Translated material
The last act
In society
The last act
May 15, 2006 Alexey Makarkin
The Russian Orthodox Church abroad (ROCZ) is still united with the Moscow Patriarchate. Some call this event a stage milestone in church history, others - the actual Anschluss organized by Moscow (with the patronage of secular power in the person of Vladimir Putin) in a close union with most foreign bishops, others pay attention to the fact that no binding decisions on the All -"Cathedral were made. Indeed, the cathedral approved the “Declaration of Intent” to unite with the Russian Orthodox Church, despite the fact that the three known conditions put forward by the ROCD for reconciliation were far from fulfilled: the Moscow Patriarchate went to meet the “foreigners” as much as it was beneficial. In addition, from the declaration to the implementation of a considerable distance, and its overcoming may not be at all smooth.
But first about the conditions. The greatest progress is achieved on the issue of canonization of the new martyrs. The royal family is considered to be the royal family (this is a particularly important question for “foreigners”, many of whom were deeply revered by the sovereign even before his canonization abroad in 1981), as well as some bishops - the spiritual like -minded ROCZs who did not compromise with the Bolshevik regime: Mitropolitan Kirill (Smirnov), Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov). True, the opponents of the association drew attention to the fact that the lists of the new martyrs glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church vary significantly, and asked the question: why were the Saints of such consecutive opponents of the Stalinist regime as Metropolitan Joseph (Petrov) and Archbishop Theodore (Pozdeevsky) are not recognized as saints?
Now, however, even the zealots of Orthodoxy from the ROCZ are trying not to raise this topic - it turned out to be too sensitive. Representatives of the Patriarchate clearly stated that the obstacle to glorification could be the nature of the testimonies in interrogations - whether the “recognition” persecuted by the reason for the arrest and the death of other people served. So, a shingle of the past, one might encounter unpleasant surprises, although if the church after a thorough investigation considers that the “grateful” interrogation protocol is a fake made by the investigator, then canonization is possible.
The second question is also a historical nature. “Foreigners” demanded that the Moscow Patriarchate condemn the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius of 1927, which laid the foundation for the church cooperation (more precisely, the part that supported the document) with the Bolshevik regime. For the Russian Orthodox Church, the condemnation of this declaration is impossible - in this case, the authority of not only Sergius himself, which became a patriarch at the end of his life, but also all subsequent Primates, including, of course, the current one, is undermined. But the main thing is that for most of the current ROCZ figures, Patriarch Sergius is the same story as Ecumenical Councils or Petrovsky Holy Synod. They will not break spears due to formulations, satisfied with the statement in the social doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church that the Church is distant from the state.
Finally, the most difficult question is the ecumenical activity of the Patriarchate. The Purists from the ROCZ advocated its full folding, but the Russian Orthodox Church was not going to leave the World Council of Churches - the main ecumenical site, where the tone is set by Protestant figures. The fact is that almost all the highest church hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate took an active part in the activities of this body or its flanking organizations. In addition, patriarchy figures do not want to lose some kind of, but still a foreign policy resource at their disposal. However, ecumenism - in contrast to purely historical questions about the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius and New Martyrs - the topic is relevant and people in the foreign church are seriously exciting. It is no coincidence that in the conciliar resolution it is explicitly stated that the membership of the Russian Orthodox Church in the World Council causes “embarrassment among our clergy and flock”, and actually calls for leaving this organ.
What next? It is obvious that the current all -weather cathedral gave a fundamental consent to the bishops engaged in the association (their cathedral begins today and last until May 19). However, at the same time, he furnished the unifying process with such reservations - the convocation of the Local Council to resolve the issue of reunion, the already mentioned anti -ecumenical topic - that with all the desire of the Bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, this will not be easy to do.
On the one hand, most bishops really want to return to the “normal” state for the Orthodox hierarch-that is, when the Church is in prayer-handonical communication with other respectable Orthodox churches (now only the Serbs and the Jerusalem Patriarchate “recognize” the ROCA with reservations-according to the still pre-war tradition). On the other hand, if they take advantage of the formally granted authority and complet the integration in the near future, then the disagreements will have a moral right to slap the door, refusing to follow their shepherds. Moreover, there is where to go: to the supporters of the former head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Vitaly, to the “catacomb” flock of the recently abundant Archbishop Lazarus (ordered by the ROCZ bishops back in 1982), or even in Suzdal to the “autonomous people” - that is, to the adherents of Valentin Rusansov, who was put in the perestroika years. “Foreigners” into bishops, and then they are unclenched. Some can also go to the Greek "old-style"-a fairly large opposition of the Elladsky Church, which has switched to a new style back in the 30s.
This is where the main problem lies. It is one thing to bring the united ranks of clergy and parishioners to the Patriarchate, and quite another - the cropelist army, weighed down by ideological and property disputes (the latter is important, since the separating communities will apply for temples). Therefore, while you should refrain from unambiguous assessments of the consisted cathedral - both optimistic and anxious. The main solutions are ahead.
Author - Deputy General Director of the Center for Political Technology
Alexey Makarkin
All rights to materials located on the EJ.ru website are protected in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, including copyright and related rights. With any use of the site and satellite projects, hyperlink (Hyperlink) on EJ.ru is required.