Date: 2026-08-15T00:00:00+00:00

Pastoral Letters and Addresses

St. Raphael of Brooklyn

Royal Archives

2026

Copyright

The source text and this English translation are in the public domain.

The cover design is © 2026 Royal Archives.

Published by Royal Archives

First published 2026

Source: Pastoral Letters and Addresses

Edition identifier: urn:royalarchives:pastoral_letters_addresses:en:1

Response to Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical on Eastern Rites (1899)

The following is St. Raphael’s response to Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical of 30 November 1894 on the Eastern Rites, first published in Faith and Reason (1898) and reprinted in the Russian Orthodox American Messenger (Vestnik) in 1899. He prefaces his response by quoting the relevant passages of the encyclical he is addressing.

Besides all these measures and ordinances, we are anxious, as already mentioned, that schools and seminaries, both ecclesiastical and secular, should be established in such Eastern cities as may be found best adapted to the purpose, for the object of training young natives to become worthy ministers of the Church according to their ancestral rites. In pursuance of this object, which must be of the greatest benefit to the Catholic faith, we have determined to appropriate large sums of money, to be, we hope, contributed by Catholic donations. For it is well known that the ministrations of native priests, more acceptable and more convenient, can produce better results than those of strangers, as we have abundantly demonstrated in our encyclic, issued last year, on the institution of the ecclesiastical schools in Eastern India.

There is no doubt that the education of a youthful native clergy, conducted in this manner, will increase the Eastern Christians’ respect for theological and biblical studies; the study of ancient tongues will flourish equally with that of modern languages; the wealth of doctrine and literature, with which their Fathers and their writers abound, will become more widely spread, to the general benefit of all. And all this will lead to the desirable result, that the Catholic clergy, being prominent in knowledge and a shining example in conduct, will more easily incline their dissident brethren to return to the embrace of their mother (the Catholic Church). And if the clergy will apply to this end their heart, their active efforts, and will work together in brotherly love, surely, by the help and grace of God, that most auspicious day shall rise, when all shall attain “unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God,” and thus it shall come to pass that “the whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love” (Ephes. 4:13-16).

And truly, only that church can glory in the name of the true Church of Christ which is closely knit into one body and one spirit (Ephes. 4:4).

We do not doubt but that our venerable brethren, the Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops of whichsoever Eastern Catholic rite, out of the filial love which they bear to the Apostolic See and to our own person, as also out of solicitude for their churches, will accept reverently and obediently all the things we have decreed, generally and singly, and will sedulously attend to the observance thereof by those whom it concerns.

For the abundance of the fruits which we may look for, indeed confidently expect, from this ordinance, chiefly depends on the zeal of those who represent our person in the Christian East. We therefore most urgently recommend the Apostolic delegates to see that proper respect be paid to the rites handed down to those communities from their ancestors; to render due honor to the authority of the Patriarchs and cause others to do likewise; and, in their official intercourse with them, to bear in mind the Apostle’s precept: “in honor preferring one another” (Rom. 12:10); to show consideration and goodwill to the Bishops, the lesser clergy and the people, being animated by the same spirit which filled the Apostle John when he sent his Apocalypsis to “the seven churches which are in Asia,” with the greeting: “grace be unto you, and peace, from Him which was, and which is, and which is to come” (Revel. 1:4); to prove themselves on every occasion worthy envoys and conciliators in the sacred cause of unity between the Eastern churches and the Church of Rome, which is the centre of that unity and love.

Let all Latin priests, as many as are laboring in those parts for the eternal salvation of souls, inspire themselves with these same feelings, and act in the indicated manner, conformably to our exhortations and commands: and there can be no doubt that, if they labor in strict obedience to the Roman Pontiff, God will bless their efforts with ample success.

