7. The House of Mary

The tiny rectory of St Casimir's church could not accommodate with comfort more than two persons. The Lithuanian Marian Fathers, if they wanted to expand, needed a bigger house. A suitable property was found towards the end of 1947, a beautiful spacious house called "Belvedere" in the London suburb of North Finchley, built towards the end of the 19th century,with a large garden. It was decided from the beginning that there would be a place in the new house for Father Sipovich and for a Byzantine rite chapel. Most probably this was done at the insistence of Buchys who had his own plans.

The formalities were completed in April 1948. The two Lithuanian priests for reasons of their pastoral duties had to remain near the church of Saint Casimir. Thus it was Father Sipovich  alone who moved to the newly acquired property. We find the following entry in his diary under 8 May 1948: "I am spending my first night in the newly acquired house 'Belvedere', Holden Avenue, London N.12. My only wish is that the house should be filled with holy men!" We may wonder whether he suspected that the house, which had been renamed "Marian House" in honour of Mary, the Mother of God, would become known among Belarusians and their friends throughout the world as the permanent seat of the Belarusian Catholic Mission of the Byzantine rite.

The first concern of Father Sipovich was to fit out the chapel. A large bright room on the ground floor was chosen, with windows facing south. It was decided from the beginning that the chapel, which was dedicated to the Apostles Peter and Paul, should be in the best traditions of the Byzantine rite. All this, however, was in the future. On Sunday 16 May 1948, – Pentecost Sunday according to the Gregorian calendar, – the chapel, for the first time full of the faithful, had a very modest look. But there was a spirit of joy and gratitude among Belarusians who at last had their own place of worship.

Most of Father Sipovich's life had been spent in a community. Now for the first time he was left alone in a big house. Well, not exactly alone: a friend gave him a cockerel. It was a most appropriate gift, seeing that Father Sipovich had a particular devotion to Saint Peter. Unfortunately  some neighbours objected to the bird's crowing at night. Also for the first time in his life Father Sipovich had to try his culinary skills with various results, as when he tried to fry an egg on the plate instead of a frying pan...

But the solitary life did not last long. By the end of May a Belarusian student came to live in Marian House. Some time later he was joined by two others, and in July came the first official candidate for the Marian Congregation.

In  the autumn of 1948 the Association of Belarusians bought its own house which became  the centre of national and social activities. Marian House remained the religious and to a great extent cultural centre. The Sunday  and feastday liturgies were well attended, and there was a small but good church choir. Usually people remained after liturgy, especially in the summer, enjoying good weather in the garden, and a game of volleyball, in which Father Sipovich liked to join. He had the ability to get on with young people. But whatever he did, he always remained a priest first of all, trying to help others to take seriously their Christian vocation. Of particular value were the retreats, organised by Father Sipovich usually in Lent, and open to all – Catholic and Orthodox alike. For many participants who grew up during the war in an atmosphere far removed from religious influence, this was a new and profound experience.

Father Sipovich was tireless in encouraging young people to try to obtain a good education. There were a few Belarusian university students in London, but for the majority the way  to higher education was closed because they did not qualify for study grants. In 1949 the opportunity arose for them to obtain their education at the Catholic University of Leuven (Louvain) in Belgium. This was due mainly thanks to the efforts of a few Belarusian refugee students, chief among them Doctor Barys Rahula, and the remarkable Belgian Benedictine priest, Robert van Cauwelaert, who became a staunch friend of Belarus and champion of the cause of Belarusian students. A meeting of representatives of Belarusian student groups and organisations from Belgium, Germany, France and England was held at Leuven in October 1949. Father Sipovich attended the meeting. In the years that followed he acted as a link between Leuven and the Belarusian community in England, helping to send a number of young Belarusians to that university.

Also at the October meeting in Leuven the Belarusian Catholic University Union "Run'" (pronounce "roon", meaning young shoots of winter crop) was founded, with Father Sipovich as ecclesiastical assistant. It was decided that the headquarters of the new organisation should be in London at Marian House. In the years that followed "Run'" was very active.

