The Canonical Status of the Russian Church Abroad

Editor’s Note

The text offered here to the reader’s attention is one of the first extensive studies of the canonical status of the Russian church dispersion. Its authorship is attributed to Tikhon Alexandrovich Ametistov, Secretary of the Diocesan Administration under the Western European Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky). The publication appeared in the name of the Diocesan Administration of the Western European Metropolitan District itself and defends the canonical status of Metropolitan Evlogy in his dispute with the Synod and Council of Bishops at Sremski Karlovci, in Serbia — above all on the question of the separation of the German parishes from Metropolitan Evlogy’s Metropolitan District, and on the limits of the competence of Russian church institutions abroad. The work became one of the founding texts of the discussion on the canonical status of the Russian Church Abroad, a discussion continued by the materials of the Canon Law section of this website.

September 17, 2026

 

***
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. Historical survey of the canonical relations within the Russian Church from the restoration of the Patriarchate in 1917, through the period of the Civil War, and in emigration
II. The structure of governance of the Orthodox Church
III. Analysis of the canonical status of Russian church institutions abroad
a) Source of authority
b) The territorial criterion
c) Composition
d) Scope of competence
2. The status of Metropolitan Anthony
3. The status of Metropolitan Evlogy
4. The relations between Metropolitan Evlogy and the Russian church institutions abroad
IV. The question of the separation of the German parishes from the Western European Metropolitan District
V. Paths toward the resolution of the conflict
Conclusion
***

Introduction

The positive content of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, in matters both dogmatic and canonical, has very often — indeed for the most part — been unfolded on the occasion of doubts or disagreements that arose over one question or another.

All seven Ecumenical Councils were convened, first and foremost, on such negative occasions.

There is nothing new or extraordinary in the history of the Church in disagreements among hierarchs over the ownership of one or another church territory, or over the limits and extent of the judicial-administrative authority of particular persons and institutions.

Such questions and collisions did not signify the collapse or division of the Church, but were resolved without harm at Ecumenical and Local Councils.

Herein lies the organic difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism: in the latter, questions are resolved by the supreme authority of a single person, whereas among us, in the Orthodox Church, they are resolved conciliarly.

We may remain calm precisely because in Orthodoxy, within the order established by the Universal Church, there are always perfectly definite, canon-prescribed, concrete paths for the resolution of such cases.

A similar perplexing case has arisen now as well, under truly exceptional circumstances, in which the Russian Church — the greatest in territorial extent, number of dioceses, and size of Orthodox population — has found itself, both at home and abroad.

This question is not a dogmatic disagreement; nor, equally, is it a fundamental, cardinal, canonical dispute, for it is not a matter of separation on this account from the Eastern local Churches or from our own Mother Church of Russia, but concerns secondary questions — namely, questions about the limits of church-administrative competence, and moreover the competence of those secondary bodies which all Russian church institutions and hierarchical persons abroad constitute.

Therefore one must first of all reject, as substantively incorrect, the designation of disagreements on these questions as schism.

However far this disagreement may go, it is not a schism.

The concept of schism, according to the canonical epistle of St Basil the Great, is defined as separation from the Universal Church on matters not of a dogmatic character.

The essence of schism is departure from the body of the Universal Church, and its chief mark is non-communion in the Sacraments with the Church.

But however decisively and finally our hierarchs may fall out among themselves — even were they to divide — even in that case the disagreement of our hierarchs abroad on this secondary question would not be a schism, for both sides would continue to remain within the body of the Universal Orthodox Church, and the autocephalous Orthodox Churches would break communion with neither side.

Suppose that Metropolitan Anthony and Metropolitan Evlogy, after such a division, found themselves in Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Bucharest, or Belgrade — it is clear that the Ecumenical, Alexandrian, Jerusalem, Serbian, Romanian, and all other Patriarchs would continue to serve with both of them alike.

Schism — separation from the Universal Church — is determined either by a trial with the participation of several heads of autocephalous Churches, or by the recognition by these heads that such persons and communities have fallen into schism.

That is why it must be stated that schism, in the exact canonical meaning of the word, does not exist here and will not exist, for it cannot exist.

This must be said to set at rest the conscience of those Russian people who are needlessly frightened by this word, which has nothing to do with the matter.

The question concerns the origin, foundations, essence, and extent of the rights of the organization of Russian church authority abroad.

The perplexity rests upon the unprecedented situation in which the Russian Church abroad has found itself, and upon the absence of regular relations with the All-Russian Central Church authority.

To clarify the situation, it is necessary to give a brief historical survey of the canonical relationships from the time the Patriarchate arose, then during the period of the Civil War, and finally in emigration — which will form the first part of the present essay;

then it will be necessary to set forth the norm of church organization according to the sacred canons, that is, to describe the structure of governance in the Orthodox Church — which will be the second part;

after that, on the basis of this norm, an analysis and evaluation can be made of the canonical status of the Russian church institutions abroad — which will constitute the third part;

then it will be possible to proceed to an examination of the disputed positions and questions, which will make up the fourth part; and, finally, to set forth the paths to the resolution of the question and to reconciliation, as indicated by the sacred canons, which will be the fifth and final part.

I. Historical survey of the canonical relations within the Russian Church from the restoration of the Patriarchate in 1917, through the period of the Civil War, and in emigration

On November 21, 1917, with the enthronement of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon — his accession to the Moscow All-Russian Patriarchal Throne in the Dormition Cathedral — the Synodal period of Russian church history came to an end.

The Patriarchate was restored in Russia. The Patriarch of All Russia had the source of his authority in the Sacred Council of Moscow of 1917–18, which constituted the Local Council of the autocephalous Russian Church, and in the concensus totius ecclesiae — the assent of the Universal Church, expressed through peace letters addressed to the newly elected Patriarch by all the Eastern Patriarchs and the other heads of the autocephalous Churches of the Universal Church.

The organs of governance of the Russian Church, established by the Moscow Local Council, were: the Patriarch, the Holy Synod, and the Supreme Church Council.

The circumstances of the Civil War, within half a year, divided the Russian state into warring camps and interrupted the correct and regular relations between the outlying regions that had come under the sway of the White movement and the church center in Moscow, which remained on territory under Soviet governmental power.

In connection with this, given the evident need to organize church life, church centers formed in individual districts. One was in Siberia, in Omsk, within the territory controlled by Admiral Kolchak, and was called the Higher Church Administration; another arose on territory occupied by the Armed Forces of South Russia, where General Denikin was active, under the name of the Higher Church Administration of South Russia.

These bodies united the dioceses located within these territories, under the headship of the bishops of those dioceses, and extended their authority over those dioceses.

At this time His Eminence Evlogy, then Archbishop of Volhynia, was arrested in Kiev in December 1918, together with Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev, by Petliura’s forces, and exiled to Galicia, where he was confined first in a Uniate monastery in Buchach, and then, after a further arrest by the Poles, in Bielany, in the Camaldolese monastery near Kraków.

Upon his release, in July 1919, His Eminence Evlogy travelled to Russia, but was unable to reach his own diocese, since it was a theater of the Civil War and remained the whole time under the power of the Red Army. In view of this, in January 1920 His Eminence Evlogy departed for Serbia, where he remained for more than a year.

The above-mentioned Higher Church Administration of South Russia, by a decree of October 1, 1920, appointed His Eminence Evlogy to administer the Russian churches abroad.

This decree, however, did not reach Metropolitan Evlogy, and therefore remained unimplemented until the Higher Church Administration of South Russia ceased to exist, together with the evacuation of the Crimea on November 1, 1920.

The bishops who found themselves in Constantinople — Metropolitans Anthony and Platon, Archbishops Anastassy and Theofan, and Bishop Veniamin — organized a Russian center abroad, naming it the Higher Russian Church Administration Abroad.

Being on the territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, within the limits of the latter’s canonical jurisdiction, the Russian bishops had to request permission for their activity from the Ecumenical Throne, and received the right to administer the Russian émigrés in church matters, with the exception of church-judicial questions, which the Ecumenical Throne reserved to itself.

The newly created Russian church center, called as noted above the Higher Church Administration Abroad, in January 1921 confirmed the appointment of His Eminence Evlogy as Administrator of the Orthodox churches in Western Europe, citing the former decree of the Higher Church Administration of South Russia on the same matter.

His Eminence Evlogy accepted this appointment, arrived in Berlin in April 1921, and entered upon the discharge of his office.

This state of affairs lasted from January to April 1921 — that is, only four months — for already on April 8, 1921, His Eminence Evlogy received confirmation of his rights to administer the churches of Western Europe from Patriarch Tikhon, in Decree No. 424.

Metropolitan Veniamin of Petrograd, to whom these churches had previously been subordinate, also communicated his consent to this, in letters addressed to His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and to His Eminence Evlogy.

Thus the separation of part of the diocese of the Metropolitan of Petrograd into the charge of His Eminence Evlogy took place in exact accordance with the canons — namely, with the provisions of the Council of Carthage, which require the consent of the bishop to whom canonical diocesan authority over these churches had previously belonged.

This did not, of course, entirely abolish the authority of the church administration abroad, but its rights with respect to His Eminence Metropolitan Evlogy henceforth became very limited, for a direct link had been formed between Metropolitan Evlogy and the Patriarch of All Russia, who by his own authority determined both the scope of his church powers and his general canonical status.

Subsequently this situation changed fundamentally.

In the autumn of 1921 a gathering of part of the Russian bishops — namely, those who were residing in Europe — took place at Karlovtsy, in Serbia; this gathering, although held on the territory of another local Church, the Serbian Church, proclaimed itself a Council, on the model of the Local Council of a particular Church, and reorganized the Higher Church Administration after the pattern of the Moscow Patriarchal Administration.

As is known, at this Council, among other things, resolutions of a political character were adopted, despite the protests of a considerable part of the clergy and laity — approximately one third of its entire membership. Among those who protested was His Eminence Evlogy.

This excursion into the political sphere provoked Decree No. 349 of Patriarch Tikhon, of May 5, 1922, by which the Higher Church Administration Abroad was closed, and the administration of all the churches abroad was transferred to Metropolitan Evlogy. The latter was instructed to submit proposals on the organization of this administration.

With the publication of this decree, the aforementioned church administration abroad ceased to be even that secondary, yet still lawful, authority which it had been until then, so long as its existence was permitted by the Patriarch.

The Karlovtsy Council was condemned and recognized as not expressing the voice of the Russian Church. Upon the closing of the Higher Administration, authority over the Western European churches abroad was definitively transferred to Metropolitan Evlogy.

In place of the Higher Church Administration, abolished by the Patriarch, the assembled Russian bishops established a Provisional Synod of Bishops, with the indispensable participation — as was emphasized — of Metropolitan Evlogy; the further structure was to be decided the following year, when it was proposed to convene a Council again, with the participation of clergy and laity. This Council did not take place, and it was necessary to confine matters to a mere gathering of bishops.

Metropolitan Evlogy, then as now, considered it necessary to unite the church organizations abroad in the form of periodic annual Congresses or Councils of Bishops, and a permanent collegial body of theirs — a Synod of Bishops — but only on the indispensable condition that these organizations should not appropriate to themselves the rights of supreme authority, but should be subordinate to the All-Russian Central Authority and, consequently, should strictly carry out the latter’s will.

At the next Council of Bishops, in 1923, which was to work out a new statute for the administration of the Russian Church Abroad, Metropolitan Evlogy proposed the following:

1. To clarify its relation to the All-Russian Church Authority — and the Council adopted his formula, which stated that “the representatives of the dioceses located outside the borders of Russia, taken together, express the voice of the free Russian Church Abroad, but neither an individual person nor a Council of the hierarchs of these dioceses represents an authority possessing the rights which belong, in their fullness, to the All-Russian Church in the person of its lawful hierarchy.”
2. The central organization of the Russian Church abroad was adopted in the form of a Council of Bishops and a Synod.

To the Council of Bishops was granted supreme guidance in matters of faith and doctrine, the issuing of epistles, relations with the local Churches, the appointment of bishops, and trial over them when a canonical number of bishops was present.

To the Synod of Bishops was granted the resolution of current business, and, in judicial respects, the rights of a court of appeal and cassation.

Thus, given the clearly formulated status of the secondary and subordinate authority of the Council and Synod of Bishops, these institutions received the significance proper to them — merely that of a unifying center for the Russian churches abroad.

3. Metropolitan Evlogy proposed the introduction of the system of metropolitan districts prescribed by the sacred canons. Specifically, he proposed dividing all the churches abroad into districts: Western European, American, Far Eastern, and Near Eastern. This division corresponded to the isolation of the regions named, which lacked the possibility of communication with one another; but the bishops gathered at Karlovtsy did not wish to introduce this canonical organization, and had to accept it only for the diocese of Metropolitan Evlogy, which was named the Western European Metropolitan District, with special rights of internal autonomy and with corresponding special powers for Metropolitan Evlogy.

From this same moment there began the disagreement between Metropolitan Evlogy and the bishops living in Serbia and Bulgaria, who thus constituted the majority of the Synod and the Council.

The fundamental difference of views consisted in the following:

The Synod of Bishops sought, under a new name, to remain the former Higher Church Administration Abroad.

It wished to possess the full rights of the former Most Holy Governing Synod with respect to the episcopate abroad.

This tendency toward centralization of authority, on the model of the former Synod of the ober-procurator period, was already apparent at the Council of 1923 in the rejection of Metropolitan Evlogy’s project for the creation of separate, self-governing metropolitan districts.

While affirming at all times the unity of the All-Russian Church and the inviolability of the tie with it, Metropolitan Evlogy at the same time combines the idea of organic union with Moscow with the idea of a necessary and inevitable decentralization.

