Theological Estimation of the Professor of the Fassalonik University D. Comengedis of the document "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Other Christian World"
In connection with the convening of the Bishop Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church, I would like to reverend to your attention some theological comments and comments regarding already published documents of the V Pre-Counseling Distribution Meeting, which will very soon become the subject of your close attention, since it will be necessary to adopt the Cathedral decision on its results.
My theological comments concern the document: "The attitude of the Orthodox Church to the rest of the Christian world."
This document repeatedly manifests itself, from theological point of view, inconsistency, and even inconsistency. So, in paragraph 1, it is referred to the church self-awareness of the Orthodox Church, which is completely correctly called the "Unified, Saint, Cathedral and Apostolic Church". But in paragraph 6, the formulation is shown contrary to clause 1, namely it clearly notes that the Orthodox Church states existence in the history of other Christian churches and denominations with it. "
Here there is a completely acquitted theological question: "If the church is" one "in the Faith symbol and in the self-consciousness of the Orthodox Church (paragraph 1), then why do we suddenly begin to talk about other Christian churches? After all, it is quite obvious that these other churches are nonsense.
However, nonsense "churches" can not be completely Orthodox Christians to be called "churches", because from a dogmatic point of view there is no reason to argue about the existence of a multitude of "churches", and with excellent [from Orthodox] teachings, in many of theological issues. So, until these "churches" hold for their erroneous misconceptions in religious issues, from theological point of view will not be correct to recognize their belonging to the Church, even as if outside the "Unified, Holy, Cathedral and Apostolic Church", yes also legalize their status Cathedrally.
In the same paragraph 6 there is another serious theological contradiction.
At the beginning of the paragraph, the following is: "The unity that the church has on its ontological nature cannot be broken." And at the end of this item is written that, participating in ecumenical movement, the Orthodox Church pursues " objective goal - to prepare the way to unity » .
The question arises here: " Insofar as Unity of the Church is a given that what kind of unity churches we string them sia achieve within Ecumenical movement? Maybe implies the return of [the so-called] Western Christians in the Lono of the Unified and Single Church? However, nothing like this is not visible according to the letter, nor according to the spirit of all this document. Even on the contrary: there is a impression that in the church, as a givenness, there is a division, and the prospect of interchristian dialogue is aimed at reuniting the violated unity of the Church.
Theological confusion is caused by the ambiguity of paragraph 20, which says: " The prospects for theological dialogues of the Orthodox Church with other Christian churches and confessions always proceed from the canonical criteria of the already formed church tradition (7th Rule of the Second Universal Cathedral and the 95th Rule of the Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Cathedral). "
However, in the 7th rule of the Second Ecumenical Cathedral and the 95th Rule of the Trulular Cathedral, it is referred to recognizing the baptism of some specific heretics, which showed interest in accession to the Orthodox Church. But, in the theological assessment of the document under consideration by our letter and in spirit, we understand that it is not at all about the return of nonsense into the Orthodox and the United Church. On the contrary, in this document, the baptism of nonsense is recognized as a priori, that is, as a givenness, even despite the lack of an appropriate solution to all local churches. In other words, a document whenknows the theory of the so-called "baptictheologyi" At the same time, intentionally ignored the historical fact that modern Sospene West (Roman Catholics and Protestants) have not even one, but many dogmas, which differ from the creed of the Orthodox Church (except Filiobili (Filioque), is the doctrine of creating grace of sacraments, about The primacy of Pope, about his infallibility, as well as the denial of honoring the icons and decisions of the Universal Councils, etc.).
Causes fair issues and paragraph 21, in which it is noted that "the Orthodox Church is positively assessed by the Documents of theological nature adopted by the Commission (meant the Commission" Vera and the Church Device ")<…> About the convergence of churches. " It should be noted here that these documents were not officially submitted to the hierarchs of local Orthodox churches at the level of church cathedrals.
And finally, paragraph 22 gives the impression that the coming Great and Holy Cathedral predetermines the infallibility of their decisions, as he believes that " the preservation of the true Orthodox faith is possible only due to the Cathedral system, which ancient times represented by the competent and highest criterion of the church in faith" This point is ignored by the historical fact that in the Orthodox Church higher criteriais andogmatic consciousness church fullness (ἔ-σχα-το κρι-τή-ριο εἶ-ναι ἡ γρη-γο-ροῦ-σα δογ-μα-τι-κή συ-νεί-δη-ση τοῦ πλη-ρώ-μα-τος τῆς Ἐκ-κλη-σί-ας ) which has the right to recognize or consider "wolf" even the universal cathedrals. Cathedral stroke in itself is not " mechanical»A guarantee of the correctness of the Orthodox faith. This happens only when the bishops participating in the cathedrals are the temple of the Holy Spirit acting through them; The Cathedral of the Bishops has consent, " following all the holy fathers ...» («ἑ-πό-με-νοι τοῖς ἁ-γί-οις πα-τρά-σι»).
Overall assessment of the document
According to what it is written and what is explicitly implied in the above document, it is obvious that initiators and its compilers make an attempt to legitimize "Christian syncretism-ecumenism" Through the adoption of the appropriate solution at the Divine Cathedral. But it will have catastrophic consequences for the Orthodox Church . In this regard, I humbly propose to completely reject this edition of the document.
And one more theological comment to the document "The Masonry of Marriage and Obstacles to Him". In paragraph 5, paragraph 1 of Chapter 2 (about obstacles to marriage), it is noted: "The marriage of Orthodox with the nonsense is prohibited from canonical acryvia and is not crowded (72th rule of the Trulle Cathedral). It can be blessed to condescevement and humans, provided that children from this marriage will be baptized and raised in the Orthodox Church. "
The statement that "children from this marriage will be baptized and raised in the Orthodox Church" contradicts the theological foundation of marriage as the sacrament of the Orthodox Church, since it turns out that [in itself] childbirth, combined with the baptism of children in the Orthodox Church, becomes sufficient ] The basis for the church committing mixed marriages, a thing that is completely definitely prohibited by the Rule of Ecumenical Cathedrals (72th Rule of the Trill Cathedral). In other words, we see that the cathedral who does not have the status of the universal, which is the future holy and great cathedral, questioning and makes an optional completely definite and strict decision of the Universal Cathedral . And it is completely unacceptable.
