Ask the Scholar
Page 12 of 46
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
12
13
determining the extent and the exact amount of the property to
always maintained, if possible, SO that in theory at least what
be accounted for by the defendants.
was done was done by the will of the bishops.
The issue as to the respective rights of the present church
When The Church in Russia was completely disorganized and
administration in Moscow and the parties to this action cannot
the supreme administration was destroyed, under the canons it
be determined by the court. Such an issue is not raised by the
became the duty of the surviving bishops who were not imprisoned
pleadings, and the admissions and stipulations of the parties are
to gather together and create a supreme church administration.
such as to make it necessary for the court to decide this case
This was an absolute necessity if order was to prevail. This is
solely as between the parties themselves. All of them assert
what the bishops who gathered together at Karlovski in the year
abhorrance for the Soviet Government. Mr. Adler, as amicus curiae,
1921, did. They invited all the available bishops and many of
made some challenging observations in support of his contentions
the clergy and laity to meet with them in a sobor. At that sobor
but had no opportunity to offer any evidence thereon.
they created the necessary executive organ by electing Metro-
A study of all the canons to which the court's attention has
politan Anthony, the eldest, as the ruling bishop and by providing
been called has convinced it that the ultimate power and duty
for a synod to administer the affairs of The Church until the
to rule The Church was placed in the hands of the bishops (for
restoration of a free canonical supreme church administration in
example Apostolic Canon XXXIV and Antioch IX); That the Grace
Russia. It immediately proceeded to do all things possible to
of God descended from Jesus Christ to His Apostles and from them
govern all the faithul outside of Russia, wherever situated,
through the regularly ordained bishops to those who now hold
and has always continued SO to do. A supreme church administra-
that holy office; That The Church is one whole, composed of the
tion having been created, it was necessary for all bishops,
bishops, clergy and the faithful, but that the control of The
clergy and laity to recognize its authority until the conditions
Church and its maintenance is in the bishops themselves; That
which made its creation necessary ceased to exist. That all the
when they have determined a matter affecting the whole Church
defendants recognized that these conditions had not ceased to
all parts and members thereof must conform thereto; That the bish-
exist is shown by the portions of the resolution adopted by the
ops must recognize one of their number, usualy the oldest in time
Cleveland All-American Sobor of November 1946, which referred
of ordination, as their head; That neither he nor any of them
to Patriarch Alexy and his synod in Moscow. This resolution reads
can act alone on matters that affect the whole Church but that
in part:
they must consult together for the purpose of securing unanimity
"
after exhaustive deliberation of our attitude toward
of opinion; That if the consent of all cannot be obtained, then
the Mother Moscow Orthodox Church, resolved to request
the opinion of the majority must control; That representatives
His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow to reunite us
of the clergy and laity may meet with the bishops in a general
(emphasis added) in his fold and to be our spiritual father
sobor, but that none of its enactments, on matters that affect
on condition of our complete autonomy as it exists at
the whole Church, become effective until approved by a conference
present Should our terms be unacceptable to His
of the attending bishops. These conclusions are well supported
Holiness the Moscow Patriarch, our American Orthodox
by the testimony of plaintiffs' expert witnesses. Defendants'
Church shall also henceforth remain autonomous up to
experts have given testimony to the contrary but by searching
the time when the Moscow Patriarchate deems them
cross-examination their testimony was greatly weakened. They had
acceptable and grants us that which we request."
much difficulty in citing any authority to support their con-
If Metropolitan Theophilus and that Sobor had believed that
clusions and in some cases it was apparent that they were quite
Patriarch Alexy and his synod was the supreme church administra-
uncertain in their own minds.
tion, they would have had no choice in the matter and would not
A study of the history of The Church has served to confirm
have admitted that they had not theretofore been subservient
the above conclusions. While it is true that from time to time
thereto or attempted to place any conditions upon their recogni-
powerful temporal rulers interfered with affairs of The Church
tion of its supremacy.
and the bishops found it necessary to give way, yet the form was
In addition the Holy Synod of The Church Abroad has repe-
latedly declared that a canonical supreme church administration
Page data
- Page
- 12
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- d5d45b32f035adad
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 2726332
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "2726332",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2726332",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2726332",
"collections": [
"Pre-Presidential Papers of Richard M. Nixon",
"General Correspondence"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-vp/595046/Batch0010/2726332/2726332_Page_01.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-vp/595046/Batch0010/2726332/2726332_Page_01.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-vp/595046/Batch0010/2726332/2726332_Page_01.jpg",
"imageCount": 46,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "2726332",
"label": "Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2726332"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "2726332",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2726332",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2726332",
"collections": [
"Pre-Presidential Papers of Richard M. Nixon",
"General Correspondence"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-vp/595046/Batch0010/2726332/2726332_Page_01.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-vp/595046/Batch0010/2726332/2726332_Page_01.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-vp/595046/Batch0010/2726332/2726332_Page_01.jpg",
"imageCount": 46,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2726332",
"naId": 2726332,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 12,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-vp/595046/Batch0010/2726332/2726332_Page_12.jpg",
"mediaId": "d5d45b32f035adad",
"ocrText": "12\n13\ndetermining the extent and the exact amount of the property to\nalways maintained, if possible, SO that in theory at least what\nbe accounted for by the defendants.\nwas done was done by the will of the bishops.\nThe issue as to the respective rights of the present church\nWhen The Church in Russia was completely disorganized and\nadministration in Moscow and the parties to this action cannot\nthe supreme administration was destroyed, under the canons it\nbe determined by the court. Such an issue is not raised by the\nbecame the duty of the surviving bishops who were not imprisoned\npleadings, and the admissions and stipulations of the parties are\nto gather together and create a supreme church administration.\nsuch as to make it necessary for the court to decide this case\nThis was an absolute necessity if order was to prevail. This is\nsolely as between the parties themselves. All of them assert\nwhat the bishops who gathered together at Karlovski in the year\nabhorrance for the Soviet Government. Mr. Adler, as amicus curiae,\n1921, did. They invited all the available bishops and many of\nmade some challenging observations in support of his contentions\nthe clergy and laity to meet with them in a sobor. At that sobor\nbut had no opportunity to offer any evidence thereon.\nthey created the necessary executive organ by electing Metro-\nA study of all the canons to which the court's attention has\npolitan Anthony, the eldest, as the ruling bishop and by providing\nbeen called has convinced it that the ultimate power and duty\nfor a synod to administer the affairs of The Church until the\nto rule The Church was placed in the hands of the bishops (for\nrestoration of a free canonical supreme church administration in\nexample Apostolic Canon XXXIV and Antioch IX); That the Grace\nRussia. It immediately proceeded to do all things possible to\nof God descended from Jesus Christ to His Apostles and from them\ngovern all the faithul outside of Russia, wherever situated,\nthrough the regularly ordained bishops to those who now hold\nand has always continued SO to do. A supreme church administra-\nthat holy office; That The Church is one whole, composed of the\ntion having been created, it was necessary for all bishops,\nbishops, clergy and the faithful, but that the control of The\nclergy and laity to recognize its authority until the conditions\nChurch and its maintenance is in the bishops themselves; That\nwhich made its creation necessary ceased to exist. That all the\nwhen they have determined a matter affecting the whole Church\ndefendants recognized that these conditions had not ceased to\nall parts and members thereof must conform thereto; That the bish-\nexist is shown by the portions of the resolution adopted by the\nops must recognize one of their number, usualy the oldest in time\nCleveland All-American Sobor of November 1946, which referred\nof ordination, as their head; That neither he nor any of them\nto Patriarch Alexy and his synod in Moscow. This resolution reads\ncan act alone on matters that affect the whole Church but that\nin part:\nthey must consult together for the purpose of securing unanimity\n\"\nafter exhaustive deliberation of our attitude toward\nof opinion; That if the consent of all cannot be obtained, then\nthe Mother Moscow Orthodox Church, resolved to request\nthe opinion of the majority must control; That representatives\nHis Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow to reunite us\nof the clergy and laity may meet with the bishops in a general\n(emphasis added) in his fold and to be our spiritual father\nsobor, but that none of its enactments, on matters that affect\non condition of our complete autonomy as it exists at\nthe whole Church, become effective until approved by a conference\npresent Should our terms be unacceptable to His\nof the attending bishops. These conclusions are well supported\nHoliness the Moscow Patriarch, our American Orthodox\nby the testimony of plaintiffs' expert witnesses. Defendants'\nChurch shall also henceforth remain autonomous up to\nexperts have given testimony to the contrary but by searching\nthe time when the Moscow Patriarchate deems them\ncross-examination their testimony was greatly weakened. They had\nacceptable and grants us that which we request.\"\nmuch difficulty in citing any authority to support their con-\nIf Metropolitan Theophilus and that Sobor had believed that\nclusions and in some cases it was apparent that they were quite\nPatriarch Alexy and his synod was the supreme church administra-\nuncertain in their own minds.\ntion, they would have had no choice in the matter and would not\nA study of the history of The Church has served to confirm\nhave admitted that they had not theretofore been subservient\nthe above conclusions. While it is true that from time to time\nthereto or attempted to place any conditions upon their recogni-\npowerful temporal rulers interfered with affairs of The Church\ntion of its supremacy.\nand the bishops found it necessary to give way, yet the form was\nIn addition the Holy Synod of The Church Abroad has repe-\nlatedly declared that a canonical supreme church administration"
}