SEVERAL THESES in connection with the coming autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

For some reason, this question causes incredibly strong emotions in the majority of the discussion participants.. It seems to many that it is much better to tear apart a vest than just look objectively at the situation.. I think this is due to our Russian inability to civilized dialogue and a complete lack of diplomatic flair: it is much easier to lie on the embrasure of the enemy than to try to reach an agreement, and even more to understand that the imaginary enemy is not quite and the enemy is. No, we have not learned how to live without an enemy.

This inability is explained by the discourse of “Russophobia” that is completely inappropriate in the church environment, which arose in connection with the question of the Ukrainian church autocephaly.. The Orthodox supposedly forgot that the Church is one not by national self-consciousness, but by the communion of various nations in Christ and the universal preaching of the gospel to the world. The concept of "Greeks" suddenly acquired the same meaning as the concept of "State Department" in politics: therefore, the rhetoric of the functionaries of the Moscow Patriarchate in relation to the Orthodox Greeks suddenly became very closely resemble the rhetoric of the Russian Foreign Ministry in relation to the Western world. It is necessary to introduce retaliatory sanctions, deliver an equivalent blow, respond symmetrically, or even better — asymmetrically, so that they are offended..

The question arises: who is still happening seems really offensive?.

Of course, it hurts those who feel humiliated.. The problem, I think, which lies and matures in the conflict between the Moscow Patriarchate and Constantinople, lies in the sense of humiliation. When there is no ability and desire to look in the mirror, discuss our own very serious church problems, find out which OUR actions led to misunderstanding, what WE were wrong and why, what would be the Christian solution to the question, we say instead: Bazaar answer ". Just compare: Patriarch Bartholomew is a doctor of theology who defended his thesis on the topic “Codicology of Canon Law” (if you need a link to my abstract of this work, ask in the comments), and our Patriarch Cyril, who did not write a single theological work, but just released in the light of his sermons on the strength of the Russian spirit. Therefore, instead of paying attention to the level of our clergy and the episcopate, representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate speak “according to the concepts”. From here and such insult, because they have felt, that all of them "lower". In some other framework, they are not yet capable of thinking.. Therefore, they talk about the "invasion", although the matter concerns only the direction of the diplomatic mission. They do not understand what is happening: they have been let down in public, and they are not ready to forgive.

Many opponents of the "ambitions of Phanar" (learn dismissive slang against the oldest patriarchate) are concerned about the question of patriotism. They divided the Church into “theirs” and “strangers”, and therefore they are ready not only to call their strangers in the faith “strangers”, but also to write them into the category of “sent Cossacks”, “fifth column” and t. Anyone who expresses any more or less sensible and objective thought about the abnormality in the relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and Constantinople, and at least some Russian responsibility.

In my opinion, everything is different: the highest manifestation of patriotism, I consider the ability to see the shortcomings and evils of one’s own people - just as the highest virtue of a person I consider its ability to self-criticism. I am not always happy when other people criticize my, Russian, people, because I understand that they come from the same false view of themselves: by criticizing us, they justify themselves. But this is not always the case: very often the comments of others addressed to us are justified: and we simply have to take all this into account in order to develop, grow and become Christians.

Cathedral of 1917 in Russia, I could never understand and accept. Now I understand why: he was revolutionary, and was in tune with revolutionary political events.. Just look at the problem of the patriarchate: if for centuries the Russians always treated Constantinople and the Eastern Patriarchs with extreme reverence, asking for centuries the views of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Synod on various issues, then in 1917 (and a little earlier) they allowed themselves to spit on the Greeks with high bell towers. This is known for many episodes, but, in particular, no one, as far as I know, paid attention to the fact that the patriarchate in Moscow, which was established by the decision of the Eastern Patriarchs at the cathedrals of 1589. , 1590 and 1593. , was also canceled at the request of Peter the Great by Patriarch Jeremiah III in 1723. And at the Council of 1917, no one asked the Patriarch of Constantinople, as well as the other Eastern Patriarchs.. The situation has changed dramatically. Then professor MDA M. Tareev expressed the feelings of many: “The time has come for us to shake off the original Greek yoke, to demand our honorable place at the spiritual repast of Christ”. Just think of this expression: “HONORABLE PLACE at the spiritual repast of Christ” (!).

It turns out that the patriarchate, which was solemnly restored in Russia in 1917, had no serious canonical grounds.. No one asked the opinions of the Eastern Patriarchs, no one bowed his knees to the “father” and the “spiritual mentor,” as in the old days, everyone spat on Constantinople, and simply elected a patriarch to himself and without the Eastern patriarchs. Elected Russian revolutionary patriarch. In a revolutionary way. In the era of revolution.

As you have already noticed, I do not care at all how “they” feel there; I only care how we feel in relation to the Church and God. Therefore, the following conclusions. We need: a) to get rid of political rhetoric in church matters, b) to abandon the terminology of “retaliatory sanctions” in interchurch relations, c) to overcome the disease of Russophobia and understand that criticism of oneself is the beginning of transformation, d) stop reasoning “by notions” and stop feeling their national "omission"; d) buy a mirror for those who have not bought.

In other words, to rejoice when the Church conquers.