Old Believers adjusted the rules of communication with the Russian Orthodox Church

On October 22, the next Consecrated Council of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church (ROC) ended in Moscow. Among the documents adopted by the Council, the “Regulations on the procedure for holding meetings of Church clerics with non-Orthodox clergy”, which prohibits Old Believers from Christianly greeting non-Orthodox people, to whom they equate “Nikonians,” caused a special resonance. Will the new rules hinder the dialogue of churches?

B.M. Kustodiev "Meeting (Easter Day)" 1917

The general, very stern tone of the “position” surprised a significant part of the Orthodox community, which in recent years had already become accustomed to a noticeable warming in relations between the two churches. “The actions of Old Believer clergy during such meetings should exclude the possibility of any suspicion,” the document says. When meeting, a clergyman of the Russian Orthodox Church greets a clergyman of a non-Orthodox denomination with a shallow bow (mutual) and a verbal wish of health and salvation... A social handshake is permitted - without excessive mutual approach. Greeting formulas expressing church unity (“Christ in our midst”) are not permitted. .. If a meal is offered at a meeting, participation in the meal is allowed as a last resort, with strict adherence to the requirement of “non-praying”. It is preferable for the bishop to abstain from meals.”

In addition, the head of the Old Believer church now “cannot hold inter-confessional meetings of a private nature”, “conducts inter-confessional meetings accompanied, if possible, by at least two members of the delegation,” and each of his meetings is recorded in accordance with the regulations specified in the Regulations.

How to understand such strictness? “This is not a cooling of relations, but a general approach,” said Priest John Mirolyubov, secretary of the Russian Orthodox Church Commission for Old Believer parishes and interaction with the Old Believers, head of the Edinoverie community of the Church of the Intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos in Rubtsov. He does not agree with the pessimistic concerns surrounding the “Regulations”: “Each church has its own etiquette and its own established rules. For example, we do not pray with Catholics, but this does not mean that we are at enmity with them. Formally, we never had prayerful communication with the Old Believers, but there was such a case when, at the “World Russian People’s Council” forum in 2007, the head of the Russian Orthodox Old Believers Church, Metropolitan Korniliy, greeted the late Patriarch Alexy with a Christian kiss: they simply saw each other, took a step met and kissed, as is customary among Christians. This caused a violent reaction among some of the Old Believers. Some of them now feel it is very important to maintain the isolation of their church in order to maintain their identity. And even if the majority does not adhere to this position, then in order to preserve internal peace, the Russian Orthodox Church decided to develop general rules for meetings with “non-Orthodox.” The picture turns out to be the opposite: now there are strict rules, but now you can be less afraid of any criticism or reproaches.”

Let us recall that the Old Believer schism was a reaction to the unification of Russian worship according to Greek models carried out by Patriarch Nikon in the mid-17th century; this unification caused real unrest among conservative believers and ended with the separation from the Patriarchal Church of a significant number of parishes throughout the country. Since the only bishop who joined the Old Believer schism died in exile, by the end of the 17th century, supporters of the old rituals were left practically without the priesthood, and were divided into two movements: the priests, who accepted fugitive “Nikonian” priests, and the non-priests, who considered the entire Nikonian hierarchy “ graceless." Over time, the Bespopovites had to learn to do without priests and, at first, without the sacraments; later, many of the sacraments began to be performed among them by the laity. The priestly consent (or “beglopopovsky”) preserved the liturgical structure of the Russian Church. At the beginning of the 19th century, some of the Old Believers-priests returned to the “synodal” Church, but retained the old rite. Such parishes were called “single-faith” parishes, but most remained outside the Eucharistic communion with world Orthodoxy and by the beginning of the 20th century formed two jurisdictions: “Belokrinitsky”, from the Greek bishop of Sarajevo who unexpectedly joined the Russian Old Believers (the Moscow metropolitanate of the “Belokrinitsky consent” is in fact, is the current Russian Orthodox Church), and the “Novozybkovsky” one, which restored its episcopal hierarchy only in 1923 from two bishops: the “renovationist” and the “Josephian”.

The Old Believer Church considers the Nikonians to be heretics, which it has repeatedly confirmed in the past. Church tradition prohibits prayerful communication with heretics, no matter what rank these “heretics” may be. Therefore, it is impossible to show heretics such signs of attention as a Christian greeting intended for the “faithful” - this is the logic of the adopted “Regulations”.

“In the Old Believer community, there is a discussion about the rite of admission of “Nikonians” into the Old Believer church, but for now former “Nikonians” are accepted through anointing and repentance,” explains Father John Mirolyubov. “At the same time, the Old Believers recognize our apostolic succession, because for two hundred years they could not ordain priests themselves, and therefore accepted the “Nikonians” in their existing rank. The Russian Orthodox Church, on the contrary, does not recognize apostolic succession for the Old Believer hierarchy, at least for the so-called metropolis. “Belokrinitsa Concord”, which is fair: the Bishop of Sarajevo, who went over to the Old Believers to restore the “hierarchy”, ordained two more bishops alone, which is completely uncanonical (a bishop ordains at least two bishops). If their priests come to us, we ordain them anew. In terms of etiquette, during personal meetings or in correspondence, we address Old Believers in accordance with their dignity in the Old Believer hierarchy: bishops as bishops, priests as priests. This does not change our attitude towards them.”