And further. If children do not know in a crowded marriage, can this marriage be legitimate from theological point of view only under the pretext of the promise of the nonsense spouse of future children to make members of the Orthodox Church?
Consequently, in theological reasons, paragraph 1, paragraph 1 must be removed.
According to the "Orthodox Encyclopedia", nonsense - the general name of the wrong name. Christians used in Orthodox. Churches (the term "aliabia" is the translation of Greek. Ἑτεροδοξία).<...> In the synodal period, the term "foreworn" was not used in the legislation, often I. officially included in the group of innerians or foreign confessions. At the same time, representatives of legal alumnal confessions had a special legal status. ... In 1917, the Provisional Government took measures to create an extra-confessional state. On March 20, a decree "On the abolition of religious and national restrictions" was published, which was announced on the equality of all religions before the law, were canceled all the restrictions on rights. Union was legalized. Worship. The law "On Freedom of Conscience", adopted on July 14, proclaimed freedom of relig. self-determination for each citizen upon reaching the age of 14. 5 Aug. Min-in confessions with the Department of Foreign and InVERVICE confessions included in it. T. about., For the first time in the name of the state. The authority was used by the term "aliabia". However, 25 Oct. Min-in ceased existence. ... in the XX - beginning. XXI century The term "aliabia" in church practice is consumed significantly more often than before that, partly because with the development of ecumenical movement and intercursted contacts, the sector of the use of canonical terms "heretics" and "Raskolniki" as inappropriate in this context due to their negative color.
Need to closely consider the question Usei term "alien"Instead Traditionally used in the official church office work word"Imovers".
The document says literally as follows: "The unity of the church, which it possesses in its ontological nature, is unshakable" (κατά τήν ὀντολογικήν φύσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡἡνότης αὐτῆς εἶναι ἀδύνατον νά διαταραχθῇ). ─. approx. translator.
Literally: "Preparation of the path leading to the union" (τήν προλείανσιν τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς ὁδηγούσης πρός τήν ἑνότητα). ─. approx. translator.
* There is a transformation of iconomy into dogma and canon. According to Orthodox teaching, Iconomia is a temporary retreat from acryvia, from the canon of faith, for the sake of human disgraces in exceptional circumstances, aimed at bringing people to the right faith, contrary to objective obstacles.
This text was written at the request of the movement of the Orthodox lawyers of Moldova, who spent the organizer of the International Theological Conference "Interreligious Syncretism", held in Chisinau January 21-22, 2016 on the blessing of Metropolitan Chisinau and All Moldova Vladimir. This work was written in a short time to the beginning of the Bishop Cathedral of the ROC (February 2-3, 2016) and will be supplemented by the author.
On June 17, the first "working meeting" was held in Crete within the framework of the eighth Divorce Cathedral - Small Synaxis Proposals of the Avtochefal Orthodox Churches. A month ago, everyone was confident that it would discuss the most important problems of Eastern Christianity, which have long come true and demand solutions at the highest level.
In Orthodox tradition, the highest level and there is an universal cathedral - that is, the meeting of all churches. However, on June 13, he became the last and most authoritative Orthodox Church, which refused to go to Crete. Earlier in June, the Bulgarian, Georgian and Antioch (unites part of Middle Eastern land, as well as the Arab parishes in North and South America, refused to attend the Cathedral. The Serbian church loomed for a long time, but in the end I went to the cathedral. Patriarch Konstantinople Bartholomew said that the cathedral will still take place and will still be called unattop.
Many of the charters did not agree with him: in fact, the Cretan Cathedral lost the right to be called individually and became regional. The spiritual event that believers expected three hundred years and did not take place.
"In the Russian church, preparation for the cat was very active, until the last week there was a readiness of the number one and a great inspiration," said Gazeta.Ru, the chief editor of the Portal "Orthodoxy and the world". - Our journalists were supposed to work as part of the pool, there were many discussion of preparing materials. A sudden refusal of several churches has become a big surprise, at least for us. "
According to the interlocutor Gazeta.Ru, the Georgian and Bulgarian churches explained their decision to abandon the trip to Crete due to disagreement with several documents that were planned to be taken on the cathedral.
"It was very surprised me too. The documents of the cathedral are so formal, general and faceless, in sharpness and relevance, they are so far from many topical problems of church life today - for example, the foundations of the social concept of the Russian Church, accepted as much as 16 years ago, which seemed to be no disagreement and discussions. , Danilova told. "By the way, as far as I know, the documents were published precisely at the insistence of the ROC, was originally not supposed to do with public."
ROC explained its position in the extension official document. It described somewhat foggy about the fact that it is necessary to maintain the principle of consensus and the presence of each autocephaly (independent Orthodox Church) on the cathedral. According to the Russian Church, this time, when preparing for the Divine Cathedral, these principles turned out to be Popran, and with the approval of the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew (the heads of the Greek Orthodox Church).
The broad Orthodox community became clear: the traditional rivalry between the Moscow and Constantinople Patriarchate threw a shadow on the preparation of the eighth of the Divine Cathedral, who had to demonstrate the ability of all Orthodox peace to leave the lapse and gather together in the name of faith.
"Obviously one thing: rivalry between Moscow and Constantinople and an approximate list of allies of the whole and the other," commented "Gazeta.Ru" the non-appearance of the ROC delegation and three other churches for the Bibleist Cathedral.
Conflict, Ancient RF and USA
In Russia, in this regard, the question arose: how much does the country's political leadership affect the course of rapprochement in recent years with the leadership of the ROC?
One of the popular versions was that the usual collision was twisted around the cathedral: the Kremlin and Washington - through the Konstantinople Patriarch Bartholomew - they are trying to strengthen their influence over the Orthodox world.
"I am not a supporter of the theory of conspiracies. Conversations about the pro-American position sounds all the more strange that there are many Orthodox churches in the US, many believers. The fastest growing church of America is just an antihogue Orthodox, who has refused now to take part in the cathedral, "says Anna Danilova. "I think there are a number of questions that need to be resolved, but I am sure that the cathedral will be held a little later."
