Russian Orthodox Church Seeks Unity

Written by Yury Zudov

Thursday, 05 October 2006

Moscow, Russia - The problem of schisms and divisions is probably one of the most painful ones in the Church history. And because all Christians remember the words of Jesus Christ’s prayer that His disciples “may all be one” (John 17:21), every division within the Body of Christ has always been considered as a sin against the Church.

Even if some of the divisions are easily explained by a certain contingency, historical or political factors, we nevertheless understand that unity is something, which is worth being sought. It is especially important to keep in mind when we speak of a division that happened within the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in the XXth century.

Lately, there have been a lot of discussions with regard to

a possible merging of the two branches of the Russian Church

a possible merging of the two branches of the Russian Church – the Moscow Patriarchate itself and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA, sometimes also called the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile, or the Synodal Church).

Historical background of ROCA

The story of the division goes back to the 1920s when a number of Russian people had to escape from the Bolshevik regime and look for protection in the West. While the church in their home country suffered from severe persecution (thousands of priests and lay people were murdered, or sent to the concentration camps, a lot of church buildings were pulled down), the bishops and priests in the Western Europe experienced a need for a new administrative body not dependent from the Soviets. The Church authorities in Moscow also realized that the emigrants had to form a temporary administrative structure, which would be responsible for the Russian Orthodox congregations outside Russia. After the death of Patriarch Tikhon in 1925 his successor Metropolitan Sergius confirmed this position, saying that such independent body was to be created “for the good of the Russian Church”.

But the political situation in Russia became more and more dangerous, and in 1927 Metropolitan Sergius had to sign what was later known as the Declaration of Loyalty. The Declaration recognized the Soviet regime as fully legitimate and claimed that the Russian Orthodox Church accepts its authority. A Council of Bishops took place in Sremsk-Karlovats (Serbia) right away. The Council announced the birth of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile as an independent jurisdiction, which was supposed to represent Russian Orthodoxy “ until the Church in Russia is liberated from the godless Soviet regime”. At the same time a considerable part of the Russian emigrants did not want to join the new jurisdiction, and continued its existence under the omophor of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

It is questionable whether Metropolitan Sergius chose the right thing to do, but it brought peace to the church in Russia; to a certain extent, the church managed to survive in the Soviet society. It even became possible to elect a new Patriarch in 1943, though the state tried to control every aspect of the church life. Bishops and priests had to cooperate closely with the authorities; they understood it as the only possible way to save the church.

The true Church?
At the same time ROCA (with its headquarters in the United States) came to see themselves as the only true representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church. They claimed to keep the Orthodox faith unchanged, without any deviation – while the Moscow Patriarchate was to blame for collaboration with the godless state. They were also very conservative in theology and practice, looking back to the XIXth century as a ’golden age’ of the church. The Synodal Church, among other things, had an extremely negative attitude towards other Christian churches. When the Russian Orthodox Church joined the World Council of Churches in 1961, it also became an important matter for accusations. The ROCA saw participation in the ecumenical movement as a sin, and was always opposed to it. And yet, most Russian people never lost their hope in the future merging of the two parts of the ROC.

After perestroika, ROCA, led by

an extremely ‘anti-Moscow’ Metropolitan Vitaliy

an extremely ‘anti-Moscow’ Metropolitan Vitaliy, published and distributed in Russia plenty of books that denounced the Moscow Patriarchate for its cooperation with the Soviet regime. The author of this article recalls his own experience from the late 1980s: it was quite difficult to get any religious literature in that time, and somebody had recommended him to write a letter to the ROCA publishing house in Canada – asking for books which explain the Orthodox faith. Among the three books, which arrived, he found two that were dedicated mostly to the crimes committed by the ROC leaders in the communist times. The books clearly showed that the Moscow Patriarchate could not represent the Orthodox Church, and that the sacraments performed by its priests were not valid.

ROCA parishes had been established in many places, and were in opposition to the local diocesan authorities. Sometimes they accepted Russian priests who had problems with the local bishops, or even were excommunicated. This fact resulted in more serious tensions between Moscow and ROCA.

Cooperation with the Communist Regime and Hitler

Thus, by the time the Iron Curtain fell, the Church Abroad had raised two main claims to which the Moscow Patriarchate was supposed to react – the collaboration with the communist authorities (sergianstvo – a term used to refer to Mitropolite Sergius and his Declaration) and participation in the ecumenical movement. ROCA thought that the Moscow hierarchy was to repent publicly in its sins against the Orthodox faith, and then the unity could be restored. In turn, the Moscow Patriarchate had serious questions about the ROCA activities on the canonical territory of ROC.

A few comments are needed here. First of all, ROC did cooperate with the state during the Soviet times. This cooperation was seen as the only possibility for the church to survive. But the problem, from the Moscow Patriarchate’s point of view, was not the repentance as such. Asking for repentance, ROCA used a ‘double standards’ policy – because they also had things to confess themselves. For example, ROCA collaboration with Hitler on the occupied European territories is widely known. Metropolitan Anastasiy of ROCA sent a telegram to Adolf Hitler in 1938, praising him for building a new cathedral and calling him a savior sent by God to fight the Bolsheviks.

Ecumenical Heresy

Then, there is a ‘tough’ ecumenical question. The Council of Bishops of ROCA, which took place in 1983, condemned

ecumenism as the most dangerous heresy

ecumenism as the most dangerous heresy. No participation in ecumenical organizations is possible for the Orthodox Churches, it said. And one of the conditions put by ROCA was to cancel the ROC membership in the World Council of Churches. Though the way the WCC is developing raises many serious questions for the Orthodox Churches, ROC has always considered ecumenical contacts as an important part of its external policy.

New Hope

Nevertheless a fruitful dialog between the two sides seemed to become possible when a new Metropolitan Laurus had replaced the former leader of ROCA in 2001. This election let the Moscow Patriarchate hope that the unity may soon be reached.

In April 2003 Patriarch Alexis of Moscow wrote a letter to the ROCA hierarchy calling them to restore the unity between the two parts of the Russian Church. Russian President also discussed the question with Metropolitan Laurus during his trip to the United States. In December representatives of ROCA had an official meeting with Patriarch Alexis. They expressed sorrow for the way the Church Abroad used to criticize Moscow before.

A Council of Bishops of ROCA took place in December, 2003, which disputed the problem of the relationship with ROC and considered a possibility of Metr. Laurus’ visit to Moscow. This happened in May, 2004, and both Patriarch Alexis and Metr. Laurus expressed the two branches’ desire to join together. Later special commissions were organized from both sides to discuss the unity possibilities. It was said that the structure of ROCA would remain unchanged, and the Synodal Church would keep its independence in the future. Finally, the Fourth All-Diaspora Council of ROCA took place in May, 2006 in San-Francisco; it adopted a resolution allowing the Eucharistic communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. And a draft variant of the Act of Canonical Communion was approved at the meetings of the Council of Bishops of ROCA several days later.

Members of both churches expect that a more considerable advance will be made after the next council of ROCA bishops this December. But as a matter of fact one should be cautious to say that the expected union will come at once. The official position of ROCA with regard to sergianstvo and ecumenism did not change much. And there is still a problem with ROCA congregations in Russia – their canonical status is somewhat obscure.

Surely, both sides agree that the division must be overcome. The question remains: on what conditions? One cannot ignore the dangers of a hasty merge. First, it is important that the churches do not judge one another for what happened in the past, and at the same time each of them has to learn from its own historical experience. Second, the views on ecumenical contacts etc. expressed by ROCA should not dominate in the united Russian Orthodox Church. Unless all the controversial questions are solved, the merge of the two churches will not bring peace to the Russian Orthodoxy.