What does the rupture of Eucharistic communion mean for the ordinary believer?

Natalia Shalimova

Archpriest Vasily Kucher answers

– Breaking Eucharistic communion is probably one of the most extreme measures that one Church can take in relation to another. In our case, the severance of communication with the Patriarchate of Constantinople suggests that from now on the clergy (that is, bishops, priests and deacons) of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Belarusian Orthodox Church, whose Primates signed the decision of yesterday’s Synod, will not perform joint services with clergy Patriarchate of Constantinople. If any of the clergy dares to violate this decision of the Mother Church, then he will face canonical reprimand.

In addition, yesterday’s decision to break Eucharistic communion also applies to the laity. Thus, Orthodox Christians from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus will no longer be able to receive communion in churches that are under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Also, they will not be able to take part in other sacraments that will be performed within the boundaries of this Church. Let us remind you that there are not so many churches of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in which our compatriots may find themselves. For the most part they are located in Istanbul, in the USA, in Antalya, Crete and the island of Rhodes. There are several dozen such temples in different cities of Europe. It should also be remembered that most of the monasteries, hermitages and kalivas on Holy Mount Athos are under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which means that our believers cannot receive communion in them.

Therefore, before expressing a desire to receive communion in any church abroad, you should definitely ask which patriarchate this church belongs to, or listen carefully to whether the name of Patriarch Bartholomew is commemorated in this church. If so, then you definitely cannot take communion there.

The question of whether clergy and laity can simply attend the liturgy in the church of the Patriarchate of Constantinople can be resolved positively at the moment, because the Phanariots themselves have not yet entered into communication with representatives of the Ukrainian schism.

It should also be said that when the Eucharistic communion breaks down, the Patriarchs no longer remember each other during the liturgy. It may be recalled that on the part of our Church the decision to discommemorate Patriarch Bartholomew was made a month ago. Now the first in the list of Patriarchs for whom our Church prays, immediately after Patriarch Kirill, is the name of Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria.

In the recent history of relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, a very similar situation has already taken place. Thus, in February 1996, the same Patriarch Bartholomew announced that the Estonian Orthodox Church was transferring to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Literally three days later, the Russian Church, just like now, interrupted Eucharistic communion with the Phanariots. However, this gap was short-lived, because after a few months eucharistic communion was restored.

As a result, for today:

Bishops, clergy and deacons of the UOC, Russian Orthodox Church and the Belarusian Church will not be able to perform joint services with bishops, clergy and deacons of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Believers of these Churches can no longer receive communion and take part in other sacraments that are performed in the churches of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
During services in the churches of the UOC, Russian Orthodox Church and the Belarusian Church, the commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew is suspended.

At the same time, Orthodox believers who are worried that because of such a decision our Church may find itself in “isolation” should remember that the history of Christianity contains many examples when the Church was in the minority. Moreover, there have been cases when the entire world Orthodoxy was represented by almost one person! For example, in his time Maxim the Confessor remained in a complete minority, from the point of view of human logic. When it was pointed out to him that there were more supporters of the heretical patriarch than Orthodox Christians, the saint replied: “There are still more of us. Because where God is, there is a majority.” When they told him that the whole world was in Eucharistic communion with the heretical patriarch, Maximus the Confessor replied: “Even if the whole universe communed with the heretic patriarch, I alone will not receive communion.” As a result, it was the position of Saint Maximus that was recognized as Orthodox, and the position of “the entire universe” as heretical. And precisely because Saint Maximus the Confessor was Orthodox, “the whole universe,” in the end, was also able to return to Orthodoxy.

About schismatics and confessors: what the Russian Orthodox Church responded to the recognition of the OCU by the Greeks

Analysis of the statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Five days after the Council of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church (EOC) recognized the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) adopted a statement on this issue.