In his report to the Council of 1923 he wrote:

“The idea of union must be reconciled with the principle of internal self-government, which today is entirely inescapable given the diverse local state and social conditions, given the extreme complexity of communications in general, and, in particular, given the difficulty of travel.” And he went on to present a developed scheme of church organization.

But the Council of Bishops did not wish to accept this proposal, grounded as it was on the canons, and preferred to remain with the old, centralist synodal scheme.

Not content with this, the Synod sought to assume the fullness of the rights of the All-Russian Church authority, both abroad and even with respect to Russia itself, and this question was placed on the agenda of every Council of Bishops in 1923, 1924, and 1926.

In 1923:

“14. On the assumption by the Higher Church authority abroad of the functions of the All-Russian Church Authority, temporarily, until the restoration of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon or his lawful deputy.”

In 1924:

“29. On changes in the organization of the Higher Church authority abroad.
30. On the necessity and possibility, in view of the church events taking place in Russia, of granting to the Synod or Council of Bishops, under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Anthony, the rights and functions of the All-Russian Church Authority — a question which many bishops raised last year.
31. On the necessity and possibility of proclaiming the temporary independence of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad in matters of church administration, while recognizing the headship of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and continuing the commemoration of his name, so as thereby to relieve him of responsibility for the church abroad before the Soviet authorities, and to deprive the Bolsheviks of the possibility of doing violence to the conscience of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon with respect to it.” —
At the 1924 Council, in the discussion of point 30, a decision was reached to strip Metropolitan Evlogy of the rights of autonomy of his District; but the Metropolitan’s firm declaration that he would in that case leave the Council forced a retreat from this, and a compromise decision was reached, resolving to preserve these rights until a new expression of will by the All-Russian Church Authority.

In 1925:

In 1925 no Council of Bishops took place, but the aforementioned tendency toward an increase in the scope of the rights of the Council and Synod abroad manifested itself in two characteristic instances.
By a resolution of April 9, 1925, concerning a letter from Archbishop Innokenty, Head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in China, it was decreed:
“The Synod of Bishops… finds it expedient, and, for the good of the Russian Orthodox Church and of all Orthodoxy, necessary, that in the event the Soviet authorities in Russia do not permit the canonical Locum Tenens to exercise the administration of the Church…, to grant to the Chairman of the Synod of Bishops, His Eminence Metropolitan Anthony, with the rights of a temporary Deputy of the Patriarch until the convening of a canonical All-Russian Council, to represent the All-Russian Orthodox Church and, insofar as conditions and circumstances permit, to direct church life and the Church not only outside of Russia but within Russia as well.”
The second instance is connected with the assumption of the office of Locum Tenens of the Moscow Patriarchal Throne by Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsy.

When Metropolitan Evlogy received the document concerning this on November 7, 1925, he, as a bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate, immediately accepted it for execution and notified the Synod of Bishops accordingly.

The Synod of Bishops, by a resolution of September 16, did not find it possible to do the same, citing insufficient certainty as to the authenticity of the document.

But in its resolution of November 12, having become satisfied of the authenticity of this document (the epistle of the sixty-nine Russian bishops), the Synod, although it did propose the commemoration of the name of the Locum Tenens Metropolitan Peter in the churches, nevertheless made the following restrictive resolution:

“While adhering to its earlier decision that final recognition of Metropolitan Peter was postponed until the convening of a Sacred Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad…, to recognize His Eminence Metropolitan Peter temporarily as Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne.”

Here the Synod of Bishops appropriates to itself a right belonging to the supreme authority of an autocephalous Church — the right to recognize this or that hierarch as its own head.

For Metropolitan Evlogy there was never any such question of “recognizing or not recognizing” Metropolitan Peter as Locum Tenens.

From the moment he was designated as such in the testament of the reposed His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, and was recognized by the voice of the whole Russian hierarchy (the act of the sixty-nine bishops) that had remained faithful to the church canons, Metropolitan Evlogy considered himself obliged to submit immediately to this voice of the whole Russian Church, and he called on the flock entrusted to him to do likewise. — “It seems to me,” wrote Metropolitan Evlogy in reply to the displeasure expressed to him on this account by the Synod of Bishops, “that it is not Metropolitan Peter who needs the recognition of a comparatively small group of Russian hierarchs abroad, but, on the contrary, we ourselves who need his recognition.”

In 1926:

On the agenda of the 1926 Council the earlier tendencies were expressed in the more general formula of point 2 — “General questions concerning the administration of the Russian Church Abroad and the relation to the Central All-Russian Church Administration.”

That the former centralist tendency was meant by this is shown, above all, by the circumstances of Metropolitan Evlogy’s departure from the Council.

There is a notable moment in which, after a decision had already been adopted to preserve the “status quo ante” for the Western European Metropolia, a new resolution decided to leave this question open; and then, when, at Metropolitan Evlogy’s insistence, it was decided to proceed to a discussion of it, this already-adopted decision to preserve the status quo was reversed the very next day, at the wish of Bishop Tikhon and several bishops who supported him.

The second tendency was manifested in the resolution of the Council of June 29 concerning the commemoration in all churches of the name of His Eminence Metropolitan Anthony after the name of the Locum Tenens — a practice observed only with respect to one’s direct canonical superiors — and the establishment of such a commemoration amounted to a semi-transparent recognition of Metropolitan Anthony as the canonical head of the Church Abroad, which does not correspond to the actual church situation and for which there are no grounds whatsoever.

The same character attaches to the resolution of July 1, that “in the event of the cessation of the lawful succession of the Central Supreme Church Authority in Russia, the Synod of Bishops be instructed to query all the bishops on this question, to convene urgently a Council of Bishops for its resolution, and, should these measures prove impossible to carry out, to grant the Synod of Bishops the right to apply extraordinary measures to prevent consequences ruinous for the Russian Church.”

Metropolitan Evlogy and the American Metropolitan Platon did not take part in these resolutions, for they had already left the Council beforehand.

What canonical status, then, arose upon the departure of Metropolitans Evlogy and Platon?

The Synod of Bishops no longer considers Metropolitan Evlogy one of its members, as was resolved by the Council of Bishops in its session of July 1.

Metropolitan Platon himself withdrew from the church organization abroad based in Serbia.

The Council of Bishops demanded from Metropolitan Evlogy and Metropolitan Platon submission to the Synod and Council of Bishops.

Metropolitans Evlogy and Platon did not agree to this demand of unconditional and complete submission.

What the correct way out of the situation that has arisen may be, an examination of the canonical norms of church life, as applied to the present case, will show.

II. The structure of governance of the Orthodox Church

“Only in the Council of the bishops of each individual region is concentrated the whole fullness of the church authority of that region, exactly as in the council of the bishops of all the Churches is concentrated the whole fullness of the church authority of the Universal Church. This is the fundamental teaching of the Orthodox Church, which is grounded in Divine right.” — (Nikodim, I, 105.)

The Ecumenical Council, by Divine right, possesses the infallibility of its judgments and is the highest source of church authority on earth and the final deciding instance.

“Everyone is permitted to have recourse even to the Ecumenical Council” (Epistle of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine of Rome).

In the age following the Ecumenical Councils, the voice of the whole Church is expressed in the unanimous recognition of a given status by all the heads of the autocephalous Churches. Such, on dogmatic questions, is the “Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1723.” Such, in canonical significance, is the recognition, by the heads of the other autocephalous Churches, of every new head of each autocephalous Church, through the sending to each of them of a peace letter recognizing the new primate.

The Universal Church is divided into local, autocephalous Churches, which, with their councils and their heads — patriarchs or archbishops — constitute the highest, permanently functioning church judicial-administrative institutions, in other words, canonical institutions.

An autocephalous local Church is called in the canons a “great region” or “diocese” — Canons 2 and 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 9 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

The organs of its governance are the Local Council, with the Patriarch (or autocephalous archbishop) at its head. To the Local Council belongs the supreme authority in a given local Church over all matters, both administrative and judicial.

These local councils were established already at the First Ecumenical Council. Canon 2, in delimiting the areas of jurisdiction of the various dioceses — that is, patriarchates, namely the Alexandrian and the Antiochian — says: “the aforementioned rules concerning church regions (dioceses) being preserved, it is plain that the affairs of each region will be well administered by the council of that same region.” — The Council of Carthage speaks especially clearly of this: its Canon 7 directs that “a council be assembled every year, to which all who hold the first sees in the regions shall send, from their own (lesser, regional, metropolitan) councils, two or as many bishops as they shall choose, so that the assembly thus constituted may possess full authority.” It was precisely to these local councils — councils of dioceses, or of great regions — that the Ecumenical Council gave the authority of the highest judicial instance, of appeal and cassation, with respect to the lower council; and, besides this, it was precisely this council that was the competent tribunal for matters concerning the regional metropolitans, as well as questions concerning the separation and creation of new dioceses.

Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council states that, upon the examination of a judicial case concerning a bishop at the lower, regional council — “if the bishops of the united dioceses (of the regional council) are not able to restore order, then let them proceed to the larger council of the bishops of the great region, convened for this cause.”

Canon 1 of the Third Ecumenical Council states that judgment over a metropolitan belongs to the diocesan council, and “shall be subject to the consideration of the bishops of the region and of the neighboring metropolitans who are orthodox in their judgment.”

The head of a local Church is the Patriarch or the autocephalous archbishop.

The source of the Patriarch’s authority is the Local Council and his recognition by the heads of the other autocephalous Churches, a practice strictly observed even to this day.

The Patriarch has a defined scope of authority, established by the Ecumenical Councils; namely, Canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council states: “Let the ancient customs prevail which are in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria have authority over all these, since this is also customary for the Bishop of Rome. Likewise also in Antioch, and in the other provinces, let the privileges of the Churches be preserved. And it must in general be understood that if anyone be made a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the Great Council has determined that such a one ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three, out of personal contentiousness, oppose the common vote of all which is otherwise reasonable and in accordance with the church rule, let the vote of the majority prevail.”

The rights of the Bishop of Alexandria at the time the Council of Nicaea was convened were not the rights of an ordinary metropolitan, in the sense in which Canon 6 of this Council speaks — that is, the rights of a metropolitan of one particular region — but the rights of the Bishop of Alexandria extended over three regions, namely, as the canon states, Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis, of which, in turn, each had its own metropolitan with subordinate bishops.

The Council of Nicaea recognizes and sanctions the greater rights of the metropolitans in certain preeminent Churches, whereby these metropolitans had under their jurisdiction not only a certain number of subordinate bishops, but also a certain number of ordinary metropolitans, with bishops subordinate to them in turn…

Egypt (the eastern part), Libya, the Pentapolis, and the Thebaid constituted ordinary metropolitan regions with their own metropolitans and subordinate bishops — as is attested, among other things, by the names, preserved in history, of the metropolitans who once presided there; but all of them were subordinate to the Bishop (afterward Patriarch) of Alexandria.

This dependency may in essence be expressed as follows: within the aforementioned metropolitan regions subordinate to the Bishop of Alexandria, the rights of the metropolitan proper to each of these regions must be strictly safeguarded, so that no one may become a bishop in one of these regions unless he be canonically elected by the regional council with the consent of the metropolitan concerned. To the Bishop of Alexandria, however, as metropolitan of the preeminent Church, belongs the right of supreme confirmation of this election, and without his confirmation no bishop may be appointed within the bounds of his region of eastern and upper Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis. But the Bishop of Alexandria too, in view of the canonically confirmed rights of the regional metropolitans, may not in turn appoint anyone bishop without first learning the opinion of the metropolitan under whose jurisdiction the new bishop will have to act. Besides this right of supreme confirmation of every election of diocesan bishops, to the Bishop of Alexandria belonged the right of ordaining the metropolitans themselves for the regions subject to him.” (Nikodim, I, 199, 201.)

From this it follows that the head of a local Church is the source of authority for the bishops subordinate to him, and that without this sanction the latter cannot possess administrative-judicial rights.

At the same time, the canons (Canons 9 and 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) accord to the Patriarch of Constantinople (as also to that of Rome) special rights — namely, the right of appeal also for other Churches.

Within each individual autocephalous Church there may exist its own particular canon law, developed from, and consonant with, the general canon law.

In the Russian Church, “the Patriarch has the right, in case of disagreement with a decision of the Council, to refer it for reconsideration, and, in case of disagreement with the second resolution, to suspend proceedings or refer the matter for final resolution apart from the Council, or to make an independent decision and carry it into execution” — (Art. 20 of the resolution of the Sacred Council of 1918). Trial of the Patriarch, under Art. 10, is indicated as requiring the participation of representatives of the local Churches.

Each individual local Church is divided into metropolitan regions. We have seen that Canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council states that the Patriarch of Alexandria extended his authority over three regions — Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis — of which each had its own metropolitan with subordinate bishops. (Nikodim, I, 201.)

The same order is indicated for the Patriarch of Antioch.

The same is indicated for the “other” local “regions.” To these belongs, for example, Africa, divided into four regions. (Ibid., I, 204.)

The metropolitan regions are governed by their own regional Council and by the ruling metropolitan.

The regional Councils of a metropolitan region are determined by the following canons: Canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council, Canon 19 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon 8 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and Canon 20 of the Council of Antioch, which require that in each region the bishops “assemble together twice a year.”

To the regional Council belongs the highest church authority in a given region.

Canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council states: “It is most fitting that a bishop be appointed by all the bishops of the region. But should this be difficult, either because of pressing necessity or the length of the journey, at least three should assemble in one place, and the absent bishops should signify their consent by letters; and then the ordination should take place. But in every region the confirmation of these acts belongs to the metropolitan.”

The same is indicated by Canon 19 of the Council of Antioch.

