Cyril Lukaris and the Confession of Dositheus

Patriarch Cyril Lukaris

Jason Wallace of the Ancient Paths YouTube channel has produced two videos attacking Orthodoxy. The first was "The Failure of Eastern Orthodoxy," and the second was "Cyril Lucaris: Calvinist Patriarch/Orthodox Saint." Craig Truglia and I did two video responses, which you can view here:

 

More recently, Jason Wallace appeared on "The Dividing Line," with James White, and discussed his videos, but focused on the question of Cyril Lukaris, on an episode entitled "Let’s Make Cyril Lucaris Great Again!" 

This latest video doesn't warrant another lengthy video rebuttal, but there were a number of erroneous things asserted that should be corrected.

To sum up his argument, he claims that Cyril Lukaris was in fact a Calvinist, and that the Orthodox tried to cover up this fact because supposedly this would call into question our understanding of Apostolic Succession, he asserts that the Orthodox Church has affirmed that the Council of Jerusalem and the Confession of Dositheus are on the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils and Scripture, and that the Orthodox Church has recognized Cyril Lukaris as a saint, despite the fact that he was a Calvinist, and thus a heretic from an Orthodox perspective. All of this, he claims, proves that the Orthodox Church has contradicted itself and is therefore not infallible, as it claims.

Was Cyril Lukaris a Calvinist?

In Jason Wallace's interview with James White, he claimed that I had asserted that the Confession of Cyril Lukaris was a forgery, but the clip he refers to clearly shows that I said "There is an argument to be made that his confession was a forgery, or that it was altered." I put it this way precisely because the arguments I had read were clearly not proof that this was this case, but they seemed reasonable to me at the time. But I would still say that there is an argument to be made to that effect. Jason Wallace's video does present a strong case that this is not true. The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter that much. Heretical occupants of the patriarchal throne of Constantinople are no novelty in the history of the Church.

The historical context here is very complicated, and there was a lot intrigue going on. The Church of Constantinople was under the thumb of the Turks, and so outside powers, both Protestant and Catholic, were able to manipulate Sultans who were more than happy to remove a Patriarch so that they could extract money from whoever wanted him replaced, and so that is why Cyril was removed five times from that position. In that context, lots of people presented one face to one group, and a different one to another. Cyril may well have been such a person.

Stephanie Falkowski, in her dissertation "Not Quite Calvinist: Cyril Lucaris a Reconsideration of His Life and Beliefs," makes the case that Cyril was not as much of a Calvinist as has been generally claimed, but that he was trying to get help from Calvinists, and so tried to sound like as much of a Calvinist as he could, though he often used ambiguous language to accomplish that purpose. I won't take the time to lay out the case that she does, but would recommend those interested give her dissertation a read.

If Cyril Lukaris was In Fact a Calvinist, Would This Disprove Apostolic Succession?

Most of those who have been labelled as heresiarchs (the founder of a heresy or the leader of a heretical sect) have in fact been bishops, and several were Patriarchs of Constantinople. We do not hide this fact. On the Sunday of Orthodoxy, bishops recite the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, and pronounce anathemas on the most prominent of these heretics. So if Cyril Lukaris was a Calvinist, this would be not be an anomaly in Church history.

Wallace asserts that the reason why Orthodox people, going back to the time of the Council in Jerusalem in 1672, have argued that Cyril Lukaris was not a Calvinist because (he mistakenly believes) this would prove Orthodoxy to be false, but even if we assume Cyril was a full blown Calvinist, the reason why the Council of Jerusalem may have argued otherwise is simply because this was not the face he showed to his flock, and so many had positive memories of him. One of the reasons why he would have sought out specifically Protestant allies is that he had spent much of his ministry battling Jesuits who were promoting Uniatism in Ukraine, which was obviously something the Orthodox would have seen as a very laudable part of his history.  

Wallace noted that the Council of Jerusalem cited sermons of Cyril Lukaris without providing the dates these sermons were delivered, as if this was an intentional way of clouding the facts. Modern footnotes are relatively recent things. They certainly are often helpful, but the fact that the council didn't provide modern footnotes doesn't prove anything, other than that they were not accustomed to later conventions. It may also be that the texts of these sermons simply were not dated. The fact that this Council argued that his Confession was either forged or altered was not necessarily because they knew this was false. There was a lot of confusion that reigned during this time, and so there are good reasons why they probably believed this to be the case, even if, in fact, this was not true.

Did the Orthodox Church Recognize Cyril Lukaris as a Saint?

Jason Wallace seems to think that the fact that the local Church of Alexandria glorified Cyril Lukaris as a saint means that, if he in fact was a Calvinist, the Orthodox Church would be guilty of error, and it its infallibility would be thus disproven. The problem is that the decisions of one local Church have never been considered to be necessarily infallible. The only way the decisions of a local Council to glorify a saint could be claimed to be approved by the whole Church, would be either for the whole Church to affirm that decision in an Ecumenical Council (and that would entail a Council both claiming to be Ecumenical, and that Council being received by all the local Churches as Ecumenical); or he would need to be officially recognized by all of the local Orthodox Church as a saint. Neither of these things have happened.

I have seen references to the Patriarchate of Constantinople recognizing Cyril Lukaris as a saint in 2022, but I have been unable to find anything that actually demonstrates that this happened. But even if it did, that would still be only two local Churches, and there is no guarantee that such a decision would be infallible. The Orthodox Church has never claimed that it was impossible for a local Orthodox Church to fall into error. This is also no novelty in the history of the Church.

