Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics by BRYN GEFFERT This essay examines the political and religious impetus behind Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis's recognition of Anglican orders in 1922. The furore surrounding recognition, the events that led up to it and the fall-out that followed shed light on the many difficulties faced by religious leaders in the post-war Orthodox world, difficulties that led to fierce jockeying among Orthodox clerics as they tried to establish themselves in relation to their coreligionists and to the larger Christian world. The controversy also offers insight into the problems inherent when a 'comprehensive ' Church such as the Church of England enters into discussions with a more uniformly dogmatic confession such as Orthodoxy. Anglican Orders and Orthodox Politics by BRYN GEFFERT I can say that one of the most important events of the century at the beginning of which we find ourselves is just the work of the union of both Churches, the Holy Anglican and the Greek Orthodox. We can really congratulate ourselves that this question has arisen in our days in a more vivid manner. Let us hope that through our efforts it may in our days come to a happy issue: Archbishop Meletios 1 It is regrettable and disastrous that ecclesiastical diplomats in common with other politicians should frequently bow themselves down in worship of policy rather than of principle, of expedience rather than of justice and right, in their actions and pronouncements : editorial, Orthodox Catholic Review 2 I n the early 1920s a significant number of catholic-minded members of the Church of England believed that the reunion of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches lay in the not-too-distant future. John Douglas, the crusading, grecophilic vicar of St Luke's in Camberwell (when not off trotting about the Balkans), typified such Anglo-Catholic optimism. In 1920 Douglas founded a journal, The Christian East, to both promote and chronicle this ambitious scheme. Mostly sober and didactic, although occasionally preening and bombastic, The Christian East emerged as the most complete source in the English-speaking world for information about Orthodoxy, and the leading cheerleader for efforts towards reunion. Its third issue, in 1920, 8 on display during and after the war, a way to restore the ' brotherhood of man' 9 and allow Christianity to present ' a united front against the [secular] subversive elements' of the post-war world. 1 10 Contacts between Anglicans and Orthodox intensified as Russian exiles streamed into western Europe, and members of the Balkan Orthodox Churches sought Britain's financial and political support in the political and religious chaos following the war. Serbian Orthodox came to know British life well as displaced Serbian students studied in English universities during the war. 1 11 Anglicans distributed thousands of dollars to Russian émigrés through the Russian Clergy and Church Aid Fund. 1 12 Hamilcar Alivizatos, a theology professor at the University of Athens who returned in 1920 from meetings with Anglicans in New York, Oxford and London, was optimistic that points of contention between the two confessions could be resolved. The ' Anglicans place an Orthodox interpretation on the Filioque', he enthused upon his return. 1 13 Discussions at Oxford demonstrated ' no essential difference ' between Orthodox and Anglican interpretations of baptism and confirmation. And the conference in London convinced him that the Church of England makes use of icons ' on the lines of the Seventh OEcumenical Synod. They deviate in nothing from this line ' : 14 The religiousness of the flock of [the Anglican Church], their perseverance and piety in prayer, the splendour of their worship, the sacred pictures and sacred feelings, the affection toward the Church and her sacred mission in society, the existence of monastic orders of both sections … have persuaded me that the Anglican Church stands very near, and much nearer than any other, to our own Church, and that truly no serious obstacle exists to prevent intercommunion and union between the two Churches. 15 In January of 1920 -the same year as The Christian East began publicationthe Ecumenical Patriarchate issued possibly the most famous encyclical from Constantinople in the twentieth century, Unto all the Churches of Christ wheresoever they be. This constituted an ardent plea for cooperation with other confessions in the face of doctrinal differences. 16 While it stopped short of calling for any kind of formal reunion, it proposed some specific steps towards rapprochement: the serious study of doctrinal differences, formal relationships between theological schools of different faiths (including student exchanges), pan-Christian conferences and the shared use of chapels and cemeteries in foreign lands. 17 That same year the Ecumenical Patriarchate gladly accepted the archbishop of Canterbury's invitation to send a delegation to the Lambeth Conference (the decennial gathering of Anglican bishops) of 1920. Both Constantinople and Lambeth felt a new urgency for contact after the war. The archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, had established the Church of England's ' Council on Eastern Churches ' in 1919 to deal both with increasing demands from the Orthodox Churches for political assistance, as well as growing interest among Orthodox theologians in theological dialogue. 17 18 Davidson and his advisers knew well that Constantinople's new interest in the Anglican Church grew out of its need for allies during its fighting and negotiations with Turkey following the war. (Britain was determined to prevent the expulsion of the patriarchate, one of the early goals of the new, adamantly secular Turkish state.) A year earlier Dorotheos, locum tenens of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, wrote to Davidson, pleading with ' our sister Church in England' for help against the Turks. 17 19 G. K. A. Bell, Davidson's secretary, considered that Constantinople's decision to attend the 1920 Lambeth Conference was politically motivated. Indeed, the Orthodox seized every opportunity to hobnob with important officials in Britain, particularly the archbishop of Canterbury, who, in Bell's words, was 'conceived to possess a very great influence … as primate of the national church'. 