The source of "Gazeta.Ru", close to the structures of the ROC, said that the "pro-American" policy of Bartholomew can only be said in that context that the moods of the Greek Orthodox diaspora influence it.
In his opinion, the Cretan Cathedral suffered from the contradictions not "worldly" politics, but intracerer. They are hundreds of years older than the rivalry of the Kremlin and Washington. The autochetal Constantinople church appeared in the IV century of our era. Moscow autochefalia - in the XV century.
"The depth discrepancies are that the Constantinople Patriarchate and the Allied Local Churches, having a Greek-speaking hierarchy, consider their patriarch as a church monarch. And the ROC, as well as many national churches, believe that the Orthodox Church is arranged as a community of equal independent churches (by analogy with sovereign states) and there can be no "monarch" on them, "said the interlocutor Gazeta.Ru. "This factor must be taken into account because it constantly manifests itself if you begin to disassemble all conflicts and disputes between churches."
In his opinion, the problem with the Cyprus Cathedral lies in permanent attempts to monopolize the process of preparation from the Constantinople Church. "The prepar process has repeatedly visited a dead end due to the fact that Constantinople's representatives conducted some actions relating to the preparation of the Cathedral alone, that is, without the consent of other churches."
According to the source close to the ROC, the situation developed as follows. In January 2016, at Sinaksis (Assembly) of the Proposals of the Orthodox Churches in the Swiss Shambiz, it was decided to create a Distribution Secretariat for the preparation of the cathedral. It includes representatives of all churches. However, the Konstantinople church again tried to take a pre-stop process under his sole control, which caused discontent from other churches. This fact could be regarded as an attempt to manipulate.
"This monopolization is not some kind of evil intent of Constantinople," the interlocutor of Gazeta.Ru is justified by the Greek clergy. - In my opinion, about intentional manipulation speech, most likely, does not go. It is just a style of work of the Constantinople Patriarchate, ascending to the ideas about the special role of this church and its Primate in the world of Orthodoxy. "
Patriarch "Under the Turks"
Nevertheless, the position of the Bartholomew was unacceptable for the ROC: the body created to prepare the cathedral, did not cope with his work. "The mechanism of cooperation, launched by January Synaksis in Sumbazy (and this was indeed a breakthrough moment) made a failure, and the old mechanisms of distrust and isolation were involved," the source said. - The first "broke" the Bulgarians, which are historically most sensitive to Greek offended. "
Considerable irritation of the National Churches is also a Turkish problem. Konstantinople Patriarch cannot not feel the pressure of the Turkish authorities, who closely follow his activities in Istanbul. Against the background of popularizing traditional Islamic values, which occurs with the active support of the President of Turkey, the pressure of Ankara on Bartholomew only increased.
"For the departments in the world of Orthodoxy, First Hydoerh, elevating not at the Orthodox Cathedral of the Orthodox Bishopat, and forced to be a Turkish citizen and live under the control of the Turkish authorities. National churches do not understand why they should obey Patriarch, who is elected only by hierarchs that have Turkish passports, and himself submits to the Turkish authorities, "explains the interlocutor Gazeta.Ru.
After the failure of the Bulgarian Church, the Domino effect worked on Crete. The Antioch Church had a serious conflict with Jerusalem due to the appointment of the Jerusalem Hierarch of Archimandrite Makaria by the head of the Orthodox Episcopate of Qatar. The Georgian Church also had many complaints of documents agreed upon preparatory stages. It was only necessary for the first impulse, and these contradictions again became an obstacle to the Divine Cathedral.
Will the unmarried eighth universal cathedral become, whether the Church of St. Sophia will transmit Orthodox church, what questions will be considered on it and how will he change church life? This tells about this by the Deputy Chairman of the External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate Archpriest Nikolai Balashov.
- Father Nikolai, a Diesel Cathedral, the preparation for which is now going through, is this the same VIII Ecumenical, which many are waiting for and many are afraid?
- First, no Cathedral in the history of the Church did not conveyed as the Universal Cathedral - so in the first millennium of its history church called the main church cathedrals. They recognized the universal in their results. So what will be the Divine Cathedral, which is now being prepared, which contribution it will contribute to the future life of the Orthodox Church, will show life.
But the fact is the fact that the preparation of the generally extended cathedral is carried out for many years. Unfortunately, the conditions for the life of the Orthodox Church not only in our country, but also in many other countries of the world throughout the twentieth century were very unfavorable, so attempts to hold a cathedral in the twentieth century were not crowned with success. But we hope that in the XXI century it will become possible.
- previous generally extension cathedrals, which are then universal, convened on principled, dogmatic provisions. Does this cathedral be reviewed by something from the dogmas that are already installed, or will he consider other questions?
- The task of the cathedral is in no way the revision of the dogmatic and canonical tradition of the Holy Orthodox Church, which is worth it and will be unshakable. The establishment of the seven Universal Cathedral is undisputed authority for the whole Christian world, and about any audit of these decisions, of course, does not go. Another thing is that the Cathedrals of the First Millennium from the Nativity of Christ could not predetermine all the questions in the time before the Orthodox Church. During the universal councils, the borders of the local Orthodox churches were presented clearly clearly. The whole world was divided into five major patriarchates. Let me remind you that the first was Roman, then Constantinople (as it was the capital of the Byzantine Empire and the city was named after Rome), then follow the Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem Patriarchals. Roman, as we know, in the XI century disappeared from generally workers.
But in the twentieth century, the picture of the settlement of Orthodox Christians on the globe has changed. Millions of Orthodox people in their mass left Russia after the revolution and as a result of the Civil War, became forced extensors. Greek people also experienced a hard shock when as a result of wars at the beginning of the twentieth century, all the Greek people were forced to leave the territory of Malaya Asia - the territory of the initial distribution and prosperity of Christianity, those regions of the Byzantine Empire, where the holy fathers and church teachers were sometimes born Vasily Great, Grigory Theologian, John Zlatoust and many others. Now these are regions in which there is not a single Christian living there constantly. Mass migrations experienced other Orthodox peoples, and now the Orthodox lives around the face of the Earth. But none of the Ecumenical Councils established, for example, how the Orthodox community should be managed in the United States of America, in the new light - there are no instructions in the canons of the universal councils, and this is one of the questions that requires a communications decision to dispute who exist about this in the Orthodox world, gave way to consent.
