Merging the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church: Frequently Asked Questions. Reunification of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Reunification of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

Writing an article about Elder Arseny (Peter Andreyevich Streltsov in the world), inspired thoughts about the difficult relationship between the two Russian Orthodox Churches - the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (hereinafter - ROC MP) and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (hereinafter - ROCOR). It would seem that the institution of the Russian Orthodox Church is one and has common centuries-old roots, but the Soviet period introduces a serious split into relations, not contributing to the unification of two almost identical churches into a single Russian Orthodox Church. Yes, both sides have accumulated a lot of grievances and claims over the many decades of the Soviet period, but we must pay tribute to the fact that for some reason ROCOR has especially many of them in relation to the ROC MP. Are these claims really true, and are the grievances serious? This is what I would like to discuss a little in this article.

The history of the ROCOR, which is sometimes referred to as the Church Abroad, Karlovac, or Synodal Church, began in the years civil war in the south of Russia, which was occupied by the white army. In May 1919 took place Church Cathedral, who established the Provisional Higher Church Administration, which was headed by Metropolitan Anthony of Kyiv (Khrapovitsky), as the oldest Russian hierarch. The first meeting of this Directorate took place in November 1920 already on a ship with refugees en route from the Crimea to Constantinople. The canonical basis for the existence of ROCOR is the Decree of Patriarch Tikhon, the Synod and the Supreme Church Administration No. 362, which was issued in 1920 during the civil war. This decree allowed the bishops, who found themselves out of touch with the central church administration, to create temporary associations. However, soon, by the decision of the Serbian Council of Bishops, Metropolitan Anthony was granted the patriarchal palace in Sremski Karlovtsy (Yugoslavia), where in November 1921 a Church Council was opened, which openly did not recognize communist power in Russia. In response to this Council in Russia, under pressure from the Bolsheviks, Patriarchal Decree No. 348 was issued, which in turn abolished the Supreme Church Administration. These very actions can be considered the beginning of the schism of the Russian Orthodox Church. In May 1923, the Council of Bishops, with the personal participation of 12 bishops and with written responses from sixteen others, adopted a resolution that supreme body ROCOR is an annual Council chaired by Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev.

Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) 1937 photo. The same metropolitan who gave birth to the concept of "Sergianism", the assessment of whose life and work is one of the most controversial and difficult issues in church history.

The final break in relations between ROCOR and Moscow occurred after the adoption in 1927 of the declaration of loyalty by Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) Soviet power and opportunities for collaboration. Signatures under this declaration were also demanded from Russian Orthodox bishops who were abroad, who, of course, refused to do so. A new reason for disengagement in relations between churches was the course taken after the war (of course, not without pressure on the ROC MP from the state) on the course towards ecumenism - the movement towards the unity of all Christian denominations, including Catholics and Protestants. These two factors - cooperation with the Soviet authorities and an attempt to start a conversation with representatives of other religious denominations - became the main obstacle to improving relations between the ROC MP and ROCOR. After the collapse of the USSR, ROCOR began to demand repentance from the Moscow Patriarchate for the years of cooperation with the atheists, making this almost the main condition for dialogue. So the main question arose, for what to apologize? And is it necessary to apologize to our Western colleagues for the fact that the ROC MP, in the most difficult conditions of persecution of Orthodox priests and the oppression of believers, remained with its people and drank with them the full cup of Stalinist repressions? Of course, some priests worked for the NKVD, or rather, they were forced to work under pressure from employees of this structure, who, as one of my former teachers used to say, knew how to work and "didn't eat their bread for nothing." And of course, that doesn't excuse them at all. It doesn't excuse anyone. And the sin of these priests, who denounced their parishioners "where necessary", is exclusively on themselves. But not everyone cooperated with the NKVD.

The majority of Orthodox priests in the USSR went through camps and executions while retaining their strength of spirit and faith. Man, unfortunately, is weak and not everyone is ready to sacrifice themselves in the name of an idea or faith. Not everyone was ready to follow in the footsteps of Christ and accept martyrdom. But there were some! And those who are ready to throw a stone at those shepherds who collaborated with the authorities, let them try to put themselves in their place and answer honestly to themselves, but could he himself refuse to cooperate and go to the Gulag camps because of this refusal, almost to the right place? death?

One of the main claims against the ROC MP from ROCOR is the so-called "Sergianism" - cooperation with the "godless" Soviet authorities.