20 The process of peace negotiations between Allies and Turks, Bell argued, 'made the whole difference' in strengthening links between Orthodox and Anglicans. 17 The patriarchate organised a delegation of four members to attend Lambeth: Philaret Vapheidis (the metropolitan of Didymoteichon), Panteleimon Komnenos (a professor of theology at Halki) and two Orthodox 16 'Our Church is of [the] opinion that a closer intercourse with each other and a mutual understanding between the several Christian Churches is not prevented by the doctrinal differences existing between them ': 'Unto all the Churches of Christ wheresoever they be', Greek Orthodox Theological Review i/1 (1954), 58-61. 17 Ibid. 18 Lambeth welcomed the formation of the council as a step that would 'help greatly to forward the cause of reunion with the Orthodox Church '. 17 19 'There can be only one safeguard for us', wrote Dorotheos : 'it is the dislodgement of the Sultan from Constantinople. ' 17 priests working among the Orthodox community in England -Constantine Pagonis of London, and Constantine Callinicos of Manchester. Arriving in London, the Orthodox could not have known they were about to witness the most ecumenical of all Lambeth conferences to date. The archbishop of York and his 'Committee on Reunion' -apparently inspired by the Russian Orthodox Synod of 1917, 21 which called for a permanent commission within the new Russian Orthodox Synod to coordinate relations with the Anglican Church -urged the conference to issue an encyclical addressed to ' All Christian People', which would speak of the ' imperative necessity' of Christian unity. 17 22 Most of the bishops at Lambeth were enthusiastic for the idea, and the final language proclaimed that ' We acknowledge all those who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and have been baptised into the name of the Holy Trinity as sharing with us membership in the Universal Church of Christ, which is his Body.' An air of excitement gripped the conference as it endorsed the statement: 17 23 ' The time has come, we believe, for all the separated groups of Christians to agree in forgetting the things which are behind and reaching out towards the goal of a reunited catholic church.' 24 But the Orthodox delegation did not find an Anglican Church united in doctrinal matters, or even in agreement about the best means for pursuing rapprochement with other confessions. Earlier that year prominent Protestants and evangelicals in the Church of England, together with contingents from England's other Protestant Churches (the ' Free Churches ' or ' Nonconformist Churches '), had issued the ' Mansfield Statement ', a decidedly Protestant proposal for intercommunion with other denominations. The signatories declared themselves equally part of the ' one Church of Christ', and insisted that ' the efficacy of their ministrations is verified in the history of the Church '. 25 The statement called for the interchange of pulpits and ' mutual admission to the Lord's Table ' , all proposals which were anathema to the Orthodox. 24 The Mansfield Statement also proved entirely alien to Anglo-Catholics, the wing of the Church most interested in discussions with the Orthodox. Bishop Gore, a leading Anglo-Catholic intellectual, believed that it would ' rend the Church of England in two'. 26 The Church Times, the leading AngloCatholic newspaper, complained that such efforts 'seem to be deliberately 21 For an account of the synod see James Cunningham, 24 ordained ministers, and that they regarded non-episcopal bodies as residing within the One Church. 33 At Lambeth excitement about reunion channelled itself in sharply contrasting directions. Some bishops looked towards the Free Churches, and others towards Rome and the east. The bishop of Durham demanded that the conference ' acknowledge frankly the validity of Presbyterian Orders and Sacraments ', a demand that horrified the bishop of Zanzibar, who wanted the Church of England to move along a Catholic vector and seek out like-minded confessions. 34 To the delight of the Anglo-Catholics, the bishops again asserted the importance of the Lambeth Quadrilateral as a basis for unity. The episcopate, they declared, is ' the one means of providing such a ministry'. It ' is now and will prove to be in the future the best means for maintaining the unity and continuity of the Church '. 34 35 Yet they were careful, as the bishop of Durham pointed out, to refrain from questioning the spiritual reality of ministries that do not possess an episcopate. Still, the reaffirmation of the Quadrilateral represented a triumph of sorts for the Anglo-Catholic party, particularly given the direction reunion seemed to be heading with the Mansfield Statement. Protestant Anglicans acknowledged a Catholic justinrodriguez@example.net. The Churchman pointed out that whereas the Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 called for an episcopate 'locally adapted in the methods of administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called into the Unity of His Church' (an explicitly inclusive conception of the episcopate), the 1920 conference went further, terming the episcopate ' the one' means of providing such a ministry. 34 36 (The English Roman Catholic press also pounced on this change in emphasis. 40 Those elements most sympathetic to the Orthodox Church were disappointed by Lambeth. The English Church Union fretted that the conference had missed an opportunity to demand that the Nicene Creed ' be interpreted by the dogmatic decisions and the tradition of the whole Church ', that confirmation and absolution be recognised as sacraments and that the sacraments of baptism and holy communion be defined more carefully (seeing as there was 'nothing ' in the resolutions as worded to prevent ' Zwinglian errors '). Finally, it insisted that the Church of England recognise ordination as ' a sacramental means of conferring the grace of Holy Orders, and not merely the appointment to a ministerial position'. 