On the eve of the meeting of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, everyone made assumptions: whether or not the Russian Church would break Eucharistic communion with the Church of Greece, as with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Most experts expected a harsh reaction and a break in relations. But this did not happen. And based on all the logic, the Synod’s statement could not follow. Before explaining why, let us repeat this main point of the statement:

The Russian Orthodox Church did not break eucharistic communion with the Greek Church

If this had happened, it would have turned out that the Russian Orthodox Church had broken off communication, including with the Greek hierarchs, who do not agree with the recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, consider the representatives of this organization to be graceless schismatics and point to the illegality of both the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the decision of the Council of Bishops of the Orthodox Church. Some of these bishops oppose the recognition of schismatics quite sharply. This is the logic of the statement of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church - to break off communication only with those Greek hierarchs who supported the decision to recognize the OCU.

The Russian Orthodox Church has broken communication only with those Greek bishops who support recognition of the OCU

The corresponding passage in the statement of the Synod reads as follows: “In this regard, we cease prayerful and Eucharistic communication with those bishops of the Greek Church who have entered or will enter into such communication with representatives of Ukrainian non-canonical schismatic communities. We also do not bless pilgrimage trips to dioceses governed by the above-mentioned bishops.”

In general, such a sanctioning measure as breaking Eucharistic communion is somewhat incomprehensible. What does this gap mean in sacred terms? What consequences does it carry for the parties? How and for what reasons should it be used and on what basis should it be cancelled?

It is clear that inter-church relations are not a body of international law with a mass of signed treaties, clearly formulated concepts and definitions. But I would still like to imagine what a break in Eucharistic communion entails in practical terms.

The statement only says that Russian pilgrims are not blessed to visit dioceses governed by bishops who have recognized the OCU.

But the Russian Orthodox Church also broke off Eucharistic communion with Constantinople; churches were opened in Istanbul and other cities of Turkey to nourish Orthodox believers from Russia and other countries of the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church, naturally, without notifying the Phanar.

Will such churches be opened in Greek dioceses that recognized the OCU? And if, say, some celebrations take place in the Bulgarian Church and bishops of the Orthodox Church who recognized the OCU will participate in the service, will the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church be able to take part in the service or not?

These are all questions that have no answer yet.

But this is not the main problem. Today it is impossible to determine which of the bishops of the EOC recognizes the OCU and who does not. Because when resolving such a global issue as the recognition of the OCU (global because it threatens to split the entire Ecumenical Orthodoxy), no voting was held at the Council of Bishops of the Orthodox Church. Neither secret, nor named, nothing.

The text of the statement says: “The communiqué of the Extraordinary Council of the Hierarchy announced the decision made following the discussion of this report. But who exactly made this decision and in what form remains unclear. <…> Decisions of the Council of Hierarchy in the Greek Church are made by voting of all participants. However, neither on the issue of recognition of Ukrainian non-canonical communities, nor on the issue of approving the decisions of the Permanent Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church for Ukraine, the episcopate voted. Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira stated this, in particular: “As you know, decisions in our Church are made by voting: either by a show of hands, or openly, or secretly, or by polling all participants in the meeting. Perhaps a sufficient number of votes would be cast in favor of autocephaly, but there would also be many who hold the opposite point of view, as well as those who, by their silence, would join the latter.”

Due to the fact that “there is no publicly available official document signed by Greek archpastors, which could be considered evidence of a single conciliar decision of the Local Church” (from a statement by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church), the Russian Orthodox Church does not believe that the Greek Church has recognized the OCU.

The Russian Orthodox Church does not consider the decision of the Council of Bishops of the Orthodox Church to be full recognition of the OCU

And these are not just naive hopes that all is not lost and we can win back. After all, in the communiqué of the Council of Bishops of the EOC there is no direct recognition of the OCU.

