The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, 2

Did not a similar thing occur in Greece? Why did the Church of Greece arise and why does it exist as an autocephalous Church, whereas its territory from antiquity was a part of the Œcumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople? When in 1819-20 there was a rebellion of the Greeks against the Turks, the Turkish government demanded of the Patriarch the excommunication of the rebellious Greeks, and the Patriarch fulfiled this. Although the Greeks well knew that he was only outwardly fulfiling what was demanded of him, remaining heart and soul with them, nonetheless, declaring his interdicts invalid, they began to govern themselves ecclesiastically independently of him; and when a government of Greece was formed, an independent Church of Greece was established. For about 30 years the Archbishop of Constantinople and the Synod of Greece had no communion with each other, until a relationship was established between the Churches of the Patriarchate and of Greece as between independent Churches. Until recently the Greeks living in other countries were cared for by the Church of Greece, and only after the First World War, when Turkey was half destroyed and became weak, did the Greeks in the diaspora become again the spiritual flock of the Œcumenical Patriarchate. The Church of Greece, however, up to now remains autocephalous and, after the Balkan and two World Wars, there have even entered into her new territories, annexed to Greece, which from of old belonged to the Patriarchate of Constantinople; while the Archbishop of Athens has received the title of Most Blessed. Evidently, only when Constantinople will again become the capital of the Greek Kingdom - if by God’s mercy this will be - will the two Greek Churches come together again, just as the two separated parts of the Serbian Church were united when all Serbian territories had been liberated and united in one government.

If attempts to preserve spiritual freedom and to guard oneself from every influence of regimes which, even if non-Christian, nonetheless believed in God in their own way, and which, although they limited the freedom of Christians, permitted an open persecution only at times, - if such attempts were the cause of an outward separation of parts of the Church from the Mother Churches, then it is all the more just, permissible and essential, to preserve the faithful from every pressure of a regime which has openly set itself the aim of fighting against religion as superstition and systematically striving to annihilate it.

The gates of hades shall not prevail against the Church. The Church has experienced terrible persecutions and has endured them, being crowned by a choir of new martyrs. But the Church has never desired persecutions and has prayed for deliverance from them and from temptations. She has prayed for the failure of the persecutors, and it is well known that Julian the Apostate perished while St. Basil the Great was praying for the preservation of the Church from him.

Who needs the annihilation of the Russian Church Abroad? Russian exiles? the Russian Diaspora? But it is precisely the Church Abroad that gives them spiritual power, that unites and preserves them from complete extinction with the loss of Orthodox faith and together with it of the whole of Russian culture, which was formed by Orthodoxy. Only the enemies of Russia and of the Russian people can desire this.

Does the Russian Church inside Russia need, would she benefit from, the annihilation of the Church Abroad and her annexation to the Patriarchate? The Russian Church Abroad spiritually is not separated from her suffering Mother. She offers up prayers for her, preserves her spiritual and material wealth, and in due time she will unite with her, when the reasons for their disunity shall have vanished. And there is no doubt that within Russia also many hierarchs, clergy, and laymen are with us and would themselves be happy to act as we do if they were able.