The Parish of the Three Holy Hierarchs and the Icon

The split with Metropolitan Eulogius

Towards the end of the twenties, the Russian Church was in a particularly delicate and difficult situation.

« When Patriarch Tikhon died in April 1925, the Church was only beginning to recover from several years of terror, during which thousands of clergymen and lay people were killed. Yet physical persecutions could not slow down the spiritual recovery of the Church, who for the first time in four hundred years, was freed from all secular or governmental obligations. (…). Despite the continual support the regime was giving to Renovators and sects, (…), the sufferings endured by the Church enabled her win national support at an unprecedented level. »

However, « the Church was virtually outlawed ». Nearly half of its bishops were arrested or deported; those who were not could not run their dioceses, where schisms were raging: the « Living Church », the « Renovation Church », the Josephians, Gregorians, « Genuine Orthodox Christians » and the « Real Orthodox Church », and so on… the most dangerous one, the Synod of the « Renovation Church » was legalised and backed by the government, to which it strived to adapt. Legalising the Church was the first task that the Patriarch absolutely had to fulfil ».

This legalisation demanded that « relations between the Church and the State under the new conditions be clarified ». This was not possible as long as the secular authorities had every reason to see the Church as an enemy: did she not rise up against the State whenever she could, that is to say, from outside the country? When the blockade and the famine were raging, did she not attempt to prevent the Soviet government from being recognised by Western States? In this way, the clergy and the bishops outside the country, bearing no personal responsibility for their political activity, made the Russian Church pay a high price for her « freedom. »

« Metropolitan Piotr of Kroutitsy, the guardian of the patriarchal throne after Patriarch Tikhon's death, having been deported, the administration was taken on by his substitute, Mgr. Sergius, Metropolitan of Nizhni Novgorod, who was also arrested for several months (…). In order to defend the Church and define clear limits for the domain of the church by separating it from the political one, Metropolitan Sergius and the Patriarchal Synod (following Patriarch Tikhon's example), directed to Metropolitan Eulogius a decree, dated 14th July 1927, the first paragraph of which asked the bishops and the clergy to give him a personal written commitment not to allow anything "in public activity and especially in church activity that could be taken for an expression of disloyalty towards the Soviet government. »

Monseigneur Euloge Metropolitan Eulogius made public this decree in the « Tserkowny Vestnik » as well as in a sermon pronounced on the subject, in which he « asked (them) to remain firmly united with Metropolitan Sergius and refrain from judging him: "You can remember how, a short time ago, one judged the late Patriarch Tikhon (…); be careful not to judge Metropolitan Sergius too soon (…). It is very important - I would say more than that - it is indispensable for us to preserve our unity with our Mother, the Russian Church. (…) Only whithin her saving role can our church life develop normally, only in this unity can we find irreplaceable moral backing in all our trials (...). If our hierarchical leader tells us that political demonstrations of the clergy outside the country are doing incalculable harm to the Mother Church, that she is paying for them and is suffering, (…), then we certainly must renounce these demonstrations because of our love for her so that we are not an impediment to her, especially in this difficult, decisive moment, when she is beginning to organise herself. (…) If Metropolitan Sergius's cause comes from men, it will be destroyed; but if it comes from God, (…), do not run the risk of having struggled against God (Acts, 5, 38-39). The Lord will show it to us soon ».

The future Archimandrite Sergius, who was then Kyrill Schevich, wrote in October 1929:

« The main weapon in the struggle against the Church is to accuse her of being disloyal and of participating in the political struggle against the present authorities. This accusation could be really harmful to the Church if she insisted on her political rejection of this governement, publicly declared that she still would not recognise it and encouraged the faithful to political opposition. Then the Bolsheviks could more easily destroy religious life and deprive people of all pastoral protection, hence reinforcing the process of estrangement from their Fathers' faith, pushing them towards atheism or sects, which, from the beginning of the revolution, were better able to adapt to the new conditions of life. (…) The wise leaders [of the Church], who were capable of sacrificing themselves, with Patriarch Tikhon in the lead, found enough spiritual force to renounce what was dear and usual to them. They had the courage to refuse to take a political stance and to pull the Church out of the troubled waters of ideological passions.

« Patriarch Tikhon and his successors who, in spite of temptations, managed to save the Orthodox Church from political life and define a new, purely religious position, have by doing so deprived the enemies of the Church of their most powerful weapon - the possibility of fighting the Church as a political organisation. ».

« Yet Metropolitan Evlogius asked for some precisions: what should be understood by « loyalty »? He was not himself a Soviet citizen, and his clergy and his flock were not either; how could anyone demand from them compliance with the laws of a government that was not theirs? He wrote: « I pledge to stay firm in the already established stance, in accordance with the precepts of his holiness Patriarch Tikhon - that of the non-intervention of the Church in political life, and not to allow the ambo in the churches of my obedience to be transformed into a political platform." Metropolitan Sergius replied by mail saying that the "term of loyalty certainly could not mean complying with Soviet laws », and that besides, he did not insist on any particular formulation of the solicited commitment. Later on, when members of the clergy with two or three exceptions gave this commitment, Metropolitan Sergius consented, at Mgr Evlogius's request, to these documents not being sent to him but kept in his offices. (…) As we can see, at that time, Mgr. Evlogius's attitude [in accordance with the recently adopted position with respect to the Russian Church Abroad Synod], was canonically clear-cut » and seemed to show a constant faithfulness to the Moscow Patriarchate.