OVERBECK'S BACKGROUND AND CONVERSION TO ORTHODOXY

LITTLE is known of Dr. Overbeck’s background and early life. It has been possible, however, to ascertain certain details of his earlier years by means of incidental information gleaned from his writings. A German by nationality, Dr. Joseph J. Overbeck (1821-1905) received an education preparing him for a career in the Church. He held a doctorate in philosophy as well as in theology. Ordained a Roman Catholic priest, he was not an Ultramontane but considered himself a member of the liberal school of thought. For a time he was pastor of a church in Westphalia, a province of Prussia. He was also Privat-dozent in the Theological Faculty at the University of Bonn. Here, from 1854 to 1857, he "interpreted" the writings of the Eastern Fathers, Ss. Basil the Great and John Chrysostom. In 1852 he visited Rome for the first time but was not particularly impressed by what he saw. At Bonn he was associated with many of the future leaders of the Old Catholic movement.

Becoming disenchanted with Roman Catholicism, Dr. Overbeck left the Roman Communion, became a Lutheran and married. It is not certain whether or not he functioned as a Lutheran pastor but he once assisted at a High Lutheran Mass in the Berlin Dorotheenstädtische church. In the early 1860’s Overbeck emigrated to England where he made his home until his death more than a half-century later. Between 1863 and 1877 Dr. Overbeck was professor in German at the Staff College of the Royal Military Academy in Woolwich. His daily contacts with members of the Church of England led him to a study of Anglican theology but he never became an Anglican. (1) Becoming dissatisfied with Protestantism, Overbeck began to study Orthodoxy:

When I was still living in Oxford, about seven years ago, a closer study of the history of the Eastern Church established in me the conviction that the Orthodox Church was the only one that could claim to be the ancient Catholic and Apostolic Church of our Creed, and that all the other Churches of Christendom were schismatically and heretically cut off from the Catholic and Orthodox Church. (2)

In another place Overbeck said that he and a few friends gathered in an English country place to discuss the problems of Church unity and there it was decided that Orthodoxy was the Church established by Christ. It was here that Overbeck’s scheme for the restoration of Western Orthodoxy was born. (3) Even before his formal reception into the Orthodox Church, Overbeck published his first book dealing with Orthodoxy and the Western Confessions. (4) This work, which examined Papalism and Protestantism from the Orthodox viewpoint, was immediately translated into Russian. It made a sensation in Russia and appeared in several periodicals in serial form and was published in book form as well, under the title Light from the East.

After the publication of his book, Overbeck approached Archpriest Eugene Ivanovich Popoff (1813-75), the Chaplain of the Russian Imperial Embassy in London. Popoff, an important figure in the Orthodox Church in Western Europe, had received his Magister Theologiae from the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy in 1835. He had been Chaplain to the Russian Embassy at Copenhagen and at the beginning of 1842 was appointed to the Embassy church at London. Here he spent thirty-three years until his death. Popoff was the Holy Synod’s chief supplier of information concerning religious activities in England. Through Fr. Popoff many converts found their way into the Orthodox Church. At one time he refused the Bishopric of San Francisco.

Dr. Overbeck revealed to Popoff his intention of petitioning the Holy Governing Synod at St. Petersburg to receive him into the Orthodox Church and allow him to work for the establishment of an Orthodox Catholic Western Church. He also intended to ask for permission to exercise his sacred orders even though he had married after ordination. Fr. Popoff informed Count Dmitry Andreevich Tolstoy (1823-89), Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod from 1865 to April 1880, of Overbeck’s plans and asked instructions of the Synod. At the same time he forwarded the first chapters of Overbeck’s recently published book in Russian translation. (5)

Tolstoy thought it premature to burden the Synod with Popoff’s inquiry and sought instead the counsel of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow in a letter dated 17 July 1865. He wanted such directions from Philaret as "would in no wise violate the sacred bases of our Church nor, at the same time, repulse from us this outstanding foreign theologian, openly acknowledging the truth of our confession of faith, but held back by the delusion implanted within him concerning the exterior manifestation of it by the rites." Until hearing from Philaret, Tolstoy advised Popoff to refrain from taking any official steps in the matter.

Philaret answered Tolstoy, on 24 July 1865, that Overbeck’s request to be received into communion without being bound to conform to Eastern customs was stated in such an indefinite manner that it gave no basis on which to give a definite reply. It would not be especially dangerous, however, to answer in the affirmative. As for allowing Overbeck to exercise his orders, this was another matter. This could not be permitted on the basis of the twenty-sixth Apostolic canon and the sixth canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council which forbade clerics to marry after ordination. These canons were more especially applicable to Overbeck’s case since he had received his orders in the Roman Church where permanent celibacy was a condition of ordination. Generally speaking, the violation of the condition impaired the rights acquired under the condition. Furthermore, by showing leniency to one individual, the Orthodox people as well as other Orthodox Churches could be scandalized. Philaret did not take Overbeck’s writings into account in his consideration of the matter since he had not seen them.

Naturally (wrote Philaret) it would be comforting to receive a theologian into communion with the Orthodox Church who, by the power of dispassionate research and resolution, wrested himself of the artificially woven meshes; and it shall be sad if he, having approached her very doors, shall not enter in.

Philaret was pleased to hear that there were those in the West who desired to know Orthodoxy, who respected it and wanted to be in communion with it. Nevertheless he concluded his message to Tolstoy by stating that Fr. Popoff ought to forewarn Overbeck that his petition to the Synod could have no promise of success under the conditions he proposed. At the same time, however, Philaret added that Fr. Popoff ought to explain the reasons to Overbeck as he (Philaret) outlined them. (6)

Shortly after this the historian, Andrew Nicholaevich Murav’ev (1806-74), a friend of Metropolitan Philaret and for a time an official in the office of the Chief-Procurator, read Overbeck’s book, Light from the East, and was prompted to correspond with him. In one of his letters to Murav’ev, Overbeck put the question: "Can the Eastern Church permit the marriage of a Latin priest after his conversion to Orthodoxy, since the rule allows such a marriage only before ordination?" Murav’ev forwarded this question to Metropolitan Philaret. The latter answered with a long opinion which Murav’ev passed on to Overbeck through Fr. Popoff. Later Murav’ev learned that Overbeck was especially concerned with the problem since he himself had desired to be received into the Orthodox Church as a priest. (7)

In this his second judgment on the same matter the usually over-cautious Philaret seemed prepared to allow Roman Catholic priests to be received after marriage provided that they were never elevated to any higher degree of priesthood. But the question, he said, had to be decided by the Russian Church in council and agreed to by the other Eastern Churches. Moreover, extreme care had to be exercised. It was not desirable to disturb the harmony of the entire Church by relaxing the rules for a few persons. (8) Philaret apparently had in mind the possible conversion of numbers of Roman priests. At any rate, by this time the question was merely an academic one since Overbeck had already been received into the Church.

There probably were few ecclesiastical decisions of any moment made without Philaret’s knowledge and advice during his tenure as Metropolitan of Moscow. His opinions on various questions have been collected and issued in many volumes. Probably the Orthodox churchman of the largest stature in the nineteenth century, Metropolitan Philaret Drozdov (1782-1867) was the occupant of the cathedra of Moscow from 1821 until his death. He was metropolitan from 1826. Thought be some the greatest theologian of the Russian Church in modern times, he was a kind of unofficial Patriarch of the Russian Church in the last century.

In the summer or autumn of 1865 Overbeck and his family were received into the Orthodox Church by Archpriest E. I. Popoff in London. Although received as a mere layman, Overbeck was far from discouraged. He considered himself not an ordinary convert but one with the calling to restore to communion with the Eastern Church the ancient Church of the West which had been in schism and heresy over 800 years. Fr. Popoff "gladly acceded" and "heartily co-operated" with Overbeck’s scheme. Previous to this Popoff had not been overly enthusiastic about the possibilities of Anglican Book of Common Prayer rites in the Orthodox Church, (9) but now he had an active interest in Overbeck’s endeavors and apparently helped promote the scheme. Many years later, in an obituary notice of Overbeck by "N.O." (Olga Novikoff?), the electrifying effect of his first books describing the great role predestined by Divine Providence for Orthodoxy to play in the West is mentioned. (10) Popoff, too, may have been affected by Overbeck’s writings. As far as Anglicanism was concerned, however, Fr. Popoff had studied it carefully and saw no possibility of any intercommunion with it. In his opinion the Church of England, in the circumstances in which it found itself, was powerless as a whole entity, as a Church, not only to accomplish but even to begin the work of correcting itself of its errors. (11)

