The international activity of the Russian True-Orthodox Churches (TOCs - those who are outside the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate) is usually limited by the existence of Russian parishes in the countries of the diaspora. The activism of mission among the “converts” (in the English-language tradition that is what “Orthodox not by birth”, who have consciously accepted Baptism, are called), which was demonstrated 10 years ago by ROAC, has been begun to freeze up in it for natural reasons. The leadership in this has passed to RTOC, which is the leader among the “offshoots of ROCOR” in the quantity of its foreign parishes.
Code: Select all
One could say that success for the external mission of the TOC is possible today only with a distinct ecclesiastical position, a well-defined internal organization and, however sad this may sound, by the stalling of the intra-Russian “inter-offshoot” dialogue. In spite of the fact there is a sufficiently broad recognition of the necessity of the mutual recognition of the “offshoots” of ROCOR with their consequent integration into some single structure of those who ascribe themselves to the TOC of the Russian tradition, real unifying processes have gone forward only in parallel with still more disunity. The position of the episcopate is conservative; each of the Synods prefers to support its own stability, thereby conserving the status quo, while the position of the laity and lower clergy has so far not grown into a serious ecclesiastical movement that would force the episcopate to mutual talks.
By dint of this, each of the Russian “offshoot” Synods is carrying out its strategy of survival. The activism of ROAC has practically completely died out because of the seizure of its property in its centre in Suzdal and the worsening of the health of its first-hierarch, Metropolitan Valentine. ROCOR (V) tormentedly seeks the algorithm for its own internal stability. The episcopate of ROCOR (A), which the other Russian TOCs no longer ascribes to its own circle, is carrying out the strategy of “expansion at all costs”, repeating the situation of ROCOR at the beginning of the 1990s.
The small but stable Hierarchical Council of RTOC has been consistently carrying out its idea of the construction of a local True Orthodox Church on a strict canonical and dogmatic basis, which is oriented on a broad conciliar structure acting with minimal dependence on the personality of the first-hierarch. Thus a long-term strategy of development among Russians outside the ROC MP is demonstrated today only by ROCOR (A) and RTOC.
The former has been trying to survive in the role of “zealot” challenger to the official ecumenical Churches, exploiting, as a basis for its identity, the idea of so-called “Cyprianism”, with its theory of the “sick” (heretical”) and “healthy” (Orthodox) members of the one Church, and also the criticism of Sergianism and the moral failure of the hierarchy of ROC MP that result from that. Also of some importance is the idea of “True Russianness”, which is supposedly preserved only in ROCOR. Thus dogmatic differences with official Orthodoxy have receded into the background, while the Greek Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian has emerged as being of the same mind with it, as well as Patriarch Irenaeus, who has been rejected by the official patriarchate of Jerusalem.
The latter [RTOC], having condemned Cyprianism as a form of hidden Ecumenism that falls under anathema, and Sergianism as a moral sin against the teaching on the Church. has undertaken a broader inter-confessional activity, conducting a process of negotiations on mutual recognition with the strongest “Florinite” Synod of the TOC of Greece – the “Chrysostomites”, who are now under the administration of Archbishop Kallinikos.
These negotiations have already continued for three years, and so far the two sides have not come to an agreement on the establishment of Eucharistic communion. However, something interesting is beginning to take place. The situation of rivalry between Greek and Russian Orthodoxy on the global scale is being repeated in the world of the TOC. And if the place occupied in official Orthodoxy by the Phanar will probably remain vacant in the TOC, because only Greeks can be leaders in the world of the Greek TOCs, the “converts” and the representatives of other national TOCs are willingly orienting themselves, as usual, on the Russians. And RTOC is successfully laying claim to the role of informal leader here.
Now before our eyes the next national TOC is being formed – this time, the Serbian. The official Serbian patriarchate led by the new Patriarch Irenaeus has entered into the first rank of the ecumenical movement and “the partnership of love” with the Vatican. It is very difficult to oppose and criticise this course of the official Church in Serbia. This is tied up with the tragic history of the country, in which for long periods the Church remained the only attribute of State independence. For the authorities and people of Serbia, every criticism of the Church was frequently perceived as a criticism of “Serbness”. Nevertheless, the movement of the TOC in Serbia is steadily expanding.
Up to now, the parishes standing for True Orthodoxy have sought a hierarchy in their nearest neighbours – the Greeks. The more so in that ROCOR, which in Russian conditions opposed the official Moscow Patriarchate, in Serbia was oriented on the official Church, which earlier on was lead by conservative Patriarchs. Thus aside from individual communities and clergy in Serbia belonging to the “Matthewite” Synod of the TOC of Greece, in this country there appeared a whole exarchate subject to the “Chrysostomite” Synod. Before his election to the post of first-hierarch of this Synod, tthe Serbian parishes were administered by Metropolitan Kallinikos (Sarantopoulos) of Achaia. For a long time the Serbs have been trying to obtain from the Greeks the episcopal ordination of Hieromonk Akakije (Stankovich) for the re-establishment of the fullness of the hierarchy of the Serbian Church. However, the Greek Synod regularly gave negative replies, referring to the small numbers [of the Serbian flock] and the absence of State registration for the Serbian TOC. Today the Serbian TOC contains about ten communities in Serbia and the women’s monastery of Novistjenik, whose sisters conduct active missionary work not only inside the country, but also in the Serbian diaspora. We should note that the perspectives for the development of the STOC in the diaspora even exceed its opportunities inside Serbia. Today more Serbs live in the diaspora (10-12 million) than in Serbia itself.
