{"id":23763,"date":"2010-08-11T10:58:33","date_gmt":"2010-08-11T06:58:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mospat.ru\/?p=23763"},"modified":"2010-08-17T14:39:43","modified_gmt":"2010-08-17T10:39:43","slug":"my-domogaemsya-ne-pobedy-a-vozvrashheniya-bratev-intervyu-predsedatelya-sinodalnogo-informacionnogo-otdela-moskovskogo-patriarkhata-v-r-legojjdy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/old.mospat.ru\/en\/2010\/08\/11\/news23763\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018We do not seek the defeat but the return of our brothers\u2026\u2019 \u2013 Interview by V. Legoida, head of the Synodal Information Department"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Appeal of the Russian Orthodox Church Holy Synod \u2018To Orthodox Christians in Ukraine who stay outside the unity with the Holy Church\u2019 has provoked a lively public discussion in Ukraine. The Synod of the so-called Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kievan Patriarchate (UOC KP) issued immediately a counter statement whose tone and affirmations may perplex the reader. At the request of the Bogoslov.ru website, this document is commented by V. Legoida, head of the Moscow Patriarchate\u2019s Synodal Information Department. <\/em><\/p>\n

–\u00a0Vladimir Romanovich, the most recent statement of the non-recognized \u2018Patriarchate of Kiev\u2019, begins with an affirmation that this religious organization does not at all constitute a schism but as \u2018a local Ukrainian Orthodox Church it represents an integral part of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in spite of the fact that the ROC and some like-minded Churches have not recognized it as such as yet\u2019. Can you comment on this text? <\/strong><\/p>\n

– Let us begin with the fact that \u2018some like-minded Churches\u2019 are neither more nor less than all the autocephalous Orthodox Churches \u2013 the entire world Orthodox family! In seeking to justify the schism its leaders defy the elementary common sense; for can a church be part of the Catholic and Apostolic Church if the Church itself does not recognize this \u2018part\u2019 and has no communion whatsoever with it?<\/p>\n

We know that Kiev has been a center of pan-Orthodox celebrations on many occasions, and the hierarchs of all or most of the Local Orthodox Churches assembled in the Ukrainian capital for various celebrations time and again. But they were guests of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church and its lawful Primate, His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and All Ukraine, not those of the self-proclaimed \u2018Patriarchate of Kiev\u2019. A delegation of the \u2018Orthodox Church of Montenegro\u2019 led by \u2018Metropolitan Michael\u2019 was reported to have prayed with the leaders of this organization on July 28. But such reports can mislead only those who do not know that this \u2018Church\u2019 is a similar schismatic organization which does not enjoy any support from the devout people of Montenegro whose spiritual pastor is Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro and Primorje, who is known to the entire Orthodox world. The one who came to Kiev as \u2018Metropolitan of Montenegro\u2019 was a former cleric of the Patriarchate of Constantinople who had been defrocked and anathemized long ago.<\/p>\n

Those who have put themselves in this disastrous isolation from the Universal Church of Christ should think about a return and the salvation of their souls rather than about some obscure \u2018divisions according to the principle of jurisdiction\u2019.<\/p>\n

– But it is affirmed in the same statement that those who separated themselves \u2018do not differ in any way from the fullness of the Orthodox Church either in doctrine or in celebration of the sacraments or in other divine services or in the implementation of the norms of canon law\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

– How come they do not differ? One of the basic canonical norms in the Orthodox Church is a canon whereby no sustained or the more so defrocked priest can celebrate either the Divine Liturgy or any other religious rite. And here a man not only defrocked but altogether anathemized celebrates \u2018liturgies\u2019 and \u2018ordinations\u2019. Isn\u2019t it a violation of all the norms of canon law? Does the doctrine of the Orthodox Church really state that any man who puts on the \u2018right\u2019 vestments and utters correct words can celebrate Sacraments?<\/p>\n

The authors of this statement, in an attempt to prove that they are not schismatics, refer to the words of St. Basil the Great that a schism is \u2018a division in opinions on some church subjects\u2019, while \u2018the Patriarchate of Kiev\u2019 is alleged to have no division in opinions with the Church. I believe it is sufficient to pay attention to the question of who can celebrate and who cannot. As we can see, this question has been answered by our separated brothers in downright defiance of the canons established in the Orthodox Church.<\/p>\n