- So, one of the most important issues to be considered on the alleged Divorce Cathedral, is it a matter of jurisdiction?
- Completely right. And this question is the first of the ten, which constitute the agenda of the Holy and Grand Cathedral of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And this agenda was approved in 1976 in Geneva, the Orthodox Center of Constantinople Patriarchate. The first topic is called "Orthodox diaspora"; "Diaspora" is a Greek word that means "dispersion", these are the Orthodox people who do not live in their homeland, but scattered around the world. The second is the Orthodox Church in those countries where the Orthodox does not constitute the majority of the population. For example, in Western Europe, in Australia, in South and North America. Orthodox churches should agree on how the pastoral leadership of the flock, which lives there.
Today, a whole range of local churches have their foreign institutions in the diaspora and bother their flock. But you need to learn more closely to interact with each other. So that, for example, residents of New York, where there is now, probably more than a dozen of Orthodox jurisdictions, had the idea that the Orthodox Church, despite the fact that the peoples make it different, essentially alone. And it is one - this is not just a federation or a confederation of some formations that exist in different countries of the world; Despite the existing borders between church jurisdictions, the Church retains fundamental unity in faith, in worship, in the sacraments. Unity, which is based on the overall tradition, coming from the Apostles, from the Holy Fathers of the Church, from the Holy Universal and Local Councils, is the tradition, which is already two thousand years old.
- Multiple provisions from those preparing for consideration on this cathedral concern the recognition of the status of church autochefalia and autonomy. Does this mean that it is necessary to prepare a new procedure for determining autoquatephalia or autonomy, because people, having learned how the patriarchy now they belong to, will want to separate?
- Indeed, there is a canonical procedure. Everyone knows that there are autochefal, that is, completely independent, and autonomous churches, which are part of the autocephalous church, but possessing freedom of internal self-government. For example, within our Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, there are such self-governed churches as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Latvian Orthodox Church, the Estonian Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church of Moldova. A self-governing part of the Moscow Patriarchate is the Russian Foreign Church, whose communication with the Church in Motherland was established four years ago, in May 2007.
But what is the procedure for providing the status of autochefali or autonomy - the question is ambiguous in the Orthodox world. The new church comes to an equal family of autocephalous churches. Then the heads of churches are going to the Cathedral and begin to sign one by one, starting from the first to honor, that is, from the Patriarch of Constantinople, a document on the autocephaly. This is great progress in our movement to mutual understanding.
- I wonder how decisions will be made on the Cathedral, what is the voting procedure?
- The question of the procedure and regulations of the Distributed Councils is just one of the most difficult. But in the process of preparing the Cathedral, at the preceding individual pre-communal meetings, the meetings of the inter-position preparatory commission adopted a very important rule - a consensus rule: all decisions are accepted only if each of the churches agree. And this gives us a firm confidence that there can be no decisions on the upcoming Divine Cathedral, which would not be suitable for the beliefs and positions of the priests of the Russian Orthodox Church. As, of course, any other of the Local Orthodox Churches.
- But this creates a certain threat to the cathedral itself.
- I agree with you. The process of preparing the cathedral really has been continuing for several decades. But you must remember how heavy was the twentieth century.
- By the way, the twentieth century introduced changes in the life of the Catholic Church - at the II Vatican Cathedral. And I do not accidentally mention it. Because among issues issued for discussion on the alleged Divorce Cathedral, there is a rule of making marriage, the question of post in the modern world. Does this mean that at the Divine Cathedral of the Marriage Rules be somehow revised? The same applies to the post. On the II of the Vatican Cathedral was discussed about the absenteeism, about compromise with the world. Does the univocial cathedral go along the way of finding a compromise with the world?
- In the 20s of the last century, when the idea of \u200b\u200bthe convocation of the Divine Cathedral was first announced by representatives of the Constantinople Patriarchate, elements of modernism, adaptations of church traditions to the concepts and standards of the modern world were really present in their sentences. Nothing of this is not seen in those projects that are prepared for the upcoming Divine Cathedral. Maybe such a long-term preparation process took place not without fishery of God so that non-ceased solutions were not taken.
We know that as a result of the meeting of the part of the Orthodox churches on the initiative of the Constantinople Patriarch in 1923, a church calendar was changed. But it caused a split, non-confluence in the life of many local churches - an old-terrestrial split in Greek, in Romanian and Bulgarian churches there is today. Christians defend domestic, traditional church calendars. And therefore, the question of the general calendar is on the agenda of the Divine Cathedral. We understand that now the situation is such that those churches that have already moved to a new calendar, it is difficult to make a reverse step. What do you need? It is necessary to firmly fix the time of the Easter celebration, general, which is determined by the rules of the I of the Universal Cathedral, Nicene. And it must be confirmed that the calendar questions that are enshrined in the ledges of the Ecumenical Cathedrals will not touch any church. What observance of Orthodox Easter, since it is confirmed by the Universal Cathedral, not subject to revision. And in questions of fixed holidays, apparently, for the time not known to me, the church will remain with those calendars that they use today. For our church, as well as for others who use the traditional, old calendar, this question is not worth it, and in the upcoming cathedral it will not be discussed.
The question of post and marriage. You know that the marriage discipline is today different in different location churches. And this leads to the fact that people who in one country say that they cannot marry, in another country they will be ready to behave. Should not be that. This gives a reason for some slanderness and abuse in church life. We must confirm the same for all churches standards, which are also based on the canonical tradition of the Church, which has always known in some exceptional cases the possibilities of iconomia, relaxation, that is, some step towards the features of human destiny. But where the boundaries are the possibility of mitigating the rules, we must also agree on this.
And so, since we built our lives independently from each other, various rules appeared in different churches. The same applies to marriage with representatives of other religious. This problem is very acute in many countries of the world, where the Orthodox lives in an uninosty environment. How to treat the matter of raising children arising here? The Russian church has its own standards that have been established in pre-revolutionary Russia, where representatives of different religions were also lived and the rules were established for which marriages with Christians were crowned in the Orthodox Church, if the wrong side gave the obligation that children will be brought up in Orthodox faith. And if this is not a Christian, then, of course, the church accomplishment of such a marriage is impossible. In general, in this area you need to agree on a general pastoral approach.
