"Attaining Church Unity is a Spiritual Podvig*" (ROCOR & the MP)

Interview With Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany: "Attaining Church Unity is a Spiritual Podvig*"

*Spiritual feat or labor; striving for the eternal In late December 2005, an Orthodox Conference of the Diocese of Berlin and Germany of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was held. Sergei Chapnin, Editor-in-Chief of Tserkovnij Vestnik ["Church Messenger"], participated in the Conference at the invitation of Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany. His Eminence spoke to him of the attitudes in the Russian Church Abroad, and about the work of the Synodal Commission on talks with the Moscow Patriarchate in an interview with Tserkovnyj Vestnik:

-Your Eminence, at what stage are the talks between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate? Which problems have been resolved and which remain before the Commissions during this period before the convening of the All-Diaspora Council?

- The Commissions of each Church examined all the fundamental questions set before us at the meeting of His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus and the delegation of our Church with His Holiness Patriarch Alexy and several members of his Synod. The following problems were on the agenda for years: the glorification of the New Martyrs, the relationship between the Church and state, Orthodoxy and ecumenism. In these areas we managed to achieve a great deal of complicated work. The fundamental positions were often diametrically opposed, but we still found a common tongue. As a whole, the hierarchies of both sides accepted the documents we prepared. I will note: this does not mean that the documents have been adopted by the entire Church, but by the hierarchies. In this regard I can immediately state what the desired conclusion of this process is: we foresee that the All-Diaspora Council will examine these documents and summaries of the work that was done, and only after this will the Council of Bishops make its decisions. Whether they will be adopted in the form we propose or whether changes will be required I cannot predict.

- What do you expect the Council to decide? What documents might be adopted, what positions will be clarified by authority of the Council?

- All adopted documents will contain positions accepted by both sides. Naturally, these are documents of compromise, which in one phrase reflect what one side says, and in the next phrase, something said by the other side. This was an honest attempt to find the minimal basis for a common platform. Of course, much is left unsaid, and I can imagine what an enormous discussion may arise at the upcoming Council. There are two possible paths: to agree that the documents express a common consensus, and on this basis to continue work, or to say "No, these documents are unacceptable, they must be worked on." The Commissions will meet one or two more times before the Council in order to finish the documents, taking into consideration the reactions which followed their publication. I must say that often it is difficult to capture in words what actually bothers people, because they very often cannot express their positions.

At the end of 2005, our Diocesan Vicar, Bishop Agapit, and I visited many parishes. This is our usual practice, but after the publication of the Commissions' documents, we put extra effort into them. Our parishioners need the opportunity to express their opinions directly to us. It is one thing when we receive letters of praise or of derision, or when a priest tells us about the mood of his parishioners. It is an entirely different thing when we meet the people face to face and listen to them. This decision was made by the Diocesan Council. It proved worthwhile , in my opinion . There is no substitute for personal contact . People usually read about the talks in the diocesan magazine, or, God forbid, the internet. In recent times it is horrifying to see on the internet how people use some conjured-up arguments, assume fanatical positions, paint themselves into a corner and then don't know how to escape. Personal meetings with people provide the opportunity for live discussion, and people soften when they see that not everyone shares their opinion. In some parishes we had several such meetings, and the feedback we received, however varied, was always calm. In other dioceses of our Church such discussions were held at diocesan conferences.

- You speak of the need to work out the published documents. How is this possible ?

- Yes , the documents will be worked on . It is one thing when the Synod, or a bishop, says: "This is too much to swallow, this has to be completely reworked. Or written in an entirely different way." This is understandable and easy, we will again seek a formulation and then, with God's help, come to an agreement. It is much more difficult in passages where there is some dissatisfaction which is expressed in general terms, and very difficult to dot the i's and cross the t's, to capture what is wrong, what needs alteration or an entirely different approach. I hope that the Lord will allow us to do this, too.

I must say that at the actual meetings of our Commissions, we often reach a point where we are ready to walk out and slam the door. But each evening we would disperse with heavy hearts, but the following day we would find the right approach. But another factor comes into play here. Here we are, five people from each side; we understand each other, we feel for each other, but we cannot share this feeling with anyone else. I understand what the person I am speaking with is like, how he sees things. And he understands, in turn, that I can be harsh, that at first I can say strong words, but then I would joyfully meet him halfway. Yes , that is my nature . But our flock stands behind us, and these feelings, unfortunately, cannot be conveyed.

I I remember some ten years ago I said at a diocesan conference that maybe I was naïve, but I thought that we must first begin Eucharistic communion without any other agreements, without administrative underpinnings. My young priests immediately said: "No, Vladyka, that is impossible, one must first always resolve canonical questions, and the crowning event is Eucharistic communion." I swallowed this idea whole. This is all clear—according to the textbooks, that is how you should think, but I try to approach life creatively. This is how I was taught in Serbia, where I studied theology. The fathers and teachers had that kind of boldness. If we possessed such freedom, I am sure, we would progress in our talks much more quickly.

When we had our first official meeting with His Holiness the Patriarch and the members of the Synod, I foolishly raised the question again: "Let us begin by getting to know each other better, let us pray together. When you don't know who you're dealing with, it's a completely different matter."

As you know, we constantly have pilgrimages to Russia. Vladyka Hilarion even went from Australia last year. But I say that I will never participate in such a pilgrimage until I can perform Divine Liturgy wherever we go, otherwise it is unacceptable for me. I did not travel to Russia for years because I did not want to come like a thief, as an alien, incognito. I do not like that . Either I belong or I don ' t . But that is only my dream.

- What does the latest Synodal Epistle refer to concerning the progress of the talks?

- Yes, we issued a Synodal Epistle to the flock in which we call for a peaceful approach to these matters, to act not according to party politics, but by God's grace. There are individuals and even whole parishes adopting the position that we must not even talk to Moscow until it clearly and unequivocally rejects all ecumenism, until it withdraws from the Council of Churches. Another problem is those bishops who were appointed during Soviet times and cooperated with the government. They must retire . These are extreme opinions put forth by opponents of the negotiations. Lest these people accuse those who disagree with them, we felt the need to issue such an epistle which calls not for party politics but for the conciliar examination of our position instead.

- At the end of December, you had a diocesan conference. How would you characterize the mood of the people, what is the scope of opinions? Are there differences between the positions of the clergy and the laity, between the lay descendants of the first and second waves of immigrants and those who arrived in Germany in recent years?

- The common view is that we must establish relations and that we must strive to reestablish the unity of the Russian Church. Yet many, both priests and laypersons, fear that talks are progressing too rapidly. In this area, one of the most acute problems is the Holy Land. Although in my opinion this isn't an argument, emotions can strongly affect events as they unfold.

- Vladyka, who will participate in the All-Diaspora Council from your diocese, who are the elected delegates?

- At the end of December, at a joint meeting of wardens and clergymen, we considered candidates, not without some disagreement. Then we decided to approach it from the other end. Before electing delegates, I asked: what instructions can you give the delegates, what should they bring with them to this Council, in what spirit should they speak? We understand that each delegate—two clergymen and two laymen, as it turned out, wardens—each has his own personal point of view, but he must absorb the moods of the diocese, and the mood that will reign at the Council. Most of our clergymen and wardens understand that we cannot stop on the process of negotiations. This process is vital, though there may be various opinions in regard to their pace, details of the discussions, and the elaboration of one matter or another.

- Much is being done to acquaint the clergy and laity with what is happening in Russia today, what the Russian Orthodox Church is like now. It seems to me that little attention is given to educate the Church in Russia as to what the Church Abroad is, what it represents today. This is also a problem. Are there any plans to show Russia what the Church Abroad is today, and if so, how are you doing this?

- Unfortunately, this not being done in a systematic manner. I must say that our priests are overburdened with pastoral service, since the flock is geographically scattered, and each priest must travel several hundred kilometers a month to visit his flock. This is a different ituation than what exists in Russia. Many priests, when they come here from Russia, cannot imagine what our life is like, and they are amazed. One priest once saw that a bishop got behind the wheel of his car, and asked in bewilderment "Where is your chauffeur?"

Speaking of reconciliation, we seriously considered convening a mixed pastoral conference with the participation of clergymen from Russia and Germany. But the idea never got off the ground, and I am afraid that the moment eluded us. In Germany there are two dioceses—those of the Moscow Patriarchate and of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia—on the same territory, there are two bishops with the same title, there are priests who in many places work in parallel. We have many sores spots in church life which must be addressed. If we make the first step, I am sure, we will be able to hold such conferences on a wider scale. Our priests from various dioceses would love to go to Russia—not necessarily to Moscow, but specifically to other regions—to meet with priests there, talk about various problems of common concern. Let them see that we have a great deal in common, though not without sharp contrasts.

- Vladyka, what would you like to wish for our readers and those who confess the Orthodox faith in Russia, and, like you, desire unity, the unity of the Russian Church?

- The most important thing is that in our spiritual life, we must not allow ourselves to be kidnapped and led astray or fall into despair over decisions that may be spiritually difficult to accept. I wish for all of us to see that we are taking upon ourselves a spiritual podvig , and that the Unity of the Church stands higher than many, many other questions. Many of these will be resolved as soon as, God willing, this unity is achieved. We all require a great deal of patience, in longsuffering and condescension towards each other. And first of all in mutual forgiveness .

Well, Vladyka was taugh in Serbia, and Serbia reconciled its two churches -- the one in the country and the other one, in North America, that broke off with the first one for the same reasons ROCOR came into existence: the churches in old countries were infiltrated by comunist agents.

Perhaps both Rome and Constantinople, ROCOR and MP, Rome and SSPX need to look at how Serbs reconciled and are now one and the same CHurch externally as well as internally.

As an aside, I wish the article actually summarized what the "fundamental differences" are in the case of the two Russian churches.

" Perhaps both Rome and Constantinople, ROCOR and MP, Rome and SSPX need to look at how Serbs reconciled and are now one and the same CHurch externally as well as internally."

Never thought of that; good idea! Maybe that's why the first meeting of the Dialog group is in Belgrade.

"As an aside, I wish the article actually summarized what the "fundamental differences" are in the case of the two Russian churches."

Me too.

The question I have is since the MP granted autocephaly to the OCA, if ROCOR is re-absorbed directly back into the MP what does this say about the MP's view of her daughter, the OCA? I don't know where this would put the MP vis-a-vis the OCA in membership (since the MP already has some parishes here). What is the end game? Doesn't this inevitably point to greater MP presence in the U.S. at the expense of the OCA? Can autocephaly be revoked due to changing circumstances?

I am not being polemical or provocative, and don't pretend to know very much about high-level church politics. I'm just wondering. This all seems incredibly sticky to me.

Thats a very interesting question. My knowledge of the Orthodox canons on this subject is not sufficient to be able to provide an intelligent reply to your question. But I do know that you are not the only one asking these questions. The agreement between the MP and the OCA from 1970 is very specific in limiting the number of parishes the MP will maintain in North America to those that chose to remain with them at the time autocephalacy was granted. These are basically representation churches today. I think part of the answer may be determined by the exact way the ROCOR is defined when full communion is restored. Its possible (according to the rumors) that they will not be per se a part of the Russian Orthodox Church. They may be recognized as a self governing church with the MP as its spiritual primate. I sometimes wonder if that might not have been the best course of action for the OCA to take back in 1970. But the hard liners and those (justly) suspicious of communist influence probably would not have accepted such an arrangement.

Its possible (according to the rumors) that they will not be per se a part of the Russian Orthodox Church

There would seem to be an inherent inconsistency with this position by the MP. So we would then have three separate Russian jurisdictions in America, making The Orthodox Church in America sound like a bad joke. Or, the MP could say, "Welcome back, now make nice with your new mother, the OCA," which has, to me, an undeniably logical appeal, but I have not heard anyone suggest (nor would I suspect ROCOR would go for, anyway -- btw, neither am I suggesting it).

I think what ultimately needs to happen is for all jurisdictions in America to more closely cooperate and pool scarce resources for the common good of Orthodoxy in this country. I don't see us ever resolving the organization mess on this continent, but we could at least mitigate the worst problems it causes. Unfortunately, I see little in the way of encouragement along these lines.

I agree with your post. It is something we are just going to have to wait and see how this all plays out. But I think pigs will fly before the ROCOR agrees to fall under the jurisdiction of the OCA. Also remember the ROCOR is all over the world. So it would not be logical for them to be under an "American" church.

You are right that pigs will fly before the formerly ROCOR parishes come under the OCA. There will be some minor schisms here and there as a result of reunion as it is, but the entire agreement would fall apart if the ROCOR were forced to marry the OCA -- something that the MP itself hasn't done with its parishes.

The ROCOR, under the terms agreed on, is most certainly a part of the Russian Church. That is its entire reason for being, *and* the entire reason why the MP wishes to reunify with them. It is because both sides consider the ROCOR to be a part of the Russian Church that this is happening in the first place.

The chief hierarch of the ROCOR will have a seat on the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. For now, I would imagine that the MP and ROCOR parishes will maintain separate hierarchs, but that will go away with time. Sometimes some old folks have to pass away before hatchets can be buried, sad to say.

Outside of the Dioceses of Alaska, the West, and parts of the South, there is a lot of unhealthiness in the OCA. I imagine that in the Diocese of the West in particular, where there are already excellent relations with the ROCOR, that things will draw even closer.

Out East, the OCA is at its most liberal, and the ROCOR is at it's most radical (probably partly in reaction), so there will be little or no contact there.

Having come from the East and now living in the West, I can confirm everything you just wrote. The OCA is pretty liberal out there. Of course liberal is a relative term in Orthodoxy. Kinda like conservative in the Episcopal Church. For its part ROCOR is so radical that I suspect that some of the east coast parishes will join with the Old Calendarist sects before accepting reunification. Here in the West its like night and day in difference. This may be the most conservative diocese in the OCA. Our bishop refuses to consecrate churches that have pews. And from what I have heard there is generally warm relations (unofficially of course) with ROCOR.

The DOW is certainly the most conservative diocese in the OCA. The other half of the friendly relations stems from the fact that the western diocese of the ROCOR is pretty mainstream.

You are right that "liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms. My godfather once joked that in the Orthodox Church, a conservative uses a 17 century old calendar and a liberal uses a 5 century old calendar. A Divine Liturgy in a liberal church takes an hour and 15 minutes, while a Liturgy in a conservative church takes an hour and a half...

There are unquestionably some ROCOR parishes that will go with the Greek Old Calendarists or go their own way. For the most part, it is good riddance -- many of these parishes were never really integrated into the ROCOR in the first place. The ROCOR folks who have often made the most noise over recent decades have been a small but very vocal minority (not only on a national level but on a parish by parish level) -- and I think events will bear this out. The exodus will not be very big.

The ROCOR won't readily integrate with American Orthodoxy, but this is not terribly unusual. Right now, the MP parishes aren't terribly integrated with the American scene (they don't belong to SCOBA), nor is the Serbian Archdiocese. This has hardly hurt them spiritually, nor will it hurt most ROCOR parishes, where a sober spiritual life and cycle of services will continue on as always...

Serbian hierarchs as a group are very solid. Here in the U.S., Bp. Longin is particularly remarkable. Next to him, any OCA hierarch that I have been exposed to is a pale pastel by comparison... If you ever have the opportunity to meet him, it is worth a journey.

"A Divine Liturgy in a liberal church takes an hour and 15 minutes, while a Liturgy in a conservative church takes an hour and a half..."

The Divine Liturgy in my parish runs about an hr and 45 mins. It reminds me of the joke that you know your Orthodox when you look forward to long sermons, since its the only chance you will get to sit down for a couple of hours.

There are a number of things other than abbreviation (or lack thereof) that affect the length of a service:

1. How many people commune
2. How long does the priest take to commune (for some reason, this varies a lot)
3. How long is the sermon
4. Does the priest do the anaphora prayers (marked secret, or silent, in the rubrics) out loud

There is, incidentally, a rhythm to the services, which, if broken by abbreviation or rushing, actually makes the services feel longer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.