[1]ROCOR AUTONOMY –
A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE?
Recently, the idea of eucharistic
communion between the ROCOR and the MP, but without administrative submission
of the former to the latter, has been raised in ROCOR circles. As Dimitri
Gontscharow writes: “In his recent letter to the dioceses of
This idea was first raised, to my
knowledge, by Archbishop Mark of
However, let us look more closely at the
idea of ROCOR autonomy, leaving aside for the moment the question of how and
whether eucharistic communion could ever be justified. Is the proposed autonomy
canonical? Is there any way in which, if certain conditions were met in reality
and not simply on paper, it could guarantee true spiritual life for the ROCOR?
The autonomy of the ROCOR within the MP
could be considered canonical only if the MP bishops who now occupy the same
territories as the ROCOR bishops were voluntarily to resign their sees and go
back to
Nor is that surprising. For the MP is
negotiating from a position of overwhelming strength, and has no desire or need
to disenfranchise its own favoured sons in favour of foreign upstarts whom only
a short time ago it was calling “schismatics”. Even when it granted the
Orthodox Church of America autocephaly – and “autocephaly” implies a much
larger degree of independence than “autonomy” – it did not merge its own sees
and parishes on the American continent into the OCA.
This brings us to the related problem of
relations with the OCA. After the union with the MP, who will be the canonical
bishop of
More fundamentally, as Gontscharow points
out, “if Eucharistic communion occurs between ROCOR and the MP, it is a
violation of the canons for ROCOR to exist as an autonomous church on the same
territory as the OCA. We would have to recognize OCA as the legitimate,
canonical
Will the MP allow Metropolitan Lavr to be
the first-hierarch of the whole of the ROCOR throughout the world? Gontscharow
thinks not. “The MP may allow Met. Lavr to remain in charge of North America,
but if they need to, they can reduce that to the
Moreover, there are several parts of the
world in which the MP has bishops while the ROCOR has only priests and
parishes. Consider my native
So the ROCOR flock in England, if it does
not flee to another jurisdiction, is almost certainly destined to be swallowed
up in the MP diocese of Sourozh – perhaps the most liberal and ecumenist in the
whole of that ecumenist organisation! If the ROCOR leadership cared for their
flock in
Another point to be considered is the fact
that autonomous Churches are usually created to “accommodate”, as it were, a
foreign nationality, or the flock of the
Of course, the ROCOR has existed since the
early 1920s as an autonomous Church on the basis of Patriarch Tikhon’s ukaz
of November 7/20, 1920, which envisaged the existence of autonomous groups of
Russian bishops for as long as a central church administration did not exist or
could not be contacted. But that kind of autonomy will cease to exist
immediately the ROCOR enters into eucharistic communion with the MP and
recognises the MP Patriarch as its canonical head. The ROCOR cannot have it
both ways: it cannot have the kind of complete control of its own affairs (more
like autocephaly than autonomy) that it had as long as it considered Patriarch
Tikhon’s ukaz to be in force and the MP Patriarch to be uncanonical,
while at the same time being in eucharistic communion with the “Mother Church”
and recognising the MP Patriarch to be its canonical head.
Gontscharow goes on to point out that “the
documents produced by the joint commissions… do indeed described this
self-styled ‘autonomy’ that ROCOR will enjoy, but they also include very
specific language that is important to remember. The documents state that all
matters outside the ROCOR’s purview will be decided by the MP’s synod in
Let us speculate what matters may be
considered by the MP to be “outside the ROCOR’s purview”: ownership of church
property, choice of liturgical language and liturgical practice in general,
including liturgical calendar, sacramental practice (e.g. immersion or
sprinkling at baptism), membership of the WCC, communion with the Catholics,
Monophysites and others, confirmation of the election of a new chief-hierarch,
perhaps all important church appointments, support both open and covert for the
KGB-FSB, loyalty to the Russian government at all times, including time of
war.
I have emphasised the phrase loyalty to
the Russian government at all times, including time of war to show that
those living outside Russia should not expect to be free of political demands
from the MP inside Russia. Of course, it was Metropolitan Sergius’ demand that
the ROCOR bishops swear allegiance to the
For even as I write the neo-Soviet regime
of Putin has begun to flex its political muscles by increasing the price of gas
exported to the Ukraine fourfold, which is likely to have an enormous knock-on
effect on energy prices throughout the world. If this conflict escalates into
another cold, or even hot war, then the ROCOR will have to choose its
loyalties: to the Western States in which it lives, or to neo-Soviet Russia,
including the neo-Soviet MP. Only this time the decision to break with
Then, perhaps, we shall see the fulfilment
of the prophecy of Elder Ignaty of Harbin: “What began in
Vladimir Moss.
December 21 /
January 3, 2005/2006.
St. Peter,
Metropolitan of