OVERBECK AND HIS VIEW OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

AFTER his reception into the Orthodox Church, Overbeck immediately set to work convincing his friends of the feasibility of his scheme for the restoration of the Western Orthodox Church. Soon there were those who shared his views. Douglas, the translator and editor of Papadopoulos’ book on Anglican Orders, who generally was critical of Overbeck’s work, admitted "that they and the few members of their group who are still with us are to be recognized as of the highest character and of considerable ability." (24) To give his ideas a wider range Overbeck began to publish The Orthodox Catholic Review in 1867. Since Overbeck had in mind not simply to get Westerners to join the Eastern Church but to revive the entire Western Catholic Church, he felt it necessary to make a formal appeal to some part of the Orthodox Church. He decided to deal with the Russian Church because she was more familiar with Western Christendom. Russian contained millions of Roman Catholic and Protestant subjects and the Russian Church was more aware of the state of religious affairs of such Western-oriented people. The churchmen of Greece and Constantinople, on the other hand, he felt had more than once compromised themselves and their Churches in dealings with the English Church. Russians would not be so apt to be led astray. Moreover, Russia was a connecting link between East and West. The Russian Church was not only more cautious but she also was "active and stirring" while her sister Churches were engaged in other, internal, matters.

Overbeck was somewhat uneasy about the political tensions of the time. Since mid-century the British had developed a vigorous Russophobia. This may have stemmed from the Russian suppression of the Hungarian Revolt of 1848 and the Crimean War. Overbeck feared the labeling of his work a "Russian Propaganda" by some "enraged Anglican Intercommunionist." A writer in the Union Review, in March 1867, did insinuate that Overbeck had political aims. Overbeck carefully avoided the political arena and it was only after the Russo-Turkish War (1877-78) that any mention of the political situation entered his magazine. During that war he abstained from discussing the Eastern Question or the war itself except that he hoped the peace negotiations following the war would improve the Ecumenical Patriarch’s degraded position within the Ottoman Empire. His sympathies in the Eastern Question were, however, obviously with the Russians. He was a friend of Madame Olga Novikoff, the interpreter of Russian policies to the British, and, starting in 1878, his journal carried reviews of several of her books which attempted to explain Russia and her interests in the legacy of the "Sick Man of Europe."

Overbeck pointed out to those who might be worried, that his petition to the Russian Holy Synod (drawn up in March, 1867) had no allusion to politics and he stressed that signers would certainly not be examined on their political creed. He was, nevertheless, apprehensive that the political situation had affected his petition numerically. He was quick to point out that whenever the restored Western Church was in possession of a hierarchy of three bishops, she would be entitled to attain full national independence. She then would stand in the same relationship to the Russian Church as any other autocephalous Church. Of course the Russian Church would never be forgotten for her services, but this spirit of gratitude had no bearing on politics. (26)

The petition to the Russian Synod was circulated not only in English but also in German, French, and Latin, and was printed in Greek and Russian as well. Overbeck hoped for a "respectable number" of Western Christians to sign the petition. This was for two reasons: (1) the group would represent a strong nucleus of the new Western Church, a nucleus capable of attracting more Anglicans, Romans, and Dissenters once the movement was afoot; (2) a larger group could not be so easily ignored by the Orthodox Church, forcing her to deal with the petitioners. (27)

Not unconnected with Overbeck’s scheme was the appearance in the Church News of 10 April 1867, the organ of advanced High Churchmen, of proposals by someone signing himself "Orthodoxus," advocating the founding of a Uniate autocephalous English Church in communion with the Orthodox Church. This Church would use the ancient (pre-Reformation) Anglican ritual, the validity or lawfulness of which the Orthodox Church did not question. These proposals did not originate with Overbeck who wrote in a later issue of the same paper that his petition with a similar intent had been circulating some three or four weeks. "Orthodoxus" carried on a dispute, in which Overbeck also joined, with E.S. Ff(oulkes) in the columns of the same paper. (28) Ffoulkes was a convert to the Roman Church from Anglicanism to which he eventually returned.

