OVERBECK'S SCHEME AND THE PHANAR.

SINCE Overbeck’s hopes of seeing the Old Catholics accomplish his work of restoring the Orthodox Church of the West were dashed, he again resumed his negotiations with Orthodox authorities. After the approval of his plan in St. Petersburg, the Russian Synod had solicited the sanction of the Eastern Patriarchs. Somewhere the matter had bogged down. With the frequent changes of Patriarchs at Constantinople and the disturbed situation of the Balkans, the transactions were continually interrupted and protracted. The Church leaders at Constantinople were busy with the Romanian declaration of ecclesiastical independence in 1864 which was not solved until 1885. They were occupied with the Bulgarian Question and the problem of the Bulgarian schism (1870-72), and then the Russo-Turkish War commenced (1877-78).

In the latter part of 1876 Overbeck addressed "An Appeal to the Patriarchs and Holy Synods of the Orthodox Catholic Church" (70) asking them to "acknowledge our Western Orthodox Catholic Church, and to resuscitate her by sanctioning our Western liturgy." He pointed out that his group had not formed any "separatist conventicle" but had attended services at the Russian or Greek church. While waiting patiently for eight years for the scheme to be realized, some of the petitioners had died, others left the country, some, who had tired of waiting, joined the Roman Church, while still others returned to the Anglican communion. However, a "small band" had remained loyal to Orthodoxy and how renewed its request for the restoration of the Western Church. They had no doubt that the hierarchs would "understand and fulfill their sacred duty, regardless of human considerations and infernal intrigues." (71)

Overbeck’s allusion to "intrigues" no doubt referred to the protests of Anglican ecclesiastics to the Levant against Orthodox proselytism in Great Britain, as a result of which the Constantinopolitan Patriarch issued a prohibition against such proselytism. The Anglican protests, which seemed to have stemmed from the activities of S. G. Hatherly, of whom see below, greatly rankled Overbeck. He was irritated by the fact that the Orthodox Greek authorities accepted complaints from the heterodox against their own sons. Nevertheless, he wrote to the Patriarchs that he was not to be deterred "by the asseveration of Heterodox Bishops that they enjoy your favour, and would know how to thwart our scheme." He agreed with the Patriarch in "repudiating a certain kind of Proselytism" which used dishonorable methods to attract converts. But, he said, no Orthodox person in England ever thought of such a thing. In prohibiting proselytism the Patriarch of Constantinople had taken measures "against an imaginary foe." Overbeck suggested that the Orthodox authorities seek information from Orthodox persons in England and not listen to Anglicans who regard everything from a heterodox viewpoint. The faithful sons of the Church deserved more confidence, whatever their humble position, than high-placed Anglicans. (72)

Regardless of any Patriarchal prohibition to proselytize, Overbeck not only felt under no obligation to cease his efforts at converting the heterodox but insisted on the "right of religious controversy" as well. (73) Without religious controversy those without the Church could never find their way to her. The prohibition to proselytize could not possibly mean to forbid "converting a man to the Orthodox faith" for it would be a crime to keep even one soul out of Christ’s only true Church. Proselytism in its bad connotation could only be applied to "dirty Jesuitical jobbery." There was no Orthodox Patriarch who could make him stop converting Anglican heretics to Orthodoxy. Overbeck wondered about the Greek outlook on Orthodoxy’s mission in the world. He knew the Greeks were proud of their Church as a national institution but was not so sure that they realized that the Orthodox Catholic Church was destined by Christ to embrace all of mankind. He wondered if the Greeks were anxious to propagate the faith and was thankful for the Russian branch of Orthodoxy which had never ceased missionary work. The Russian Church kept Orthodoxy from becoming a "tribal Church" like Judaism. He called upon the Orthodox to do their duty and assist in spreading the faith. (74) Despite his impassioned plea for the right to proselytize, Overbeck stated elsewhere that the Orthodox in England had instinctively refrained from proselytizing because there was nothing to offer converts but membership in a Russian or Greek national church where services were in a foreign tongue and according to the Eastern Rite which was foreign to the Western mind. (75)

After addressing the Eastern Patriarchs in 1876, Overbeck again waited for a reply. Meanwhile he rapidly concluded that the realization of the scheme was vital especially for the children of the petitioners, who were growing up without hearing "the Word of God preached" and attended services performed in a foreign language. He was apprehensive lest they turn from religion entirely for private devotions at home could not replace the "power of effective Church life." With no action from the Levant for three years, Overbeck decided personally to take the matter in hand.