To the regional Council belongs the court of first instance over clergy and over a bishop. Canon 9 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council states that in the case of a suit involving a bishop, whether of one’s own or another’s diocese, “let it be tried before the regional council.” Canons 15, 17, and 18 of the Council of Antioch likewise grant trial over a bishop to the regional council. But the regional council is bound to its metropolitan even more closely than the Local Council is to its patriarch. Namely, confirmation of the conciliar decisions by the metropolitan is required. “The confirmation of the acts of the bishops of each region belongs to its metropolitan.” (Canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council.)

At the head of a metropolitan (ordinary) region stands the metropolitan. The source of his authority is the regional council of the metropolia and, as shown above, the sanction of the Patriarch.

The rights of the metropolitan of a region consist, as stated, in this — “that the confirmation… of the acts (of the bishops) in each region belongs to its metropolitan.” (Canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council.)

Canon 9 of the Council of Antioch states that “in each region the bishops must acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis and has care for the whole region. Wherefore it has been decreed that the other bishops should do nothing of special importance without him, that no bishop should presume to do anything without the bishop of the metropolis, and that the latter likewise should do nothing without the consent of the other bishops.”

With regard to the metropolitan regions, Canon 16 of the Council of Antioch indicates that “a perfect council is one at which the metropolitan is present together with the others” — that is, only such a council is called complete, and only to it is granted the right to appoint bishops.

Thus we see that the structure of the Universal Orthodox Church, from top to bottom, has the following characteristics:

The source of rights. Beginning from the highest existing organization, the autocephalous local Church, the authority of every degree has its lawful source in the higher hierarchical and conciliar instance, and without its sanction is not lawful.

A priest has the sanction of his authority in the diocesan bishop; a bishop, in the metropolitan; a metropolitan, in the authority of the patriarch.

The territorial criterion. We see the strict application of the territorial principle in church organization. A local Church is determined by the regions comprised within it and by the bishops of precisely those regions, and no others. Regional metropolitans have in their charge the diocesan bishops of their own metropolia.

Every lower church organism must, without exception, belong to one or another local Church, be bound to it, and have its final, highest instance in its organs.

The canons know no “wandering church bodies,” not belonging to — and, we stress, not organically, factually, and canonically bound to — the higher organs of one or another local autocephalous Church.

The canons determine the composition of a council from the bishops of the given church region.

The First Ecumenical Council, in Canon 5, states — “that all the bishops of the region, having assembled together, should resolve the matter in doubt.”

Canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council states: — “let not the bishops of a region extend their authority to Churches beyond the limits of their own authority, nor confound the Churches;… let the bishops of the East govern only in the East… likewise let the bishops of the Asian region govern only in Asia… Let the bishops not go, uninvited, beyond the bounds of their own regions for any church proceeding whatsoever.” — And, the above-described rules being preserved, “it is plain that the affairs of each region will be well administered by the council of that same region.”

The same territorial composition of the bishops taking part is indicated by Canon 19 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and Canon 8 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

In this same order of the stages described proceeds the organization of church administration and the scope of the canonical (judicial-administrative) authority of one or another hierarchical person, institution, or council, which is determined by the sacred canons, just as the very acquisition of these rights is accomplished by an act of transmission from the lawful higher instance, which by its nature is the source of these rights.

In judicial respects, the canons (Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 1 of the Third Ecumenical Council, Canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and many others) establish the following conciliar instances, according to which church-judicial cases must be considered in order:

1. The council of a metropolitan region (or, as the canons say elsewhere, of a metropolitan diocese), at which, under the presidency of the metropolitan, all the bishops dependent on him take part.

Note: — In our Church abroad, such councils ought to have existed in the Western European and the American metropolias. So it might have been elsewhere as well, according to the canons, had not the Council of Bishops of 1923 rejected Metropolitan Evlogy’s proposal for organizing all the dioceses abroad into metropolitan districts (regions).

2. The council of the bishops of the diocese — that is, of the bishops and metropolitans of a great church region, such as a patriarchate.

Such councils are provided for by Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council and Canons 12 and 14 of the Council of Antioch.

Questions that cannot be resolved at the first council — those on which appeals have been lodged, or on which no agreement has been reached — are reconsidered at the diocesan council, whose decisions are final and, as a general rule, not subject to appeal, except for matters of special importance, which pass to the consideration of the Ecumenical Council.

Canons 9, 17, and 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council grant the Ecumenical Patriarch special rights of judgment also with respect to persons who do not belong to the Church of Constantinople.

With regard to judicial process, it should be noted that the canons everywhere establish the obligatory nature of two instances — the first, and the second, that of appeal.

III. Analysis of the canonical status of Russian church institutions abroad

1. The status of the Council and Synod of Bishops

What, then, is the canonical nature, and what is the scope of authority, of the organs of the Russian Church abroad now functioning by mutual agreement among bishops — the Councils of Bishops and the Synod of Bishops?

It is absolutely necessary to clarify this question, since all the subsequent misunderstandings rest upon a confusion of the concept of “Council” in its canonical sense with the aforementioned organizations abroad.

The bishops constituting the Council of Bishops and the Synod of Bishops at Karlovtsy consider themselves a full-fledged council of the hierarchs of a certain region, and on this basis demand the full submission to themselves of all the bishops whom they consider subordinate to them on general canonical grounds.

The Synod of Bishops is, apparently, regarded by them as the former Most Holy Governing Synod that existed in Russia prior to the establishment of the Patriarchate — as a supreme, all-encompassing administrative-judicial institution of the Russian Church abroad.

The scope of the rights, or of the canonical (judicial-administrative) authority, of one or another church institution or person is determined by the sacred canons through the following conditions:

1) the existence of a lawful source of authority and an act of its transmission; 2) the territory over which this authority extends; 3) the nature of the given institution or person (some rights belong to a bishop, others to a metropolitan, others still to the head of a local Church; councils likewise differ in their rights).

а) The source of the authority of the Council and Synod of Bishops

What, then, from the canonical point of view, is our Council of Bishops abroad? From what source does its authority flow? What higher church instance sanctioned the rights of the Council of Bishops? On the basis of what canons does it possess its authority?

The decree of Patriarch Tikhon of November 20, 1920, which is frequently cited, cannot be regarded as a source of authority for the Council of Bishops abroad — indeed it has quite the opposite significance. This decree deals with the situation of Russian bishops on Russian territory who had lost contact with the central church authority, and in every case has in view the organization of specific dioceses and regions, with their regularly ruling bishops remaining in mutual contact, who had lost touch with Moscow — not an assembly of hierarchs who had lost their sees (even through no fault of their own) and were gathering on the territory of another local Church, the Serbian. The decree of Patriarch Tikhon was written not for the organization of bishops without sees, but for normal dioceses in their full composition, with bishops, clergy, and laity.

This is why, in his project for the organization of Russian church life abroad, Metropolitan Evlogy, although he did refer to this decree, did not consider it necessary to unite all our churches and parishes abroad into dioceses, and the dioceses into metropolitan districts — that is, to establish the canonical principle of territoriality.

Nor can our councils abroad receive the fullness of canonical authority from the Patriarch of Serbia, with whose permission they assembled. This essential canonical circumstance deserves attention, and it applies equally to our councils, to the Synod of Bishops, and to the bishops permanently residing in Serbia.

Strictly speaking, according to the basic canonical rules, two independent hierarchies, two church authorities, two supreme church organs or administrations, are impossible on one and the same church territory.

The Serbian Patriarch could invest them with authority only on the territory of his own Serbian Church, and not over the whole expanse over which our churches abroad are distributed.

Here the conclusions are clear: either the Russian bishops living in Serbia, being guests of the Serbian Patriarch, have no right to organize their own church administrations; or, if the Serbian Patriarch does permit such, then only within the bounds of the Serbian Patriarchate, and not in regions that do not belong to him.

The establishment, on foreign canonical territory, of a fully authorized organ of church administration cannot be equated with the status of extra-territorial metochia [dependencies], for metochia are merely individual, particular churches.

Thus our councils abroad do not possess a proper, fully authorized canonical source of their authority.

Nor does our organization abroad possess the sanction of church authority, required by the canons, of its own Patriarch; and not only does it not possess it, but, on the contrary, it possesses a negative sanction, in the form of Patriarchal Decree No. 349 of 1922, which cut short the canonical activity of precisely those bishops who in 1922 belonged to the Higher Church Administration Abroad, and who now constitute an overwhelming majority in the Councils and the Synod.

Nor do they have their source of authority in any canonical summons to assume any sees abroad, issued by the local dioceses or by assemblies of bishops, as was the case with respect to Metropolitan Platon.

Nor do they have a source in themselves, for they do not constitute a Council of bishops of any defined region.

b) The territorial criterion for the Council and Synod of Bishops

The Council and Synod abroad lack proper territorial canonical representation. “Only in the Council of the bishops of each individual region is concentrated the fullness of the church authority of that region,” says Bishop Nikodim (I, 105). Indeed, the Church attaches very great importance to the territorial criterion in canonical respects. When Archbishop John of Cyprus left Cyprus with his people, the Sixth Ecumenical Council, by Canon 39, in order to preserve for him the rights of an autocephalous hierarch, granted him a new territory, subordinating to him all the bishops located there who had previously been under a different jurisdiction.

It is pointed out that the Council of Bishops and its organ, the Synod of Bishops, are the representatives of all the other dioceses abroad. By this are meant the dioceses of Harbin and Kamchatka, and the Missions of Japan and China.

But none of these dioceses has ever been represented at the Russian councils abroad by bishops or their representatives; they have only sent written opinions in response to inquiries directed to them. At best, only their opinions on these matters may be joined to the force of the resolutions of the Council of Bishops, but no more than that. In the first place, a written opinion cannot be equated with a personal vote; in the second, the bishops of the said regions did not give their signatures in advance to whatever resolutions the council might adopt; in the third, this would amount to the actual transfer of the fullness of church authority to those few bishops who live in Serbia or Bulgaria and who in one case are called the Synod, and in another the Council (in which they constitute an overwhelming majority). Such an arrangement cannot be called conciliarity.

Nor does such an arrangement correspond to Canon 27 of the Council of Carthage, which requires the personal representation of bishops at a council.

It seems that no example can be cited in the history of the Church in which a portion of hierarchs without sees, who found themselves outside their own local Church — partly on the territory of other local Churches, partly on the territory of non-Orthodox countries — assumed for themselves the rights of a fully authorized council possessing the rights of supreme and final judgment in matters that fall within the competence of the Supreme Central Church authority of the local Church.

Likewise, the rights of judgment and authority of the Councils themselves are determined by the criterion of greater territorial extent, in the sense of the number of church organisms, dioceses, regions, or local Churches — great regions — comprised within them.

c) The composition of the Council and Synod of Bishops

In its composition, the assembly of Russian hierarchs abroad is not a council in the canonical sense and does not possess the rights of a normal council. The Councils of Bishops of metropolitan regions, and Local Councils, consisted of the bishops governing dioceses within the territory united by the council.

Of whom, then, do our Councils of Bishops consist?

Metropolitan Anthony administers, with the permission of the Patriarch of Serbia, seven Russian parishes located on the territory of the Serbian Church — that is, his position is semi-independent and depends on the consent of the Serbian church authority, which is not the case in a normal diocese: for instance, a bishop cannot be removed from his diocese without trial, whereas Metropolitan Anthony could be deprived of the rights of administration over the Russian parishes of Serbia by a simple order of the Patriarch. This is precisely what the Ecumenical Patriarch did with respect to the Russian Archbishop Anastassy in Constantinople, causing bitter offense to the Russians, yet he was canonically within his rights, and no one has attempted to show that he violated any canon.

This example is cited only to show that, from the canonical point of view, Metropolitan Anthony does not possess the full rights of a diocesan hierarch.

Even fewer rights are held by Bishop Seraphim, who administers, with the permission of the Bulgarian Synod, a very small number of Russian churches in Bulgaria. He was appointed, by the authority of His Eminence Evlogy, merely as rector of the church in Sofia; subsequently the Synod of Bishops abroad at Karlovtsy placed other Russian churches in Bulgaria under his administration as well.

Bishop Hermogenes is listed as having charge of the Russian churches in Greece and Africa, which is already an entirely fictional arrangement, since he has no proper communion with these churches, nor is he recognized as such by the heads of either the Greek or the Alexandrian Church, on whose territories the parishes entrusted to him are located. All the other bishops who are members of the Council — namely, Archbishop Theofan, Bishop Sergiy, Bishop Theofan, and Bishop Gabriel — reside in Serbia, in monasteries, as guests of the Serbian Patriarch.

Bishop Damian lives likewise as a guest in Bulgaria, administering a monastery and a pastoral school. Bishop Tikhon is a vicar of Metropolitan Evlogy, directly subordinate to him.

None of these has the right to participate as a full member of the present Council, according to the general canonical norm, and, in particular, according to Canon 18 of the Council of Antioch, which limits the rights of bishops who are not the actual governors of their dioceses, and according to Canon 37 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which preserves to them the rights of episcopal ministration and the right to issue lawful directives, but only with respect to those sees which they were unable to occupy owing to circumstances beyond their control.

The participation of non-ruling bishops shows that the Russian Congress of Bishops is not a Council in the full sense of the word, but a congress of émigré hierarchs assembled on the territory of the Serbian Church.

As proof of the full rights of these bishops, canonical rules are cited concerning the preservation of the canonical rights of bishops deprived of their sees without fault of their own — namely, Canon 37 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and Canon 18 of the Local Council of Antioch.