- The agenda has items that, when considering on the allegedly, the Divine Cathedral may cause, and now they are already called, the greatest temptation. This is a matter of relationship with other Christian confessions, and especially the ecumenical movement. Is there a reason for fears?
- You know, the documents that should be based on the basis of the Cathedral Definitions, have long been discussed and adopted by the inter-route preparatory commission, the Distributed Pre-Community Meeting. There is no strongly revolutionary new in their content. But still the foundations on which the attitudes of the Orthodox Church are being built with other Christian denominations should be general and determined by non-conjunctural circumstances, but the norms of Orthodox legend and the creed.
Thus, we expect a discussion of all these issues at the Divine Cathedral will allow us to insist with great confidence in the traditional, conservative position regarding these issues, which the Russian Orthodox Church adheres to. We would like them to become common to our Orthodox brothers around the world. The decision-making procedure, as I said, requires consensus; We will strive for agreement, but from the fundamental principles that our church formulated for themselves, let's say, at the anniversary bishop Cathedral of 2000 in the document, which is called "Basic Principles of Relations to Insurance", do not intend to retreat.
- How much time will you need to prepare for a unatstanding catalog?
- You know, I am a bad predictor. But now there are prerequisites for such a cathedral over the next few years. Now there are still important coordination of the latest issues on the procedure for the provision of autochefalia. The difficult question about Diptych is a manner in which the Primirons of Local Orthodox Churches occupy their place. No one doubts that according to the centuries-old church tradition, Constantinople Patriarch, the Patriarch of the Universal, as it is yet referred to, is the first to honor among the Primary Orthodox Orthodox Churches, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Russian. But in relation to the procedure for following the heads of younger Orthodox churches there are certain disagreements. Nevertheless, I think that we will come to such mechanisms on this issue that would not allow such a value to disputes about secondary things, but to focus on the main thing - that we have a common faith, a common spiritual heritage. Yes, different languages, different national traditions, but the truth of Orthodoxy, which is most expensive for us, everyone connects.
- The gospel here can be remembered: "Who wants to be the first will be the last", and the conflict will be resolved.
"Yes, there is such a gospel quotation that it would be useful to remember, but the Apostle Paul says that everything in churches is frauded and by rank. So the rank and order, of course, in everything required, including, in the holding of the cathedral.
- Is the venue of the cathedral?
- It would be good and symbolic to gather after a long break the generally having a cathedral somewhere where the great cathedrals were already going. For example, in Nicah. But Nikeya is now the Turkish city of the isp, there are now only the ruins of the ancient Christian basilica and a number of some of some ever saints. But in Constantinople, despite the fact that now it is the Turkish city of Istanbul, including historical buildings, for example, the Temple of Ageny and Irinia, there I began to Sonstantinople, and the II Ecumenical, the Cathedral in 381.
- The Church of St. Sophia, one American scientist suggested that the Government of Turkey convey to the Orthodox Church. If this happens ...
- We would gladly support such a proposal. With full respect for the Turkish state, to the Turkish people, we understand that the issue of preserving the interreligious, interethnic world for Turkey is very important. This country has survived a lot in its history as a result of inter-religious clashes. One of the results was the almost complete outcome of the Orthodox, Greek mainly from Turkey. Now there are only a few thousand people. Therefore, we would be glad if Holy Sophia, the Great Shrine of the Christian World, again became the place of Orthodox worship.
I.
The multi-month prepar Marathon was faced: the Russian Orthodox Church, the most influential and numerous of all the local Orthodox churches, refused to participate in doubtful and have become a ravened event called "the Divalent" or "Great and Holy Cathedral", having deprived him of the statuses of "Die Unquestion" And "Great." From participation in the Cathedral on O. Krit refused (or called him to postpone) Bulgarian, Antioch, and Georgian Orthodox churches. Thus, the Lord took the disgrace of participation from our church to participate in this dubious event and did not paint the growth of intracerer turmoil.
Many terrible "predictions" did not come true that it would be the very VIII Ecumenical Cathedral, which there are prepocalyptic rumors that, after it, in view of the apostasy decisions taken on it, in the Temples of the ROC will already be more impossible . Were not created at the "Varfolomeevsky" cathedral secretly from the church people, a certain overseas body, which would have to manage all Orthodox churches, toaK feared other nearby cliks.
However, despite all his "harmlessness", the full failure of the documents discussed and the aimlessness motivation itself The convening of the cathedral (after all, not for the sake of imaginary and empty "testimony of the world about the unity of Orthodoxy" he was preparing for several decades!) To anyone who did not need a "unataribious" cathedral made a huge temptation in the minds of our Orthodox believers and caused a lot troubled In the Russian Church, as well as clearly revealed the backstage customers of its urgent conduct. It is still unknown what terrible consequences and trouble would have expected our church in the near future, and thus our fatherland due to the participation of the delegation of the Russian Church in this dubious event chaired by the Istanbul Patriarch Bartholomew!
Patriarch Bartholomew and official representatives of the Constantinople Patriarchate on the eve and during the cathedral almost repeated words about compelling Cathedral solutions for all Orthodox churches. As a result of the "Bartholomeyevsky" meeting, no serious amendments to the documents were adopted, although many local Orthodox Churches, a number of Afonov monasteries, theologians and several monasteries of the Russian Orthodox Church, expressed criticism of the documents. A stable suspicion is created that the Swing Curators of the Patriarch Bartholomew was very important to be sold at all costs at the Cathedral level, only one document, which was most criticized, namely: "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Other Christian World", which contains a lot of dubious of the canonical point of view of the wording, justifying ecumenical movement. Istanbul Patriarch by any paths tried to spend this document without discussing through the Divine Cathedral, especially since the Cathedral Regulations do not provide for the procedure for amending, but only the introduction of special opinions during the Cathedral. And he succeeded.
However, we will hope that the His Holiness Patriarch Cyril will not succumb to blackmailing Bartholomew and will show the same perseverance and principle in defending the interests of the Russian Church, which he showed in January 2016 at the Pre-Communar Meeting in Sumbozia, removing the Document "Calendar" from the agenda question. " We will also hope that all the documents adopted at the Bartholomeev meeting, without signature of the Moscow Patriarch, will not be mandatory for our church, whatever the warfolomew himself or his theological advisers themselves.