I order to become a schismatic it is not all necessary to invent a special rite of one\u2019s own and to introduce a new doctrine (in the latter case it would be a heresy). According to John Zonara\u2019s definition, schismatics are those who are in the right mind with regard to the faith and dogmata, but who for some reasons have separated themselves to arrange separate assemblies of their own. This authoritative Byzantine canonist does not believe it necessary to specify these reasons, and it is not accidental. A schism is essentially formed by the very fact of ruptured communion with the Universal Church through an arbitrary separation from one\u2019s lawful supreme ecclesiastical authority. It is certainly condemned by the canons: \u2018If any presbyter or bishop or metropolitan dares to secede from communion with his own patriarch and does not mention his name\u2026 in the divine mystagogy, but before a synodical arraignment and his [the patriarch’s] full condemnation, he creates a schism, the Holy Synod has decreed that this person be alienated from every priestly function (Double Council Canon 15). Summing up the above, the notion of schism can be formulated as follows: a schism is developed when certain hierarchs and clerics depart from the lawful supreme ecclesiastical authority and violate sacred canons and for this, on the basis of these canons and in accordance with a due procedure, they are excommunicated by the lawful church authority from communion with the Church. The rest of Orthodox Churches, too, recognize this excommunication and sustain communion with the schismatics. This is exactly what happened to the so-called \u2018Patriarchate of Kiev\u2019.<\/p>\n

– And what can be said about the arguments from the history of granting autocephaly in the 19th and 20th centuries? Indeed, sometimes there were canonical bans at that time as well, and the autocephalous status of new Local Churches was not recognized immediately\u2026 Sometimes the schism is cited between the Bulgarian Church and the Throne of Constantinople which lasted till 1945. And it all ended in the recognition of autocephaly. As proponents of \u2018the Patriarchate of Kiev\u2019 maintain, anathemas were simply forgotten with time.<\/strong><\/p>\n

– Indeed, the granting of autocephaly in the 19th-20th centuries was often associated with mutual misunderstanding of the sides, temporary interruption of communion and even church bans. However, these cases are radically different from the situation of \u2018the Patriarchate of Kiev\u2019, and not only because autocephaly was an agreed desire of all the faithful and their archpastors and pastors in the respective countries \u2013 something not detectable in the attitude of the Orthodox faithful in Ukraine.<\/p>\n

In case of the so-called Bulgarian schism, this internal problem of the Church of Constantinople was brought up on its initiative for a pan-Orthodox discussion in 1872. As a result, the condemnation of the schism was not approved by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Synod of the Antiochian Church, the Synod of the Russian Church and the Churches of Romania and Serbia which were absent from the 1872 Council. As we can see, there was no consensus between all the Orthodox Churches. Therefore, throughout the period of the Bulgarian schism, partial communion between those departed and the Church remained, and there is a great deal of evidence to it. Whereas legitimate bans with regard to the initiators of the schism in Ukrainian Orthodoxy are recognized by the whole Orthodox world. They have had no communion with any of the Orthodox Churches.<\/p>\n

Besides, the history of the Bulgarian division ended not in a simple and, so to say, automatic \u2018oblivion\u2019 of the anathemas and bans, but in a petition sent to the Patriarch of Constantinople by Metropolitan Stephan of Sophia asking him on behalf of his Synod to lift up church bans \u2018from the Bulgarian clergy and people\u2019. From this it follows that the Bulgarian hierarchy recognized the bans as valid. Alas, no petitions of this kind have come to the canonical Church as yet. Incidentally, the Bulgarian schismatic leaders did not live to see the lawful autocephaly.<\/p>\n

– Sometimes the Russian Orthodox Church is cited as one whose autocephaly was not recognized by Constantinople for over a hundred years\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

