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