In the late 1940s and early 50s Byzantine rite Catholics were still a rarity in Western Europe. Therefore the establishment of a Byzantine rite centre in London attracted the attention of those interested in the Eastern Christianity and in the Union of Christians. There were many English vistors at Marian House, some of them becoming regular "parishioners". Father Sipovich was often invited to celebrate Liturgy and give talks by various groups such as university students, schools, convents etc. Some people were disappointed when they learnt that he was not a Russian, but his warm personality and friendliness usually won them over, and in many times they remained lifelong friends.

But the Russian problem was never far away. In summer 1949 Bishop Buchys was making canonical visits to the Marian religious houses in Great Britain. On Sunday 21 August he was scheduled to celebrate the Liturgy at Marian House. Belarusians, Catholics and Orthodox, turned up "en masse" only to hear the bishop in his sermon telling them that "Great, Little and White Russians" were one. To say that the listeners were indignant would be a gross understatement. This was the second serious setback for Father Sipovich after the notorious article in the Catholic Herald.

On the occasion of Buchys's visit, the same paper published on 2 September 1949 an article entitled "Two Priests will work here among Russian Orthodox". It was written again by the "staff correspondent" who, among other things, had this to say: "Two Russians, formerly of the Orthodox Church, now Catholic priests of the Slav Byzantine rite, are shortly arriving  in London from Rome to help explain the Catholic viewpoint on reunion to thousands of Russian Orthodox now exiled here. Announcement was made by Mgr. Francis Bucys, titular bishop of Olympus, and Superior General of the Marian fathers, himself an Oriental prelate, who is now visiting England. Said the 77-year-old Bishop, a linguist of repute: 'The work of evangelising Russia is in a state of preparation, but actual good and efficacious work can be, and is being, done outside Russia – among the emigrants'... The two priests, both members of the Marian Congregation, are to reside at Marian House, Finchley, London, along with Fr. C. Sipovich, also a Slav-Byzantine priest, who serves an Eastern Rite chapel there. But whereas, as Bishop Bucys explained, Fr. Sipovich has been doing excellent work among his own people, that is, the White Ruthenians or Bielorussians now in this country, the two newcomers are to expand the work to embrace the larger number of Russians from 'Great Russia' proper". In other words, Father Sipovich and his Belarusians were all right, but the time had come to do serious work... This may explain why the Byzantine rite chapel at "Marian House" was planned even before its purchase.

The Oriental Congregation was not in favour with Buchys's idea of having one Byzantine rite mission for Belarusians and Russians, as can be seen from Cardinal Tisserant letter to him of 18 February 1948: "Since there are differences of various nature between Belarusians and Russians, it is clear that it would be better to keep the two institutions separate, even if they use the same chapel"[31].. Father Sipovich, referring to this letter wrote to Buchys on 7 April 1948: "Indeed from my own experience I know how difficult it is for one and the same person to carry out simultaneously this apostolic work: often the exaggerated nationalism from both sides is a great obstacle. For this reason I wish that a Russian priest could come as soon as possible to London and dedicate himself exclusively to the work among Russians". Then he continues: "I wish to ask that neither the Marians nor the Sacred Oriental Congregation should call me (to be appointed) 'For Belarusians and Russians' or something similar. I am debtor to all, and according to my strength and conscience I wish to serve all (in a way that) the love of one's native country should not be an impediment for us to exhort all to the heavenly fatherland, yet in the present circumstances if Belarusians knew that I have been appointed also for Russians, they would have cause to act against my Mission. At the present time all know me as a Belarusian priest (who has been sent) for Belarusians; at the same time no one of my compatriots could be 'scandalised' if I as a Catholic priest had dealings also with Russians". Finally he adds: "Despite all these differences I think it possible to have a common Byzantine-Slavonic chapel for Belarusians and Russians in the house of the Marian Fathers".

The decision to send the two Russian priests to London was Buchys's alone. The priests in question were Fathers Andrew Katkov and George Brianchaninov, both members of the Marian Congregation and ordained in Rome in 1944. They both came in 1938 to Rome from Harbin, where they were educated in the school founded by Father Abrantovich and the Belarusian Marian Fathers from Druia.