41 For the Orthodox, the above discussions demonstrated that neither Anglo-Catholics nor Protestants held full sway in the Anglican Church. Lambeth made it clear that episcopacy was important to discussions of reunion, but, as the ECU had noted, episcopal and other sacramental questions had been answered either unsatisfactorily for some parties, or left unanswered altogether. Questions about the exchange of pulpits and intercommunion -questions that would be crucial to later OrthodoxAnglican contacts -were addressed in the most vague manner possible 42 and led to wildly conflicting interpretations. 41 43 So, although Lambeth had announced its support for reunion, Orthodox observers (and most other observers, for that matter) found Lambeth's terms of intercommunion nebulous. The Committee on Reunion recognised how tricky the matter had become: bend to satisfy one faction, and you risk offending another. Negotiations with one group might produce agreements that hurt negotiations with another. 44 As Lambeth worked through these questions, the Orthodox delegation was entertained in lavish fashion, 45 but its official contacts were limited to seven meetings with the Church of England's Council on Eastern Churches. These meetings did little to persuade the delegation that any sort of reunion with the Anglican Church would be coming soon. Instead, the delegation 40 W. B. Selbie, ' The Free Churches and the Lambeth appeal ', Constructive Quarterly ix (1921), 648. 44 41 'The Lambeth conference : report of the theological committee of the E.C.U.', Church Times, 10 Dec. 1920, 589. 44 42 ' Report on relations ', 40-1. 43 Protestants in the Church of England were relieved that Lambeth refused to forbid pulpit exchanges, while Anglo-Catholics took solace that 'this privilege is very strictly limited ' and 'a purely provisional arrangement ': 'The report on reunion', Church Times, 20 Aug. 1920, 177. 44 44 'Report on relations ', 127. 45 Athelstan Riley and Lord Salisbury held official lunches for the delegation, as did the Lord Mayor of London. 44 found the variety of opinion within the Church of England rather shocking. The delegation's final report stressed the Anglicans' essentially different conception of the idea of the Church and the members who compose it. The idea of the Church among them … is much wider than ours. While with us the true member of the Church who continues in organic union with the whole, must accept the whole of our teaching, share canonically in the holy Sacraments, and believe in lawfully settled ecclesiastical principles, in the English Church men differing from each other in faith, not in things indifferent and nonessential, constitute one undivided whole. 46 While expressing gratitude for the hospitality it received in England, the delegation's report was mostly pessimistic, critical and sometimes didactically reproachful. The Orthodox Church, it informed the Anglicans, ' does not accept those who do not belong to it as forming a part of the Church in the true and proper sense of the word '. 47 We cannot accept the validity of Anglican baptism either ' simpliciter or by '' economy'' '. 46 48 Anglican definitions of the eucharist are vague ; the Church of England must define the eucharist as ' a Sacrifice and Propitiation'. 49 The Church of England ' should formulate definitely the number of the Sacraments'. 50 The Church of England's use of the Athanasian Creed is troublesome : ' we should prefer that the Church of England … would limit itself to [the Nicene] Creed only'. 51 The Thirty-Nine Articles in particular offended the Orthodox. Their Anglican hosts offered countless explanations as to why -although problematic -the articles should pose no obstacle to reunion. 51 52 The bishop of Gloucester, for instance, assured the Orthodox that the Thirty-Nine Articles ' have much less force than the Prayer-Book and the Catechism' and in ' some sections of the Anglican Church they are not used at all'. ' We do not ask that another Church which desires to enter into relations with us should accept them. They were written in the sixteenth century, for the confuting of heresies. Many of them are already obsolete.' 51 53 But such explanations failed to impress the delegation, and succeeded only in infuriating Protestant Anglicans who got wind of the assertions. ' we were given certain explanations such as the following : '' The aim of Elizabeth and her counselors was to find a means to the reconciliation of those Catholic and Protestant tendencies. '' ' The articles ' did not impose new Faith, but were composed to put an end to disputes. They were therefore articles of reunion' : ibid. 12. 53 Ibid. report dismissed attempts to explain away the Articles' place in Anglican doctrine with the impatient and testy suggestion that 'we thought it would not be offensive to propose their general abolition'. 51 55 (Despite this recommendation, the delegation remained pessimistic about the chances of such an action. 51 56 ) The delegation's report did conclude on a positive note (' we trust that we may advance steadily towards the goal of final union'), but it offered no suggestion on how to proceed, proposing only that both sides trust ' that the Almighty hand of God will, with time, remove the obstacles and bring to its fulfillment a work which will constitute a blessing to the Christian world '. 51 57 The only significant outcome was an agreement to form a joint Anglican-Orthodox doctrinal commission to explore questions of doctrine in greater detail. 58 But despite these setbacks, Anglican advocates of reunion with the Orthodox did not despair. Although disappointed by the delegation's report, they took solace in the promise of a doctrinal commission. Always looking on the bright side, the Church Times noted, 'So far as the deputation was concerned no objections had been raised as to the validity of Anglican Orders. ' 58 59 Still, the Church Times conceded that all was not well. ' [W]hen they saw among us what they called '' High Church '' and '' Low Church '' they saw something that they did not understand, and asked what the Anglican Church meant by union.' 60 The Roman Catholic Press in Britain -always wary of AnglicanOrthodox dialogue and always quick to interpret such contact in the most pessimistic light -correctly argued that the Lambeth resolutions could 55 'Report of the delegation ', 12. 56 'As long as in England no separation between Church and State is made … it appears in fact that only a revision of these Articles will perhaps be possible' : ibid. 13. 