– The refusal to recognize an autocephaly and a rupture of church communion are different things. It has been long proved on the basis of historical facts that from 1448 to 1589 the Russian Church retained full Eucharistic communion with the Church of Constantinople and Eastern Churches. In spite of the fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not approve the autocephaly of the Russian Church immediately, it continued communion with her in prayer and sacraments. No church bans were imposed on the Russian Church\u2019s bishops, clergy or laity at that time.<\/p>\n

– To look at more recent examples, the Patriarchate of Kiev leaders have often compared themselves with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, as \u2018the schism\u2019 and later the overcoming of the tragic division were talked about for years.<\/strong><\/p>\n

– A more lame comparison is difficult to find. The Russian Church Outside Russia was brought about by well-known grave historical circumstances, a civil war and mass emigration. It was formed as a temporary structure, as its statute underscores. Its bishops, pastors and lay people have always considered themselves to be part of one Russian Church, self-governed until the godless power is abolished in the native land. None of the ROCOR hierarchs was defrocked or anathemized. The Russian Church Outside Russia was never completely isolated from Universal Orthodoxy. Therefore, the restoration of unity was a matter of time, though became possible only after the situation was radically changed in Russia, Ukraine and other countries under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church.<\/p>\n

–\u00a0Could you comment on the affirmation that the supreme ecclesiastical authority of the Russian Orthodox Church is not capable of \u2018being an authoritative and impartial interpreter of canons and statutes of the Church\u2019?<\/strong><\/p>\n

– Apparently, you mean the so-called \u2018recognition of the sacraments\u2019 sought by the schismatics and the First Canon of St. Basil the Great cited by the Russian Orthodox Church Holy Synod in its appeal to the schismatics. But first of all, the Canon of Basil the Great speaks of the rite of accepting back in the Church for those who have fallen away from it, not about the \u2018recognition\u2019 of sacraments administered by those who continue to stay away from the Church. According to the schismatic leaders\u2019 statements, they are confident of their righteousness and need no repentance. Nevertheless, they seem to be distressed by the fact of non-recognition of their sacraments! A strange attitude, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n

As for how appropriate it was for the ROC Holy Synod to refer to this canon, I can give this explanation: with reference to \u2018the old\u2019 St. Basil cites various practices of accepting schismatics through re-baptism (with reference to Cyprian and Firmillian) and without re-baptism (with reference to some of the Asians). For St. Basil it was decisive that those fallen away did not bear the grace of the Holy Spirit after their separation from the Church. The giving of grace ceased because the legitimate succession was interrupted. Those who were the first to fall away were consecrated by the fathers and had a spiritual gift through the laying of their hands. But those who alienated themselves became laymen who had no power either to administer baptism or ordination and could not give others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves fell away. Therefore, the practice of re-baptizing schismatics, in Basil\u2019s view, was quite justified, and he did not deplore it in any way. But at the same time, he approved of another practice existing at that time, namely, acceptance of schismatics through repentance for the sake of edification of others. That is to say, for the sake of help to numerous repentants to come back to the Church.<\/p>\n

The Holy Synod underscored St. Basil\u2019s principal idea that grace becomes scarce in a community which stays outside the Church. This grace can be replenished only in the Church, outside which it is meaningless to discuss norms of canon law. In other words, the recognition of the sacraments\u2019 administered by schismatics can be granted only if they come back to the Church with repentance. This is what St. Basil says. He does not at all discuss \u2018the recognition of sacraments\u2019 administered by schismatics who do not make repentance and who do not restore unity with the Church.<\/p>\n

– As is known, the efforts of the present Ukrainian government are directed towards good-neigbourly relations with Russia. As the political situation in Ukraine has changed, is it appropriate to say that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will use it to suppress the schism with the help of the government? <\/strong><\/p>\n

– There are no grounds for such statements. None of the officials authorized to speak for the Church have ever asked the government to use repressive measures against the schism. On the contrary, the appeal of the Russian Orthodox Church Synod and statements His Holiness Patriarch Kirill made in Ukraine are imbued with the spirit of love and compassion to those fallen away. As for the government, its function is to maintain law and remove legal violations in case there are such.<\/p>\n