It is therefore our will and our command that all the things decreed, declared, and ordered in this our epistle, be inviolably observed by all whom it concerns. Nor may the same be questioned, disputed or infringed for any cause whatever, not even on account of any privilege, or under any other color or pretence. But these ordinances are to take full and integral effect, unhindered even by Apostolical rulings, though issued by general or local councils, or any other statutes, even though supported by Apostolic confirmation, or any customs or ordinances—which we all hereby abrogate and desire to be and remain abrogated, specially and expressly, as though singly and verbally mentioned in the present epistle, no matter who may act in opposition to it.

We also desire that all copies, even printed ones, of the present epistle, if signed by our Notary, and if the seal of a person invested with proper ecclesiastical authority be affixed thereto, be given the same credence as would be given to this original epistle thereof.

Given at Rome, from the Vatican, on the 30th day of November of the year 1894 from the Incarnation of Our Lord, of our pontificate the 17th. — Pope Leo XIII.

Anyone not familiar with the subtle methods of the Roman Curia may possibly imagine, on reading this epistle, that it guarantees, entirely and forever, the inviolability of the sacred rites and patriarchal rights of the various Christian communities united to Rome, against any attempts at latinisation or attacks on the part of papal legates and numerous varieties of Latin priests and monks. But is it so in reality? We will not bring out here the long series of historical facts which prove to evidence the flimsiness and fallaciousness of papal declarations and promises even more solemn than these, in the matter of preserving intact the local usages, rites, and even dogmas peculiar to the churches which have become “united” to the Roman Church.

To become convinced of the fallaciousness of such promises, it is enough to read with attention this epistle of Pope Leo XIII, in which he, on one hand, forbids his legates and monks to interfere in the future with church affairs of the Eastern Christian communities subject to the papal See, and, on the other hand, permits and authorises those same Latin legates and monks to conduct the education of native children and youths.

Any one who knows anything at all about the methods of instruction followed in Latin schools will easily see that this prohibition to monks and priests to interfere in local church affairs amounts to nothing compared to the authority given to the same monks to conduct the schools. Who does not know that all young people who have received their education in Latin schools, come out of them more Latin than the real born Latins? What is the sense, then, of this papal epistle, when it gives into the hands of Latin priests and monks the most important thing of all—the bringing up of the young generation?

True, the epistle imposes upon these Latin priests and monks the obligation to see that those who study in their schools be brought up in the spirit of the rites and usages accepted in their communities. But who shall stand security that the Latin priests and monks—more especially the Jesuits—will forevermore and invariably observe this ordinance of the aged Pope, Leo XIII? Why, every community, at the time of its first joining the Roman Church, receives from the pope’s solemn declarations and written promises, to the effect that all its rites and usages, and even dogmas, shall be left absolutely unchanged: and yet impartial history shows that not one of the communities which have been “united” to Rome has been able to preserve its rites and usages, or even dogmas, from Latin influence.

The professor of the Saint Petersburg Theological Academy, A.P. Lopukhin, is perfectly right when he says, in his reply to the Pope’s encyclical, that history in this respect (i.e., as regards the solemn assurances of the Pope of Rome concerning the preservation of their rites and customs by the communities which are united to the Roman Church), presents evidence too tangible to allow of any importance whatever being attached to any such assurances.

It is enough to call to mind the violences which signalized the most unfortunate “Union” in Western Russia, when the most unscrupulous, indeed one might say impudent, latinization strove to destroy in the midst of the Uniate communities the very traces of their Greek ritual, and even of their Russian nationality. Such latinization is going on to this day in Western Russia. And as though in mockery of the protestations of the encyclical, the Jesuits in Galicia violently force an entrance into Russian monasteries, those historical strongholds of the Galician people’s religious and national consciousness, and turn them into hearths of the Latino-Polish propaganda.

All this, we say, is being done before our eyes—truly, sufficient security for the sincerity of the assurances given by the “Vicar of Almighty God on earth.”

