Report of Metropolitan Kyrill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Relations, on the question of relations with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and Old Ritualists

Translated by Graham Edward Henderson ©2005 

Hierarchal Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, October 3-8, 2004

 Your Holiness,

Your Eminences and Graces,

Beloved Archpastors!

     A particular subject for examination at our current Synod is the significant change that has recently taken place in our relations with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

     As is known, after the election of His Holiness, Alexis II, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, new possibilities for rapprochement with the Russian Church Abroad opened up, which were immediately taken advantage of by His Holiness and other clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church. Several documents testify to this. In particular, the Patriarch’s open letter on October 17, 1991, which had great significance, said, “The external fetters of aggressive godlessness that have bound us for these long years have fallen. We are free, and this creates the foundation for dialogue.” The aim of this dialogue was to determine how to restore canonical unity, unity in works and prayer, while preserving the autonomy of the Church Abroad.

     We shall try to mention the disagreements that, in the beginning of the 1990’s, were regarded as the basic obstacles in the restoration of relations between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad. For the most part, these problems were caused by the preceding political situation created in Soviet Russia and governed by its relations with other states, where the Russian Church Abroad carried out her service. 

     During the 1920’s and 1930’s, the Russian Church found herself totally isolated and contacts abroad were minimal. Metropolitan Eleutherius (Bogoiavlenskii) wrote: “It seemed that between the Patriarchate and the Church Abroad there lay such an unbridgeable gap that one could not imagine any personal contact. Those of us abroad had no choice but to accept nothing more than occasional bits of news.”

     The government of the Soviet Union carried out policies intended for the total annihilation of the Church from within the country and to weaken her members that found themselves in emigration. Archival documents confirm that the authorities repeatedly demanded that Saint Tikhon defrock and excommunicate the émigré bishops from the Church.  

    In the post-war period, the possibility of dialogue was complicated by the circumstances surrounding the “Cold War”, when the Moscow Patriarchate and the Church Abroad found themselves on opposite sides of the “Iron Curtain”, which had arisen between two opposing world systems. The Church factor was used by politicians on both sides during this time.

     Putting aside all the political rhetoric of the past, it is possible to point out the following canonical problems that, from the viewpoint of the Moscow Patriarchate, ought to be settled in order to overcome our division.  

1.      The question concerning the canonical status of the Russian Church Abroad and the Hierarchal Synod governing it in the light of the ukaze of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Ecclesiastical Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which abolished the higher ecclesiastical administration abroad. The ukaze was confirmed by subsequent acts of the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate, which included canonical suspensions, specifically, prohibition from priestly functions, imposed upon a group of hierarchs abroad.

2.      A series of documents testify that the canonical legitimacy of conciliar acts and other important decisions of the Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church were not recognized by the hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad. Doubts were also expressed, in individual statements, concerning the presence of God’s grace in the Russian Orthodox Church and in the holy mysteries performed therein.

3.      Eucharistic relations, which in each instance was formal, of the Russian Church Abroad with uncanonical groups separated, due to various motives, from their respective local Orthodox Churches, and, more specifically, functioning on the canonical territories of the Romanian, Bulgarian, and Greek Churches. In recent times, these groups have also tried to establish themselves on our canonical territory and on the territory of the Georgian Patriarchate.

4.      The presence, among of the clergy of the Russian Church Abroad, of individuals coming from the Moscow Patriarchate and other Local Orthodox Churches, who had previously been under canonical suspension.

5.      Finally, from the beginning of the 1990’s, the critical problem of the presence of parallel dioceses and parishes established by the Russian Church Abroad on the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate.

     On the part of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, there were, as a rule, the following conditions for the reestablishment of contact with the Moscow Patriarchate:

 1.      The condemnation by the Russian Orthodox Church of the 1927 Epistle of Metropolitan Sergius, as well as the declaration in this document of its political course, including compromise with the godless authorities.

2.      The Moscow Patriarchate’s renunciation of ecumenism, meaning that form of contact with non-Orthodox Christians or even representatives of non-Christian religions in which are found signs of deviation from the purity of Orthodoxy. This requirement was first put forth in the last quarter of the 20th century and, in recent years, has taken the primary position of importance in considering the matter of the overcoming of divisions.

