some voices in favor of the calendar reform. However, Archbishop Anastasy noted that Christian Easter and Jewish Passover might coincide if Easter were moved onto the New Calendar. He argued that this would be inadmissible with reference to decisions of the First Ecumenical Council, Apostolic Rule 7, Rule 1 of the Council of Antioch, and Emperor Constantine the Great’s Letter to the Bishops. The supporters of the calendar reform advanced the counterargument that Christian Easter and Jewish Passover could not be allowed to coincide due to the same system being used to calculate the feast day, but this could still be allowed to occur if the dates accidentally coincided. The fourth session of the Pan-Orthodox Congress concluded with a discussion of a draft proposal for the new church calendar, presented by Archimandrite Pankratios of Vatopedi. This discussion was recorded in the minutes of the meeting, signed by all the participants, including Archbishops Anastasios and Alexander.[37]Ibid., pp. 70–77.

The Fifth Session of the Pan-Orthodox Congress took place on May 23, 1923. On this day, a report was presented by Professor Dimitrescu from Romania, who argued that there were no dogmatic and canonical grounds for allowing Orthodox clergy to marry twice or marry after ordination. This was followed by a continuation of the discussion of the reform of the church calendar, with a speech by Professor Milanković of the University of Belgrade. Archimandrite Julius Scriban of the Patriarchate of Romania proposed that the reformed Orthodox calendar be called the Revised Julian Calendar rather than the Gregorian Calendar. At the end of the meeting, Charles Gore (1853–1932), the former Bishop of Oxford, addressed the Congress and reflected on the importance of calendar reform in the process of rapprochement between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches. For his part, Patriarch Meletios stated the readiness of the Orthodox side to accept the new calendar and asked Bishop Gore to notify the Archbishop of Canterbury of this. The minutes of the fifth session feature the signature of Archbishop Alexander, who had not chimed in during the discussion. Archbishop Anastasy’s signature is missing from the minutes.[38]E’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τετάρτη, 23 Μαΐου 1923). Ibid., pp. 78–90. At this time, it is difficult to say for certain whether he participated in the fifth session of the Congress. Given that he was such an active participant at the previous meetings, it can be assumed that he was not present at the Congress on that day, since the official minutes do not contain any record of his participation.

The principled stance of the Russian hierarchs was most eloquently expressed at the sixth session of the Pan-Orthodox Congress, which took place on May 25, 1923. The agenda of this session included a discussion of the question of allowing Orthodox clergy to marry twice. After reports by Metropolitan Gavrilo of Montenegro, Archimandrite Julius Scriban, and Metropolitan Vasileios of Nicaea, who allowed for the possibility of revising the established norms regarding marriage for clergy, a lively discussion began. Most of the attendees at the meeting, including the Patriarch of Constantinople, approved of the initiative.[39]ΣΤ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Παρασκευὴ, 25 Μαΐου 1923). Ibid., p. 91–118. Archbishop Anastasy, however, made a statement to the effect that allowing second-marriage for clergy could be considered a violation of the canonical order. He backed up his position by citing the words of St. Paul (“a bishop must be a husband of one wife”, 1 Tim. 3:2), which in the established Orthodox tradition are taken as requiring priests and deacons to be married prior to being ordained. Further, Archbishop Anastasy referred to Canon 7 of the Council of Neocaesarea, which forbids presbyters from being present at weddings of bigamists, since doing so would legitimize such marriages. Archbishop Anastasy reported that this question had been considered at the 1906 Pre-conciliar Assembly of the Church of Russia and at the All-Russian Local Council of 1917–1918; however, after these deliberations, no decision was ultimately made regarding second marriages for clergy. According to Vladyka, the reason for this was the persuasive argument of the well-known Orthodox canonist Bishop Nikodim (Milaš) of Dalmatia and Istria. One of the means of resolving the problem of widowed clergy who could not find the strength to live a lonely life was to simplify the procedure for defrocking. Archbishop Alexander declared himself to be in full agreement with Archbishop Anastasy, who had accurately conveyed the stance of the Russian Orthodox Church.[40]Ibid., p. 119–120.

These statements by the Russian hierarchs were criticized by Metropolitan Gavrilo of Montenegro, who countered with the position of the Serbian Orthodox Church, which was inclined to oikonomia in the matter of second marriages for clergy but did not dare to change its current practice without a pan-Orthodox discussion. According to Metropolitan Gavrilo, the problem was so urgent for the Serbian Church that it could cause major upheavals in the church if a positive resolution were not adopted. Archbishop Anastasy, however, insisted on the need to adhere to the existing canonical norms. At the suggestion of Metropolitan Gavrilo, a commission was formed to study the question of the admissibility of second marriage for Orthodox clergy. The commission consisted of Metropolitan Vasileios of Nicaea (chair), Metropolitan Gavrilo of Montenegro, Metropolitan Iakovos of Dyrrhachium, and Archbishop Alexander. It is noteworthy that Archbishop Anastasy, while an active participant in the sixth session of the Pan-Orthodox Congress, refused to sign the text of the minutes of the meeting.[41]Ibid., p. 122–128.

Archbishop Anastasy did not participate in subsequent sessions of the Congress. In contemporary Russian historiography, one finds the view that, “Archbishop Anastasy left the gathering in protest after taking part in only four out of the ten sessions.”[42]A. A. Kostriukov. “Russkoe tserkovnoe zarubezhʹe i Vselenskii Prestol” [“The Russian Diaspora Church and the Ecumenical Throne”], in: Priest Alexander Mazyrin (ed.). K istorii … Continue reading This assertion is based on the fact that Archbishop Anastasy only signed the minutes of four sessions. However, the minutes of the sixth session – though not signed by him – contain a verbatim record of his speeches during the discussion. The assertion that Archbishop Anastasy left the Congress in protest thus does not stand up to criticism. The minutes of the meeting do not contain the slightest mention of Archbishop Anastasy, the Administrator of the Russian Orthodox Churches in the Constantinople District, leaving the Congress as a sign of protest. Archbishop Anastasy left Istanbul to attend the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which commenced in Sremski Karlovci, Yugoslavia, on May 31, 1923. For this reason, he was unable to attend the Congress in Constantinople, the seventh session of which was held on May 30, 1923.[43]A. A. Kostriukov. “Russkaia zarubezhnaia tserkovʹ v pervoi polovine 1920-kh godov” [“The Russian Church Abroad in the Early 1920s”], in: Organizatsiia tserkovnogo upravleniia v emigratsii i … Continue reading

The seventh session of the Pan-Orthodox Congress began with Patriarch Meletios announcing a draft resolution on the reform of the church calendar. According to this draft, the discrepancy between the Julian Calendar and real astronomical time was to be eliminated by subtracting 13 days. The transition from the Julian Calendar to the contemporary European calendar was planned for October 1, 1923. The draft resolution also stipulated that the date of Easter should be calculated according to the next full moon after the spring equinox.[44]Ζ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τετάρτη, 30 Μαΐου 1923). Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου … Continue reading Even though the First Ecumenical Council had already determined that Easter was to be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, the resolution of the Pan-Orthodox Congress made changes to the Orthodox system for calculating Easter. The essence of the innovation was that, for a long time, Orthodox Easter had been based not on the real astronomical day of the vernal equinox, but rather on an arithmetic one determined according to the Julian Calendar. In other words, the draft resolution announced by Patriarch Meletios formally preserved the traditional logic of how Easter was calculated, but in reality it entailed making corrections to the Paschalia tables and adjusting the dates of Easter celebrations in the years to come.

It is quite remarkable that the minutes of the seventh session report that there was no discussion of whether to approve the draft calendar reform, instead noting laconically: “The Congress adopts an aforesaid version of the resolution” (“Τὸ Συνέδριον ἀποδέχεται τὴν ὡς ἄνω διατύπωσιν τῆς ἀποφάσεως”).[45]Ibid., p. 131.

While he did not express any objections to the draft resolution on the reform of the church calendar, Archbishop Alexander, who was present at the meeting, expressed his desire to continue the discussion begun in the previous days on the question of allowing second marriages for the clergy. In a memorandum, he noted the opposition of the representatives of the Serbian and Romanian Orthodox Churches and referred to the authority of the All-Russian Local Council of 1917, which had also considered the issue at hand and had not authorized any revision of established canonical norms. According Archbishop Alexander, only an Ecumenical Council could revise the Church’s legislation on clerical marriage. At the same time, Archbishop Alexander was highly critical about the expediency of invoking the principle of canonical leniency (oikonomia). According to him, oikonomia had existed in the Ancient Church, but one direct consequence of it was the Latin Church’s distortion of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by incorporating the filioque into it. After calling to mind Christ’s words forbidding divorce except in the case of adultery, Archbishop Alexander enumerated the grounds for dissolution of marriage accepted in the Russian Orthodox Church (unexplained disappearance of one of the spouses, mental disorder of one of the spouses, unsuitability of one of the spouses for marriage, adultery, etc.). However, in his opinion, even these excusable circumstances could not be grounds for giving clerics a blessing to enter into a second marriage.[46]Ibid., p. 131–136.

After Archbishop Alexander finished his speech, Patriarch Meletios took the floor. He disagreed with Archbishop Alexander and declared that the decision to allow second marriage for clerics should be a canonical one rather than a manifestation of oikonomia (i.e., an effectual relaxation of the canons).[47]Ibid., pp. 136–137.

The secretary then read a memorandum from Metropolitan Kallinikos of Cyzicus reporting on the work of a specialized commission to study issues related to clergy marriage. He noted Archbishop Anastasy’s absence and the unanimous adoption of draft resolutions by the other members of the commission. The first of these drafts was titled “Second Marriage of Widowed Priests and Deacons,” and it allowed for the canonical possibility of Orthodox clergy remarrying. It was assumed that once this decree was officially approved, it would have legal canonical force for the entire Orthodox world until an Ecumenical Council could be convened.[48]Ο В’. ΓΑΜΟΣ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΧΗΡΕΙΑ ΙΕΡΕΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΑΚΟΝΩΝ. Ibid., pp. 137–138. It is evident that the draft of this decree, which made a claim to authority for all the Orthodox, ignored the opinions of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, who referred to the stance of the All-Russian Local Council of 1917–1918. For this reason, the canonical merit of this decision was highly dubious, and it did not in itself express the view of the entire Orthodox world.

After this, there followed draft resolutions dealing with questions that Russian Orthodox hierarchs had not been actively involved in working through. In particular, resolutions on “Episcopal Rank and Marriage”,[49]ΤΟ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΙΚΟΝ ΑΞΙΩΜΑ ΚΑΙ Ο ΓΑΜΟΣ. Ibid., pp. 138–139. “On the Age of Ordination of Deacons, Priests, and Bishops”,[50]ΠΟΙΟΝ ΤΟ ΟΡΙΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΗΛΙΚΙΑΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΧΕΙΡΟΤΟΝΙΑΝ ΔΙΑΚΟΝΩΝ, ΙΕΡΕΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΩΝ. Ibid., pp. 139–140., and “On the Outward Appearance of Clergy in the Community”[51]Η ΕΝ ΤΗ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ ΕΞΩΤΕΡΙΚΗ ΠΕΡΙΒΟΛΗ ΤΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ. Ibid., p. 140. were put before the Pan-Orthodox Committee.

During a discussion of these draft resolutions, Archbishop Alexander disagreed with the decision to give clergy permission to marry after ordination. Referring to Canon 10 of the Council of Ancyra,[52]“As for Deacons who are appointed in spite of their condition, if they gave evidence and insisted that they would have to marry, being unable to remain single, and who thereafter have married, let … Continue reading he admitted, as an act of oikonomia, that deacons who had previously stated their desire to form a family could marry after being ordained. However, Archbishop Alexander perceived that allowing to priests to marry was not acceptable.[53]Ζ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τετάρτη, 30 Μαΐου 1923), Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου … Continue reading

As the minutes of the seventh session of the Pan-Orthodox Congress testify, the overwhelming majority of the attendees, led by the Patriarch of Constantinople, did not find Archbishop Alexander’s arguments convincing. At the end of the discussion, Archbishop Alexander urged those present to take into account the catastrophic position of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union, which prevented it from fully participating in the Congress and giving a substantial account of its view on the matter being discussed.[54]Ibid., p. 150.

