The Parish of the Three Holy Hierarchs and the Icon

Such were the circumstances under which in January 1930, « without consulting the main interested parties - the Orthodox Church in the USSR and the Russian Churches of the diaspora », - the Christians of the West took an initiative that was particularly ill-fated, however undoubtedly full of good intentions. Pope Pie XI announced a "prayer crusade" being launched by the Vatican for the victims of the persecutions. The whole Christian world was to join it, "including that part which was not subject to its authority", meaning by this Protestants, Anglicans and the Orthodox themselves.

Kyril Shevich wrote, commenting on these events: « We must give particular attention to the question of help to the suffering Russian Church ». It necessary to act with great caution in this field to avoid a situation in which our actions would provide additional weapons to the persecutors who are trying to prove by any means that the Church serves political, not religious goals, that she has established indestructible bonds with the old regime. »

In February, when he had « to give an answer on the matter to an equally strait-forward and awkward question put by foreign journalists, Metropolitan Sergius declared, among other things, that the Church was not persecuted in the USSR (Metropolitan Eulogius later described this act as "heroic self-denial"), that it needed neither the intervention of the Pope of Rome nor that of the Archbishop of Canterbury. (…) However, four days after the interview, Metropolitan Sergius submitted to the head of the religious commission a long memorandum containing a list of the grievances of the Church against the State and asking it to stop certain hostile or unfair practices. » This meant that at the very moment the journalist was asking the question Metropolitan Sergius's protest had already been sent to the soviet administration and thus rendered any public declaration impossible with the risk of seeing the step taken doomed to fail.When the interview was published, Metropolitan Eulogius still expressed violent indignation.

European opinion, which was perfectly unaware of the complexity and horror of the situation, thought it could help the Russian Church with its public protests. Therefore, various demonstrations were organised to this end, first by Protestants in Paris, then in London. As he was conscious of the plainly political ambitions pursued by these demonstrations, Metropolitan Eulogius initially refused to participate in them. However, yielding to Anglican pressure, he eventually went to London, and not only participated in the meetings but also made a speech, which was widely publicised by the press. So Metropolitan Sergius learned about this by the newspapers. Therefore, in April 1930, he sent him a letter, asking him if all this was true and if it was the case, how it could be reconciled with the commitment made earlier.

When he received Metropolitan Evlogius's reply, "Metropolitan Sergius considered his justifications with regard to the London demonstrations, "for anyone who is in the least informed about the real attitude of English social circles towards the Soviet Union as rather naïve and too unlikely to be taken seriously ». By the decree dated July 11th 1930, Metropolitan Sergius, jointly with his Patriarchal Synod, dismissed Metropolitan Evlogius from his duties and entrusted Archbishop Vladimir Tikhonitsky with the provisional administration of the Russian Churches in Western Europe.

Archbishop Vladimir refused and declared that neither he nor his clergy would comply with the decision. Then a meeting of the Diocesan Council and later, a Diocesan assembly. were held. Yet it was claimed that the "canonical spiritual bond with the All-Russian Orthodox Church, our Mother" was not being broken. Like Karlovtsy people, and in contradiction with the earlier attitude of Metropolitan Eulogius, it was considered that there was compatibility between membership in a local Church, recognition of and disobedience to this same hierarchy. "In these circumstances, explained Metropolitan Eulogius, the publishing of this decree means a de facto break-up of the normal relations of our diocese with the highest church authority of Moscow and the impossibility of receiving from the latter the free expression of its will ». « The abstention from politics demanded by Metropolitan Surges was explained as a political act that was not necessary to the Church, but useful to the State ». Of the six people who refused to leave the Patriarchal Church five were members of the Brotherhood, including Vladimir Lossky, Eugraph and Maxim Kovalevsky and a women, Mrs. Maria A. Kallache, joined them.. Their motives could be formulated as follows: how could anyone leave the Church when she was on the Cross?

« Metropolitan Elevtherius of Vilno would later describe the years leading up to 1930 as a gradual politicisation of Metropolitan Eulogius's diocese. According to him, the latter was unable to disengage himself from the worldly, non-church current that gradually took him on the non-canonical course; the metropolitan personally "suffered a lot, fighting in his soul against the strength of this current; yet, spiritually weakened, finding no inner strength to resist this pressure, he took the course of separation from the Mother Church."(…) Consequently, the Assembly of June 1930 was marked by a visible politicisation. (…) In the minds of the majority of participants, one had not to be afraid of politics: any public demonstration was political, they said, praying is not enough ... "All considerations of an ecclesial and canonical nature in this particular matter, are nothing but a form or wrapping. (…)Life today is political and it is not possible to pretend otherwise ».

A short time later, Kyrill Shevich wrote about this problem : « the fight for the future of Russia is on two parallel tracks: religious and political. Although they are closely related, they are totally different in many respects. What is in one case a demonstration of power and of the maximum intensity of the struggle can, in the other amount to weakness, capitulation and dishonest compromise. The laws of spiritual combat, which are clearly indicated in the Holy Scriptures (for instance, in Saint Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians) as well as in works by the Holy Fathers and confirmed by centuries of experience of the Church, are often totally inapplicable in political struggle [and vice versa]. Many times in history, confusion between these different aspects provoked conflicts and cases of tragic incomprehension ; the latter also exist nowadays. »

Yet, Metropolitan Eulogius wrote to the Patriarchate, repeating the same arguments. Metropolitan Sergius replied by the decree of December 26th 1930, which confirmed the decree of June 10th and declared the Diocesan Administration dissolved. The six people who despite everything had followed the canons were entrusted to Metropolitan Elevtherius of Vilno.

This is what Mgr. Anthony Bloom has to say on these events: "the Church had to hedge to survive but never betrayed her vocation. Mgr. Eulogius did yield to the pressure of people round him. However, he asked for the canonical protection of Constantinople only with the aim of restoring normal relations with the Patriarchal Church as soon as he could. Besides, that is what he did in 1945, and he died as he wished, in the bosom of his Mother Church. Moreover, in a private conversation, he said : « Their way is straight; ours is a curve. But our goal is the same. »