Archbishop Jānis (Pommers) Speaks

The following speech was made by Archbishop Jānis (Pommers) (1876-1934) to an assembly of the Latvian Orthodox Church in 1923. In 1921, the bishop, serving in Penza at the time, received a call from the Latvian Orthodox Church, which had repeatedly tried to convince him to “return home” as their head shepherd. This time, they were successful, and the archbishop travelled via Moscow to Riga in June 1921. His reception in Riga was rather ambiguous, for a few days earlier the Latvian government had confiscated the designated diocese headquarters and episcopal lodgings, the Alekseevskii monastery. The buildings were handed over to the Roman Catholic Church, which did not have a representative home in the Latvian capital: Jānis therefore moved into the basement of the Orthodox cathedral, reportedly a dark and damp hole, which he officially inhabited until his death in 1934. When his petitioning for a legal status for the Orthodox Church in Latvia did not yield visible results, the archbishop decided to enter politics and was promptly elected to the Saeima, the Latvian parliament, on the list of the “United Russian Minority” in 1925. Already in his belated inauguration speech at a general assembly of the Latvian Orthodox Church two years earlier, he had shown his political rhetoric, arguing that the enemy was not “the Russian”, but the socialists, both in Russia and even in Latvia, where they called themselves Social Democrats. This way, he largely deflected attention away from the brewing ethnic split within the Orthodox community that pervaded the Estonian Orthodox Church to the north.

Archbishop Jānis’ Speech at the Church Assembly, 30 October 1923

The work of the Archbishop stands in close and direct co-operation with the work of the Synod, which you will hear about shortly. [1] The work of the Archbishop is an indivisible part of the Synod’s activities. A report about the Synod’s work is, therefore, to a certain extent also a report about the activity of its chairman. But only to a certain extent. The over­view of the Synod’s activities does not include those activities of the Archbishop which he carried out himself in past years. From that overview, the ideas providing the foundation of my personal as well as our collective work might not come fully into focus. I, standing before you as your Archbishop and the most humble servant of the nation, must therefore steal your attention for some moments in order to say that which will not be said in the coming reports. I consider this extremely necessary because our grudgers and enemies have spun a thick net of lies around us.

Reports about three meetings of the Latvian Orthodox Church that unanimously wanted to see me as head of the Latvian Orthodox Church reached me through the representative of the Latvian government in Moscow. It is obvious that I regarded this threefold unanimous election by my people as a great honour and serving the Latvian Orthodox Church as a holy task. However, at the same time, there were other Russian eparchies that relentlessly called on me to take on their leader­ship. I’ll mention only the metropolitanate of Caucasus and the eparchy of Tver here. Also my clerical links with the eparchy of Penza, where your call reached me, had developed quite nicely and my spiritual guid­ance there was considered indispensable by the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church. These authorities simply did not allow me to accept the first invitation. Later, when the authorities gave in to the repeated pleas of the Latvian Synod and agreed to let me go, the faithful, with whom I had lived through many indescribable moments in Penza, kept me there. Once accepted, my travel permit was withdrawn. In order to clarify the situation, I was personally invited to Moscow, where tempta­tions were awaiting me. I was told that my native country was poor, that it was smaller than a single priory in Tver, that there would be no possi­bilities for a career in Latvia, and that there were irreconcilable compli­cations there, etc. My decision is known to you. Hastily passing the eparchy of Penza on to my successor, I accepted working for my native church without hesitation. I must admit that there immediately followed some material loss.  Due to Soviet laws, I had to leave most of my library and my other belongings in Penza and getting them back is now impossible. However, I decided to sacrifice this in the Christian hope that it would be rewarded by my beloved people, who had offered me such a lovely childhood and youth. My first action for the native land and the Latvian Orthodox Church was to organise the independence of the Church. In an independent state and within a sovereign people, the Church must also be independent.  It was not easy to succeed, for I was alone. There were opponents of Latvian ecclesiastic independence in the Russian Orthodox Church and among Russian citizens, and that is under­standable. I spent two hard months in Moscow until on 6 (19) July, I had ploughed through all the canons and convinced the highest authorities of the Russian Orthodox Church of the necessity of independence for the Latvian Orthodox Church and received from them, with Patriarch Tikhon’s signature, a document that grants the Latvian Orthodox Church unquestionable and unalienable canonical independence. The content of this document is well known to you all. Not in order to boast, but because of the vilifying attacks of those who accuse me of being an enemy of Latvian independence, I can report that this independence of the Latvian Orthodox Church is the result of God’s help and my own hard work, personal strengths, efforts, and means, of my own personal initiative, expressively done out of patriotic love for the Fatherland and its lovely, sincere people. I can add that this work was done while many of my opponents were still agents of the red commission, cursing and vilifying ‘white’ Latvia and putting nationalists to death in the name of internationality. I can add that some of my opponents still, consciously or without their knowledge, are paying ‘comrade fees’ for red events. I add this so that you know who are my enemies and what kind of wind blows in their sails and shapes their opinions.

I will provide you with some documentary examples from our neighbouring churches in order to shed light on the importance of my work so far.  You will have read newspapers, in which the massive complications the independence question brought to one of our neighbouring Orthodox churches are described. [2] Fighting about this question, several bishops were imprisoned, one metropolitan was murdered, and the people and the clergy were so divided that decades will pass before the wounds are healed. Many esteemed delegates were sent to Moscow and to Constantinople.  I possess a document, which shows that the state budget provided the Orthodox Church several billions. [3] And after all this, the local metropolitan received a document from the patriarch of Constantinople which said: ‘I wish you good luck ruling your metropolia within the bounds set out by my brother in Christ Patriarch Tikhon.’ Thus, after massive efforts, complications, bloodshed, and billions of tax money spent, the Church received a document whose value is nil. According to the latest news, the bishops of this Church decided at a council in September to forget everything done so far and begin anew, turning again to the patriarch of Moscow. Another Ortho­dox Church sent a delegation with church and state representatives and costly gifts to the patriarch in order to look for ecclesiastic independ­ence...[4] The matter ended with a document from Constantinople in Greek, listing thirty paragraphs. Great celebrations of autocephaly were organised and autocephaly was proclaimed. But then, when the docu­ment was translated from Greek, it turned out to say nothing about auto­cephaly: “We also underline the autonomy you have been given from Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow ..., but you definitely must fulfil the following obligations...,” listing six strict limitations to this autonomy. Thus, with expensive delegations and gifts, they received limitations. The struggle for inner peace, for independence, was also lost in this Church. A third expensive delegation looking for ecclesiastic independ­ence has not achieved anything yet. [5]

In our case, not a single public santim [6] has been spent, not one of our state functionaries was pressed, but still I have a document in my hands guaranteeing the Latvian Orthodox Church unquestionable and inalien­able independence. I say unquestionable and inalienable, for a document of independence can be legally given to us only from the Church on which we were earlier dependent, i.e. the Russian Orthodox Church, and she gave it to me. Both earlier examples and the holy canons – III, 8; IV, 17; VI, 25 – show that turning to other patriarchs in this question, even the ecumenical patriarch, is an illegal act. And still many do not under­stand us when we give this advice. Stealing and robbing will always be better than the legal path for the degenerated communist soul. This was my first work for the good of Latvia and the Latvian Orthodox Church.

Everything that was connected with my arrival to Latvia, I organised using my own, personal means.

My life and work in Latvia stands before you and the entire society. I live and work openly and clearly, as a person who has nothing to hide and need not hide. All my life and work is based on one thought and one wish: to serve my dear people and its independent Church and country with all my power, with a never-exhausted willingness to sacrifice everything to the Church and Fatherland, even myself.

My first and most holy task, as is every other clergyman’s too, is to praise God and proclaim his word. Conscious of my ministry, I realise that this task requires my complete conscience. Organising an episcopal liturgy is not an easy task in current circumstances. Especially if taking into account that I am not allowed to organise a congregation in my cathedral. This house of God, in which I have served and prayed, and lived, for the last two years, was completely destroyed when I arrived. There was only one priest and one deacon there. God’s word was only proclaimed on Sundays and holy days. Organising a high liturgy was complicated because of the lack of participants, means, vestments, and other items. This huge room had to be heated and illuminated. A choir had to be organised. That’s the kind of circumstances I have had to work in. So far, I have managed indefatigably and without grief. All expensive bishop’s items, I have organised with my personal means and powers. I am, so to speak, doing social work with my own work tools. I have not taken a dime [7] from either state or church. I have done all the organisa­tion of high liturgies myself, which was not easy. Nevertheless, there have been many high liturgies. Even without a congregation, enough means have been collected, and thanks to God, continue to come in. Now, I can even think about tomorrow without fear. Now there are even services in the cathedral every day, morning and evening. Next to char­ity, which has taken a lot of time, means, and power, no small time has been spent celebrating the liturgy. In these two and a quarter years, there have been about two hundred days of celebration. According to Orthodox tradition, celebrations not only happen on the saint’s day, but on the eve as well. Therefore, I have personally celebrated more than four hundred liturgies. In this time, I have written and given more than two hundred and fifty sermons. If I take only these liturgies and sermon-writing into account, I have had more than 2,000 working hours. I have visited more than a hundred parishes, to which must be added the travel there and back.

I have participated in almost all Synod committee meetings, which lasted at least three hours each.

I have participated as chairman in all plenary Synod meetings.

I participated in the all-Latvian clergy gathering in June as chairman and as contributor. In the run-up to this ecclesiastic saeima, I participated in the preparations, agreeing to hold the most responsible speeches. Not one important ecclesiastic question has been solved without my personal active co-operation. The question of a revision committee, about the legal commission, press section, property protection unit, etc., have been solved and carried out by myself personally. As well as the question of theological education....

As head of the Latvian Orthodox Church, I have participated in the work of the Swedish Red Cross committee to help needy Orthodox members. More than a thousand have been helped.

As head of the Latvian Orthodox Church, I have participated in the work of the American Red Cross committee. More than a thousand needy Orthodox have been helped.

I have visited schools in and out of Riga to look after religious instruction there.

I personally organised a new edition of the Holy Scriptures, giving the needy more than a thousand New Testaments.

I have personally established contact with all neighbouring Orthodox churches in order to be able to paint a picture of the situation in the Orthodox world.

As independent journalist, I work for Ticība un Dzīve, [8] as well as several other Latvian and foreign newspapers.

I have personally appeared before and approached Latvian state authorities as much as possible to receive a better standing for the Latvian Orthodox Church.

I have remained in contact with several persons from different foreign confessions.

I have personally carried out all work of the episcopal admini­stration.

To finish, I have received a number of supplicants turning to me with all kinds of questions.

If all the above said is converted into working hours, then it becomes obvious that the entire day of a bishop consists of working hours and that his working day cannot be limited to eight hours a day.

It is important to bear in mind in what circumstances all this work happened. One esteemed foreigner, visiting my apartment, exclaimed: “Believe me; in my country every prisoner has better accommodation than you, the head of the Latvian Orthodox Church!” What kind of apartment that is, you’ll see from the Synod act to be published in Ticība un Dzīve, or by visiting it yourself. Please also take into account that I personally had to maintain this pit myself ..., that my labour peace was disturbed by the ‘red barons’ with their attacks, with their speeches and articles, interpreting my thoughts and work and even my person, hoping, thereby, to come to political fame or simply being envious. Peo­ple with an unfaltering consciousness are always suspect to these people. Everybody who does not participate in their gang or clique becomes an untrustworthy and dangerous person. They called me an enemy of Latvian freedom and independence, although I was but a fighter for the independence of the Latvian Orthodox Church. I, a clergyman and nothing but a clergyman, working only for the Word of God and not belonging to any political party, not looking for promotion, they consider me the leader of some political movement. I would sit in my under­ground mansion and wait for a destructive revolution. A loyal, unselfish citizen’s work and his abstinent life cannot be understood by them. They cannot or will not understand that I live in the dark, mouldy cellar and do not ask for an apartment either from the state or the Church only because I can see thousands of tax payers who still live in shanties and impro­vised dwellings. They cannot, or will not, understand that I work day and night under the most uncomfortable conditions, walk around in lumps, and do not receive anything from the state budget or the Church only because I can see ten thousands of my compatriot Latvians, tax payers who work in even worse circumstances, walking barefoot, without any coats, fighting utmost famine and poverty. They cannot and will not understand that if they had lived through the past difficult years, being just as unselfish and self-humiliating as Archbishop Jānis of Riga and All Latvia instead of building up immense wealth and posh houses with the Latvian taxpayer’s money, then the sun of Latvian national grandeur would long since have risen, our compatriots would no longer live in shanties and improvised dwellings, and each Latvian would have a home, clothes, and food. In the eyes of these dishonest opinion leaders of the nation, our churches and chapels appear too Russian. They need to be damaged, they must be demolished as tsarist remnants, bearing witness to Russian unfairness and terror. These people cannot tell the Byzantine style from the Russian one; even the Orthodox churches that were built in Greece and Palestine would be Russian to them. On the other hand, they cannot and will not see that one specific tsarist remnant is propa­gated in the entire Latvian territory, from one end to the other, propa­gated in exactly the old tsarist form and with the old tsarist content. We are talking about the so-called liquor monopoly. This tsarist remnant is hypocritically accepted by those who despise everything Russian. Why is that so?

They do not and will not understand that the tens of thousands of Russians who are encountered with such hatred are also our full brothers in faith and full citizens of Latvia. It would be much better not only for the Church, but also for the country if they learn to respect and love the Latvian people without any hatred. It is important to teach them that Latvia is not a stepmother to them, but a real mother. We should not forget that these despised Russians who live in the border regions of Latvia will be the first to meet the Latvian enemy and the first to defend Latvian border posts. I consider it my responsibility, not only as Archbishop of a Christian Church, but also as a Latvian citizen, to ensure that these Russians identify not only with the Church but also with the Latvian state. And in this I have shown successes. Under my leadership, we in the Latvian Orthodox Church have not had any complications or misunderstandings with the Russians. None of the Russians in my care have said or done anything that can damage the Latvian Orthodox Church. And not only the Latvian Orthodox Church, but also the Latvian state. That is not only my observation. His Excellency the Minister of the Interior told me on 24 October that he knew no negative facts about the Orthodox Russians either.

Through all this, I have always retained my Christian humility, patience, and boundless love of liberty and goodwill, respect and love towards everything Latvian. I have not taken a single step that might damage my dear Mother Latvia. My first activities were for the good of Latvia – the independence of the Latvian Orthodox Church. My further steps were also taken with a deep love for the Fatherland. I strongly object to any attempts to achieve anything with means contrary to the Latvian interests. Many of you know that such temptations have been tried in the past and that we would have had all the means to put pressure on the government on behalf of me and my institution.

This – my life and work and tactics of resistance – is a symbol for my supporters nearby and far off. In other words, it symbolises the life, work, and resistance of the entire Latvian Orthodox Church. My vest­ments and my in every sense uncomfortable apartment in the cellar per­fectly describe the situation in which the life of the Orthodox Church is lived in Latvia. Extreme poverty, such poverty which you can find only in the first years of early Christian history, hatred and envy on all sides, vilification and torture. There is no shelter, no defence. Even the bright windows which earlier enlightened our life in the cellar and in our schools are now closed off to us. Even the few possessions we had were taken away from us, either by law or simply taken. Also what is currently in our hands is threatened. Our situation cannot be described only as a state of persecution, it is an especially degenerated form of torture. Our Christian love for peace is not only not appeasing the hearts of our persecutors, but making them even more eager to destroy us. We can compare it to the torture of the first Christians, for the greater our Christian patience, the eviller the methods of torture. We patiently await the expropriation of our property... The tormentors turn now to our sanctuaries, to our monasteries, to our churches, some to be given to our most hated enemies, others to be demolished, some to be sold in auc­tions, others to be turned into secular institutions, etc. If we retain our Christian patience and peacefulness, then we are threatened: we have not yet reached the peak, we will turn your highest sanctuary, the ruling Archbishop’s cathedral, into a museum ... It quite seems that they expect some kind of outcry from us, on the basis of which they can turn against our Church with full force... Dear fellow campaigners and brothers in Christ, in this difficult situation, when we can still expect the worst, I consider it my responsibility to make you remain moderate and careful, for the times are difficult and capricious; gather all your strength that you may remain patient and goodhearted about all that has happened and all that will come. Calm down in the holy love and faith, strengthen one another, and let the hope in God’s truth never allow such actions as we in our thoughts nurture in relation to our tormentors. Fill your hearts and minds with the conviction that it is not the sovereign nation in whose name the terror is done that is at fault, believe that the Latvian sovereign nation in its entirety nurtures goodwill towards you, that it is not respon­sible for these excesses, just as the Russian nation is not responsible for everything done in its name. We are all sons of the working people, we truly know the people, and we know we can say that the Russian nation is experiencing brutally hard times. They are caught in a similar situation to us. Therefore, let’s join our hands, the suffering with the suf­fering in deep love and hope that God’s truth lets the sun rise and together with the entire people, we will rise with the sun from the dark, musty cellar, the shanties and improvised dwellings. If we peacefully get along with the people now, then we will also get along with them on sunny days and the day of national abundance will also be our day of abundance. Therefore, together with the sovereign Latvian people we praise God, that he spread out power and hope to his patient and peaceful Christian flock, that as in the past centuries, so now, peace will gain hold in the difficult phases of life. Therefore, in deep love and bereft of hypocrisy in our relations with the Latvian sovereign nation and together with it let us also in the future use all our spiritual and peaceful powers to strengthen national peace and wealth and let it be enlightened by God’s truth and love, and let all Latvian citizens live together without schism for many, many years.

Notes

[1] See further on the speech Sebastian Rimestad, The Challenges of Modernity to the Orthodox Church of Estonia and Latvia (1917-1940) (Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang 2012), 128-130. There are two words for ‘archbishop’ in Latvian: Arhibīskaps and Virsgans. The former is based on the Greek original while the latter is a loan translation, meaning ‘head shepherd’. In this speech, Jānis always talks about himself as ‘head shepherd’ while all other prelates are bīskaps or arhibīskaps. In the translation, I have tried to do this distinction by translating Virsgans as Archbishop with a capital A.

[2] What follows is a selective reading of the recent history of the Orthodox Church of Poland. In 1924, the Polish Orthodox Church received autocephaly from the ecumenical patriarch. This autocephaly was withdrawn by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1948, but immediately afterwards granted anew by Moscow.

[3] There is no mention what kind of billions.

[4] This is a mixture of Estonia and Finland.

[5] This might be Belarus or Ukraine, which at that time was still struggling against becoming part of the Soviet Union.

[6] The smallest value Latvian coin.

[7] A ‘groschen’.

[8] The Latvian-language church journal Faith and Life.

SourceS

Jānis Kalniņš, ed., Rīgas un visas Latvijas Arhibīskaps Jānis (Pommers) – Svētrunas, raksti un uzstāšanās, I (Rīga: Labvēsts, 1993), 22-26.

Sebastian Rimestad, The Challenges of Modernity to the Orthodox Church of Estonia and Latvia (1917-1940) (Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang 2012), 128-130.

Translator

Sebastian Rimestad