The reaction of Father Sipovich to the announcement of Buchys was mixed. In principle he was in favour of a separate Russian Mission with its own priest. As the date of the arrival of the two priests was drawing near he wrote to Buchys on 7 February 1950: "Until now I have been charged with the pastoral care of Russians in England. After the arrival of the (Russian) Fathers I shall ask the Oriental Congregation to relieve me of this duty and leave me (in charge of) the spiritual care of Belarusians. In my opinion the best solution would be as follows: to establish a Russian Catholic Mission in England and leave the Belarusian Mission as it is. The address may be the same, but the spheres of work different... Fathers Andrew and George are pupils of the Belarusian Fathers... This fact alone should put them under an obligation to be loyal with respect to the Belarusian Catholic Church... I admit that I am not pleased with the arrival of Father Andrew. He is a great individualist and nationalist; moreover he is secretive and very suspicious. I have never succeeded in talking with him openly, in a brotherly manner...".

The two priests arrived in April 1950. Father Sipovich organised on Sunday 23 April a small reception in their honour, which was duly reported in the Catholic Herald. On the surface the relations between the three priests were good, but difficulties surfaced soon afterwards. The Russians arrived without any letters of recommendation from Buchys or the Oriental Congregation. When they asked the Catholic Commitee for European Volunteer Workers for permission to visit workers' hostels, they received a reply from the Secretary, in which he said: "I quite realise that you have been sent here to do work under obedience. It is precisely for that reason that the more correct procedure would have been for the Marian Congregation to approach the Authorities in England before sending you over... Therefore if your Congregation wishes you to work in this country I would suggest that an approach be made from Rome to His Eminence Cardinal Griffin". They next approached the Apostolic Delegate, who suggested: "In my opinion it would be useful to refer the question to the Oriental Congregation (Sarebbe utile, al mio parere, di riferire la questione alla Congr. Orientale)". That was the situation six months after their arrival. Lacking official recognition, the Russian priests tried to do something on their own initiative. They founded what they called grandly the "Russian Catholic Centre of Byzantine Slavonic Rite in Great Britain", with its address at Marian House. Father Sipovich was not overjoyed, but said nothing at first, until an incident occured which made it impossible to keep silent. One day there was a meeting of the "Russian Centre" at Marian House. In the common room, where the meeting took place, there were usually various Belarussian, Russian and English newspapers. Someone before the meeting collected all Belarusian papers and hid them away, presumably so as not to hurt the delicate feelings of Russians. Father Sipovich, who had been out, came back sooner than expected and saw what had been done. An unpleasant situation arose. This and other similar incidents eventually convinced Father Sipovich that it was a mistake to have Russian and Belarusian pastoral centres in one house. He explained this to Buchys in the autumn when he was in Rome, only to be accused of exaggerated Belarusian nationalism. Father Sipovich took it very hard. During the annual retreat which he made in Rome in the first week of October 1950, there are the following notes: "Would it be against the perfect obedience: 1) to expose one's own reasons to the superior; 2) try to induce the superior to a greater good; this greater good being supported with various serious reasons and the judgement of one's confessor; 3) to appeal from the lower to higher superior, from Father General to the Holy See (when the matter is very grave)".

Father Sipovich wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Oriental Congregation, Cardinal E. Tisserant on 23 October in which he explained the difficulties which had arisen in his work due to the arrival of the two Russian priests. He says: "These Fathers came to London under religious obedience, but... it seems to me that our Superior General, H. E. Mgr Buchys did not take into account certain circumstances". Then he goes on to explain those circumstances:

1. No consideration had been given to whether Russian Catholic Mission in England was necessary, and if so, how to organise it.

2. No consideration at all was given how to coordinate two different kinds of work in the same house and in the same small chapel. Buchys wrote an instruction on how the three priests should behave, but this instruction had no effect on the nationalist misunderstandings which are being painfully felt also in the religious sphere.

3. For many Orthodox Belarusians who frequented Marian House the presence of Russian priests would furnish arguments against the Catholic Church under the pretext that the latter favoured the Russians. This was at a time when the Belarusian Orthodox Church was being reestablished: in the summer Bishop Basil (Tamashchyk) visited England and established a Belarusian Orthodox parish in Bradford.