Is the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 an Ecumenical Council?

Jason Wallace stated that the conciliar work of the Orthodox Church continued uninterrupted in history through the later councils of universal authority, but there have been no Ecumenical Councils outside of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, that both claimed to be Ecumenical and have been universally received in the Orthodox Church to be such. One does find references to the Eighth and to the Ninth Ecumenical Councils, and they would certainly be the best candidates to be labeled such, but while these councils have been universally received as authoritative, they have not been universally received as being on the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

The Council of Jerusalem is considered to be of some authority, but it's decrees were in fact not seen to be infallible, as is shown by the fact that another Council in 1723 made corrections to the Confession of Dositheus (see the Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith (1723). These corrections were reflected in the Russian text of the Confession of Dositheus which was published by St. Philaret of Moscow.

One of the things Jason Wallace highlighted as objectionable in the Confession of Dositheus was what is said in Question 1 of the Confession:

"Question 1

Should the Divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue [common language] by all Christians?

No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats."

This statement was in the context of the Greek speaking Church, at a time when the Turks suppressed the education of Christians. Cyril Lukaris had published a translation of the New Testament into modern Greek, and this translation was objected to by many. Protestants have many people who still object to updating the King James Version, but these bishops were not objecting to replacing an older translation of the New Testament with a new one -- they were objecting replacing the inspired original text of the Greek New Testament with a modern translation. Greek Orthodox Christians continue to use the original text of the Greek New Testament to this day. It does require some effort for a modern Greek to be able to fully understand it, but I used to have a Greek auto mechanic who had a copy of the Orthodox Bible in Greek, which consisted of the Septuagint text for the Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, which he read regularly. When I admired his copy, he gave it to me, and it is well worn. While one might ridicule people who insist on exclusively reading a 400 year old English translation of the Bible, it should be understandable why Greeks would want to maintain the use of the inspired original Greek text. 

Nevertheless, other bishops did object to the way this question was answered in the Confession of Dositheus, and so it was corrected in 1723 to read:

Question 1. – Should all Christians read the Holy Scriptures?

Answer. We know that all Scripture is God-inspired and beneficial, and so necessary that without it it is absolutely impossible to be pious; but not all are able to read it, but only those who know how to test the Scriptures, to study them, and to understand them correctly. Thus, every pious person is allowed to hear the Scriptures, in order to believe in the truth with his heart and confess with his lips unto salvation, but not everyone is allowed to read certain parts of the Scriptures, especially the Old Testament, without guidance. To indiscriminately allow the unskilled to read the Holy Scriptures is the same as to offer infants the use of strong food.

This is the wording reflected in the text of the Confession published by St. Philaret of Moscow. And, you will note that the beginning word "No" has been removed. And as a matter of fact, St. Philaret of Moscow oversaw the publication of the Russian Synodal translation of the Bible, and encouraged people to read it, especially the New Testament. This translation is still used by many Russian speaking Protestants, by the way. When this text speaks of guidance being necessary for the Old Testament, Protestants who constantly published study Bibles for that same purpose should hardly find that objectionable. Providing such guidance has long been one of the primary focuses of catechetical instruction provided to young Orthodox laymen, as one could see by looking at texts, such as "The Law of God: For Study at Home and School," by Fr. Seraphim Slobodskoy, which is 651 pages in length in the English translation, and close to half of that text is about the content of the Bible, and about half of that is focused on the Old Testament (as can be seen online, here).

Wallace argues that the Orthodox Church declared the Council of Jerusalem to be an Ecumenical Council at the Council of Crete in 2016, having "universal authority, just like the Ecumenical Councils," this is incorrect. For one thing, the Churches of Antioch, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Russia did not attend this council, and so far more than half of Orthodox world was not represented -- contrary to Wallace's assertion that "You had Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Moscow, Bulgarians... basically everyone represented." Secondly, even if you look at the Encyclical which Wallace assumes to have referenced the Council of Jerusalem, it actually refers to a council held in Constantinople in 1672, which was held prior to the Council of Jerusalem:

"...and furthermore through the Holy and Great Councils convened in Constantinople, in 1484 to refute the unionist Council of Florence (1438-1439), in 1638, 1642, 1672 and 1691 to refute Protestant beliefs, and in 1872 to condemn ethno-phyletism as an ecclesiological heresy" [Emphasis added].

All of the councils referenced here were held in Constantinople. And while it does cite these councils as being part of the ongoing conciliar work of the Church, it does not actually assert that they are on the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils, contrary to Wallace's claim.

Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein), in his "Symbolic Texts in the Orthodox Church," points out that the Council in 1672 held in Constantinople was attended by 40 bishops, and produced a statement against Calvinism. Later, in that same year, Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem, who had participated in that council took advantage of a gathering of clergy and laity for festivities held at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, and presented his Confession. Only 8 bishops were present and signed this document, and so to even speak of a "Council of Jerusalem" is a debatable point, but it was hardly on the same level as an Ecumenical Council, and as stated, was later corrected by a subsequent council, and so while the corrected Confession of Dositheus is a document of some authority, neither that council nor this document was ever seen as an infallible.