I don’t want to say that Orthodox priests abroad were in a significant best conditions. But it is so. Of course they "didn't ride like cheese in butter" and they certainly had their own problems, mostly material. But they did not have to make such a difficult moral choice as their colleagues in the USSR. They did not have to go to the camps for their priestly work and did not have to accept the torment of torture in the dungeons of the NKVD. It was very easy to argue from a rather prosperous foreign country that it was not necessary to cooperate with the Soviet authorities. Because then there is no need to answer another question, but how then was it necessary to preserve Orthodoxy among the masses? It is easy to demand sacrifice from others. It's harder to sacrifice yourself. That is why the ROCOR during its existence practically did not produce holy martyrs from its ranks, so to speak. And those saints whom they canonized (John of Kronstadt, Xenia Blessed) died in the pre-revolutionary period. But a lot of martyrs were recorded by the ROC MP. Unlike ROCOR, the priests in Russia remained with their people and continued their difficult path along the path of messianism, support and preservation of Orthodoxy among the people. And during the Great Patriotic War they made their tangible contribution to the defeat of the Nazi troops. Suffice it to recall the famous procession before the decisive battles for Moscow, to which, unprecedented for that time, the Soviet authorities gave their approval.

And the fact that the priests of ROCOR were far from being heroes is also evidenced by the fact that during the Second World War the new leadership of ROCOR had to move the Council of Bishops to Munich and collaborate with the Nazi authorities. Metropolitan Anastassy (head of the Bishops' Council) blessed the Russian Liberation Army of General Vlasov on " liberation campaign"against the Bolsheviks. Here one could recall the infamous Pskov Orthodox Mission, organized by the Nazis in the occupied Soviet territories, and much more, unforgivable and unacceptable from the point of view of a person born in our country. In 1950, the ROCOR Synod Abroad moved to New York and a reasonable question arises - what did they do to improve relations with the USSR and the mother ROC in their historical homeland during the Cold War? Having realized all this, a quite reasonable answer arises to all their claims: there is nothing to repent of the ROC MP before ROCOR.

During the Second World War, many Orthodox hierarchs abroad collaborated with the Nazi authorities, and the head of ROCOR, Metropolitan Anastassy, ​​welcomed the "liberation campaign" of the Vlasovites against the USSR.

And now about ecumenism. Initially, at the Moscow Pan-Orthodox Conference, which took place in 1948 in Moscow, the Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Georgian, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Albanian, Polish and Russian Local Orthodox Churches spoke out against ecumenism. However, ten years later, Metropolitan Nikolai of Krutitsy and Kolomna, who was then the chairman of the DECR, speaking at the Moscow Theological Academy, actually canceled the decisions of the Moscow Pan-Orthodox Conference and declared a change in the position of the ROC MP in relation to participation in the ecumenical movement. Officially, the main pretext for departing from the decisions of the Conference was the opinion that it was necessary to preach Orthodoxy among the non-Orthodox. Moreover, Metropolitan Nikolai argued that “thanks to the participation of some Orthodox Churches” there was an “evolution of the ecumenical movement”… “in contact with our church life, many leaders of the ecumenical movement completely changed their idea of ​​Orthodoxy.” That is why Metropolitan Nikolai suggested "increasing attention to its development."

Was it really so. I think it is partially so. But, on the other hand, on the part of the Soviet authorities there was a desire to take control of all religions, and the easiest way to do this, of course, is through the control of one religious institution. Add to this the communist internationalism preached by the Soviet government and the unification of all peoples under the auspices of a single communist system, and it will become clear why the ecumenical direction was supported by the ROC MP. I had to go for it under pressure from the authorities, no matter how much I wanted to keep cleanliness Orthodox Christianity, stretching back to the earliest pre-Byzantine Christianity. I had to, in order to save the little that we managed to get from the authorities in past years to save the church in the USSR. And Khrushchev's times have already come, and with them a new round of struggle against religion at the state level.

But is this a terrible crime on the part of the church, as many people try to present it? Or maybe the really ecumenical movement is the only way for Christianity to survive in a greatly changed modern world? In a world in which the authority of the Christian Church, in the so-called Western civilization, has fallen to almost zero due to the highly developed atheism, and in general for world Christianity there is a colossal decline. But Islam, on the contrary, is experiencing a new very strong ideological upsurge. Christianity is losing its positions all over the world, and in Africa and Asia there is simply a general extermination of Christians - a real genocide on religious grounds. Of course, one can only dream of uniting all Christian denominations into one, because this will never happen. But the fact that all denominations need at least to cooperate with each other and act as a united front to uphold Christian values ​​and morals is, in my opinion, undeniable. And in this vein, the ecumenical movement has the right to exist. And to take a dogmatic and unshakable position here is at least stupid, and at most criminal, because it leads to the degeneration of Christianity as a religion. Is this what representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad need?

However, despite all the existing contradictions, on May 17, 2007, the unification of the two churches took place, to which many years went. And the unification did not take place without the participation of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, which is certainly another big plus for his historical assessment. It is very good that the churches still found the strength in themselves to suppress everything external and superficial for that great accomplishment, which should put an end to the disunity of the Russian people that occurred as a result of the revolution and the subsequent Civil War. But to say that everything is fine, unfortunately, is not necessary. In many religious and mainly foreign forums, no, no, but a reproach or irritation towards the Moscow Patriarchate will flash by. Therefore, this article is probably more intended for such irreconcilable believing dogmatists, stubborn in the infallibility and uniqueness of ROCOR. In addition, not all ROCA hierarchs perceived the unification positively, and the event of rapprochement between the ROCOR and ROCOR caused, in turn, a very serious split within ROCOR itself.

The bad news is also that all these contradictions have not gone anywhere. And the so-called Western world, led by the United States, in its big geopolitical game against Russia will definitely play on these contradictions and on this field. And, frankly, already the game is on in the same Ukraine by the hands of Ukrainian nationalists. In the pursuit of independence from the "damned Muscovites", including on the ideological front, Ukraine, willingly or unwittingly, is trying to destroy the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church. It's only the beginning.

On May 17, at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia and the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Metropolitan Laurus of Eastern America and New York, signed the Act of Canonical Communion. This is definitely historical event puts an end to the 80-year conflict between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, divided by the Civil War. However, the document does not presuppose either unanimity or economic absorption - there is no question of the complete subordination of the Orthodox Church abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate.

How will the churches live?

The signing of the Act of Canonical Communion was important, first of all, for the believers themselves, since this document enables the priests of the ROC and ROCOR to serve together (in all Orthodox churches, and during worship in ROCOR parishes, the name of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia must now be remembered) , and to anyone Orthodox person confess, take communion and baptize their children in any church both in Russia and abroad.

According to the document, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad becomes "an integral self-governing part of the local Russian Orthodox Church." ROCOR will be “independent in pastoral, educational, administrative, economic, property and civil affairs”, will continue to be governed by its own Bishops’ Council, which constitutes its “highest spiritual, legislative, administrative, judicial and controlling authority”, and by the First Hierarch, elected on the basis of own charter of ROCOR.

The ROC reserved the right to approve "in accordance with the norms of canon law" the metropolitan of the Church Abroad. Important decisions will also be coordinated with the patriarch and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, for example, the formation or abolition of the ROCOR dioceses, as well as the election of new bishops abroad.

In other words, "foreigners", being "in canonical unity with the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church," remained autonomous. The hierarchs of both churches will be full participants in the Bishops' Councils, but, in fact, they will not make any personnel or administrative decisions regarding each other's lives.

contradictions

There is one very important provision in the document, which reflects the complexity of the processes taking place in the church environment. It provides for a five-year transitional period for resolving issues with clergy, who are considered apostates and schismatics in Russia, and with disputed parishes of ROCOR, which are located "on the canonical territory" of the Moscow Patriarchate (they must come under the jurisdiction of local ruling bishops).

In addition, it will be necessary to resolve differences with opponents of the unification of churches. Their mouthpiece is the head of the South American Diocese, Archpriest Georgy Petrenko. In his opinion, the ROC did not fully comply with the conditions set by the ROCOR, in particular, it did not condemn the "heresy of ecumenism" (the desire to unite all Christian churches, expressed in cooperation with the World Council of Churches) and the "sin of Sergianism" (recognition of the power of the Bolsheviks).

These claims against the Russian Orthodox Church, of course, will be discussed for a very long time, but they are unlikely to "come out" on high level. Back in 2004, the first hierarchs of the churches apologized to each other "for harsh statements", thus removing the topic of mutual insults. However, according to a number of observers, having defended ROCOR's autonomy only delayed its own split, which could occur in the next 10-15 years.

Moreover, there are formal grounds for its appearance. In the ROC, according to the parish charter, the property owner of the parishes is the patriarchate, and in the ROCOR it is the community, that is, the parishioners (this is an example of the Western attitude to property). That is, it is not the synod of "foreigners" who manages the property, so each community will decide voluntarily whether or not to enter a single church. So, for example, Lesninsky Holy Mother of God convent in France, despite the exhortations of Metropolitan Laurus, he said that he did not want to unite with the Russian Orthodox Church.

At the same time, there is an opinion that the current Act of Canonical Communion is only the first step towards the complete unification of the two Orthodox Churches, and all contradictions will be overcome in the coming years.

Association history

The conflict between the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad formally began in 1927, when the "white" church accused the "red" church, which was then headed by Metropolitan Sergius, "of compromising with the godless authorities." Since that time, all contacts between the two Orthodox churches have completely ceased, but ROCOR announced that it would "return to the fatherland" when the Bolshevik regime fell.

However, since the 1980s there has been an active "communication" between the laity and the priests. Moreover, all the Orthodox communities and schools that were reviving at that time worked according to books published precisely by “foreigners”. True, the beginning of the unification of churches at the level of the first hierarchs was not even discussed. But since 1990, when Alexy II became Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church began to appeal to the head of the Church Abroad, Metropolitan Vitaly, with appeals to "seek ways of reconciliation."

However, he rejected any negotiations, even despite the fact that the executed royal family was canonized as a saint, and in 2000 the Russian Orthodox Church adopted the "Fundamentals social concept"Church ministry, which observers then regarded as the most independent of secular authorities in the entire history of the church. Metropolitan Laurus, who replaced Vitaly, was less cold - he visited Russia, and shortly before that, Russian President Vladimir Putin also came to him.

The situation began to change when in 2003 Putin again came to the Lavra, but not empty-handed, but with a letter from Alexy II. This visit was being prepared for a long time, but after it active contacts began between representatives of the ROC and ROCOR, the result of which was the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion in Cologne on November 1, 2006. Then he was endorsed by the heads of the reconciliation commissions of the two churches. After that, the document had to be approved by the first hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church and ROCOR - this solemn and, in general, already formal ceremony was scheduled for the day of the Ascension of the Lord.

Results

Apparently, the initiator of the association was the ROC, which, having received about 400 parishes and 500 thousand ROCOR believers in 40 countries, expanded not only its representation, but also its influence in the world. However, this step was also important for the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, since in recent years both its flock and its financial capabilities have somewhat decreased.

It is worth noting the active participation of Vladimir Putin in the unification of the two churches. Some observers believe that with the strengthening of the influence of the ROC (especially in recent times, when the clergy were engaged not only in the spiritual nourishment of believers, but also "spoke out" on the widest range of issues of domestic life in Russia), its role as "an important element of the social and political structure" will also be strengthened. " country.

So, according to the first vice-speaker of the State Duma, a deputy from United Russia, Oleg Morozov, "the role of the Orthodox Church as essential element civil society as a non-state institution is growing." According to him, the reunification of churches certainly works for this, but the ROC should still remain out of politics. Independent deputy Vladimir Ryzhkov, in turn, believes that in "the politicization of relations between church and state, one should blame the state, not the church."

In the meantime, the first hierarchs of the ROC and ROCOR intend to demonstrate the strength of the union. On May 19, Alexy II, together with Metropolitan Laurus, will consecrate the Church of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in Butovo, which they founded three years ago at the former NKVD training ground, where clergymen were shot. And on May 20, another joint service will take place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin.

Ruslan Kadrmatov

The history of ROCOR (in other words, it is called the Church Abroad, Karlovtsy, or Synodal Church) began during the Civil War, when the south of Russia was occupied by the White Army. In May 1919, a Church Council was held there, which established the Provisional Supreme Church Administration, which was headed by Metropolitan Anthony of Kyiv (Khrapovitsky) as the oldest Russian hierarch. The first meeting of the Administration took place in November 1920 on a steamboat en route from the Crimea with refugees to Constantinople, the city that it was decided to choose as their place of residence.

The canonical basis for the existence of ROCOR is the Decree of Patriarch Tikhon, the Synod and the Supreme Church Administration No. 362, issued in the conditions of the civil war in 1920 and allowing bishops who found themselves out of touch with the central church administration to create temporary associations.

However, soon, by the decision of the Serbian Council of Bishops, Metropolitan Anthony was granted the patriarchal palace in Sremski Karlovtsy (Yugoslavia), where in November 1921 a Church Council was opened, which openly did not recognize communist power in Russia; in response to this, under pressure from the Bolsheviks, Patriarchal Decree 348 was issued, abolishing the Supreme Church Administration.

The subsequent, in May 1923, Council of Bishops (with the personal participation of 12 bishops and with written responses from sixteen others) decided that the highest body of ROCOR was the annual Council, chaired by Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev.

The final break in relations with Moscow occurred at the end of the 1920s, when, after the adoption in 1927 of the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) on loyalty to the Soviet government and the possibility of cooperation with it, signatures under this declaration began to be demanded from Russian Orthodox bishops who were abroad, which , of course, was unacceptable to them.

Simultaneously with ROCOR, an Archdiocese (Exarchate) of Russians also arose abroad. Orthodox parishes in Western Europe, founded in Paris by Metropolitan Evlogii (Georgievsky) and included in the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical (Constantinople) Patriarch. A small part of Russian emigrants remained faithful to the Moscow Patriarchate.

During the Second World War, the new leadership of ROCOR had to move the Council of Bishops to Munich and cooperate with the Nazi authorities.

In 1950 its Synod Abroad moved to New York.

ROCOR did not have full-blooded relations with the Moscow Patriarchate due to disagreements that had existed since the Karlovtsy period. Representatives of the foreign church named two main obstacles to unity. First of all, this is "Sergianism" and "ecumenism" - the cooperation of the ROC with the godless Soviet authorities (declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of 1927) and the participation of the ROC in the ecumenical movement - the movement towards the unity of all Christian denominations, including Catholics and Protestant Special Criticism the membership of the Russian Orthodox Church in the World Council of Churches is subjected to, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church believe that concessions to the Soviet government were the only possible condition the preservation of the church institution in the country, and participation in the ecumenical movement is necessary for witnessing Orthodoxy in the outside world.

The process of reunification of the Russian Church was not easy. After the collapse of the USSR, the hierarchs of the Church Abroad demanded repentance from the Moscow Patriarchate for years of cooperation with the atheists, while at the same time accepting a number of parishes in Russia under their jurisdiction, which only exacerbated the schism. Thus, despite the liberation of the Church in Russia from communist oppression, the schism of the Russian Church persisted. Calls for a return to the bosom of the Mother Church, repeatedly issued by the Moscow Patriarchate, were not accepted abroad.

On April 1, 2003, Patriarch Alexy II sent a message addressed to the hierarchs who lead the various Orthodox branches of Russian origin. There are three such branches: the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (ROC), the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), and the Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople for parishes of the Russian tradition in Western Europe.

Patriarch Alexy II proposed a plan that provided for the creation of a semi-independent Metropolitan district, uniting all the “branches” of the Russian Church under the formal leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate and with the prospect of granting autocephaly in the foreseeable future.

However, the dialogue with ROCOR, which soon began, moved much further than the stalled process of forming a metropolitan district in Western Europe.

The diplomatic mission of Russian President Vladimir Putin played a key role in this process. Visiting America in September 2003, the President met with ROCOR First Hierarch Metropolitan Laurus and members of the ROCOR Synod and conveyed to them an invitation from Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia to visit Russia and establish a dialogue.

On November 17, 2003, Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, Archbishop Hilarion of Sydney and Australia and New Zealand, and Bishop Kirill of San Francisco and Western America arrived in Moscow on an official visit to meet with Patriarch Alexy II. The most prominent ROCOR hierarchs visited the Russian capital not for the first time, but this visit took place at the official invitation of the Patriarch and the blessing of the head of the Church Abroad, Metropolitan Laurus.

On November 18, 2003, a closed meeting of the visiting bishops with members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church took place.

On November 19, 2003, the second, extended round of negotiations between Patriarch Alexy II and the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia ended at the Patriarch's residence in the Moscow Danilov Monastery. All members of the foreign delegation and members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church took part in it. The participants of the meeting discussed the problems of rapprochement between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Church Abroad, and also created commissions to work on problems that hinder unification. The delegation of the Church Abroad "expressed a request to forgive for all the harsh statements addressed to the Moscow Patriarchate."

On December 13-17, 2003, the Church Abroad held a Council of Bishops, the main theme of which was the further fate of the Russian Church Abroad and the ways of its rapprochement with the Church in the Fatherland. On the eve of the Council, Patriarch Alexy sent a special message to its participants with a call to overcome the tragic division between the two parts of the Russian Church. At the same time, His Holiness expressed repentance for those words and deeds that did not contribute to reconciliation. The Council adopted an appeal to the flock and approved the text of a response letter to Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia.

The meeting participants discussed the timing of the visit of the First Hierarch of the Church Abroad, Metropolitan Laurus, to Russia.

The commissions, which were established in December 2003 by the hierarchies of both sides, were instructed to work out a joint understanding of the following topics: on the principles of relations between the Church and the state; about the principles of the relationship of the Orthodox Church with non-Orthodox communities, as well as inter-confessional organizations, corresponding to the tradition of the Church; about the status of ROCOR as a self-governing part of the ROC; on the canonical conditions for the establishment of Eucharistic communion.

From May 14 to May 28, 2004, a visit of the ROCOR delegation took place and a landmark meeting and negotiations between the two primates, the heads of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (ROC) Patriarch Alexy II and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) Metropolitan Laurus. Their main result - managed to find mutual language, agree on approaches and express the common desire of the parties to unite. At the talks, it was also recognized as necessary to continue the general scientific and historical study of church events of the 20th century, in particular the feat of the holy new martyrs and confessors of Russia and the experience of the existence of the Church under conditions of persecution.

The pilgrimage of the ROCOR delegation to Russian shrines - to Yekaterinburg, Kursk, Nizhny Novgorod and Diveevo - once again assured foreign bishops and priests that the Orthodox faith in Russia has not disappeared. The final visit of Patriarch Alexy and Metropolitan Laurus to President Putin, who received them in Novoogarevo, strengthened the negotiation process.

From June 22 to June 24, 2004, the first working meeting of the commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad took place at the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate on the territory of the St. Danilov Monastery in Moscow. The commission was attended by the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, the chairman of the commission, Archbishop Innokenty of Korsun, Archbishop Eugene of Vereya, Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, Archimandrite Tikhon, Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, secretary of the commission.

Participating from the Russian Church Abroad were the chairman of the commission, Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, Bishop Ambrose of Vevey, Archimandrite Luke, Archpriest Georgy Larin, and Archpriest Alexander Lebedev, secretary of the commission.

The commissions discussed a number of issues in accordance with the agreements reached during the official visit of the delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, headed by Metropolitan Laurus, in May 2004. Agreed proposals were worked out on the issues of relations between the church and the state, on relations with non-Orthodox and inter-confessional organizations.

After the June meeting, the settlement of property disputes was announced. It was announced that, among others, a draft document "On the canonical status of the Russian Church Abroad as a self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church" had been prepared.

Disputes about the past of the two branches of Russian Orthodoxy were overcome. At the June meeting, the main issue was raised - Eucharistic communion. The strangest thing in the quarrel between the two Orthodox churches, which lasted for almost 70 years, is the ban on their parishioners from confessing and receiving communion from each other..

The documents developed during the meeting were approved on July 5, 2004 at a meeting of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad in San Francisco, and on August 17, 2004 - at a meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in Moscow.

In addition, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church called for an end to legal cases between the two parts of the Russian Church and to intensify pilgrimage, publishing and other joint activities of clergy and laity.

In July 2004, at a meeting between Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad and Archbishop Hilarion of Sydney, Australia and New Zealand, it was announced that the Russian Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate were going to conduct joint pastoral work among the Orthodox outside of Russia.

From September 14 to 16, 2004, the second working meeting of the commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad took place in the premises of the Cathedral of New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in Munich.

The Russian Orthodox Church took part in the work of the commissions: the chairman of the commission, Archbishop Innokenty of Korsun, Archbishop Eugene of Vereya, Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, Archimandrite Tikhon, Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, secretary of the commission.

Participating from the Russian Church Abroad were the chairman of the commission, Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, Bishop Ambrose of Vevey, Archimandrite Luke, Archpriest Nikolai Artemov, and Archpriest Alexander Lebedev, secretary of the commission.
The commissions continued the work begun at the first joint meeting held in Moscow from 22 to 24 June 2004.

The outcome of the two joint meetings was the coordinated draft documents covering the entire range of issues entrusted to the commissions, in particular, on relations between the Church and the state, on the relations of Orthodoxy with non-Orthodox communities and inter-confessional organizations, on the canonical status of the Russian Church Abroad as a self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church, and also about overcoming canonical obstacles to the establishment of Eucharistic communion.

During further joint meetings of the commissions in Moscow (November 17-19, 2004) and in Paris (March 2-4, 2005), drafts of a number of documents were prepared, subsequently approved by the Hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad.

In accordance with the agreement reached, approved by the decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (April 20, 2005) and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad (May 23, 2005), by the Commission of the Moscow Patriarchate for dialogue with the Russian Church Abroad and the Commission of the Russian Church Abroad for negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate Four documents were jointly developed:

1. On the joint work of the Commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad.

2. On the attitude of the Orthodox Church towards non-Orthodox denominations and inter-confessional organizations.

3. On the relationship between the Church and the state.

4. Commentary on the joint document "On Relations between Church and State".

On June 21, 2005, the official websites of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR simultaneously published the documents of the reciprocal commissions for dialogue between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) on the restoration of church unity.

In accordance with the draft Act of Canonical Communion, the Russian Church Abroad will become a self-governing part of the Moscow Patriarchate, similar to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

According to the project, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) will be independent in pastoral, educational, administrative, economic, property and civil matters. The highest authority within the Russian Church Abroad will be exercised by its Council of Bishops.

At the same time, decisions that go beyond the competence of the Council of the Church Abroad will be made in agreement with the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. The higher instance of church authority will be the Local and Bishops' Council of the Moscow Patriarchate - bodies whose members will be the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad.

In addition, according to the document, "the Russian Church Abroad receives holy chrism (special sacred oil) from the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia" as a sign of its unity with the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Members of the commissions of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Church Abroad also proposed to abandon all mutual reproaches that had been voiced over a long period of separation, and to recognize as invalid all previously issued acts that prevented the fullness of canonical communion.

The act of canonical communion will come into force if it is adopted by the ROCOR Council of Bishops and the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, which received authority for this from the ROC Bishops' Council held in 2005.

On May 6-14, 2006, the IV All-Diaspora Orthodox Cathedral Foreign Church. It was convened for the first time in 32 years - specifically to consider the readiness of the ROCOR clergy and laity for reconciliation with the Church in the Fatherland. 127 deputies, 11 bishops gathered from all over the world. Among the clergy and laity are representatives from Germany and Australia, South and North America, England, Siberia and Ukraine.

The IV Council became the most significant in terms of the importance of the problems raised at it. His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia, Patriarch Pavel of Serbia, Patriarch Maxim of Bulgaria, Patriarch Ilia of Georgia, Archbishop Georgy, Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Western Europe, monks of Athos and Optina Hermitage sent their greetings to him.

The third day of the Council's work became decisive. Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany made a report on the work done over two years in the conciliation commission.

On May 12, 2006, the IV All-Diaspora Council in San Francisco adopted a resolution on the restoration of Eucharistic communion with the Church in the Fatherland. The resolution was adopted by an open vote, almost unanimously. Less than 5% were against.

The document consists of six paragraphs. Serious debate, as expected, aroused points about the relationship between the Church and the state, or the so-called "Sergianism", and ecumenism (the movement towards unity of Christians of all denominations).

The restoration of Eucharistic communion means that the clergy of ROCOR and the Church in the Fatherland will be able to serve together, and the faithful will be able to partake of the Liturgy from the same Chalice.

The final act of canonical communion between ROCOR and the Church in the Fatherland is to be adopted by the Council of Bishops of the Church Abroad, which will be held in San Francisco on May 15-19.

The Council of Bishops of ROCOR is expected to adopt an Act of Canonical Communion, which will then be signed by Metropolitan Laurus, First Hierarch of ROCOR and Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia, and will pave the way for Eucharistic communion between ROCOR and the Church in the Fatherland.

Which was provided to them," the deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on international affairs, President of the Historical Perspective Foundation Natalya Narochnitskaya.

"We have made that spiritual effort, without which Russia cannot continue to exist. I am optimistic about this process of unification of the church, I believe that the inner core will become stronger, without which the state is just a territory with minerals, and the nation is just population. Faith transforms population into a nation," Narochnitskaya said.
In her opinion, it is very important for the nation to find internal harmony and eliminate division, especially in modern conditions, when not all countries in the world treat Russia favorably.

"Unification for ordinary believers has the same meaning as if the Montagues and the Capulets became friends, forgot all past grievances, prayed together at the coffin of Romeo and Juliet and forever condemned the institution of blood feud. No matter how far this analogy may seem, nothing less has been overcome It’s better not to remember now those words that have been spoken on both sides over these decades. And the fact that the two parts of the Russian Church are ready to leave all mutual grievances behind is a genuine miracle of God, "says Archpriest Maxim Kozlov, rector of the Church of the Martyr Tatiana.

What are the main contradictions that have divided the churches for so many years?

“We differed in our attitude to Russia’s past, to the ways of the church’s survival under the conditions of a totalitarian regime, in relations with the non-Orthodox Christian world .... Today, in the main, understanding on all these problems has been achieved,” says Archpriest Maxim Kozlov. "The division was not caused by questions of a doctrinal nature, but was dictated primarily by external and partly political reasons," explains Alexei Svetozarsky, Associate Professor of the MDAiS, Deputy Chairman of the Educational Committee of the Russian Orthodox Church, Archbishop of Vereya, Evgeny Svetozarsky.

What are the main arguments of the opponents of unification?

According to Archpriest Maksim Kozlov, "the main arguments of opponents of unification from outside in recent years have been removed. They concerned, first of all, the glorification of the new martyrs, which took place at the Jubilee Council of Bishops in 2000, and relations with the Soviet state. This problem was settled by the adoption of the foundations of the social concept of the ROC at the same Council, which speaks of the fundamental possibility of non-subordination of the Church to the state, when the latter puts forward demands that contradict the evangelical moral law. The third objection related to the ecumenical activities of the Moscow Patriarchate. to heterodoxy" and expressed readiness to continue the discussion about the need and measure of the participation of the Orthodox Church in the World Council of Churches. Today, the main fear of our foreign opponents remains the fear of the insincerity of the motives of the Moscow Patriarchate. Before what is real we guided by non-church motives. As a rule, these objections are put forward by those clerics and laity abroad who have never been to Russia in those years, and who are not familiar with our real church life.

Why is the question of uniting the ROC and ROCOR being decided right now? What is the main driving factor?

“First of all, because the obstacles dictated by political reasons, which separated us for almost 80 years, have disappeared. the desire of people of Russian tradition in the fatherland and abroad", - says Alexei Svetozarsky.

When did the active phase of the unification process start?

"The starting point of the unification process was the celebrations dedicated to the millennium of the baptism of Russia, in which some clergy and laity from ROCOR took part (we are talking about celebrations in Russia). The unification process entered an active stage after the visit of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin to the United States in 2003 and his meetings with the ROCOR hierarchs. Undoubtedly, the active phase of the unification process was prepared by the contacts of the representatives of the ROC and ROCOR, in particular, church-scientific conferences dedicated to the history of the Russian Church of the Soviet period. This was very correct, since the reasons that served as the division , are rooted precisely in the historical circumstances of the indicated period," said Associate Professor Alexei Svetozarsky.

Did the unification process start from below (among parishioners) or is it an initiative from above?

"The desire for unity and sympathy for ROCOR among Orthodox parishioners, especially among young people, existed even in the Soviet period. Undoubtedly, the steps that our hierarchy took on the path of rapprochement with ROCOR found a response among the parishioners of the new generation," says Alexei Svetozarsky.

Is there a possibility that now there will be a right to free education in academies and seminaries in Russia and abroad?

"Even before there were tendencies towards unification between the ROCOR and ROCOR, ROCOR clerics were trained in our theological schools, academies and seminaries, both on a full-time basis and in the distance learning sector. As for the famous seminary in Jordanville (USA), currently there are two graduates of our theological schools teaching there, who have been invited by the ROCOR hierarchies and have a blessing for this. His Holiness Patriarch", - said Alexei Svetozarsky.

The act of canonical communion is posted on the official portal of the Moscow Patriarchate. You can also view the document.