“Moreover, the news was very quickly spread that the Greek Orthodox Church recognized Ukrainian autocephaly, which does not correspond to either the text of the communiqué or the position of many participants in the Council. Serious concerns arise that the conciliar method of decision-making, sanctified by the words of the holy apostles: “It is pleasing to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28), and the thousand-year history of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, in this case was violated” ( from the statement of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church).

The way the Council of Bishops of the Orthodox Church was held and how the decision on the OCU was made at it raises many questions.

Why wasn't there a vote?
Why were the Greek hierarchs not given the opportunity to study the conclusions of the two Synodal Committees, which were tasked with studying the “Ukrainian issue”?
Why have they not yet published the original document adopted at the Council with the signatures of the bishops?
Why did they not pay attention to the calls of many respected hierarchs to postpone the resolution of the issue?

The Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church describes all these absurdities very diplomatically: “The communiqué of the extraordinary Council of the Hierarchy announced the decision made following the discussion of this report. But who exactly made this decision and in what form remains unclear. <…> Neither on the issue of recognition of Ukrainian non-canonical communities, nor on the issue of approving the decisions of the Permanent Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church for Ukraine, the episcopate voted. <…> There is no official document in the public domain signed by Greek archpastors, which could be considered evidence of a single conciliar decision of the Local Church.”

But the former representative of the EOC in the European Union, Protopresbyter Nikolai Savvopoulos, in an interview with the Greek publication Romthea, called what happened at the Council more straightforwardly - a trick and a synodal coup: “I don’t know if you understand the trick. The bishops were asked to make a decision on an issue that divides all Orthodoxy, and they were unable to study the conclusions of the competent committees to which they themselves entrusted the work of making proposals. Indeed, what kind of “bright” church mind came up with something like that. <…> Even the most recent Greek who followed the Ukrainian issue understood that we were talking about a synodal coup. And there is no doubt that the Church will pay dearly for this great “historic decision” with the destruction of its unity.”

Today it is impossible to determine which of the bishops of the EOC recognizes the OCU and who does not. Because when deciding on the recognition of the OCU at the Council of Bishops of the Orthodox Church, no voting was held. Neither secret, nor named, nothing.

Indeed, when you read the testimonies of the participants in the Greek Council, you never cease to be amazed at how the Greeks arrange something incomprehensible from the Council of Bishops and try to outwit everyone. But apparently they will eventually outsmart themselves.

Actually, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church was faced with a very difficult task - to respond to something that does not exist. There is no voting, no clear decision, no official text. Because of this, at the very beginning of the statement, the Synod referred as a source of information not to official documents, but to the media: “Members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church familiarized themselves with the documents published in the media of the extraordinary Council of the hierarchy of the Greek Orthodox Church...”

Therefore, the question of which of the bishops of the EOC, including the Primate Archbishop Jerome, recognizes and who does not recognize the OCU, will be determined by their specific actions: “If the Ukrainian schism is truly recognized by the Greek Orthodox Church or its primate - in the form of joint service, liturgical commemoration of the leader a schism or the sending of official letters to him - this will become sad evidence of the deepening division in the family of Local Orthodox Churches.” This implies:

The Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church will consider concelebration with representatives of the OCU, remembering them at a service, or sending them official letters as recognition of the OCU

Today there is none of this, but all the circumstances, statements and interviews of the Greek hierarchs say that this will happen soon. And this will deepen the schism in Orthodoxy, which was created by Patriarch Bartholomew.

Also, the statement of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church contains a statement that behind both the actions of Patriarch Bartholomew and the decision of the Council of Greece there are certain geopolitical forces that act in their own interests, using these Local Churches as an instrument of geopolitical struggle: “The full responsibility for this division will fall, first of all , on Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and on those external political forces in whose interests the Ukrainian schism was “legalized.” <…> It’s sad that in this way the historical merits of the Greek people in the spread of Orthodoxy are exchanged for momentary political benefits and support for geopolitical interests alien to the Church.”

There is no need to explain what these geopolitical forces are. From the latest news: “On the eve of Patriarch Bartholomew’s visit, the US Consul General went to Mount Athos.” Those. The Patriarch of Constantinople cannot even travel to Mount Athos without American diplomats first making preparations there.

The Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church was faced with a very difficult task - to respond to something that does not exist. There is no voting, no clear decision, no official text.

But despite the fact that the Greek Church followed the lead of the Phanar and in the near future there will most likely be a concelebration with representatives of the OCU or their commemoration at the liturgy, the Russian Orthodox Church expresses the hope that all this will not be able to create an insurmountable gap between the Greek and Russian Churches, and also between our peoples:

“Speculation on national feelings will not be successful. They will not be able to undermine the unity of our faith, purchased with the blood of the new martyrs and confessors of our Churches. They will not interrupt the unity of our ascetic tradition, created by the exploits of many reverend fathers and ascetics. They will not destroy the centuries-old friendship of the Greek and Slavic peoples, paid for with the blood of Russian soldiers and tempered in the common struggle for the freedom of the fraternal Greek people.

We value prayerful communication with our brothers in the Greek Orthodox Church and will maintain a living prayerful, canonical and Eucharistic connection with it - through all those archpastors and pastors who have already spoken out or will in the future speak out against the recognition of the Ukrainian schism, who will not stain themselves by co-serving with schismatics false hierarchs, but will show an example of Christian courage and firm standing for the truth of Christ.”

Hence the most important thesis of the statement:

Confessors, martyrs and saints - this is the basis for the fact that we will remain the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

Even if someone falls away from Her: in Ukraine, Greece, Turkey or somewhere else...

Kirill Alexandrov

Russian Orthodox Church

On June 21, documents were published, one of which, in particular, sets out some provisions of the draft “Act on Canonical Communion” between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. If it is adopted by the Synods of both jurisdictions and the All-Diaspora Council of the ROCOR, which is to be held in May 2006, the act will come into force and Eucharistic communion and canonical unity will be fully restored between the two parts of the Russian Church.

Published documents - “On the joint work of the commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad”, “On the attitude of the Orthodox Church to heterodox faiths and interfaith organizations”, “On the relationship of the Church and the state”, “Commentary on the joint document of the Commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad “ On the relationship between the Church and the state" - concern issues that for decades were considered by the foreign Church as a stumbling block in relations with the Moscow Patriarchate: the "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in 1927, which marked the path of compromise in relations with the atheistic state for the sake of preserving the hierarchy and the possibility teaching the Sacraments, as well as participating in the ecumenical movement.

In fact, in the published documents, formulations were found that suited both sides and removed the last ideological obstacles to the restoration of all-Russian church unity.

The “Declaration” is certified in them as “a painful, tragic compromise, but not as the free voice of the Church of Christ,” and the temptation of “servility” is brushed aside with references to those points of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, in which the Russian Orthodox Church, under certain circumstances, reserves the right to call for civil disobedience (III.5, III.6, III.8, IV.3, IV.9, V.2).

As for ecumenism, the documents reject any forms of prayerful and liturgical communication with non-Orthodox people, but accept the possibility of cooperation with them in humanitarian areas and joint participation “in socially significant ceremonies.”

These formulations, on the one hand, do not imply the inevitable withdrawal of the Russian Orthodox Church, for example, from the main ecumenical organization - the World Council of Churches, and on the other hand, it strictly regulates the position of the Orthodox in forums of this kind.

The most irreconcilable opponents of unification with the Moscow Patriarchate from among the members of the ROCOR are for the most part priests and laity who fell into a schism within their own jurisdiction, which, after the retirement in 2001 of Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov), the former first hierarch of the Church Abroad, was caused by influential persons from entourage of the elderly ruler. From the point of view of the “irreconcilables,” the readiness of the current hierarchy of the ROCOR to come to terms with certain forms of ecumenical activity of the ROC is tantamount to trampling on the purity of Orthodoxy.