Both of these canons pertain to Greek bishops compelled by enemy invasions to abandon their dioceses. These bishops fled to the territory of their own local Church, to the center of its administration, to Constantinople, and remained in full communion with their own Church. It was precisely in such a position that the sixty-nine bishops of the Russian Church recently found themselves, who were in Moscow and administered from there the dioceses they had been forced to leave. The position of bishops who abandoned the bounds of their own local Church entirely is different: to them remains only the honor of the episcopate and the right to celebrate the sacred services. This follows especially from the fact that, by the directives of the Moscow Patriarchal Throne, all these bishops were relieved of the sees they occupied, and others were appointed in their place. The canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, on the other hand, pertains to bishops who abandoned their sees because of enemy invasion, who came to the capital, to the residence of their Patriarch, and who retained all their rights with respect to their see, which was not filled by another bishop: for such a see they issue directives and ordain priests. But can this possibly apply to our hierarchs abroad, who have abandoned the bounds of their own Church entirely, whose sees have already been filled by the Supreme All-Russian Church Authority?

In Canon 37 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council it is stated that when the head of the autocephalous Church of Cyprus, Archbishop John, left Cyprus with his flock because of the invasion of the Saracens, the Ecumenical Council placed at his disposal and under his administration a new territory, in which it granted him his former rights, subordinating to him even the metropolitan who was already there. It follows, therefore, that such a position requires a territory, and there is none such in our case, just as there was no church authority that would have granted to the Russian church organ abroad rights of a supreme order.

Professor Troitsky, in his article “On the rights of bishops deprived, without fault, of their sees,” says:

“Such a bishop retains for himself a portion of episcopal rights even in a foreign diocese.” Namely, “he retains, even in a foreign diocese, the authority of ordination (potestas ordinationis), but does not possess the authority of governance (potestas jurisdictionis), inasmuch as this is incompatible with the fullness of the jurisdiction of the local bishop.”

Concerning Canon 37 of the Council in Trullo, the same scholar says: “such bishops retain in it also the rights of governance with respect to the diocese they have left but which has not been filled by another.”

But all the Russian bishops residing in Serbia have already been lawfully replaced by the All-Russian Church Authority and have been released from their dioceses.

Even were one to admit an understanding of the above-cited rules as granting the fullness of rights to such bishops, it would still be clear that these bishops could not constitute the majority of a council, for which the territorial criterion is essential. A council consisting in its majority of bishops not occupying sees would not be a full-fledged council, and church history knows of no precedent for such a council.

The result would be — and indeed was — exactly what occurred in the Council of Bishops abroad: that the overwhelming majority of the Council was made up of several bishops with no dioceses at all, and this assembly of bishops disposed of regions and dioceses together with their metropolitans and bishops. This is an abnormal phenomenon, without precedent.

The consideration is advanced that conciliarity and the rights of a congress of bishops are determined not by the criterion of governing a diocese, but by the grace of episcopal consecration.

Indeed, for participation in a council of bishops the grace of the episcopate is necessary — it is the most important thing — but the canonicity of a participant, a bishop, is not determined by this alone. In this, a purely organizational matter, the Church has required other criteria as well, and above all the possession of a diocese, for a bishop is the representative of an entire organism forming part of the body of the Universal Church. And without the members of his diocese’s body he is not complete, not whole, in canonical respects — like a head without the other members of the organism. This is why the church rules, in this regard, bind the rights of bishops to their actual presidency over this or that see. This is why bishops of the Serbian Church living in retirement never take part either in the Serbian Synod or in its Council.

The concept of conciliarity includes the idea of representation, in the person of the bishop, of the clergy and laity he leads. Of what clergy and laity, then, can those bishops who constitute the majority of both the Council of Bishops and the Synod of Bishops consider themselves the representatives?

Such a council would represent a distortion of the idea of a council and of conciliarity. The term “Council” cannot be applied to any and every gathering of bishops, but only to a definite composition thereof. This follows clearly from the fact that the canons distinguish regional, diocesan, or local-Church councils from Ecumenical ones — distinguishing them precisely by the territorial criterion, distinguishing them by the rights possessed by the bishops present and by the competence of the councils, introducing everywhere, in judging the scope of rights, the criterion of territory and of the church body bound up with it, and not basing themselves solely on the grace of the episcopate, which is equal for all bishops regardless of their office. The grace is the same for all bishops, but the canons attribute varying canonical (judicial-administrative) rights depending on the office of the bishop: some to a chorepiscopus, others to a diocesan bishop, others to a metropolitan of a region, and others still to a patriarch.

d) The scope of competence of the Council and Synod of Bishops

Our Russian Councils abroad, for all the reasons set forth, are conditional councils, limited in their rights compared with normal councils, and can be called “councils” only because this designation is more fitting than any other for an assembly of bishops — but by no means in the sense that their rights are identical with those of canonical councils, for the Church knows of no councils other than councils of bishops actually standing at the head of church bodies and regions, which the bishops represent as heads of the church bodies over which they preside.

The existence and scope of the rights of our Councils abroad rest not upon an immutable, permanently operative canonical norm, but upon a temporary agreement among the ruling bishops taking part in them — an agreement whose foundations were worked out at the Council of 1923, and lasting only so long as this agreement endures.

The Council of Bishops itself acknowledged itself to be a council without full authority, in that it declared its subordination to the administrative authority of the Locum Tenens of the Moscow Patriarchal Throne.

Thus, the Council of Bishops of the Russian hierarchs abroad must be regarded as a secondary organ of church administration, unconditionally obliged to submit to the Central All-Russian Church authority and, in particular, obliged to maintain the arrangements established by it. It is therefore entirely impermissible for it to alter the boundaries of the Western European diocese, as these were established by the will of this higher authority.

The members of the Council themselves likewise regarded the conditional character of its position and rights.

Archbishop Theofan and Bishop Seraphim, in a letter of November 27, 1926, addressed to the Synod of Bishops, write (on the question of the Polish church):

“The Higher Church authority abroad — even in the person of the Council of Bishops Abroad — being a temporary authority, called forth solely by extraordinary circumstances for urgent church needs, is not competent to decide… a fundamental question concerning the whole Russian Church.

Any resolution of the Higher Russian Church authority abroad that exceeds its natural competence — and still more one running counter to the clearly expressed will of the Patriarch of Moscow — would testify to its non-recognition of the Higher Authority of the Patriarch of Moscow, a position which we could neither accept nor recognize as legally valid.”

Is not Metropolitan Evlogy now saying, almost word for word, the very same thing, in showing the impossibility for the Council of Bishops Abroad to alter the will of the All-Russian Church Authority on the question of the separation of the German parishes?

It is therefore clear that the canonical (judicial-administrative) authority of the Russian Council of Bishops Abroad and the Synod of Bishops is, above all, a conditional, temporary authority, subordinate to the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow and to the organs attached to it. The authority of the institutions abroad, in its scope, does not possess, in judicial and administrative respects, the rights of the Supreme All-Russian Central Authority, and cannot decide questions belonging to the competence of that authority.

If, for the convenience of church activity, the authority of the Synod of Bishops has been conditionally admitted, then, considering it in relation to the conciliar order, let us determine what conciliar instance it might be considered to be, in judicial respects.

With regard to the simplest judicial matters — that is, ecclesiastical trials of laity and clergy — and similar administrative matters, the diocesan court is the first instance, the Synod of Bishops the second, and the Council of Bishops the third.

The Council of Bishops is not the supreme and final instance, for it is not an organ of an autocephalous Church, of the so-called “great region” in the terminology of the canons; moreover, as stated above, it itself, in its resolution of 1926, acknowledged itself subordinate not even to a Council of the Russian Church, but to the administrative authority of the Locum Tenens of the Moscow Patriarchal Throne. Nor is the Council of Bishops a second conciliar instance, for we have no first, lower conciliar instance — a metropolitan council — although the latter is required by Canon 19 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon 8 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and Canon 6 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Consequently, since we have no other instance, the Council of Bishops can be likened only to a first conciliar instance.

Such it is also in its composition, for it consists not of diocesan bishops and regional metropolitans, but, in smaller part, of ruling bishops, and, in larger part, of non-ruling ones.

Canon 27 of the Council of Carthage speaks of diocesan Councils, that “a council be assembled every year, to which all who hold the first sees in the regions shall send, from their own councils, two or as many bishops as they shall choose, as deputies, so that the assembly thus constituted may possess full authority.”

The Council of Bishops of 1923 assumes to itself the right of trial over bishops — this is the right of trial of the first instance, given a canonical quorum, and, of course, with respect to the bishops subordinate to it.

Thus, at best, our councils may be regarded as corresponding to a regional council — that is, to a first instance — although the confused nature of their composition undermines, at the root, its significance in the proper sense.

2. The status of Metropolitan Anthony

Just as, in setting forth the norm of church governance, we first examined the Council, and then the bishop as head of a given diocese or region, so now it is natural to examine the position of the Chairman of the Council and Synod of Bishops, His Eminence Metropolitan Anthony.

Attention must be drawn to the not entirely accurate use of the title “Head of the Russian Church Abroad” with respect to Metropolitan Anthony.

It is necessary to dwell on the clarification of this question because this title of “Head” has of late come to be used rather frequently — something that was not the case not long ago — and from the mere fact of the use of this title people are beginning to move toward a definite notion of a special scope of canonical rights for Metropolitan Anthony, as compared with the other hierarchs, ascribing to him a position of authority over the other bishops akin to that of the heads of local Churches — which does not correspond to the actual state of affairs.

A “head” is a hierarch possessing special administrative rights over the bishops, clergy, and laity subordinate to him. The diocesan bishop is the head for his diocese, and his rights are defined in the canons.

The metropolitan is the head for his region; special rights with respect to the bishops of the metropolia are attributed to him.

The head of a local Church is the patriarch, or an autocephalous archbishop, and he possesses defined rights with respect to the metropolitans and the other bishops.

But the Russian metropolitan regions and dioceses abroad, taken together, do not constitute such a special canonical organism, or complete church body, as would have its own primate, its own first hierarch — a Head.

His Eminence Metropolitan Anthony, the senior among our hierarchs abroad, is chairman of the Councils and Synod of Bishops, enjoying all the honor of seniority that belongs to him, but he is not the head of the Church Abroad — which does not, in fact, exist in the sense of a distinct Church, in the sense of a canonically independent, self-sufficient organization. The latter could exist only by the will of the Moscow Patriarchal Throne and with the consent of all the other heads of the autocephalous Churches.

There was no act granting Metropolitan Anthony such rights of Headship, either on the part of the All-Russian Church authority or on the part of the autocephalous Churches. The peaceful relations of certain heads of autocephalous Churches with Metropolitan Anthony, in his office of Chairman of the Synod of Bishops, are acts of courteous replies to communications addressed to them by Metropolitan Anthony, but do not constitute acts granting him any rights, or defining such rights, and do not speak of his recognition as Head in the canonical meaning of the word.

Nor was there any such act on the part of the episcopate abroad, which, moreover, is not competent to issue such an act, belonging as it does to the competence of the Supreme Authority — a competence which the episcopate abroad does not possess.

The resolution of the last Council of Bishops concerning the commemoration of the name of Metropolitan Anthony in all the churches abroad cannot be equated with an act granting Metropolitan Anthony the rights of Head.

Metropolitan Anthony is Chairman of the Councils and Synod of Bishops, and the scope of his rights is determined by the rights of a chairman.

He is a “head,” in the sense of a canonical superior, only with respect to the Russian parishes in Serbia, which he administers by the blessing and permission of Patriarch Dimitrije of Serbia.

It should be noted that the very substance of Metropolitan Anthony’s canonical rights is considerably shaken by his simultaneous presence within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchal Throne and within the jurisdiction of the Serbian Patriarch — if indeed it can be considered that Metropolitan Anthony has remained under the authority of the Moscow Patriarch at all, once he accepted canonical authority over the Russian parishes located in Yugoslavia from the Serbian Patriarch, who thereby became, from that moment, the source of his authority and his canonical superior. The canons know nothing of dual canonical jurisdiction, of dual canonical allegiance, and it is very much an open question whether Metropolitan Anthony can possess any rights whatsoever with respect to Russian parishes and dioceses outside Serbia.

3. The status of Metropolitan Evlogy

The canonical status of Metropolitan Evlogy is clearer and simpler. It was already sketched in part earlier, at the beginning of this essay.

At first he received his powers to administer the Western European churches from the Higher Church Administration of South Russia, and then from the Higher Church Administration Abroad, and during this period had the source of his rights in this Administration and was, on this basis, subordinate to it on an equal footing with the other bishops who had received their rights from this same Administration.

But soon, in 1921, there followed Decree No. 424 of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, confirming Metropolitan Evlogy’s rights to church jurisdiction in Western Europe, and, simultaneously, the written consent of Metropolitan Veniamin of Petrograd to this.

From this moment the source of Metropolitan Evlogy’s authority over the Russian churches in Western Europe became the Supreme All-Russian Church Authority, and no longer the conditional — even if perhaps necessary — self-organization of émigré bishops.

It is clear that the Patriarch, too, considered the competence of the Church Administration Abroad insufficient, since he found it necessary to issue a special Decree from the Higher Church Authority concerning his appointment to this service.

From this moment His Eminence the Metropolitan established a direct canonical link with the All-Russian church authority, bypassing the Karlovtsy Synod. He took his place among the bishops of the Russian Church on a general footing, and not in the position of an émigré.

Patriarchal Decree No. 64 of January 11–30, 1922, elevating His Eminence Evlogy to the rank of Metropolitan, once again confirms his canonical authority, speaking of his elevation to the rank of Metropolitan, among other things, “in view of the high position” he occupied “as Administrator of the Western European Russian Churches.”

Attention is drawn to this act of elevating His Eminence Evlogy by this Patriarchal Decree, issued independently of the Higher Church Administration Abroad, without its knowledge and without its submission of a recommendation.

Yet such honors are conferred either on the recommendation of one’s immediate superior, or, at the very least, after inquiring of that superior whether there is any obstacle.

Finally, Decree No. 349 of April 23–May 5, 1922, created a new canonical status for Metropolitan Evlogy and a new relationship between him and the Russian church institutions abroad.