The Russian Orthodox Church today is conducting an active dialogue with the Old Believers. With the Russian Orthodox Church - regarding social issues, teaching religion in school, problems of combating drunkenness, and establishing Christian morality. “Canonical and theological issues have not yet been considered,” says the priest. John Mirolyubov. — First of all, due to the lack of desire on the part of the Russian Orthodox Church itself. But with the Old Orthodox Church (the so-called “Novozybkov hierarchy”. - Ed.) in addition to the social, there is also a theological, historical, canonical dialogue.” The new rules of etiquette adopted by the Russian Orthodox Church are not a hindrance to interfaith dialogue, Father John is convinced: “New, albeit strict, rules were adopted so that our dialogue itself does not depend on misunderstandings of etiquette and can develop calmly.”

DMitriyREBROV

The issue of old rituals was considered by the VI Department of the Pre-Conciliar Presence on May 3, 1906, which issued the following resolution:

“I) Bearing in mind the benefit of the Holy Church, the reassurance of those praying with two fingers and the alleviation of the difficulties encountered by missionaries in explaining the oath on those praying with two fingers pronounced by the Antioch Patriarch Macarius and the Council of Russian Hierarchs in 1656 - to petition the All-Russian Council for the abolition of the said oath, as taken due to “unkind understanding” ” (cf. VI Ecumenical Council, rights 12)…

2) To petition before the Council that on behalf of the All-Russian Church it be proclaimed that the expressions disparaging the “old” rites, allowed by polemical writers of former times, appeared as a result of the spirit of the time, the passionate struggle of opponents, outrageous attacks on the rite contained by the Orthodox Church , excessive jealousy of Orthodox polemicists and, finally, also an incorrect understanding of the meaning and significance of the rituals abolished by the Council.

Nowadays, with a clearer understanding of the meanings of ritual differences in general, the Church does not see anything shameful or heretical in these rituals, does not accept anything reprehensible in relation to them, and teaches this to her children. The former disparaging expressions are completely abolished and imputed as if they were not.”

Local Council 1917-18 was supposed to make a decision on the old rite and, according to the testimony of the participants, cancel the oaths and allow the admission of Old Believer bishops to their existing rank, but due to revolutionary events, he did not have time to do this.

In 1929, the issue of Old Russian rites was discussed at a meeting of the Patriarchal Holy Synod chaired by the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhny Novgorod, at which the Synodal definition was adopted:

“I) Review of the liturgical books on rituals that are dear to the Old Believers, given on behalf of the Holy Russian Church in the book “Admonition”, in the “Explanation” of the Holy Synod and in the definition of the archpastors of the Synod that was in the God-saved city of Kazan in the summer of Christ 1885 - we share and confirm.

2) In particular, we recognize the liturgical books printed under the first five Russian Patriarchs as Orthodox; Church rites, preserved by many Orthodox, fellow believers and Old Believers, according to their internal signification and in communion with the Holy Church, are saving. Double-fingered image of the Holy Trinity and two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ - a rite undoubtedly used in the Church of former times...

3) We reject negative expressions that in one way or another relate to the old rituals, and especially to double-fingering, wherever they are found and by whomever they are uttered, as if they were not sane.

4) The oath prohibitions uttered by the Patriarch of Antioch Macarius and after him confirmed by the Serbian Metropolitan Gabriel, Metropolitan Gregory of Nicaea and Gideon of Moldova in February 1656 and the shepherds of the Russian Church at the Council on April 23, 1656, as well as the oath definitions of the Council of 1666-1667. , as having served as a stumbling block for many zealots of piety and leading to the schism of our Holy Church - we, guided by the example of the very Council of 1666-1667, which abolished the oath-bearing decrees of the Council of the Hundred Heads, according to the authority given to us by the All-Holy and Life-Giving Spirit to knit and decide, We destroy and destroy, and as if we were not sane.”

“I. To approve the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of April 23 (10), 1929, recognizing the old Russian rites as salutary, like the new rites, and equal to them.

2. To approve the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of April 23 (10), 1929 on the rejection and imputation, as if not former, of derogatory expressions relating to old rituals and, in particular, to bifinger, wherever they were found and no matter who they were uttered .

3. To approve the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of April 23 (10), 1929 on the abolition of the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1656 and the Great Moscow Council of 1667, imposed by them on the old Russian rituals and on Orthodox Christians adhering to them, and consider these oaths as not having been .

The resolution on the equality of the old rite was also adopted at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) in 1974. The episcopate of the Church Abroad includes the Old Believer Bishop Daniel of Iria, vicar of the First Hierarch. In 2000, the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR addressed the Old Believers with a message asking for forgiveness for persecution. “We deeply regret,” the message says, “the cruelties that were inflicted on the adherents of the old rite, about those persecutions by civil authorities, which were inspired by some of our predecessors in the hierarchy of the Russian Church only for the love of the Old Believers for the tradition accepted from pious ancestors, for their zealous guardianship... We want to take advantage of this opportunity now to ask their forgiveness for those who treated their pious fathers with contempt. With this we wanted to follow the example of the holy Emperor Theodosius the Younger, who transferred the holy relics of St. John Chrysostom to the royal city from distant exile, where his parents had unmercifully sent the saint. Applying his words, we appeal to the persecuted: “Forgive our brothers and sisters, the sins caused to you by hatred. Do not consider us accomplices in the sins of our predecessors, do not lay bitterness on us for their intemperate deeds. Although we are the descendants of your persecutors, we are innocent of the disasters caused to you. Forgive the insults, so that we too may be free from the reproach that weighs on them. We bow at your feet and commit ourselves to your prayers. Forgive those who insulted you with reckless violence, for through our lips they repented of what they had done to you and ask for forgiveness”... We are aware of the bitter consequences of the events that divided us and, thereby, weakened the spiritual power of the Russian Church. We solemnly proclaim our deep desire to heal the wound inflicted on the Church.”.

Awareness of the fallacy of the council's sworn decisions on the old rites and the persecution of the Old Believers is only the first step towards future unity. Further efforts are needed. Our Synodal Canonical Commission can do quite a lot in this good cause. Moreover, most of the Old Believers of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy live in Ukraine.