Thursday morning at Orthodox holiday Ascension of the Lord, the solemn signing of the Act of Canonical Communion, reuniting the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia and abroad, took place in the church. The document, the content of which was read out in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in the presence of all those gathered, was signed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), Metropolitan Laurus.

Metropolitan Laurus was the first to arrive at the signing to the solemn ringing of bells, followed by Alexy II. The ceremony was also attended by the president.

An official ROCOR delegation flew from New York to Moscow to complete the process of reunification with the ROC on Tuesday. In addition to the delegation headed by the metropolitan, singers from the joint choir, representatives of the clergy and pilgrims from the United States came to Moscow to sign the unifying document.

On the day of the unification of the sister churches, the royal gates of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior are open during the entire solemn service, which usually happens only on Easter week. “The laity want to see with their own eyes how this will happen for the first time, when Metropolitan Laurus and foreign priests will partake of the same cup together with ours for the first time,” said archpriest, secretary of the Department for External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

On May 19, Alexy II, together with Metropolitan Laurus, will consecrate the Church of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in Butovo (in this place, during the years of Stalin's rule, big number clergy). The temple was jointly laid by the first hierarchs three years ago. And on May 20, another joint service of the first hierarchs will take place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin.

All these events will draw a line under the three-year negotiation process on the reunification of the ROC and ROCOR.

Attempts to establish contacts between the two branches of the Russian Church have been made repeatedly since the 1990s. But only since 2003, meetings between delegations have become regular. Over the next three years, the unification process gained momentum. First in Russia, in October 2004, the highest clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church, having gathered at the Council of Bishops, voted for the restoration of unity with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. And then abroad - in May 2006, the Council of Bishops approved the resolution of the IV All-Diaspora Council on the consent of ROCOR to begin the process of reunification with the ROC.

True, the matter never came to the adoption of a canonical act that would officially determine the new status of ROCOR.

It was assumed that the “Act of Canonical Communion” between ROCOR and the ROC would be adopted by the Council of Bishops of the Church Abroad in San Francisco on May 15-19, 2006. What happened at the cathedral remained unclear for some time. But since the approval of the document seemed like a matter of course, the media began to report on it even before the cathedral closed.

However, it soon became clear that nothing had actually been done: the canonical act was not adopted, but only sent for revision by commissions to overcome differences. As a result, the document was approved only in September, at a meeting of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops in New York. And on December 7-10, 2006, an expanded meeting of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad was held, at which the date and place of signing the act of canonical communion were set and the document “On the results of the joint work of the Commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad” was signed. December 26, 2006 and Holy Synod The Russian Orthodox Church approved the procedure for signing the "Act on Canonical Communion".

Under what conditions the reunification will take place was outlined a year ago: the foreign Orthodox Church made it clear that it sees itself as a "self-governing part of the local Russian Church."

This implies the joint participation of the hierarchs of the churches in bishops' councils, but does not imply any personnel or administrative decisions concerning each other's lives. In the coming years, as experts suggest, there will be no administrative unification of churches, and the parties will indeed communicate on an equal footing.

But this autonomy is unlikely to be permanent. It is possible that the stage of ROCOR self-government will not last longer than 10-15 years, and after that different scenarios are possible, says the director of the Institute for the Study of Religion in the CIS and Baltic States. In his opinion, either a calm final merger or a schism of ROCOR will take place.

At the same time, it was only the agreement on the autonomy of ROCOR that made it possible to smooth over many controversial issues that hindered the reunification process, including those relating to real estate. The issue of disputed church property was one of the most acute in the negotiation process. In the ROC, according to the parish charter, the property of Orthodox parishes is owned by the patriarchate, in ROCOR it is the parishioners. Another alignment for the parishioners of ROCOR will be, in fact, an attack on the values ​​of Western democratic society.

Some “foreigners” openly spoke of fears that the administrative unification would lead to the fact that ROCOR churches would be taken away from ROCOR - therefore, the decision on autonomy became a compromise.

There were also less painful, although also fundamental, differences. Foreign Orthodox hierarchs have stated, for example, that they are embarrassed by the participation of the Moscow Patriarchate in the activities of the World Council of Churches, the governing body of the ecumenical movement, which now includes more than 300 churches from 100 countries, mostly Orthodox and Protestant. The problem is that Protestants in ROCOR are disliked, equating them with sectarians.

By the way, the forthcoming unification has already provoked a split in ROCOR. Some of the clerics of the Church Abroad are still afraid that the unification will turn into a mere takeover, so they prefer to go into schism. And although the majority of "foreigners" is still for unification, the situation on the eve of the signing of the document is not the most calm.

But despite all these difficulties, the ROC and ROCOR need a friend.

The Moscow Patriarchate is firmly committed to reunification as a win-win. The merger, analysts believe, will enable the ROC to solve a serious geopolitical problem - in fact, to have representations on all the globe, and the Orthodox Church Abroad is aware of the need for such a step, knowing full well that since the first wave of emigration, both the ROCOR flock and its financial capabilities have noticeably decreased.