57 Ibid. 19. Panteleimon Comnenos tried to put a positive spin on the discussions in a letter to the Church Times, in which he spoke of ' the exceptionally friendly attitude of [the Church of England] towards ours, and the exceptional good feeling of the chivalrous English nation towards Greeks in General '. The letter had muted political overtones, and seems -at least in part -an attempt to flatter the British into remembering their obligations to the Greek state : 'The question of union with the Church of England ', Church Times, 3 Dec. 1920, 562. 60 58 The Orthodox delegation included representatives from all but the Russian Orthodox Churches. Not everybody welcomed the formation of this commission. Cosmo Lang, the archbishop of York, viewed the proceedings with some trepidation. Worried about the reaction of evangelicals in his fold, he refused to allow the commission to touch upon the authority of Holy Scripture : Lockhart, Cosmo Gordon Lang, 362. 60 59 'The Lambeth conference and the eastern churches', Church Times, 5 Nov. 1920, 453. 60 Ibid. The Church Times had not at this point written off the possibility of pursuing unity with both the Free Churches and the Orthodox. It urged that ' probably the wisest course to pursue will be to continue negotiations with the East and do all that can be done there, while leaving the door open for Protestants ' : ' Some nonconformist critics ', Church Times, 27 Aug. 1920, 199 . 60 not satisfy the Catholic mind (be it Anglo-Catholic or Orthodox). Under the Lambeth statements of unity, it observed, a clergyman ' may believe that Baptism is a sacrament of regeneration, while another believes that it is merely a ceremony of initiation -the one may believe that the Eucharist is the true and substantial and adorable Body and Blood of Christ, and the other that it is merely a grace-giving ordinance in which bread and wine are blessed in remembrance of Christ's passion ': 60 The whole foundation and fibre of the scheme is essentially Protestant … its notion of ' the Church of Christ' is Protestant. Its whole notion of 'unity' and 'Reunion ', based on a dead or documentary rule, with no provision for a living interpreting authority commanding the submission of all its decisions, is Protestant. 61 In the Orthodox report, crowed the The Tablet, ' There is not a trace of compromise on any point of the Orthodox faith. Indeed in some questions the Delegates seem almost unnecessarily unbending.' 61 62 ' No idea of softening [the teaching of the Orthodox Church] or of meeting anyone half-way in any dogma, occurs as even possible to them.' 63 Relations between Anglicans and Orthodox seemed at a standstill. And then, suddenly, Panteleimon Komnenos, a delegate to the Lambeth Conference, published a treatise on the possibility of recognising Anglican ordinations, 64 a recognition that Anglicans and Orthodox alike believed constituted a major step towards reunion. The article began with a bang : 63 The present short study aims at convincing every impartial reader that the reserved attitude of our Church towards Anglican Orders is altogether unjust, and that any notion of the absolute or conditional reordination of those of the clergy of that Church who may accede to Orthodoxy is even more so. 65 Komnenos argued forcefully that Anglicans had preserved the apostolic succession of ordination, and expressed his hope that such a finding would be a step towards the union of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches. Yet the statement was hardly the ringing endorsement that some like John Douglas desired. The Orthodox may accept Anglican ordinations, Komnenos argued, but ' through economy' (i.e. by setting aside canonical requirements in extraordinary circumstances), and because the Orthodox Church has ' at other times accepted the ordination of heretics '. 63 It does not follow, of course, that the Orthodox would be justified in resorting to the Anglican clergy in order to be baptised, to be chrismated, to receive divine Communion, etc., in the same way that they do not so in regard to Roman Catholics and Armenians, whose Priesthood and by consequence whose other sacramental administrations the Orthodox Church recognizes. 67 And Komnenos was careful to emphasise that ' full dogmatic agreement and union will of necessity require time'. 68 Still, unlike many others in the Orthodox world, Komnenos saw some room for unilateral action to push matters forward. He advised the Ecumenical Patriarch that Constantinople could accept Anglican ordinations ' of our own initiative and responsibility' without the immediate consent of other Orthodox Churches. Little did he or Douglas suspect how much trouble this last piece of advice would cause the Ecumenical Patriarch during the next two years. 68 In the meantime, Archbishop Davidson had asked the Eastern Churches Committee to draw up ' terms of intercommunion ', or a statement of doctrine that could be used in negotiations within an Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission. The terms of intercommunion tried to solve a number of vexing doctrinal issues through obfuscation. In retrospect, it appears that the terms set as its main goal the avoidance of providing offence to anyone. On the question of the filioque, for example, it suggested that ' both forms of expression may be rightly used, and that they are intended to express the same faith'. 68 69 On the sacraments it waffled: ' The number of sacraments has never been authoritatively fixed whether by tradition from the Apostles or any decision of an Oecumenical Council … We recognise that the two sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are pre-eminent above the rest.' 68 70 ' But we agree further that the title sacrament may be used of other rites and ceremonies in which there is an outward and visible sign and an inward and spiritual grace. ' 68 71 On the eucharist the terms noted that no ecumenical council ever touched on the manner of the presence of Christ in the elements, and suggested only that 'We agree that this is a divine Mystery which transcends human understanding ' and that the doctrine of the eucharist taught in liturgies of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches ' is adequate and sufficient. ' 68 72 On icons it proposed that ' each Church may have liberty to preserve its own distinctive customs' but warned that we should 'take care that the homage we owe to God be not transferred to holy images nor false miracles be ascribed to them '. In short, it avoided hard answers to difficult questions. The wishy-washy nature of the terms is explained by their attempt to satisfy two very different constituencies. 68 73 Arthur Headlam, the bishop of Gloucester and primary author of the terms, recalled : ' I was drawing them up at the same time as we were carrying on negotiations with the Nonconformists at Lambeth, and, both in our relations with the Nonconformist and in relation to the Orthodox, I always had both sides of our purpose in my mind. 68 ' 68 74 Yet the terms still managed to offend, and Headlam felt compelled even ten years later to reassure Anglicans that they offered nothing inconsistent with Anglican doctrine: ' I am quite convinced that nothing has been said in relation to the Orthodox which could not be accepted by any loyal member of the Church of England.' 75 John Douglas was growing frustrated, and in 1921 published some observations about doctrinal divisions and began outlining negotiating approaches and language that might be acceptable to the Orthodox. 76 Nikolai Glubokovskii, a Russian émigré and professor at the University of Sofia, gave Douglas's book a positive review, praising his efforts to understand Orthodoxy ' correctly'. 76 77 Douglas ' carefully endeavours to avoid Western misunderstandings, and to initiate his readers into the real interpretation of Eastern Orthodoxy in its actual spirit and power'. 76 78 Upset over Headlam's earlier suggestions that the Nicene Creed might be a sufficient basis for Anglican-Orthodox unity, Glubokovskii welcomed Douglas's call for unity through a mutually acceptable ' firm basis of dogma'. 76 Glubokovskii and Douglas agreed that doctrinal differences within the Church of England posed impediments to doctrinal agreement between Anglicans and Orthodox (although Douglas was more confident than Glubokovskii of overcoming the differences). But Glubokovskii did not share Douglas's hope that private cases of intercommunion might be employed as a means of moving the two Churches closer together. These cases, Glubokovskii insisted, ' were and always will be nothing more than exceptions which in no way create a new rule -namely, that there cannot be any Church intercommunion without a uniting of the Churches. Such cases, therefore, render this unity more distant and difficult rather than nearer 73 The terms did gain the attention of the Karlovatskii Synod, which printed them in its journal without any comment other than Archbishop Gore's caveat that they should be considered 'neither official nor final', coupled with his assurance that they 'express the general understanding of the Anglican Church ' : ' Osnovy vzaimoobshcheniia ', TV no. 76 The declaration was Catholic to the core, taking Orthodox-friendly positions on the importance of patristic writings, the role of the ecumenical councils, the sacraments (particularly the eucharist) and the veneration of saints. 76 80 Most notably, however, it included the following: 'We account the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion as a document of secondary importance concerned with local controversies of the sixteenth century, and to be interpreted in accordance with the faith of that Universal Church of which the English Church is but a part.' Major Anglo-Catholic figures signed the statement, including Douglas, Bishop Gore and H. J. Fynes-Clinton. In time the declaration garnered 3,715 signatories. The patriarch of Constantinople placed some stock in it, as did Archbishop Aleksandr in North America. 76 Upon learning of the declaration, The Tablet could barely contain its excitement over the furore it knew would soon follow in England. ' We have no hesitation in prophesying that considerably more than half of the clergymen of the Establishment, and most of the Bishops, would abstain on the ground that they simply do not believe the articles of the Declaration, and they know it to be false as a description of the belief of the English Church.' A N G L I C A N O R D E R S A N D O R T H O D O X P O L I T I C S 283 of Durham delivered a speech in Westminster Abbey in which he decried the relegation of the Thirty-Nine Articles to a place of ' secondary importance'. 82 He later published an attack on the declaration, asserting that this was not only destitute of any authority but it conflicts sharply with the official doctrinal standards of the Church of England … The Synod of Constantinople was deliberately misled by the Anglo-Catholic statement of doctrine. The whole spirit and drift of that statement are quite out of harmony with the English formularies. 83 Arthur Headlam, sometime-friend of the Orthodox, decided that ' this Declaration of Faith is inconsistent with the ordinary teaching of the English Church. It will be definitely repudiated by the vast majority of worshippers in the Church of England … and would make the great majority of our fellow countrymen seriously distrustful of the National Church '. 84 If, Headlam continued, the declaration is an attempt to present the Church of England ' in the clothes of the Eastern Church, as one Greek friend of mine said, '' It is worse than that sort of things our people write '' '. 85 B R Y N G E F F E R T He was no stranger to Britain, having visited in 1918 when he dined with the archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace and addressed a meeting at Westminster Central Hall. The story of Meletios's assumption to the patriarchal throne in Constantinople is complex, but important to understanding his relations with the Anglican Church. The patriarchal throne had been vacant since 1918, as the patriarchate's status hung in the balance while the Orthodox world waited for a post-war treaty between Greece and Turkey. By early 1922 no treaty had yet emerged, and Greeks in Constantinople were growing impatient to fill the vacant seat. But here Greek politics intruded. Greeks in Constantinople and Greeks in Greece agreed on the need to maintain the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but they divided along political lines when it came to choosing a candidate. B R Y N G E F F E R T Greeks in Constantinople generally supported Premier Venizelos, the antimonarchist who assumed power in Greece after the abdication of King Constantine I in 1917. Arriving in Athens in 1917, Venizelos ousted most of the synod of the Greek Orthodox Church, a move that placed him at odds with the Church in Greece for the rest of his life. (Support among Venizelists for administrative and liturgical reforms within the Greek Church also hurt their cause with the more conservative bishops.) Venizelos lost and assumed power several times during the next few years, purging royalists and church hierarchs each time he returned. 88 The Greek Church, which supported Constantine, pronounced an anathema on Venizelos when, during the war, he set up a rival government in Thessaloniki. 89 Meletios placed himself squarely in the pro-Venizelos camp, and thus became a recipient of the royalists ' and conservative prelates ' ire. Meletios's candidacy for the patriarchal throne in Constantinople and his affiliation with Venizelos threatened the growing pretensions of the new archbishop of Athens, whose own position in the Orthodox world had begun to obscure that of the Ecumenical Patriarch. 90 The Gournis government in Greece, worried that Meletios would win the election, wrote to the Phanar through the Greek high commissioner asking it to postpone the election. When the Phanar refused, Athens intimated that the metropolitans of Thrace and Macedonia would not be allowed to cross the frontier to A N G L I C A N O R D E R S A N D O R T H O D O X P O L I T I C S 285 vote. 91 But the election proceeded anyway, with Meletios emerging battered but victorious. Anti-Venizelists in Athens immediately challenged the election of their former metropolitan, pointing out that seven leading bishops had withdrawn from the election at the last minute. The anti-Venizelist candidate was Chrysanthos of Trebizond. 92 Here the Church of England enters the picture. Both Meletios and Chrysanthos visited the archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, to seek his support and endorsement for their candidacies. 92 93 Davidson recalled that Meletios assured him that one of his first duties as Patriarch would be to promote in every possible manner friendliness with the Anglican Church and to recognise our position. He did not actually speak of the validity of our Orders, but I understood him to imply it. I ought to add that exactly the same argument is being used by Chrysanthos of Trebizond, though he has not used it to me … I discount this assurance on both sides. I think it rather significant of the sort of way in which these ecclesiastics mix up policy and principle in their declarations and procedure. 94 Davidson and a few other Anglicans realised the danger of supporting either Meletios or Chrysanthos, knowing that an endorsement would alienate either the Greek population in Constantinople or the Church in Greece. 95 Meletios, then, was in a bind. The Greek government would not give him passage to Constantinople, as he was not the preferred Greek candidate. The Turks also refused him entry, not wanting any patriarch at all in Constantinople. Meletios petitioned Lloyd George for assistance but got nowhere. 94 96 Davidson refused to intervene. So, without the support of the British government or the Church of England, Meletios accepted a lift from a French gunboat, which on 10 February 1922 sailed around the Golden Horn and into Constantinople's harbour. The crowds that greeted him were ecstatic. 94 97 He was crowned Meletios IV, the most ecumenical, vigorous and controversial Ecumenical Patriarch of the twentieth century. 94 Meletios's frustrations in Britain did not inhibit his attempts to draw closer to the Church of England. In fact, they seem to have made him all the more determined to cultivate ties. His major move in this direction came on 22 July 1922, when he and his synod in Constantinople issued a declaration on the validity of Anglican orders. Six days later he addressed a letter to the 103 Equally exciting was Meletios's portrayal of the decision as a first step towards further achievements, or, in his words, 'profitable in regard to the whole question of union'. 104 Indeed, most Orthodox believed that the recognition of a given confession's orders was a necessary first condition for further efforts towards reunion. Yet Douglas's excitement was tempered from the outset by concern that the Ecumenical Patriarch's unilateral move could cause division in the Orthodox world, 106 despite Meletios's insistence that this move required the approval of the other Orthodox Churches. 107 The Anglican chaplain in Constantinople had warned a year earlier that -given the bitter contest for the patriarchate -'any action towards reunion taken by a new patriarch and his synod is likely to be disavowed by the Church of Athens if relations remain strained'. 94 His worries proved prescient. In the eight years following Meletios's recognition, only two of the ten autocephalous Orthodox Churches endorsed it, convinced that he had erred in not consulting them before his decision. Most of the Churches failed to respond to Meletios's justinrodriguez@example.net. The Romanian Church waited two years to reply, and then, on 10 January 1925, Patriarch Miron Christea told Constantinople that his synod could not agree with the recognition until the Anglican Church proved that it viewed the Church as a visible society, and that the Anglican conception of a sacrament was equivalent to the Orthodox conception of the sacrament as a mysterion. 108 Metropolitan Photios of Alexandria -a dyed-in-the-wool royalist and rabid anti-Venizelist -consistently opposed Meletios and refused to endorse his decision on Anglican orders. Photios regarded Meletios's election in 1921 as invalid and thus insisted that 'any private opinions of Meletios … did not represent the Orthodox Church as a whole'. 109 The Serbs and the Bulgarians, to nobody's surprise, refused to take any action without the Russian Church, which had become largely impotent after the Bolshevik revolution. Douglas attributed Serbia's refusal to lobbying by Metropolitan Antonii, whose Karlovatskii Synod (a conservative branch of the Russian Church in exile that frequently feuded with more cosmopolitan Russian Orthodox in western Europe) resided in Serbia, and who was set on removing Meletios from Constantinople. 108 110 É migré Russians in western Europe (of whom there were still only a few) uttered nary a word about the announcement. Conservative Russian Orthodox, especially those in the Karlovatskii Synod, opposed the move, and would later cite it as one of the many reasons why they would never place themselves under the Ecumenical Patriarch, despite their certainty that their own patriarchate in Russia was enslaved by the Soviet state. 108 The fierce reaction by the Karlovchane followed a confrontation with Meletios earlier that year, when he recognised the Soviet-supported ' Living Church ' in Russia (a dubious body formed to supplant the Russian patriarchate) and thus alienated himself from almost all émigré Orthodox Russians. 108 111 Even the Metropolitan of Athens -no great friend of Russians in exile -condemned the Living Church 112 and publicly expressed sympathy for Antonii's stance. 113 But what really set Meletios against the Karlovchane and a number of autocephalous Churches were reforms implemented at a pan-Orthodox Congress he convened the following year, 1923. Some history is in order here, not because the Anglican Church had any particular interest in the reform of the Orthodox church calendar (although the few Anglicans who followed the issue supported it), but because the reform ultimately undermined Meletios's standing in the Orthodox world, and thus throttled his ability to move Orthodoxy as a whole closer to the Church of England. Meletios's recognition of Anglican orders came to be seen as part of a package of ' un-soborny' or non-catholic action, and a dangerous flirtation with westernisation and modernism. The two actions -recognition of Anglican orders and reform of the Orthodox calendar -seemed to conservative Orthodox clerics and theologians two aspects of a false world view. 113 Meletios convened the pan-Orthodox conference with the aim of changing the Orthodox calendar (the Julian) to conform with the Gregorian calendar 113 Idem, 'Gramota Mitropolita Athinskago i ekzarka Ellandskago Khristostoma ', ibid. no. 13-14 (1923), 2. A N G L I C A N O R D E R S A N D O R T H O D O X P O L I T I C S 289 used in the west. The conference also took up the contentious question of second marriages for widowed priests. A N G L I C A N O R D E R S A N D O R T H O D O X P O L I T I C S 289 114 Representatives from only five of the nine autocephalous Orthodox churches attended -Constantinople, Cyprus, Greece, Serbia and Romania -immediately opening the congress to charges of unrepresentative decision-making. Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Russia did not send representatives. Aleksandr, the Russian bishop of North America, attended without authorisation from the Russian Church ; Metropolitan Antonii refused to represent the Karlovatskii Synod, which recalled its representative soon after the congress began its deliberations. 115 (Antonii's biographer and disciple, Nikon, credits Antonii with persuading ' several' of the other Orthodox Churches not to attend. 115 116 ) Bulgaria, in schism with Constantinople over the issue of whether it constituted an autocephalous Church, also failed to attend. 115 When the congress agreed (without Serbia's consent) to replace the old Julian calendar with the New Julian calendar, it emphasised that its decision would be valid only if those Churches that had not sent representatives to the congress were to adopt it. Such assurances, however, did little to assuage the anger of the absent Churches. Jerusalem, 117 Antioch 118 and Alexandria refused outright to accept the reformed calendar. Patriarch Photius of Alexandria declared that the calendar had the ' smell of heresy and schism ', and alleged that Anglicans had inspired it. 115 119 Patriarch Gregory IV of Antioch characterised the calendar reform as 'pointless, uncanonical and harmful '. Gregory conveyed Photius ' condemnation to Antonii with the note, ' You can clearly ascertain the opinion of the Eastern patriarchs with regard to the questions raised by the justinrodriguez@example.net. ' 120 The Karlovchane adhered rigidly to the old calendar, as did the Serbs. 121 Despite the official affirmation of the Greek Church, a number of Greeks joined the Karlovchane in portraying the calendar reform as an attempt by Meletios to move their Church -the One, True, Christian Church, untainted by western errors -closer to the heretical west. 121 122 Some opposition to the reform stemmed from popular superstitions about tampering with days dedicated to the saints. 123 (Romania witnessed riots when in 1929 its synod eventually adopted a new means of determining the date for Easter. 121 124 ) And a number of opponents resisted any sort of change in principle as incompatible with Orthodoxy's emphasis on tradition. 121 125 But the most common complaint centred on the perceived attempt by one Church -Constantinople -to make substantive changes without the participation of all others. As the metropolitan of Kassandria wrote : 121 What right does that upstart [Meletios] 128 Not all Orthodox Churches were ready to concede such a position to Meletios or to Constantinople. Antonii was furious about the reform, 129 as are his followers to this day : they portray it, and rapprochement with Anglicans, as all of one piece, a single package 'poisoned by ideas growing out of Protestant ecumenism', 130 modernism and westernism, 131 and a willingness to consort with heretics 132 (traits supposedly personified by Hamilcar Alivizatos, an advocate of rapprochement with the Church of England and the calendar reform alike). Antonii was suspicious of canonical reform in general, 133 but he was especially outraged by this action since it looked like an attempt to institute a major change in the life of the Church without convening an ecumenical council. 134 The fact that such a council was out of the question given Turkey's refusal to host a major body of Christian hierarchs in no way lessened Antonii's anger. How dare Meletios institute a change in which the Russian Orthodox Church, now under the heel of the Bolsheviks, could not play an active part. 121 Antonii also feared any action that seemed to raise the standing of the Ecumenical Patriarch, a man who -to his mind -represented the triumph of pan-Christian unity over imperialistic Orthodoxy. 