Critical moment

The convocation and, apparently, the already failed failure of the All -Orthodox Council on Crete is the personal merit and personal responsibility of Patriarch Kirill. Preparations for the cathedral were really carried out for decades and could last a long time, if not for the decisive actions of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. The dependence of world Orthodoxy on the Moscow Patriarch is not surprising, if we take into account the fact that the entire Orthodox “Ummah” is divided into two large coalitions since the late 1940s - relatively speaking, Greek and Russian.

The first includes primarily the churches based on Greek ethnic identity: the founder of Orthodoxy - the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Elladsky Church (mainland Greece), Cyprus, Alexandria (Egypt and all of Africa), the Ierusalem Churches. Their most serious ally is the Romanian Orthodox Church. There are several more smaller churches, mainly in the former countries of the Eastern Bloc (for example, Finnish, Estonian). The leader of the second coalition is the Russian Orthodox Church, which is traditionally supported by the Georgian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Czech and Antioch (Arabic, with the center in Damascus) of the Church.

The formation of these coalitions is in obvious contradiction with the preserved dogmatic unity of churches and everyday practical contacts within the world Orthodox community. Orthodox people from all over the world go to the same shrines, read and spread the teachings of their loved ones who wrote in different eras and in different languages, pray to the icons made by masters in the countries of the “opposite coalition”, accept priests and laity of other Orthodox churches, and experienced anxiety generated in the Orthodox environment for thousands of kilometers from their places of residence.

Nevertheless, the confrontation between official church structures, historically dating back to the fierce struggle of the Russian and Ottoman Empires in the 18th-19th centuries, is preserved. He is heated by the need for permanent deed of new territories, which are mastered by the Orthodox by virtue of migration and, less often, mission, as well as the constant emergence of new national church structures, longing for "falling away" from "Mother Church" and recognition of world Orthodoxy in the person of Constantinople and other large churches.

At the same time, the preservation of the dogmatic unity and the presence of such an authoritative of an extra-national body as the monasteries of the Holy Mount Athos restrained the reform that had already been quite affected for many national churches, designed to at least somehow bring the archaic, Orthodox tradition in accordance with the reality of the changing world.

It was in this regard that the special role of Patriarch Kirill, who sees himself at the same time as an outstanding reformer and geopolitical man, was manifested. To spend the first all-Orthodox cathedral in the centuries, slightly weaken the mossy prohibitions, change the old stitches of hatred to those who believe a little differently, and at the same time demonstrate to the world Orthodoxy, who is its true leader, and, using it, to achieve some practical concessions from Constantinople-this is a typical remote idea for the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, which it seemed to him, which it seemed to him. It was realized with the help of storm, onslaught and small subsidies from the Russian state.

The problem, however, was not only in tug of the rope between Moscow and Constantinople. It suddenly turned out that the minority shareholders of large enterprises also have their own interests, and strongly diverging with the interests of company directors. What is the series of public protests of the vicar, mainly bishops of the UOC from the bear corners of Ukraine - Chernivtsi, Odessa and Khmelnitsky regions - as well as Moldova, who were silently but obviously supported by church "heavyweights" from members of the Synods of the Ukrainian and Moldavian churches. These people did not even suit the appearance of the normalization of relations with the Romanian church, which in this case could claim to expand its presence in these territories, where there is a Romanian -speaking population.

With conservative criticism of the issues raised at the All -Orthodox Council, ROCZ and who were under strong Russian influence (and in difficult relations with the Eltsk Church) acted. The circle of protesters was determined clearly. These are those who build their "Orthodox identity" on a special form of conservatism, lifting the bar of confession to maximum height. They really do not want any peace, general agreements, and even more so, letters. Sitting in your monastery and demonstrating your own radicalism of a few, but faithful audience is that they can do well. As well as to receive subsidies in order to keep silent in time.

But such protests could be experienced, pacified or crushed if the main player in this field wanted to consistently achieve the declared goal - the Cathedral. However, it seems that the combination of Moscow as a process of the process and Constantinople as a steering wheel failed. It turned out that the main Orthodox Greek did not want to provide Cyril with a diplomatic victory.

What the Patriarch of Moscow from the Patriarch of Constantinople wanted, who in what order “threw” whom at what time began to “blackmail”, why Putin really went to Athos, how exactly the vassals of Moscow were connected to nominate absurd requirements and what they wanted to bargain at the “pre -collection meeting” - all this may ever and perhaps we may ever We will find out. But, I'm afraid that it will be interesting only to historians of religion. Now, instead of the promised "triumph of Orthodoxy" before the eyes of the bazaar scandal. And even if the cathedral will nevertheless take place (for which with every hour there is less hope), reputational damage to world Orthodoxy is already much exceeding the planned image acquisitions.