The Role of ROCOR Hierarchs Filofei (Narko) and Afanasii (Martas) in the Project to Establish a Belarusian Diocese in the Diaspora under the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

In 1944, with the front moving ever closer and active hostilities already beginning in Belarus, the episcopate and several dozen clergy of the Metropolis of Belarus were evacuated to Germany. For the next year and a half, the Belarusian bishops formally supported the activities of the Metropolis in the diaspora. However, the vast majority of Belarusian clerics transferred to other ecclesiastical jurisdictions, with most joining the Russian Church Abroad. In January 1946, the hierarchs of the Belarusian Metropolis made an unofficial transfer to the episcopate of the ROCOR, without announcing their decision until the next ROCOR Council of Bishops had officially ratified it. A significant number of Belarusian social and political organizations in the diaspora reacted negatively to this news. The ROCOR Council of Bishops in May 1946 ratified the decision to take in the Belarusian hierarchs, while denying their petition to incorporate the Belarusian Metropolis into the Russian Church Abroad as an autonomous entity. This led directly to a church schism in the post-war Belarusian diaspora. The Rada of the Belarusian People’s Republic (BPR), which was headed by President N. Abramchik and claimed to be the Belarusian government-in-exile, ushered in a revival of the Metropolis of Belarus in the diaspora. This religious organization, formed with the involvement of the Rada, was better known as the Belarusian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (BAOC). The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, to which the hierarchy of the BAOC could trace it succession, directly assisted in forming the latter. Another political focal point of the Belarusian diaspora was the Belarusian Central Rada (BCR), which was in competition with the BPR Rada and did not recognize the BAOC for this reason. After 1950, the leaders of the BCR, headed by President Radasłaŭ Astroŭski, were actively involved in organizing Belarusian parishes under the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, and Australia. The religious policy of the BCR was aimed at creating a Belarusian Diocese (and later Metropolis) in the diaspora under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archbishops Filofei (Narko) and Afanasii (Martas), with whom representatives of the BCR conducted talks behind closed doors for many years, were considered potential candidates to lead this church body. Moreover, Archbishop Filofei positioned himself as Locum Tenens of the Belarusian Metropolis in the diaspora and was perceived as such by many Belarusian émigrés. The possibility of asking Archbishop Afanasii to lead the Belarusian Metropolis was considered only in the event that Archbishop Filofei officially renounced his status as Locum Tenens of the Metropolitan See. Despite repeatedly reaffirming their intention to change ecclesiastical jurisdictions, the aforementioned hierarchs never resolved to take this step, instead of remaining part of the episcopate of the ROCOR to the end of their lives.

The translation of this paper, which will be presented at the conference in November 2021 in Belgrade, has been posted here to enable conference participants to submit questions to the speaker beforehand. The translation has been financed by the American-Russian Aid Association Otrada Inc.