First of all, it seems necessary to begin a constructive dialogue about ways to overcome the harmful division and further future reunification of believers of the two rites in a single Church. Everything must be done to heal the schism. The path to this lies through humble repentance and prayer, renunciation of mutual claims and meaningless reproaches. It is necessary not in words, but in deeds to demonstrate a mutual desire for the unity of our Holy Church.

The snake, which the Moscow Patriarchate so carefully warmed on its chest, nurturing the schismatic Old Believers, has grown up and is ready to begin the struggle for power. The other day, an article appeared on the website ura.news under the very intriguing title “The future second patriarch of Russia: “Putin has come, like the king before!”,” in which the author clearly hints that not only the head of the Old Believers claims to be the Russian Patriarch, but They are waiting for him in Russia as a Patriarch!

The very title of the article is a low deflection towards secular power. In addition, its author is trying to prove that it is Cornelius and his followers who are close to the people and are the bearers of the true faith, and not the Russian Orthodox Church: “Despite the strictness of the rules, the Old Believers turned out to be much more democratic than the ministers of the Russian Orthodox Church: we, journalists, were accepted as relatives, were inundated with gifts and even invited to dinner... It turned out to be easier with an audience with the primate: unlike the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, to whom the FSO guards will not let you come closer than a pistol shot, you can easily talk with the main Old Believer of Russia while sitting on the bench and asking any questions..."

Corniliy himself, in the spirit of his Ukrainian colleague, the schismatic Philaret, declared that the Old Believers are “the entire fullness of the church, starting with Prince Vladimir, and all the millions of Orthodox people. I think that they are all in our church, because we, the Old Believers, are keeping, have kept and will keep the Old Believers, the true unreformed church that Prince Vladimir brought.” But, as we said above, none of the saints of the Church RECOGNIZED the Old Believers, and everyone, as one, called them schismatics, anathematized and excommunicated from the Church.

Despite this, the author of the article maintains his line. “So we ask. For example, why in the Russian Orthodox Church Kirill is the Patriarch of All Rus', and you in the Russian Old Believer Church are the Metropolitan of All Rus'? In terms of position, you are the same - you must be a patriarch! ...One day the head of the Russian Old Believer Church will become a patriarch?” he asks the head of the schismatics.

“Perhaps,” Cornelius replies. “Nothing is impossible for the Lord.” And he further states that the Old Believers are actively establishing connections with the Bespopovtsy sect, “with whom they have not met for almost 300 years”; but with the support of the state, several round tables have already taken place between them. “Their senior mentors from St. Petersburg and the Baltic states come, we solve general issues, establish contact. Because there are not so many of us, the keepers of the ancient faith... And the government is interested in restoring Russian Orthodoxy - hence the attention of the authorities and the president personally to us,” explains the chief Old Believer.

“We, at URA.RU, published a long interview with you when you met with Vladimir Putin. Has anything changed since this meeting? Have the authorities, local administrations become more loyal to the Old Believers?” the correspondent asks the interlocutor.

Here are a few more false and crafty statements of the main Old Believer, which clearly show his intentions to discredit the Russian Orthodox Church and expose his schismatic organization as the true church: “Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn, whose 100th birthday will be celebrated at the end of this year, once said that the sad 17 The 17th century gave birth to the 17th year. What Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich did, this deviation from the ancient faith, undermined the basis, the foundation of Orthodoxy, which was created by our ancestors - Prince Vladimir, Sergei of Radonezh and other Russian saints. And people lost faith."

To the question: “For the Russian Orthodox Church, the cornerstone today is the topic of the remains of Nicholas II and members of his family, found near Yekaterinburg: the Russian Orthodox Church does not recognize them in any way, despite the investigation carried out twice by the state, numerous examinations and the position of members of the House of Romanov around the world . What about your position? Do you recognize the royal remains?

He replies: “We are very grateful to Tsar Nicholas II for giving the Old Believers relative freedom in 1905. It was such a joy... But, on the other hand, he is outside our church - he was a new believer. Talking about the remains is not very relevant for us: he is not canonized in our country. Yes, we are grateful to him, but we remember that throughout the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty, the Old Believers were persecuted - sometimes more, sometimes less, but they never stopped. If the Romanovs had protected us, there would have been unification - that would be a different matter.”

Correspondent: “And if an Orthodox person in your church, out of habit, crosses himself with three fingers, is that scary?”

Cornelius: “We have never been afraid to pray the correct way - with two fingers, and now the New Believers are not afraid to be baptized with two fingers - since 1971. Their superiors gathered and said: sorry, brothers, a mistake has occurred, we admit both, pray as you wish. And we, Old Believers, leave two-fingered, but partly accept three-fingered” (interestingly, representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate, lobbying for the establishment of a so-called dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Believer Church, are naive to such an extent that they do not see outright ridicule on the part of schismatics, who are clearly enjoying exaggerating "apology" of the Orthodox hierarchs to them? - editor's note religruss.info).

“And now we must, by any means, and sometimes even with our lives, like our ancestors, preserve our saving Old Believer Orthodox faith in order to save our souls and enter the kingdom of God, which is what I wish for you,” - finally, he practically called for war with the Russian Orthodox Church the head of the schismatic Old Believers.

Old Believers are schismatics who left the Orthodox Church in the 17th century and were anathematized. Here is what Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) writes about this: “The essence of their [schismatics’] teaching<…>consisted not only in the fact that they wanted to adhere to only old printed books and supposedly old rituals and did not submit to the Church, did not accept newly corrected printed books from it, but at the same time that they considered these latter books to be full of heresies, the Church itself was called heretical and they asserted that the Church is no longer the Church, its bishops are not bishops, its priests are not priests, and all its Sacraments and rites are desecrated by the filth of Antichrist; The schismatics not only opposed the Church, but completely denied it, denied it and, according to their convictions, were already completely separated from it. It was necessary for the Church, for its part, to publicly declare that it no longer recognizes them as its children, that is, for it to anathematize and cut off from itself those who had previously voluntarily fallen away from it and became its enemies.<...>It was not the Church that rejected them and is rejecting them, but they themselves rejected the Church even before and do not cease to stubbornly reject her, calling her in their pathetic blindness a spiritual harlot, and all her faithful children, all Orthodox, sons of lawlessness, servants of the Antichrist.”

However, in 1971, at the Local Council, the ecumenist and traitor to the Orthodox faith, Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov), ​​who died at the feet of his master, the Pope, initiated the abolition of the “oaths of 1667.” It was after his report that the modernists present at the Council adopted a resolution on the “abolition of oaths.”

It should be noted that from the very first lines of the report “On the abolition of oaths on old rites”, presented to the Council on May 31, Metropolitan Nikodim stood in solidarity with the “Old Believers”, calling the traditional Orthodox Byzantine rite “new”, and the schismatic one “old”, and leveled the Orthodox with schismatics: “A lot of effort on both sides - both the New Believer and the Old Believer - was spent in the past on proving the other side wrong.” “Sober-minded church people on both sides understood the destructiveness and worthlessness of mutual strife and deeply mourned the division of Russian Orthodox Christians,” he further stated, wittingly or unwittingly blaspheming in his words a whole host of Russian saints and ascetics of piety and a great many faithful who had cared for the former times about healing the “Old Believer” schism, who worked on compiling polemical literature, organizing all kinds of debates and conversations with those who had fallen away from the Church, creating anti-schism missions, etc., as not possessing sobriety of mind. If we follow the logic of Metropolitan Nicodemus, the great Russian saints Demetrius of Rostov, Ignatius (Brianchaninov), Theophan the Recluse, St. Seraphim of Sarov, the Optina Elders and many other spiritual pillars of the 17th-20th centuries, who denounced the lies of the schismatics and called them to repentance, were not among those , who “understood everything” and “grieved deeply.”

Thus, Metropolitan Nikodim himself, and all those present at this renovation Council, went against the decision of the Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667, which imposed an anathema on the schismatic Old Believers, as well. And 29 hierarchs took part in that Council: three Patriarchs - Alexandria, Antioch and Moscow, twelve metropolitans, nine archbishops and five bishops, among whom were delegates from the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Constantinople. In addition, it was attended by many archimandrites, abbots and other clergy, Russian and foreign. Thus, the entirety of the Eastern Church of Christ sat at the Council. The Fathers of the Council commanded that everyone submit to the Holy Eastern Apostolic Church: accept the liturgical books corrected and printed under His Holiness Patriarch Nikon and after him, and serve all church services according to them; made the sign of the cross with three rather than two fingers, etc. Having consolidated the decisions of the Local Council of 1666 and other previously held church meetings that considered the issue of schism, the Great Moscow Council decided: “We command this conciliar command and testament to all to keep unchanged and to submit to the Holy Eastern Church. If anyone does not listen to our command and does not submit to the Holy Eastern Church and this Consecrated Council, or begins to contradict and resist us, we, by the authority given to us, will cast out and curse such an opponent, if he is from a sacred rank, and betray him if he is from a secular rank. curse and anathema as a heretic and rebellious and cut off from the Church of God until he comes to his senses and returns to the truth by repentance.”

In addition, the decisions of the Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667 on the “Old Believers” were accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church and all its saints who lived from 1667 to 1971. Over the past centuries, the “Old Believers” themselves, as is known, have split into many sects warring with each other, united only in their hatred of the true Church of Christ. Thus, it is obvious that the anathemas were imposed fairly, and, therefore, the only way out from under them for schismatics remains sincere repentance and reunification with the Orthodox Church.

Let's see what, for example, the Monk Paisiy Velichkovsky says about the oaths and anathemas that were conciliarly imposed in the 17th century on the Old Believers opposing the Conciliar Church: “An oath or anathema on those opposing the Conciliar Church, i.e. on those who are baptized with two fingers or who resist and do not submit in any other way, having been collectively imposed by the Eastern Patriarchs, the grace of Christ will remain firm, unshakable and insoluble until the end of the age. You also ask: was the imposed anathema subsequently resolved by some Eastern Council or not? I answer: could there be such a Council, with the exception of some one contrary to God and the Holy Church, which would gather to refute the truth and confirm lies? There will never be such an evil Council in the Church of Christ. You also ask: can any bishops, apart from the Council and the consent and will of the Eastern Patriarchs, authorize such an oath? I answer: this is in no way possible; There is no discord with God, but peace. Know for sure that all bishops, upon their ordination, receive the same grace of the Holy Spirit and are obliged, like the apple of their eye, to preserve the purity and integrity of the Orthodox faith, as well as all the apostolic traditions and rules of the holy Apostles, ecumenical and local Councils and God-bearing fathers, which the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church contains. From the same Holy Spirit they received the power to bind and decide according to the order that the Holy Spirit established through the holy Apostles in the holy Church. To destroy apostolic traditions and church rules - the bishops did not receive such power from the Holy Spirit, therefore, it is impossible for either the bishops or the Eastern patriarchs to resolve the above-mentioned anathema on opponents of the conciliar Church, as correctly and in accordance with the holy Councils, and if anyone attempted to do this , then it would be contrary to God and the holy Church. You also ask: if none of the bishops can resolve this anathema without the Eastern patriarchs, then was it not resolved by the Eastern patriarchs? I answer: not only is it impossible for any bishop without the Eastern Patriarchs, but also for the Eastern Patriarchs themselves to resolve this oath, as has already been said enough, for such an anathema is eternally insoluble. You ask: won’t some of the Christians, in their resistance and unrepentance, die in this conciliar oath? Woe to us! I answer: this question of yours contains three perplexities for me... In the first case, I am perplexed, what kind of Christians are they who resist the Catholic Church without any repentance? Such people are not worthy to be called Christians, but according to a fair church court they should be called schismatics. True Christians obey the Holy Church in everything. Second: won’t they, in their resistance and unrepentance, die in this anathema of theirs? I am perplexed about this question of yours: for how can these imaginary Christians, remaining unrepentant in their constant disobedience to the Church, not die in this conciliar anathema? Are they immortal, the ones you wonder if they will die? And how can they not die, being mortal, and even being under anathema, and doubly mortal both mentally and physically, just as they died under the same conciliar anathema without repentance and countless schismatics always die? So these imaginary Christians, if they do not turn to the Church of Christ with true repentance with all their hearts, then they will undoubtedly die under the above-mentioned conciliar anathema. My third bewilderment relates to your words: woe to us! These words of yours put into my soul the thought whether you are those certain Christians who unrepentantly oppose the Church, and fear and tremble at the anathema imposed by the Catholic Church on such opponents, and therefore inquire so carefully about it, whether some Eastern Council has resolved it ? Afraid of dying under anathema and unable to bear the constant remorse, you cry out: woe to us! If you are true Orthodox Christians, obedient in everything to the Church that gave birth to you through holy baptism, and baptized according to the tradition of the holy Apostles with the first three fingers of your right hand, and you ask me not about yourself, but about others, then the above-mentioned anathema does not apply to you, and therefore you should never have spoken so pitifully about yourself: woe to us! These words of yours inspired me with the above-stated opinion about you, which may be destroyed from my soul. I ask you, give me, through a case known to you, perfect evidence of your wisdom, for we cannot have any communication with those who resist the Holy Church and cross themselves with two fingers. You also ask: will church commemoration be pleasant for them? I answer: if you are talking about those who resist the Conciliar Church and die in their resistance and unrepentance, then believe me that church commemoration of such will not only not be pleasant, but will also be disgusting to both God and the Holy Church, and the priest who dares to commemorate them , sins mortally."

From the editor:

Direct speech, first-hand information is one of the main principles of the editorial policy of our resource. We talk with people, personally ask even the most pressing questions of our time, and do not publish speculation. One of the important issues on the agenda, especially in the light of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church, was the question of clarification of the canonical status of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy within the framework of theological and canonical definitions of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In the pre-revolutionary period, the issue of recognition of the Old Believer hierarchy was very acute. Old Believer readers made considerable efforts to apology the Belokrinitsky hierarchy. F.E. alone held dozens of debates and wrote a number of works devoted to this issue. Among them are such works as “ In defense of the Old Believer hierarchy», « An end to doubts about the legitimacy of the Old Believer hierarchy», « A Study on the Baptism and Hierarchical Dignity of Metropolitan Ambrose».

Today the Metropolitan answers our questions Hilarion(Alfeev), Chairman of the DECR MP. First of all, we asked Bishop Hilarion about the dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Moscow Patriarchate on the canonical status of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy, which began in the spring of this year.

This topic has been causing gossip throughout the year in both the Old Believer and New Believer circles. There are also many opponents to such a dialogue. The question of the advisability of dialogue on the recognition of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy at the Consecrated Council of the Russian Orthodox Church held in October. At the Council, the chairman of the commission, Archpriest, made a report Evgeny Chunin. He spoke about the interim results of the commission’s work and said that the Moscow Metropolis expects questions on canonical topics from the Moscow Patriarchate. After the report there was an active discussion of this issue. The Council decided that the dialogue should continue. The report of Archpriest Evgeny Chunin was also on our website. One of the delegates of the Consecrated Council, an employee of the Institute of the Higher School of Economics, also spoke about the dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church Alexey Muravyov.

Vladyka, as you know, today there is a commission for dialogue between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church. What tasks or promising opportunities for this dialogue do the Russian Orthodox Church see?

The Russian Orthodox Church was the initiator of this dialogue. The call for its establishment has been repeatedly heard in the conciliar acts of our Church. For example, the Local Council of 1988 adopted a speech filled with warm words “ Appeal to all Orthodox Christians who adhere to the old rites and do not have prayerful communication with the Moscow Patriarchate", in which he called on all Old Believer agreements for fraternal dialogue.

Over the three and a half centuries that have passed since the church schism, much has changed; very significant, fateful changes have taken place in the life of society, in the life of the Church, and church historical science has also developed. Many objective and subjective factors today contribute to slowly establishing mutual understanding. But both the Old Believers and many children of the Russian Orthodox Church are still often at the mercy of the old stereotypical ideas about each other. We still have to find a common language. To establish a productive dialogue, we must first come to an understanding of what exactly separates us; then subject it to theological and church-historical analysis, to separate the accidental from the fundamentally important and essential. If we pass this stage, the prospects will become clearer.

For a long time, official meetings and working contacts with representatives of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church concerned mainly practical issues of relationships, lying primarily in the area of ​​property or cultural-historical issues.

But time, apparently, takes its toll, and the emergence of the dialogue commissions you mentioned this time was initiated by Old Believer side. The goal was specifically stated: canonical assessment of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy from the Russian Orthodox Church. That is why the commission from the Orthodox side is headed by the famous canonist, professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin.

If we talk about the prospects for the emerging dialogue, then I would like to wish that the subject of discussion gradually expands.