3.      The glorification by the Russian Orthodox Church of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, especially the Royal Family. This demand was set forth in 1981, when the New Martyrs were glorified by the Russian Church Abroad.

 Can these three problems now be viewed as real obstacles to restoring church unity?

     Let’s begin with the last question. A fundamental transformation of our country, seen by Orthodox people as a gift from God sent down in response to the intercessions of the New Martyrs, resulted in the Russian Orthodox Church gaining complete freedom. Immediately, the collection and study of documentary and other evidence of the martyric labors of the faithful children of the Church during the period of atheist persecutions began. The 2000 Millennial Hierarchal Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church added the New Martyrs and Confessors to the great host of saints, and also canonized the Tsar and the Royal Family. It is worth noting that among the glorified New Martyrs are many that did not share the ecclesio-political course of Metropolitan, and, later, Patriarch, Sergius.

     The Acts of the Millennial Synod on the Glorification of the Saints was viewed by the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia 'with special hope and gratitude to the Lord our God,' as can be read in the Resolution of the Hierarchal Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia held later that year. The document also notes that one of the main reasons for the division between the Russian Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate, by the mercy of God, has now been fundamentally eliminated.

      Let us turn now to the matter of the 'Declaration' of 1927. The hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church has more than once attested to the fact that the 'Declaration' is viewed now as merely a historical document that has lost its validity. The 1990 Hierarchal Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church stated: “We do not at all feel bound by the Declaration of 1927, which remains for us a marker of that tragic epoch in the history of our Fatherland. We do not at all idealize this document, recognizing also its coerced nature.” In a 1991 interview given to the newspaper Izvestia, His Holiness Patriarch Alexis said: “The Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, of course, cannot be considered voluntary, for, while sustaining terrible pressure, he was to state things that were far from the truth in order to save people's lives. Today we can say that there are lies mixed into his Declaration. The Declaration does not place the Church into a correct relationship with the state, in fact, the opposite, it destroys the distance that in a democratic society, must exist between Church and state.”

    Without limiting ourselves to these statements, our Church freely and without any coercion has described the norms of church-state relations, founded upon the word of God and the witness of many centuries of Church Tradition, including, in part, the experience of the New Martyrs garnered by the Church in the era of persecution at the hands of the totalitarian godless regime. Many spoke of the historical significance of the 'Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church' when this document was first adopted by the 2000 Millennial Hierarchal Synod. Later it became clear: the significance of the 'Basic Social Concept' is also in that this expression of the Church's teachings opened new opportunities for rapprochement with the Church Abroad. “The Church”, states the third chapter of the document, “preserves loyalty to the state, but above that requirement of loyalty is the law of God. If the state forces Orthodox believers to apostasize from Christ and His Church and also towards sinful acts detrimental to the soul, the Church must refuse obedience to the state.”

    The free voice of the Church, heard especially clearly in this Conciliar document, gives us the opportunity to see the 'Declaration' in a new light. While completely understanding that the path of relations with the state chosen in 1927 was based on the desire to preserve the possibility of the legal existence of the Church, the Hierarchal Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church decreed that this course did not accord with the true norms of church-state relations. The epoch of the imprisonment of the Church has come to an end. In this way, the problem in our relations with the Church Abroad—which lasted for many years—was for all intents and purposes removed. This was essentially recognized by the Hierarchal Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in 2000. During the recent talks, it became very clear that the chapter 'Church and State' in the 'Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church' is seen by both sides as a faithful reflection of church teachings. Declarations contradicting these norms, made by the church authorities on both sides made in the past, under external conditions that were extremely inhospitable to the Church, cannot in any way be seen by us as actions having any validity for the Church.

    Let us now examine the question of relations with the heterodox. First of all, it must be said that representatives of our Church that participate in dialog with Christians of other faiths were never guided by the intention of creating a syncretic religion and never viewed inter-Christian organizations as a sort of super-Church. They never accepted the so-called 'branch theory.' Our contacts in the inter-Christian area had as their primary goal to witness Orthodoxy. Also, it is worth noting that under conditions of brutal control on the part of the atheist state, these contacts presented a real opportunity to counteract the pressure of the state by providing the Church entry into the international arena.