The postwar history of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) is closely connected with the Belarusian diaspora, which was widely dispersed across the Western world. Mass resettlement of Belarusians to Germany occurred in the early 1940s owing to the upheavals of World War II, and after this, many Belarusians refused to return to Soviet Belarus. The majority of them were Orthodox and had originally belonged to the jurisdiction of the Metropolis of Belarus, a church body that had been formed in September 1941 with active involvement on the part of the administration of the Generalkommissariat Weißruthenien and had declared independence both from the Moscow Patriarchate and from the Polish Orthodox Church, whose jurisdiction had extended across Western Belarus up until 1939. In 1942, under pressure from the occupying authorities, the Metropolis of Belarus adopted the official name “Holy Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Belarus”. The Statutes of the Metropolis, however, envisaged the possibility of declaring autocephaly for the Belarusian church only after a pan-Orthodox agreement on the issue had been reached. In view of these circumstances, it can be stated that during the German occupation, the Metropolis of Belarus rejected the anti-canonical self-proclamation of independence forced upon it, while adopting the name “autocephalous” only under compulsion. In July 1944, the Belarusian episcopate was evacuated to Germany, where the Council of Bishops, the Holy Synod, and the Chancellery of the Belarusian Metropolis continued their work in the diaspora. On January 10, 1946, the Belarusian hierarchs petitioned to join the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and on February 23, 1946, the ROCOR Synod of Bishops granted their petition. This decision was finally approved at the ROCOR Council of Bishops that met on May 7–9, 1946. This event elicited a sharply negative reaction on the part of Belarusian public figures, political organizations, and pro-Belarusian intellectuals. At the initiative of the Rada of the Belarusian People’s Republic (BPR), the self-proclaimed democratic government of Belarus in exile, the formal groundwork for a canonically unacknowledged Belarusian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (BAOC) was laid. Since none of the Belarusian hierarchs supported this project to create a national Church, the leadership of the BPR Rada invited Sergii (Ohotenko), the former Bishop of Melitopol and a hierarch of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, to head the BAOC. At the same time, the alternative Belarusian government-in-exile, called the Belarusian Central Rada (BRC)—which was in stiff competition with the BPR Rada—initially supported the decision of the episcopate to transfer to the ROCOR. This situation split the Belarusian diaspora into two so-called “autocephalist” and “pro-ROCOR” groups. Beginning in 1950, the leadership of the BCR distanced itself from the strategy of supporting the ROCOR and steered its course towards the creation of a Belarusian church within the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Representatives of this political movement, as well as their political opponents in the Rada of the Belarusian People’s Republic, stated their aspirations to create an autocephalous Belarusian Orthodox Church. However, for the BCR, the idea of gaining independence for the Belarusian Church came to be associated with obtaining autocephaly from Constantinople while harshly condemning the BAOC due to its non-canonical status. Throughout the 1950s and 1980s, the political confrontation between the BCR and the Rada of the BPR was accompanied by a discussion of different approaches to how to organize church life. At the same time, the leadership of the BCR would directly support the organization of Belarusian parishes in the American, British, and Australian Archdioceses of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Not restricting themselves merely to organizing church communities, the representatives of the BCR would raise the question of establishing a Belarusian Diocese under the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the diaspora, with a view to its subsequent transformation into a Metropolis.[1]For details, cf.: Aleksandr Slesarev. “Administrativno-kanonicheskii status Belorusskoi mitropolii v periody nemetskoi okkupatsii i poslevoennoi emigratsii (1941–1956)” [“Administrative and … Continue reading Moreover, there were discussions among the top leadership of the BCR about extending the activities of the Belarusian Metropolis into Belarus in the event that the Communist regime were to falter.[2]List Prėzidenta BTsR R. Astroŭskaga da protaprėsvitsera Mikalaia Lapitskaga [= Letter of Radasłaŭ Astroŭski, President of the Belarusian Central Rada, to Protopresbyter Mikalaj Lapitski]. … Continue reading Filofei (Narko), former Archbishop of Mogilev and Mstislavl, and Afanasii (Martas), former Bishop of Vitebsk and Polotsk, who had joined the Russian Orthodox Church in 1946, were considered top candidates to lead a Belarusian diocese in the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The most important criterion for selecting them as candidates was their favorable attitude toward the Belarusian national cause, which they had demonstrated during the years of the German occupation and before. The fact that Archbishop Filofei had a claim to the leadership of the Belarusian Metropolis in the diaspora was also of no small importance. It should be noted here that, with the emergence of Belarusian autocephalist schism in late 1949, the First Hierarch and Belarusian hierarchs of the ROCOR declared that the Belarusian Metropolis was to remain within the Russian Church Abroad. Earlier, Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovskii) had said that the Belarusian Metropolis could not continue to exist in the diaspora, but he later changed his position under pressure.[3]“Akt Soveshchaniia Episkopov Belorusskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi na emigratsii ot 14–15 dekabria 1949” [“Consultation of the Bishops of the ]. Pravaslaŭny belarus 1949/9. p. 4; “Udostoverenie … Continue reading The 1942 Statutes of the Belarusian Metropolis stipulated that, in the event of the death of the First Hierarch, temporary control of church life was to be entrusted to the Metropolitan, who received the status of Locum Tenens of the Metropolitan See (§16).[4]Statut S′viatoi Pravaslaŭnai Belaruskai Aŭtakefal′nai Tsarkvy, pryniaty Ŭsebelaruskim Tsarkoŭnym Saboram 30.8.–2.9.1942 [Statutes of the Orthodox Belarusian Autocephalous Church, Adopted by … Continue reading On December 30, 1950, Metropolitan Panteleimon (Rozhnovskii) of Minsk and Belarus, the First Hierarch of the Belarusian Metropolis in the diaspora, died. Thereafter, the title of Locum Tenens nominally passed to Venedikt (Bobkovskii), the former Archbishop of Grodno and Białystok and administrator of the ROCOR Diocese of Germany. When Archbishop Venedikt passed away in September 1951, the nominal status of Locum Tenens of the Metropolitan See was taken over by Archbishop Filofei (Narko), the Administrator of the Groß-Hessen Vicariate in the ROCOR Diocese of Germany.[5]Copy of a Resolution of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops from November 19, 1956. Archive of the ROCOR Diocese of Germany. Fonds 7, “Diocesan Correspondence, 1956”, f. 1; “Opredeleniia Arkhiereiskogo … Continue reading