But, apart from the promises concerning the preservation of local rites and usages, the papal epistle holds out the promise to safeguard the rights of the Uniate Patriarchs and Bishops against any attacks or encroachments on the part of Latino-Roman legates and nuncii. But, if Pope Leo XIII has really determined to restore and confirm the rights of the Uniate Patriarchs and Bishops which have been trampled underfoot by his representatives in the East—if he really considers those Patriarchs and Bishops as being such in very truth — de facto — where is the sense of his appointing any Latin Bishops and even Patriarchs at all for the Syrian communities united with the Roman Church, when each of them already has its own native Patriarch or Bishop?

If all that these Latin Patriarchs and Bishops are appointed for is to look after the spiritual needs of various foreign Catholics—German, French, Italian, etc.—residing in Syria, and not to manage the church affairs of the Uniate communities and restrict the rights and dignity of their native Patriarchs and Bishops—then these foreign Catholics, if they do not wish to be subject to the native Uniate clergy in church matters (although such refusal is contrary to the true spirit of the Union), are free to enjoy the spiritual ministrations of the Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans, Capuchins, or any other of the Latin monks—of whom there are ten times as many in Syria as of foreign Catholic residents. And if the monastic rules of those numerous orders do not allow their members to perform any ministrations for laymen, would it not be more just for the Pope to send over for this purpose mere Latin priests, instead of Latin Patriarchs and Bishops—if only out of respect for the dignity of the native Patriarchs and Bishops, and for the Apostolical ordinances and rulings of the Ecumenical Councils, which strictly forbid appointing two bishops to the same diocese?

Where, for instance, is the sense of appointing a Latin Patriarch for Jerusalem, where the native Catholics already have a Patriarch of their own? More than that, what meaning has the alleged union between various Eastern churches in Syria and the Roman Church, when each of them has its own Patriarch, and each of these Uniate Patriarchs calls himself Patriarch of Antioch? The question now is, which of them is to be considered the true successor of the Apostle Peter in the apostolic see of Antioch? Is it the Maronite Patriarch, or the Melchite, or the Syrian, or the Chaldean, or the Armenian, or, lastly—the Latin Patriarch? What is still more anomalous in the position of these Uniate Patriarchs is this—that some among them, as for instance the Melchite Patriarch, consider themselves Patriarchs not only of Antioch, but of Jerusalem and Alexandria, in direct opposition to the apostolic rulings, which do not admit of one bishop occupying two sees—how much less three! And still more curious is the fact that this same Patriarch, enthroned in three apostolic sees, is subject, with all his three sees, to the See of Rome!

It follows from all this that the chief object of all such papal encyclics and epistles is not the union of churches or the preservation of rites and dogmas, but simply the subjection and enslavement of all Christian peoples to the Pope of Rome. And in the eyes of the Popes, neither rites nor dogmas are of such importance as the recognition of the dogma of the Pope’s supremacy. Let any community, though it be a downright heretical one, recognize that, and it will be considered a member of the Roman Catholic Church. That this is really so, is sufficiently shown by the contradictory and even heretical doctrines found among many Christian communities in Syria, which, notwithstanding, are “united” with the Roman Church. Thus for instance, some of them (the Jacobites, Armenians, Copts), hold the false doctrine of Jesus Christ’s single nature; others recognize two natures in Him; some confess two wills in Christ, others (the Maronites), only one; some hold to the Nestorian doctrine on Christ (the Chaldeans); others repudiate it; some again accept the addition Filioque (“and from the Son”) in the Creed, while others reject it; some (the Armenians), admit the use of unleavened bread in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, while others condemn it; some approve the marriage of priests; others forbid it; others again turn their churches facing the East—or the West—or indiscriminately, North or South, etc. And in spite of all these contradictions in rite and dogma, all these communities are accounted members of the Church of Rome, because they acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope over them! What is this, if not a patent proof that the Popes of Rome think nothing either of church rites or of the fundamental Christian dogmas, in comparison with the dogma of their own supremacy, invented by themselves?

