The aftermath

The pan-Orthodox meeting sought to demonstrate the unity of the “democratic” churches under the guidance of the Patriarchate of Moscow. Therefore, no dissentinG voices reached the public square during the conference. The only case when a different opinion was allowed concerned the calendar. In this regard, the Russian hierarchy agreed with the statement of the Romanian Patriarch Justinian that his church would not abandon the new calendar for the sake of the old.168 In this way, the Romanian Patriarchate preserved its right to use the new calenDar in its liturgical life. At the same time, the Romanian Patriarchate returned the gesture by becoming the first Eastern European Orthodox Church whose synod approved the resolutions of the Moscow conference during its session on October 19, 1948.169

Despite the conflict between Tito and Stalin, Patriarch Gavrilo and the other members of his delegation demonstrated loyalty not only to the Moscow Patriarchate but also to the Soviet government. The Serbian clerics complained that the government in Belgrade repressed their Orthodox Church wHile allowing the imprisoned Catholic Bishop Stepinac to live in two rooms and to have his own servants. Patriarch Gavrilo also complained about the neglect of Orthodoxy demonstrated by the religious department in Yugoslavia, whose head was Catholic, while his deputy was Muslim.170 Meanwhile, “the relationship established between the Serbian and Russian churches was damaged by the difficulties created by Tito’s regime in Yugoslavia.”171 After returning fTom Moscow, Patriarch Gavrilo was not allowed to implement the council’s decisions. He faced the resistance of the Union of Democratic Priests in Yugoslavia, which supported Tito. In addition, Metropolitan Josif, famous for his hatred of Moscow, became the actual master of the Serbian Church and established close relations with the

British embassy in Belgrade. The Belgrade Faculty of Theology also refused to follow the Moscow line and sent representative to the Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Amsterdam. As a result of these developments, the Russian community in Yugoslavia found itself in a difficult situation. The nuns from the Russian Lesnenski Monastery were forced to go to America and to join the Russian emigre churches there. After their refusal, they were expelled from Yugoslavia in February 1950.172 WIth the help of the Soviet government, they found temporary asylum in Albania. In August 1953, at the request of Patriarch Alexii, they were issued an invitation by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and accommodated in the Kapinov Monastery.173

During the 1948 pan-Orthodox meeting, the Moscow Patriarchate did not distribute financial gifts to its guests, as had been planned for the precouncil meetinG.174 One of the reasons for this was the abandoned project for an ecumenical council. The other was rooted in the changed position of the Orthodox churches in people’s democracies. They were separated fTom the state and deprived of their economic potential, while their clergy suffered persecutions. At the same time, the local communist parties consolidated their power and established control over the disobedient local Orthodox hierarchs, such as Exarch Stefan. While he was in Moscow, the Bulgarian government plotted against him. As a result, on September 8 he was forced to resign. The Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party decided to transfer his duties to Metropolitan Kiril, who began to execute the decisions of the Moscow church Conference and took an active part in the peace movement initiated by the Moscow Patriarchate in the 1950s.175

Archbishop Timothy, the temporary head of the Polish Orthodox Church, was the next victim of the Kremlin’s new religious policy. With the CAROC’s support, the Moscow Patriarchate undertook steps for his “canonical” removal. After the pan-Orthodox conference, Metropolitan Dionisii was released by the Polish government. In August, he sent a letter of penance to Patriarch Alexii, asking to enter into communion with the Russian Church. In November, the Moscow SynoD lifted the ecclesiastical interdictions against him and returned his title of metropolitan.176 At the same time, it officially retired Dionisii fTom his clerical duties, “thereby vacating the leading position in the Polish hierarchy.”177 The appointment of a new head of the Orthodox Church in Poland was postponed due to the underdeveloped structure of the church: It had only two dioceses, while an autocephalous church had to have a minimum of four. Therefore, in this interregnum it was governed by a synod. In 1949, a third Orthodox eparchy was set up in Poland. A year later, one more eparchy was established and the formal canonical requirements for autocephaly were met. At the same time, an Orthodox seminary was opened in Warsaw for the training of future Orthodox priests.

Finally, on 19 April 1951, the Synod sent a message to the Russian patriarch declaring that no one in Poland was worthy to fill the position of metropolitan of the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church and asked that he select a Russian hierarch for this post. Two months later the Moscow Synod granted their request and on 8 July 1951, Archbishop Macarius of L’viv and Ternopil’ was formally enthroned as metropolitan of Warsaw and all Poland.178

The promotion of such Soviet hierarchs in Eastern Europe was followed by the elevation of the “democratic” churches to a higher canonical status. On October 10, 1951, the Moscow Synod took a decision to grant autocephaly to the Czechoslovakian daughter church. It reads:

1.  If the Exarchial council decides for the Czechoslovakian Church to become autocephalous, then the Patriarch [of Moscow] and the [Russian] Holy Synod bless this decision and give their full consent for the Czechoslovakian Orthodox Church to be declared autocephalous;

2.  If His Higher Eminence, Metropolitan Elevtherii, is elected as a head of the autocephalous Orthodox Church in Czechoslovakia, then the Russian Orthodox Church with love will give him permission to take charge of the welfare of that Church.179

Two months later, Czechoslovakian autocephaly was declared in Prague in the presence of church representatives from Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Antioch, and Alexandria. On December 10, Metropolitan Elevtherii was enthroned as the head of the new autocephalous church.

The next demonstration of the increased international prestige of the Orthodox churches from the socialist camp was the restoration of the patriarchal dignity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. This act was in unison with Decision No. 52/1948 of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party. According to this, “Proceeding from the need to strengthen the public prestige of the Bulgarian Church, which is necessary from the standpoint of organizing the struggle of the Orthodox Churches against the Vatican and its reactionary policy, the Central Committee gives its consent for the Bulgarian Exarchate to be elevated into a patriarchate.” ' 80 Although this decision was taken immediately after the overthrow of Exarch Stefan in 1948, it was realized only after a delay of several years. Part of the reason for this was linked to the selection of a proper candidate for the patriarchal crown. There were also canonical obstacles. The most serious of these was the 1945 agreement between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Bulgarian Exarchate, which required the permission of the former before any steps for the restoration of the Bulgarian patriarchal dignity could be undertaken. In May 1953, the Bulgarian communist government put this plan into operation and the Bulgarian Church was declared a patriarchate. The Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, however, refused to accept the invitation to attend the church council in Sofia for the election of the first Bulgarian Patriarch since the fourteenth century. He sent a letter of protest to the Sofia Synod in which he declared:

It was not expected that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, recently declared independent and autocephalous, would try, introducing again in the Church

Innovation and deviating from the existing canonical and ecclesiastical order, to arbitrarily ascribe to itself patriarchal dignity and honor. Meanwhile, contrary to the promises and assurances given by it [the Bulgarian Church] to the Blessed Mother Church through its delegates and during the setting of the question of removing the schism, it kept in complete ignorance our Holy Ecumenical See and the other Holy Patriarchal Sees and autocephalous Churches. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church had, in accordance with the ecclesiastical order established in ancient times, to attest in advance to its maturity and ability by keeping constancy and devotion in the canonical order established for it, and in general, while presenting considerable flourishing in Christ and particular church activity in normal conditions, and only Then to ask through us for its elevation to patriarchal dignity from the host of the honorable prelates of the Holy Orthodox Churches.181

In this way, the Cold War division between the “socialist” and “imperialist” Orthodox churches was accomplished. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the other “Greek” churches did not recognize the changes in the status of the Baltic, Polish, Czechoslovakian, Albanian, and Bulgarian Orthodox churches. In turn, the Moscow Holy See accuseD the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople of retaining the Finnish Orthodox Church and the Western European Russian Exarchate of Metropolitan Vladimir under its jurisdiction. 1 82 The Cold War in the Orthodox world was a fact, and the Kremlin assigned new tasks to the Moscow Patriarchate and the Orthodox churches from the “camp of peace and democracy.”