    Still, it must be admitted that participation in inter-church activity, with exhaustive control by the state, bore an elite character, remaining opaque to the Church for the majority of its members. One cannot, also, ignore the fact that some participants in ecumenical conferences, through their publications—likewise controlled—created a distorted image of the Russian Orthodox Church in its inter-Christian contacts. All this served as temptations that created on the side of the Church Abroad, but also within our Church, mistrust and suspicion towards inter-Christian contacts.

    In this regard, special significance is given to the document 'The Basic Principles of the Russian Orthodox Church's Relations with the Heterodox’, adopted by the 2000 Millennial Hierarchal Synod. In this document, founded upon the traditions of the Church, the norms of our participation in inter-Christian relations are outlined. It should be stressed that these norms were also formulated by the Church without encumbrance by government involvement. This document clearly confirms the uniqueness of the Church and rejects the 'branch theory'. It states that the Orthodox Church, as the preserver of Tradition and the grace-filled gifts of the Ancient Church has as its “primary task, therefore, in her relations with the heterodox to bear continuous and persistent witness that will lead to the truth expressed in this Tradition becoming understandable and acceptable.” I am convinced that what is stated in this Conciliar document fully coincides in essence with the attitude of the Church Abroad towards this problem, whose representatives at one time actively participated in inter-Christian contacts. The question of whether the Russian Orthodox Church allows any liturgical communion with the heterodox was not even paid particular attention in the 'Basic Principles,' since for us this was not a problem: our rejection of this is entirely apparent. Still, some explanations regarding our practices were, at the request of the representatives from abroad, presented during the talks, of which more will be said later.

    So the most important acts of the 2000 Hierarchal Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church—the adoption of the 'Basic Social Concepts' and the 'Basic Principles of the Russian Orthodox Church's Relations with the Heterodox,' and also the glorification of the great host of New Martyrs—formed the real groundwork for substantial dialog with the Church Abroad with the aim of finally removing misunderstandings and overcoming the problems between us.

    A new invitation to such dialog was expressed in the 2001 Epistle of His Holiness Patriarch Alexis II and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Hierarchal Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. The Epistle stated that the joy of the emancipation of the Russian Church will be complete only when the wounds of this baneful schism are healed. “Our hearts are filled with sorrow that we and you, our brethren, who confess one Orthodox faith, cannot commune from one Chalice and that we continue to find ourselves imprisoned by historically obsolete divisions”, we read in this document, which also contained an offer to establish joint committees to resolve those misunderstandings that still lay on the path of unity.

    Division is pain for the entire Church, the sorrow of all people. This is not an exaggeration: it is enough to see the interest our society takes in the process of rapprochement. The government is also not remaining aloof. Russian President Vladimir Putin, while in Washington in 2002, had a brief meeting with a representative of the Synod Abroad, through whom he passed on an invitation to Metropolitan Laurus to visit our nation. In 2003, the President personally met with the Head of the Church Abroad and again, on his own behalf and that of His Holiness the Patriarch, relayed to Metropolitan Laurus the invitation to visit Russia. This meeting had a very benevolent effect on our brethren abroad. I think that they came to the conclusion that the era of the godless state in Russia has truly ended.

    The idea of Metropolitan Laurus' trip in principle was decided in November of last year, during the visit of the first official delegation of the Church Abroad, headed by Archbishop Mark. The visit proved very fruitful. From the start, a trusting and respectful tone was established for our talks. Forgiveness was asked by both sides for the exaggerations that occurred in the years of division, and also the desire was expressed that the “movement for unity no longer meet with new obstacles through statements or actions that could hinder the process of mutual rapprochement."

    In conversations with our brother bishops, we came to an agreement on what is most important—the basic principles of the effort to overcome the division. First of all, it was decided to reject the repetition of the polemics of past decades. Of course, this did not mean that the process of analyzing the path traveled by the Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century has ended. Personalities and events can and must be studied by historians. But now, through discussion, we must determine the level of our present unity of mind and fine-tune our common positions regarding problems that divided us.

    It is for this reason that these problems were recognized as advisable to examine, emerging from their current understanding by the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad. In connection with this, the need was expressed to jointly compose documents in which such an understanding would be adequately reflected. The sides came to an agreement to mutually formulate our general attitude towards such topics as 'The Church and State,' 'Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy and Inter-confessional Organizations,' and the other issues being discussed.

