The conference “Causes and Challenges of the Current Crisis of Inter-Orthodox Relations” was held at St. Tikhon University

The conference “Causes and Challenges of the Current Crisis of Inter-Orthodox Relations” was held at St. Tikhon University The conference “Causes and Challenges of the Current Crisis of Inter-Orthodox Relations” was held at St. Tikhon University print version March 7, 2019 14:11 On February 25-26, 2019, with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill, an Orthodox conference “Causes and Challenges of the Current Crisis of Inter-Orthodox Relations” was held at the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanities University . The forum opened with a welcoming speech from Archbishop Ambroise of Verei , the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy . In his speech, the bishop presented the problem of autocephaly in Ukraine in a larger context - as “the question of canon law in general”. The current crisis, according to Vladyka Ambrose, reiterated the need for “creating a single legal field,” after which it will only be possible to have a “constructive conversation about certain issues arising in the framework of the life of modern Orthodox Christians”, including the “question of primacy in the Church ", which is" only one of the sides of a global problem. " Archbishop Ambrose, who lived through the separation in the Orthodox Church, primarily explains political motives, and the support for the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine, which one encounters in the Greek-speaking Churches, is “ignorance of the history of the 90s in Ukraine, the reluctance to look into the root of this schism, to understand This was the reason for the fact that he tried to “heal” the Patriarch of Constantinople with his broad will. ” The first meeting, devoted to the theological side of the church crisis, began with a presentation by Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy, on the theme “The causes and nature of the crisis caused by the anti-canonical actions of the Constantinople Patriarchate in Ukraine”. The speaker drew the attention of the audience to the low level of argumentation presented by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to justify its lawless invasion of the territory of Ukraine. Father Vladislav exemplary examples from the historical canonical study prepared by Bishop Macropolis Khristupolsky for the meeting of the bishops of the Constantinople Orthodox Church in September last year. Other statements by the hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, showing a demonstrative and provocative retreat of Fanar from the canonical tradition shared by other Local Churches, were also quoted. According to Father Vladislav, such statements, confirmed in practice, are incompatible with the situation in the Orthodox Church, which is traditionally recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, inflict irreparable damage to its authority and make it impossible for the Russian Church to unite and fraternal communion with it. Archpriest Vadim Leonov, Associate Professor at Sretenskaya Theological Seminary , presented a report on the theme “The Ecclesiological Crisis in the Life of the Modern Orthodox Church and the Way to Overcome It”. In the first part of the speech, the main deviations of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from Orthodoxy, expressed in concrete actions, documents and public statements of its hierarchs, were successively set forth. The speaker drew attention to the fact that the recently published Tamos of the newly created in Ukraine "CCS" contains heretical papal provisions alien to Orthodox ecclesiology. Through this tomos, the right of the Constantinople hierarchs to intervene in the internal affairs of not only the SCU, but also of all Local Churches, which will agree to recognize it, is legalized. The report noted attempts by Constantinople theologians to distort the Orthodox triadology towards subordinationism, in order to somehow substantiate the primacy of their patriarch over all Primates of the Local Churches. Father Vadim noted that a general Orthodox assessment of transcendental ecumenism, actual racism and a number of other deviations of the Constantinople Patriarchate from Orthodoxy has long been required. In the second and third parts of the report, the reasons for the current ecclesiological crisis were indicated and ways to overcome it at the spiritual, theological, church-administrative, and social-organizational level were proposed. Researcher of the Church-wide postgraduate and doctoral named after Saints Cyril and Methodius A.V. Shishkov presented a report on the “Ecclesiological causes of the church crisis in relations between the Constantinople and Moscow Patriarchs”. According to the speaker, the cause of today's church crisis lies in the field of ecclesiology. The modern Orthodox Church is institutionally a union of autocephalous Local Churches, which are completely independent of each other in government. However, there is no single normative ecclesiological theory that would unambiguously describe this device. There are at least two such descriptions, and they compete with each other. The key to these theories is the question of sovereignty. Who is the supreme power? Where is it located? Is this power centralized or distributed among individual sovereigns? The competing ecclesiological models, on the basis of which the corresponding church policy is built, can be called the “first without equal” and “equal without the first”. Another feature of the modern structure of the Orthodox Church is the lack of legal relations between autocephalous Churches - an analogue of international law. Consequently, there are no church institutions that could protect some autocephalous churches from the tyranny of other autocephalous churches. According to the speaker, the main question of Orthodox ecclesiology today is how to combine, on the one hand, the desire for pan-Orthodox unity, and on the other, the protection of the independence of autocephalous churches. None of the above models can solve this dilemma. A.V. Shishkov believes that the solution to the existing problem should be sought in the normative republican theory, which is based on the principle of freedom as non-dominance. The question of the supreme power in the republican theory is solved through the delegation of sovereignty to the institution of law - the power of laws, and not the power of the people. Such a normative image of the Orthodox Church can be called "the republic of autocephalous churches." PSTU associate professor Priest Pavel Yermilov in the report “The Ukrainian Autocephaly as the Beginning of the Regional Level Reform of the Church Structure” suggested considering the actions of the Constantinople Church in Ukraine not as a “revengeful” reaction to the failure of the Cretan Council, but as a continuation of the same program launched in Crete and continued in Ukraine. According to the speaker, both steps pursue a common goal - reforming the structure of the Orthodox Church. The Cretan Council was a failed attempt to reform the structure at the “universal” level, and the talent of the Ukrainian autocephaly was a still unsuccessful attempt to reform the “regional” church structure. Constantinople’s vision of the position of autocephalous churches was reflected in tomos about the autocephaly of the "Holy Church of Ukraine", the status of which, according to many experts, more closely resembles wide autonomy than full-fledged church independence. Father Pavel explains this peculiarity of the supposedly autocephalous status of the new Ukrainian “Church” by an attempt to adapt regional church structures to the projected new regionalization within the European Union, when the member states lose their self-governing status and represent the regional elements of a single political space. Thus, the creation of a new “church” of Ukraine can be viewed as the first step towards the creation of a single united church space of a united Europe. However, according to the speaker, the desire to lower the status of the Churches of the European Union countries from the level of high-grade autocephaly to the level of broad autonomy is in line with another more global process - Orthodox-Catholic rapprochement, the logic of which, as explained by the speaker, is also responsible for the regional level autonomy of the Orthodox Church and development super-church structures in the "universal" scale. Father Pavel is convinced that the ongoing reforms should be stopped, since they not only violate the collegial principle of church transformations, but also are based on ecclesiological ideas that are not shared by the fullness of the Orthodox Church. The correct reaction could be the condemnation of the tomos about the autocephaly of the "Most Holy Church of Ukraine" as a document distorting the foundations of Orthodox ecclesiology. Consequently, the future of world Orthodoxy depends on the fact of recognition or non-recognition of the models of the Cretan Council and the new Ukrainian “church”. The report of the assistant professor of the history department of Moscow State University P.V. Kuzenkova “The Ecumenical Church in the Orthodox tradition” was offered an analysis of the tradition of using the word “ecumenical”, which is included in the title of Patriarch of Constantinople. As the speaker showed, the texts of the sources indicate that, both in the times of the apostles and in the patristic era, the understanding of this term was completely different than it is attempted to present in our day. The universe (oikumena) was understood as the Roman Empire, and the concept of "universal" meant a nation-wide. Moreover, all five patriarchates were called ecumenical — the main departments of the empire, and not one of Constantinople. This tradition was also reflected in the Russian practice of the 16th-17th centuries, when the All-Russian Councils were called “ecumenical”. The speaker pointed out the complete groundlessness of the claims of Constantinople to global jurisdiction, allegedly stemming from its ancient title. In the report of the leading researcher of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University M.V. Gratian's "Ecclesiological sources of modern claims of Constantinople for primacy in the Orthodox Church" conducted a church-historical analysis of ecclesiological foundations that justify the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople towards Ukraine. Building on the official documents of the Russian Orthodox Church, in which the motives for the actions of Fanar are characterized as “papal”, the speaker showed that the modern ecclesiology of the Church of Constantinople copies the theory and practice of the Roman Church of the first millennium, based on the concept of the essential superiority of the authority of the Pope compared to the prerogatives of the Primates Local Churches. The papal claims are based on the systematic use of falsified Nicene canons, the idea of ​​the special role of the apostle Peter as the supposedly first Roman bishop, and in a later period the use of another fake - the Konstantinov dara compiled in the West. According to the view of the popes on their own prerogatives, arising from the interpretation of falsified or simply false documents, the pope is ranked first among the bishops of the Ecumenical Church. By virtue of this, he has authority over all other "lower bishops." The pope has the right of trial over all the Primates of the Local Churches, approves their election, their rights in relation to the bishops of their regions and the powers of the Local Councils. The pope declares himself the “center of communication”: the criterion of Orthodoxy (or catholicity) is the fact of communication with the Pope. Outside of this fellowship, no one can be considered a bishop. In contrast to the East, Rome develops a three-tier system of episcopal authority, in which each level is headed by the first bishop: in the city, in the region (diocese) and at the universal level, i.e. in Rome. Thus, the Pope is the preeminent ecumenical bishop - the head of the Ecumenical Church. The combination of these views, reflected in the church-political practice of the first millennium, led to a natural split between the Roman and Eastern Churches and the subsequent condemnation of papism. The modern actions of the Church of Constantinople entirely fall under these definitions, and, accordingly, stopping the communion of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Church of Constantinople is natural and justified. Attempts by Constantinople to legalize their own actions through the pan-Orthodox adoption of documents developed in the framework of the “Mixed International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches” should receive a proper assessment. The second meeting, devoted to the view of the current crisis from abroad, opened with the report of Georgi Todorov (Sofia, Bulgaria) “The Millennial War: The Meaning and Work of the Current Church Conflict in Ukraine”. The speaker suggested that the church conflict in Ukraine be viewed from a macro-historical and civilizational point of view as part of the millennial war that non-Orthodox Western secularizing society fights against Orthodoxy. The speaker also noted that Ukraine, due to its geographical position, has always been a battleground in this war. Archpriest Darko Jogo, a professor at the Faculty of Theology in Srbinje (Bosnia and Herzegovina), gave a presentation “The Ukrainian Question and the Inter-Orthodox Crisis through the Eyes of Serbian Theologians”. The speaker presented an overview of recent speeches by Serbian theologians on the issue of church unity and church status in Ukraine. Father Darco’s report also retrospectively covered the thematicization of the historical fate of Russia / Russia in the theology of Bishop Nikolai (Velimirovich) and Rev. Justin (Popovich) and analyzed the approach of modern Serbian theologians to the assessment of the Ukrainian church crisis. The speaker noted that the Serbian theologians see a way out of the inter-Orthodox crisis in convening a meeting of representatives of all the Local Churches, as well as creating church institutions that would serve as an expression of the principle of conciliarity. Archpriest John Whiteford, rector of the church of sv. Jonah Hankowsky in the city of Spring (Texas, USA) made a presentation entitled “A Look at Church Separation from the USA”. In his opinion, the separation with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, aggravated by the rupture of Eucharistic communion, is experienced in America no less intensively than in Russia, since American Orthodoxy exists against the background of many intertwined ecclesiastical jurisdictions, and this conflict has a strong influence on church life. The speaker spoke about the existence of an opposition to the policy of Fanar among the Greek Orthodoxy in the United States. In his speech, Father John drew parallels between the aggressive non-canonical actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine, with a different, less noticeable, but no less revealing deviation from the Orthodox tradition by prominent Greek theologians in the United States in their attitude to the problems of homosexuality and abortion, which they speak publicly with full tolerance by the local hierarchy. Father John considers these parallels to be symptomatic and reveal the general liberal attitude characteristic of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. According to the speaker, Fanar’s support for the Russian Renovationists in the first half of the 20th century was due not only to political reasons, but also based on sympathy for the Reformed program of the renovation movement. Since then, modernism has deeply rooted in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the current behavior of Fanar in Ukraine is one of the clearest manifestations of this mentality. Associate Professor of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, AG Zoitakis, in his report entitled Perception of the Modern Politics of Fanara in Greek Society, presented an overview of public speeches in the Greek press and blogosphere, containing an assessment of the actions of the Constantinople Patriarchate in Ukraine. Throughout the 20th century, the modernist policies of Constantinople produced splits and conflicts in Greece, but despite this and jurisdictional and property disputes between the Greek Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, a significant number of Greek top clergy tended to support non-canonical autocephaly in Ukraine, which some hierarchs openly stated. According to A. Zoitakis, the position of the episcopate is different from the mood of most of the priesthood and the people. The overwhelming number of publicly speaking clerics, monks and laity does not recognize the new "Ukrainian church" and calls for this hierarchy. Those who reject the illegal invasion of Constantinople into Ukraine, as a rule, are critical of both the Cretan Council, and Fanar’s ecumenism and its secular policy. Many authors believe that the general Orthodox consensus turns out to be much more important today than dialogue with non-Orthodox, moreover, the need to stop the interference of the nationalist factor in church affairs is stressed.The need to preserve the conciliarity of the Church and its universal character is openly declared. Many authors emphasize that supporting the non-canonical actions of Phanar can lead to the temptation of ethnophyletism. At the end of the meeting a report of the Athos monks Paisii Kareotis and Epiphanius Kapsaliotis “The current church crisis and its theological background” was read. The authors of the report could not come to Moscow, but sent the text of their speech. The second day of the conference continued with a section on the historical side of the church crisis in Ukraine, which was opened by the report of the PSTU professor Priest Alexander Schelkachev on the topic “The Experience of Protecting the Unity of the Russian Church Against the Schism in Ukraine Based on the Discussion at the Local Council 1917-1918 and the definition of the Council of Constantinople in 1593 ". Father Alexander recalled that when discussing the issue of restoring the Patriarchate at the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, special attention was paid to the 34th Apostolic Rule, which points to the main canonical principle of organization of higher church administration, historically established first for the metropolitan, then for the Local Churches. The more important participants of the Council were represented not so much by the canonical service of the first bishop described in the canon as the second part of it, limiting the activities of the first bishop: not only the bishops of the region should not do anything in affairs that go beyond the administration of their diocese without first bishop reasoning, but nothing should not do without reasoning other. According to the speaker, the same restrictive principle should be preserved at the level of Universal Orthodoxy. Refusal of him leads to papism, rejected by the Orthodox Church. Father Alexander also touched on the topic of the territory of modern Ukraine, which does not coincide with the territory of the Kiev Metropolis, appearing in the charter in 1686. This letter itself was compiled only because then, according to the terms of peace between Russia and Poland, not the whole territory of the Kiev Metropolis was withdrawing to Russia, and some bishops were afraid of joining the Moscow Patriarchate. The speaker recalled that the expansion of the Russian Church was determined by the special ministry and veneration of the only Orthodox Tsar in the world, the Russian Tsar, which was repeatedly proclaimed by all Orthodox patriarchs, in particular, at the Council of 1593, which finally formed the autocephaly of the Russian Church. At this Council it was confirmed that the Orthodox of all the Local Churches should commemorate the Moscow Tsar of Russia and all the northern countries. The expansion of the canonical borders of the Russian Church and the creation of missionary dioceses in other countries took place with the consent of all the Orthodox Local Churches. The Council of 1593 confirmed the equality of all patriarchs established in the first millennium "in rank and dignity". Just as the Patriarch of Constantinople retains all the rights granted to him as bishop of the royal city after the fall of Constantinople, the rights of the Russian Church remain unchanged after the czar's government in Russia ceases. According to Father Alexander, the question of autocephaly in Ukraine should be decided by the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church in its entirety, i.e. with the participation of the canonical Ukrainian Church. Professor PSTGU I.I. Petrushko in his report “The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Fates of Orthodoxy on the Territory of Ukraine and Poland in the Post-Revolutionary Period” recalled that the destructive influence of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on church life in the territory of post-revolutionary Russia was reflected primarily in the support of the forces that were acting to achieve the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine . Already under the hetman Skoropadsky, the autocephalist tried to induce the Ukrainian authorities to turn to the Patriarch of Constantinople for a blessing to declare the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church. The contacts of the autocephalist with Fanar under the Petliura regime, which on January 1, 1919, declared the autocephaly by law, advanced even further. However, by the spring of 1920 the question had lost its relevance, since by that time Soviet power had been established in most of Ukraine. Since the western regions of Ukraine, on which a significant number of Orthodox people lived, became part of the revived Polish state, the Polish authorities set the task of removing the Orthodox dioceses located on its territory from the jurisdiction of the Russian Church. On March 13, 1923, the Patriarch of Constantinople