Curzon's note and the question of apostolic succession in the church

In May 1923, the famous English Curzon Note appeared, containing an ultimatum to the Soviet government. First of all, the document was directed against the Bolshevik policy of "exporting revolution" and financing of the red militants, but also contained a protest against the persecution of the Church. Thousands of clergymen of the Russian Orthodox Church were arrested and executed, church property was expropriated, churches were desecrated, relics of saints were opened and destroyed. In the midst of the terror against the church, Patriarch Tikhon (Bellavin) was arrested and charged with counter-revolutionary activities, which foreshadowed a death sentence.

Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia of the Russian Orthodox Church and the future first First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), who had close contacts with the Anglican Church, appealed to Archbishop Davidson of Canterbury to incite him to express his protest against the violence perpetrated against Patriarch Tikhon. In a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, received in response to the appeal sent to him by Metropolitan Anthony, it was said that the Archbishop spoke about the appeal of Metropolitan Anthony in the House of Lords, and also expressed his protest directly to Moscow.

On May 8, 1923, the British Ambassador to Moscow, Robert Hodgson, delivered an ultimatum from the British Foreign Minister Lord Curzon to the representative of the Soviet government. Item 21 of this document contained a protest against the oppression of freedom of conscience in the USSR. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself admitted that it was the protests of Metropolitan Anthony that became the reason for including in the ultimatum the demand to end the terror against the church and ultimately led to the release of Patriarch Tikhon from prison. This is also confirmed by additional details of the history, which became known thanks to the publication of the archive of Canon Douglas, Secretary of the Council on Foreign Relations of the Church of England, who himself played an important role in the British campaign to pressure the Soviet government to free Patriarch Tikhon, in particular, he met with the Soviet ambassador Krasin to discuss the freedom of conscience clause of the British ultimatum.

This was also mentioned by Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov), the fourth First Hierarch of the ROCOR. Moreover, he also explained that the representatives of the Anglican Church were waiting as gratitude for their assistance in the liberation of Patriarch Tikhon. Here is an excerpt from the conversation of Metropolitan Vitaly (transcript of an audio recording): “When England, represented by her minister [Curzon], saved the life of Patriarch Tikhon from the execution; later, a year or two years later, Metropolitan Anthony was invited to England. And of course, what the Anglicans wanted, they wanted ... Metropolitan Anthony was a personality of worldwide authority in the Orthodox Church. They wanted from him to receive recognition of the apostolic succession of the Anglican Church. This is very important, extremely important. You know, you can follow the old style, stay in all piety, but if there is no apostolic succession, all this is for nothing.
And when Metropolitan Anthony was finally pinned to the wall, in fact, he said, few people know this at all, he said a wonderful thing. He said: `There are pious and good people in every nation, but people loaded with grace only in the Orthodox Church.‘ "

The Anglican Church's apostolic succession has been a subject of theological controversy since its inception. The question became particularly acute after the Encyclical Apostolicae Curae, issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, which concluded as follows (par. 35):

"Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void."

As we can see, some of the Anglicans hoped to achieve recognition of their apostolic succession from the Orthodox Church.

This story of a century ago reminds us of the problem of apostolic succession in the Church, which still exists today. And it is not so easy to find educational literature that would allow the believer to acquire the relevant knowledge and help orientate among the many different religious communities and jurisdictions that exist today.

Alan pavelin said:

My understanding of the events leading up to Apostolicae Curae is that the Pope was minded to recognise Anglican orders, but the English bishops point blank refused (for reasons one can understand). So the Pope and his advisers had to concoct a reason for rejecting recognition, and came up with the notion of “defect of intent” on the grounds that the Anglican wording of the ordinal had changed for a period in the 16th century.

Click to expand...

In my opinion saying that the Pope was minded to recognise Anglican orders but the English bishops point blank refused shades the fact that the English bishops wanted the recognition and had struggled for it. Another point is that the English bishops could refuse an offer if they had received one, but they hadn't, the Pope's bulla was not an offer.

Well, one might see a kind of offer in par. 39: We wish to direct our exhortation and our desires in a special way to those who are ministers of religion in their respective communities... Let them be the first in joyfully submitting to the divine call and obey it, and furnish a glorious example to others. ... their Mother, the Church, will welcome them... led back to her bosom. And We, ourselves, in every lawful way, shall continue to promote their reconciliation with the Church...

But it's more a surrender offer than an offer of recognition.