    The belief was expressed on both sides that, in the process of rapprochement, it is necessary to act in such a way as to avoid prejudices and the inflicting of new injuries upon each other. There is no place for one-sided tactical victories on this path; there should not and cannot be winners and losers. It is especially important that we come to an agreement to move forward in consideration of the ecclesio-administrative realities that developed in the 20th century.

    For practical purposes, it was decided to form committees that must prepare corresponding texts.

    An important event on the path to unity was the visit of the Head of the Church Abroad, Metropolitan Laurus, last May. This visit had great sygnificance: for the first time, the Head of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia officially visited our country, and he met with His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. Metropolitan Laurus was accompanied by a large group of clergymen. Our guests from abroad prayed at Patriarchal services and made pilgrimages to holy sites in Russia. The atmosphere of the visit was very warm and benevolent, and this was a great contribution by the archpastors, both those that participated in the meetings in Moscow and those that lovingly greeted our guests in their dioceses.

    The visit had great practical meaning. A decision was reached on the commencement of joint work by the Committees on dialog established last December, and concrete topics that demanded joint study were formulated. The Committees were proposed to speak on:

• 1. The principles of the relationship of the Church and state in accordance with the teachings of the Church;
• 2. The corresponding traditions of the Church on the relationship of the Orthodox Church with non-Orthodox communities, and, also, with inter-confessional organizations;
• 3. The status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia as a self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church;
• 4. The canonical conditions for establishing eucharistic communion.

Documents prepared by the Committees were to be presented for consideration by the hierarchies of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

    The Committees have begun their joint work and have had two meetings already: in Moscow and in Munich. Joint documents on a series of issues that were determined during the May visit of Metropolitan Laurus have been agreed upon. More about this will be said by Archbishop Innocent of Korsun, head of the Moscow Patriarchate's Committee on Discussions with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in his report. Vladika Innocent will also present, for the Synod’s consideration, the documents prepared by the Committees. On my part, I would like only to comment on the atmosphere in which these talks were held. I was able to sense it myself, since I often met with the participants of the meetings and kept close contact with them. The talks are being held in a calm and amicable atmosphere. One senses the purity of motives of the participants, as well as the lack of any hint of other aims besides those set forth. Both sides are earnestly striving to reach mutual understanding, without abandoning their principles. The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church made a determination, based on the conclusions of the first meeting in Moscow, that bishops that perform their duties outside our canonical territory are to develop joint initiatives with their brother bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in every way possible. It was decided to go forward to reject the filing of lawsuits and to cease those that are in progress and, in instances when such conflicts cannot be resolved, to hand such matters over to the Committees. It is expected that a similar decision will be adopted by the Synod of Bishops Abroad.

    Regarding the possibility of resolving the aforementioned problems that concern the Moscow Patriarchate, it seems that in the process of dialog, success is being achieved to agree on a common approach to their examination. We hope that the continued work of the Committees, including that of their November session, will result in joint texts attesting to unanimity. If, God willing, all their work is successfully concluded and the approval of the Hierarchies is received, then the corresponding canonical acts will be required which would mark the end of division and the reestablishment of full communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. What must be decided now, I feel, is: Will it be necessary to convene a Hierarchal Synod, or, upon the examination of this matter in principle by the present Synod, will such authority be granted to the Holy Synod?

II.

    Although there is still much to be resolved in connection with overcoming the many years of division with the Russian Church Abroad, it is obvious that a fundamental change has come about in our relations, that genuine dialogue has begun and will, hopefully, develop that we together, with God’s help, will move forward along a path leading to full canonical and eucharistic unity while respecting the historical circumstances that have shaped church administration and the general structure of church life.

    Of course, such progress inspires and gives us great joy. Its results will have a great spiritual significance for our Church, for our society, and for our national consciousness, which now so needs a renewal of cohesiveness and continuity after decades of ungodly strife. That long awaited day will be a great joy for all of us, when we, together with our brothers abroad, share the Lord’s Chalice united. Nonetheless, in expectation now of this historical event, we ought to think about our other separated brethren who historically came about from the same spiritual root as we, with whom we share a common ancestry and common faith and, at one time, common prayer as well. The time has come, once again, for the conciliar mind of the Church to focus attention on the difficult, age old, ecclesiastical problem- healing the tragic 17^th century schism in the Russian Church.