135 Antonii advocated Russia's historic interests in the Balkans : any attempt by the Ecumenical Patriarch to lead other Orthodox Churches towards reform could be viewed as an attempt to supplant Russia's traditionally strong influence in this region. And a resurgent Ecumenical Patriarchate had repercussions for the status of Antonii's own synod: its canonical authority and ability to win allegiance from members of the Russian Orthodox Church in exile were already in doubt. 136 Meletios and Antonii were both vying for the mantle of the deposed Russian patriarch, Tikhon, and the pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923 became a symbol for the post-war conflict over who represented the Russian Orthodox in exile. 137 Antonii had became convinced that Meletios, as part of his pan-Christian project, wished to gain control of Russian church dioceses in Poland and followed the war, and the dread of the Roman Catholic invasion, are leading many of the strongest ecclesiastics in the eastern churches to say, mostly in private, but sometimes in public, that they want to add to their own noble Christian heritage the good things in western church life ' : Henry Strong Huntington, 'Eastern Churches try western ways', Christian Century xliv (1927), 301. 137 132 Here the current Russian Orthodox Church Abroad becomes even more conservative than its members at the time: Photius, '70th anniversary', 10. 135 Antonii called for a patriarch in Constantinople who would prove to be a successor to the 'great ' ecumenical prelates of antiquity and reestablish the Byzantine empire: Nikon, Zhizneopisanie, x. 39, 46. Convinced that Constantinople was not up the task, he turned his attention to Jerusalem, hoping that it would pick up the mantle : ibid. iv. 164 . 137 136 The synod's journal nervously noted the inclusion of Archbishop Aleksandr, stationed in South America, who attended as a representative of the Russian Church without the authorisation of the Karlovchane : ' Po povodu postanovlenii mezhdupravoslavnoi komissii', 5. 137 The synod had the difficult task of explaining Tikhon's own interest in calendar reform : ibid. B R Y N G E F F E R T Finland, 138 making the Ecumenical Patriarchate the primary Orthodox force in Europe. 139 Antonii was furious when Meletios appointed a Finn as a bishop in the newly autonomous Finnish Church -a region that Russian imperialists insisted fell within the purview of the Russian Orthodox Church. 140 Meletios did not help matters with his statements about the rights and responsibilities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate : citing the canons of Chalcedon (451), he claimed that all Orthodox outside the territorial jurisdiction of a given autocephalous Church (all Russian émigrés, for example) were dependent upon the ecumenical throne. Finally, Antonii seems to have feared that the hubbub over the calendar reform would divert attention from the sufferings of the Orthodox Church in Russia. 141 The Karlovatskii Synod's attitude towards the Ecumenical Patriarchate was complex. On the one hand, it appealed to Christians around the world to come to the aid of the patriarchate and preserve it from the Turks, 148 And when the congress convened, Bishop Gore was there, presenting Meletios with a petition from 5,000 Anglican priests assuring him that no impediment could prevent union with the Orthodox. One can imagine the Karlovatskii mind at work as Gore -who, after Davidson, was probably the most famous bishop in the Anglican Church -expressed his joy at being present at this congress. 141 149 ' For us, living in the West ', wrote Gore, ' it would be a source of great spiritual satisfaction to have the possibility of celebrating together [with the Orthodox] the major Christian feasts. ' 150 Here was proof enough that Meletios -the unilateral reformer and westerniser -was in cahoots with the Anglicans. This was the context in which most Orthodox Churches declined to endorse the recognition of Anglican orders. Jerusalem and Cyprus were the only ones to do so within the next five years. 150 151 The Christian East, always optimistic, celebrated Jerusalem's recognition (passed on 12 March 1923), hoping it would be the first in a series. But the Jerusalem patriarch's decision, much like that of Meletios, elicited a strong backlash and accusations of political manoeuvering. B R Y N G E F F E R T The patriarchate of Jerusalem was just as troubled as the patriarchate of Constantinople. Deep divisions separated its laity and parish priests (mostly indigenous Arabs) from the Greek monks who controlled the Jerusalem synod from their headquarters at the convent of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre. The brotherhood elected the patriarch and all members of the synod, excluding the Arab laity from administrative matters. Russia had long provided economic assistance to the Jerusalem patriarchate, both because of Russia's political interests in the region and because of its wish to aid the thousands of Russian pilgrims to the Holy Land. But the Great War bankrupted Russia, Russia lost its Orthodox tsar and Jerusalem lost its main source of income. By the end of the war the Jerusalem patriarchate was in debt to the tune of £500,000. B R Y N G E F F E R T 152 Desperate, the Greeks in the patriarchate applied to Greece for assistance, and Venizelos responded generously. B R Y N G E F F E R T In the middle of this mess sat Patriarch Damianos, a figure nearly as controversial as Meletios, and equally at odds with the Greek Orthodox Church in Athens. As the war drew to a close and British forces approached Jerusalem, retreating Turks abducted Damianos and held him in Damascus while the Greeks and the British debated his fate. The Greek consul general blamed Damianos for the financial chaos in his patriarchate. The British -who soon occupied Jerusalem -agreed. Both Greece and Britain refused to allow Damianos to return to Jerusalem. The Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre -now without patriarch or outside funding -turned all responsibility for the patriarchate's finances over to the Greek government. B R Y N G E F F E R T This action
{'paper_id': '144915633', 'title': 'Anglican orders and orthodox politics', 's2_url': 'https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144915633', 'source': 'S2ORC'}