By this decree the then-existing Higher Church Administration Abroad was closed, and authority over the parishes abroad was transferred to Metropolitan Evlogy, and the temporary preservation of his administration of these parishes was once again confirmed.

The decree states that, following the appointment of Metropolitan Evlogy as Administrator of the Churches Abroad, there remains no region in which the [Higher Church] Administration could carry out any activity.

Metropolitan Evlogy was charged with submitting proposals for the manner of administering the said parishes.

There has been much dispute concerning this decree, and many attempts to prove its invalidity, or, at least, its unintentional — or, as was sometimes said, its deliberate — obscurity and imprecision. All this was done in order to find grounds for a deliberate refusal to obey it.

First of all there was a wish to cast doubt upon its authenticity, but this proved impossible, and no one has attempted, or attempts now, to assert that the signatures on the decrees of the member of the Most Holy Synod, Archbishop Thaddeus, and of the chancery secretary Numerov, are forged.

Nor is there any doubt raised over the fact that the decrees were signed not personally by the Patriarch, but by one of the members of the Synod. Synodal procedure allows for such a practice as the ordinary norm.

The same is done in other institutions: — Imperial decrees were signed by officials of the corresponding departments; decrees of diocesan administrations are signed by members of them as well, and not necessarily by the bishop.

Next, attempts were made to prove that the decree was extracted from the Patriarch by force, and therefore has no validity.

But there are now, abroad, persons who were in Moscow at the time, and who have confirmed that both His Holiness the Patriarch and his Holy Synod, and the bishops then present in Moscow, were indignant at the political acts of the Karlovtsy Council, and that the issuance of the decree fully corresponded to their sentiment and proceeded from their own free will — so much so that consideration was even given to applying still harsher measures with respect to the participants of that Council.

It has been attested that, among the mass of the Orthodox population of Moscow, and among the clergy, the political maneuvering of certain church hierarchs and the direction taken by the Karlovtsy Council were regarded as an irresponsible act of bravado on the part of persons who were themselves in safety — as a gambling with the heads of the Orthodox faithful in Moscow, who were held to account for what occurred abroad; and it was pointed out, moreover, that immediately after the Karlovtsy Council, executions of priests took place, which in Moscow Orthodox circles were directly linked to the Karlovtsy resolutions.

They pointed to the seeming inconsistencies of the decree — namely, they supposed “that His Holiness the Patriarch had entirely no conception of the situation of the Church Abroad, since the Higher Church Administration had jurisdiction over nine dioceses, while the decree speaks only of parishes abroad.”

It would be vain to ascribe such ignorance, bordering on unfamiliarity, to His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and his Holy Synod.

His Holiness the Patriarch had himself been Archbishop of North America, and could not have forgotten the existence of his own former diocese.

The members of the Holy Synod were sufficiently acquainted with the organization of the Russian Church to know of the dioceses of Vladivostok and Harbin, of the Missions in Japan, China, Korea, and Urmia, and of all the Russian churches abroad in general.

The decree intended, nonetheless, to close the Higher Church Administration Abroad, regarding it as both temporary and lacking full authority with respect to all these portions of the Russian Church; while that part of the Metropolitanate of Petrograd comprising the Russian parishes in Western Europe was transferred to the administration of Metropolitan Evlogy, pending the restoration of normal relations with the Russian Church.

The All-Russian Authority did not conceive, and does not conceive, that the Higher Church Administration Abroad could extend its authority to all parts of the world wherever there happen to be Russian churches and dioceses.

It arose out of the Higher Church Administration of South Russia, and the latter was not all-encompassing for the diaspora. A similar Administration existed in Omsk for Siberia, and it too issued decrees for abroad.

Both administrations were “Higher” for their own regions, but not “Supreme,” and the true Supreme Church Authority of the All-Russian Autocephalous Church, from the height of its canonical status, regarded these administrations as secondary institutions.

The All-Russian Authority closed one such secondary Higher Church Administration, which, in the view of the Supreme Authority of the Moscow Patriarch, might have temporarily extended its authority to Western Europe.

The remaining dioceses and missions abroad were conceived as continuing, as before, to be subordinate to the Central All-Russian Authority, and bound to it without any mediating instance in the form of a Higher Church Administration Abroad.

Such is the explanation of the meaning of the Patriarchal decree, without imputing to it any naive obscurity or vagueness, as its opponents attempt to do.

Next, its opponents fault, with pointed criticism, the title “temporary,” by which Metropolitan Evlogy’s position is defined in the said decree.

Yes, Metropolitan Evlogy is the “temporary” Administrator of the Western European Russian Churches.

The reasons and meaning of this are as follows:

1. Metropolitan Evlogy was not “elected” to his diocese according to the general order, but was appointed to govern his region by the direct order of the Supreme All-Russian Church Authority, by way of exception — namely, in accordance with Note 1 to Article 16 of the Statute on Diocesan Administration, which reads:

“In exceptional and extraordinary cases, for the good of the Church, the appointment and transfer of bishops by the Higher Church authority is permitted.”

2. Neither the Patriarchal Decree nor Metropolitan Veniamin had, at that time, in view the final separation of the parishes abroad from the Metropolitanate of Petrograd, nor did they wish to compel Metropolitan Evlogy to sit forever over a few dozen parishes.

A final decision on the fate of these parishes and of Metropolitan Evlogy was evidently not thought possible to render in that troubled and uncertain time.

But the “temporary” authority of Metropolitan Evlogy is in no way diminished, in its nature and scope of rights, by its temporariness. It is a temporary authority, but for the duration of that time it is entirely lawful and full.

It has its own clear, lawful, canonical source in the sanction of the Supreme Central Church Authority of the autocephalous All-Russian Church.

It has its own canonical territory, defined by this same authority.

If Metropolitan Evlogy’s authority is temporary, then what authority is permanent?

Such is the authority of the Metropolitan of Petrograd, to whom the parishes abroad belong.

From this follows a conclusion affirming an even greater canonical invulnerability of Metropolitan Evlogy from encroachments from outside.

If the parishes abroad are entrusted to Metropolitan Evlogy temporarily, then how can he surrender what has only been temporarily entrusted to him? Nor can any outside organization take them from him, save the permanent authority itself.

For the authority of the Councils and Synod abroad is likewise temporary.

The authority of Metropolitan Evlogy over the churches abroad is temporary, because he was not meant to be reduced to the status of, as it were, a vicar of the Metropolitan of Petrograd; but personally he is, by that same decree, linked directly to the All-Russian Church Authority, which directly “charges” him “to submit proposals on the manner of administering these (churches) abroad.”

This charge grants Metropolitan Evlogy the right of the broadest initiative in the choice of a mode of administration. Metropolitan Anthony correctly states that Metropolitan Evlogy was appointed “without any indication of a right to organize a diocesan body under himself.”

Indeed, this is not obligatory for Metropolitan Evlogy. Evidently the All-Russian Central Church Authority understood the peculiarity of the position of the churches abroad and granted Metropolitan Evlogy the right to organize administration on special principles. This is why Metropolitan Evlogy cannot be blamed for having formed, under his own authority, the body attached to him, and for not convening a Diocesan Assembly.

Finally, to undermine the canonical authority of Metropolitan Evlogy, Canon 85 of the Council of Carthage is cited, which reads as follows:

“It is decreed that no bishop temporarily administering a see be permitted to retain for himself the throne entrusted to him, as temporary administrator, because of disagreement and dissension among the people; but let him endeavor, within the space of a year, to have a bishop elected for it. And if he neglect this, then, at the end of the year, let another temporary administrator be chosen.”

This canon, according to the interpretation of Bishop Nikodim, and on the basis of the parallel canons — Canon 25 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and Canon 85 of the Council in Trullo — pertains to dioceses left vacant by the death of a bishop, the appointment of such a temporary administrator taking place exclusively “because of dissension and disagreement among the people,” who were unable to elect a new bishop peaceably. If, however, there was no such dissension, then the vacant diocese was administered by the clergy of that Church, who themselves organized the election of a new bishop.

Thus this canon pertains to the period of an interregnum in a diocese caused by the death of a bishop, and not to our case of the appointment of a temporary administering bishop over part of a metropolitan region that had become temporarily cut off from its metropolia on account of the Civil War.

It is clear that in the latter case the temporary administration remains with the one to whom it has been entrusted — until the restoration of the normal course of affairs.

This is exactly what Patriarchal Decree No. 424 of 1921 states — “to consider the Orthodox Russian churches in Western Europe as being temporarily, until the resumption of correct and unhindered relations of the said churches with Petrograd, under the administration of the Right Reverend Evlogy.”

It follows, then, that — as though expressly to dispel doubt — this addition precisely defines the term of Metropolitan Evlogy’s administration of the Western European churches.

That the All-Russian Church Authority did not have in view the application of Canon 85 of the Council of Carthage to the status of Metropolitan Evlogy and to the churches abroad is clear from the fact that, by the decree of April 8, 1921, it appointed Metropolitan Evlogy temporary administrator of the churches abroad, and yet, after a year had passed, in 1922, not only did it not carry out the canon’s prescription to appoint a new temporary administrator, but by Decree No. 349 of May 5 it once again confirmed the retention by Metropolitan Evlogy of his right to administer the churches abroad.

This is entirely understandable, since the Supreme All-Russian Church Authority regarded the Western European parishes not as being in the status of a widowed diocese, but as occupying an entirely special position.

Finally, church experience and practice show that the Locum Tenens of the Moscow Patriarchal Throne has already occupied his office for two years, while the Locum Tenens of the Ecumenical Throne, Metropolitan Dorotheos, held that office even longer — until his very death, in 1921.

What, then, is the scope of Metropolitan Evlogy’s authority?

To what may his region be likened, comprising as it does Russian parishes in fourteen states?

Bearing in mind that the canons have always coordinated the significance and standing of a diocese and its bishops with the administrative division of the provinces, one may consider that Metropolitan Evlogy’s diocese, under the conditions of life abroad, may be regarded as equivalent to a metropolitan region.

To avoid misunderstanding, it must be borne in mind that Canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council, and many others, distinguish the primate of an autocephalous Church — or, as they put it, of a “great region” — from an ordinary (regional) metropolitan, to whom the bishops of his region are subordinate; consequently, the position and rights of a regional metropolitan may be applied to the status of Metropolitan Evlogy, which the Council of Bishops of 1923 itself recognized, naming it an “autonomous metropolitan district.”

The scope of the rights of the bishops subordinate to him — whether vicars or independent — does not alter his status as metropolitan, for whom it is essential to have in his charge not only presbyters, but bishops as well.

The rights of these bishops subordinate to a metropolitan have varied. At the beginning of the fourth century, all the bishops of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem did not possess diocesan rights, but possessed limited rights, similar to those of vicar bishops.

In general, the dispute over whether Metropolitan Evlogy possesses the rights of a regional metropolitan, or merely of a diocesan bishop, is of no essential significance.

If, in the present case, the rights of our conditional councils abroad are considered as corresponding to those of fully authorized councils, then the status of Metropolitan Evlogy, in this same relative sense, must likewise be regarded as the position of a metropolitan of a region.

At the same time, Metropolitan Evlogy does not set himself up as a final instance, nor does he introduce individual rule in place of conciliar governance.

In the administration of his region he may, in accordance with the canons, convene a council of the bishops subordinate to him, which would constitute a first conciliar instance and could resolve all matters up to and including the temporary filling of vacant sees.

The second instance would then be a council of representatives of the metropolitan regions abroad.

Metropolitan Evlogy is fully subordinate, in every respect, only to the authority of the Moscow Patriarchal Throne; but should it prove impossible to obtain its instructions and directives, it must be assumed that Metropolitan Evlogy, as ruling Metropolitan of a district (a regional metropolitan, in canonical terminology), having five bishops within his canonical charge — one of whom, having unlawfully broken away, is one of the chief occasions of the disagreements — is bound, in full obedience, according to the sacred canons, to a larger Council.

To summarize: the source of Metropolitan Evlogy’s authority is the Supreme All-Russian Church Authority.

His canonical territory embraces the churches abroad that were formerly under the charge of the Metropolitan of Petrograd.

The scope of his rights comprises the full rights of a bishop over the territory entrusted to him, these rights to continue until the restoration of normal relations with Petrograd.

The degree of his rights may be regarded as corresponding to the status of a regional metropolitan, in view of the fact that five bishops are within Metropolitan Evlogy’s charge.

4. The relations between Metropolitan Evlogy and the Russian church institutions abroad

From the foregoing there also follow the relations of Metropolitan Evlogy to the Council and Synod of Bishops.

The Council and the Synod do not constitute the canonical authority and superior of Metropolitan Evlogy.

Therefore one cannot say that Metropolitan Evlogy “withdrew from submission to the Council,” since he was never in submission to it in the first place.

In principle, Metropolitan Evlogy finds the organization and unification of the Russian Church abroad desirable, as he wrote in his reply to the Synod of Bishops: “I consider, and continue to consider, the union of the Russian bishops abroad highly desirable, but I hold that it is entirely inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the sacred canons to regard our assemblies of bishops abroad as normal canonical councils.”

Metropolitan Evlogy’s relations with the aforementioned Russian church institutions abroad are determined by his voluntary agreement with them, and exist only so long as both sides accept and recognize this agreement. In administrative respects, their relationship is determined by the fundamental position adopted by the Council of 1923, namely, that the Council of Bishops does not possess the rights of the All-Russian Central Authority, does not belong to its competence, and therefore neither the Council of Bishops nor Metropolitan Evlogy can alter the expressions of will of this authority.

Therefore, should such a case arise, the Council and Synod of Bishops would be exceeding their rights.

Neither the church institutions abroad in general, nor the Council of Bishops, nor Metropolitan Evlogy, are competent to annul or alter a directive of the Supreme Authority of the All-Russian Church, which placed all the parishes of Western Europe under his charge.

The unaltered preservation of these directives is a duty of common obedience to the Supreme Authority of one’s own local Church, and they have no right to violate it, even were they to wish to act otherwise for the sake of church peace.

The question of annulling the direct directives of the Moscow Patriarchal Throne in general, and, in particular, of altering the boundaries and composition of dioceses and establishing a new canonical jurisdiction, is a matter exceeding the competence of the Russian church institutions abroad, including the Council of Bishops. This has always been the competence of the Supreme Authority of the Local Church.

It was therefore entirely correct, with respect to Metropolitan Evlogy, for the Council of Bishops of 1923 to set apart his diocese as an autonomous district, thereby underscoring the special, more independent position of Metropolitan Evlogy and his diocese.

In judicial respects, this agreement recognized for the Council and Synod of Bishops the right of a court of appeal and cassation, so as to provide a second instance for the simplest judicial matters (the trial of clergy and laity); and to them was likewise granted the right to try bishops, given a canonical quorum.

With respect to the trial of Metropolitan Evlogy, the Council of Bishops does not possess these rights, for: a) Metropolitan Evlogy stands in the direct and immediate jurisdiction of the All-Russian Church Authority; b) our Council of Bishops is not a fully authorized council, as shown above; and c) in the Council of Bishops there is neither a direct canonical superior of Metropolitan Evlogy, nor the canonical quorum required for the trial of a bishop — that is, twelve bishops (Canon 12 of the Council of Carthage; the substitution of personal participation in a trial by written opinions being inadmissible).

Note: — Although the Council of 1923 resolved (contrary to Metropolitan Evlogy’s proposal) that trial of a bishop should be conducted with a non-canonical quorum — namely a quorum of seven (to which Metropolitan Evlogy also assented) — it must nevertheless be observed that this resolution, being contrary to the direct provision of the canon, cannot be regarded as valid in the event of protest, since a resolution of an organ abroad — an Émigré Council — cannot annul a canon adopted by the Universal Church.

IV. The question of the separation of the German parishes from the Western European Metropolia

The creation of new dioceses, and their separation from previously existing ones, is always carried out by the highest central authority of a Local Church, and is one of the latter’s prerogatives.

The separation of dioceses outside this order, if it occurs, constitutes a violation of this general rule.

Therefore the resolution of the Council of Bishops on the separation of the German parishes into an independent diocese is, in substance, canonically irregular.

This resolution contradicts both the spirit of the canons — which strictly safeguard the inviolability of diocesan boundaries — and a whole series of individual canons, namely: Canons 64, 67, and 111 of the Local Council of Carthage, Canon 134 of the same Council, Canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council, and Canon 16 of the Council of Antioch.

Canons 64, 67, and 111 of the Council of Carthage were violated in that the separation of the German parishes from the Western European diocesan administration was carried out: first, in the absence of Metropolitan Evlogy; second, without his knowledge; and third, without his consent and against his will.

Canon 111 speaks with particular clarity on this question: “It has also been decided: that a people who have never had their own bishop are on no account to be given one, except by the decision of the whole Council of the region and of the presiding bishop, and with the consent of the bishop within whose bounds that church is situated.”

The well-known canonist Bishop Nikodim interprets this canon thus: “here are set forth three conditions for the opening of a new diocese: a decision of the Council of the Metropolitan Region, under the presidency of the proper metropolitan, and the consent of the diocesan bishop to the separation.”

In the case of the German parishes, not only was there no such prior regional council — that is, no council of the Metropolitan District of Metropolitan Evlogy — but none of the bishops of the region (with the exception of the interested party, Bishop Tikhon) was present at the Council at all. Nor was the metropolitan of that region, His Eminence Evlogy, present at that Council; and finally, he, who unites in his own person the rights both of diocesan bishop and of presiding metropolitan of the region (as was also the case in antiquity, for the bishops who headed metropolitan regions each also had, besides this, their own diocese), did not give his consent to the formation of a new diocese out of the parishes entrusted to him.

To weaken the force of this clear canon, it is pointed out that Bishop Tikhon was consecrated back in 1924 by the Synod of Bishops, with the consent of Metropolitan Evlogy and upon his own recommendation, and that therefore in the present case there is no violation of the canon, but merely the elevation of a vicar bishop to independent rank.

Such an interpretation cannot be accepted.

In the first place, the aforesaid canon has in view precisely the creation of a separate diocese and the removal of a portion of the parishes from their former canonical charge.

In the second place, in his communication No. 126, of April 7, 1924, Metropolitan Evlogy requested the elevation of Archimandrite Tikhon to the rank of bishop, “while retaining him in the positions he then occupied, of Rector and Dean,” and did not request that any new, greater rights be granted to him.

The Synod of Bishops heard this recommendation, and, if it disagreed with it, could have given notice, before the consecration, of the greater rights it intended for the future Bishop of Berlin, so as to avoid the misunderstandings that followed from this silence. But even the Synod of Bishops, in its resolution of April 12 of that same year, likewise repeated Metropolitan Evlogy’s own formula concerning the elevation of “Archimandrite Tikhon to the rank of Bishop, while retaining him in his position as Rector of the church.”

And after Bishop Tikhon’s consecration, Metropolitan Evlogy regarded the scope of the Bishop of Berlin’s rights as those of a chorepiscopus (a dean), in accordance with Canon 10 of the Council of Antioch, which directs that “chorepiscopi should know their proper measure, even though they have received ordination in the order of the episcopate… that they should govern only the churches subordinate to them, and confine to these their care and oversight,… and should not presume to ordain a presbyter or deacon without the consent of the bishop of the city to whom the chorepiscopus and his district are subordinate.”

The same is stated by Canon 13 of the same Council.

The resolution of the Council of Bishops of October 23, 1924, decided to regard Bishop Tikhon as a fully authorized vicar, and entrusted the drafting of instructions to Metropolitan Evlogy.

The regulation on vicars drawn up by Metropolitan Evlogy, based on the above-stated view of the rights of a vicar as those of a chorepiscopus (dean), was altered by the Synod of Bishops, which, in a decree of April 9, 1925, introduced articles expanding the rights of vicars.

In response to this, in his communication No. 1157 of August 8, 1925, Metropolitan Evlogy declared that the amended regulation diminished his canonical rights, did not correspond to the local conditions of church life in the district entrusted to him, and that he therefore found it difficult to put the aforesaid regulation into effect.

Subsequent events in church life bore out this position, grounded as it was on the aforementioned canons of the Council of Antioch, which had themselves been occasioned by similar aspirations of chorepiscopi — those vicar bishops of antiquity — to attain equality of rights with the ruling diocesan hierarchs, aspirations against which the Council of Antioch drew up its canons.

Canon 134 of the Council of Carthage likewise speaks against the separation of the German parishes: — “it has also been decreed that if certain bishops, not by way of trial before other bishops, lay claim to communities which they regard as belonging to their own see, but extend their authority over people subordinate to another bishop, whether the latter consent or not, such bishops shall be punished by the loss of their case. That is, if any have done this, and if the matter between the bishops has not been concluded by agreement but is still disputed, then he against whom it shall be proved that, forsaking the ecclesiastical judges, he made an incursion, shall lose the disputed place. And let no one flatter himself that he holds a letter from the presiding bishop granting him that place: but whether he has such a letter or not, let him communicate with the one who holds that place under his charge, and receive a letter from him, so that it may be plain that he peaceably retains the church that falls to him. And should the latter also put forward some claim, this too shall be settled by bishops sitting in judgment, whom either the presiding bishop shall appoint, or who shall be chosen, by agreement, from the neighboring bishops.”

This canon has in view the safeguarding of the rights of the local bishop. In the case of the German parishes, a resolution took place separating them from the charge of Metropolitan Evlogy; against this resolution, on the ground that it violated the canonical rules governing such a separation, he lodged his protest. Consequently the trial contemplated by the present canon has not yet taken place, and, prior to its decision, the original, protested conciliar resolution cannot be put into effect.

Even were one to regard the previous resolution of the Council of Bishops as equivalent to the trial spoken of in the first half of this canon, even then the second half retains its force, providing that if the matter has not been concluded by agreement, it is subject to fresh examination.

Finally, no communication whatsoever was made by Bishop Tikhon to Metropolitan Evlogy, nor was any letter received from him, without which, at the present stage, the matter cannot be regarded as settled.

Equally clear is the position that, once a matter has been decided at the first instance, in the event of protest — as in the present example concerning the German parishes — it ought not to be put into execution before the case has been examined at the second, final instance.

The separation of the German parishes contradicts Canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council, which provides: “let it be observed also in the other regions, and everywhere, in every diocese, that no one of the God-beloved bishops assume authority over another diocese which has not previously and from the beginning been under his hand, or that of his predecessors; but should anyone have assumed such authority and forcibly subjected [a diocese] to himself, let him restore it, lest the canons of the Fathers be transgressed, lest, under the guise of a sacred office, the arrogance of worldly power creep in, and lest we lose, little by little and imperceptibly, that liberty which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all mankind, gave us by His own blood. It is therefore the pleasure of the Holy and Ecumenical Council that every diocese preserve pure and unimpaired the rights that belonged to it from the beginning, according to the custom of old prevailing. Every metropolitan may, for his own assurance, take a copy of this resolution. And should anyone put forward a resolution contrary to what is now decreed, it is the pleasure of the whole Holy and Ecumenical Council that it be void.”

This canon corresponds especially well to the situation of the German parishes. These parishes came under the charge of Metropolitan Evlogy indisputably by a canonical path, through a Decree of the Patriarch of All Russia and — a point of particular importance, which must be noted — with the written consent of Metropolitan Veniamin of Petrograd, to whom they had belonged until that time; that is, precisely with the observance of that condition which the sacred canons unanimously require for the transfer of a portion of parishes from one canonical charge and subordination to another.

The separation of the German parishes, and the manner in which it was carried out, contradicts Canon 16 of the Council of Antioch: “If any bishop, having no diocese, shall intrude into a church which has no bishop and seize its throne without the consent of a perfect council, let him be deposed, even though the whole people whom he has thus appropriated to himself should have chosen him. And a perfect council is one at which the metropolitan is present together with the others.”

Since the metropolitan of the district did not take part in the council, the council thereby became incompetent to separate the German parishes from the charge of Metropolitan Evlogy without his knowledge and participation.

Nor can it be argued that Bishop Tikhon did not “intrude,” since he was already the bishop of these parishes. He was not the fully authorized bishop of the German parishes; that was Metropolitan Evlogy. The Council of Bishops issued a resolution creating a new, independent see, and it is precisely this moment of the creation of a see to which the present canon refers. Indeed, were it to be maintained that the see already existed, there would have been no need for any new resolution at all.

Even were one to adopt the view that, from the moment of Bishop Tikhon’s appointment as Vicar Bishop of Berlin under Metropolitan Evlogy, these parishes came to belong to him (which, as shown above, is incorrect), even then the German parishes, and Bishop Tikhon himself, could not have been withdrawn from the canonical jurisdiction of Metropolitan Evlogy, by force of Canon 9 of the Council of Antioch, which states: — that “even the diocesan bishop must acknowledge the bishop presiding in the metropolis… and do nothing of special importance without him, according to the ancient custom received from our Fathers,” and “not presume to do anything without the bishop of the metropolis.”

In this case the question remains unanswered on the basis of what canon the Council of Bishops removed the German churches under the charge of Metropolitan Evlogy — and likewise Bishop Tikhon himself, insofar as he too belongs to his charge — from the Metropolitan District, establishing a new subordination to the Synod of Bishops and abolishing the commemoration of Metropolitan Evlogy’s name in them.

The aforesaid resolution also contradicts Canon 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and Canon 24 of the Council of Carthage.

Canon 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council addresses the case of disputes over canonical competence with respect to particular parishes, and the specific instance in which a dispute arises against a metropolitan — that is, a case that fully parallels that of the German parishes.

“The parishes… existing in each diocese shall remain unchangeably under the authority of the bishops governing them, and if… there should be any dispute concerning them,… let the matter be brought… before the regional council. But if anyone be wronged by his own metropolitan, let him be tried before the exarch of the great region, or before the throne of Constantinople.”

It follows clearly from this that the question of the separation of a portion of a diocese against the will of the ruling metropolitan is subject to the examination of an instance higher than that same metropolitan — namely, to the judgment of the council of the “great region,” that is, of the diocese, or of the local Church.

Even were the Western European District to be regarded as merely a diocese, the separation of part of that diocese would still have to take place through the trial and examination of a council, and necessarily in the presence of Metropolitan Evlogy as ruling bishop; and only with his consent could the act of separation be regarded as lawful, while, in the event of his complaint — since by force of the same canon he would be the wronged party — the matter ought once again to pass to the consideration of the larger Council.

The second instance, and its obligatory character in the event of protest, is indicated in all the canons.

The violation of the canon consists, therefore, in addition, in the putting into effect of a resolution separating part of the parishes without the consent of the diocesan bishop, a resolution moreover that had been appealed and that ought to have been referred to a higher instance.

Canon 24 of the Council of Carthage indicates the procedure for the separation of an independent metropolia, or for the detachment of part of one metropolia into another — which is applicable also to the case of the separation of an independent diocese from a metropolia. “It has been resolved that Mauretania Sitifensis should have its own presiding bishop of the Numidian country, from which it has been separated by a council. By the consent of all the presiding bishops, it has been permitted to have its own presiding bishop, on account of its remoteness.” — From this canon it is seen that Mauretania, which had formed part of the Numidian metropolia, petitioned its own metropolitan for separation. This condition — the initial petition to one’s own bishop or metropolitan — is a canonical condition, emphasized everywhere and always observed. It was not fulfilled in the case of the German parishes.