    To a greater degree than in the case of the Church Abroad, the problem with Old Ritualism is not exclusively ecclesiastical; it also has other aspects - social, political, and cultural. The church schism made a very devastating impact on the national consciousness. The breakup of traditional church life and spiritual-moral values divided a once united nation not only in ecclesiastically but also in socially. The national body, which then fully coincided with the body of the church, was wounded. The destructive consequences of this wound have survived through the centuries. The dividing of Russian society, evoked by the church schism, became the precursor of further breaks that led to the revolutionary catastrophe.  

    The division, which has lasted through the centuries, is something we have become accustomed to. Even if an old wound, at one point, almost ceases to cause pain, it continues to weaken the organism as long as it remains unhealed. One cannot regard the uniting of the Russian Church complete until we are united in mutual forgiveness and brotherhood in Christ with that age-old branch of Russian Orthodoxy. The spiritual significance of such an event is even difficult to describe; it goes far beyond what is called church politics.

    One can call such hopes dreams. We understand that the path to rapprochement between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Ritualists is extraordinarily difficult. It does not portend a quick success, neither does it guarantee to be painless. Between us lies a painful history, marred by the cruel persecution of Old Ritualism; between us lies the memory of spilt blood- innocent and unnecessary. 

    Furthermore, the achievement of this longed for aim is not possible without common movement towards one another. Some today think that the signs of readiness towards dialogue, on the part of the representatives of the Old Ritualists, are insufficient, being that the anticipated response has still not been received despite all the calls and efforts to come together with our separated brothers undertaken by the Russian Orthodox Church during the 20^th century. The most visible sign of this was the lifting of all bans on the Pre-Nikonian rites, prepared by the labors of the members of the Local Synod in 1917-1918, preceded by Pre-conciliar commissions as well as by Metropolitan Sergius, the future Patriarch, and the Interim Patriarchal Synod of 1929. A final definitive version was solemnly set forth by the Local Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971. 

    Is it for us “to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power” (Acts 1:7)? It is not for us to point at them saying, ‘now it is your turn’, rather we must honestly and consistently carry out our part on the path towards church unity, which has been commanded by God. Let us remember, it was not that long ago when many considered the barriers that separated the Church Abroad from us as apparently insurmountable. Then came the hour, by the will of God, when we sensed the gentle blowing of the Holy Spirit, and the path towards rapprochement opened before us.

    I am convinced that we also have a real basis for hope in a fundamental change in relations with the Old Ritualists.

    Firstly and most importantly, the schism that took place in the 17^th century, by God’s grace, did not bring about the immergence of a different model of civilization, as had happened, for example, as a result of the Great Schism between the East and the West. We share with the Old Believers one and the same faith, not only in dogmas, but also in living expression: we have one system of values. That is why, in practical witness and service to society, Old Ritualists are our natural co-workers. In opposition to the onslaught that is leveled by secularism, which is becoming increasingly more aggressive, in refusing to accept the cult of consumerism and worldly success at any cost, in ostracizing the humanistic religion of man as the divine measure, the Old Ritualists are our closest allies. If we are already working in unity with certain representatives of western Christianity and even other religions defending fundamental spiritual values, certainly it is possible and necessary to do the same with our brothers that are the closest to us. Indeed, God Himself has called us together to defend our common values during this time of carrying out such missions in the area of spiritual upbringing, in the development of church-state relations, in the sphere of charitable, cultural, and educational activities, which include, for example, teaching the basics of Orthodox culture in school.

    Secondly, we share with the Old Ritualists one and the same beloved Fatherland. We equally cherish the legacies and ideals of Holy Russia. From history, it is well known that those forces hostile to the Russian State repeatedly attempted to attract the Old Ritualists to their side, taking advantage of their complicated and at times dangerous status in society. However, despite all the oppression and persecution, the overwhelming majority of Old Ritualists remained, with dignity and loyalty, patriots of their country.