The most recent request for this ordination was sent to the Greeks soon after the election of Metropolitan Kallinikos to the post of first-hierarch. Insofar as the place of the administrator of the Serbian parishes now became vacant, a completely realistic opportunity existed for the filling of this place with a representative of the STOC. The Serbs pointed to the fact that the Serbian Church is autocephalous and should not be ruled by bishops of another Local Church. However, the Synod declined the request, declaring that several parishes did not constitute a Local Church, while there were also parishes from Georgia and Bulgaria in submission to the Chrysostomite Synod that made no claims to autocephaly. The synod laid down the following conditions for the ordination of a Serbian bishop: the opening of a parish in Belgrade, the founding of a men’s monastery, the State registration of STOC and the growth of parishes. If these conditions were fulfilled, the Chrysostomite Synod was ready to review the possibility of the ordination. Moreover, the Greeks were ready to appoint a Serbian bishop only within the TOC of Greece: they would not re-establish a sufficient degree of hierarchy for an independent Serbian Church.
It should be said that the Serbs have unambiguously evaluated this reply as “the cunning of the Greeks”, whom they traditionally accuse of phyletism and lack of love for the Slavic Churches. Having entered the European Union, Greece has a relatively free religious legislation which allows even the Old Calendarist Churches to receive State registration without hindrance. But in Serbia the situation is even worse than in the Russian Federation. The local legislation on religion is most reminiscent of Belarus’, where officially the name “Orthodox” attaches to the Belorussian exarchate of the ROC MP. But the Serbs link the possibility of the expansion of their flock and the expansion of their parishes precisely with the presence of an episcopate in the STOC, which would “give a push” to the wavering priests of the official Church.
The "cunning" of the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is obliquely confirmed by the recent passing over into it of two bishops of the Boston Synod of the TOC. For a long time their hierarchy was proclaiming that they were conducting negotiations on mutual recognition, and that the negotiations were proceeding successfully, but in May, 2011 the Chrysostomites simply received two bishops, although earlier they had promised not to do this, and broke off the negotiations.
The Serbs have found support in RTOC. The closeness of the Serbs to RTOC was largely conditioned by the fact that to the latter belongs the Lesna women’s monastery of the Holy Mother of God, which for about 30 years was part of the Serbian Church and became the renewer of women’s monasticism in Serbia after it had become weak during the time of the Turkish yoke. In parallel with the Serbian-Greek negotiations on the renewal of the episcopate and the Russian-Greek negotiations on the establishment of Eucharistic communion between RTOC and the TOC of Greece (the Chrysostomite Synod), Serbian-Russian negotiations were taking place on the possibility of a hierarchical ordination for STOC. Judging from the published materials of the last RTOC Synod, these have concluded successfully.
It was said there in particular "with the falling away of the episcopate of the official Serbian Church from Orthodoxy into Sergianism and Ecumenism, and the loss, as a result of this, of its lawful canonical episcopate, the Local Serbian Church has not lost its autocephaly". The Synod of RTOC goes on to affirm its de facto readiness to conduct a hierarchical ordination of a bishop for STOC and plans to consult with the Greeks on this.
We should note that this readiness of the Russian Synod may have a negative effect on the course of the negotiations with the Greeks, which have gone on now for three years without particular success. Undoubtedly the Greeks will see this readiness as interference in their internal affairs. But, at the same time, RTOC will acquire serious allies in the Serbs. Apparently for the Russian hierarchs Slavic brotherhood is closer and more comprehensible that the capricious and difficult friendship with the Greeks.
Judging from the material published on the site of the Serbian TOC, in which the position and arguments of the Greeks has been subjected to harsh and unambiguous criticism, accusing them of interfering in the affairs of another Local Church, the question of the ordination in RTOC has already been practically decided. Since it will be very difficult to carry out in Serbia, it will probably take place already this year in one of the churches of RTOC. The most convenient place for this is the cathedral of St. John of Kronstadt in Odessa, where the Council and Synods of this jurisdiction regularly take place, or the Lesna monastery in France, where the Serbs are constant guests.
It is worth mentioning an important point in the restoration of a hierarchy for STOC. The bishops of the Russian True Orthodox Church have emphasized from the beginning that this step has the character of the fraternal support of a Local Sister Church and will involve no submission of the Serbian hierarchy, as if presupposed by the Greeks. In this way RTOC is not only acting in a canonical way, but is also protecting itself from the appearance of possible conflicts on an ethnic basis. In RTOC they have more than once declared that they are not striving for greater numbers, but for the preservation of the faith and traditions of TOC and ROCOR. The more so in that in that it has more than enough internal reserves for expansion within itself.
Protopriest Alexei Lebedev.