I am writing about this acute and painful subject as an Orthodox Christian - after lengthy conversations with clerics and laity in Russia and in the East, with a full understanding of the responsibility of the moment, in order of discussion.
In Ukraine, they are preparing for the creation of a new Orthodox church. It does not matter that there is an Orthodox church with a thousand-year history, recognized and revered by all, led by Metropolitan Onufriy. President Poroshenko decided to create a new one, more precisely, to blind it from two unrecognized church groups under the leadership of Philaret and Macarius, having secured with the non-canonical blessing of Bartholomew, the patriarch of Constantinople.
The new church, although of dubious origin, will have nothing to do with Moscow. And this is the most important thing for Poroshenko, especially on the eve of the elections.
According to the media, the extremely ambitious Filaret has already declared that he will not become the patriarch of the new church. And this makes sense, as we shall soon see.
Moscow is extremely upset by this development of events. The unity of the Orthodox Church has always been highly valued in Russia, and the undermining of church unity with Ukraine is especially sad, especially since there is a danger that, with the patronage of nationalists, the new church will try to seize the temples of the legitimate, recognized church that is in closest alliance with Moscow.
But every cloud has a silver lining. As I try to explain further, Russia and the Russian church will be able to win rather than lose from the lawless acts of Poroshenko, Philaret and Bartholomew. Russians can play a game without rules, and then their opponents will remain on the beans.
Only meekness and respect for tradition still hold back Russia's steps in this area (and in other areas too). It reminds me of the food of the gods by HG Wells. The scientist has invented a miraculous remedy - it is worth giving to his children, and they grow into five-meter giants. Society brutally persecutes young giants. In one of the strongest scenes of the novel, the wicked little old woman treats huge children and they, childishly meek, submit to her tyranny. But in the end, the giants are breaking free - not without damage to the little people who have to accept.
Russia is a young giant who tries to follow the rules set by the pygmies. Membership in PACE, in the Council of Europe, in the International Court of Justice only limit Russia and give nothing in return. And they cannot give - in these organizations they play a stained deck of cards.
Russia joined them in search of legitimacy, although its predecessor, the USSR, did not need this. Only now, after several fruitless years, Russia is beginning to change the rules in response to a change of rules from the outside.
Church alignment - from the same opera. Orthodox Constantinople fell in 1453 and turned into Islamic Istanbul. From the once mighty Byzantine capital remained a phantom - the Patriarch of Constantinople. Several monks, one of whom calls himself the ecumenical patriarch, several churches in the Fanar quarter of Istanbul. There are many such phantoms in the world - there are heads of the Order of Malta and the Order of the Templars, there are kings of Greece, Cyprus and Bulgaria, there are emperors of Brazil and Austria-Hungary. And Russia is not deprived - there are applicants for the Moscow throne. Phantom is not a curse word. Romantics who like old uniforms and gold embroidery are often associated with it. Only these honorable people do not represent anyone, they have no power, although they are able to write out certificates of talent nobility titles and awarding orders.
As long as the Ottoman Empire existed, the Patriarch of Constantinople had a certain position. The Sultan cared about him, and the patriarch supported the power of the Sultan among the Orthodox.
At that time, the Russian church suffered a great deal from its demands, but it was humbled: you could not jump over the sultan’s head, and the patriarch was an official of the sultan. But the Turkish Empire collapsed, the republic defeated, Atatürk formed a secular state, and in the eyes of the secular Turkish authorities, the patriarch became just a priest who nursed the countless Greeks left after the population exchange (when the Greeks went to Greece and the Turks to Turkey). The Russian church, this young giant, continued to take care of the pygmy on the throne of Constantinople, gave him honors, generously sent gifts and an impressive amount of money. After the fall of the USSR, Russians began to give even more honors, gifts and money.
Patriarch of Constantinople took this generosity for granted. His claims grew. He began to consider himself the Eastern equivalent of the Pope, authorized to create and cancel autocephalous churches.
Fanar enjoys strong support from Washington: phantoms love to cherish there. For decades, the Americans kept phantom governments of the Baltic republics and other Warsaw Pact countries, and it paid off in 1991.
The Russian church, which had sought its place after the sudden rise in the new, post-Soviet Russia, really wanted to fit into the traditional structures, not thinking that there was little benefit from this, but the damage was great. Not only was there any benefit from uniting with the Russian church abroad — her main dowry was frantic anti-Sovietism, anti-communism, and the rejection of a significant part of Russian history.
But in favor of an alliance with foreigners we can at least say: these are the costs of the necessary association of the Russian people in Russia and abroad. The recognition of Constantinople as the first in the honor of the department of the Orthodox world did not make much sense.
A fanar phantom was just waiting for a chance to gain flesh and blood. This incident was presented to him by the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko. Kiev regime dreamed of independence, like Mazepa:
Without cute liberty and glory
We bowed long heads
Under the auspices of Warsaw,
Under the rule of Moscow.
But with independence did not develop. Kiev managed to break with Moscow, but instead of Russia's sister-in-charge, Ukraine came under much tighter control by the West. Its money is controlled by the IMF, its army is NATO, its policy is the State Department.
The departure of the Ukrainian church from under the nominal sovereign power of the Moscow patriarch seemed to the Kiev elite a suitable substitute for more real signs of sovereignty. Poroshenko appealed to Fanar phantom with a request to give the Ukrainian church autocephaly, that is, full church independence. According to church rules, this question had to be addressed to Moscow, but the Kiev regime did not want this. And Vladyka Fanara agreed to meet him. He “abolished” the historical recognition of the transfer of the Kiev department to the hand of Moscow, given more than three hundred years ago, and declared that he had the right to create in Ukraine a new church subordinate directly to Constantinople.
“Poroshenko bribed him!” They shouted in Moscow. But I am sure that money is not the case (only a person who can be bribed will assume that others can be bribed). Patriarch Bartholomew wants to stop being a phantom and become a real church ruler. Ukraine is a vast and rich diocese, many times larger and richer than any Orthodox country (with the exception of Russia).
As I understand it in the course of conversations with church leaders of the East, Bartholomew will give Ukrainians limited independence (Stavropegia) under his patriarchal staff. That is, even that Ukrainian church, which, probably, will arise in Kiev, will not be truly local and autocephalous - it will be subordinated to Constantinople, as it is now subordinated to Moscow. (Apparently, that is why Filaret decided to avoid accepting the patriarchal klobuk.) Here it is, the choice of the Ukrainian church - to be near Moscow or near Istanbul. Like the Ukrainian state - to be near Moscow or near Brussels, Washington, Warsaw.
Moscow reacted painfully to Fanara’s attempt to tear off one of the canonical territories from her. It's clear.
She proclaimed Bartholomew a schismatic and forbade "to serve" with his priests and bishops. But you can look at what is happening in a different way and see that the benefits to Russia of these events far outweigh the harm.
The unity of the Orthodox churches rests on two parameters. One of them is canonical territories. Outside their canonical territory, local churches cannot appoint bishops and build churches without the consent of the lord of the territory. The second parameter is the common liturgy and the single participle.
Orthodox Russians visiting Athos or the Holy Land will not be able to take communion there without violating the dictates of their church, and Russian priests will not be able to "serve" there because the priests and rulers of Jerusalem and Athos will not prevent the priests of Fanar from participating in the services. Even more so in Turkey, where there are several temples, and there Russian pilgrims will not be able to take communion, and the priests will not "serve".
Fanar himself, and even more so the Church of Jerusalem, in no way limits the Russian laity and priests. For them, the territorial issue is completely separated from the topic of the sacrament.
The Russian church could choose the principle of reciprocity adopted in diplomacy, or reciprocity. You are violating the territorial principle - and we believe the territorial principle is not the former, canceled. You recognize our Eucharist, and we recognize yours.
And then Moscow will be able to send its bishops and build up its churches in Tsargrad and Jerusalem, in Rome and Washington.
It will be able to freely implement its world mission, leading to the Orthodox faith and feeding the French in France and the Italians in Italy, the Jews in Israel and the Arabs in Palestine. Moscow will be able to break from its hands and feet the fetters to which she herself agreed in the name of the unity of the Orthodox Church.
If the Fanar phantom has violated the principle of canonical territory, he needs to respond with the same that will be extremely advantageous for Russia and its church. But it is impossible to joke with the Eucharist, and it is not necessary. While Phanar and Jerusalem accept the Russian Eucharist and liturgy, in consideration of the principle of reciprocity, the Russian Church should accept their Eucharist and liturgy.
Now the Moscow Patriarchate demands from every Russian Christian who took communion with the "schismatics" in Jerusalem, to bring repentance.
I think this will create problems. Even those that repent will not sincerely repent. It is better here to follow Constantinople and allow communion with them in Russian churches, and in Russian in their churches.
(And so as not to get up twice, the time has come for reciprocity and with Catholics. Catholics allow Russians to take communion in Catholic cathedrals, it is possible to admit Catholics to Orthodox communion, thereby strengthening the unity of the Christian Church. Churches are completely separate and do not serve together , but believers will be able to receive communion from each other)
Especially important is the unity of the sacrament for the Holy Land. Theophilus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, did not want and does not want to quarrel with either Constantinople or Moscow. So, he will not prohibit serving the priests of the Constantinople Patriarchate, no matter how much Moscow may persuade him. Stopping communion in the Church of the Resurrection (Church of the Holy Sepulcher) in Jerusalem, and in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, and in the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth, would be an overwhelming punishment for Russian pilgrims.
But in the Holy Land, one can, on the principle of reciprocity, abandon territoriality. You can appoint bishops to Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth, and attract the flock - both Orthodox Palestinians who speak Arabic and Orthodox residents of Israel. And these are hundreds of thousands of believers not covered in our time.
In Jerusalem, since it was conquered by Ottoman Turks in the 16th century, the Greeks, natives and immigrants from Greece rule the Orthodox Church. The indigenous Orthodox population (local Palestinians) are not allowed into the monasteries, they are not elevated to the bishop and they are not allowed into the synod. This harsh discrimination has long annoyed Palestinian Christians. Some of them go to the Catholic Church, some to the Protestant churches. The fire of rebellion against foreign hierarchs is smoldering in the Jerusalem church, ready to break out at any moment, as it already broke through in the Antioch church. Already last Christmas, the Patriarch of Jerusalem was able to get a service in Bethlehem only under the protection of the bayonets of the Israeli army. People are unhappy with them. If the Russian church establishes its pulpit in the Holy Land and appoints its Romanian patriarch, many churches will go to it and many parishioners will find a new home in it.
This also applies to Orthodox immigrants from Russia, of whom there are many in the Holy Land. The Greeks at the head of the Jerusalem Patriarchate do not care about them. Their main concern is pilgrim churches and pilgrims. And the locals? Never mind. Since 1948, since the Jewish state arose, not a single new Orthodox church has been built in Israel. Big cities - Beer-Sheva, Afula, tourist Eilat - are deprived of churches. Of course, the Israeli authorities are not conducive to the construction of churches, but the Jerusalem Orthodox Church is not doing anything in this direction.
Nearly a million immigrants from Russia found themselves in Israel. Many people remember Jesus Christ, but they do not know how to come to him. The new Russian Romaic Patriarchate could become a home for these people and, in time, bring the Jews to Christ.
So, the rejection of the territorial principle imposed by Fanar Moscow will bring more benefits to Moscow itself. It is time for the Russian church to go beyond the local limits and become a great universal church without borders.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the proposal of the editorial board.