mospat.ru

The documents worked out at joint sessions of theCommission of the Moscow Patriarchate on a dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad on negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate

21.06.2005 · English, Архив 2005  

In accordance with the reached agreement confirmed by the resolutions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (on April 20, 2005) and the Hierarchical Synod Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (on May 23, 2005) below there are the four documents jointly worked out by the Commission of the Moscow Patriarchate on a dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad on negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate and approved by the Hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

The work of the Commission is being continued.

1. On the Joint Work of the Commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

2. On the Attitude of the Orthodox Church Towards the Heterodox and Towards Inter-Confessional Organizations

3. On the Relationship between the Church and State

4. Commentary on the Joint Document of the Commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Entitled “On the Relations Between Church and State”

On the Joint Work of the Commissions

of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

Based upon our common Orthodox belief in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and upon our faithfulness to the common canonical Tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church, and acting in accordance with the instructions formulated over the course of the discussions held under the chairmanship of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia in Moscow on May 17-18, 2004, during the visit of the delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia led by His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus of Eastern America and New York, the Commission of the Moscow Patriarchate on discussions with the Russian Church Abroad and the Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate, during joint meetings held in Moscow (June 22-24 and November 17-19, 2004), in Munich (September 14-16, 2004) and in Paris (March 2-4, 2005), prepared a series of draft documents subsequently approved by the Hierarchies of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

The statements “On the Relationship of the Church and State” and “On the Attitude of the Orthodox Church Towards the Heterodox and Inter-Confessional Organizations” reflect the common understanding of these questions of principle by both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

The drafted “Act on Canonical Communion” determines the canonical status of the historically-formed assemblage of the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods and institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia as an inalienable, self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church, based on grounds similar to those foreseen by the Statutes (“Ustav”) of the Russian Orthodox Church as they apply to Self-Governing Churches on the territory of the Moscow Patriarchate. Upon the enactment of this proposed Act, the fullness of canonical communion within a single Pomestny [Local] Russian Orthodox Church, headed by His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, shall be restored.

According to the draft, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is independent in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters. The supreme authority within the Russian Church Abroad is manifested in her Sobor [Council] of Bishops, convened by her President (the First Hierarch) on the basis of the “Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.” In accordance with the canonical order of the Orthodox Church, decisions falling outside the competency of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are made in concord with the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. The highest instance of ecclesiastical authority are the Pomestny [Local] and Bishops’ Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose decisions, as well as the decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, have force in the Russian Church Abroad, taking into account the particularities determined by the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the “Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia” and the laws of the nations in which it conducts its service. The bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are members of the Pomestny and Bishops’ Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church and participate in the established order at meetings of the Holy Synod. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia receives its holy myrrh from the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

In accordance with the Act on Canonical Communion, certain additions and amendments must be entered into Chapter VII of the Statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church (“Self-Governing Churches”), and also into the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

The Commissions of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia also examined the question of how to view the many official declarations, decisions, epistles and other such documents issued by the First Hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and also by the organs of ecclesiastical authority in the fatherland and abroad over the course of the decades during which canonical communion between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was absent. Some of these documents contained canonical suspensions or other expressions of canonical rejection of the hierarchies and of the presence of grace in church life on the other side of the division. In connection with this, it is proposed that when the above Act is put into effect, all previous acts which would hinder the fullness of canonical communion are declared invalid.

In addition, on the question of the relationship between the Church and state it becomes clear that the “Basic Social Concept” of the Russian Orthodox Church, confirmed by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000, are also accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia as a document which faithfully reflects the teachings of the Church regarding her relationship with the state and society. Documents of individual hierarchs and organs of ecclesiastical authority issued in the period of the Church under conditions totalitarian rule antagonistic to the Church both in the Fatherland and abroad which do not express the true voice of the Church of Christ are deemed no longer valid or not in effect. Having been dictated by extreme circumstances, they cannot be viewed as possessing the ecclesiastical norm. Among the documents recognized as such are for instance: “Epistle to the Clergy and Flock” (the so-called “Declaration”) of 1927 and the Paschal Epistle of the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia of 1942.

Further clarifications with regard to the “Epistle to the Clergy and Flock” were given by the Commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in their “Commentary” on the Joint Document “On the Relationship between the Church and State.”

The Commissions took into account that the Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia of November 17, 2004, addressed the so-called “Synod in Resistance” in Greece with a proposal for them to normalize relations with their Local Churches. To date, a positive response to this letter has not been received. However, in a letter from the “Synod in Resistance” dated October 24, 2004, it is stated that actual canonical communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia had already ceased and cannot be restored while the path of peacemaking with the Moscow Patriarchate continues. The final settlement of this question is expected before the enactment of the Act on Canonical Communion.

During the joint sessions, a preliminary examination was made of the matter of the status of clergymen who moved from one jurisdiction to another while under canonical suspension. With the aim of further resolving this problem and presenting proposals to the Hierarchies, a special Subcommission was formed whose work is continuing.

The Commissions recognized that the reestablishment of full unity of the organizational structures of the Russian Orthodox Church outside of her canonical territory is a desirable goal which should be pursued. Still, the historical realities developed through the long separation must be taken into account. For this reason, in the aim of further establishing the life of a single Russian Church, it is necessary to apply proper oikonomia and pastoral discretion, gradually developing pastoral cooperation in the countries of the Russian diaspora with the special oversight of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

The Commissions propose that the same spirit of oikonomia and pastoral discretion be used to develop a canonically-just decision of the matter of the dioceses and parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia situated on the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate. Such a decision is viewed as one of the conditions of reestablishing Eucharistic communion and the canonical unity within a single Local Russian Orthodox Church.

On the Attitude of the Orthodox Church Towards the Heterodox and Towards Inter-Confessional Organizations

The Russian Orthodox Church strictly adheres to the teaching set forth in the Creed that the Church of Christ is one.

As the Body of Christ and the sole vessel of salvation, as the pillar and foundation of truth, the Church never divided itself nor disappeared, but always, over the entire history of Christianity, taught the pure teaching of the Gospel in the abundance of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Having received the command from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Church is called upon to fulfill her Apostolic mission “to preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). For this reason, over the course of her thousand-year history, the Russian Church illuminated with the light of the Truth of Christ both those peoples among whom she was found and those of neighboring countries. At the same time, she strove to return into the salvific bosom of the Church the separated Christians of other confessions, and with this goal, in the 19th century, created special committees for dialog with them, taking into account at the same time the various degrees of their distance from the faith and practices of the Ancient Church. Up until the 1960’s, in hopes that their participation in inter-confessional meetings might encourage the study of Orthodoxy by Christians of other confessions, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia sent their representatives to such gatherings. The aims of such participation were expressed in a decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on December 18/31, 1931:

“Preserving faith in the One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church, the Synod of Bishops affirms that the Church never divided itself. The question lies only in who belongs to her and who does not. At the same time, the Synod of Bishops fervently welcomes all attempts of the heterodox to study Christ’s teaching on the Church in the hope that through this study, especially with the participation of representatives of the Holy Orthodox Church, they will ultimately come to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church, as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), fully and without error preserved the teaching handed down by Christ the Savior to His disciples.”

Still, a significant portion of the Protestant world in the course of its development embarked upon the path of humanist liberalism and is losing its bond with the Tradition of the Holy Church more and more, changing by whim the divinely-established norms of morality and dogmatic teachings and placing itself at the service of the interests of the consumerist society, subjecting themselves to notions of earthly comfort and political goals. As “salt that lost its savor” (Matthew 5:13), such communities have lost their power to resist human passions and sins.

Such tendencies evoke profound anxiety, and have motivated the Orthodox Church to reexamine its relationship with various confessions and inter-confessional organizations. The Inter-Orthodox Conference in Thessaloniki (1998) was convened in part to address this question. The practice of inter-confessional relationships was subjected to intense examination in the “Basic Principles of the Russian Orthodox Church’s Attitude to the Non-Orthodox” adopted at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church (2000). It is recognized that if the aforementioned negative tendencies reign in inter-confessional organizations, the Orthodox will be obliged to withdraw from them. For this reason, a resolution must be found in the nearest future to the problem of the degree to which existing forms of inter-Christian cooperation permit Orthodox representatives to remain free of those attitudes and participation in those practices which contradict the spirit of Orthodoxy. A condition of the participation of the Orthodox Church in inter-confessional organizations, including the World Council of Churches, is the exclusion of religious syncretism. Orthodox Christians insist on their right to freely confess their faith in the Orthodox Church as the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church without conceding the so-called “branch theory” and definitively reject any attempts to dilute Orthodox ecclesiology.

The Orthodox Church excludes any possibility of liturgical communion with the non-Orthodox. In particular, it is considered impermissible for Orthodox to participate in liturgical actions connected with so-called ecumenical or inter-confessional religious services. In general, the Church should determine the forms of interaction with the heterodox on a conciliar basis, stemming from its teachings, canonical discipline and ecclesiastical expediency.

