An Ecclesiastical Separation in Response to Political Circumstances The ROCOR Council оf Bishops decided to cease administrative subordination to the church authorities in Russia on this day in 1927. I have already written here about the respective experiences of those Russian Orthodox who remained in Russia and those who left the country. The Church in Russia did not have a legal status until 1991. The state would register only individual communities of the faithful. Therefore, Patriarch Tikhon was concerned with obtaining the right of incorporation for the entire church. After he died in 1925, a draft of his apology for the Church to the Soviet government (in the sense of early Christian writings in the Roman Empire) was found. It is hard to believe that Patriarch Tikhon, observing the profound transformation in Russia since the Revolution, would endorse the message of the Pan-Diaspora Council of 1921 about restoring the monarchy in Russia. Therefore, to some extent, Patriarch Tikhon was sincere in closing down the Supreme Church Administration Abroad in 1922. However, he never followed up on this decision when this administration continued its activity in a different form. He differed from Metropolitan Sergii, who followed through on his decisions. In Russia, he would send a chief priest of the deanery to keep tabs on whether his name and the Soviet authorities were being commemorated at church litanies. In 1927, he also required that Russian clergy abroad make a pledge of loyalty to the Soviet regime (in fact, this amounted to a ban on mentioning them in any negative way). In return, Metropolitan Sergii hoped to receive legal rights from the government. Responding to Metropolitan Sergii’s requirements, the ROCOR Bishop Council made the following decision on this day in 1927: “1. The branch of the All-Russian Church located outside of Russia must cease administrative relations with the Moscow Church authority because of its enslavement to the godless Soviet power, which has deprived it of the freedom to express and to guide the Church according to the canons; “2. In order to release our hierarchy from responsibility for the part of the Russian Church located abroad that had not recognized the authority of the Soviet power until normal relations with Russia are restored and until the liberation of our Church from the persecution of the godless Soviet power, the branch of our Church located abroad should govern itself in accordance with the Holy Canons, Resolutions of the Sacred Local Council of All-Russian Orthodox Church of 1917–18 and by the decree of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, Holy Synod and Supreme Council from 7/20 of November 1920; by the assistance of the Bishops Synod and the Council of Bishops with the Kievan Metropolitan Antonii presiding; “3. The branch of the Russian Church abroad considers itself an indissoluble spiritually united branch of the Great Russian Church. It has not separated itself from the Mother Church and does not consider itself autocephalous. It still regards the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Peter as head of the church and commemorates his name during the services; “4. If there should be a resolution of Metropolitan Sergii and his Synod concerning the excommunication of bishops and clergy abroad who are not willing to sign a pledge of loyalty to the Soviet Government, such a resolution will be uncanonical.” Unlike at the First Pan Diaspora Council, we see here concern that the church people in Russia would not pay the price for the political activity of Russian emigres. Also, the ROCOR emphasizes its temporary autonomy in the spirit of Patriarch Tikhon’s decree no. 362 from October 20, 1920.
Source “Okruzhnoe poslanie Sobora Arkhiereev Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei,” [Circular Epistle of the Bishop Council of the Russian Church Abroad] Tserkovnyie vedomosti [Church Gazette] 17–18 (1927). Relevant Links Andrei Psarev, “Looking Toward Unity: How the Russian Church Abroad Viewed the Patriarchate of Moscow, 1927-2007,” Historical Studies of the Russian Church Abroad | 