In the early 1950s, Archbishop Filofei and D. Kosmovich, the leader of the Belarusian Liberation Front and a Stuttgart resident, actively discussed the possibility of his joining the Patriarchate of Constantinople and leading the Belarusian Diocese.[6]Belarusian State Archive and Museum of Literature and Art. D. Kosmovich Collection. Series 1. File 150, «Pis′my da nachal′nika Kraiovaga shtaba BVF u Aŭstralii Siargeia Rozmysla» [Letter to S. … Continue reading Should he consent, Archbishop Filofei was guaranteed stable material support and assistance in opening new Belarusian parishes. He did not decline the propositions outright, but for several years, he gave evasive answers and did not show himself to be in any hurry to leave the Russian Church Abroad.[7]Belarusian State Archive and Museum of Literature and Art. D. Kosmovich Collection. Series 1. File 150. ff. 43–43v, 47–48; Belarusian State Archive and Museum of Literature and Art. D. Kosmovich … Continue reading In 1956, he sent a memorandum to the ROCOR First Hierarch soliciting the latter’s support for his initiative to establish a Belarusian diocese.[8]Letter No. 45/44/1925 from Metropolitan Anastasy Gribanovskii, Chair of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops, to Archbishop Aleksandr Lovchii of Berlin and Germany, November 23, 1956. Archive of the ROCOR … Continue reading Archbishop Aleksandr (Lovchii) was a staunch opponent of this project, and in November of that year, he wrote to Metropolitan Anastasy: “The creation of a Belarusian Church parallel to the Russian Orthodox Church would entail much sorrow for our Orthodox Church Abroad, since most refugees (about 75%) come from Poland, that is, from Polesia and the west of the country. The emergence of a Belarusian Church would serve as a catalyst for nationalists in Belarus to lure the common people into Belarusian organizations and thus into the parishes of the Belarusian Church, and because of this, our Orthodox Church would be left as a minority. This would be a very dangerous phenomenon in the life of our Church if it were sanctioned by the Synod of Bishops.”[9]Archive of the ROCOR German Diocese. Fonds 7, “Diocesan Correspondence, 1956”, Letter from Archbishop Aleksandr Lovchii of Berlin and Germany to Metropolitan Anastasy Gribanovskii, Chair of the … Continue reading Considering Archbishop Filofei’s appeal on November 19, 1956, the ROCOR Synod of Bishops deemed it unacceptable for the Belarusian émigrés to change ecclesiastical jurisdictions.[10]Copy of a Resolution of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops from November 19, 1956. Archive of the ROCOR Diocese of Germany. Fonds 7, “Diocesan Correspondence, 1956”. f. 2. At the same time, the Synod of Bishops noted the absence of aspirations for an autonomous national church among the Orthodox Belarusians in the ROCOR, and resolved on this basis: “His Eminence Filofei can show his care for the Orthodox Belarusians by means of archpastoral encyclicals and by fostering the creation of new parishes in places where Belarusians are settled, in agreement with the local diocesan bishops under whose jurisdiction they may come, while doing his best not to cause any confusion and division in existing parishes of the Russian Church Abroad who count Belarusians among their members”.[11]Ibid., ff. 1–2. In this way, the ROCOR Synod of Bishops condemned any possible departure of the Orthodox Belarusians from its jurisdiction and definitively precluded any possibility of an autonomous Belarusian Metropolis existing within it, while ordering the nominal Metropolitan Locum Tenens to limit himself to integrating of the Orthodox Belarusians more deeply into the Church Abroad.

Apart from D. Kosmovich, Protopresbyter Mikalaj Lapitski, the administrator of the Belarusian parishes of the American Archdiocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, had been attempting for several years to persuade Archbishop Filofei that it would be justified for him to leave the ROCOR to lead the BOC-in-exile. However, the Archbishop continued to distance himself from the project of establishing a BOC-in-exile, often not replying to the written appeals he received. By January 1962, BCR President Radisłaŭ Astroŭski decided to break off negotiations with Archbishop Filofei, describing the latter as being “mired in the Russian national milieu”.[12]Belarusian State Archive and Museum of Literature and Art. D. Kosmovich Collection. Series 1. File 232. f. 172.

Archbishop Afanasii was another candidate for the leadership of the Belarusian Diocese in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. On August 30, 1959, the Church Council of the Belarusian Orthodox Church (CC BOC), which included representatives of the Belarusian parishes of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in North America, selected Archbishop Afanasii as a candidate to lead the Belarusian diocese in the event of Archbishop Filofei’s refusal. At the time, Archbishop Afanasii was the administrator of the Diocese of Argentina.[13]“Z dakladu a. protaprės′vitsera Mikalaia Lapitskaga…”, pp. 13–18.

After accepting the proposal, the Archbishop began to acquaint himself with the state of church life in the Belarusian parishes under Constantinople. For instance, on October 18, 1959, he visited the Belarusian Parish of St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk in Toronto, Canada, where he celebrated a Liturgy and addressed the parishioners in the company of Protopresbyter Mikalaj Lapitski.[14]M. K–r. Iapiskap Apanas u Tarontse. Bats′kaŭshchyna 1960/3 (487). p. 4. On December 6, 1959, a month and a half later, Archbishop Afanasii attended a regular meeting of the CC BOC. He consented to join the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and proposed drafting Statutes for the BOC-in-exile and considering the canonical basis for such a Belarusian church body. Those present at the meeting resolved to ask Archbishop Filofei to give up his powers as the Locum Tenens of the Belarusian Metropolis in favor of Archbishop Afanasii in the event that he did not wish to transfer to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In addition, it was planned to ask the Ecumenical Patriarch to establish a Belarusian Exarchate headed by Archbishop Afanasii.[15]“Z dakladu a. protaprės′vitsera Mikalaia Lapitskaga…”, p. 17

On September 9, 1969, the ROCOR Synod of Bishops appointed Archbishop Afanasii administrator of the Diocese of Australian and New Zealand, yet on July 21, 1970, it was decided to remove him from this post and send him into retirement. Under these new circumstances, Archbishop Afanasii once again resumed active negotiations with Belarusian diaspora figures.[16]Abp. Apanas (Afanasii). Na nive Khrystovai: u piatsidzesiatyia ŭgodki s′viatarstva. 1928–1978. Uspaminy. New York/Minsk/Warsaw, 2005. pp. 43–44; V. Knirsha and V. Mikhalenko. “Redaktoru … Continue reading On June 10, 1971, Archbishop Afanasii stated his willingness to resign from the ROCOR without hesitation and to lead the Belarusian parishes under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, provided Archbishop Iakovos (Coucouzis) of North and South America would agree to this.[17]List Arkhiepiskapa Afanasiia (Martasa) da protaprėsvitsera Mikalaia Lapitskaga і I. I. Kasiaka ad 10.06.1971. Lapitski, op. cit. pp. 366–367. After receiving official consent from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Archbishop Afanasii wrote to Protopresbyter Mikalaj: “I will not receive any new appointment from the Council of Bishops and will remain in retirement. In this state, it would be better and more sensible for me to part with them. […] I want to be with my people for the rest of my life. You can consider me privately to be yours, and the time will soon come when this will become official. On my part, there are no obstacles to this, but I do not want to impose myself, either.”[18]List protaprėsvitsera Mikalaia Lapitskaga da Arkhiepiskapa Afanasiia (Martasa) ad 17.06.1971. Lapitski, op. cit. pp. 347–348; List Arkhiepiskapa Afanasiia (Martasa) da Protaprėsvitsera Mikalaja … Continue reading

An additional obstacle in resolving the issue of Archbishop Afanasii’s transfer was the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s demand that he be granted a letter of canonical dismissal. Believing that the ROCOR Synod of Bishops would not allow him to switch church jurisdictions, Archbishop Afanasii expressed his deep disillusionment with the situation in August 1971, saying that the conditions stated were impossible.[19]List Arkhiepiskapa Afanasiia (Martasa) da I. I. Kasiaka ad 07.08.1971. Lapitski, op. cit. pp. 370–371; List Arkhiepiskapa Afanasiia (Martasa) da Protaprėsvitsera Mikalaja Lapitskaga ad 20.08.1971. … Continue reading

On September 8, 1971, a Council of Bishops of the ROCOR was convened. At it, Archbishop Afanasii was reappointed as ruling bishop of the Diocese of Argentina. Notably, on September 13 (while the Council was in session), he sent Father Mikalaj Lapitski a copy of his certificate of ordination and information on his theological education. He was required to provide these documents if the Patriarchate of Constantinople was to agree to his switching church jurisdictions.[20]List Arkhiepiskapa Afanasiia (Martasa) da Protaprėsvitsera Mikalaja Lapitskaga ad 13.09.1971. Lapitski, op. cit. pp. 373–374. Four days later, however, Archbishop Afanasii accepted an offer made by the Council of Bishops of ROCOR to return to his post as administrator of the Diocese of Argentina.[21]“Opredeleniia Arkhiereiskogo Sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei”. Tserkovnaia zhizn′ 1971/7–12. p. 42.

Uninformed about these developments, Father Mikalaj Lapitski visited the ROCOR Synod of Bishops in late September 1971. The purpose of his visit was obviously to coordinate on the matter of Archbishop Afanasii’s officially leaving the ROCOR.[22]List protaprėsvitsera Mikalaia Lapitskaga da Arkhiepiskapa Afanasiia (Martasa) ad 28.09.1971. Lapitski, op. cit. p. 350. To his surprise, he learned of the Archbishop’s acceptance of his new appointment to the See of Argentina. In a letter to Archbishop Afanasii dated September 28, 1971, Protopresbyter Mikalaj did not refrain from expressing his disappointment, yet still proposed that Archbishop Afanasii go through with exiting the ROCOR. In a reply dated October 1, 1971, Archbishop Afanasii continued to express his hopes of possibly changing jurisdiction.[23]List Arkhiepiskapa Afanasiia (Martasa) da protaprėsvitsera Mikalaia Lapitskaga і I. I. Kasiaka ad 01.10.1971. Lapitski, op. cit. pp. 376–378.

By mid-December 1972, the Patriarchate of Constantinople expressed its willingness to receive Archbishop Afanasii as a bishop, but could not guarantee him a subsequent appointment as administrator of the Belarusian parishes. A lack of assurance about the success of this initiative prompted Archbishop Afansii to continue to serve in the Russian Church Abroad.[24]List Arkhiepiskapa Afanasiia (Martasa) da protaprėsvitsera Mikalaia Lapitskaga і I. I. Kasiaka ad 26.01.1972. Lapitski, op. cit. pp. 387–389.

In summing up the history of the involvement of Archbishops Philotheos and Afanasii in establishing a Belarusian diocese under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, we can draw several conclusions. First, the idea of creating a Belarusian church body within the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was due to the effective abolition of the Belarusian Metropolis in the diaspora after it was incorporated into the ROCOR. Second, the two bishops had a certain sympathy for the Belarusian national cause, which prompted them to discuss the matter of their involvement in forming a Belarusian diaspora diocese over the course of many years. Third, on different occasions, both hierarchs consented in principle to leave the jurisdiction of the ROCOR, but did not follow through with this decision. Fourth, both bishops went back and forth on the issue because they were uncertain about their status after transferring to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. All these factors combined determined the particular logic of the two bishops’ involvement in efforts to establish a Belarusian diocese within the Patriarchate of Constantinople.