Nonetheless, the possibility of cooperation with the heterodox is not excluded, for example, in helping the unfortunate and by defending the innocent, in joint resistance to immorality, and in participating in charitable and educational projects. It may be appropriate to participate in socially meaningful ceremonies in which other confessions are represented. In addition, dialog with the non-Orthodox remains necessary to witness Orthodoxy to them, to overcome prejudices and to disprove false opinions. Yet it is not proper to smooth over or obscure the actual differences between Orthodoxy and other confessions.

On the Relationship between the Church and State

In Orthodox tradition a concept was developed of symphony between ecclesiastical and civil authority as the ideal form of the relationship between the Church and state. This symphony presumes conditions for the Church and the faithful to practice church life freely, which leads the faithful to eternal salvation, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Timothy 2:2).

Since, in the words of God, “the whole world lieth in wickedness” (1 John 5:19), the ideal of such a symphony was never fully reached in reality. As a result of the Petrine reforms, the symphony was in effect replaced by a system of governmental ecclesiology, under which the state deprived the Church of full independence.

In the 20th century, after the Bolshevik revolution, unprecedented persecution of the Church in Russia began. During those years, through Divine Providence, the Russian Church produced a great host of Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. Not everyone withstood during the years of persecution. Some clergymen and laypersons, trampling upon Divine truth, facilitated the persecutors in their actions directed towards the destruction of the Church. Such actions cannot under any circumstances be permitted and justified; they deserve all condemnation, to avoid their repetition in case the Lord allows persecutions to resume.

Various approaches to the understanding of the relationship between the Church and state arose under the conditions of persecution. Some people of the Church deemed it necessary to choose the path of compromise with the state hostile towards the Church for the sake of preserving ecclesiastical structures in order to openly serve the people of God.

Others rejected this path. In the end, both were subjected to brutal repressions. These two approaches were reflected in the sorrowful divisions in the Russian Church, which gradually faded away in the following decades.

Taking into account the bitter experience of the Church in the 20th century, and based on the witness of the New Martyrs, it is necessary to define what is permissible and what is impermissible in the relationship between the Church and state, especially a state which pursues the goal of the utter destruction of the Church and the faith of Christ. Orthodox Christians came to a clear understanding of the inadmissibility of the absolutisation of government authority. It is unacceptable, in particular, to use the texts of Holy Scripture (for example, Romans 13:1-5) in a way which does not correspond with the interpretation and spirit of the Holy Fathers. Earthly and temporal powers of the state are recognized as imperative to the degree that they are used to support good and limit evil.

The relationship between the Church and state is extensively discussed in a document crucial for the self-understanding of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, the “Encyclical Epistle of the Council of Bishops Abroad” of 1933:

“While the Church exists on earth, it remains closely bound to the fates of human society and cannot be viewed as being outside of space and time. It is impossible for it to refrain from all contact with a powerful social organization such as the government; otherwise it would have to leave the world. The attempt to delineate spheres of influence between the Church and the State – the soul of man belongs to the former, his body to the latter – will in principle, of course, never achieve its objective, because it is only possible to divide man into two separate parts in an abstract sense; in reality, they comprise a single, indivisible whole, and only death dissolves the tie that binds them together. Therefore, the principle of separating the Church from the State will also never be fully realized in real life.”

The Jubilee Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church of 2000 also spoke out on this matter in its “Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church:”

“In everything that exclusively concerns the earthly order of things, the Orthodox Christian is obliged to obey the law, regardless of how ideal or imperfect it is. However, when compliance with legal requirements threatens his eternal salvation and requires an act of apostasy or the commitment of some other definite sin before God and neighbor, the Christian is called upon to perform the feat of witness of the faith for the sake of Divine truth and the salvation of his soul for eternal life. He must speak openly and lawfully against the indisputable violation committed by society or state against the statutes and commandments of God. If this lawful action is impossible or ineffective, he must assume the stance of civil disobedience” (IV, 9).

“The Church remains loyal to the state, but God’s commandment to fulfill the task of salvation in any situation and under any circumstances supersedes this loyalty. If the authority forces Orthodox believers to apostatize from Christ and His Church and to commit sinful and spiritually harmful actions, the Church should refuse to obey the state” (III, 5).

The Church is called upon to exert spiritual influence on the state and its citizens, to confess Christ, to defend the moral foundations of society. By interacting with the state for the good of the people, the Church, however, cannot assume civil functions for itself. The state must not interfere in the inner structure, administration or life of the Church. The Church must support all good initiatives of the state, but must resist evil, immorality and harmful social phenomena and always firmly confess the Truth, and when persecutions commence, to continue to openly witness the faith and be prepared to follow the path of confessors and martyrs for Christ.

Commentary on the Joint Document of the Commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Entitled “On the Relations Between Church and State”

One of the most important questions facing Church life in the 20th century was undoubtedly that of the relationship between the Church and state. Both Commissions deemed it necessary to speak out on one of the most tragic phenomena of recent church history, the conciliar recognition of which is necessary for the reestablishment of the unity of the Russian Church. This refers to the Declaration of the Deputy Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne dated July 16/29, 1927, often called the “Declaration,” and also to the ecclesiastical policies which followed under conditions of the God-battling totalitarian regime.

1. Although the publication of the “Declaration” was not the only reason for the church divisions arising in the 1920’s, it is undoubtedly this document which in fact served to hasten the establishment of an administrative rift between the Church in Russia and its йmigrй part outside of her borders. It became for many the beginning of a spiritual separation.

2. The “Declaration” was written under unprecedented pressure from the militantly atheistic state, which threatened to completely eliminate all legal forms of church life. His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia said the following as early as 1991:

“Today we can say that there is untruth mixed into… the Declaration. The Declaration placed for itself the goal of placing the Church in the proper relationship with the Soviet state. But this relationship – and in the Declaration it was clearly defined as the subjugation of the Church to the interests of government politics – is incorrect from the point of view of the Church.”[1]

3. The ecclesiastical policies of Metropolitan Sergius were doubtless aimed towards the preservation of the church hierarchy, which was the target of destruction by the militant atheists, and also aimed towards the possibility of administering the Mysteries.

The passage of time showed that communities refusing communion with the church hierarchy headed by Metropolitan Sergius were deprived of the possibility of survival under persecution, and those remnants that did survive could not openly confess Christ’s teachings and influence the spiritual life of the people. After the Church Council of 1945, a significant portion of the “non-commemorating” clergy and laity entered the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. Among those who remained separated from communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, the danger arose of veering into sectarianism.

4. The policies of Metropolitan Sergius enabled the reestablishment of church life during and after the Second World War.

The patriotic stance expressed in part in the “Declaration” resonated in the hearts of many members of the Russian Orthodox during the years of the Great Patriotic War. Orthodox Christians fought and struggled for the good of their homeland, as did Great Martyr George the Victory-bearer, St Theodore Stratilatos, and many holy warriors in the first centuries of Christianity, who fought to defend their pagan countries, as did St John the Damascene, who labored to benefit his country, then under Muslim control.

The activity of the bishops and pastors of the Russian Orthodox Church during the years of World War II, blessing the people in their self-sacrifice in the battle against fascism, became a shining example of the fulfillment of Christian and patriotic duty. Also recognizing the terrible danger of German Nazism were the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, who also suffered grief from the tragic fate that befell the Russian people. It is known that Archbishop John (Maximovich), who was included among the host of saints by the Russian Church Abroad, while beyond the reach of the godless regime, performed services of supplication for the victory of his Fatherland, and made monetary collections for the needs of the troops in action.

5. The publication of the “Declaration” did not mean that the Church was of one mind with the ideology of the atheist state. An attempt was made in the document to express what the Church had stated since the first centuries of her history, from the time of the Apostles and her apologists: Christians are not enemies of the state. Still, for the godless state, Orthodox Christians remained unreliable and alien even after the publication of the “Declaration.”

At the same time, the “Declaration” introduced a sharp rift within the people of the Church. There are known instances when during the interrogation of the “non-commemorating” clergymen, the persecutors of the Church referred to the “Declaration.” It was then, and is to this day, a temptation for many children of the Russian Orthodox Church.

6. Over the course of the two-thousand-year-old history of the Church, such compromises under conditions of persecution are known. But never did those people who made compromises for the sake of preserving the legal existence of the Church, nor, of course, those who disagreed with such a policy, ever deem the path of compromise as normal, as the only path or the as natural path of the Church of Christ.

7. The martyrs and confessors who gave their lives for Christ and His Church were numerous, both among those who accepted the “Declaration” and among those who rejected it. From among one group and another, many are now among the host of saints. The actions of Metropolitan Sergius, which spurred and continue to spur so many arguments, were without a doubt dictated by the search for a way to preserve church life in the coming crucial epoch, in difficult circumstances theretofore unseen.

“The tragedy of Metropolitan Sergius lies in the fact that he attempted in earnest to reach an agreement with criminals who had wrested power.”[2]

8. Both in the part of the Russian Church found abroad, and, what is very important, inside Russia as well, the “Declaration” was viewed by the people of the Church as a morbid, tragic compromise, but not as the free voice of the Church of Christ.

9. Certain chapters of a document adopted at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (August 2000), formulated in complete agreement with the teachings of the Church and the Holy Fathers on the relationship of the Church and the civil authorities, were soon afterwards given a positive evaluation by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (October 2000).

“The Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” in a series of theses,[3] clearly defines the principles of the ecclesiastical approach to the relationship of the Church and state. In part, it says that the Church under certain circumstances must call for civil disobedience. The “Concept” contains ideas which differ in principle from those expressed in the “Declaration.”

In comparing the “Declaration” and the “Basic Social Concept,” Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad noted at the Council of Bishops of October 2004:

“The free voice of the Church, speaking with particular clarity in this conciliar document [“Concept”], gives us the opportunity to look upon the “Declaration” in a new way. While understanding that the path chosen in 1927 on the relationship towards the state was motivated by the desire to preserve the possibility for the Church to exist legally, this path was authoritatively deemed inconsistent with the genuine norms of Church-state relations by the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. The epoch of the imprisonment of the Church has come to an end.”

In this way, the “Declaration” was seen as a coerced document which did not express the free will of the Church.

At the same time, a critical view of the above document does not equate to a condemnation of His Holiness Patriarch Sergius, and does not express an effort to besmirch his person and mitigate his First-Hierarchical service in the difficult years of the Church’s life in the Soviet Union.

As His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II said in 1991, “The Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius has departed into the past, and we are not guided by it.”[4]

The rejection of the course of the Russian Church in her relations with the state as reflected in the “Declaration” opens the path to the fullness of brotherly communion.

*


[1] “His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II: I take upon myself the responsibility for all that happened” // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate 1991, n. 10 pp. 5-6.

[2] Ibid. p. 6

[3] See, in part: “III.V. [T]he persecuted Church is also called to endure the persecution with patience, without refusing to be loyal to the state persecuting her. Legal sovereignty in the territory of a state belongs to its authorities. Therefore, it is they who determine the legal status of a Local Church or her part, either giving her an opportunity for the unhampered fulfillment of church mission or restricting this opportunity. Thus, state power makes judgment on itself and eventually foretells its fate. The Church remains loyal to the state, but God’s commandment to fulfill the task of salvation in any situation and under any circumstances is above this loyalty. If the authority forces Orthodox believers to apostatize from Christ and His Church and to commit sinful and spiritually harmful actions, the Church should refuse to obey the state.”

III.6. “The Church. . . should point out to the state that it is inadmissible to propagate such convictions or actions which may result in total control over a person’s life, convictions and relations with other people, as well as erosion in personal, family or public morality, insult of religious feelings, damage to the cultural and spiritual identity of the people and threats to the sacred gift of life.”

III.8. “[T]here are areas in which the clergy and canonical church structures cannot support the state or cooperate with it. They are as follows: a) political struggle, election agitation, campaigns in support of particular political parties and public and political leaders; b) waging civil war or aggressive external war; c) direct participation in intelligence and any other activity that demands secrecy by law even in making one’s confession or reporting to the church authorities.”

IV.3. “[I]n the cases where the human law completely rejects the absolute divine norm, replacing it by an opposite one, it ceases to be law and becomes lawlessness, in whatever legal garments it may dress itself.”

IV.9. “[W]hen compliance with legal requirements threatens his eternal salvation and involves an apostasy or commitment of another doubtless sin before God and his neighbor, the Christian is called to perform the feat of confession for the sake of God’s truth and the salvation of his soul for eternal life. He must speak out lawfully against an indisputable violation committed by society or state against the statutes and commandments of God. If this lawful action is impossible or ineffective, he must take up the position of civil disobedience.”

V.2. “[T]he Church preaches peace and co-operation among people holding various political views. She also acknowledges the presence of various political convictions among her episcopate, clergy and laity, except for such as to lead clearly to actions contradicting the faith and moral norms of the church Tradition.”

[4] “His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II: I take upon myself the responsibility for all that happened” // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate 1991, n. 10 p. 6.

See also: