PATRIARCHATE AND CHURCH FREEDOM

Interview with Georgy Kochetkov

, Rector of the Holy Filaret Orthodox Christian Institute

February 5 marks 430 years since the day of the first establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. Now this one way of managing the church seems unshakable and almost primordial, but in its thousand-year history the Russian Church had patriarchy and patriarchs for a little more than two centuries.

Oleg Glagolev: Father George, has the understanding of the patriarchate as a way of church government and the understanding of the service of the patriarch changed over these 430 years?

Priest Georgy Kochetkov: Certainly, the patriarchate was not a primordial phenomenon in the church, and its content in history changed. The patriarchate, which originated somewhere in the V-VI century, was a consequence of the development of the principles of the dispensation of the church, characteristic of Constantinian [1] period. All this involved the protection of the emperor and the inclusion of the church in the administrative structure of the empire. The patriarchate simply could not have arisen when the church increasingly adopted features from the monarchical state, in which unity of command was primarily valued. Even the coming of Christ began to be viewed as the manifestation of such unity of command in the faith and in the spiritual life of people, which unites all peoples, different provinces and countries. The patriarch was perceived precisely in the context of the “symphonic” relations of church and state and was in some sense an attribute of the Orthodox Eastern Roman Byzantine Empire. In the Western Roman Empire, a similar place was occupied by the pope. The state looked at the church as its part - everything in the empire was an organizing and fastening principle. And the church began to look at the emperor as a bishop from outside. There was such a mutual recognition of the church and the state. It corresponded to the local parish [2], more precisely, to the local diocese [3] church organization — a special ecclesiology, different from those ecclesiologies that could exist before Constantine the Great. I have in mind both the Eucharistic ecclesiology [4] and the communal fraternal [5]. The patriarch, of course, was an important figure in this vertical of secular and spiritual power,

Since Russia adopted Christianity in the Constantinian period, all features of the Byzantine patriarchate directly apply to our Russian patriarchs before Peter the Great. Under the spell of Protestantism, Emperor Peter I abolished the patriarchate to reduce the influence of the church. The synodal period begins, and the patriarchate is renewed only in 1917, almost simultaneously with the Bolshevik coup.

Oleg Glagolev: What is the fundamental difference between the patriarchate of the pre-natal period and the later - the Soviet and post-Soviet patriarchate?

Priest Georgy Kochetkov: The way the patriarchate was thought from 1589 to 1700, I have already said in brief. After the synodal period, the patriarchate was restored almost during the Bolshevik coup. In 1917, the Constantine era of the life of the church ended, and everything changed radically. The desire for patriarchy before the revolution, during the synodal period, could somehow be justified, explained by the desire to be free from the excessive influence of the state and return to the previous norms of church life, which were somehow consolidated by the canons of the church. However, when the Bolshevik coup took place and the question of electing a patriarch was quickly raised at the Moscow Council of 1917-1918, it was assumed that he would be the figure who would be able to resist any lawlessness, theomachist and God-hating sentiments, deny all churchly. If before the October coup it was possible to justify the idea of ​​restoring the patriarchate, then after - hardly. In addition, the majority of the members of the cathedral did not vote for this restoration. As is now well known, on the day of voting on the need to elect a patriarch there were only 220 people - less than half of the participants in the council. As a result, the election was in favor of only a quarter of the total number of councils.

Of course, the figure of the patriarch under the atheist government was very vulnerable. Through one person it was much easier to manipulate the church, and by neutralizing it, it was generally possible to paralyze all church governance. Patriarch Tikhon (Bellavin) tried to fight it. He wanted to increase the autonomy of individual dioceses and give them greater independence. He, of course, wanted to feel like a real patriarch of pre-Petrine time, but fell under the “red wheel” and, though not immediately, but had to make big compromises with anti-church authority. Still, he, as he could, decently carried out his ministry in such times that the church had not seen from a century, and he was canonized by his merits and is now revered in our church.

