Library › St Tikhon of Moscow › Instructions and Teachings
Instructions and Teachings
St Tikhon of Moscow, Russian Orthodox American Messenger, 1898–1905
Archbishop Tikhon’s Reply to Bishop Grafton of Fon du Lac, Wis. (1905)
RIGHT REVEREND AND DEAR BISHOP!
Having just settled myself in New York, after my long trip through Canada, I was about to write to you concerning the ordination of Dr. Irvine, when I received your telegram. I thought that I sufficiently explained our point of view in the telegrams I sent in answer and I was ready to consider the subject closed. Yet, having read the last number of the “Living Church” I now learn that some members of the Episcopal Church are still perplexed concerning a matter, which has already been made clear, and that their perplexity imports to the matter a character of bitterness, which can hardly benefit your most venerable church.
I consider it beneath my dignity to notice the whole of the article in the “Living Church”, but I do not intend to leave without an answer those of its objections, which in my judgement are serious.
I am accused (1), of having reordained Dr. Irvine, who, according to the teaching of your church, was indelibly marked by the seal of Holy Orders, in spite of his having been deposed; and thus having been guilty of sacrilege, according to the insistent definition of the “Living Church”.
I am accused (2), of having received a deposed priest and thus having broken the canon, by interfering in the affairs of your church, which is autocephalous and is not subject to the Orthodox Church, and having usurped rights which do not belong to me.
And (3), the article expresses regret at my having received an immoral man, which is a humiliation to the Russian Church in this country.
With regard to the first accusation, as I already had an opportunity of informing you, the question of Anglican ordinations is now being examined by the whole Holy Eastern Church. And so long as this question is still undecided, I am commanded by the order of the Russian Holy Synod, of October 19, 1904, to reordain Anglican priests, who are desirous of joining us.
I personally may have different views of the matter, but in the present case it is not my opinion that has a deciding voice, but that which was given to me as an order by the ecclesiastical authority. Therefore, Dr. Irvine was reordained. However, I am bound to state here, that it is but a particular case, and that it does not necessarily presuppose a negative answer to the question of Anglican ordinations. But in this particular case, I could not consider Dr. Irvine in any other way than as a layman.
Further it is pointed out to me, that, according to the teaching of your church, Holy Orders are indelible. But I have to reckon with the Russian and not the Western Church, and the practice of the Russian Church holds the view that a deposed priest is a layman and can carry out no sacerdotal duties.
From the above follows my answer to the second accusation. The Episcopal church and ours do not as yet form one indivisible church, which is certainly a matter of profound sorrow. If they did, we would have a communion of doctrine, as well as of sacraments. But as they do not as yet, I have broken no canon, because the canons quoted in the article would be applicable only in case of complete union.
I am not meddling in the affairs of the Episcopal Church and do not condemn its actions. This reproach would be more deserved by me did I receive Dr. Irvine without ordaining him. But once he has come to us as a layman, in this land of religious freedom, no one could forbid him to ask for ordination and to receive it, as no one could forbid me to ordain him. Since he joined our church, he has become one of us, and it is my affair, and not any body else’s, whether to ordain him or not.
With regard to the third point under discussion, that is my having received a man of doubtful reputation, it is needless to say, that whatever the canonical differences, all the churches equally demand that men who apply for priesthood should be up to a certain moral level. With this we also reckon like everybody else. But in Dr. Irvine’s case, no one either gave or promised us facts that would prove that he was not up to this moral level.
In conclusion, my dear Brother in Christ, I feel it my duty to relieve you of the responsability you possibly owe to your venerable Corporation for having recommended me as a candidate for the title of Doctor of Divinity of Nashotah House. I beg you that, if the unfriendly criticism touches this point, or if you judge it befitting, you should have no hesitation in taking this title away from me. I value it most highly. But as you know, I did not seek it. May the will of God guide our walk in the future. I look hopefully forward and believe, that the pessimism of some of our friends has no real foundation.
With sincere respect and affection,
I am sincerely your brother in Christ.
(Signed:) TIKHON,
Archbishop of the Russian
Orthodox Church in N. America.