Jaroslav Pelikan, who was a preeminent scholar on the history of Christian doctrine (who was a Lutheran most of his life, but converted to Orthodoxy in 1998) discusses in some detail the status of texts like the Confession of Dositheus in his book "Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition," which has a chapter on the Orthodox Church (which includes a telling subsection entitled "The Ambivalence of the Orthodox Church Toward "Symbolic Books"). Toward the end of that chapter, Pelikan sums things up as follows: 

"Drawing upon this liturgical confession of the faith of the church and shaping it in turn, the doctrinal decisions and formulations of the seven church councils between 325 and 787 stand as the formal deposit of normative dogma for Eastern Orthodox teaching. "The West incessantly asks us for the symbolical books of Orthodoxy," the Bulgarian Orthodox New Testament scholar Nikolaj Nikaronovic Glubokovsky once observed with some annoyance. "We have no need of them. The faith of the seven first councils is sufficient for us." In one sense, therefore, the sacred tradition of the seven ecumenical councils... is a legacy that Eastern Orthodoxy shares with Roman Catholicism, as well as with those other Western confessions in which the validity of the ecumenical councils is acknowledged, albeit with varying degrees of authority being assigned to them. 

In another sense, however, the Eastern Orthodox view of the councils is peculiar to the East. One reason for this is that no later actions of any church, neither those actions that lay claim to the title "ecumenical" in Western dogmatics and canon law nor even the actions of the East itself since 787 at "provincial synods" nor the Eastern Orthodox "confessions" may be ranked on a level with the seven councils" (Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 413f). 

Only God knows the future. The day may come when a new Ecumenical Council is held and is received as being on the same level as the first seven, but that day has not come yet. The Church managed for nearly three centuries without an Ecumenical Council, and so having had Seven, the urgency for another is not as great as many would like to imagine.

Do the Orthodox See the Service of the Church as Being on the Same Level as Scripture?

Another claim Wallace makes is that we see the services as being on the same level as the Scriptures, and cites as an example an Akathist to St. Constantine the Great which states that St. Constantine was baptized by St. Sylvester of Rome, despite the fact that Eusebius and other contemporary writers stated that he was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was later condemned as an Arian. He claims that this is an example of the Orthodox Church trying to re-write history to cover up uncomfortable facts.

First off, it is the Orthodox Church that preserved texts, like Eusebius' History of the Church, and so obviously the Church is not engaged in any cover up there. Secondly, the fact that a bishop who was in good standing with the Church at the time later was condemned as a heretic does not mean that those who were baptized by him were heretics, or that the baptism was invalid.

I am not sure where Wallace got the impression that we put the services of the Church on the same level as Scripture, but we do see universally received services as being part of the Tradition of the Church, as are the Scriptures. However, not all parts of the Tradition of the Church are on the same level of authority, nor would we affirm that everything that is true of the Scriptures is equally true of the services. Even within Scripture, not all the Scriptures are on the same level. The book of Esther, for example, is not on the same level of authority as the Gospels -- though we would affirm that all Scripture is inspired and inerrant. 

When it comes to the services, not all services are on the same level of authority. Akathists, aside from the Akathist to the Mother of God, are not appointed to be served in the regular services of the Church. They are a popular genre, because they are easy for laymen to use on their own. However, most of them have not been endorsed by even a single local Orthodox Church, much less the entire Church. The texts of the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and the Presanctified Liturgy are certain held in very high regard. Menaion services vary in their authority, because not all of them are used universally in the Church. But we would affirm that any service that is used universally does not contain doctrinal error, and they certainly do lay out our Faith. 

The principle of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi -- which means "the rule (or law) of prayer is the rule of Faith," was first articulated (at least so far as we have it in writing) by St. Prosper of Aquitaine, who wrote:

"Let us consider the sacraments of priestly prayers, which having been handed down by the apostles are celebrated uniformly throughout the whole world and in every Catholic Church so that the law of praying might establish the law of believing" (Patrologia Latina 51:209-210).

And this stands to reason. I would encourage those who want to dig into this question to read the book "The Shape of the Liturgy," by Dom Gregory Dix. In that book he makes the compelling case that all the ancient Liturgies of the Church have a common order, that this order is rooted in Jewish worship, and so this order is apostolic in origin. It is not as if Christians in 350 would have looked over the shoulder of non-Christian Jews and would have started copying their forms of worship. The only time in Church history that Jewish forms of worship could have entered the Tradition of the Church is the time of the Apostles themselves. And so this is a clear example of Apostolic Tradition which has been preserved by the Church.

Does the Orthodox Church Anathematize All Protestants?

The Church certainly condemns Protestant heresies, but we do not pass judgment on individuals who are outside of the Church. Furthermore, when an anathema is proclaimed, unless it names specific people, it is not a judgment on any individual. There are many people in the Church who hold opinions that are heretical, but in most cases, this would simply be due to ignorance. If an Orthodox laymen stated something that was a condemned heresy, they would only be subject to an anathema, if they refused to be corrected. Anathemas and canons do not work like landmines, which go off on their own accord when someone tramples on them. Similarly, when you have a speed limit sign, the sign does not write you a ticket -- a police officer has to write you a ticket, and then you have an opportunity to dispute the ticket in court. Likewise, if someone says or does something contrary to a canon or an anathema, there are things that the authorities in the Church have to do to make the respective penalty apply to an individual.

