Comments on: The Bulgarian Diocese in Exile

By: Fr. Andrew S. Damick

Fr. Andrew S. Damick — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:37:11 +0000

Thank you, Fr. Alexander! I was not aware of the tenures of the ROCOR bishops you name. I’ve added your comments to the body of the post itself.

By: Rev. Alexander Lebedeff

Rev. Alexander Lebedeff — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:53:13 +0000

I’m not quite sure I agree with your comments about “longest serving hierarch.”

Archbishop Antony (Sinkevich) of the ROCOR was consecrated Bishop of Los Angeles in August 1951 and served until he was retired in 1995. He reposed July 31, 1996. He was a bishop for 45 years.

Of course, Metropolitan Vitaly (Oustinoff) of the ROCOR was made bishop in 1951 and retired in 2001 after celebrating 50 years as a bishop (he reposed in 2006). However, he did not come to North America until 1955. Still, 1955-2001 is 46 years. There are those in offshoots of the ROCOR who consider him to have continued being First Hierarch of the ROCOR up to the point of his repose. In any case he was a bishop for 55 years and a bishop in North America for 51.

By: Esteban Vázquez

Esteban Vázquez — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:18:58 +0000

Indeed it was so regarded, but joining them was better than the alternatives: going back to Bulgarian Patriarchate (which even today provokes alarmed cries of “Collaborators!” in the Diocese!), or going to the Ecumenical Patriarchate (which, I’ve been told numerous times, Archbishop Kyrill would dismiss by saying that no self-respecting Bulgarian would ever do that). Besides, they had a good track record with the anti-communist Romanians, which means that they largely left them alone. So in many ways, it was the natural choice.

By: Fr. Andrew S. Damick

Fr. Andrew S. Damick — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:07:09 +0000

Thanks, Esteban. I’m not quite as familiar with the history of the ROCOR, and your comment adds some important background.

I honestly wasn’t sure what had actually precipitated Kyrill’s move into the OCA. Being from one of the anti-Communist schisms wasn’t enough (indeed, the OCA was regarded as suspiciously cozy with the Soviets!).

By: Esteban Vázquez

Esteban Vázquez — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 04:14:19 +0000

It should be noted that perhaps the chief reason behind the move of the Bulgarian Diocese from the Russian Church Abroad was not an epiphany about the mission of the newly-autocephalous Church, but rather the deaths of Archbishop Kyrill's friends and protectors in the ROCOR Synod, Archbishops Averky (Taushev) and Nikon (Rklitsky), both of which also occurred in 1976. With both of them gone, he lacked the support he had once enjoyed from two seniors hierarchs of that Church, and was left without defenders against the increasing influence of radical elements who had the ear of Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), and through him, of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky). One of the principal complaints of such elements was the use of the New Calendar in most (but by no means all) of the parishes of the Bulgarian Diocese. But prior to this, the Church Abroad had four New Calendar dioceses: Bulgarian, Romanian, Dutch, and French.

By: Fr. Andrew S. Damick

Fr. Andrew S. Damick — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:15:07 +0000

I did have the Albanians in mind, but their genesis was a bit more complicated, as you mention.

By: Isa Almisry

Isa Almisry — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:04:57 +0000

I would include the Albanians, also split by politics at home. In the Albanian case, however, there is the unusual situation that the Albanian Archdiocese is acutally the Mother Church of the Church of Albania.