Putin brings

• OCN Website

• The Video - "A New Era Begins"

The Orthodox Christian News Service

Published by Stetson University Russia Religion News, December 16, 2003

Putin brings together divided Orthodox churches

STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS OF ORTHODOXY

Patriarch Alexis II acknowledges guilt before diaspora church

by Mikhail Pozdniaev

Novie izvestiia, 16 December 2003 - Today in Jordanville outside New York the four day session of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia was completed. This quite routine event would hardly deserve extended commentary were it not for the appeal by Alexis II to its participants. In a letter published on 14 December the patriarch acknowledged for the first time that during the entire soviet period of its history RPTs was subjected "to direct pressure of nonchurch forces."

His Holiness' letter should make a powerful impression on the "diaspora churchmen." Throughout the thirteen years of his primacy (plus the preceding nearly thirty years of his episcopacy) Alexis II maintained the point of view that he and his brethren "saved the church" by their cooperation with the theomachistic authorities. In earlier times nobody would dispute with the patriarch over the "salvation" (everybody lived by the law: "Whatever is necessary to survive"). But His Holiness has composed an original understanding of what saves and what harms the souls of the Christian in the stormy 90s. Thus this was not by any means understood by all, not only outside Russian but also inside Russia. After all, from an Orthodox point of view "Christ alone" will save the church. Now finally the thing that the head of ROCOR, Metropolitan Laurus, and participants in the council in Jordanville have the right to consider a fulfilment of one of their conditions for reunification of the two parts of the split church has happened: the Moscow patriarchate has repented of the sin of "sergianism" (named for Metropolitan Sergius, who became patriarch in 1943 by the kindness of comrade Stalin). "Living in a world that was divided 'by an iron curtain,'" Alexis II wrote to Jordanville, "on both sides of it we were, each in our own ways, subjected to the self-serving influence of opposing political systems. Neither of them was Christian or Orthodox. . . ."

Every word here is measured with an apothecary's precision. Sins of pastors in Russia are equated with sins of priests in the diaspora. The accusation of self-service is applied impersonally to "political systems," and not, say, to Brezhnev or Reagan, much less to one or another bishop of RPTs and ROCOR. But the deed has been done: the patriarch acknowledged guilt before those whom he recently called "schismatics" and "enemies of mother church." It is a document of great, without exaggeration, politics. It is what separates great politics from the ordinary that can produce a powerful impression.

The political significance of the patriarch's letter is magnified by the situation that within the bosom of the diaspora church the haste with which reconciliation with Moscow was begun is not by any means unanimously approved. Even at the pastoral conference of ROCOR held before the council, discussions sometimes took on such a sharp character that obstinate priests had to be reminded about the obligation of obedience: "Our first hierarch, Metropolitan Laurus, occupies a special place among our bishops. He is a living bearer of the traditional spirit of our diaspora church and of ministry to Russia, and we have special love and trust in him." Translated into secular language that says: "Father knows best."

Let's add: two years ago ROCOR itself split. A substantial part of it remained loyal to the aged Metropolitan Vitaly who had been subjected to intrigues. In recent months accusations have begun to the effect that the "Laurites" are simply being bought off by the Moscow patriarchate.

Repentance came from the lips of Alexis II, as we have seen, at the right time. But not at all suddenly.

First, let's recall that it has been awaited for at least thirteen years. Second, during the November conversations with the patriarch and members of the synod of RPTs Archbishop of Berlin and Germany Mark, according to his own words, twice "asked for forgiveness for previous extremism, offensive words, and excesses" (one will agree that the bolshevik wording "excesses" on the tongue of a German by birth and a convinced bolshevism fighter is striking). In response Metropolitan Kirill, whose activity in the field of international cooperation by RPTs enjoys no sympathy on the part of the diaspora churchmen, also asked for forgiveness from his antagonist, Archbishop Mark, and his companions. Further, like dominoes, on the eve of the council Metropolitan Laurus stated in an interview with a journalist from Russia: "I have had occasion to hear the opinion that Patriarch Alexis II and those clergy who were forced to cooperate with agencies of KGB, should repent publicly. . . On the other hand, people in Russia often say, 'We suffered and endured calamity here, while you lived abroad in prosperity. And now we are supposed to repent!' I think that the whole Russian people, all Orthodox Russian people both in the fatherland and beyond its borders should repent because we departed from the laws and rules of piety. And just how much we violated these laws and rules, each one knows for himself."

Nothing else remained for the patriarch but to repent. And in this case his action deserves respect. What comes after it is another matter.

Church history has the capacity to become myths more rapidly that simple history. At the end of the summer a fable was going around Moscow to the effect that during his severe illness some saint appeared to the patriarch, calling him to repent for the sins of which the "diaspora churchmen" accused him. Now, lo and behold, they say that His Holiness' repentance is directly connected with the miraculous appearance. On their part, the diaspora churchmen embellish the current events preceding the January visit of Metropolitan Laurus to Moscow with all possible splendor and significance. An icon of the "Miracle of the healing of St. Serafim of Sarov" was painted, in which the boy Prokhor, the future saint, was healed by the icon of the Kursk Root Mother of God. The Kursk Root icon is the chief sacred object of ROCOR, which was taken out of the country at the time of the civil war. So now on the new icon this sacred object is held by two priests, one in red and the other in white garments, clearly symbolizing "soviet Rus" and "emigrant Rus."

A bad peace is better than a good fight. Reunification of the two parts of Russian Orthodoxy is a pleasant process. But for its initiators it will be hard to conceal from the flock that the "process has occurred" only due to the efforts made by the president of Russia. The patriarch invited the diaspora clergy to Moscow often, but they responded only after Vladimir Putin issued to them another invitation. For both RPTs and ROCOR and also the president of the Russian federation the main argument in favor of reunification is that if our motherland is a super state, it should have a super church. Metropolitan Laurus' visit will exceed in its pomp and attention on the part of the authorities all previous visits by persons of ecclesiastical rank. One can joke: in place of the pope's name let's write "Laurus." Especially for the head of ROCOR the time for the next World Russian People's Council will be displaced and its agenda will be changed; instead of "National Security," there will be "The Ways of the Russian Diaspora."

As in the 1970s the parishes of RPTs abroad served as centers of foreign intelligence, so tomorrow ROCOR may become the outpost of Russian geopolitics. Its churches will be something of a fifth column. "We have been entrusted with a joint message to modern humanity," the patriarch writes to the Jordanville sages. "Practically everything that divided our people has today vanished into the past. Only one unhealed wound remains. . . . The priority of its healing is understood both inside and outside church circles."

"We were completely in the right to be extremely critical of the Moscow patriarchate ten or fifteen years back," Archbishop Mark says. "But in that time radical changes occurred (including the qualitative and quantitative condition of the episcopacy). . . . We have no reason for excluding ourselves from this process. . . ." We can cite the much more direct expression of a teacher from the Holy Trinity Ecclesiastical Seminary of ROCOR in Jordanville, Mr. Psarev, who visited Moscow. "What is very striking is the external might of the Russian church structure. The comparison of such might with the small and--in comparison with this strength--weak manifestation of the Russian church abroad sometimes overwhelms me. . . ."

Unfortunately, such a comparison overwhelms the minds of not only the prudent politicians of ROCOR, who dream, like the leadership of RPTs, of expanding their sphere of influence. Of consolidating their power. A majority of their parishioners also want to see a church (whereever they go, like their neighbors who are Catholics and Mormons) that makes a powerful impression.

But this is the attraction of Orthodoxy, that its "strength is created in weakness." Some apostle put it that way. And that's just what was said by an actor in a film that is popular both in Russia and among emigrants: "Where's your strength, American? Do you think it is in money? No. It is in the truth." (tr by PDS)