This is made very clear in the most authoritative compilation of the Ecumenical Canons:

"We must know that the penalties provided by the Canons, such as deposition, ex- communication, and anathematization, are imposed in the third person according, to grammatical usage, there being no  imperative available. In such cases in order to express a command, the second person would be necessary. I am going to explain the matter better. The Canons command the council of living bishops to depose the priests, or to excommunicate them, or to anathematize laymen who violate the canons. Yet, if the council does not actually effect the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of laymen, these priests and laymen, are neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized. They are liable to stand trial, however, judicially, here as touching deposition, excommunication, or anathematization, but there as touching divine vengeance. Just as when a king commands his slave to whip another who did something that offended him, if the slave in question fail to execute the king’s command, he will nevertheless be liable to trial for the whipping. So those silly men make a great mistake who say that at the present time all those in holy orders who have been ordained contrary to canons are actually deposed from office. It is an inquisitional tongue that foolishly twaddles thus without understanding that the command of canons, without the practical activity of the second person, or, more plainly speaking, of the council, remains unexecuted, since it does not act of itself and by itself immediately and before judgment. The Apostles themselves explain themselves in their c. XLVI unmistakably, since they do not say that any bishop or presbyter who accepts a baptism performed by heretics is already and at once actually in the state of having been deposed, but that they command that he be deposed, or, at any rate, that he stand trial, and, if it be proved that he did so, then “we command that he be stripped of holy orders by your decision,” they say" (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons, Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 5f [emphasis added]). 

Of course if someone is guilty of sin, either in terms of moral failures or of intentionally harboring heretical views and refusing the correction of the Church, even if the authorities in the Church never take any action either because they are kept hidden, or the authorities neglect their duties, this does not mean that the person will not go to hell as a result, if they refuse to repent. But this does mean, contrary to Donatism, that even if a bishop or priest is secretly living a double life for which they should be removed from the clergy, so long as the Church allows them to continue to function in their role, the sacraments they perform continue to have the grace of God, because the grace of God is not dependent on the worthiness of those performing them. Otherwise, one could never be sure that they ever received any sacrament.

Conclusion

I am sure Jason Wallace is a sincere man, but I would encourage him to spend more time studying what we actually believe, before he comments any further about the Orthodox Faith. He no doubt believes what his own church teaches. I am sure he thinks he is doing the work of the Lord by defending his own beliefs, and attacking what he perceives to be errors in the teachings of the Orthodox Church, but anyone who is familiar with what we believe cannot fail to notice how frequently he fails to understand even some of the most basic teachings of our Faith. 

For more information, see also:

Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?

Sola Scriptura

The Inerrancy of Scripture

St. John of Shanghai, the Moscow Patriarchate, and Other Local Orthodox Churches

I recently participated in a discussion with an Old Calendarist, and several issues came up that I was not able to fully respond to in the course of the discussion. I intend to write a series of responses on various issues that were raised, but the first one I want to cover is the question of how St. John of Shanghai viewed the Moscow Patriarchate, and other local Orthodox Churches.

The reason why this matters is that those who have gone into schism with the various "True Orthodox" groups try to argue that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) today has changed its positions on the key issues that resulted in ROCOR being functionally independent during the time of the Soviet Union. However, the evidence shows that the position that ROCOR takes today is the same position that St. John of Shanghai took. And St. John of Shanghai is not just a guy with an opinion. He was a very prominent bishop of ROCOR during his lifetime, and he is now universally venerated as a Saint by everyone who is Orthodox. Now, it is certainly true that there were people in ROCOR who took more extreme views, but unless someone wants to argue that St. John was a modernist, ecumenist, or a Sergianist, they cannot credibly argue that the positions he took were betrayals of ROCOR.

St. John was a monarchist, he was very conservative, and was a staunch defender of the Faith and Traditions of the Church, but unlike the extremists, he was not a sectarian or schismatic. He consistently took a charitable stance when it came to the various parts of the Russian Church which became separated by their differing responses to the Soviet attempts to destroy the Church. He likewise maintained good relations with other Orthodox local Churches.

During my roughly 35 years in ROCOR, I have had the opportunity to get to know three people who knew St. John well, and none of them separated from ROCOR when it reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate, nor did they hold the extreme views these folks are advocating.

St. John was one of several Russian Bishops who were in China during and after World War II. At the end of the war, not having had any communications with ROCOR's central authority for a very long time, and having been led to believe that ROCOR had ceased to function, St. John, along with the other bishops in China, agreed to come under the authority of the newly elected Patriarch Alexei I of Moscow. Obviously, had he believed the Moscow Patriarchate was a graceless Church, he would never have done this. 

Here is what St. John had to say about this at the time, as quoted in the article The Russian Church Abroad in Hong Kong, by Archpriest Dionysy Pozdnyaev:

"The Diocese of Peking had to resolve the question of its jurisdictional status independently. Saint John of Shanghai, Vicar Bishop of the Diocese of Peking, and a lawyer by training and expert in canon law, convinced Archbishop Victor, his ruling bishop, to adopt the new jurisdiction. On July 31, 1945, he wrote to him:

“[…] Following the decision of the Diocese of Harbin, and in view of the absence, for a number of years, of information about the Synod of the Church Abroad, any other solution would make our diocese entirely independent and autocephalous. There is no canonical foundation for this type of independence since there are no doubts as to the canonicity of the newly recognized Patriarch. Relations with the [Moscow –tr.] church hierarchy are also possible, with the result that the Decree of November 7, 1920 is not applicable. At present, there are no grounds for us to remain a self-governing diocese, and we ought to follow the same course as the Diocese of Harbin. The name of the Chair of the Synod of the Church Abroad ought still to be commemorated at services, since, according to the 14th Canon of the First-Second Local Council, one may not arbitrarily cease commemorating the name of his Metropolitan Bishop. The commemoration of the name of the Patriarch, however, […] must be immediately introduced throughout the whole diocese by a Decree of yours.”

Archbishop Victor agreed with Saint John’s proposal and, in August 1945, he sent a request by telegram to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow asking to receive him and Bishop John into his jurisdiction. The Hong Kong Deanery followed its ruling bishop in adopting the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate."

