The following was written in 2021 about Metr Antony )Bloom), who tonsured me reader in January 1981. This was all long before the developments in Hungary and this wekkend’s in the Czech Republic, which should surprise nobody who knew the obvious weaknesses of the Metropolitan, long before he became a Metropolitan. However, in fairness, it should be said that the young Bishop Hilarion’s stereotypical and very foolish errors, which Christ warned about in the Gospel, have been repeated by so many other bishops, not least in ROCOR….
How did Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh relate to Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev?
December 3, 2021
Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh and Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev knew each other and even served together for some time (130 days) in the Sourozh Diocese in England, London. At that time, unrest arose in the diocese, known as the “Sourozh crisis.”
At first, Metropolitan Anthony very much wanted a competent priest to be sent to him from Russia (the Sourozh Diocese in England is under the Moscow Patriarchate).
He addressed this request to Kirill Gundyaev, who at that time was Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad and chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate (DECR MP). The Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’ then was Alexy II (Ridiger).
Metropolitan Anthony had heard many good things about Hilarion Alfeyev. He had an impressive résumé. Alfeyev received a Doctor of Philosophy degree from Oxford University and a Doctor of Theology degree from the Paris St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute. He authored more than 150 publications on theological and church‑historical topics, as well as translations of the works of the Church Fathers from Greek and English. He became a bishop at the age of 33. At an audience with Pope John Paul II, he sharply criticized the activities of the Catholic Church on the “canonical territory” of the Russian Orthodox Church. Thus, Alfeyev was knowledgeable, educated, bold, and familiar with foreign culture.
For these reasons, Metropolitan Anthony assumed that such a person was exactly what the Sourozh Diocese needed. He asked that Bishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk be sent to the diocese. His request was granted.
But soon Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh realised that he had been mistaken about Hilarion Alfeyev, having failed to take into account some very important and subtle points that he learned only later. A conflict arose — and a serious one.
What did Metropolitan Anthony see?
When Bishop Hilarion arrived — young, educated, and ambitious — on the very first day Metropolitan Anthony spoke with him heart‑to‑heart, with care.
In the conversation he heard from Hilarion a phrase that deeply wounded him. Alfeyev said to Metropolitan Anthony:
“When hands were laid on me at my consecration, I felt that I was now a bishop and THAT I HAD POWER.”
The experienced and spiritually wise pastor Anthony of Sourozh was horrified by these words. All his life he firmly believed that Orthodox Christian pastors are called to serve people, to care for them, not to wield power.
For Christ Himself says in the Gospel of Mark:
“Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.” Mark 9:35.
And here he heard — sensed in the motives of his interlocutor’s soul — something opposite to Christ, anti‑Christian: power vs. love.
It seems that the young Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev did not want to listen to Metropolitan Anthony’s guidance, did not want to become his spiritual child, nor to absorb the spirit and culture of the Sourozh Diocese, which Anthony of Sourozh had lovingly cultivated for 53 years.
Hilarion Alfeyev began traveling around the diocese and introducing a “new culture.” In the Sourozh Diocese there was a tradition of conducting services both for the English‑speaking population (in English) and for the Russian‑speaking population of England. There was no hostility between these groups; on the contrary, peace and good‑neighbourliness were cultivated and maintained as true Christian values.
Metropolitan Anthony was called “the apostle of love,” because for him the most important thing in ministry was fulfilling Christ’s commandment: “Love one another.”
Hilarion Alfeyev began pursuing a policy of dividing the English and Russian flock, trying to make the diocese strictly “for Russians in England,” national in character. He decided to close existing parishes and Eucharistic communities and open new parishes instead. Overall, he acted like a young ambitious bishop who did not want to understand or accept the spirit and traditions of the diocese so carefully and patiently built by Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh.
Metropolitan Anthony pointed out to Bishop Hilarion that his activities and the form they were taking were incompatible with the spirit and life of the Sourozh Diocese. He asked him to return to Moscow, where he could apply his considerable talents more constructively than in the Sourozh Diocese. He explained everything calmly and humbly, with respect.
But in his decision, the Metropolitan was firm.
There was even a threat that if Hilarion did not leave the diocese, the Sourozh Diocese would break from Moscow and enter the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (this position was promoted by Bishop Basil Osborne, who, as an American, disliked the strictness of Moscow’s administration).
The threat worked. Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev was recalled from the Sourozh Diocese. For him, those 130 days were among the most difficult in his career.
He continued to serve successfully in the Russian Orthodox Church and expresses his ambitions in the tasks entrusted to him. He advanced in his career, becoming a metropolitan. He is not indifferent to ecclesiastical career advancement — perhaps even very interested in it. Some say that in the future he is one of the likely candidates for the position of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’, the successor to the current Patriarch Kirill. Anything is possible.