The eighth session of the Pan-Orthodox Congress, on June 1, 1923, began with a discussion of the canonical age for taking holy orders, a topic that had been raised at the previous session. Patriarch Meletios, presiding at the session, asked those present to describe the traditions existing in their respective local Churches concerning the age of ordinands. During a discussion of this point, Archbishop Alexander stated that in the Russian Orthodox Church, there is an established practice of ordaining graduates of theological seminaries after they have reached the age of 21 and of not ordaining hieromonks before they reach 30 years of age. However, with the exception of monastic graduates of theological academies and seminaries, the priests could be ordained from the age of 22. In light of current practice in the local Churches, Patriarch Meletios proposed the following age limits for taking orders: 21 for deacons, 24 for priests, and 30 for bishops. The attendees approved the draft proposal.[55]Η’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (1 Ἰουνίου 1923). Ibid., pp. 153, 155. It is clear that this decision revised Byzantine canonical regulations, which did not allow for persons under 30 to be ordained as priests (Trul. 14). At the same time, the Pan-Orthodox Congress remained in keeping with the practice of the Russian Orthodox Church, which allowed for lower limits on the canonical age of ordinands.

Patriarch Meletios then turned to discuss the age limit for taking monastic vows, proposing a minimum age of 25. Those present at the meeting, including Archbishop Alexander, approved this decision.[56]Ibid.

After discussing the issue of the appearance of clerics and approving of the practices of clergymen wearing secular clothing and cutting their hair, the Committee moved on to consider the issue of impediments to marriage. Metropolitan Gavrilo of Montenegro and Archimandrite Julius Scriban gave reports in which they described existing approaches to this question in the Serbian and Romanian Orthodox Churches. In the ensuing discussion, Archbishop Alexander spoke of barriers to marriage in the canonical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church (blood and spiritual kinship, being in three consecutive legal marriages, etc.). The discussion of this point wrapped up with a presentation by Metropolitan Jacob of Dyrrhachium. In his summary of the discussion, Patriarch Meletios suggested that it was necessary to adhere to the canonical guidelines of the Ecumenical Councils, while reserving the right to canonical leniency (oikonomia) for Councils of Local Churches.[57]Ibid., pp. 157–162.

The participants of the Pan-Orthodox Congress then turned to the proposal that saints’ days be moved from weekdays to the Sundays closest to them. Archbishop Alexander did not have an opinion on this matter. Summarizing the results of the discussion, the Ecumenical Patriarch stated that it was advisable to adopt such a resolution, for which the tradition of celebrating the memory of the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils exclusively on Sundays could serve as a basis. At the same time, he advised leaving it up to the Local Churches to decide independently on this matter.[58]Ibid., pp. 162–164.

At the initiative of Metropolitan Nicholas of Transylvania, conveyed in an appeal read out by Archimandrite Julius Scriban, the Pan-Orthodox Congress discussed the 1600th anniversary celebrations of the First Ecumenical Council, slated for 1925.[59]Ibid., pp. 164–167.

At the beginning of the ninth session of the Pan-Orthodox Congress, held on June 5, 1923, Patriarch Meletios of Constantinople motioned to adopt the draft resolutions discussed earlier. After a brief discussion, in which Archbishop Alexander abstained from participating, it was resolved to reform the Orthodox Church calendar. According to the Congress’s resolution, it was intended to move both the dates of the fixed holidays in the Orthodox Menologion and the movable Easter cycle to the New Calendar. The observatories of Athens, Belgrade, Bucharest, and Pulkovo (Petrograd)[60]ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΣΥΝΈΔΡΙΟΥ. А’. Τὸ ὲν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον συνελθὸν ὑπὸ … Continue reading were to be tasked with compiling the new Paschalia tables. There then followed a resolution about adopting the new calendar discussed by the League of Nations, where the number of days in the week might be less than seven. It also considered whether it might be possible to make Easter an immoveable holiday, provided that the date could be backed up scientifically.[61]ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΣΥΝΈΔΡΙΟΥ. В’. Τὸ ὲν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον συνελθὸν ὑπὸ … Continue reading

The Congress then approved other draft resolutions that had been previously discussed. These included resolutions to allow second marriages for widowed priests and deacons;[62][ref]ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΣΥΝΈΔΡΙΟΥ. Δ’. Τὸ ὲν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον συνελθὸν … Continue reading to allow clergy to marry after ordination (with the exception of monastics);[63]ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΣΥΝΈΔΡΙΟΥ. Г’. Τὸ ὲν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον συνελθὸν ὑπὸ … Continue reading to hold a celebration of the 1600th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council in 1925;[64]ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΣΥΝΈΔΡΙΟΥ. ΣΤ’. Τὸ ὲν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον συνελθὸν … Continue reading to set the minimum age for the ordination of deacons at 21, of presbyters at 24, of bishops at 30, and that for taking monastic vows at 25; to allow clergy to cut their hair and wear secular clothing when not in church; to uphold the canonical rules concerning impediments to marriage while allowing the Councils of the Local Churches to exercise oikonomia in this matter; to allow the celebrations of saints’ days to be moved from weekdays to the following Sundays; and a resolution stating the need to adhere to Apostolic Canon 64, which states that fasting is only allowed during Great Lent, Wednesday, and Friday. As noted in the text of the official resolutions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress, these were provisional in nature and could be applied in Church practice until these matters were decided on by a Pan-Orthodox Council. Archbishop Alexander, who had been present at the ninth session, expressed his agreement with the resolutions adopted and signed every one of them.[65]ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΣΥΝΈΔΡΙΟΥ. Е’. Τὸ ὲν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον συνελθὸν ὑπὸ … Continue reading

