Konstantin Eggert: “Not coming to Crete strengthens the position of super-conservatives among the clergy of the Russian Church”

Journalist, publicist, international observer Konstantin Eggert commented for the SOVA Center on the results of the Pan-Orthodox Council , in which the Russian Orthodox Church refused to take part.

The Council that just took place in Crete is, of course, an important event. Thanks to him, many realized for the first time that the Orthodox churches are a fairly large community, with almost three hundred million believers, their own view of the world, in some ways very traditional, their attitude to the processes taking place in the world. The fact that such a meeting took place for the first time in a thousand years is undoubtedly a good sign: it turns out that the Orthodox churches, which were considered closed and perhaps even overly self-centered, supposedly not interested in modernity, are in fact not so closed and interested in modernity. And in this sense, the Council is a good thing. Of course, the scale of the Cretan Council is not the same as it would have been for Catholics in a similar situation - I think they would have been talking about the next Catholic Council for months - but, nevertheless, this is also an important event.

Unfortunately, the reasons why the Russian Orthodox Church did not send its delegation to Crete are completely unclear, and this does not give us the opportunity to fully reason about whether the Russian Church lost or gained by deciding not to participate in the Council. Perhaps they were so serious that it was impossible to go. But if they are not related to vital things, if, for example, the non-arrival is connected with some kind of conflict with the Patriarch of Constantinople, then it would probably be preferable to go. For one simple reason: no one doubts the gigantic role the Russian Church plays in world Orthodoxy. No one doubts that in terms of influence, even simply in the number of flocks, no one can compare with her. Therefore, I think it was necessary to go, and even if there were some problems there, they had to be sorted out and dealt with on the spot. Moreover, most of the meetings were closed and what was released to the public was quite tightly controlled by press secretaries and media advisers of church delegations.

Now it turns out that all the topics that were discussed at the Council were submitted for consideration and presentation to the city and the world by the Ecumenical Patriarch and other participants. Meanwhile, the Russian Church has something to say about the state of the world - and this opportunity was missed. Let me remind you that in 2000 the Russian Orthodox Church adopted the “Fundamentals of the Social Concept”, some may like this document, some may not, but with all its individual oddities, this is a serious document that could be developed, it could contribute to development of conciliar documents concerning family, fasting, etc.

If we look at the documents adopted by the Council, it becomes obvious that there is nothing in them that contradicts the official line of Chisty Lane. And this gives rise to certain suspicions: either the relations between the top hierarchy of the Russian Church and the top hierarchy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate are so tense that they cannot even be in the same room; or there was some kind of external pressure, which in this situation prevents the church from participating in an event that is extremely important for it. Both suspicions reflect poorly on the image of the Russian Church, both among believers and, perhaps more importantly, among observers and analysts who are trying to interpret what happened.

There is no doubt that not coming to Crete strengthens the position of super-conservatives among the clergy of the Russian Church. This group may not be so numerous, but it is very active and articulates its ideas very loudly, seeing in everything some kind of conspiracies, Freemasons, Zionists, Catholic heresiarchs and a world government. It turns out that the patriarch is forced to give in to these people, because they were the ones who demanded not to go to Crete. Some will say that in this way Patriarch Kirill compensated for the sharp criticism from radical circles within the church that his meeting with the Pope caused. But this is not so - the patriarch did not compensate for anything, because nothing can satisfy these people. These circles will never forgive the patriarch for the fact of meeting with the pope. This means that, firstly, the specter of church disorder is once again rising in full force in the church and the radicals are gaining the upper hand, which will very likely affect further episcopal appointments, publishing work, and much more.

As a result, the Russian Church, compared to other churches that are also very conservative, even more conservative than the Russian Church, but nevertheless trying to open up to the world, to understand something about it, is rather closing itself. At least that's the logic so far.

And second: it is obvious that in these conditions the church leadership will be even more dependent on state power, because the fear of a rebellion by radicals within will always push for closer relations with external sources of support.

So the non-arrival, unless it was dictated by some super-serious reasons that we have no idea about, rather had a negative impact on both the image and the future of the Russian Church.