to Moscow since 'it is time to go home'. Not only had 'one's soul suffered enough through exile in foreign parts', but 'the supreme church authorities [in Moscow] promise us the calm evolution of church life'.25 The metropolitan could thus envisage himself returning to Russia at the head of his entire flock.26 It was almost a biblical image of a diaspora coming to an end. Fortunately, it was not to be.
For the present, the Soviet authorities were anxious to expedite Evlogii's application to revert to his pre-1931 status as pastor of the patriarchate of Moscow. In writing to Aleksii Simanskii, the newly installed patriarch of Moscow, Evlogii insisted on an important caveat: 'In advance of my appeal to your holiness, we must still elicit the blessing of the ecumenical patriarch for this reunion with [our] mother-church.'27
Metropolitan Nikolai was quick to give him false assurances to the effect that Constantinople had already agreed the necessary changes. This was in September 1945. Laterthat month the agreement between Moscow and Evlogii was signed and sealed. But Constantinople did not hear from Moscow until November. The new arrangements left much to be desired.
With Evlogii's death in 1946 the situation was still unresolved. His successor as archbishop ofthe diocese ofwestern Europe was Vladimir Tikhonitskii, who had no wish to accept the degree of subordination claimed by the patriarchate of Moscow. Nor did he intend to resuscitate the old emigre divisions. In the hope of healing them, the new archbishop turned to Metropolitan Anastasii Gribanovskii, the ruling bishop of the Church Abroad, and proposed that the latter should be united with the diocese of western Europe, but with one important rider: the Church Abroad was to revert to dependence on the patriarchate of Constantinople, which hadbriefly been the position in i920.For his part, Vladimir was willing to yield his place as ruling bishop to Anastasii.28 It was a rare opportunity to restore the fragile unity of earlier years. But Anastasii refused to surrender his church's independence.
Although Evlogii's reversion to Moscow was mismanaged, it was nonetheless Moscow that managed to gain ground from the affair. Evlogii's people were of two minds. There were those (the majority) who resolved to reassert their links with Constantinople. There were also those who, in deference to Evlogii, preferred to keep the patriarch of Moscow as their head. In the
25 Metropolitan Evlogii Georgievskii, address of 18 February 1945, quoted in Evlogii, Put' moei zhizni, 669.
26 Evlogii's conversation with Tatiana Manukhina (1946) in ibid., 672.
27 Letter of3 April 1945, quoted in ibid., 671.
28 Mitropolit Vladimir, sviatitel'-molitvennik (Paris: privately published, 1965), 152.
Was this article helpful?