I went to Constantinople in August 1879, to stir up the sympathies of the Church authorities. His Holiness the present Patriarch, Joakim III, received me like a father, and invited me to be his guest during my stay in the capital. Thus I had daily occasion to converse with His Holiness, to explain our wants and wishes, and to enlist his lively interest in our behalf. He promised me (what since has been done) that our request should be discussed by the Holy Synod. He authorized me to preach in private to the Western Orthodox… In his last letter to me the Patriarch asks me to inform: 1. When a sufficient number of Westerns have expressed their wish to have their Old Western Church restored; 2. To show the means of supporting priest and Church; 3. To submit the Western Ritual to be used for approbation. (76)

Patriarch Joachim, as well as the bishops of the Russian Synod, seemed to have approached the matter more realistically than Overbeck himself. While the latter spoke of reviving the whole ancient Catholic Church of the West, they spoke of establishing a parish. When the Russian Synod received the petition it authorized the celebration of the Eastern Liturgy in English at the Russian Embassy church in London until a large enough community of English converts warranted the establishment of Western rites. (77) The Russian Synod had previously revised and approved an English translation of the Liturgy made by S.G. Hatherly and published in 1865. (78) However, the Liturgy was only occasionally celebrated in English in the first half of the 1870’s at the London Embassy church, (79) which seems to indicate that after the death of Fr. E.I. Popoff in 1875 the priests attached to the Embassy church did not have his zeal for assisting the English Orthodox in their spiritual life. Overbeck’s allusion to the lack of sermons seems to indicate that little was done to help them achieve a better understanding of their newly-acquired faith. Hatherly, interestingly enough, admitted that he was not particularly pleased with his own translation of the Liturgy and preferred to use another version when he had the occasion to "make" the Liturgy. (80) After Overbeck’s return from the East he opened a small oratory in his own London home where he preached to his little group of followers on Sunday afternoons. He later published two volumes of Addresses to the Western Orthodox. (81)

In 1876 when Overbeck appealed to the Eastern Patriarchs he had reached rather a low ebb in his hopes for the approval of his scheme and he no longer sought to collect signatures to a petition, for he had learned from sad experience that to collect signatures on the basis of vague hopes was not justified. After his return from Constantinople his hopes were again revived and he called upon all who were interested to come forth and show that they desired the restoration of Western Orthodoxy. The Greek hesitance in granting approval before this he explained by the "newness and importance" of the question and because the Greeks may have feared taking the wrong step and compromising themselves. (82)

At the Phanar a committee was appointed to examine Overbeck’s scheme. In 1882 it gave a favourable report, whereupon the Patriarch approved the project provisionally upon condition that the other Churches concur. There was, apparently, a protest from the Synod of the Church of Greece and the Patriarchate subsequently dropped the whole matter. It has been said that the Russian Synod also dropped the idea in 1884, (83) following the advice of Archpriest Eugene Konstantinovich Smirnov (1845-1923) who had succeeded Fr. Popoff at the Russian Imperial Embassy church in London. Douglas gave the impression, on the other hand, that the scheme was not abandoned by the Russians until much later and that Fr. Smirnov continued to support it until a few years before his death. Overbeck, writing in 1885, still hoped "that our Western Orthodox Church will soon be an accomplished fact." (84)

In discussing the religious life of his group in 1885, Overbeck indicated that they attend the Orthodox church but that they were "badly situated in having only once a week a Liturgy and no religious instruction besides." He felt it his duty to supply this deficiency by instructing the youth in the faith. He was fearful lest their religious life slowly disappear and ceases altogether, leaving only an "empty shadow of mechanical formalism" with the danger of forgetting the doctrine and precepts of the Church. To combat this danger he devoted a short time each Sunday afternoon to religious instruction. (85)

(70) This was appended to Die Bonner Unions-Conferenzen (Halle, 1876), the last two chapters of which appeared in English in the OCR, V, No. 4 (October-December, 1876), 276-288.

(71) Ibid., 283-84.

(72) Ibid., 284, 284-85n. Overbeck developed his viewpoint further in his article "On Religious Toleration: Conversion versus Proselytism," OCR, X (1883), 1-36.

(73) "Religious Controversy: Its use and abuse," OCR, VII (Part I, 1878), 72-96.

(74) Ibid., 77-80, 83, 85.

(75) OCR, IX (Part I, 1880), 9.

(76) The True Old English Church, p. 14.

(77) The Present Crisis, p. 9n.

(78) The Divine Liturgies of our Holy Father, John the Golden-mouthed (S. Chrysostom), and Basil the Great. From the Greek and Russian (London, 1865).

(79) N.O., "Korrespondentsia iz Londona," Ibid., cols. 1586-87.

(80) S.G. Hatherly, "Translated Greek Office-Books," The Scottish Review, XIX (January, 1892), 137.

(81) (London, 1880, 1881).

(82) OCR, V. No. 4 (October-December, 1876), 287; Ibid., IX (Part I, 1880), 13-14.

(83) Georges Florovsky, "Orthodox Ecumenism," Ibid.

(84) Papadopoulos, Validity of Anglican Ordinations, p. 35n; OCR, XI (Part I, 1885), 58.

(85) "Addresses to the Young," OCR, XI (Part I, 1885), 58-59.