Seriously, the post-synodal patriarchate began after Patriarch Tikhon and after the inter-Triumphant period, which lasted from 1925 to 1943, when at a certain moment of power — namely the Stalinist, Communist, God-fighting-power — it became advantageous to make a bet on such a church structure. Under the Soviet patriarchate, the church became the least independent, the least capable of any free existence, free action and expression. This type of patriarchate, which existed until the end of the Soviet power in our country, fell into the post-Constantine period. It would be time to somehow change the perception of the norm of church organization, but no one dared to do this. The patriarch became a self-sufficient figure in the church and in this sense an increasingly crowning rigid vertical of church authority, which is not very useful for the church.

So the patriarchate is now a very disputed thing and, perhaps, an anachronistic one. In general, during the Soviet era, even after 1943, it would have been necessary for Christians to think about the decentralization of the church, and this would be useful. Unfortunately, neither the state nor the church saw such an opportunity and did not want it. But after the fall of the Soviet regime, the church could work out its own structure without turning back to the Constantine or Soviet periods of its history. Unfortunately, this was not done, and therefore the church again became immensely dependent on the state, and it itself developed such a cleric model of its internal structure. It seems to me that this should be very alarming for all of us, church people: both clergy and laity — all people who support the Church of Christ in our country and in Orthodoxy in general.

Oleg Glagolev: Why is the question of church government not being asked now? Is it only because of the power that those who now control the church do not want to give, or is there some kind of detachment from tradition, a one-dimensional understanding of how the church can be arranged at all? At the Council of 1917-1918, not only the variants of the patriarchate and non-patriarchate were considered, but they also offered different models and types of the structure of the Russian Church. They argued about what should be the patriarchate, and what should not, and so on. Now the impression is that they have finally determined the final model of the kingdom of heaven on earth. Why did it happen so?

Priest George Kochetkov: The fact is that the hierarchs, the episcopate, have neither the internal need to change anything, nor the external possibility. They see no other way to control than the existing one. This is the logical end of both the Constantine era and the post-Constantine era — a time when the old had not yet completely gone, and the new was not yet defined and did not make way for itself. Bishops, who are responsible for ecclesiastical government, are usually very pessimistic about the church as such, the role of the laity, priesthood, monasticism, and so on. They lack faith in this very church today, and they do not trust anyone but themselves. This prevents them from seeing the church as a kind of conciliar unity, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, and not by these or other not always conscientious pastors. When you listen to sincere statements on this score of bishops or priests, you see that there is some kind of despondency, some kind of hopeless sadness. After all, clericalism is not just a method of management, it is such a belief that only the hierarchy can change something for the better and should not be given freedom to anyone else, because it is dangerous. Although it is said by the apostle: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17), for some reason this is not attributed to the church structure and relations between believers. And since there is no freedom, there is no respect for the person’s identity, that is, there is no faith in the person. But Christianity is faith in God and in man, so some of the most important foundations of church life, of church life, are diminished here, which can only be regretted. After all, clericalism is not just a method of management, it is such a belief that only the hierarchy can change something for the better and should not be given freedom to anyone else, because it is dangerous. Although it is said by the apostle: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17), for some reason this is not attributed to the church structure and relations between believers. And since there is no freedom, there is no respect for the person’s identity, that is, there is no faith in the person. But Christianity is faith in God and in man, so some of the most important foundations of church life, of church life, are diminished here, which can only be regretted. After all, clericalism is not just a method of management, it is such a belief that only the hierarchy can change something for the better and should not be given freedom to anyone else, because it is dangerous. Although it is said by the apostle: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17), for some reason this is not attributed to the church structure and relations between believers. And since there is no freedom, there is no respect for the person’s identity, that is, there is no faith in the person. But Christianity is faith in God and in man, so some of the most important foundations of church life, of church life, are diminished here, which can only be regretted. for some reason, this is not attributed to the church structure and relations between believers. And since there is no freedom, there is no respect for the person’s identity, that is, there is no faith in the person. But Christianity is faith in God and in man, so some of the most important foundations of church life, of church life, are diminished here, which can only be regretted. for some reason, this is not attributed to the church structure and relations between believers. And since there is no freedom, there is no respect for the person’s identity, that is, there is no faith in the person. But Christianity is faith in God and in man, so some of the most important foundations of church life, of church life, are diminished here, which can only be regretted.