From his study of ecclesiastical history Overbeck was convinced that, from the origin of Christianity, the Catholic Church had consisted of a Western and Eastern Church united by one faith and one "Church Constitution" until the schism of 1054, when the Western Church separated from the true Catholic Church as a result of heretical innovations. Since 1054 Catholic truth was to be found only in the Eastern Church. The only means for regenerating the ante-schismatic Catholic Church of the West lay in the remnant of ancient Catholicity, the Eastern Church. The Orthodox Catholic Western Church had to be resuscitated, but it was "suicidal" to think that the West could be Orientalized, i.e., that Western people could become Eastern in their customs, traditions, and rites, in the process of returning to the ancient Catholic faith and doctrine. The Church of Ss. Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo, Gregory the Great, and others, which was conceived by God’s providence, must be restored. In order to revive the Western Church it was necessary to have recourse to one of the autocephalous Eastern Churches in order (1) to be admitted into the Catholic Church; (2) to be reconciled and absolved of the sin of schism, and (3) to obtain help in the labor of restoration.

Dr. Overbeck felt that the Eastern Church could not demand uniformity of custom, could not oblige Western people to adopt the Eastern rite together with Orthodoxy. The Eastern rite was designated by Divine Providence for the Eastern mind, which by nature differed from the Western mind. The Eastern rites could be studied by Western people and even acclaimed by them as masterpieces, but they still would remain foreign. Such forms of prayer and such ritual and ceremony could never have originated with Western people. What was congenial about the Eastern mode of worship was its spirit and the Orthodox truth emanating therefrom, but its exterior manifestation, "the turgid expressions, the endless repetitions are foreign to us and leave us cold." And Eastern people, he thought, had similar feelings in regard to Western rites. The Liturgy as celebrated by St. Leo and St. Gregory the Great could claim exactly the same rights as that of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom. (12)

The restoration of the Western Church, in Overbeck’s mind, would benefit the Eastern Church as well, for a "new current of life will flow to her heart." Eastern and Western minds would meet on common Orthodox grounds instead of on heretical soil. There would be no more one-sidedness. New paths would be found to an invigorated spiritual life. A copious exchange of talents and ideas would cause a stirring up of life such as it was in the Patristic age. The wall separating East and West would crumble and the two drawn into close relationships. (13)

(1) J.A. Douglas in a footnote in Chrysostom Papadopoulos, The Validity of Anglican Ordinations (London, [1931]), p. 32n, states that Overbeck "acceded to the Church of England." This is asserted by other Anglicans as well; Cf. J.O. Johnston, Life and Letters of Henry Parry Liddon (London, 1904), p. 190. Overbeck, however, made it quite clear that he was never a member of the Establishment.

(2) The Orthodox Catholic Review, III, No. 1-6 (January-June, 1871), 45. Hereafter this will be cited as OCR. Since the complete file of this journal is used as a source, titles of articles will not, with some exceptions, be cited.

(3) OCR, VII (Part I, 1878), 29.

(4) Die orthodoxe katholische Anschauung, etc. (Halle a/S., 1865).

(5) Sobranio mnenii i otzyvov Filareta, mitropolita moskovskago i kolomenskago, po uchebnym i tserkovno-gosudarstvennym voprosam, ed. Archbishop Savva, Tome V, Part II (Moscow, 1888), 711-713.

(6) Ibid.

(7) Pisma mitropolita moskovskago Filareta k A.N.M…1832-1867 (Kiev, 1869), p. 641.

(8) Ibid., p. 644. This opinion was dated 3 July 1866.

(9) "Letters of Archpriest E. I. Popoff on Religious Movements in England," Khristianskoe Chtenie, LXXXIV, Tome CCXVII, Part II (May 1904), 744-47.

(10) N.O., "Korrespondentsia iz Londona (= Protoierej Stefan Gaferli 1 Iosif Overbek)," Tserkovnyj Vestnik, XXXI, No. 50 (15 December 1905, col. 1585).

(11) "Materials on the Question of the Anglican Church (From the Notes and Letters of Archpriests J. V. Vasil’ev and E. Popoff)," Khristianskoe Chtenie, LXXVII, Tome CCIV, Part I (July, 1897), 56.

(12) OCR, III, No. 1-6 (January-June, 1871), 45-6; V, No. 4 (October-December, 1876), 279.

(13) OCR, V, No. 4 (October-December, 1876), 288.