It is also possible that for the refusal to participate in the Russian Orthodox Church in the Cathedral in Crete, the Istanbul Patriarchate, generously funded by its curators from the United States, can try to arrange a church split in Ukraine and proclaim the Avochefali of the Ukrainian Church, as a result of which the Patriarch Bartholomew, being Turkish subjects, will be able to undergo a considerable number of arrivities of the UOC MP. We will not forget that Turkey is a member of NATO and has always been a geopolitical enemy of Russia. Hence the attempts of the Istanbul Patriarchate to squeeze the Moscow Patriarchate from the territory of Ukraine.
And most importantly, the Warfolomeevskaya undertaking with the "Diesel Cathedral" apparently will continue to develop a scenario on the most unfavorable for the Russian Orthodox Church, which church liberals dreamed of, namely: the Cathedral is supposed to stretch for several sessions, as a result of which the RPC delegation after a while Forced to take part in an unfinished cathedral. In particular, this provocation was supported by Prododiakon Andrei Kurayev: "I believe, you should open the Divine Cathedral and not to close it, say:" And we will meet in two years! " - And subsequently continue the meeting. " So it happened: in the message, according to the results of the cathedral, it is said that "the Holy and Grand Cathedral stressed the importance of meetings of the Proposals, which have already taken place, and formulated a proposal to establish the Holy and Great Cathedral as a regular institution."
So, the Orthodox believers expect a new one, now an endless "unmarried" series with an exciting ecumenical plot.
II.Why did Orthodox people be so concerned about the possibility of holding this "Divine Cathedral"? This concern was very clear. After all, from the very beginning it was obvious that The Orthodox Church does not need anything in any unmarried cathedral. Orthodox believers have existed reasonable concerns that this cathedral can legitimize the line of secular-liberal Reformation of Orthodoxy, transforming it into the so-called. Observed "Europeanoslavia", and in essence - betrayal to him. The ability to make such a grand revolution in the Orthodox Church exists as due to availability active secularized modern fluff and clearingwhich gives rise to a complete indifference to the truth and the unwillingness of it to live and have to defend it and because of the external pressure on the priest of local churches by international development centers of world democracy and liberal values. The current geopolitical moment should be taken into account when the enemies of Russia now need to loosen the spiritual power of the Russian Church and its authority in the people, and thus weaken the Russian statehood.
It should also be forgotten that the planned convening of the Diesel Globalization processes that planned the convening of an unreasonable globalization processes, the conductors of which will inevitably try to provide their anti-Christian influence on a number of cathedral decisions. Recall the "Divorce Congress" in Constantinople in 1923, when, under the pressure of the Masonic top of the Konstantinople Patriarchate, the Gregorian calendar was imposed by many Orthodox churches.
Recall that for several decades, the Konstantinople Patriarchate, asking for the heading by the Church Modernism, total Orthodoxy, seeks to submit all the local autochefal Orthodox Churches to its influence. This is manifested by the so-called. "Eastern Padism" Konstantinople Patriarchate.
The idea of \u200b\u200bsubordination of all the local Orthodox churches of the Konstantinople Ecumenical Patriarch, which is on the content of the US State Department, is explained as follows. In the case of a single centralization, the reform of the Orthodoxy in the spirit of updated modernism and ecumenism is sharply facilitated, because the Constantinople Patriarchate is back from the 20s of the 20th century in front of all Orthodox churches in the field of renewal and apostasy from the purity of the Orthodox faith, participating in ecumenical projects with all sorts of heretics and representatives Syncretic religions.
Since the 1920s, the Constantinople Patriarchy has been holding a program of reform and update of Orthodoxy, much more radical and broadly, than even the program of collegers in Russia after the 1917 revolution.
In the 1920s, when the Russian Church was terrible perseons, when our bishops, priests and laity walked on flour, when His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon was arrested and was deprived of the opportunity to manage the Church, Constantinople, represented by his patriarchs of Meltyo IV and Gregory VII was in Canonical communication with updates - actual accomplices of persecutors: Representatives of the Constantinople Patriarchate participated in renewed ljesobors and even insisted that Patriarch Tikhon folded the church's management and that the patriarchhood in the Russian Church was abolished.
It is appropriate to recall that at present the flock of the Istanbul Patriarch, called the universal and considering himself as before the "spiritual leader of Orthodoxy," is only about two thousand people in Turkey! (The most part of the flock lives in the USA.) Patriarch oppressed by the nonsense Turkish environment, it manages to maintain his residence in Istanbul only at the expense of its American patrons: State Department of the United States and the CIA, unconditionally interested in the weakening of the Russian Orthodox Church and thus rendered financially And political support to the Universal Patriarch - the seeder of the split and be shattered at the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church (today Konstantinople brazenly - in the breakdown of all canons - interferes with the business of the local church in Ukraine, UPC MP).
III.
However, due to the depreciation of the preparation of the leadership of the DECR, the Flight Pauls is coming. A number arises questions: Will Ovpss answer, such a shock pace prepared for the last months together with the Istanbul Patriarchate, this muddy in all respects "The Divine Cathedral", for the troubles and tribulations in the Russian Church? Will OVDS respond to the demonstrative ecumenical events of recent times? And for insulting Orthodox believers from high-ranking their employees?
Recall only the recent "official explanation of the Orthodox Cathedral on the upcoming Associated Cathedral", in which Orthodox believers, who do not agree with some documents of the Cathedral, are called "Pharisees" and "Rhine-Zhiskirts of Orthodoxy." Or the recent Khamsky speech by the Chairman of the Ovcs Metropolitan Volokolamskaya Hilarion (Alfeyev) in front of the teachers and students of Moscow spiritual schools, during which the Vladyka, no longer hiding his hatred of Orthodox, allowed the insults of his units - laity and clergymen who dared to critically comprehend the projects of the final documents of the preparing unattopus Cathedral, as well as embarrassed many believers of the so-called. "Millennium Meeting" in Havana, again calling them constantly "Pharisees", "Grief-Zeper", "Greetful" Jealous "," provocifers and cries ", etc., which is completely unacceptable for the Archpaster of the Russian Church and disgusts the Spirit of Christ . Like the Shepherd of the Christ Church of Vladyka Hilarion, this speech fully compromisedly compromised and showed everyone pastoral Profitingity.
In view of the complete failure of the external activity of the OSDS (so-called, "Unavydinous Unity" turned out to be in fact an empty fiction - hello to our uranopolitam!) In such situations, the chairman of the Ecumenical Synodal Department, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, respecting itself, is most often resigned.
To establish a fruitful interfaith dialogue between the philocatoly synodal structure of the Orthodox Church, and with a huge number of Orthodox believers of the Russian Orthodox Church would be very relevant both from theological and pastoral position, the chairman of the OSD Metropolitan Ilarion is to impose a moratorium on such terms as: "Pharisees", "Gore jeques "," Gentle "jeques", "provocateurs and screams", as he pretended a moratorium on the use of words "heresy"In order not to offend heretics and build good and fraternal relationships with them.
And then, God contributes, it will be possible to find new ways of coexistence and new methods of ecumenical interaction between OSDS and Orthodox believers.
Shortly before the opening of the Cathedral on O. Crit Chairman Metropolitan Volokolamsky Hilarion (Alfeyev) in his report at a solemn act in honor of the 70th anniversary of this Synodal Ecumenical Department, quite modestly appreciated its wrestling activities in the struggle for the celebration of noble ideas of ecumenism in the termination of the persecution of Christians Middle East (in particular, during the Orthodox Catholic dialogue):
"... For almost 20 years, I have to participate in the meetings of the Mixed Commission on the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. Since 2006, within the framework of this commission, the topic of championship in the Universal Church is discussed - the same topic in which there are significant differences between Orthodox and Catholics. When discussing this topic, I often had to be the only critical of the positions for which other participants were ready to come to an agreement. It so happened, for example, in Ravenna, where on October 13, 2007, a declaration was adopted, in which the ministry of the first bishop in the Ecumenical Church was described in unacceptable terms for us. I was the only member of the Commission who did not sign this document. Then began to prepare another document, the worst former, and again, at first, only I performed against the wording offered in it. Gradually, however, a more and more participants in the dialogue joined me, and in the end, the project was rejected.
I am far from to compare my modest efforts with the feat of St. Mark Ephesian and led this example only to show that the upset of the truth of Orthodoxy in a dialogue with an aliabia requires sometimes the ability to swim against the current. "
Naturally, modesty decorates man, even if he is the chairman of the synodal biblical - theological Commission I. permanent member of the Holy Synod. If it were not for the last phrase in the speech of the scientist Vladyka-Theologian, then everyone would undoubtedly be a mobilical settling in front of the Latiny Latinians, the chairman of the Cleaniness of Orthodoxy with the feat of St. Mark Ephesus. After all, it is so obvious! Like bravely Metropolitan Hilarion due to the danger of Catholic scholasticism, not only defended "the terms acceptable for us", but also headed the powerful anti-cultural "movement of dialogue participants"!
But since the Vladyka himself modestly indicated the gathered at a solemn act, which is still too early to compare his tireless works on the ecumenism field and protect the purity of the Orthodox faith with the feat of St. Mark Ephesian, then we are meekly and humbly acceptable to the word of Lord and nothing contrary to the verb.
Recall another remarkable fact. In April of this year, the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate was established - the Medal of St. Mark Ephesus. The newly ancestred medal of Ovtss St. Mark Ephesus is a very cynical Orthodox postmodernism with a rather Jesuit subtext. We believe that the first cavaliers of this medal rightly and deservedly be the Chairman of the Ovcs His Eminence Metropolitan Volokolamsky Hilarion (Alfeyev). So to speak for combat ecumenical services to the Motherland and in connection with the successful holding of the secret ecumenical special operation "Havana meeting". And also - His Eminence Metropolitan Leningrad Nicode (Rotov) ( for courage, posthumously).
In connection with the holding of another no less successful operation, the "failed Die Cathedral-2016", we have seen so many embarrasses in the minds of Orthodox believers, we propose to award the medals of St. Mark Ephesian for outstanding merits on the ecumenical fieldand for « strengthening peace and friendship between countries and nations "In general, the entire numerous labor team of OSDS staff (including the assistant to Metropolitan Hilarion Leonid Sevastyanova). Each the reward should find his hero!
Here is such a postmodern Orthodox surrealism.
IV.
Now, looking at a retrospective, what an incredibly fast pace was preparing in the sidelines of OVDS "A Diesel Cathedral", it is safely to say that in previous years the main obstacle to the long-term confession was the Cathedral Holy Patriarch Aleksksi ιι .
In conclusion, let's say that the Konstantinople Patriarchate, fully dependent on international extra minsery forces, is almost impossible to abandon the liberal trend of modern "Europeanoslavy", and for this, its representatives will be most actively revised and edited by holy canons and the centuries-old traditions of the Orthodox Church, the depriving church of the graceful Salts and important saving landmarks, turning it finally only in a certain religious system.
In view of this, our Russian church needs to seek not a small Turkish Constantinople Patriarchate, and the multi-million Russian Orthodox Church played the main and decisive role in the preparation and conduct of the Divine Cathedral on our conditions. And it is the Russian Church, as the most numerous and influential, should determine the agenda of the present, and not a fake Distribution Cathedral. However, an indispensable condition for this is the purification of all the synodal structures, and above all OVDS, from church liberals. In other words, to strengthen the authority of the Russian Church in Russian Society and among the Local Churches of the World Orthodoxy is needed lustration of the fifth renewed ecumenical column in the ROC.
In the foreseeable future, the Istanbul Patriarchate, the US State Department and financed by American Funds, will be able to convene a unatarropeless cathedral, which would indeed be rightfully solved any questions that are important for the Universal Orthodoxy, such as the return of all the local Orthodox Churches to the unspoiled Julian calendar, so that we did not have separation in prayers.
In the future, our church as the largest and numerous among the local churches should be acting from the position of the strength and geopolitical interests of Russia, so that the game goes on our, Russian rules, and not by the fanars and certainly not on the Vatican.
Therefore, it is possible in the near future it will take time to pick up ( or buy out!) at the "Istanbul Patriarch" status Universaland transfer it to the Patriarch of Moscow.
The fate of the Universal Orthodoxy should be determined in Moscow, and not in Istanbul, and not the Istanbul Patriarch, but the Moscow High Priest. This is the new mission of the Russian church in the XXI century - the century of the new imperial breakthrough of Russia.
The Divorce Cathedral ended, the results are sad ...
In contact with
Odnoklassniki.
Mikhail Bokov
The Diemenus Cathedral. Photo: Costas Metaxakis / AFP
In Crete, the so-called unmarried cathedral ended, in which, under the patronage of Constantinople Patriarch, Bartholomey was attended by 10 out of 14 local churches. The cathedral considered six documents. In the most controversial of them - about the attitude of the Orthodox Church to Foreign - minimal amendments were made that do not change his heretical concept. The Cathedral insists on the obligatory decisions of all churches, including missing. The two final messages of the cathedral confirm all what his opponents feared. The course of ecumenism proclaims and rapprochement with nonsense, and in addition, there is a question of creating a permanent supercamation body, whose decisions will be higher than synodal solutions of each individual church.
Two Cathedral Messages, compiled by the results of the Cretan meeting, at first glance, talk about very good things. They talk about the unity of the Orthodox Church as a priority, about the need to carry the "Certificate of Faith Middle and Far". They condemn the process of secularization, calling him the purpose of the alienation of a person from Christ, and with him they blame and modern attitude towards marriage, insisting that the marriage is an unbreakable Union of "Men and Women in Love", and not the weave of self-determined gender, as in a significant Parts of the world are customary to think.
But under the curtain of the "right" words hides a double bottom. This is exactly what opponents of the Cathedral feared, from the Afonov monks, calling "Lukavi" and "heretical" documents to the bishops of a number of local churches and laity. The latter reached the point that in one of the Cathedral Days and called Varfolomew "Traitor of Faith". The final message proclaims the ecumenical course for rapprochement with Catholics and Protestants. At the same time, the word "ecumenism" in the text is absent, it was replaced by a more neutral formulation "Interreligious dialogue". But in the point relating to this "dialogue", the first line is discovered openly: "Our church ... attaches great importance to dialogue, mainly with non-sector Christians." And disagreement with the "dialogue" is fundamentalism, or the "expression of painful religiosity".
Message says: The Diesel Cathedral should be a permanent authority and gather once a few years. Moreover, Constantinople continues to argue that decisions of such a body will be higher than local solutions of local churches and will be mandatory for all. It is the appearance of such a supercharting structure and feared jealous, believing that this body will be the sign of the advancing globalization of the Orthodox Church, the forerunner of her "delivery" of the Vatican.
Minor amendments whose goal is to distract the attention of jealousness, but do not fix the essence, and the most controversial document is "the relationship of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world." In the 6th paragraph of the document in the initial form, it was said about the recognition of the historical existence of other Christian churches and denominations. This item caused a whole squall of criticism from the hierarchs - against spoke in the Elaladskaya, Bulgarian, Cyprus, Russian churches. The Georgian Church rejected the document by solving its synod, and. To raise the status of heretical communities, calling them with churches, it means to actually recognize their church and mislead the Orthodox minds, Fathers of Athon were concluded.
As a result, the paragraph changed. Now, in the ultimately, the Orthodox Church recognizes not the "historical existence of other Christian churches", but the "historical name ... of nonsense Christian churches and denominations." That is, since they themselves called themselves churches, then we accept their self-catching, although we can not agree with him - this is the logic of the document.
But the wording about the "search for the lost unity of Christians" was decided not to change. Although the critics of the document were emphasized more than once: the text need to add words that the unity, as the holy fathers wrote, perhaps only through repentance of heretics. The key paragraphs on participation in the World Council of Churches remained unchanged. He is still, and not a dubious organization, where Protestant bishops-gay dominate over the Orthodox Episcopate.
Ecumenism is a movement for the unity of Christian churches. Ecumenists believe that the unified once church was divided into branches and now needs to be associated. According to their version, each Christian confession carries the light of truth. Indirectly ecumenism, without having such a word, condemned the apostles. Thus, the Apostle Paul instructed the message to the title: "Hehetic, after the first and second test, disturb." And the 45th rule of the Holy Apostles speaks of the excavation of the bishop, if he will jointly pray with heretics, and about eruption from Sana, if he allows heretics to act as servants of the Church. "We rejected Latinan from themselves for no reason other than that they heretic. Therefore, it is absolutely incorrect to unite with them, "St. Efesse Mark Ephesus wrote in the XV century. And the modern holy fathers, the term "ecumenism" was already present in whose lexicon, they talk about it. "Ecumenism is the common name of all types of pseudochriding and all pseudocerkwear of Western Europe. In it, the essence of all kinds of humanism with Patism led. And all this is the general gospel name: heresy, because all the history, different heresses did not consider it important or distorted individual features of Christ, "said Justin (Popovich), Serbian Holy XX century.
What is the result? The decisions of the cathedral contradict the legend and tradition of the Church and declare that ecumenism, against which the holy fathers fought. Chairman of the Cathedral of Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew himself is no longer a patriarch. For this before the beginning of the cathedral, Svyatogorsk Older Gabriel Karoei, one of the most authoritative Afonits of our time. "Our Patriarch, according to the rules of the Holy Apostles, is already excoming and erupted from Sana, as he invited dad twice for the thrust holiday, introduced him to the temple, allowed him to pronounce the prayer" Our Father ... "and bless the people ... Potentially he is already late and Monster, and the Cathedral of the Hispitimen convene, -. At the same time, the cathedral itself, at which there were no four local churches (including the most numerous for the number of flocks - the ROC), continues to call himself unreasonable and imposes its decisions in disagreement.
The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in the near meeting will express its attitude to the decisions of the Cretan Meeting. About this RIA Novosti said Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, Deputy Chairman about. However, the Orthodox world does not need a session of the Synod to understand: Solutions of the meeting in Crete do not have the strength and cannot be accepted, despite all the debris of Constantinople Ecumenists.
Loading...
