The Shepherd, September 2004
NEWS SECTION, 1
ROCA- MOSCOWRAPPROCHEMENT
THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, at its regular session on 22nd June / 5th July, heard: the report of His Eminence Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, chairman of the Committee on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate, and Protopriest Alexander Lebedeff, secretary of the Committee, on the joint working meetings with the corresponding Committee of the Moscow Patriarchate, held in Moscow from June 22nd-24th of this year (new style). The Synod of Bishops adopted the documents prepared at the joint meetings of the two Committees, noting their agreement with the principle positions of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. The Synod of Bishops expressed its gratitude to the Committee on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate, expressing the hope that the two committees labour in the future for the good of the Church in the spirit of brotherly love, holding to the truth and to the unadulterated Orthodox Confession of Faith.
His Grace Bishop Alexander of Buenos Aires And South America (ROCA) has enthusiastically endorsed the movement towards rapprochement while holding back from full union, writing to his flock: “I personally feel that discussions on complete unification with the Moscow Patriarchate would be premature. In the situation that has developed, our Church Abroad must preserve its administrative independence and complete uncompromising stance in matters of principle. The discussions should concentrate on the rapprochement between our Churches, the cessation of all enmity and the establishment of Eucharistic communion. This is not only desirable, but necessary. It would be sinful on our part to ignore that heretofore unseen spiritual elevation, the ubiquitous renascence we observe in Russia now. Even worse would be active opposition to the spiritual nearing of the two branches of the once-united Russian Church and to insist on the continuation of war ‘to the last drop of blood.’ Such an antagonistic attitude is entirely unfounded even on the basis of the fact that at each divine service we pray for the ‘union of the holy Churches of God.’ With whom, one might ask, should we draw closer and work together, if not our own brethren by blood and by faith?! … And so, my beloved ones, I ask you to cast aside unneeded worries, brought upon us by the enemy of mankind, who sleeps not in seeking paths to break us apart and cause disagreement among us. Let us pray that the discussions between our Churches serve towards the glory of God and the strengthening of our Church. I feel that the spiritual condition now has more than ripened for rapprochement between our Churches, and so it is necessary to make every effort to establish amicable relations—this is our sacred duty. The time has come to heal the wounds inflicted upon the Church by the godless regime.” His Grace does not explain why he feels that we should avoid administrative union while accepting full eucharistic communion.
His Grace Bishop Agathangel of Odessa and the Crimea (ROCA) issued an Appeal to the Synod of Bishops couched in much less emotional terms, which has been published on the internet. He carefully analyses the key issues and expresses certain reservations about the rapprochement process and its likely outcome. He ends with the following words: “This is how matters stand. But if this autumn the Sobor [Assembly of Hierarchs] of the Moscow Patriarchate accepts the documents submitted by our side, then some will certainly say, and not only say but proclaim, that all the obstacles dividing our churches have been successfully overcome, and that now only narrow-minded persons and incorrigible sectarians can oppose union. In view of the fact that the Moscow Patriarchate is about to hold its Sobor, the impression is created that the commission is busy with producing compromise documents, thanks to which it will be possible to whitewash the present and past positions of the Moscow Patriarchate and, at the same time, to have in hand weighty arguments against the enemies of union. Do we need diplomacy of this kind? If we take this path, we will inevitably lead our Church to schism. Certainly, if the Sobor of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate accepts documents submitted by our commission, this will represent a significant step forward for that part of our Church. We, however, must do everything possible to avoid this leading to our taking a step backwards. Since, as the situation has developed, the opinions of both sides have been defined, I propose that it would be more correct to halt negotiations until there is a definite, unambiguous condemnation of the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius and all its consequences by the Sobor of the Moscow Patriarchate, and likewise, the Moscow Patriarchate leaves the World Council of Churches. After this, talks can be resumed. Then the time will come to acquaint ourselves better with the other side. Then personal contacts with representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate may prove extremely useful. In concluding this appeal, I wish to repeat the concern I expressed at the beginning. To avoid the possibility of a range of interpretations of the documents submitted by our committee for negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate, and to avoid the possibly grievous consequences of such interpretations, I propose making the work of the committee readily accessible to all members of our Church, especially since our Sobor has not decided upon any secrecy in negotiating with the Moscow Patriarchate.”
The Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate issued a statement on 17th August, accepting “the commission’s proposals to encourage contacts between representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.” Hierarchs are recommended to “have regular conferences” with ROCA representatives, and the flock and clergy are recommended to have “joint pilgrimages, congresses and publishing activities.” The Moscow Synod also proposes to stop all lawsuits regarding churches and properties between the two jurisdictions. The Itar-Tass statement does not make clear whether this cessation of legal proceedings will leave matters as they are at present, or whether they will return churches and properties forcibly seized from ROCA by representatives of the MP. Nor does the news release, as published, indicate whether the Moscow proposals are based upon or in any way refer to the work of the committees appointed by the two Synods to study the question of rapprochement. Normally it would seem odd that committees are engaged in studying a problem, and yet conclusions are reached and proposals made before the work of the committees has been completed, published and accepted.
In his Appeal, Bishop Agathangel touches upon the likelihood of an ensuing schism within ROCA. This aspect of the process was sadly emphasised in a deplorable article by staff reporter Avery Johnson in the Wall Street Journal. Published on 12th August, and headed “In Unorthodox Rift, Exiled Church Splits on Rejoining Russia,” the article is almost facetious in its tone, and certainly neither serious nor based on any true assessment of the situation. It is true that there is a wide spectrum of opinion within the ranks of ROCA about the proposed rapprochement, as one would naturally expect, but preparations for schism there are none, as far as we can ascertain.
The Holy Synod in Resistance of the Church of Greece (the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian, sometimes referred to as the Filiites) issued a Statement on the rapprochement on 20th July / 2nd August. It traces the history of the Church Abroad and its relationship with the traditionalist Synods in Greece and Romania. Unfortunately in certain respects, this part of the statement does not seem to have been prepared advisedly, and there are mistakes. Its main import though comes at the end, when it says: “The Holy Synod in Resistance, in common with our Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarist brethren, are following these developments, with which, of course, they are prima facie in disagreement at a root level, with attention and prayer. With regard to the issue of immediate and official cessation of communion with the ROCA so quickly after the initiation of these proceedings towards rapprochement, we have not deemed such final action to be the most efficacious solution, but have decided to continue gradually distancing ourselves from this situation, keeping in mind that, for several years now, we have, in effect, had almost no communion with ROCA. It is our intention to exercise benevolent influence in a healthy direction over the various factions within the ROCA. In the face of these truly dramatic developments, even if we are nearing the boundaries of economy, we consider it preferable to maintain our stand of forbearance in delaying official and definite cessation of communion with the ROCA, in the hope that this planned union will be averted by some miraculous intervention, calling upon the intercessions of the Most Blessed Theotokos and all the Saints, and especially the New Martyrs of Russia and St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, by whose special protection and guidance our communion with the ROCA was, from the beginning, accomplished. If and when the union of a portion of the ROCA with Moscow becomes certain, definite, and irrevocable (God forbid!), we will immediately cease communion with that group, continuing our communion with the remaining portion of the Church, if they should, indeed, wish such communion - providing, of course, that they also maintain a clear anti-ecumenical stance, refusing communion with the ecumenists, whether directly or indirectly.”
|