Overbeck’s petition also appeared in an anonymous pamphlet issued by "a clergyman lately seceded from the Anglican Church" who had joined Overbeck’s movement. The author appealed to his former brethren to quit the Establishment and sign the petition to the Russian Church. He declared the Church of England heretical, a "state-ridden and Protestantised Church," "depraved in Faith and in Worship by a heretical State." After enumerating the Establishment’s defects, he said that the only thing to do with the Church of England was to leave it and join the Orthodox Church. (29)

By September 1869, after securing 122 signatures to the petition, Overbeck decided to present it to the Holy Governing Synod at St. Petersburg. Despite the languages in which it had appeared, the petition circulated primarily in Great Britain. Besides Anglicans, some Roman Catholics had signed it. Upon reception of the petition, the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, Isidore Nikol’skij (1799-1802), immediately formed a commission to study the question. The Synodal Commission was presided over by the Metropolitan himself. Overbeck was appointed a member by personal letter of the Metropolitan. Among the other members were Archpriest Eugene I. Popoff, Professor J. T. Osinin, and Archpriest Joseph Vasil’evich Vasil’ev. Fr. Vasil’ev was a graduate of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy where his Magister’s dissertation had been "On the Primacy of the Pope." Because of his knowledge of Roman Catholic doctrine he had been sent to Paris as rector of the Russian church there. In 1867, with the creation of an Educational Committee at the Holy Synod, he was appointed first chair.

At Christmas of 1869, Overbeck and Popoff were summoned to the Russian capital to participate in the consultations of the Synodal Commission. The result of the meetings was such that the petition received the entire approval of the Holy Synod, which "expressed its willingness to further our plan by all the weight of its authority." Overbeck was given a warm welcome by the hierarchs of the Synod and they assured him of their avid interest in the success of his scheme.

After the Synod approved the principle of Western Orthodoxy it set to work on details. Overbeck was requested to present his revision of the Roman Mass for its approbation. About nine months later Overbeck forwarded his revision of the Mass to the Holy Synod and at Christmas of 1870 he was called again to St. Petersburg to discuss the liturgical draft in committee. After several sittings the Commission fixed the final text of the Mass and it was approved subsequently by the Synod. The Latin text was to be considered the authentic basis for all translations. The Latin text of the "Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis," was published in the Orthodox Catholic Review together with an English translation. (30) In order to facilitate approval of his plan Overbeck had not waited to present the Holy Synod with a draft of extended portions of the Western ritual and offices. He was of the opinion that no time ought to be lost setting the movement afoot. It would take too long to settle all the details. "For the beginning we need only one thing, viz., the recognition of the Western liturgy." He proposed that the Western Church use the Western Mass and temporarily follow the Eastern forms for the administration of the Sacraments and lesser offices, until the Western forms were revised.

As for the Western Mass, Overbeck had studied the Missale Romanum and produced from it a Mass which he felt answered Orthodoxy’s desiderata without being arbitrary. He proposed to adhere closely to the Ordo Missae except for the following main divergences:

(1) The kneeling down, worshipping, and elevation of the elements after the words of institution have been recited, is to be abolished. The Eastern Church generally believes that the consecration and transubstantiation of the elements only takes place at the Invocation (epiclesis) of the Holy Ghost. The before-mentioned Elevation was introduced after the great schism, about the twelfth century, to fix and symbolize the Roman opinion. (2) The form of the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, "Supra quae propitio," etc., being rather mutilated in the Roman canon, we substitute the unexceptionally full form of the Mozarabic Missal (Dom. V. in Quadrag.). (3) We advise the use of leavened bread, for a practical reason. As the Orthodox Western Church advocates the Communion under both kinds, and the preservation of the consecrated wine for a length of time is difficult, the Eastern use of saturating the consecrated bread with the consecrated wine and then drying it, is highly expedient and commendable. Wafer-bread is hardly fit for this process… (4) The addition of Filioque is to be removed from the Creed. (31)

This was written before the Western Mass was actually approved. In the final redaction the prayer "Supra quae propitio" was left in while the Epiclesis was interpolated into the prayer following: "Supplices te rogamus." Previous to this, in his Die orthodoxe katholische Anchauung (Halle, 1865), Overbeck had felt that the medieval Roman Catholic theory of the consecration taking place at the Words of Insititution was valid, though he said that there were signs of a former Invocation in the Roman Mass, while such traces were quite clear in the Mozarabic Mass. (32) Overbeck’s view on azyme bread (wafer bread), went through a period of change. In 1865, in the same place of the work just cited, he felt that the Western use of azymes had just as long an Apostolic tradition as the East had for leavened bread. In 1867, however, he recommended leavened bread for practical reasons but said that there could be no real objection to "wafer-bread," since it was used in the West before the Schism. He did not mention that the use of azymes was a bone of contention between the Churches at the time of the Schism. Later, however, Overbeck came to feel that leavened bread ought to be used as a matter of principle. (33)

Although the Russian Holy Synod seemed wholeheartedly to have approved Overbeck’s scheme, it was for some reason hesitant to give the "go ahead" signal on its own authority. This is all the more strange when it is considered that the years (1869-70), when the Synod was discussing Overbeck’s plan, were of tremendous moment in the history of Western Christianity. These were the years of the preparation for and the convening of the Vatican Council which declared Papal Infallibility, as well as the years in which the Old Catholic revolt against Rome began. One would have expected the Russian Synod immediately to have set Overbeck’s plan into motion and to have made every effort to capitalize on the West’s unrest. Some writers are of the opinion that the Synod postponed any action while awaiting to see what direction the Old Catholic movement would take. (34) Also the Russian Synod apparently was reluctant to proceed on its own in such an undertaking as the restoration of Western Orthodoxy without the approval and concurrence of the Eastern Patriarchs. Overbeck explained the hesitance by asserting that "the Russian Church alone had no power to decide finally in a matter affecting the whole Orthodox Church. Thus the matter was transferred to Constantinople." (35) Perhaps Overbeck’s scheme was conceived on too grandiose a scale. He continually emphasized that he was not interested in acquiring a few converts for the Orthodox Church but in restoring a whole Church. If he had spoken of establishing Western Rite parishes within the jurisdiction of the Russian Church the Synod would perhaps not have been so hesitant and not have disturbed the Greeks with the question. The matter would have then been of concern only to the Russian Church and would not have required the approval of other autocephalous Churches. At any rate the Russian Synod submitted the approved Mass to the Ecumenical Patriarch at Constantinople "for final sanction" and the steps necessary to get the approval of the other Orthodox Churches were undertaken. (36)

(24) Papadopoulos, The Validity of Anglican Ordinations, p. 35n.

(25) OCR, VI (January-September, 1877), 144.

(26) Ibid., III, No. 1-6 (January-June, 1871), 47-48.

(27) The True Old English Church, pp. 10-11. See Appendix B for the text of the Petition.

(28) OCR, I, No. 2-5 (February-May, 1867), 54-7.

(29) The Present Crisis: An Appeal to Ritualists and all those who are sincerely searching for the truth, the way, and the life (London, 1869), pp. 10. The authorship of this pamphlet is wrongly ascribed to Overbeck by the Dictionary of Anonymous and Pseudonymous English Literature (London, 1928), IV, p. 416. It probably was written by A.V. Richardson who also was "Orthodoxus," about which see below, pp. 66-69. The text of this pamphlet first appeared as an article in the OCR, II, No. 1-12 (January-December, 1868), 149-157.

(30) III, No. 1-6 (January-June, 1871), 49-72. This also appeared in a separate edition.

(31) OCR, I, No. 6-9 (June-September, 1867), 196. Punctuation, capitalization, etc., are Overbeck’s.

(32) The Russian edition Svet s Vostoka (Vilno, 1868), p. 155.

(33) OCR, IX (Part II, 1881), 190.

(34) Georges Florovsky, "Orthodox Ecumenism in the Nineteenth Century," St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, IV, No. 3-4 (Spring-Summer, 1956), 32.

(35) The True Old English Church, p. 13.

(36) OCR, V, No. 4 (October-December, 1876), 282.