Oleg Glagolev: One of the main arguments that was brought about the election of Patriarch Tikhon, and still is, is that the patriarch is the guarantor of the unity of the church. This visible unity, which is associated with the figure of the patriarch, and that which is expressed in the Creed with the words: "I believe in the One ... Church," is the same thing? Or is there a gap between these two understandings of unity?

Priest Georgy Kochetkov: Naturally there is, and this gap is crying. Christian unity is defined by “the unity of the spirit in the unity of the world” (Eph 4: 3), the unity of faith, the unity of life, the unity of love in the spirit of freedom and truth. When the church government is set as the guarantor of unity, nothing comes of it. Patriarch Tikhon did not succeed in this; no one succeeds. And now it is not by chance that such conflict situations arise when the church actually splits, disintegrates both on the general Orthodox world level, and on the level of our church - the largest Orthodox church. The whole XX century stands under the sign of the disintegration of this unity in connection with ideological processes, nationalist movements, interchurch claims - that is, primarily for political reasons. So, the Finnish Orthodox Church departed from the Russian Church, The Polish Orthodox Church, the Czechoslovak, American and Canadian ... The Japanese Orthodox Church, with difficulty, autonomously, with great losses is preserved. Ukraine is still holding up, but, already, as we see, it is a big question, because the political situation is now extremely unfavorable for the church unity of the Russian Church. Nationalist sentiments are growing in all churches, except perhaps for the Russian in the Russian Federation. All this does not contribute to unity, and no figure of the patriarch even can preserve the appearance of this unity, nor can it be guaranteed. because the political situation is now extremely unfavorable for the church unity of the Russian Church. Nationalist sentiments are growing in all churches, except perhaps for the Russian in the Russian Federation. All this does not contribute to unity, and no figure of the patriarch even can preserve the appearance of this unity, nor can it be guaranteed. because the political situation is now extremely unfavorable for the church unity of the Russian Church. Nationalist sentiments are growing in all churches, except perhaps for the Russian in the Russian Federation. All this does not contribute to unity, and no figure of the patriarch even can preserve the appearance of this unity, nor can it be guaranteed.

Oleg Glagolev: This Ukrainian and Western European crisis, associated with an attempt to oust the Russian Orthodoxy by the Constantinople Patriarchate in Europe, will somehow strongly affect understanding of the role of hierarchy in the church, understanding of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch and which of the Orthodox churches is “higher in honor” and worthy to lead all orthodoxy and represent it in the world?

Priest Georgy Kochetkov: The impact of the current crisis on the understanding of the church structure, of course, is and will be - but rather from the opposite. How not to: in Ukraine, in Istanbul, in Moscow and so on. Everyone understands that not to solve all the issues at all-Orthodox meetings and councils, not to solve all questions only by the forces of the hierarchy, especially not by political or nationalist forces. It is necessary to resolve church issues from within the church: through enlightening the people, through uniting it with the union of peace and love - through community life and fraternal life in the church, through the revelation and revival of these very principles on which the church stands from the first day of Christianity. This is the way out. And the next manipulation of the hierarchy will not give anything. They may temporarily cover up a little something, and there are also big doubts about this.

The hierarchy entered a period of its crisis, just like everything that had emerged in the Constantine period of church history: the canonical system, the understanding of liturgical sacraments and dogma. No one can cancel this, the story can not be turned back. It is necessary to build other forms of church existence, it is necessary to change priorities, to recall and reflect anew who and what is primary in the Church, and what is secondary, it is necessary to build other relations within the churches and between the churches. Even the question of what comes first: the community or the temple must be solved anew. There is every reason to think that in the future in the church the faithful community should again come first. And then it is necessary to determine who are the faithful and what is this community. And then - what role does worship and the temple play in this? Most likely, the temple will be assigned a secondary role here. The temple of the community, the brotherhood, at the church, and not the church - at the temple, the community - at the temple, brotherhood - at the temple. These are all questions of fundamental importance, which require the revival of faith in the Church, which require a serious revival of church conciliarity and personality. This is now the main problem in church life, which is directly related to the problem of the existence of the patriarchate as such in the Russian Church, but in the same way in all other Orthodox churches.

Oleg Glagolev: Do you think it would be better now if the church moves to some system of individual dioceses? But any model with dioceses - with or without a patriarch - is still tied to the territory of a certain country or region ...

Priest Georgy Kochetkov: Therefore, I did not say anything about the diocese, nor about the territory - these are all attributes of the Constantine period: everything that binds the church too firmly not to society, but to the state and makes it unnecessarily dependent. So, it needs to be changed somehow. The Diocese is an administrative entity, completely unchurched, not to mention inter-diocesan formations: metropolises, patriarchates, and so on.

Oleg Glagolev: So, this is an anachronism?

Priest Georgy Kochetkov: Certainly. The church must again become the totality and unity of the ecclesiastical communities and fraternities gathered in love, which are not rigidly connected with the territory, with one or another form of government and social organization. Such unity in the love of independent communities is possible and necessary, but it, of course, requires a lot of work — first, enlighten all the people — and requires that every Christian clearly understands which community he is, who he is responsible for, he does in church what he seeks and what he refuses from. This is something that, unfortunately, is not now, but that should definitely be. It is clear that in a moment this does not work, and in one year too. There must be and always will be some kind of intermediate forms, when both will exist simultaneously,

Oleg Glagolev: So, the hierarchy must somehow prepare the church for this transition into a new reality?

Priest George Kochetkov: Yes. Both the hierarchy and all responsible people in the church must prepare it for this rebirth, for this new dispensation, for a new life in new conditions.

References:

[1] The Constantinian period - the period of church history of the middle of the 4th - the beginning of the 20th century is associated with the name of the first Christian emperor Constantine the Great (c. 272-337), after which Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. With the numerical growth of the church, greater centralization and unification of its structure, the Constantine period was characterized by the erosion of ideas about membership in it, as well as an uncharacteristic for Christianity shift of emphasis towards the rite and worship.

[2] The local parish (diocese) is a model of church organization in which the church assembly is “assigned” to a certain territory (place). The local church consists of regional dioceses (dioceses), the diocese is divided into large areas of decency, in each deed there are parishes within the area of ​​a city or a whole village.

[3] From dioceses (from the Greek. Διοίκησις - management) - a city and administrative unit in the Roman Empire.

[4] Eucharistic ecclesiology (end of II-III century) suggests that the boundaries of the church meeting are equal to the coming together of Laity (from Greek λαός - people of God) - those who regularly and responsibly participate in the main prayer of the church - the Eucharist. The concept of Eucharistic ecclesiology was proposed in the 20th century. An outstanding Russian theologian, Protopresbyter Nikolai Afanasiev, who worked in emigration.

[5] Fraternal community ecclesiology (I-II centuries) is based on the evangelical collegium of apostles - the spiritual family of brothers and sisters adopted in Christ to God the Father, who “were together and had everything in common” (Acts 2:44).

[6] Clerical community is a model of church organization in which the authority is on the clergy and church hierarchy, and not of the whole church people, is in the center, in which everyone, according to the Holy Scripture, has the dignity of a king, priest and prophet (cf. 1 Pet 2: 9).

Source: https://rusplt.ru/church/patriarshestvo-svoboda-tserkvi-35499.html