4. Buchys sent the two Russian Fathers without asking the advice of Cardinal Griffin (Archbishop of Westminster) and Archbishop Godfrey, the Apostolic Delegate.

5. Finally one must keep in mind that the same Fathers Brianchaninov and Katkov came to London against their own wish and under the grave pressure of obedience, and without the explicit authority of the Oriental Congregation.

In the end Father Sipovich decided not to sent this letter, as can be seen from a handwritten note attached to it. All the problems, however, enumerated in it were discussed with Cardinal Tisserant at an audience on 3 November 1950.

Eventually a compromise was reached which satisfied nobody. Sipovich wrote to Tatarynovich on 3 January 1951: "At last Roma locuta est (Rome has spoken) in the matter of our missions. Father G. Brianchaninov remains in London, Father Katkov is going to Australia. This is for the moment de jure. My Mission remains as it has been, but the chapel etc. are common. Obviously, the hands of both of us are tied, the question is for how long? It seems that Father George will remain here for at least one year, and after that he also will go to Australia. Such a state of affairs is not the worst, but there is no doubt that our respected  General (i.e. Buchys – A.N.) has been the cause of worsening my position in London".

Tatarynovich answered on 22 January 1951: "I sympathise with you for still having to carry the burden which you wanted to shed. They departed from here in a triumphant mood (both Branchaninov and Katkov were in Rome towards the end of 1950 – A.N.). Katkov is so proud of his Russia, even the Communist one; in a conversation he said disparagingly about us, that we were sitting pretty under the German tail... (meaning that the Belarusian national movement was fostered and protected by the Germans – A.N.)".

Father Katkov did not leave till the end of the year. In the meantime the situation did not improve. On 5 May 1951 Sipovich wrote to Buchys: "I had hopes that with the help of God the Belarusian Catholic Mission in London would become the nucleus of the Belarusian religious revival and the beginning of a Belarusian Marian monastery. One must state with sadness that instead of further development this nucleus is doomed to die. Today at Marian House there are Divine services and concelebrations, at which however there are no Belarusians or Russians present, and they will not be here so long as two different meals are being cooked in one pot. Personally I have nothing against Fathers George and Andrew. They came here under obedience, and we all do everything possible to promote harmony and brotherly love among us. However the best personal relations among us are not a guarantee of achieving the ends of our Missions".

Buchys died on 25 October 1951. After his death and the departure of Katkov the situation eased somewhat. Father Branchaninov left England only in February 1956 after unsuccesful attempts to buy a house for the Russian Catholic Mission in London.

Also in 1951 Nicholas (Stanislaus) Bahovich came to London. He was a Marian lay brother from Druia who had gone to Harbin in 1933 and stayed there for 18 years. He was a witness to the arrest on 22 December 1948 of Fathers Andrew Tsikota, Joseph Hermanovich and Thomas Padziava by the Chinese Communists who handed them over to the Soviet authorities. In the Soviet Union they were sentenced to 25 years forced labour. Brother Nicholas and another lay brother were allowed to leave China free. In London this pious and humble man became invaluable around the house. No one ever saw him idle. All moments free from work he was spending in prayer in the chapel. His only relaxation was the garden, and it was there that he was found dying on 17 August 1980.

Before coming to London, Brother Nicholas spent some time in Rome where he had the opportunity to make a report on the fate of Belarusian priests to Buchys who was instrumental in sending them to Harbin. Buchys was a strange man. A scholar and linguist of some repute, pious and unreservedly devoted to the Catholic Church which he understood in a somewhat abstract way, he was at the same time obsequious before higher authority and set in his ideas which he changed with difficulty. He was obsessed with the idea of the "conversion" of Russia, for which he was ready for any sacrifice. The trouble was that it was others whom he sacrificed. When sending Belarusian priests to Harbin to "convert" Russians (who were Christians after all), he compared himself to Saint Ignatius Loyola who sent Saint Francis Xavier to preach the Gospel of Salvation to people who had never heard of Jesus Christ. He never understood Belarusians and their national aspirations, and showed an astonishing indifference to their spiritual needs. For him they were just Russians. Whatever may be the final verdict on the work and achievements of this man (the judgement of him as a person must be left to God), the Belarusians have no reason to be grateful to him.

Note: