3. Attempts of the Episcopal Church to Draw Near the Orthodox East. The Memorandum of the “Association of the Eastern Church” and the Attitude of the General Conventions of 1868–1874 Toward the Question of Church Unity. The “Greek-Russian Committee” and its Activities. The External and Internal Aspects of These Attempts. The Attitude of Roman Catholic Literature Toward Them and Alarm in the Roman Catholic Camp. The Possible Significance of the Fact of Church Unity for the Mission of Orthodoxy in America. Foundations for Unity. Conclusion. (Cont.)

With the cessation of the activity of the Greco-Russian Committee there ended one period of the actual attempt of the American Episcopal Church to reunite with the Orthodox East. Since the further phase of development of this striving has not yet expressed itself in any more or less definite and tangible facts, in clarifying the character of this striving one can and should for now limit oneself only to this first period. If one looks at the matter from an external point of view, the results of the attempts present nothing that one could consider to have more or less important significance for the great question. All the more significant is therefore its internal aspect. Both the very fact of the formation of a special organ for relations with the Orthodox East and its activity show how strongly in the Episcopal Church is the consciousness of the necessity to seek support from the East. Its significance becomes clearest from the comments with which Roman Catholic press of the country accompanied these attempts. Roman Catholicism itself claims a premier role in the North American Republic and cherishes the dream that it will become the one future church of the country. Therefore it is extremely jealous toward all other denominations and communities that claim the same pretensions. The Episcopal Church is one of its first rivals in this respect, and therefore it follows its movements with greater vigilance than all others. But at the same time it fully understands that it by its own forces is far from adequate to its pretensions to a premier ecclesiastical-religious role in the country. Moreover, Roman Catholicism even finds that it, by its present forces and present state, has only enough significance in the country to serve as an intermediary link for the unification of the American people under the banner of Roman Catholicism. According to the opinion of an authoritative Roman Catholic publicist, the Episcopal Church has positively providential significance for the Roman Catholic Church and is predestined by Providence itself to serve as a transitional point to Roman Catholicism for all those seeking ecclesiastical truth. The prejudice against Roman Catholicism itself is so great and ingrained, that many seekers of truth would never have entered into the bosom of this Church unless there had been a transitional step in the form of Episcopalism. Not finding satisfaction in Protestantism and at the same time hating Roman Catholicism, they choose the Episcopal Church, apparently free from both extremes. But having learned of the shakiness of its principles, they then with much greater ease and consistency pass over to Roman Catholicism.[1] In view of such significance of the Episcopal Church for the goals of Roman Catholicism, it is very important for the latter that it continue its existence in its present unstable form, and therefore it tries in every way to keep it in an isolated state and place all possible obstacles to its strivings toward reunification with other stronger and more positive ecclesiastical organisms in which it could find reliable support for its own independent existence. Therefore, when the Episcopal Church turned to the Orthodox East, there occurred a strong commotion in Roman Catholicism; the Roman Catholic press raised an alarm and came forward fully armed to combat the dangerous tendency of Episcopalism. The journals became filled with articles having direct bearing on the burning question and all directed to one goal—to prove the impossibility of union of the Episcopal Church with the Orthodox and to present the historical and dogmatic inadequacy of the latter, which supposedly is itself outliving its history and can find salvation only in the bosom of Roman Catholicism.[2] Not considering their own forces sufficient, the American press brought up reserves of French Jesuits, and among other things for the humiliation of the Orthodox Church circulated the well-known vicious pamphlet of the Orthodox apostate Jesuit Prince Gagarin against the Russian clergy,[3] and released an entire book on the contemporary state in the Russian Church, in which someone concealing himself under an indefinite name of “former inhabitant of Russia” with Jesuit subtlety and cunning makes a selection of facts skillfully directed again to proving the impossibility of union of the Episcopal Church with the Orthodox.[4] In all this literature, along with the proof of the impossibility for Episcopalism to find recognition in the East, with special vividness runs through the idea that the East itself is in a process of ecclesiastical decomposition, should itself seek support from outside and that healthy sense of the “best sons” of it long already indicated where to seek support and salvation. As if as factual confirmation of this idea came an extensive biographical literature. In it are brought forth a series of “valiant sons of the East” who, having learned of the “errors of the schismatic Church,” turned to the unchanging mother of truth, that is into the bosom of Roman Catholicism, and thereby factually proved not only the inadequacy of Orthodoxy to satisfy the religious demands of the best people but also marked out and paved the way for the whole East to the feet of the Vicar of Christ on earth.[5] Apostates from Orthodoxy were put forward as great heroes of truth and presented as valiant pioneers of ecclesiastical truth, and all this in instruction and edification of the Episcopalians who had displayed the dangerous tendency in their striving toward reunification with the “schismatic” East.

However tendentious the literature presented may be and however apparent its hidden motives and aims, it at least preserves the mask of propriety and decorum, with certain exceptions. But the question was evidently too important for Roman Catholicism to remain calm about it behind a mask of scholarly or literary composure. Therefore it came forward directly with polemic against the aspirations of the Episcopalians, and here openly revealed its anxieties about the fulfillment of the dangerous tendencies of Episcopalism. The Roman Catholic press began with polemical and sarcastic fervor to pursue the Episcopalians in their General Conventions, and even the ordinarily dignified and restrained journal Catholic World descended into feuilleton theatrics in its articles on the resolutions of these conventions regarding relations with the East. From the moment Episcopalism’s inclination toward the East became apparent, no convention passed without the said journal attacking it with ridicule in specially devoted articles. Regarding the resolutions of the General Convention of 1868, it stated among other things: “In its relations with other Christian confessions, the Episcopal Church is particularly unfortunate. It has communion with no community in the entire world. It distinguishes itself from other Protestant sects on the grounds that they are irregular, and calls itself a branch of the Catholic Church—that is, those who speak for it call it by this name. The other branches are the Eastern Church and the Roman Catholic Church; at least so say those who speak of this theory of branches. With these other branches the Episcopal Church has no communion and, most likely, never will have. There is no need to speak of the Roman Catholic Church, for its language and actions have always been decisive and clear. But the Eastern branches have also condemned Anglican doctrine and orders more explicitly than the Episcopalians condemned their Protestant brothers. There was never a case where a Greek bishop agreed to give communion to a member of the Anglican branch without his renouncing his errors; and the rejection of the ordination of Anglican priests is as certain in the East as in the West. More than that—teachings specifically condemned by the Thirty-nine Articles are held as firmly by the Eastern branches as by the Western. Why then do our High Church friends beg patronage from the Greek Church? This will not help them. They may crawl before the Metropolitan of Moscow and make compromises; but though he will be courteous to them like a gentleman, he will have a low opinion of them and will say in his heart: gentlemen, if you do not have your own feet to stand on, it seems to me it would be better for you to sit down”[6]. “All the attention of the Episcopalians,” says the same Roman Catholic organ, “is devoted to the East, and if they found there even a fleeting smile as a sign of recognition, it would gladden their hearts. Perhaps now they will receive it, because they have already gone so far as even to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Greek Church in Alaska”[7]. By the General Convention of 1871, the Greco-Russian Committee had already presented some factual material about the East’s sympathy for the aspirations of the Episcopal Church, and the Roman Catholic journal continued its spiteful ridicule: “Another matter occupying us is the magnitude of the work, again heaped upon the committee that must seek unity with the Eastern heretical churches. In this regard, aside from an exchange of courtesies, so little has been done that we fear the means are inadequate to the goal. The Anglicans have already declared their willingness to drop the Filioque from the Creed and thus renounce the doctrine of the Trinity, but this apparently does not bring these two or four communities closer to one another. The Eastern churches still call the Anglicans heretical and say they have no ordination, while the latter grovel in all humility before the bishops of Constantinople and St. Petersburg, and beg for the slightest smile of recognition. We do not think the committee has done its job, and like the prophet who urged the priests of Baal, we urge them not to lag behind. These venerable patriarchs perhaps sleep or are absent on their way”[8]. “We are simply pained to see in the Episcopalians a lack of self-respect in their attempts to conduct business with the ‘holy Orthodox Eastern Church.’ This community, though it has genuine ordination, holds doctrine condemned by the Thirty-nine Articles and has openly and publicly anathematized Protestantism. Why then do the Episcopalians agree to be struck and whipped directly in the face for a unity that is utterly impossible? If this pleases them, we have nothing to pity them for, but for the sake of humanity alone we protest against this”[9]. “The Eastern churches,” declares the publicist categorically, “will never recognize the Episcopalians as anything other than a sect of Protestants”[10].

But enough. We shall not cite other unworthy outbursts that distinguished the Roman Catholic press during this time. In themselves they have no significance for us, but they are important for characterizing the relation of Roman Catholicism to the question under consideration and for evaluating the movement of Episcopalism toward unity with the East. If by the law of historical criticism, the diminishment of the significance of a known fact by the hostile side is a sure sign of its true importance to that side, then from the presented attitude of the Roman Catholic press toward the inclination of the Episcopal Church toward the Orthodox East, the real significance of this fact is determined. It truly has enormous significance for the fate of Roman Catholicism in the United States: the Episcopal Church in its present unstable position serves, as the Roman Catholic organs themselves acknowledge, only as an intermediary link for the acquisition of Roman Catholicism on American soil. About half of those who convert to Roman Catholicism come either from Episcopalism or through its agency. If the Episcopal Church truly finds support in communion with the Orthodox East, it will thereby cease to be a serving instrument for Roman Catholicism and—either will itself acquire stability in its existence, or, what is more probable, will direct those seeking the truth of the Church toward the East. In either case Roman Catholicism will suffer a heavy loss, and in the latter case almost a fatal one. This explains its anxiety about the inclination of the Episcopal Church toward the Orthodox East, and this anxiety becomes even clearer to the critical eye in the seemingly light, mocking form of its relation to the fact. As for the positive significance of the fact under consideration, it is difficult to overstate it. The actual achievement of either form of unity between the Episcopal Church and the Orthodox East would give the church principles of the latter the first and most reliable basis for penetrating into the organism of the American people, in which, as we have seen, there is no lack of receptivity to true church-religious principles, and on the contrary there is a strong seeking of these principles. But church unity of both churches is possible only with preliminary agreement in faith. “The Orthodox Church,” says His Eminence Metropolitan Isidore in his epistle to the Episcopal Church[11], “considers preliminary agreement in faith absolutely necessary for practical mutual participation in the sacraments, since the former is the only possible foundation or basis for the latter. And to attain this greatly desired goal, it would be necessary to undertake careful study and investigation of the differences in the teaching of both churches; and to further this, the great principle of cooperation will undoubtedly be found in the spirit of peace and love that animates both churches, both Orthodox and Anglican, and in those prayers for the peace of the whole world and the unity of the holy churches of God which are offered to God of truth and mercy by the Eastern churches, and which surely are also shared by the Anglican churches”[12].

In these few words, with categorical precision, is expressed both the foundation on which, from the Orthodox perspective, the achievement of church unity is possible, and the means that can lead to this unity. A detailed investigation of these means is not within our task and would far distract us from the direct aim of the treatise, and therefore, to conclude our sketch of the religious condition of the American people, we shall only summarize the material presented by it.