– The \u2018Synod of the Kievan Patriarchate\u2019 has addressed special warnings to all those who try to come back to the canonical Church. They are threatened with God\u2019s judgment. The canonical consecration of those who had been ordained by the Patriarchate of Kiev earlier is described in the statement as \u2018renunciation of Christ Himself\u2019 and \u2018blasphemy against the Holy Spirit\u2019. References are made to canons. <\/strong><\/p>\n

– These statements show that schismatics are very far from a desire for dialogue in spite of the fact that they have declared this desire on many occasions. In fact, they have openly adopted an attitude of opposition to repentance and return to the Church. What dialogue do they speak about?<\/p>\n

A reference to Apostolic Canon 68 is utterly irrelevant here. It states that a second ordination is inadmissible except for cases where the first one was administered by heretics. It means that a heretical \u2018ordination\u2019 is not recognized.<\/p>\n

But does it mean that an ordination is invalid only if it was administered by those who sinned against the doctrines of the faith? Nothing of the kind. If, say, two or three Christian laymen, who confess the Creed without any changes, come together and make up their minds to \u2018ordain\u2019, say, a bishop, would such an ordination be recognized as valid? For one to have the power to celebrate one has to be empowered by the Church.<\/p>\n

Speaking about heretics, the authors of canons often do not make any clear distinction between heretics and schismatics. According to Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council, those are called heretics whom the Church declared as such from old times and those who were anathemized after that, as well as those who, pretending to confess the sound faith, separate themselves and gather congregations in opposition to canonical bishops. That is, the fathers of the Council believed it impossible to confess the sound faith outside the Church; it is only possible to pretend. Therefore, in the canon they rank those who have separated themselves from the Church among heretics and even use the same designation for them.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, St. John Chrysostom says that creating divisions in the Church is evil no lesser then heresy. The saving confession of faith is possible only in the Church and becomes meaningful only in the Church.<\/p>\n

Coming back to Apostolic Canon 68, I have to admit that it speaks about the prohibition of a second valid ordination. But ordinations administered in the \u2018Patriarchate of Kiev\u2019 can by no means be called valid: they were administered by those who are deprived of the right to ordain.<\/p>\n

It is interesting that \u2018the Kievan Patriarchate\u2019 leaders themselves have administered re-ordinations to the \u2018bishops\u2019 accepted from another schism, the so-called \u2018Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church\u2019. The point was not that the latter confessed a distorted doctrine. The point is simply that its founders received \u2018consecrations\u2019 from a man who was not only deprived of the right to celebrate but has never been a bishop at all, namely, Deacon Vikenty Chekalin. Even the leaders of the schism took it as \u2018extremely\u2019 anti-canonical. Interestingly, one of these \u2018bishops\u2019 was re-consecrated in secret not immediately but only half a year after he moved to the ranks of proponents of \u2018the Patriarchate of Kiev\u2019.<\/p>\n

So, \u2018blasphemy against the Holy Spirit\u2019 is not at all a desire to settle one\u2019s canonical status, whose defectiveness is clear to many of the spiritual pastors of the schism, but an attempt to prevent them from doing it by threatening them with the Last Judgment. How can a return to the Church be a \u2018renunciation of Christ Himself\u2019? Indeed, communion with Christ is possible only in the Church.<\/p>\n

Actually, it is the renunciation of Christ and His Church that constitutes a schism. God grant that those who have departed from church communion come to realize it. We will be sincerely happy to see them returning and are always ready to accept them in love and humbleness. For, as Gregory the Theologian said, so aptly cited by the Holy Synod,\u00a0we seek not the defeat but the return of our brothers because our separation grieves us.<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Appeal of the Russian Orthodox Church Holy Synod \u2018To Orthodox Christians in Ukraine who stay outside the unity with the Holy Church\u2019 has provoked a lively public discussion in Ukraine. The Synod of the so-called Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kievan Patriarchate (UOC KP) issued immediately a counter statement whose tone and affirmations may perplex the reader. At the request of the Bogoslov.ru website, this document is commented by V. Legoida, head of the Moscow Patriarchate\u2019s Synodal Information Department.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9,2,11,83],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.mospat.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23763"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.mospat.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.mospat.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.mospat.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.mospat.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23763"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/old.mospat.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23763\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.mospat.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.mospat.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.mospat.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}