Patriarch Meletios then put forward for discussion the issue of the jurisdictional affiliation of the Orthodox Diaspora. In this context, it should be noted that as early as March 1, 1922, the Patriarchate of Constantinople issued a tomos “On the Obligatory and Exclusive Subordination of All the Orthodox Diaspora to the Church of Constantinople”.[66]Vetoshnikov, op. cit., p. 51; S. V. Troitskii. “O granitsakh rasprostraneniia prava vlasti Konstantinopolʹskogo Patriarkha na «Diasporu»” [“On the Limits of the Extension of the Authority … Continue reading This discussion of the entitlement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to serve as the head the Orthodox diaspora was aimed at legitimizing the previous year’s tomos at the pan-Orthodox level. Appealing to Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council, Patriarch Meletios argued for the exclusive right of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to head all Orthodox dioceses outside the borders of the Local Churches, which he identified with the “bishops in barbarian lands” (“ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς ἐπισκόπους”) mentioned in the canon.[67]Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the … Continue reading With reference to the current church situation in North America, the Patriarch noted the lack of a unified Orthodox canonical jurisdiction there, which was a violation of the canonical order and not conducive to Orthodox witness among the heterodox. The patriarch proposed establishing an Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in North America as a possible means of solving the current problem of disunity.[68]Θ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τρίτη, 5 Ἰουνίου 1923), Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου … Continue reading

It was only natural that in discussing this question, Patriarch Meletios could not ignore the opinion of Archbishop Alexander, who had previously governed the North American Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church. The latter, while agreeing that the issue was urgent, called on the participants in the Pan-Orthodox Congress to take into account the current situation of the Russian Orthodox Church. In his opinion, if the Russians in America consented to join the Patriarchate of Constantinople, this would be tantamount to betraying Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, who was then under arrest. As a temporary measure, Archbishop Alexander considered the potential option of appointing a Russian bishop as Exarch of the Patriarchate of Constantinople for a four-year term. However, in light of the tragic events affecting the church in Russia, such a move seemed premature to him. Archbishop Alexander saw increased communication between Russian and Greek hierarchs as a practical solution to the issue of the disunity of American Orthodox believers. A lively discussion began after Archbishop Alexander’s speech, but was suspended by Patriarch Meletios due to a lack of time.[69]Ibid., pp. 177–182.

At the tenth session of the Pan-Orthodox Congress, on June 6, 1923, a discussion of the question of the jurisdictional subordination of the Orthodox Diaspora was resumed. After a short exchange of opinions, in which Archbishop Alexander did not take part, a decision was taken to withdraw the point from the agenda.[70]I’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τετάρτη, 6 Ἰουνίου 1923). Ibid., pp. 183–184. The minutes of the ninth and tenth sessions allow us to conclude that in many respects, it was the position of Archbishop Alexander that brought the Pan-Orthodox Congress to reject Patriarch Meletios’ motion to legitimize the submission of the entire Orthodox Diaspora to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The Congress then turned to a discussion of the situation of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia. Metropolitan Gavrilo of Montenegro took the lead in this matter at the tenth session, reminding those present of a proposal, made by Archbishop Anastasy during the second session of the Congress, to adopt an official appeal in support of Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and All Russia on behalf of the Congress. The tenth session of the Pan-Orthodox Congress concluded with the adoption of an official resolution on the church situation in Russia. The text of the resolution called the Renovationist “Second All-Russian Local Council” (April 29–May 9, 1923) an ‘assembly of clergy and the people’  (κληρικολαϊκή Συνέλευσις), and its decisions, including those concerning the deposition of Patriarch Tikhon, who was under arrest, were declared to be anti-canonical (“ἀντικανοηκῶν ἀποφάσεων ἐξέδοτο καὶ ἀπόφασιν καθαιρέσεως τοῦ ἐν φυλακῇ κρατουμένου Μακαριωτάτου Πατριάρχου Μόσχας και πάσης Ρωσσίας Τύχωνος”). The Congress expressed deep regret for what had happened and its “heartfelt sympathy for the Patriarch-Confessor” (“συμπάθειαν δὲ ἐγκάρδιον πρὸς τὸν ὁμολογητήν Πατριάρχην”). The text of the Congress’s resolution contained an appeal to the entire Christian world to undertake efforts to have Patriarch Tikhon released, as well as an appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople to consider the church situation in Russia in conjunction with the other Local Churches.[71]ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΣΥΝΈΔΡΙΟΥ. Е’. Τὸ ὲν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον συνελθὸν ὑπὸ … Continue reading

The work of the Pan-Orthodox Congress wrapped up with the eleventh session, which took place on June 8, 1923. During this session, all the participants had the opportunity to express their opinions about the past meetings. In his speech, Archbishop Alexander spoke in the warmest terms about the Congress and expressed his gratitude to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The introduction of the New Calendar (which he called the “pan-Orthodox” calendar) was hailed as a basis for the unity of the Christian Churches. Other resolutions were likewise praised. At the end of his speech, Archbishop Alexander thanked the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Pan-Orthodox Congress for their concern for the situation of the Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Tikhon.[72]IА’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Παρασκευὴ, 8 Ἰουνίου 1923), Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου … Continue reading

The acts of the Pan-Orthodox Congress served as the basis for the transition of a number of Local Churches to the New Calendar, which resulted in so-called Old Calendarist Schisms in most of them.[73]For details, cf.: A. V. Slesarev. Starostilʹnyi raskol v istorii Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi (1924-2008) [The Old Calendar Schism in the History of the Orthodox Church (1924–2008)]. Moscow: Krutitsa … Continue reading Other decisions of the Congress were not adopted in canonical practice by any of the Local Churches. Moreover, the authority of the Congress itself was subsequently questioned by the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, and Serbia.[74]I. Z. Iakimchuk. “Vsepravoslavnyi Kongress” [“Pan-Orthodox Congress”], in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopedia]. Moskva, 2005. Vol. 9. p. 683. What, then, was the position of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, whose hierarchs took part in the Pan-Orthodox Congress?

As noted above, at a June 4, 1923, meeting of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops, Archbishops Anastasy and Alexander, who had been invited to the Congress on a private basis, were recognized as official representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church. This circumstance testifies to initial recognition of the legitimacy of the Congress by the Russian Church Abroad.[75]“Opredeleniia Sobora Arkhiereev…”, p. 1. At the same time, the members of the Council of Bishops did not think that the Congress’s initiative to reform the Church’s manner of timekeeping and to allow second marriage for clergy could be effected in the life of the Russian Church Abroad.[76]Ibid., p. 1–2.

In late June 1923, the journal Tserkovnye vedomosti, an official press outlet of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops, began to publish materials critical of the Church calendar reform, the decision to allow second marriage for widowed clergy, and the Phanar’s claim to authority over the whole Orthodox diaspora.[77]E. Makharoblidze. “Neskolʹko myslei po povodu novogo stilia v Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi” [“Several Thoughts on the New Calendar in the Orthodox Church”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti 1923/15–16, … Continue reading

In late July 1923, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia sharply changed its attitude to the Pan-Orthodox Congress after Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitskii) received a copy of a letter of Patriarch Photios of Alexandria to Patriarch Gregory IV of Antioch. This document contained harsh criticism of the Pan-Orthodox Congress, calling it “impostorious”, “uncanonical” and “illegitimate”, and characterizing the questions put to it as “untimely” and “irrelevant” and its decisions as “aimless”, “uncanonical”, and “harmful”.[78]“Poslanie Sv. Fotiia, Patriarkha i Papy Aleksandriiskogo i vsego Egipta na imia Sviateishego Patriarkha Antiokhiiskogo” [“A Letter of His Holines Photios, Patriarch and Pope of Alexandria and … Continue reading Patriarch Photios declared that the Pan-Orthodox Congress had been condemned by the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria and that its modifications to traditional Orthodox canonical norms had been rejected. According to him, with regard to the authority of the “sacred canons, traditions, and dogmas, […] there should not be any room for doubt, yet they have been tampered with by the Pan-Orthodox and Inter-Orthodox Congress, and lest the consciences of the peoples be indignant and shaken in the faith of our Fathers, may their holiness, on the one hand, remain intact and unchanged, and, on the other, may the religiosity of the peoples remain steadfast and immutable both in theory and in practice, until the Providence of the Most High will please to lead us to a valid and true Ecumenical Council, which will definitively define and more completely preserve our holy faith free of perils and harm”.[79]Ibid.

The final opinion of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops on the Pan-Orthodox Congress was stated in a resolution of July 25/August 7, 1923, “to notify the Ecumenical Patriarch that the resolutions of the Inter-Orthodox Commission in Constantinople, which he convened and which he renamed a ‘Pan-Orthodox Congress’, in particular those on second marriage for clergy, reform of the church calendar and the introduction of a new system of timekeeping in the church from October of this year, cannot be accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as they are contrary to the holy canons and the ancient practice of the Church, which was sanctified by the Ecumenical Councils.”[/ref]“Opredeleniia Arkhiereiskogo Sinoda Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi zagranitsei. Ot 25 iiulia – 7 avgusta 1923 g. Po povodu postanovlenii Mezhdupravoslavnoi Komissii v Konstantinopole” [“Resolutions of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad on July 25/August 7, 1923”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti 1923/17–18. pp. 4–5.[/ref] In addition to declaring the decisions of the Congress non-canonical, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia denied that it had a pan-Orthodox status: “The Commission [that is, the Congress —A.S.] […] is not representative of the entire Holy Ecumenical Catholic and Apostolic Church, and its decisions cannot have the binding force of edicts obligatory for the Orthodox Church.”[80]Ibid., p. 5.

The Synodal resolution further attempted to minimize the role of Russian bishops in the Congress. In particular, Archbishop Anastasy, who took part in the first sessions, was called a representative only of the Russian Church Abroad, rather than of the entire Russian Church. Archbishop Alexander was described as an accidental and unauthorized attendee at the Congress.[81]Ibid. The issues discussed at the Pan-Orthodox Congress were declared to be appropriate for consideration by an Ecumenical Council alone, premature for the Russian Orthodox Church, and fraught with the danger of schism. The decision to reform the church calendar was characterized as hasty, non-canonical, and harmful.[82]Ibid.

While downplaying the role of Archbishop Alexander as a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church at the Pan-Orthodox Congress, the ROCOR Synod of Bishops officially inquired whether Archbishop Anastasy “felt comfortable remaining on the Constantinople Inter-Orthodox Commission after the decisions it ha[d] made.”[83]Ibid. The ROCOR Synod of Bishops effectively withdrew its voice from the acts of the Pan-Orthodox Congress, and also resolved to send the Patriarch of Constantinople a copy of Archbishop Anastasy’s reply.[84]Ibid. Several days later, the Synod of Bishops decided not to wait for Archbishop Anastasy to reply, and recalled him from the Pan-Orthodox Congress based on the rejection of the Congress by the three Eastern Patriarchs (those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem).[85]“Opredeleniia Arkhiereiskogo Sinoda…”, “Ob otozvanii predstavitelei Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi iz Konstantinopol’skoi Mezhdupravoslavnoi Komissii” [“On Recalling the … Continue reading

A final assessment of the status of Archbishops Anastasy and Alexander at the Pan-Orthodox Congress was given by the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and All Russia. In his “Statement to the Central Executive Committee on the Orthodox Russian Church’s Attitude towards the Reform of the Calendar (Transition to the Gregorian Calendar or ‘New Style’)”, dated September 30, 1924, he denied that the aforementioned ROCOR hierarchs had had the right to voice the opinion of the Russian Orthodox Church at the gathering in Constantinople. In assessing the legitimacy of the decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress, Patriarch Tikhon wrote: “An unfavorable circumstance for the Conference, which greatly diminished the weight of all its decisions, was the absence of delegates from the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Russia. [The Russian Church was represented at it by Archbishop Anastasy of Kishinev and Archbishop Alexander of America, who had been invited personally by Patriarch Meletios IV.]”[86]Akty Sviateishego Tikhona, Patriarkha Moskovskogo i vseia Rossii, pozdneishie dokumenty i perepiska o kanonicheskom preemstve vysshei tserkovnoi vlasti, 1917–1943 gg. [Acts of Patriarch Tikhon of … Continue reading

Thus, the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church, as stated in September 1924, does not allow us to consider the Constantinople Congress as having had a Pan-Orthodox character, and the role of Archbishops Anastasy and Alexander who took part in it could be deemed to be that of mere observers. The history of the Constantinople Congress testifies to the importance of the Russian Orthodox diaspora as an object of inter-Orthodox relations in the early 1920s. The rejection of the decisions of the Congress by a number of Local Churches in the 1920s gives us grounds to conclude that achieving a Pan-Orthodox consensus was important in preparing and making decisions on a scale affecting the whole Church. At the same time, a one-sided negative evaluation of the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Congress, such as has become the norm in Russian historiography, is unwarranted. Without denying that there are doubts as to the legitimacy of the Congress and the canonicity of some of its decisions, its statement on the reprehensibility of the deposition of Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow by the Russian Renovationists should be assessed in a wholly positive light. At a time when the highest authority in the Russian Orthodox Church had been usurped by appointees of the Joint State Political Directorate (OGPU), and Her rightful Primate was under house arrest, the Congress of Constantinople, on behalf of all the Orthodox, expressed its support for the holy Patriarch of Moscow and declared the decisions of the Renovationist “Second All-Russian Local Council” to be non-canonical. This act thwarted the Renovationists’ hopes of legitimizing the Supreme Church Council that they had called and reaffirmed Patriarch Tikhon’s standing as the canonical head of the Russian Orthodox Church.

It seems to us that grasping the significance of the above decision of the Congress of Constantinople in reaffirming the authority of Patriarch Tikhon, who returned to the helm of church administration three weeks after being officially recognized by the Congress, remains relevant to church-historical scholarship. At the same time, examining the minutes of the Congress of Constantinople conclusively testifies to the exceptional role of Archbishops Anastasy and Alexander in the formation of the pan-Orthodox consensus in favor of Patriarch Tikhon and against recognizing the Russian Renovationists.

References

References
1 Vetoshnikov, K. Istoriia Konstantinopolʹskogo Patriarkhata v XX veke [History of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 20th Century]. Cand. theol. thesis. Sergiev Posad: Moscow Theological Academy, 1996. 261 pp.; A. A Kostriukov. K istorii vzaimootnoshenii mezhdu Russkoi Zarubezhnoi Tserkovʹiu i Konstantinopolʹskoi Patriarkhiei v 1920–1924 gg. [A History of Relations Between the Russian Church Abroad and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1920–1924], in: Vestnik PSTGU II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi [STOUH Bulletin II: History and Russian Orthodox Church History] 6/2011 (43), pp. 61–62; Priest A. Mazyrin. K istorii vzaimootnoshenii Russkoi i Konstantinopolʹskoi Tserkvei v XX veke [On the History of Relations between the Churches of Russia and Constantinople in the 20th Century]. Moscow: Saint Tikhon’s University Press, 2017, pp. 269–271, etc.
2 Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (10 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). Κωνσταντινούπоλις, 1923. 222 pp.
3 For details, cf.: K. Vetoshnikov. Istoriia Konstantinopolʹskogo Patriarkhata v XX veke [The History of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 20th Century. p. 49; A. V. Slesarev,  Starostil’nyi raskol v istorii Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi (1924-2008) [The Old Calendarist Schism in the History of the Orthodox Church (1924–2008)]. Moscow: Krutitsa Metochion Press, 2009. pp. 48–56.
4 Ελευθέριος Γκουτζίδης. Ἔλεγχος καί ἀνατροπή τῆς διδακτορικῆς διατριβῆς τοῦ «Δημητριάδος» Χριστόδουλου Παρασκευαΐδη. Ἀθῆναι, 1985. pp. 52–56; Χριστόδουλος Κ. Παρασκευαΐδης, μητροπολίτης. Ἱστορική καί κανονική θεώρησις τοῦ παλαιοημερολογιτίκου ζητήματος κατά τὲ τῆν γένεσιν καί ἐξέλιξιν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἑλλάδι. Ἀθῆναι, 1981. p. 45; Vetoshnikov, op. cit., p. 142.
5 “Okruzhnoe sobornoe poslanie Konstantinopolʹskoi Tserkvi «K tserkvam khristianskim, vo vsem mire obretaiushchimsia” [“Encyclical of the Church of Constantinople ‘To the Churches of Christ throughout All the World’”], in: Vestnik RKhD [Bulletin of the Russian Christian Movement] 173. Paris/New York/Moscow: 1996. p. 37.
6 Ἐλευθέριος Γκουτζίδης. Ἔλεγχος καί ἀνατροπή τῆς διδακτορικῆς διατριβῆς…, p. 54; “Okruzhnoe sobnornoe poslanie…”, p. 37.
7 Πρὸς τοὺς Μακαριωτάτους καὶ Σεβασμιωτάτους Προέδρους τῶν Ἁγίων Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν Ἀλεξανδρείας, Ἀντιοχείας, Ἱεροσολύμον, Σερβίας, Κύπρου, Ἑλλάδος καὶ Ρουμανίας. “Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (10 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923)”. Κωνσταντινούπоλις, 1923. pp. 5–6.
8 Πρὸς τοὺς Μακαριωτάτους καὶ Σεβασμιωτάτους Προέδρους τῶν Ἁγίων Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν. p. 6–7.
9 “Memorandum Vselenskoi Patriarkhii v zashchitu gonimykh khristian v Azii i Rossii” [“Memorandum of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Defense of Persecuted Christians in Asia and Russia”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti [Church Bulletin] 5–6/1923, p. 3.
10 “Gramota Sviateishego Meletiia, Patriarkha Vselenskogo, na imia Predsedatelia b. Vysshego Russkogo Tserkovnogo Upravleniia zagranitsei” [“Letter of His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios to His Beatitude the Chair of the Supreme Church Administration of the Russian Church Abroad”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti 5–6/1923, p. 3.
11 “Poslanie Predsedatel’stvuiushchego Vremennogo Arkhiereiskogo Sinoda Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi zagranitsei – Sviateishim Patriarkham Vostochnym, Glavam Avtokefal’nykh Pravoslavnykh Tserkvei, Pravoslavnym Arkhiereiam, vsemu sviashchennomu kliru i vsem pravoslavnym khristianam” [“Encyclical of the President of the Temporary Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Most Holy Eastern Patriarchs, the Heads of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, Orthodox Bishops, the Entire Sacred Clergy and All Orthodox Christians”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti 1923/3–4. pp. 1–2.
12 “Postanovlenie Vselenskogo Patriarkhata po voprosu o sude nad Sviateishim Tikhonom, Patriarkhom Moskovskim i vseia Rossii” [“Resolution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the Trial of Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and All Russia”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti. 1923/7–8. p. 1.
13 Ibid.
14 “Otzyv Vysokopreosviashchenneishego Mitropolita Antoniia o Moskovskom soborishche” [“Response of His Eminence Metropolitan Antony to the Robber Council in Moscow”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti 9–10/1923. pp. 10–11.
15 “Predsedatel’stvuiushchii Arkhiereiskogo Sinoda Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi zagranitsei Prezidentu Lozannskoi Konferentsii” [“From the Chair of the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad to the President of the Lausanne Conference”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti. 1923/1–2. pp. 1–2.
16 “Soveshchanie o novom stile” [“Consultation on the New Calendar”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti. 1923. 5–6. p. 9.
17 Πρὸς τοὺς Μακαριωτάτους καὶ Σεβασμιωτάτους Προέδρους τῶν Ἁγίων Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν Ἀλεξανδρείας, Ἀντιοχείας, Ἱεροσολύμον, Σερβίας, Κύπρου, Ἑλλάδος καὶ Ρουμανίας. p. 5.
18 “ΕΠΙΣΗΜΟΣ ΕΝΑΡΞΙΣΤΩΝ ΕΡΓΑΣΙΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΩΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΩΝ.” Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (10 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923), p. 11.
19 Ibid., pp. 11–12.
20 Ibid., p. 11.
21 “Opredeleniia Sobora Arkhiereev Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi zagranitsei. Po voprosu o reforme pravoslavnogo kalendaria” [“Resolutions of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad. On the Matter of Reforming the Orthodox Calendar”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti 1923/13–14. p. 1.
22 ΕΠΙΣΗΜΟΣ ΕΝΑΡΞΙΣΤΩΝ ΕΡΓΑΣΙΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΩΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΩΝ. pp. 11–14; Mezhdupravoslavnaia konferentsiia v Konstantinopole, in: Tserkovnye vedomosti 1923/11–12. p. 9.
23 ΕΠΙΣΗΜΟΣ ΕΝΑΡΞΙΣΤΩΝ ΕΡΓΑΣΙΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΩΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΩΝ. pp. 14–15.
24 А´. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Πέμπτη, 10 Μαΐου 1923), Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (10 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). pp. 20, 22.
25 В´. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Παρασκευή, 10 Μαΐου 1923). Ibid., p. 23.
26 Ibid., pp. 24–26.
27 Ibid., p. 26.
28 Ibid., p. 28.
29 Ibid., pp. 28–29.
30 Ibid., p. 29.
31 Γ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Παρασκευὴ, 18 Μαΐου 1923). Ibid., p. 48-49.
32 Ibid., p. 49.
33 Ἔκθεσις τῆς Ἐπιτροπῆς τοῦ πρακτικοῦ μέρους. Ibid., pp. 54–58.
34 Δ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Δευτέρα, 23 Μαΐου 1923). Ibid., p. 66–68.
35 Ibid., p. 68–69.
36 Ibid., p. 69.
37 Ibid., pp. 70–77.
38 E’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τετάρτη, 23 Μαΐου 1923). Ibid., pp. 78–90.
39 ΣΤ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Παρασκευὴ, 25 Μαΐου 1923). Ibid., p. 91–118.
40 Ibid., p. 119–120.
41 Ibid., p. 122–128.
42 A. A. Kostriukov. “Russkoe tserkovnoe zarubezhʹe i Vselenskii Prestol” [“The Russian Diaspora Church and the Ecumenical Throne”], in: Priest Alexander Mazyrin (ed.). K istorii vzaimootnoshenii Russkoi i Konstantinopolʹskoi Tserkvei v XX veke [On Relations between the Churches of Russia and Constantinople in the 20th Century]. Moscow: Saint Tikhon’s University Press, 2017. p. 270.
43 A. A. Kostriukov. “Russkaia zarubezhnaia tserkovʹ v pervoi polovine 1920-kh godov” [“The Russian Church Abroad in the Early 1920s”], in: Organizatsiia tserkovnogo upravleniia v emigratsii i ego otnosheniia s Moskovskoi Patriarkhiei pri zhizni Patriarkha Tikhona [The Organization of Church Administration in the Diaspora and Relations with the Moscow Patriarchate during the Lifetime of Patriarch Tikhon]. Moscow: Saint Tikhon’s University Press, 2017. p. 170.
44 Ζ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τετάρτη, 30 Μαΐου 1923). Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). pp. 129–131.
45 Ibid., p. 131.
46 Ibid., p. 131–136.
47 Ibid., pp. 136–137.
48 Ο В’. ΓΑΜΟΣ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΧΗΡΕΙΑ ΙΕΡΕΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΑΚΟΝΩΝ. Ibid., pp. 137–138.
49 ΤΟ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΙΚΟΝ ΑΞΙΩΜΑ ΚΑΙ Ο ΓΑΜΟΣ. Ibid., pp. 138–139.
50 ΠΟΙΟΝ ΤΟ ΟΡΙΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΗΛΙΚΙΑΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΧΕΙΡΟΤΟΝΙΑΝ ΔΙΑΚΟΝΩΝ, ΙΕΡΕΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΩΝ. Ibid., pp. 139–140.
51 Η ΕΝ ΤΗ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ ΕΞΩΤΕΡΙΚΗ ΠΕΡΙΒΟΛΗ ΤΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ. Ibid., p. 140.
52 “As for Deacons who are appointed in spite of their condition, if they gave evidence and insisted that they would have to marry, being unable to remain single, and who thereafter have married, let them stay in service because they have been allowed to do so by the Bishop. But if any of them have kept silent as to this, and have agreed to remain single when ordained, but thereafter entered into marriage, let them be dismissed from the diaconate.” (Ancyra 10).
53 Ζ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τετάρτη, 30 Μαΐου 1923), Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). p. 149.
54 Ibid., p. 150.
55 Η’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (1 Ἰουνίου 1923). Ibid., pp. 153, 155.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid., pp. 157–162.
58 Ibid., pp. 162–164.
59 Ibid., pp. 164–167.
60 ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΣΥΝΈΔΡΙΟΥ. А’. Τὸ ὲν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον συνελθὸν ὑπὸ τήν προεδρείαν τής Α. Θ. Π. τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριάρχου κ. κ. ΜΕΛΕΤΙΟΥ τοῦ Δ’., Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). p. 211-213; Θ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τρίτη, 5 Ἰουνίου 1923), Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). p. 168-171.
61 ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΣΥΝΈΔΡΙΟΥ. В’. Τὸ ὲν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον συνελθὸν ὑπὸ τήν προεδρείαν τής Α. Θ. Π. τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριάρχου κ. κ. ΜΕΛΕΤΙΟΥ τοῦ Δ’., Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). p. 171.
62 [ref]ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΣΥΝΈΔΡΙΟΥ. Δ’. Τὸ ὲν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον συνελθὸν ὑπὸ τήν προεδρείαν τής Α. Θ. Π. τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριάρχου κ. κ. ΜΕΛΕΤΙΟΥ τοῦ Δ’., Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). pp. 217–218; Θ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τρίτη, 5 Ἰουνίου 1923), Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). p. 171.
63 ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΣΥΝΈΔΡΙΟΥ. Г’. Τὸ ὲν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον συνελθὸν ὑπὸ τήν προεδρείαν τής Α. Θ. Π. τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριάρχου κ. κ. ΜΕΛΕΤΙΟΥ τοῦ Δ’., Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). pp. 215–216; Θ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τρίτη, 5 Ἰουνίου 1923), Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). p. 171.
64 ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΣΥΝΈΔΡΙΟΥ. ΣΤ’. Τὸ ὲν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον συνελθὸν ὑπὸ τήν προεδρείαν τής Α. Θ. Π. τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριάρχου κ. κ. ΜΕΛΕΤΙΟΥ τοῦ Δ’., Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). p. 221; Θ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τρίτη, 5 Ἰουνίου 1923), Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). p. 172.
65 ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΣΥΝΈΔΡΙΟΥ. Е’. Τὸ ὲν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον συνελθὸν ὑπὸ τήν προεδρείαν τής Α. Θ. Π. τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριάρχου κ. κ. ΜΕΛΕΤΙΟΥ τοῦ Δ’., Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). pp. 218–220; Θ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τρίτη, 5 Ἰουνίου 1923), Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). pp. 172–174.
66 Vetoshnikov, op. cit., p. 51; S. V. Troitskii. “O granitsakh rasprostraneniia prava vlasti Konstantinopolʹskogo Patriarkha na «Diasporu»” [“On the Limits of the Extension of the Authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the ‘Diaspora’”], in: Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii [Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate]. 1947/11. p. 34.
67 Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the Great of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city of Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object and aim the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her. And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him. (4th EC, Canon 28).
68 Θ’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τρίτη, 5 Ἰουνίου 1923), Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). pp. 175–177.
69 Ibid., pp. 177–182.
70 I’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τετάρτη, 6 Ἰουνίου 1923). Ibid., pp. 183–184.
71 ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΣΥΝΈΔΡΙΟΥ. Е’. Τὸ ὲν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Πανορθόδοξον Συνέδριον συνελθὸν ὑπὸ τήν προεδρείαν τής Α. Θ. Π. τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριάρχου κ. κ. ΜΕΛΕΤΙΟΥ τοῦ Δ’., Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). p. 222; Z’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Τρίτη, 5 Ἰουνίου 1923), Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). pp. 185–187.
72 IА’. ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑ (Παρασκευὴ, 8 Ἰουνίου 1923), Πρακτικὰ καὶ ἀποφάσεις τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Пανορθοδόξου Συνεδρίου (11 Мαΐου-8 ’Ιουνίου 1923). p. 188-190.
73 For details, cf.: A. V. Slesarev. Starostilʹnyi raskol v istorii Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi (1924-2008) [The Old Calendar Schism in the History of the Orthodox Church (1924–2008)]. Moscow: Krutitsa Metochion Press, 2009. 562 pp.
74 I. Z. Iakimchuk. “Vsepravoslavnyi Kongress” [“Pan-Orthodox Congress”], in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopedia]. Moskva, 2005. Vol. 9. p. 683.
75 “Opredeleniia Sobora Arkhiereev…”, p. 1.
76 Ibid., p. 1–2.
77 E. Makharoblidze. “Neskolʹko myslei po povodu novogo stilia v Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi” [“Several Thoughts on the New Calendar in the Orthodox Church”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti 1923/15–16, pp. 10–13; S. Troitskii. “Dogmaticheskii smysl zapreshcheniia vtorobrachiia sviashchennosluzhiteliam” [“The Dogmatic Meaning of the Ban on Second Marriage for Clergy”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti. 1923/15–16. pp. 13–16; 17–18; S. Troitskii. “Iurisdiktsiia Tsarigradskogo patriarkha v oblasti diaspory” [“The Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Diaspora”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti 1923/11–12. pp. 7; 8–12; 17–18.
78 “Poslanie Sv. Fotiia, Patriarkha i Papy Aleksandriiskogo i vsego Egipta na imia Sviateishego Patriarkha Antiokhiiskogo” [“A Letter of His Holines Photios, Patriarch and Pope of Alexandria and All Egypt, to His Holiness the Patriarch of Antioch”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti 1923/17–18. pp. 3–4.
79 Ibid.
80 Ibid., p. 5.
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid.
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid.
85 “Opredeleniia Arkhiereiskogo Sinoda…”, “Ob otozvanii predstavitelei Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi iz Konstantinopol’skoi Mezhdupravoslavnoi Komissii” [“On Recalling the Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church from the Inter-Orthodox Commission in Constantinople”], in: Tserkovnye vedomosti 1923/19–20. p. 6.
86 Akty Sviateishego Tikhona, Patriarkha Moskovskogo i vseia Rossii, pozdneishie dokumenty i perepiska o kanonicheskom preemstve vysshei tserkovnoi vlasti, 1917–1943 gg. [Acts of Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and All Russia, Later Documents and Correspondence on the Canonical Succession of Supreme Authority in the Church, 1917–1943]. Moscow: Saint Tikhon’s University Press, 1994. p. 334.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.