For some historical context, it should be noted that the leader of the Soviet Union at this time was no less than Joseph Stalin, who had severely persecuted the Church, and murdered millions for their faith in the attempt to remove all religion from the USSR, although World War II forced him to reverse course, and after the war, the Church was given a level of freedom it had not had in a long time.

St. John began immediately to commemorate Patriarch Alexei I, but a response by the Patriarch to Archbishop Victor's petition was delayed by the effects of the war. And in the meantime, St. John received a telegram informing him that ROCOR had not ceased to exist, and so he alone, among all the bishops in China decided to resume commemorating Metropolitan Anastasy of ROCOR as his primate, as had been the previous practice.

He explained his change in decision to his flock as follows:

“The governing authorities of the Church Abroad have seen fit that the Church should continue to take responsibility for our pastoral care, and has notified us of this fact as well as informing His Eminence the Head of the Mission of it. Consequently, we do not consider it possible to take any decisions in relation to this question without the instruction and approval of the authorities of the Russian Church Abroad. As late as the Council of 1938, in which we took part, it was decreed that when the time will come for us to return to our native land, the hierarchs of the Church Abroad should not act separately, but rather the entire Church Abroad should present an account to an All-Russian Council of the acts it has performed while living in forced separation. Communications concerning the restoration of full canonical communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, received by Archbishop Victor on Great Saturday in response to his request to His Holiness Patriarch Alexis last August (1945), were a cause of sincere joy for us, since they allowed us a glimpse of the beginnings of mutual understanding between two parts of the Russian Church divided by a border, and of the possibility of mutual support of two centers that gather the Russian people together as one, inside and outside our Fatherland. If they can strive together towards a single common goal and act separately according to the conditions in which each finds itself, the Church inside Russia and the Church abroad will be better able to achieve both their common aims and the particular ones that each has, up to the point when a complete reunion will be made possible. At present, the Church inside Russia has to heal the wounds that militant atheism has inflicted upon it and free itself from the bonds that are impeding the fullness of its internal and external functioning. The goal of the Church Abroad is to prevent the children of the Russian Orthodox Church from becoming dispersed, and to preserve the spiritual values that they have brought with them from their homeland, as well as to spread Orthodoxy in the countries where they are living. This was indeed the purpose of the acts of the Synod of Hierarchs of the Church Abroad that took place in the city Munich, under Allied occupation, on the anniversary of the defeat of Germany” (Quoted in "The Russian Church Abroad in Hong Kong," Emphasis added).

Archbishop Victor issued a decree relieving St. John of his duties, but St. John announced in a sermon that he had no intention of abiding by that decree. He took seriously his oath of obedience to the Synod of ROCOR at the time of his consecration as a bishop, and so said:

“I will submit to this decree only if it can be demonstrated to me, by way of Sacred Scripture and the law of any one country, that oath-breaking is a virtue and keeping one’s oath is a grave sin.”

So he did not take this action because he came to realize that the Moscow Patriarchate was a pseudo-Church. In fact, he stated just the opposite, but he was obliged to not enter into union with the Moscow Patriarchate, apart from the Synod he had pledged his obedience to.

The extremists argue that St. John was isolated in China, and so he was unaware of the crimes of the Soviets and the actions of the Moscow Patriarchate. This seems rather unlikely, since he was living near the central headquarters of ROCOR until he was consecrated a bishop in 1934 and sent to China. But in any case, he had many years to learn whatever he might not have known about these issues before he wrote his "History of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad," in 1960, and in that text, he doesn't even use the words "Sergianism" or "Sergianist." In fact, Fr. Peter Perekrestov noted he never used those words in any of his writings:

“In no article, no homily that has come down to us, no letter of which we are aware, did Holy Hierarch St John (Maximovitch) ever use the term “Sergianists"” ("The Church's Helmsman, Both Then and Now, is the Almighty Spirit of God," by Archpriest Peter Perekrestov).

What we find instead are the most charitable interpretations of the actions of Metropolitan Sergius. Here are all the paragraphs in that text in which he mentions Metropolitan Sergius:

After the death of Patriarch Tikhon, the Russian Church Abroad acknowledged the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsk; however, he was soon arrested and banished by the Soviet regime for his firmness and his unwillingness to make concessions to the atheist regime. The Church in Russia and abroad continued to regard him as her head and his name was commemorated at Divine services in all churches. Then Metropolitan Sergius became his Substitute. At this time certain differences arose among the Russian hierarchs abroad, and an appeal was made to Metropolitan Sergius with the request that he make a decision on them. This allowed Metropolitan Sergius to express his view on the situation of the part of the Russian Church that was abroad. Addressing himself in a general letter to the bishops abroad on September 12, 1926, he wrote:

"My dear hierarchs, you ask me to be a judge in a matter of which I am entirely unaware... Can the Moscow Patriarch, as a general principle, be the leader of the ecclesiastical life of Orthodox emigrants?... The good of church affairs themselves demands that you, by a common consent, should establish for yourselves a central organ of church administration which is sufficiently authoritative to resolve all misunderstandings and differences and which has the power to put a stop to any misunderstanding and every disobedience without appealing for our support..." In this letter, which is filled with love for his fellow bishops abroad, he says: "We shall scarcely see each other again in the present life, but I may hope by God's mercy that we shall see each other in the future life."

This was the last letter of Metropolitan Sergius in which he freely wrote that which within himself he acknowledged as true. Imprisonment, threats with regard not only to himself but to the entire Russian Church as well, and the false promises of the Soviet regime broke him: within a few months after his letter, so full of love, to the hierarchs abroad, which was as it were his testament before his loss of inner freedom, Metropolitan Sergius issued a Declaration in which he recognized the Soviet regime as a genuinely lawful Russian regime which was concerned for the people's good, a regime "whose joys are our joys, and whose sorrows are our sorrows" (Declaration of July 16/29, 1927). At the same time, in accordance with the promise he had given the Soviet regime, Metropolitan Sergius demanded of the clergy abroad their signatures of loyalty to the Soviet regime.

This document was in complete contradiction with his view expressed nine months before this, that the Moscow Patriarchate could not direct the ecclesiastical life of emigrants. If for those in Russia who were undergoing terrible sufferings there might be conditions that would mitigate their moral capitulation to the cruel regime — just as the church canons at the time of the [ancient] persecutions mitigated the penances of those who renounced Christ after terrible sufferings — nonetheless, for those who were in freedom and comparative safety there were no mitigating circumstances or justification or even meaning at all in such a signature. It can hardly be that Metropolitan Sergius himself believed that anyone abroad would submit to his Ukase, and he did this clearly in order to fulfill the demand of the Soviet regime and thus remove responsibility from himself.

However, Metropolitan Evlogy with his vicars and Bishop Benjamin of Sebastopol did indeed submit to the Ukase. Meanwhile, in Russia itself there were courageous confessors from among the imprisoned bishops and likewise among those who remained in freedom, who declared to Metropolitan Sergius that they did not accept the concordat with the atheist regime that was persecuting the Church. Many of them even broke off communion in prayer with Metropolitan Sergius as one who had "fallen" and had entered into league with the atheists, and a part of the clergy and laity in Russia followed them. The atheist Soviet regime cruelly persecuted such steadfast hierarchs and their followers. The Soviet regime, while not fulfilling the promises to Metropolitan Sergius which had caused him to make the concordat with it, at the same time deprived of freedom, banished, and even executed many of those who did not recognize the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius.

Among those who did not recognize Metropolitan Sergius' Declaration of loyalty to the Soviet regime were the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter (whose Substitute Metropolitan Sergius was), Metropolitans Agathangel of Yaroslavl and Cyril of Kazan (who had been indicated by Patriarch Tikhon as possible Locum Tenenses of the Patriarchal Throne in case Peter should be unable to exercise his office), Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd, and many other well-known hierarchs. Indeed, Metropolitan Sergius himself had thought exactly like them not long before his signing of the Declaration for the reasons already mentioned.

The Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius brought no benefit to the Church. The persecutions not only did not cease, but they even increased. To the other accusations which the Soviet regime made against clergy and laymen was added yet one more — not recognizing the Declaration. At the same time churches without number were closed throughout Russia. Within a few years almost all churches were destroyed or put to various other uses. Whole provinces remained without a single church. Concentration camps and places of forced labor held thousands of clergy, a significant part of which never regained freedom, being executed there or dying from excessive labors and deprivations. Even the children of priests and all believing laymen were persecuted.

The Russian Church Outside of Russia was spiritually one with these persecuted believers. Except for the several hierarchs already mentioned, all the rest, headed by Metropolitan Anthony, flatly refused to give signatures of loyalty to the Soviet regime, and they came out with an open denunciation. Moreover, Metropolitan Anthony, who very much loved Metropolitan Sergius and inwardly suffered for his beloved disciple and friend, wrote him personally a letter of admonition, which probably never reached him or in any case was no longer able now to influence his behavior.

Like the bishops and faithful inside Russia who did not recognize the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, so too the part of the Russian Church that was abroad did not cease to belong to the Russian Church. They all, just as before, remained in spiritual union with the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter, who was languishing in a desert place in the far north. His name was commemorated in all Russian churches abroad. In all these churches there were also prayers for the suffering brethren in the Homeland, for their deliverance from the atheist regime, and for the repose of those who had been martyred by the regime. Meanwhile, Metropolitan Evlogy, who had given the signature of loyalty to the Soviet regime which had been demanded by Metropolitan Sergius, was invited to a service of prayer in England for the suffering Russian Church, and he took part in it. This was interpreted as an act against the Soviet regime, and he was forbidden to serve by Metropolitan Sergius. Not wishing to submit to this decree, but at the same time not wishing to acknowledge his guilt before the Russian Synod Abroad, Metropolitan Evlogy asked the Patriarch of Constantinople to receive him and his flock temporarily into the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which was done.

Notwithstanding the departure from the Church Abroad — and, one may say, from the Russian Church altogether — of Metropolitans Evlogy and Platon with their followers, the Russian Orthdox Church Outside of Russia remains the free part of the Russian Church. She has enjoyed the attention of the Most Holy Patriarchs and the other hierarchs of her sister Orthodox Churches. Patriarch Varnava of Serbia showed special attention to her and strove to return to the Russian Church Abroad those bishops who had separated from her, and he was likewise an intermediary between her and Metropolitan Sergius, whom he respected and loved as the rector of his days in the Academy. However, soon he had to become convinced that Metropolitan Sergius was in the hands of the Church's enemies and that his actions were harmful to her, concerning which he wrote to him directly.