Modern science is discovering many new historical sources. This also applies to information concerning the Old Believer hierarchy. Do you think that decisions about the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Belokrinitsky hierarchy relate to the study of historical facts or do they lie more in the church-political sphere?

Primary, of course, are historical facts and their canonical assessment. Time will tell whether unity will be achieved with the Old Believer side in the interpretation of historical events, but it is necessary to approach the identification of their circumstances with an open mind. Then progress in dialogue is possible.

Is the question of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy a special case, or is it, in fact, part of a complex of similar questions generally relating to the non-Orthodox (for the Russian Orthodox Church) priesthood, including the hierarchy of the Russian Ancient Orthodox Church, various other unrecognized or partially recognized hierarchies of the Eastern and Western rites?

The Russian Orthodox Church has a special attitude towards Old Believers. We never put Old Believers on a par with heterodox.

But, with all the desire to show Christian love, one should remember that the canons exist in the Church not to be easily ignored if it seems convenient. The application of church canons by the Russian Orthodox Church in relation to the Old Believers cannot fail to take into account the context of law enforcement practice common to all Orthodox Churches.

You took part in the Divine service according to the old rite, and, I think, you could also see it from the outside. What, in your opinion, are there difficulties and unusual elements in the old rite, what general impressions do you have from the old rite worship?

For me, the encounter with Old Believer worship was welcome and very natural. Back in my student years I studied znamenny singing, sat for hours in the office of ancient manuscripts of the Moscow Conservatory, compiled his own dictionary of songs, and was quite good at singing hooks.

I can say about the old rite that it is, in a certain sense, a guideline for church life and for liturgical creativity. When we participate in a divine service performed according to the old rite, we not only learn how our ancestors prayed, but also experience a feeling similar to meeting an old prayed icon. Such a meeting sometimes pierces a person’s soul and raises the eyes of grief.

Of course, before celebrating the liturgy, I prepared. I had to delve into all the details of the service again. But I had the best impressions from the service, which absorbed the prayer experience of many centuries. In general, the service according to the old rite, although longer than the generally accepted one, but in combination with prayerful singing creates the impression of some special harmony, time passes quickly, and the service does not tire.

Do you allow publications in the bosom of the MoscowPatriarchy publications of a symbolic or educational nature, where the old rite will be equally presented along with the new?

I understand the feelings of the Old Believers, who, starting from the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971, have been told that the rituals are now of equal honor, although at the same time in real church practice the old ritual can not be seen very often. But that’s why there are objective reasons.

Educational literature differs from scientific literature in that it has a didactic function. Teaches the basics. But how to teach the basics if the student is initially offered variety? I welcome mentions of the old rite in educational books, but my experience suggests that moderation must be observed in such matters. If a person comes to the old rite in his church practice, this should be the result of his religious experience, a thoughtful and felt result.

What to do with pre-revolutionary anti-Old Believer literature, which contradicts not only new scientific information on the history of church rites, but also the decrees of the councils of the Russian Orthodox Church? (Nevertheless, it continues to be reprinted by some church publishers.)

To call upon publishing houses that publish church literature to take a critical approach to reprinting literature published in pre-revolutionary times, when, under the influence of secular power, the Old Believers were criticized by incorrect and unacceptable methods.

I also consider other measures taken recently to be effective: church literature sold in churches must have a permit from the Publishing Council, and all books published or reprinted in church publishing houses undergo review. I hope that in this case the decisions of the Holy Synod are fully taken into account.

Unfortunately, stereotypes of previous attitudes towards each other sometimes appear not only in reprints, but also in new literature. Moreover, the above also applies to Old Believer publications. It seems that both sides still need to put a lot of effort into completely eliminating mutual reproaches and inappropriate expressions from published church literature.

The head of the publishing department of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Pitirim (Nechaev), immediately after the decisions of the 1971 Council on the removal of oaths from the old rites, was one of the first in the Russian Orthodox Church to serve the Old Believer liturgy in his home church. Under his leadership, the revival of musical medieval studies began. 40 years have passed since then. In 1988 and 2004, the Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church once again confirmed the decisions of the 1971 Council. However, until now the old rite in the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church remains a rare exotic, and the number of bishops' services according to the old rite is vanishingly small. Why does this happen?

There are already about thirty of them in the Russian Orthodox Church. Almost every year one or two more such parishes appear, and many of them are growing in number. Recently, Orthodox parishes have appeared in which, in addition to regular services, Old Believers are also held. Thus, a trend of increasing interest in the old rite is visible.

The number of bishops' services performed according to the old rite is also growing. I myself performed several services in the ancient rite, including liturgy, in the church in Rubtsov, where I am stationed Patriarchal center of ancient Russian liturgical tradition. On December 13, my second service in this church this year will take place.

In January 2012, Metropolitan of Kolomna and Krutitsky Juvenaly performed the liturgy according to the ancient rite in the main church of Russia - the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. The majestic temple was filled, everyone prayed according to the old rite. It seems that this is clear evidence of the interest of parishioners of Orthodox churches in Russian church antiquities.

It is known that in the Catholic Church, and indeed in the West in general, at the endXIX AndXX centuries, there was a revival and large-scale popularization of Gregorian chant. Why are we not observing such processes in relation to Znamenny chant? Why is Znamenny chant and liturgical monody in general so difficult to take root in parishes (excluding, of course, Old Believers) and feel like an alien musical phenomenon?

Interest in ancient chants is growing not only in the West, but also in the Local Orthodox Churches. For example, many Greek and Balkan churches switched to ancient chants over the past century. In the Russian Orthodox Church, the number of parishes and monasteries where ancient chants are used in whole or in part in worship is increasing; Clubs and courses for the study of Znamenny singing appeared.

I am ready to agree that the dynamics of a return to ancient singing are not as impressive as, for example, the dynamics of a return to the ancient style of icon painting. And there are several reasons for this: many people during worship want to hear the same tunes that they were accustomed to in childhood; The peculiar conservatism of our singing schools is also reflected, where due attention is often not given to znamenny chants. But the general tendency is that Znamenny singing, albeit slowly, is still returns to Russian Orthodox worship.

Today there is a lot of talk about the problem of the believers’ perception and understanding of church services. In this regard, there are two main concepts for correcting the situation. First- this is a liturgical reform: translation of prayers into Russian or their partial Russification, simplification and adaptation of the Divine service (similar to the liturgical creativity of Bishop Antonin Granovsky). The second concept is related to strengthening catechesis, expanding primary church education in order to increase the knowledge of parishioners to the required level. Which position on this issue is closer to you?

Life has shown that church reforms are a very dangerous matter, causing great disruption. Nevertheless, I hope that the Old Believers know that since the Baptism of Rus', Russian liturgical books have been constantly edited - the vocabulary, spelling, and style have changed. But there were no protests or schisms, because the texts were changed gradually, according to the demand of church life itself and with constant respect for previous practice.

In general, the second concept is closer to me, although from a theological point of view it is impossible to dispute, for example, the right of the Russian language to be one of the liturgical languages ​​of the Russian Church. Why is it worse than Moldavian, Japanese or Hungarian? So, for example, I consider it quite appropriate to read the Apostle and the Gospel in Russian during the communion of clergy. This practice exists in some parishes.

Since the “second Baptism of Rus'”, since 1988, thousands of churches and prayer buildings have been built in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union, a lot of spiritual literature has been published, and the structures of almost all traditional religious associations have been developing. However, despite this, it cannot be said that the level of the moral state of society rises in proportion to church achievements. And in some public spheres, the level of morality has fallen lower than even during the godless Soviet regime. What is this connected with?

This is due, first of all, to the difficult legacy of the Soviet era. It is much easier to build a temple or publish a book than to resurrect a human soul, especially if the person’s surroundings are predominantly non-believers. In addition, starting from the 90s, the population of our country was persistently oriented to take in everything the example of the West, in which Christian civilization had long been replaced by secular civilization. Hence the development of the cult of consumption, profit, permissiveness, propaganda of all kinds of freedoms in complete isolation from the sense of duty and responsibility. But the number of believers who consciously chose Christian morality as a standard for themselves also grew rapidly.

In the ancient Church, a Christian felt like a full-fledged member of the Christian community, now rather a parishioner, and sometimes just a visitor. Why was the role of the Christian community as such leveled out, and is it possible to do something to revive it and more active participation of the laity in its life?

The role of the laity in the church community, it seems, will grow. Just look at the life of our foreign parishes. Russian parishes are gradually developing in this direction, with increasing activity in social, youth, cultural and other spheres. But most of today's parishioners became conscious Christians relatively recently. As our people become churched, the communal element in parish life will increase.

In the 90s, there was a lot of talk about the role of the Orthodox intelligentsia in the Church. A lot has changed since then. Does the church intelligentsia exist today, what exactly is its role in church life?

There are no fewer intelligentsia in Orthodox parishes compared to the 90s. Perhaps even more. The intelligentsia makes up a significant part of the parishioners of many city parishes, in particular those in Moscow or St. Petersburg.

In general, in our parishes, the circles of non-liturgical communication among parishioners are formed not according to social characteristics, but rather according to interests, and partly according to age. The number of various circles for in-depth study of the Holy Scriptures, church history, art, ancient languages, etc. is rapidly growing. The youth movement is gaining strength.

This year the President of Russia Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin I have already met twice with the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church, Metropolitan (Titov). Vladimir Putin's visit in May became not only a historical event for the Old Believers, but also an occasion to talk about strengthening their influence in society.

The first meetings in 350 years between the head of the Russian state and the head of the Russian Orthodox Church were full of symbolism, but behind them lies an issue as old as the world. And, according to Metropolitan Cornelius, this issue today requires a solution. Against the backdrop of the scandalous topic around St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg, information began to appear about claims to the ownership of a number of objects by the Russian Orthodox Church. And in some cases it is possible to talk about a property conflict between the Old Believers and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Privatization is to blame

In the 90s, a number of objects that previously belonged to religious organizations came under privatization. According to the law, it was possible to privatize church buildings that were not protected as objects of cultural heritage or were protected as monuments of local significance. And if many churches of the Russian Orthodox Church did not fall under privatization, then the same fate awaited Old Believer parishes. Restaurants, drinking bars, sports sections - there was just so much on the territory of the former Old Believer churches. Moreover, some of them were privatized by businessmen and given to the Russian Orthodox Church. Now the topic of returning these objects to the Old Believers after Putin’s meeting with Metropolitan Cornelius is being discussed again.

One of the main subjects of the property dispute between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church is located in Moscow -. The temple was erected by Old Believers back in 1911. After the revolution, the temple property was confiscated, and warehouses and a canteen were located on its territory. In the 90s there was a restaurant there. Later, the Old Believers attempted to reclaim the temple; they even tried to buy it from private owners, but without success. In 2004, the temple was bought by a businessman Konstantin Akhapkin, who began the restoration of this building and wanted to transfer it to the Russian Orthodox Church. Amid the scandal, the latter seemed to abandon the object. But it remained the property of Akhapkin, affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church. The status of the temple is still controversial. As a FederalPress source in the State Duma reports, representatives of the Old Believer community appealed to parliamentarians with a request to return the temple to them.

FederalPress learned about another interesting object for which the Old Believers are fighting and where the interests of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church may intersect - a church in the Moscow region. It was built back in 2011, but, as FederalPress learned, the court refused to recognize the ownership of the Old Believers several times, since it considers this church to be an unauthorized construction. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, in turn, stated that they had received all the conclusions and approvals for the provision of land for construction. However, the court ruled:

The plaintiff did not provide evidence that the construction was carried out on the basis of design documentation developed in the prescribed manner.

At the same time, we note that the construction of a Russian Orthodox Church temple with the same name - temple Icons of the Mother of God Burning Bush— successfully completed in the Moscow region, Otradnoe. It is reported that it is being put into operation and will welcome parishioners in the summer. According to the FederalPress interlocutor, in this case we may be talking about lobbying the interests of some representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church in local authorities.

« There are already several churches with a similar name in Moscow and the Moscow region; an Old Believer site can attract parishioners", the source explained.

Is there no conflict?

Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin stated to FederalPress that relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church are now friendly. He denies there is any conflict. At the same time, he noted that it is not possible to talk about any kind of unification with the Old Believers, even against the backdrop of President Putin’s meeting with Metropolitan Cornelius.

« I haven't heard about the controversy. Our relationship is normal. Of course, after the president’s recent meeting with the Old Believers, some even began to talk about a possible unification. I don’t see such prospects, because the majority of Old Believers themselves do not want to unite, and those who wanted to have already united through common faith. That is, communities that practice the old rite, but are part of our church", noted Chaplin.

Moreover, Vsevolod Chaplin expressed the opinion that the buildings owned by the Old Believers should be returned to them. " Of course, this is a good deed. Of course, it is necessary to return what belonged to the Old Believer communities, and many churches and other church buildings have already been returned to them. Just look at the Preobrazhenskoye Cemetery, where historical buildings were returned to the Old Believers; in Rogozhskaya Sloboda, several buildings were also returned. The problem is that the Old Believers, perhaps, did not believe in the possibility of returning these buildings from the very beginning, and some of them were privatized. Unfortunately, the 2010 law “On the transfer of property of religious significance to religious organizations” does not apply to privatized buildings and there are, for example, in Moscow ordinary Orthodox churches that have been privatized and have not yet been transferred to the church", noted Chaplin.

The Education Law prevented the Old Believers

Another object that the Old Believers want to regain is in the northern capital. Now this building houses a children's music school. For several years now, the Russian Orthodox Church has been seeking the transfer of the almshouse to its benefit free of charge. As FederalPress found out, the last attempt to do this was made in 2016. Then the Arbitration Court of the city of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region recognized:

The evidence presented by the applicant does not confirm that the disputed building was built for worship, other religious rites and ceremonies, prayer and religious meetings, religious teaching, professional religious education, monastic activity, religious veneration (pilgrimage).

The court also referred to the fact that when transferring part of the building to a religious organization, the law on education would be violated, since “ the controversial building houses the St. Petersburg State Budgetary Educational Institution for Additional Education of Children... In state and municipal educational organizations, the creation and activities of political parties and religious organizations (associations) are not allowed" Thus, the court rejected the claims of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Museums are against the transfer of temples

At a press conference held at the NSN on June 8, Metropolitan Korniliy said that he asked President Vladimir Putin to help in the return of church objects to the Russian Orthodox Church. However, as a FederalPress source in the State Duma stated, the issue of transferring the Chubykin almshouse will be postponed, but the state will begin to transfer other buildings that were once owned by the Old Believers to the Russian Orthodox Church. As the interlocutor explained, in St. Petersburg the public has not yet cooled down from “ hot» topics with the transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church.

« Protests over St. Isaac's Cathedral continue. Transferring another building to a religious organization could add more fuel to the fire“, the interlocutor noted.

Let us recall that Russian President Vladimir Putin said during the “Direct Line” on June 15 that St. Isaac’s Cathedral was originally built as a temple. He expressed confidence that if St. Isaac's Cathedral is transferred to the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, it will be possible to combine museum activities and religious worship there.

The transfer of other objects in favor of the Old Believers will take place in the coming months. The FederalPress interlocutor believes that the first such object could be. Nowadays the crystal museum is located on its territory. This temple was built before the revolution, but was closed in 1928. Since 1974, it has been an exhibition hall of the Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-Reserve. We requested comments from the museum management regarding the transfer of the Trinity Church to the Old Believers. We had not received any comment at the time of publication.

Another building that will be transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church may be where sports sections are currently located. Metropolitan Cornelius himself stated that, with all due respect to sports, the church should be returned to the Old Believers.

« We contacted the president, he instructed the mayor of Moscow Sergei Semenovich Sobyanin to find suitable premises for the sports section. We hope that with the help of the president we will get a church in the near future", said the Metropolitan.

Currently, there are about 200 Old Believer parishes in Russia. According to data for 2010, there are more than 30 thousand parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church. You don’t need to resort to official statistics to understand that the number of Orthodox churches in the country is growing, and not only due to restitution, but also the construction of new facilities. It is the property activities of the Russian Orthodox Church that cause dissatisfaction among many Russian citizens, and sometimes even protest. According to the political scientist Konstantin Kalachev, the return of churches to the Old Believers will not provoke social tension. He told FederalPress that society today has a positive attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church.

« Those objects claimed by the Old Believer Church are not as significant as those claimed by the Russian Orthodox Church. The restitution process here is unlikely to lead to protest. It can be assumed that our attitude towards the Old Believers is quite positive. In this case it is a question of church and state. It is the active role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the cultural and political life of the country that raises concerns among some citizens about the clericalization of the state. And the Old Believers in this sense do not threaten anyone with anything.", Kalachev said.