    Thirdly, just recently- for the first time in a long while, the most favorable conditions have arisen for benevolent and trustful dialogue. Gone is the time when the “predominant” Russian Orthodox Church could, in fact, be regarded as an appendage of state authority, as a “department of orthodox confession”, when the state, in its involvement in ecclesiastical matters, as it was from their (the Old Ritualists’) point of view understood, was employing inherited methods of state compulsion in their persecution of the Old Ritualists and hampering of their religious freedom. It is not a matter of dispute that this circumstance was, for such a long time, the main obstacle on the path to real mutual relations and rapprochement. However, the constraint was thrown down along with the freedom of the “predominant” Church. Only during the years of the Revolution, did it become possible to call for a Synod and to restore canonical church order. Many prominent church figures, including the Holy Synod’s presiding member, Metropolitan Anthony of Saint Petersburg, had already called for this long ago, partly because it seemed to be a necessary condition for reconciliation with the Old Ritualists.

    On the other hand, we now also have behind us the fearful years of state persecution against the former state church, as well as the existence under the control of a godless authority. We now share with the Old Ritualists the common and profound experience of suffering. Our Church, which now enjoys freedom that was unheard of at anytime in Russian history, has been able take from this experience the necessary lessons and clearly formulate her own vision of proper relations with the state. “The Basic Social Concept”, in particular, succeeded in making such a definition. The significance of this document in our dialogue with the Russian Church Abroad has already been mentioned. I am sure that it also opens a new prospect for rapprochement with the Old Ritualists. 

    Thus, freedom from external constraint in church affairs has been attained, and the canonical order of our Church has been restored. The anathemas on the Old Rite, as well as on those Orthodox Christians that adhere to it, were solemnly abolished by the Local Synod of 1971 and regarded as if they had never been. Repudiated were all disapproving pronouncements aimed at the Old Rite, which had already been declared as salvific and pure as the New Rite. The 1988 Local Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church again supported this act and in the address “to all Orthodox believing Christians who keep the Old Rites but are not in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate”, called them our “brothers and sisters of one blood and one faith”. In addition to this, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, on June 4, 1999, approved the resolution that appealed again to diocesan bishops and clergy to take into account, on a practical level, the common church decisions that have been mentioned and for church publishing houses “to take a critical approach towards the reprinting of literature published before the revolution, when, under the influence of secular authority, Old Ritualism was criticized via incorrect and unacceptable methods”. Especially important is that the Holy Synod condemned “the violent tactics used throughout history to overcome this schism, which was the fruit of secular authority’s meddling in the affairs of the Church”.  

    What else will we have to do to achieve genuine reconciliation with the Old Ritualists or, at any rate, as was earlier said, progress on our part of this path?

    Above all, we must realize in practice the aforesaid wise decisions. Unfortunately, to this day, it has not been achieved, and therefore our brothers, the Old Ritualists, at times accuse us of making insincere declarations. They say, for example: if both rites and, in particular, both ways of making the sign of the cross, have already long been acknowledged by you as equally pure, why then in textbooks such as The Law of God, which has been published in multitudes recently, do we not find any indication that there exists two ways of making the sign of the cross, not even in fine print, in the footnotes? Why do you not publish the liturgical books or krutkovyi (Old Russian musical notation used for church music and similar to Byzantine notation- trans.) music books, which were published during the tenures of the first five Russian Patriarchs? Why is it that, in your educational institutions, one can only get extremely meager information about the liturgical particularities of the Old Rite? Why, in conversations with your clergy, do we often hear biased or incompetent opinions about the causes of our division, drawn without any critical approach from outdated polemical literature? Why do we often encounter vicious criticisms of the Old Rites? Why, despite the determination mentioned by the Holy Synod, are the same books and brochures reprinted and available in parish stores, in which it is not difficult to encounter not only biased but simply insulting views of Old Ritualism? It does not suffice to reply that an efficient mechanism of control over what is issued and reprinted by publishers of ecclesiastical literature is still missing. They complain about the difficulties that, at times, arise during attempts to establish relations with local clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church, particularly when it involves property issues.

    As one Old Ritualist noticed, a paradoxical situation is arising. Synods adopt resolutions to regard the anathemas on the Old Ritualists and the disapproving expressions aimed at Old Russian ecclesiastical rites “as if they had never been”, yet the level of awareness among the clergy about this is so low that these resolutions themselves remain “as if they had never been”.

    Indeed, the Local Synod of 1971 solemnly attested that “variety in outward expression does not cancel out the salvific significance of these rites, which has always been a characteristic of the ancient undivided Christian Church and was not, in itself, a stumbling block or source of division.” However, have we fulfilled this obligation that we took on 33 years ago? Nowadays, in the daily life of the Church, we almost do not see the facts that would support the possibility of the full-fledged existence of two rites in the bosom of the Russian Orthodox Church, which seems to be the most important condition for restoring unity with the Old Ritualists in the future. Yes, we have Old Rite parishes (known as United Belief [единоверы]) in the Moscow Patriarchate. Today, there are 12 such communities but, in 1917, there were nearly 600. The number of such parishes could greatly increase. But quite often people seeking United Belief find no understanding from us. We have heard several regretful testimonies of such lack of understanding in recent years from representatives of United Faith and from those wishing to be part of it. With such an attitude, Old Ritualists seeking unity with the Moscow Patriarchate see, at best, condescension and, at worst, hostility. Consequently, the development of Old Rite communities is extremely constrained and their viability limited. Because of the lack of any real movement forward, individuals are appearing that seek to fill “with new wine” the “old cries” of schism and make Old Ritualism an aggressive front directed against the Russian Orthodox Church. As a rule, these “young Old Ritualists (младостарообрядцы)” are not those coming from a long-standing Old Ritualist milieu, but are, rather, permanently seeking what is radical and oppositional.

    Clearly, these United Faith communities should be rendered the necessary help that would enable them to become a truly working bridge between the Russian Orthodox Church and various Old Ritualist groups. The question concerning the canonical status of such communities, with regards to past experiences, including the decisions of the Local Synod of 1917-1918, ought to be worked through. However, these decisions, of course, cannot be brought to life today automatically, without attention paid to contemporary realities. We must consider giving those Old Rite communities in the Russian Orthodox Church an organizationally unifying basis, without which the modern United Faith movement will remain ideologically and structurally isolated. While being able to preserve their distinctive identity, and yet having been integrated into the general ecclesiastical life of parishes, they also manifest a dangerous tendency towards internal isolation and separatism. In some United Faith circles, the ideology and psychology of schism is preserved, and alienation from general ecclesiastical life and from their respective hierarchs actually occurs. Incidentally, this has unpleasantly shocked certain Old Ritualists seeking to find genuine unity with the Russian Orthodox Church while preserving their customs and traditions. Such a situation calls us to examine the question of the necessity in forming a special ecclesiastical body. It could, in cooperation with hierarchs in whose dioceses Old Rite parishes exist, coordinate and support their activities, while reacting, when necessary, to manifestations of possibly negative tendencies connected with the life of United Faith communities.

    A more thoughtful consideration of the causes that gave birth to the schism could also advance the development of dialogue with the Old Ritualists. In this regard, much has been done by Russian academic historians of the 19^th century and scholars of the 20^th century, in particular, representatives from the Russian émigré. Yet, as was already said, the prevalence of proper knowledge is not enough; awareness, by the many members of the Church, depends on everyday notions, which are characterized, at best, as extremely oversimplified. Clearly, we need to draw proper conclusions from this in the system of professional, theological education and, also, in the programs of catechism and religious education of Church members. I am convinced that our relations with the world of Old Ritualism can change, if we jointly endeavor to look again at the history of our division by means, for example, of organizing a series of conferences or seminars, striving towards the highest standard of academic honesty, which would reject the polemical issues and examine the problem of Church-State relations through the prism of the standard now being formulated in the Russian Orthodox Church.

    It is worth our while also to study the experience of the Russian Church Abroad, which is increasing becoming our common domain. Despite strained relations, at that time, with the Moscow Patriarchate, at the 1974 Hierarchal Synod of the Russian Church Abroad, a resolution was made about the Old Rite and Old Ritualists that was strikingly similar to the decision of our Local Synod in 1971. Moreover, their Hierarchal Synod in October 2000 addressed the Old Ritualists with an epistle in which deep regrets were expressed “over the cruelties that were inflicted upon the adherents of the Old Rite, over the persecutions by civil authorities that were also inspired by some of our predecessors in the hierarchy of the Russian Church.” The ROCOR hierarchs proclaimed their strong desire to heal the wounds inflicted by the Church and establish full contact with those striving to preserve the Old Rite within the bosom of the Russian Church. It should also be pointed out that within the hierarchy of the Russian Church Abroad there is a bishop that is responsible for their Old Rite parishes. We must bear in mind all these circumstances in the context of the developing rapprochement with the Church Abroad.

    I would like to report briefly on the activities of the Department for External Relations, carried out in fulfillment of the assignment concerning the thorough study of the form and perspective of further cooperation between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Old Ritualists and also preparing the appropriate proposals, given by Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on December 29, 1998. A Commission for coordinating the Russian Orthodox Church’s relations with the Old Ritualists was established by Holy Synod on July 19, 1999, and placed under the auspices of the Department for External Relations. A conference that was dedicated to the bicentennial of the existence of Old Rite parishes in bosom of the Russian Orthodox Church was prepared and held in November 2000. The conference was preceded by Divine Services carried out entirely according to the Pre-Nikonian rites at the Dormition Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin. Work was carried out at the local level, which contributed to the settling of conflicting situations surrounding certain church buildings. However, life has shown that the commission, which was supposed to unite representatives of both the Russian Orthodox Church and the various Old Rite groups, encountered constant difficulties in their work. This also hindered the development of dialogue. I would like to note that, currently, dialogue with the Old Ritualists is more successfully developing, on an individual level, with each group.

Allow me to formulate from what has been said, the following conclusions:

1.      Good and trustful mutual relations can and should be established between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Ritualists. Such relations are best established by including representatives of the Old Ritualists in the work of ecclesiastical and social projects of national consolidation. Many Old Ritualists desire this, as they showed, for example, in the contacts between the Department for External Relations with the Moscow Metropolis of the Russian Orthodox Old Rite Church. This has been particularly successful since the recent election of their Presiding Hierarch, Metropolitan Adrian. Useful will be the joint ventures in the sphere of reviving cultural and spiritual traditions, common projects such as book printing, carrying out academic conferences, spiritual concerts- anything that truly promotes the establishment of good personal relations, which then fosters a new type of relationship at the interchurch level. It must also be seen to that Old Ritualists are able, as they desire, to make pilgrimages unhindered to the relics of commonly recognized national saints. I suppose that the Synod could acknowledge the desirability for a more active development of this sort of practical interrelationship.

2.      We must consistently implement, in daily church life, on all levels, the earlier hierarchal resolutions that relate to the Old Ritualists, in particular, the Decisions of the 1971 Local Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, which recognized the old and new rites as equally pure and equally salvific.

3.      The Synod could also approve of carrying out academic-historical conferences and seminars, initiated by or in participation with the Russian Orthodox Church, with the participation (as much as is possible) also of representatives of Old Ritualist groups, aimed at a joint analysis and a more detailed examination of the causes and consequences of the 17^th century schism, as well as the subsequent history of the Old Ritualists.

4.      We must provide effective help to the Old Rite parishes in the Russian Orthodox Church that is aimed at coordinating their activities and more successfully involving them in the common service of the Church, while preserving their particular customs. This help could consist in assistance in publishing service books and other literature, training specialists in the subjects of the Old Rite, traditional hymnody, and iconography; discussing the problems that arise from time to time in relation to being in “New Rite” surroundings and opportunely overcoming any negative tendencies that manifest themselves; discussing the further status of Old Rite communities that would be acceptable both in terms of their expectations and interests, and in relation to the good of the whole Church.

5.      For everyday coordinating work in implementing the foregoing proposals, and also for preparing further proposals to the hierarchy, it would be recommended that a working commission of the Holy Synod be expediently founded, for example, a Commission for Old Rite Parish Affairs and for Interactivity with Old Ritualists. If, at the present moment, the creation of a Synodal commission still does not appear sufficiently prepared, the Department for External Relations could, within the framework of an assignment designated by the Synod, temporarily continue practical work in the present direction, having properly reformed the previously established commission and work out a document specifying a common ecclesiastical body that in the future would work, on a permanent basis, to support our Old Rite communities and bring us closer to other Orthodox Christians that adhere to the Old Rites.