...At first this change did not bring any alterations in the situation of the Russian Church Abroad. She continued to exist and act as before, being governed by the "Decree" which had been accepted under the chairmanship of Patriarch Varnava, and everywhere she enjoyed externally all her former rights. In 1937, the Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsk, died in banishment, and apparently not long before this, or soon afterwards, Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan, who was supposed to become Locum Tenens after Metropolitan Peter, likewise died in banishment. The Patriarchal Synod of Moscow, composed of bishops invited by Metropolitan Sergius, confirmed the latter as Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. At this time the Russian Church inside Russia was in a state of total desolation. There were only twenty bishops in freedom, and the majority of churches were closed, destroyed, or turned to some other use. Whole provinces and vast expanses had not a single church. Relics and wonderworking icons were taken to museums. The majority of the clergy that remained were in banishment, at forced labor, or lived concealing their rank, earning for themselves a pitiful living by any kind of work and only secretly celebrating services at the homes of faithful laymen.

At the same time Metropolitan Sergius, bound by his promise given to the Soviet regime, continued to affirm that there was no persecution against the Church in Russia. The Church Abroad, which was no longer subject to Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod, remained in her previous relationship to him, feeling herself to be spiritually one with the suffering Mother Church, and as before offering prayer for her and her suffering brethren" (Emphasis added).

There is one other letter by St. John that we have in English that addresses the question, from September 13, 1963:

If someone began to talk in Metropolitan Anthony’s  [First Hierarch of the ROCOR, Khrapovitskii] presence about “wrong actions by the Church,” he would stop them, pointing out that the actions of the hierarchy cannot be attributed to the Church, since the hierarchy is not the whole Church, even though it speaks on its behalf. On the See of Constantinople, [there sat] Paul the Confessor, Makedonios, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Nestorios, Proclus, Flavian, Germanos. Some [of them] shone with holiness and Orthodoxy, others were heresiarchs, yet the Church remained Orthodox. During Iconoclasm, after the expulsion of Severinus, Nikephoros and others, not only their sees, but also the majority of episcopal ones were replaced by Arians. Other Churches did not even have communion with [the Byzantine Church], according to the testimony of the St. Paul, who abandoned heresy and the [patriarchal] throne, not wanting to have communion with the iconoclasts, but still the Church of Constantinople remained Orthodox, although part of the people and especially the guardsmen and officials were carried away into iconoclasm.

So, it is now understandable when the expression “Soviet Church” is used by ordinary people who are less familiar with church language, but it is not suitable for responsible and theological conversations. When the entire hierarchy of Southwestern Rusʹ embraced Uniatism [after the Brest union of 1596], the Church continued to exist in the person of the faithful Orthodox people, who, after much suffering, restored their hierarchy. Therefore, it is more correct to speak not of a “Soviet Church,” which cannot exist in the correct understanding of the word “Church,” but about the hierarchy that is in the service of the Soviet government. The attitude toward this hierarchy may be the same as toward other representatives of that government. Their rank gives them the opportunity to act with great authority and replace the voice of the suffering Russian Church and misleads those who think to learn from them about the actual position of the Church in Russia. Of course, among them there are also conscious traitors, and those who simply do not find the strength to fight the surrounding environment and went with the flow: this is a matter of their personal responsibility, but in general, it is the apparatus of the theomachist Soviet regime. While there is only one hierarchy in the liturgical area, for Grace acts independently of personal dignity, in the socio-political area this hierarchy serves is a cover for Soviet atheistic activities. Therefore, those abroad and those who join its ranks become deliberate accomplices of that power. ("Did the Byzantine Church Cease to be the Church During Iconoclasm?" Emphasis added).

It is clear from this letter that St. John did not think people in the west should voluntarily join the Moscow Patriarchate, under the circumstances of the time, but it is also clear that he did not think the Russian Church that the bishops of the MP headed was a false Church. The bishops of the MP had varying degrees of responsibility, for which they would have to account to God, but that the grace of the Church was not dependent on the worthiness of the bishops. To say otherwise is to espouse the heresy of Donatism.

The Donatist controversy arose at the end of the last Roman persecution. There was a bishop in North Africa that the Donatists accused of being a traditor, which was a person who handed books or sacred vessels over to the Romans to be destroyed. The bishop in question denied this charge, but the Church determined that it was heretical to question the sacraments of a bishop in good standing, even if he in fact was guilty of such sins, and lied about them to boot, because the grace of the Sacraments do not depend on the worthiness of those who perform them -- it depends on the Church having authorized them to perform them. Were this not the case, one could never be sure that they ever received grace-filled Sacraments, because they could never know what secret sins a bishop or priest might be harboring within themselves. And so, until and unless a bishop is deposed from office, as long as he is acting on behalf of the Church, his sacraments have the grace of the Holy Spirit.

I have also come across two bishops who knew St. John, who both gave testimony to St. John's views on the Moscow Patriarchate:

Archbishop Anthony of Geneva:

"As far as the Moscow Patriarchate was concerned, Vladyka avoided extreme positions, witnessed by his letter to Fr Dimitri Dudko: “The late Archbishop John, whom we all respected and loved, would say ‘the official Church in Russia, of course, possesses grace, though one bishop or another might conduct themselves poorly.’” (Quoted in "A Brief Biography of Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich, +1993) of Geneva and Western Europe," by Bernard le Caro).