This canon is significant in that it indicates the order for the separation of an individual diocese, or group of dioceses, from the authority of a metropolitan. This order refutes the view that the Berlin vicariate, once it existed, could be separated from the charge of the metropolitan directly by conciliar decree, without the prior consideration and consent of the metropolitan. If independent dioceses have no right to be separated without the consent of their metropolitan, then still less may vicariates be separated without the knowledge of the ruling bishop.

Next, the historical precedent concerning the separation of the Mauretanian metropolia shows the lawful course for such matters in cases of dispute with the ruling metropolitan.

The matter was begun in a lawful manner — namely, through a petition from Mauretania, in the person of its bishops, addressed to its Numidian metropolitan, and was examined at one of the previous councils; but since this resolution was reluctantly accepted by the Numidian primate, the question was transferred to the (larger) Council of Hippo, and finally became the subject of examination by the diocesan Local Council of Carthage. — (Nikodim, I, 162.)

The canon emphasizes that the separation followed only with the consent of all the presiding bishops and of all the bishops, not by a mere majority.

Where, in our case, is the petition of the German parishes for separation, and moreover addressed to their own metropolitan — that is, to Metropolitan Evlogy? Where is the decision of two instances? Where is the consent of all the presiding metropolitans? How far removed from all this is the resolution of the Council of Bishops of 1926, with its swift but improper putting into execution of its own decision, and the ensuing threats of censure against Metropolitan Evlogy in case of disobedience.

The sacred canons know of no such procedure for removing a bishop subordinate to a metropolitan from the latter’s charge, either before trial or without trial.

In the history of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical and Local Councils, it is difficult to find an example of the forcible separation of part of a diocese by conciliar decree, in the absence of the diocesan bishop and of the metropolitan of the region, against his wishes, and on the basis of a single, first, and protested resolution.

One cannot appeal to precedents from the Russian Synodal Ober-Procurator period, so rich in anti-canonical actions, as Metropolitan Anthony does; but even in that period the separation of the Diocese of Chełm from the Archdiocese of Chełm-Warsaw was carried out with observance of this basic canonical requirement, when Archbishop Jerome of Chełm-Warsaw gave his written consent to it and precisely defined the composition of the new diocese, listing those parishes that were withdrawn from his charge. The Synod of Bishops did not find it necessary to observe even this requirement, even as a formality.

Nor is the reference to the precedent of the separation of the Kamchatka and other dioceses by order of the Synod of Bishops Abroad of any canonical binding force, nor is it convincing.

If the bishop to whom Kamchatka belonged expressed his consent to this, directly or indirectly, by not objecting and by accepting this resolution for execution, then the requirement of his consent was satisfied. If, however, the bishop did not consent, then this order was unlawful, and would acquire lawful force only from the moment of, and by virtue of, its confirmation by His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow or his lawful successor.

Finally, an answer must be given to the assertion that “the Russian Churches of Western Europe never constituted a separate, independent diocese, but formed part of the Diocese of Petrograd and were administered by one of its vicars,” and that, by the Patriarch’s Decree, “these churches were temporarily preserved under the administration of Metropolitan Evlogy,” and “thus they are not reckoned, by these acts of the All-Russian Central Authority, as a separate diocese.”

If Metropolitan Evlogy’s authority is “temporary,” then what authority is permanent? Evidently, the authority of the Metropolitan of Petrograd. But, with the consent of that authority, the German parishes were entrusted, by the Higher and permanent All-Russian Church Authority, to the administration of Metropolitan Evlogy. What right, then, has the Council of Bishops — an equally temporary and subordinate church organization abroad — to withdraw these parishes from the charge of Metropolitan Evlogy, thereby destroying the integrity not only of his own diocese, but of that of Petrograd as well, without so much as asking the Metropolitan of Petrograd — how could it dispose of what did not belong to it? This is an attempt at an incursion by the Council Abroad into a foreign region, subordinate to the Metropolitan of Petrograd and the Patriarch of Moscow — that is, to speak in legal terms, an exceeding of authority. If Metropolitan Evlogy’s authority over the Western European churches is temporary, then still less can he surrender it to another without the permission of the one from whom he received it.

This is why, on the question of the separation of the German parishes, Metropolitan Evlogy has repeatedly declared that, were he to receive an order to this effect from the All-Russian Church Authority, he would submit to that order unquestioningly, with a perfectly untroubled conscience.

The Synod of Bishops explains the separation of the Berlin vicariate by the difficulty, and the impossibility, of Bishop Tikhon remaining under the dependency of Metropolitan Evlogy after the latter’s disagreement with the Council of Bishops.

This position represents a confusion of two concepts and two distinct matters.

One of these is the withdrawal of Bishop Tikhon from the charge of Metropolitan Evlogy; the other is the separation of part of a diocese from an undisputed canonical jurisdiction.

Bishop Tikhon could personally withdraw from subordination to Metropolitan Evlogy: this is his right, against which neither Metropolitan Evlogy nor anyone else could raise any objection.

But, in withdrawing from Metropolitan Evlogy’s charge — which he ought to have done by a declaration addressed to him — Bishop Tikhon had no right to detach, along with himself, everything that he had administered within Metropolitan Evlogy’s diocese and with his permission.

Equally, the Council of Bishops, in releasing Bishop Tikhon from subordination to Metropolitan Evlogy, had no right to grant him the parishes of Metropolitan Evlogy’s diocese.

“A diocese is not the patrimony of a bishop,” as Metropolitan Anthony himself puts it, and the German parishes are not bound to the person of Bishop Tikhon. The question of separating part of a diocese is an entirely distinct matter, and such separation could occur only in a lawful manner — that is, either with the consent of the ruling bishop and of the council, or through the release of Metropolitan Evlogy from his rights over these parishes by the Higher Authority, or after his removal, by lawful trial, from the administration of the diocese.

Without these conditions, before trial or without trial, to remove the whole metropolitan district (region or diocese), or part of it, from the administration of Metropolitan Evlogy is provided for by no canon whatsoever.

Metropolitan Evlogy’s wish that Bishop Tikhon be replaced by another bishop is found by the Synod of Bishops to be “unlawful,” on the ground that fulfilling this demand would amount to a punishment of His Grace Bishop Tikhon for his devotion to the canonical order of church administration and his execution of the directives of the higher church organs — the Council and Synod of Bishops.

Metropolitan Evlogy’s proposal cannot be regarded as unlawful, since it was occasioned by the violation, on the part of Bishop Tikhon, a vicar of Metropolitan Evlogy, of canonical subordination to his own diocesan bishop and ruling metropolitan of the district, by his long-standing aspirations toward separation and his calls, within Metropolitan Evlogy’s diocese, for disobedience to him. The consideration that Bishop Tikhon’s personal position, upon his withdrawal from Metropolitan Evlogy’s charge and his relinquishment of his post, would be difficult for him and would amount to a “punishment,” cannot carry decisive weight compared with the larger canonical question of fundamental importance, concerning not one person but a whole series of parishes. A diocese is indeed not the patrimony of a bishop, and its administration is not a “reward” for loyalty on the model of the grant of an estate, but an episcopal ministry, determined by canonical conditions. Equally, the departure of a bishop is determined by these same canonical conditions, and is not a punishment — just as the removal of part of a diocese from a regional metropolitan cannot be regarded as a form of punishment.

V. Paths toward the resolution of the conflict

In connection with the foregoing, how ought one to proceed in the event of Metropolitan Evlogy’s protest against the resolution of the Council of Bishops? Is this resolution final, or is it subject to appeal, and, if so, to which instance?

The resolution of the Synod of Bishops states that if Metropolitan Evlogy is dissatisfied with the decision of the Council of Bishops in the part concerning his diocese, he may appeal such a decision, in accordance with the sacred canons, to the next ordinary council. This proposal does not correspond to the sacred canons.

As has been noted, our Councils of Bishops can be regarded as corresponding only to a first instance, and therefore their resolutions may be appealed to a second, higher instance.

If our Council of Bishops is to be equated with a first instance, was it competent to examine the case of the disagreements between the metropolitan of a district and itself, and the case of the separation of part of a diocese from the charge of a metropolitan? Or does this matter belong to the jurisdiction of a higher, second, conciliar instance?

These matters, in their present state, exceed the competence of the Russian Council of Bishops Abroad.

As regards process, the decision of this Council has been protested, and, by force of Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council, is subject to referral to a higher instance: “if the bishops of the united dioceses should, contrary to expectation, prove unable to restore order,… let them proceed to the larger council of the bishops of the great region, convened for this cause.”

As regards the substance of the matter raised — namely, the question of the separation of part of a diocese — according to Canon 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council: “the parishes existing in each diocese shall remain unchangeably under the authority of the bishops governing them,… and if… there should be some dispute concerning them, then it shall be permitted to those who consider themselves wronged to bring the matter before the regional council. But if anyone be wronged by his own metropolitan, let him be tried before the exarch of the great region, or before the Throne of Constantinople.”

The question of altering the boundaries and composition of dioceses is itself a matter exceeding the competence of all the Russian church institutions abroad, including the Council of Bishops.

The matter exceeds the competence of the Council abroad also by reason of the standing of the person concerned in it.

According to Canon 1 of the Third Ecumenical Council, even a regional metropolitan who has fallen into manifest heresy “is subject to the examination of the very bishops of the region and of the neighboring metropolitans.”

The same is indicated by Canon 9 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council: “if [a bishop] has a grievance against the metropolitan of the region, let him have recourse either to the exarch of the great region, or to the throne of the reigning city of Constantinople, and be tried before him.”

From this it follows that the matters of disagreement between Metropolitan Evlogy and the Council are subject to transfer to a higher instance.

Who, then, is this higher instance, to whose competence the examination of this matter belongs?

The Synod of Bishops holds that, “in accordance with the sacred canons,” the conciliar decision that has been reached may be “appealed to the next ordinary council.”

Such a course of action is, from the canonical point of view, incorrect.

In the first place, as shown above, our Councils of Bishops can be regarded as corresponding only to a first instance, and the next ordinary Council would be just such a first instance, with only the same rights — and it has been shown above that the matter in question exceeds the competence of this first instance.

In the second place, the decision of the first instance has already been appealed, and the reconsideration of the matter naturally belongs to another, higher instance, and not to the first.

In the third place, the composition of the next ordinary council will be the same, or overwhelmingly the same, as that of the previous councils, and, in particular, of the one whose decision has been appealed.

In the fourth place, the Council of Bishops may be regarded as a party to this matter, against Metropolitan Evlogy, and it would be improper to refer the appeal to one of the parties themselves.

Therefore, in accordance with Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 9 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon 17 of the Council of Carthage, and other parallel canons, it is necessary to refer the examination of this matter to an instance higher than our Council of Bishops.

What person, then, or institution, is the lawful higher instance to whose competence the examination of this matter, and the rendering of a final decision upon it, belongs?

Here four successive solutions present themselves, corresponding to the directions of the sacred canons.

1. The referral of this matter to that authority of ours which the Synod and Council of Bishops themselves recognize as being above them — that is, referral to the Moscow Patriarchal Throne, in the person of the present First Hierarch, the Deputy Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergiy.

This course would correspond, moreover, to the exact sense of Canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which direct that in such cases recourse be had to the “exarch of the great region” — that is, to the head of one’s own autocephalous Church, which exarch of our great region — the Russian Church — is, at the present time, precisely Metropolitan Sergiy.

This course must be pursued by every means available to us, notwithstanding any difficulties and some loss of time, since it is the most lawful course, and the one that best corresponds to the status of our Church abroad, as an inseparable part of the All-Russian Church.

2. Should this course prove, in the end, impossible, then, following the directions of all the above-cited canons — namely, Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 1 of the Third Ecumenical Council, Canons 1 and 14 of the Council of Antioch, and in accordance with the Epistle of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine — the matter ought to be referred for examination to a Council, with the participation of representatives of several local Orthodox Churches.

Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council: “…if the bishops of the united dioceses… prove unable to restore order regarding accusations brought against a bishop, let them proceed to the larger Council of the bishops of the great region, convened for this cause”; and Canon 1 of the Third Ecumenical Council: “…if any regional metropolitan has attached himself to the assembly of apostates,… he shall be subject to the examination of the bishops of the region and of the neighboring metropolitans who are orthodox in their judgment.” Canon 12 of the Council of Antioch: “it behooves a bishop to appeal to the larger council of bishops, and to lay before a greater number of bishops that in which he believes himself to have been right, and to receive from them examination and final judgment.” Canon 14 of the Council of Antioch: “…if any bishop is put on trial for certain charges, and it happens that the bishops of that region are divided over him…, then… let the bishop of the metropolis summon certain other bishops from the neighboring region, who shall reconsider the matter and resolve the doubt.” (In its direct sense this canon pertains only to bishops subordinate to a metropolitan, and not to metropolitans themselves.)

The Epistle of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine of Rome: “everyone is permitted, in case of dissatisfaction with the decision of the local judges, to have recourse to the councils of his own region, or even to the Ecumenical Council.”

The procedure of recourse to a larger Council is hallowed by the examples of St. Athanasius the Great and St. John Chrysostom, who, having been unjustly condemned by certain councils, brought their cases for decision before larger councils, differently constituted.

The precedent of recourse to the heads of other autocephalous Churches is furnished by Patriarch Domnus of Antioch, when he had recourse to Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and to Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, in the matter of Bishop Peter — a matter on which St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote his own canonical epistle.

3. Should even this course prove unrealizable, a further means of canonically resolving our matter is possible, through recourse to arbiters.

This course is indicated by Canons 17, 107, 113, 134, and 136 of the Council of Carthage, and Canon 9 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

Canons of the Council of Carthage

Canon 17: — “if, by the agreement of both parties to a suit, judges are chosen, then, even should their number be fewer than that prescribed by the canons, it shall not be permitted to transfer the case to others.”

Canon 117: — “if it happen that a case is transferred to a higher court, and the party dissatisfied with the decision chooses judges, together with the party against whom he seeks a new trial, then thereafter neither of them shall be permitted to transfer the case to another court.”

Canon 113: — “…the Holy Council agreed to the appointment of the judges requested, while, as for the remaining judges needed to complete the prescribed number, the elder Xanthippus was permitted to have chosen by the elders of New Germania themselves.”

Canon 134: — “…and should the latter (the bishop holding the place under his charge) also put forward some claim, this too shall be settled by bishops sitting in judgment, whom either the presiding bishop shall appoint, or whom they themselves shall choose, by agreement, from the neighboring bishops.”

Canon 136: — “it shall not be permitted to transfer a case to a higher court from judges chosen by common consent.”

Canon 9 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council: — “let those chosen by both parties constitute the court.”

This canon pertains directly to suits between clergy, but it is cited in the matter of Metropolitan Evlogy as confirming, with the authority of an Ecumenical Council, the general principle of arbitration.

Finally, recourse to the judgment of the Ecumenical Throne is possible.

Canon 9 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council states:

“If… a bishop has a grievance against the metropolitan of the region: let him have recourse either to the exarch of the great region, or to the Throne of the reigning city of Constantinople, and be tried before him.”

This canon is applicable however one regards the status of Metropolitan Evlogy. If his position be regarded as that of a regional metropolitan, then a dispute against him is subject to referral to the Ecumenical Patriarch; if he is considered merely a diocesan bishop, and Metropolitan Anthony a regional one, then a complaint against the latter must likewise be examined at Constantinople.

Canon 17 of the same Council repeats the same, precisely with regard to disputes over the ownership of parishes by one bishop or another: — “But if… there should be some dispute concerning them (the parishes), then it shall be permitted to those who consider themselves wronged to bring the matter before the regional council. But if anyone be wronged by his own metropolitan: let him be tried before the exarch, or before the throne of Constantinople, as has been said above.”

For all the reasons set forth above, grounded in the sacred canons, for the resolution, on the merits, of all the questions — namely, the canonical competence and mutual relations of the Russian church institutions abroad, the scope of their rights and the order of subordination, as well as the question of the separation of the German parishes — Metropolitan Evlogy proposes:

1. To refer this matter to the examination of our direct Supreme Authority — the Deputy Locum Tenens of the Moscow Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Sergiy, who is the “exarch” of the “great region” of the Russian Church.

Considering that the importance of the questions, and the peace of the Church, do not permit this matter to be left without decision for an indefinite time, to establish, by agreement between the Synod of Bishops and Metropolitan Evlogy, a term within which a reply from Russia is to be awaited.

2. Should no reply be received within the appointed term, to carry out the direction of the sacred canons concerning recourse to the “larger Council,” bearing in mind that we, living in full possibility of communication with the Orthodox local Churches, both may and must set out upon this conciliar path.

To this end, we ought to apply jointly to the Ecumenical Throne and to the heads of the nearest autocephalous local Churches, with the request that they resolve our questions at a Council of representatives of these Churches, together with representatives from ourselves. Should it prove possible to draw in representatives of other local Churches as well, this would, of course, be still better.

Recourse to the Patriarch of Constantinople corresponds to the above-cited Canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council also because the Church of Constantinople stands to the Russian Church in the relation of a Mother Church, and, finally, by virtue of the general primacy of the Ecumenical Throne.

Recourse to the Patriarch of Serbia is most natural of all, since this Council could be held on his territory, and even under his presidency.

It is true that it may be objected that the convening of such a council under present circumstances would be very difficult, that representatives of the local Churches would decline to come, and so forth; but before an outright refusal of such a proposal on the part of the local Churches, it would be premature to conclude that such a council is unrealizable, and in any case an attempt must be made in this direction, in the form of epistles containing the corresponding request, lest the accusation fall upon us that we did not use every effort to achieve a conciliar and canonical resolution of this matter.

3. Should the autocephalous Churches decline to organize such a Council, recourse must be had to the judgment of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople alone. In doing so, one might ask him to communicate beforehand on this question with Metropolitan Sergiy of Nizhny Novgorod, who heads the Russian Church. What is inaccessible to us is entirely accessible to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Recourse to the judgment of the Universal Church, in the person of its representatives, is the true and faithful Orthodox path.

This recourse does not, of course, constitute a transfer to another canonical jurisdiction, nor a separation from the Russian Church. We remain within the Moscow Patriarchate, in unbroken organic union with the All-Russian Church, and in the same direct canonical subordination to it as before.

We are merely, in this particular case, concerning a secondary question of the limits of competence of the church organizations abroad, having recourse to the judgment of the Eastern Patriarchs, in view of the impossibility of obtaining a decision from the Moscow Patriarchal Throne.

Certain Russians are apprehensive of having recourse to the primates of the East, for nationalistic reasons.

But such a preference for the national principle over the Universal unity of Orthodoxy is phyletism — a striving to reduce the universal idea of our faith from its absolute universality to the narrow confines of a single nationality; and in no way can the truth of the Universal Church be confined within the small island of the Russian Church located abroad.

This would be a forgetting of the universal truth for the sake of national aspirations.

Here is what Metropolitan Anthony says in one of his articles on church questions:

“To many, that Orthodoxy is not dear which alone sanctifies both Hellenism and Slavdom and the Syrian nationality, and for the sake of which one must, when needed, sacrifice one’s own nationality, and one’s own home, and children, and parents, and wife, and cast all away as worthless rags, as a worn-out coin, if only to find the pearl of salvation which is hidden within the Universal Church. Alas, many among the Greeks, the Slavs, and the Arabs have ceased to understand this and, like the unbelieving Jews of old, worship the vanity of their national fantasies — a vanity worse than the idols of Astarte and Baal.

“We do not refuse to acknowledge the hegemony of the Greek people in the preservation of the Divine Truths; we prostrate ourselves before the Most Holy Throne of the Patriarch of Constantinople and continue to see in him the Supreme Shepherd.

“Let us consider the Universal Church our fatherland, and unimpaired Orthodoxy our national inheritance.

“A son of the Universal Church feels the fullness of spiritual life only when the shepherds of the various Orthodox peoples unite in a single choir for reverent prayer and for the unanimous ordering of the Church.” (Metropolitan Anthony, “The Universal Church and Nationalities.”)

In practice, pending the resolution of the matter by one of the above-indicated means, the following position may be temporarily adopted with respect to the German parishes.

To regard the question of the separation of the German parishes from the canonical charge of Metropolitan Evlogy as open, and not finally resolved.

Until this question is finally resolved, to retain the German parishes within the Western European Metropolitan District, under the canonical charge of Metropolitan Evlogy.

To regard Bishop Tikhon as remaining in canonical subordination to Metropolitan Evlogy, on the same terms as heretofore, while inviting him to be reconciled with his diocesan bishop.

In the event of appeal, matters concerning the German parishes are to be referred successively, as appropriate, to the following instances: a) the Administration of the Metropolitan District, and b) the Synod of Bishops.

To guarantee to all the clergy who have remained faithful to Metropolitan Evlogy freedom from the imposition of any administrative or judicial penalties whatsoever.

To issue, in the name of all the bishops abroad, a joint address to the flock, as a sign that the bond and communion between the hierarchs abroad has not been broken, calling for peace and calm, and pointing out that, notwithstanding their disagreement on certain questions concerning the limits of church-administrative competence, they preserve their church unity, and that all questions will be resolved in a hierarchical manner on the basis of the sacred canons, binding upon all — for which the Universal Church always provides a way. — Such an address, without touching upon the substance of the matter, would at once calm all the Russian émigrés, and would immediately bear the fruits of spiritual peace for the troubled and suffering conscience of the faithful today. It is still within the power of the hierarchy to bring calm to the soul of a flock shaken by church turmoil — without even yielding on the fundamental positions held by either of the disputing sides.

Peace will be achieved far more surely in this way than by appeals to it accompanied by polemics of one side against the other; such appeals have calmed no one.

A wholly different force would attach to a joint address, bearing, without fail, the joint signatures either of all the bishops, or of Metropolitans Anthony and Evlogy together. For the broad mass of the faithful, it is precisely these two signatures, side by side, that would carry an irresistible force of persuasion. It would be a visible testimony that the hierarchs have set out upon the sacred path of peace, so awaited by their flock from them, and a weight would fall from the conscience and soul of all. Metropolitan Evlogy, renouncing every personal motive, setting aside every personal grievance, once again invites his brother bishops to walk the Gospel path of reconciliation shown by Christ, on the basis of the sacred canons, which all the hierarchs wish to follow faithfully.

As for the positive side of the organization of the Russian Church abroad, in this respect one might repeat the very proposal that was made in the project submitted by Metropolitan Evlogy to the Council of Bishops in 1923.

Here it is:

“All the Russian Orthodox episcopal sees located outside the borders of Russia (as well as those autonomous archdioceses formed, in the border states, out of dioceses that had belonged to the Russian Church), together with individual Russian missions, parishes, and churches, are inseparable parts of the autocephalous Patriarchate of Moscow.”

“The said episcopal sees, in church-administrative respects, constitute a group of autonomous metropolias-archdioceses: the North American (including the Diocese of Alaska), the Japanese, the Chinese, the Harbin, the Western European, and the Eastern European — the last with the Russian churches of the Serbian, Bulgarian, and Constantinopolitan districts, and the parishes in Greece, subordinate to it.”

“The central organ for them is the annual council of the bishops of all the said regions, or dioceses, or of their representatives in holy orders.”

“For the Western European Metropolia (as for the North American and the other Metropolias), the first conciliar instance would be a congress of its bishops — its Regional Council, as provided for by the canons.”

This project, incidentally, refutes with complete clarity the naive, patently unjust, and false supposition that Metropolitan Evlogy seeks to replace conciliarity with one-man rule.

Under the project, the Western European Metropolitan District has its own first conciliar instance — a regional council of bishops — which, according to the canons, resolves all matters, up to and including the filling of vacant sees.

All the said metropolias and archdioceses accept their union, and have their highest instance in the annual council of bishops, in which our ancient Orthodox principle of conciliarity is manifested in all its purity — for it is known that, by the Rules of the Ecumenical Councils, decisive weight in the Holy Church, at its councils, belongs to the votes of bishops alone.

From the canonical norm concerning the organization of the Orthodox Church presented above, the canonical unassailability of the proposed organization is evident.

Only then would the Council of Bishops, as representatives of these autonomous districts — metropolitan regions — acquire its true significance as a second instance.

But this Council must be canonically composed of representatives of the dioceses, and not of bishops living in retirement.

This is why the following proposal of Metropolitan Evlogy from 1923 likewise retains its full force:

“For a Council to be canonical and valid, the personal presence of representatives of three-quarters of all the dioceses is required.”

When it is said that Metropolitan Evlogy himself, in 1923, recognized the Councils of Bishops, and reference is made to his submission from which the present extracts are drawn, it must be understood that this report should be taken as a whole, in the full context of his project, with its districts and its strictly applied criterion of territoriality and its overall canonical scheme, and not by tendentiously extracting isolated phrases.

Conclusion

In conclusion it must once again be repeated how necessary and how important it is to find a path toward putting an end to the church discord that weighs so heavily upon the Russian people.

Already the cause of the Church is suffering; already the enemies of our Church are seeking to exploit this ruinous discord. They set against our division the illusory unity of their renovationist, so-called “Synodal” church, which rests upon the protection of the Soviet authorities.

The last thing that had remained unshaken in the emigration was the unity of our hierarchy; it was to this last refuge that Orthodox Russian people looked with comfort in their bitter exile, going to their churches — the one place where they found none of the discord that surrounded them.

The souls of Orthodox Russian people have already been shaken by the onset of this quarrel; already, in many good but weak hearts, faith in the very idea of the Church wavers; already bitterness is being kindled between those who differ; already a struggle is beginning, with all its sinful, human — and even more, demonic — devices. Already certain madmen await some sort of “decisions” that would allow, under the cover of a semblance of truth, a hurricane of evil feelings to break loose, that would allow them to throw themselves into a spiteful, embittered, internecine struggle within the House of God against their own brothers in the faith.

What, then, is this dispute about? Not about a disagreement in the sacred dogmas; not about a canonical break with our Mother Church of Russia, or with the Eastern local Churches — the dispute concerns the strict observance of the will of our Patriarch: whether it is, for us, the bishops and church institutions abroad, binding, or whether we may here alter it, or even abolish and ignore it altogether?

Metropolitan Evlogy is threatened with all manner of censures; yet he, though yielding in everything that he considers his own, cannot surrender that which does not belong to him, but has been entrusted to him by his Supreme Church Authority, unquestioning and direct obedience to which is his episcopal duty.

In this dispute it is not Metropolitan Evlogy who seeks the increase and extension of his rights (he has already yielded much of them), nor does he wish to subject to himself other bishops and dioceses not his own — rather, it is others who encroach upon his diocese; it is not he who is attacking. He is only defending himself, and defending church truth and the authority of the Higher Church Authority.

Peace could be restored so easily: for this it is necessary only to preserve the state of affairs that has existed since the Council of 1923, to recognize the “status quo ante.”

Can it really be that this lawful desire — resting on the spirit and letter of the sacred canons, on the will of the Patriarch, clearly and definitely expressed and annulled by no one — is unattainable, and that the existing situation must be broken, even should a ruinous conflagration then break out within the Church?

Let us pray, and hope, that the ancient enemy of our salvation shall not be given cause to rejoice over our discord.

“O Lord, remember Your Holy Church, which You have purchased with Your precious blood; strengthen her, grant her peace, enlarge her, put an end to the divisions of the Churches, and bring them to naught by the power of Your Holy Spirit.”

Impr. de Navarre, 5, rue des Gobelins,