Then let the Popes write and publish as many encyclics and epistles as they please—they never will be able by such means to bring the Eastern Orthodox Church into subjection to their authority. The Orthodox Church was, is, and will be for all time the One Catholic, Holy, Apostolic Church, against which not only the Pope’s scheming, but not the gates of hell itself, shall prevail.

Archimandrite Raphael.

Pastoral Letter on Orthodox and Episcopal Relations (1912)

To My Beloved Clergy and Laity of the Syrian Greek-Orthodox Catholic Church in North America: Greetings in Christ Jesus, Our Incarnate Lord and God.

My Beloved Brethren: Two years ago, while I was Vice-President and member of the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union, being moved with compassion for my children in the Holy Orthodox Faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), scattered throughout the whole of North America and deprived of the ministrations of the Church; and especially in places far removed from Orthodox centers; and being equally moved with a feeling that the Episcopalian (Anglican) Church possessed largely the Orthodox Faith, as many of the prominent clergy professed the same to me before I studied deeply their doctrinal authorities and their liturgy—the Book of Common Prayer—I wrote a letter as Bishop and Head of the Syrian-Orthodox Mission in North America, giving permission, in which I said that in extreme cases, where no Orthodox priest could be called upon at short notice, the ministrations of the Episcopal (Anglican) clergy might be kindly requested. However, I was most explicit in defining when and how the ministrations should be accepted, and also what exceptions should be made. In writing that letter I hoped, on the one hand, to help my people spiritually, and, on the other hand, to open the way toward bringing the Anglicans into the communion of the Holy Orthodox Faith.

On hearing and in reading that my letter, perhaps unintentionally, was misconstrued by some of the Episcopalian (Anglican) clergy, I wrote a second letter in which I pointed out that my instructions and exceptions had been either overlooked or ignored by many, to wit: (a) They (the Episcopalians) informed the Orthodox people that I recognized the Anglican Communion (Episcopal Church) as being united with the Holy Orthodox Church and their ministry, that is holy orders, as valid. (b) The Episcopal (Anglican) clergy offered their ministrations even when my Orthodox clergy were residing in the same towns and parishes, as pastors. (c) Episcopal clergy said that there was no need of the Orthodox people seeking the ministrations of their own Orthodox priests, for their (the Anglican) ministrations were all that were necessary.

I, therefore, felt bound by all the circumstances to make a thorough study of the Anglican Church’s faith and orders, as well as of her discipline and ritual. After serious consideration I realized that it was my honest duty, as a member of the College of the Holy Orthodox Greek Apostolic Church, and head of the Syrian Mission in North America, to resign from the vice-presidency of and membership in the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union. At the same time, I set forth, in my letter of resignation, my reason for so doing.

I am convinced that the doctrinal teaching and practices, as well as the discipline, of the whole Anglican Church are unacceptable to the Holy Orthodox Church. I make this apology for the Anglicans whom as Christian gentlemen I greatly revere, that the loose teaching of a great many of the prominent Anglican theologians are so hazy in their definitions of truths, and so inclined toward pet heresies that it is hard to tell what they believe. The Anglican Church as a whole has not spoken authoritatively on her doctrine. Her Catholic-minded members can call out her doctrines from many views, but so nebulous is her pathway in the doctrinal world that those who would extend a hand of both Christian and ecclesiastical fellowship dare not, without distrust, grasp the hand of her theologians, for while many are orthodox on some points, they are quite heterodox on others. I speak, of course, from the Holy Orthodox Eastern Catholic point of view. The Holy Orthodox Church has never perceptibly changed from Apostolic times, and, therefore, no one can go astray in finding out what She teaches. Like Her Lord and Master, though at times surrounded with human malaria—which He in His mercy pardons—She is the same yesterday, and today, and forever (Heb. 13:8) the mother and safe deposit of the truth as it is in Jesus (see Eph. 4:21).

The Orthodox Church differs absolutely with the Anglican Communion in reference to the number of Sacraments and in reference to the doctrinal explanation of the same. The Anglicans say in their Catechism concerning the Sacraments that there are “two only as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.” I am well aware that, in their two books of homilies (which are not of a binding authority, for the books were prepared only in the reign of Edward VI and Queen Elizabeth for priests who were not permitted to preach their own sermons in England during times both politically and ecclesiastically perilous), it says that there are “five others commonly called Sacraments” (see homily in each book on the Sacraments), but long since they have repudiated in different portions of their Communion this very teaching and absolutely disavow such definitions in their “Articles of Religion” which are bound up in their Book of Common Prayer or Liturgy as one of their authorities.

The Orthodox Church has ever taught that there are seven Sacraments. She plainly points out the fact that each of the seven has an outward and visible sign and an inward and spiritual Grace, and that they are of gospel and apostolic origin.

Again, the Orthodox Church has certain rites and practices associated and necessary in the administration of the Sacraments which neither time nor circumstances must set aside where churches are organized. Yet the Anglicans entirely neglect these, though they once taught and practiced the same in more catholic days.

In the case of the administration of Holy Baptism it is the absolute rule of the Orthodox Church that the candidate must be immersed three times (once in the name of each Person of the Holy Trinity). Immersion is only permissory in the Anglican Communion, and pouring or sprinkling is the general custom. The Anglicans do not use holy oil in the administration, etc., and even in doctrinal teaching in reference to this Sacrament they differ.

As to the doctrine concerning Holy Communion the Anglican Communion has no settled view. The Orthodox Church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation without going into any scientific or Roman Catholic explanation. The technical word which She uses for the sublime act of the priest by Christ’s authority to consecrate is “transmuting” (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom). She, as I have said, offers no explanation, but She believes and confesses that Christ, the Son of the living God Who came into the world to save sinners, is of a truth in His “all-pure Body” and “precious Blood” (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom) objectively present, and to be worshiped in that Sacrament as He was on earth and is now in risen and glorified majesty in Heaven; and that “the precious and holy and life-giving Body and Blood of Our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ are imparted” (to each soul that comes to that blessed Sacrament) “Unto the remission of sins, and unto life everlasting” (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom).

Confirmation or the laying on of hands, which the Orthodox Church calls a Sacrament—“Chrismation”—in the Anglican Church is merely the laying on of hands of the Bishop accompanied by a set form of prayers, without the use of Holy Chrism, which has come down from Apostolic days as necessary.

Holy Matrimony is regarded by the Anglican Communion as only a sacred rite which, even if performed by a Justice of the Peace, is regarded as sufficient in the sight of God and man.

Penance is practiced but rarely in the Anglican Communion, and Confession before the reception of Holy Communion is not compulsory. They have altogether set aside the Sacrament of Holy Unction, that is anointing the sick as commanded by Saint James (see James 5:14). In their priesthood they do not teach the true doctrine of the Grace of the Holy Orders. Indeed they have two forms of words for ordination, namely, one which gives the power of absolution to the priest, and the alternative form without the words of Our Lord, “whosoever sins ye remit, etc.” (John 20:23). Thus they leave every bishop to choose intention or non-intention in the act of ordination as to the power and Grace of their priesthood (“Ordination of Priests,” Book of Common Prayer).

But, besides all of this, the Anglican Communion ignores the Orthodox Church’s dogmas and teachings, such as the invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, special honor to the blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God, and reverence for sacred relics, holy pictures and icons. They say of such teaching that it is “a foul thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God” (Article of Religion, XXII).

There is a striking variance between their wording of the Nicene Creed and that of the Holy Orthodox Church; but sadder still, it contains the heresy of the “filioque.”