Bishop Basil Rodzianko:

"I thought that I would remain forever cut off from my parents and that I would be behind the Iron Curtain and never meet them, but then I suddenly left for Paris, after I had been released from a communist Yugoslav prison and, one might say, "advised" in quotation marks to leave Yugoslavia (this was after Tito had quarreled with Stalin). and in Paris itself he left the station - where? - to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and there I was offered to serve. And the first thing I said after the first meeting, the first tears of mutual tears, I said openly and directly to Vladyka John, that I could not in my conscience throw a stone at the Russian Orthodox Church, as many did in the Diaspora, its Patriarch and its hierarchs. Do you know what he told me? He told me: "Every day at the proskomedia I commemorate Patriarch Alexy. He is the Patriarch. And our prayer still remains. By force of circumstances, we were cut off, but liturgically we are united. The Russian Church, like the entire Orthodox Church, is united in the Eucharist, and we are with her and in her. And administratively, for the sake of our flock and for the sake of certain principles, we have to follow this path, but this in no way violates our mysterious unity of the entire Church. Therefore, as a Serbian cleric, you can serve wherever you want – in the canonical Churches, of course – and come and serve with me." This is how the unforgettable Vladyka John Maximovich acted with me in his holiness, in his truly authentic blessed vision" (Machine translation of "About Vladyka John," by Bishop Basil Rodzianko, Emphasis added).

When it comes to how St. John viewed other local Orthodox Churches, we likewise see that he was always guided by charity. I know from Archbishop Peter (Loukianoff) of blessed memory that St. John had the practice on Holy Saturday, of visiting every Orthodox parish in San Francisco and venerating the Epitaphios (Plashchanitsa) that would have been in the center of every Church on that day. He clearly did not see these other jurisdictions, even ones with a checkered history with ROCOR (like the American Metropolia (which became the Orthodox Church in America), as false Churches.

While in France, Archbishop Peter told us the story of an elderly Russian couple that had met late in life, and had only one son, who was in the French Army, and had foolishly killed himself, playing Russian roulette. The parents were of course devastated. They attended a parish that was under the "Evlogians" (the Russian Exarchate), which had once been part of ROCOR, but went into schism, and joined the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Many in ROCOR considered them to be graceless schismatics. In any case, no sooner had the parents received the telegram with this devastating news, they heard a knock on the door, and St. John was there to console them. They never knew how he could have found out, because they had only just found out themselves, but St. John had spiritual insight that didn't require a telegram (see "Remembrances of St. John of Shanghai," by Archbishop Peter (Loukianoff), around the 42 minute mark).

We know that St. John held such views about the "Evlogians" from no less than Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), who held very different views on them, as well as on the Moscow Patriarchate, and the OCA):

"And I do not understand the position adopted in this matter by the late Vladyka John [St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco -ed.], a true servant and man of God. Why did he not “dot the i’s”  from the very beginning and explain to the Evlogians all the unrighteousness of their path and position!" ("A Letter of Met. Philaret to Mother Magdalina," Emphasis added).

Contrary to the extremists, St. John was not in favor of breaking off communion with other local Churches, even when they were plagued by serious theological or canonical problems:

"In 1939, in his report "The Status of the Orthodox Church after the War", St. John considered that: "We (the faithful of the Russian Church Abroad – Protopriest P.P.) must stand firmly on the foundation of the Church’s canons and not with those who are straying from them. In former times for the exposure of canonical irregularities in a Local Church canonical communion was broken with her. The Russian Church Abroad cannot act in this way, in so far as her status has not been clearly defined. For this reason she must not break communion with the other Churches, if they do not take this step first. But, while maintaining communion, {the Church Abroad} must not remain silent over violations against the righteousness of the Church" (Bishop John of Shanghai, "The State of the Orthodox Church After the War," Acts of the Second All-Diaspora Council, Belgrade, 1939, p. 400. Quoted in "St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco and His View of the Russian Church in the 20th Century," by Archpriest Peter Perekrestov).

The problems the Russian Church faced were in many ways unprecedented, and not everyone in the Russian Church agreed on how to respond. And divisions were intentionally stoked by the Soviets who wanted to divide the Russian Church, so it could more easily destroy it. In Russia itself, you had the official Church under the Moscow Patriarchate, the Catacomb Church, which largely considered the MP to be traitors, and thus without grace, and then you had those who took a middle road -- not accepting the policies of the MP, but also not condemning it entirely. The Catacomb Church blamed the MP for their persecution. Many in the MP, who were also suffering under persecution, had animosity towards those in the Catacomb Church. Outside of Russia, there were a couple of periods in which most Russian bishops were united, but we ended up with at least four groups: Those under the MP, ROCOR, the Paris Exarchate, and the American Metropolia (which became the OCA). Unfortunately, there was a lot of animosity between all of these groups -- and again, this was exactly what the Soviets wanted.

St. John of Shanghai was one of those people who was able to view people that he disagreed with charitably. He recognized that most were trying to do what they thought best, under the circumstances, and so was not quick to condemn. It is understandable, that people like Metropolitan Philaret, whose father died in a Soviet gulag would have a hard time taking a charitable view of the Moscow Patriarchate (even though his father was himself a bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate). But on the feast of the Transfiguration this year we will mark 34 years since the Soviet Union came to an end. Most of the extremists I see getting worked up about condemning the Moscow Patriarchate are converts with no family who were murdered by the Communists, and most are not even old enough to remember when the Soviet Union was still in existence. 

I am old enough to remember the Soviet Union, and my wife has many family members who were murdered by Communists (which nearly included her father) -- though not in the Soviet Union -- they were murdered by the Chinese Communists, and not because of religious issues. This, however, goes to show that Communists didn't need "Sergianists" to enable them to engage in mass murder. This is what Communists do when they take power. 

After more than three decades, it is time for us to try to view what happened during the Soviet period with some historical perspective and dispassion, but also with Christian charity, as did St. John. The Soviets tried to destroy the Church. They failed.