Melety (Metaxakis) approved the election of Dionysius (Valeinsky) as Primate of the Polish Orthodox Church. St. Patriarch Tikhon refused to bless the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Poland as achieved in violation of the canons. However, Patriarch Gregory VII of Constantinople on November 13, 1924, signed the Tomos on the gift of autocephaly of the Polish Church, officially proclaimed in Warsaw on September 17, 1925. In this case, Fanar’s act was closely combined with overt corruption: the Polish authorities paid £ 12,000 for this act to Patriarch Gregory. In the Tomos about the autocephaly of the Polish Church, Patriarch Gregory VII declared that only the Ecumenical Patriarch could take the decision to grant independence to any Local Church. He also effectively invalidated the act of transferring the Kiev Metropolis to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate at the end of the 17th century. Gregory also tried to justify his actions by the “canonical duty entrusted to our Holy Universe, to take care of the holy Orthodox Churches in need.” Thus, in the case of granting autocephaly to the Polish Orthodox Church, the Patriarchate of Constantinople used for the first time almost the entire set of arguments that were voiced again by Patriarch Bartholomew during a synagogue in Istanbul in September 2018 when it came to justifying the decision on the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Archpriest Rostislav Yarema, Acting Abbot of the Church of the Life-Giving Trinity on the Alekseevskaya city of Moscow, presented a report on the theme “Church schisms in Ukrainian Orthodoxy in the XX-XXI centuries”, in which he offered an overview of the history of church schisms in Ukraine over the past hundred years. Based on documentary evidence, the speaker demonstrated the uncanonical nature of modern autocephalist. The report described in detail the formation of the “Kiev Patriarchate”, all branches of the UAOC, the origin of their “hierarchy”, their contacts with the Ukrainian diaspora and Catholic structures, as well as attempts to legalize through the Constantinople Patriarchate at earlier stages. Professor PSTGU priest Alexander Mazyrin in his report "Fanar and Renovationism against the Russian Orthodox Church: historical lessons and parallels with the current situation" outlined the history of relations between the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 1920s and 1940s and compared it with current events in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. According to the speaker, the renovation split was not of a church, but of a political nature, as well as modern autocephalist splits in Ukraine (Kyiv Patriarchate, PCU-SSU, etc.). Like the “living churches” of the 1920s, modern Ukrainian schismatics, headed by the anathemated MA Denisenko, carry out the political order of the government, which is hostile to the Orthodox Church. Then the Orthodox (“Tikhonovtsy”) were accused of having links with foreign enemies of the Soviet state. Now similar accusations of schismatics are being made against the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The main reason for the support of these schisms from Fanar is the Greek cultural and religious chauvinism (the so-called Hellenism), which causes the desire of the Constantinople Patriarchate to assert its hegemony in the Orthodox world, primarily through the fragmentation of the Russian Church and the subordination of its parts to itself. The geopolitical factors pushing and pushing the Patriarchate of Constantinople on rapprochement with anti-Christian forces were also important. According to the speaker, the Orthodox Church can withstand the aggression of Fanar and the schismatics supported by it with the power of truth and holiness, this is how it stood during the times of Saint Tikhon. Currently, standing in truth and holiness will help the Church overcome the crisis. Leading Researcher PSTGU A.A. Kostryukov made a presentation on the “Russian Church Abroad against the canonical violations of Fanar”, in which he spoke about countering the anti-canonical innovations of the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Congress and attempts of Constantinople to convene an Ecumenical Council with the participation of Soviet Renovationists. If in 1920-1923 the leadership of the Russian Church Abroad treated the Constantinople Patriarchate with respect and gave it support, then, after a series of blatant canonical violations of Fanar, it came out with sharp denunciations. During the 1920s and 1930s, when the Moscow Patriarchate was systematically exterminated, it was the Russian Church Abroad at the international level that defended the rights of the All-Russian Church. The second day of the conference continued with a round table on the current church situation in Ukraine. The participants of the event told what the clergy and believers in Ukraine face, what are the attitudes and expectations of Orthodox Ukrainians. Special attention was paid to the role of external forces in the unfolding church crisis, first of all - the Vatican and the Ukrainian Greek Catholics. At the end of the conference, the participants testified their support to the faithful children of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, headed by its Primate, the Most Blessed Metropolitan Onufriy, and expressed the hope that a fearless and open discussion of the modern church crisis, both within the framework of the conference and in other formats, is necessary step in the search for the right way out of it.