I do not deem it necessary to mention all the striking differences between the Holy Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion in reference to the authority of holy tradition, the number of Ecumenical Councils, etc. Enough has already been said and pointed out to show that the Anglican Communion differs but little from all other Protestant bodies, and therefore, there cannot be any intercommunion until they return to the ancient Holy Orthodox Faith and practices, and reject Protestant omissions and commissions.

Therefore, as the official head of the Syrian Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church in North America and as one who must give account (Heb. 13:17) before the judgment seat of the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls (I Pet. 2:25), that I have fed the flock of God (I Pet. 5:2), as I have been commissioned by the Holy Orthodox Church, and inasmuch as the Anglican Communion (Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA) does not differ in things vital to the well-being of the Holy Orthodox Church from some of the most errant Protestant sects, I direct all Orthodox people residing in any community not to seek or to accept the ministrations of the Sacraments and rites from any clergy excepting those of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, for the Apostolic command that the Orthodox should not commune in ecclesiastical matters with those who are not of the same household of faith (Gal. 6:10), is clear: “Any bishop, or presbyter or deacon who will pray with heretics, let him be anathematized; and if he allows them as clergymen to perform any service, let him be deposed” (Apostolic Canon 45). “Any bishop, or presbyter who accepts Baptism or the Holy Sacrifice from heretics, we order such to be deposed, for what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (Apostolic Canon 46).

As to members of the Holy Orthodox Church living in areas beyond the reach of Orthodox clergy, I direct that the ancient custom of our Holy Church be observed, namely, in cases of extreme necessity, that is, danger of death, children may be baptized by some pious Orthodox layman, or even by the parent of the child, by immersion three times in the names of the (Persons of the) Holy Trinity, and in case of death such baptism is valid; but, if the child should live, he must be brought to an Orthodox priest for the Sacrament of Chrismation.

In the case of the death of an Orthodox person where no priest of the Holy Orthodox Church can be had, a pious layman may read over the corpse, for the comfort of the relatives and the instruction of the persons present, Psalm 90 and Psalm 118, and add thereto the Trisagion (“Holy God, Holy Mighty,” etc.). But let it be noted that as soon as possible the relative must notify some Orthodox bishop or priest and request him to serve the Liturgy and Funeral for the repose of the soul of the departed in his cathedral or parish Church.

As to Holy Matrimony, if there be any parties united in wedlock outside the pale of the holy Orthodox Church because of the remoteness of Orthodox centers from their home, I direct that as soon as possible they either invite an Orthodox priest or go to where he resides and receive from his hands the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony; otherwise they will be considered excommunicated until they submit to the Orthodox Church’s rule.

I further direct that Orthodox Christians should not make it a practice to attend the services of other religious bodies, so that there be no confusion concerning the teaching or doctrines. Instead, I order that the head of each household, or a member, may read the special prayers which can be found in the Hours in the Holy Orthodox Service Book, and such other devotional books as have been set forth by the authority of the Holy Orthodox Church.

Commending our clergy and laity unto the safekeeping of Jesus Christ, and praying that the Holy Spirit may keep us all in the truth and extend the borders of the Holy Orthodox Faith, I remain your affectionate Servant in Christ.

+ Raphael, Bishop of Brooklyn, Head of the Syrian Greek Orthodox Catholic Mission in North America.

Accuracy of translation and fact of the above prescriptive direction and pastoral instruction being still in force and authority, unabated and unmodified, now and for all future time in this jurisdiction, certified April 27, 1927, by: + Aftimios, Archbishop of Brooklyn, First Vicar of the Russian American Jurisdiction, Head of the Syrian Greek Orthodox Catholic Mission in North America.

Colophon

Pastoral Letters and Addresses
by St. Raphael of Brooklyn.

This edition was produced by
Royal Archives.

The text is set in Palatino and Georgia.

The first edition of this ebook was released on
August 16, 2026.

Table of Contents

- Title Page

- Copyright

- Response to Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical on Eastern Rites (1899)

- Pastoral Letter on Orthodox and Episcopal Relations (1912)

- Colophon