However, if you carefully analyze this point - like all the others that cause rejection of the position of Metropolitan Laurus and the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR among some of its children - it will become clear: the logically sound arguments of the pre-war years and the Cold War era are completely exhausted, if not discredited.

Thus, until the early 1960s, that is, at a time when the foreign First Hierarch was still Metropolitan Anastassy (Gribanovsky), the ruler of the pre-revolutionary “White Guard” generation, far from ecumenical “breadth” of views, the ROCOR itself was a member of the World Council of Churches. And then, having left this organization (not feeling, unlike the Russian Orthodox Church, the need for it for the sake of ideological and political cover from the anti-clerical inclinations of the state), the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad continued, nevertheless, to regularly receive material assistance from the WCC as a Church of refugees.

In addition, the last reasons for enemies of the unification to rigoristically grasp the fact of the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in the WCC should now disappear. WCC General Secretary Samuel Cobia, who was on a visit to Moscow in recent days, said: the special commission on the participation of Orthodox Churches in the ecumenical movement made an eloquent decision at the future General Assembly of the WCC, which will be held in the Brazilian city of Porto Allegree, to no longer organize common prayers, and pray separately by denomination. In addition, decisions of the General Assembly will now be made on the basis of consensus, that is, the Orthodox have the opportunity to “vote out” any definition proposed by the Protestant majority - the main conductor of globalist values in the Christian community that are hated by foreigners.

To be continued

Vadim Polonsky

Act on canonical communion between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Full text

— by this Act we affirm:

1. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, performing its saving ministry in the historically established totality of its dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods and other church institutions, remains an integral self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church.

2. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is independent in matters of pastoral, educational, administrative, economic, property and civil, while being in canonical unity with the entirety of the Russian Orthodox Church.

3. The highest spiritual, legislative, administrative, judicial and supervisory power in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is exercised by its Council of Bishops, convened by its Primate (First Hierarch) in accordance with the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

4. The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is elected by its Council of Bishops. The election is approved, in accordance with the norms of canon law, by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

5. The name of the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as the name of the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, is raised during divine services in all churches of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in front of the name of the ruling bishop, in the prescribed manner.

6. Decisions on the formation or abolition of dioceses included in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are made by its Council of Bishops in agreement with the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

7. The bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are elected by its Council of Bishops or, in cases provided for by the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, by the Synod of Bishops. The election is approved on canonical grounds by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

8. The bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are members of the Local and Bishops' Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church and participate in the prescribed manner in meetings of the Holy Synod. Representatives of the clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia participate in the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in the prescribed manner.

9. The highest authority of church authority for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is the Local and Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church.

10. The decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church are valid in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, taking into account the specifics determined by this Act, the Regulations on the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the legislation of the states in which it carries out its ministry.

11. Appeals against decisions of the highest church-judicial authority of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are submitted to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.

12. Changes made to the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad by its highest legislative authority are subject to approval by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in the event that such changes are of a canonical nature.

13. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia receives holy chrism from the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.

This Act restores canonical communion within the Local Russian Orthodox Church.

Previously issued acts that impeded the fullness of canonical communication are declared invalid or no longer in force.

The restoration of canonical communion will serve, with God’s help, to strengthen the unity of the Church of Christ and the work of its witness in the modern world, contributing to the fulfillment of the will of the Lord “to gather together the scattered children of God as one” (John 11:52).

We give thanks to the All-Merciful God, who with His all-powerful right hand has directed us on the path to healing the wounds of division and led us to the longed-for unity of the Russian Church at home and abroad, for the glory of His Holy Name and for the good of His Holy Church and Her faithful children. Through the prayers of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, may the Lord grant the blessing of the United Russian Church and Her children, in the Fatherland and in the diaspora.

From the site www.patriarchia.ru

The Russian Orthodox Church broke off relations with Constantinople

Author Alexander Storm

10/15/2018 22:00 (Updated: 07/20/2021 15:27)

Religion » Religions of Russia » Orthodoxy

The Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose meeting was held in Minsk, following the results of the meeting, decided to break the Eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The full text of the resolution can be read on the official website of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In particular, this statement says: “Assuming the authority to cancel judicial and other decisions of other Local Orthodox Churches is only one of the manifestations of the new false teaching now proclaimed by the Church of Constantinople and ascribing to the Patriarch of Constantinople the rights of “first without equal” (primus sine paribus) with universal jurisdiction.

“Such a vision by the Patriarchate of Constantinople of its own rights and powers comes into insurmountable contradiction with the centuries-old canonical tradition on which the existence of the Russian Orthodox Church and other Local Churches is based,” warned the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2008 in its definition “On the unity of the Church.”

In the same definition, the Council called on the Church of Constantinople “pending pan-Orthodox consideration of the listed innovations to exercise caution and refrain from steps that could explode Orthodox unity. This especially applies to attempts to revise the canonical limits of the Local Orthodox Churches.”

The decision to break Eucharistic communion was made by the Russian Church after the Patriarchate of Constantinople arbitrarily and single-handedly lifted the anathemas and accepted the schismatic, “patriarch” Philaret (Denisenko) into communion. This figure was deprived of all ranks and titles by the Russian Church and, moreover, was generally anathematized.

The next point is the invasion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate into the canonical territory of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is an integral part of the Russian Orthodox Church. This invasion was carried out under the pretext of “granting autocephaly,” that is, the independence of the Ukrainian Church from the Russian Orthodox Church. BUT the nuance is that the Ukrainian Church did not ask anyone for this. Neither Moscow nor the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

In general, it is worth mentioning here that the problem with such an invasion of Constantinople goes far beyond the scale of Ukraine. In fact, Patriarch Bartholomew and his hierarchs are striking a blow at the entire canonical tradition of Orthodoxy and at Orthodox unity on a global scale.

A number of church hierarchs have already given their unequivocal assessment of the unlawful actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In particular, the Serbian Bishop Irinej (Bulovich) directly stated that the Ecumenical Patriarchate “grants autocephaly to schismatics.”

A few days ago, Archbishop Jerome of Greece refused Patriarch Bartholomew an audience, citing, however, that he was busy. But the hint, as they say, is very transparent. The Primate of the Alexandria Church, Patriarch Theodore, has already visited Odessa on an official visit, where he served the liturgy together with the head of the canonical Ukrainian Church, Metropolitan Onuphry.

Well, the list could go on for a very long time. In any case, in the coming days the heads of all Local Orthodox Churches will express their opinion on the decision of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the latest actions and decisions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

This matter, by the way, has already taken a political turn. Since the problem of the brewing church schism was discussed a couple of days ago at a meeting of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. It is clear that only in the “exchange of opinions” mode do we still have a secular state. But even here the hint is very clear how acute this problem can become.

In principle, there was a break in Eucharistic communion between the Russian Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople recently, in the late nineties, for several weeks, due again to the invasion of Constantinople into the canonical territories of the Russian Church, that time in Estonia. Then the same Patriarch Bartholomew nevertheless backed down somewhat and the problem was resolved peacefully.

Now, in general, the Ecumenical Patriarchate still has the opportunity to cancel its latest decisions before it is completely too late. The schism in Christianity is like this - it occurs much faster than it heals.

On the other hand, judging by the latest statements of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, they are not going to stop, which, of course, is very sad.

In any case, what Orthodoxy will be like in the near future will now be decided by the heads of all local churches, giving their assessment to both Phanar and Moscow. The Belarusian Church, by the way, joined the position of the Russian Orthodox Church...

“Madness in Ukrainian”: Kyiv breaks with Moscow

Curator: Olga Gumanova

Topics of the Russian Orthodox Church UOC schism anathema Patriarch Kirill Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople