The unification of Russian Orthodox churches is a personal victory for Vladimir Putin, who made a lot of efforts for this. Russian priests walked towards this historical event for eighty long years. Now their dreams have come true. Today, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROC), separated as a result of the 1917 revolution and civil war, are uniting. This will be evidenced by the Act on Canonical Communion of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Russian Orthodox Church, signed in Moscow, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior on May 17, 2007.

However, one should not think that this event is exclusively intra-church. After all, not only the church is united, but also its large flock, scattered throughout the world. In fact, today will be the final point in the civil war, which divided the Russian people into “red” and “white”.

And this means that not only Russian Orthodoxy is strengthening, but also Russia as a whole, whose influence in the world will undoubtedly increase. It is not surprising that the unification of the Russian church had both supporters and opponents, which is why the unification process sometimes resembled a detective story.

Word of the Patriarch

Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus' first spoke about the need for reconciliation between the Russian Orthodox Church and the foreign church back in the early 90s.

However, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church greeted the proposal from Moscow with caution. And how could it be otherwise? After all, they fought against the church in the USSR for decades, accusing it of serving a godless government and departing from the ideals of pure Orthodoxy.

And although in the early 90s, Soviet power in Russia collapsed, and the church rose from its knees, the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church were in no hurry to get closer to Moscow. Even though many of them could see for themselves how the attitude towards the church was changing in the former Soviet country. Fortunately, the Iron Curtain collapsed and foreign priests began to visit their historical homeland. At first - incognito. To understand whether the revival of the church is a propaganda campaign. In addition, it was necessary to make sure that the changes in Russia were serious and long-lasting.

Crucial moment

In 2000, the anniversary Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church took place in Moscow. He made a great impression on foreign hierarchs.

Firstly, then the family of Emperor Nicholas II, the royal passion-bearers (the Russian Orthodox Church canonized them back in the 1970s) and more than a thousand Russian new martyrs were canonized.

Secondly, the cathedral adopted the basis of the “Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” which clearly outlined the relationship of the church with the state. The document, in particular, says: “If the government forces Orthodox believers to apostatize from Christ and His Church, to commit sinful, spiritually harmful acts, the Church must refuse to obey the state.”

In addition, the atheistic Soviet government was condemned.

Changes were also taking place abroad. In 2001, Metropolitan Vitaly ceded the post of first hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church to Metropolitan Laurus, who was one of those priests who visited Russia incognito and thought about reunification.

Negotiation process

However, the priests sat down at the negotiating table only 4 years ago. The Russian government contributed greatly to this. In September 2003, Vladimir Putin met in New York (where the headquarters of the Russian Orthodox Church is located) with the head of the foreign church, Metropolitan Laurus of Eastern America and New York, and he became convinced that the supreme power in Russia was not headed by an atheist. And Putin, in turn, invited Metropolitan Laurus to visit Russia. And from myself personally, and from Patriarch Alexy II.

Just two months later, the official delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church came to Russia for the first time. And in May 2004, Metropolitan Laurus also came to Moscow on an official visit. Then he participated in the annual service of Alexy II at the Butovo training ground in Moscow. During the years of repression, over 20 thousand people were shot here, among whom were hundreds of priests. And then Alexy II and Laurus consecrated the foundation stone of the temple in honor of the New Martyrs of Russia.

And at the end of 2003, commissions were created on both sides that began to prepare for the unification.

Resistance

Today, when all the papers have been completed, supporters of the unification can breathe easy. Although their opponents constantly tried to put a spoke in the wheels. For example, Metropolitan Vitaly, who resigned from the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2001, after a while suddenly decided to “regain” his ruling post and displace Metropolitan Laurus, who was determined to get closer to Moscow. However, Laurus retained his post. But Vitaly and his associates managed to break off only a few communities. In 2006, Metropolitan Vitaly died.

Nevertheless, his followers did not let up even when the date of unification had already been announced. Because at stake were both considerable wealth and serious ideological influence, which Russia receives as a result of the reunification of Russian churches. After all, the flock of the Russian Orthodox Church scattered all over the world will feel like an integral part of their historical Motherland. And with its help, Russia will feel geopolitically stronger.

And it will certainly be easier for the Moscow Patriarchate to resist the attempts of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to tear Ukrainian dioceses away from Russia and to fight the schismatics of the Russian Church who are supported by the United States.

In the end it came down to the dirtiest technologies. On the eve of the historical moment, a rumor about the death of Alexy II was launched into the newspapers, which, according to some sources, was spread in order to disrupt the signing of the Reconciliation Act. Several American newspapers even published calls for priests to hand over tickets to Russia, since “due to the death of the Patriarch, the unification will not take place.” But the Patriarch, thank God, is alive and well, and all attempts to disrupt the unification of the Russian Church failed.

How will everything happen?

The act of canonical communion between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church will be signed in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior by Patriarch Alexy II and Metropolitan Laurus, after which Russian and foreign priests will hold the first joint divine service. More than 70 priests from foreign churches arrived in Moscow for the festive celebrations.

At their request, during the service the Royal Doors will be open even during communion (as on Easter week). This will be done so that the laity can see how Patriarch Alexy II and Metropolitan Laurus receive communion from the same cup for the first time.

The celebrations will end on May 20 with a service in the historically main cathedral church of Rus' - the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, which will be led by Alexy II. After this, the foreign guests will disperse to Russian dioceses. Metropolitan Laurus will visit Kursk and Kyiv, and on Trinity Sunday he will celebrate the liturgy in the Trinity Cathedral of the Pachaev Lavra in Ukraine, which was built by the first head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky.

What does unification promise to the foreign church?

According to the Act on Canonical Communion, a foreign church becomes an integral part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church, maintaining independence in administrative, economic, property and civil matters.

The Patriarch and the Holy Synod will only approve the election of new first hierarchs and bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. And the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church will take part in meetings of the Holy Synod and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church and solve all church-wide problems on an equal basis with their brothers from Russia.

Foreign priests will also be able to serve the liturgy on Mount Athos and on the holy land in Jerusalem, which they could not do before. And the symbolic connection between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church will be expressed in the fact that the name of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' will be commemorated at services abroad.

HELP "KP"

Today the Russian Orthodox Church has 27,393 parishes. Half of them are in Russia. The rest are in Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Estonia...

According to Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, the flock of the Russian Orthodox Church is about 150 million people.

The Russian Church Abroad has about 300 parishes, located mainly in the USA and Canada, as well as in Australia and South America. In Western Europe, the Russian Church Abroad has parishes in Germany, France and Great Britain.

FROM THE HISTORY OF THE QUESTION

From the very beginning, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad called itself the “white church”, and the one that remained in its homeland called itself the “red”. And it all began with the fact that in 1919 a temporary Higher Church Administration of the south of Russia was created in Stavropol, covering the territory controlled by the White Army. When the White Guards left Russia, the priests emigrated with them, deciding to support the Russian exiles in a foreign land. So in 1920, the Higher Church Administration found itself in Constantinople. Then, in 1921, the High Church Authority moved to the territory of the United Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later called Yugoslavia). The Serbian Patriarch Dimitri provided his residence to the Russian bishops. And soon an All-Diaspora Church Meeting took place, proclaiming itself an All-Diaspora Council, which issued a political appeal to the Russian believers. It, in particular, spoke of the need to return the tsar from the House of Romanov to the throne. Supported myself
r and intervention against Soviet Russia.

After this, Patriarch Tikhon, who remained in his homeland, was demanded to defrock foreign bishops. He didn't. But he announced that their political statements do not reflect the position of the Russian Church.

In 1927 (after the death of Tikhon, the Russian Church lost its patriarchate for many years), Metropolitan Sergius issued a message that became the final bone of contention. It stated that the church was not involved in politics, and that the establishment of Soviet power was not an accident, but the right hand of God.

Since then, the foreign church has ceased all relations with the church authorities in Moscow.

Even during the Great Patriotic War, foreign priests openly rejoiced over the German invasion of the USSR.

While the church in the Motherland shared the people's grief, and Metropolitan Sergius excommunicated the priests who sided with fascism. After this, in 1943, Stalin accepted Sergius and allowed him to become patriarch.

But, despite all the disagreements, the regulations on the Russian Orthodox Church still in force from 1956 state that the foreign church is an inextricable part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church, temporarily self-governing until the abolition of godless power in Russia.

EXPERT OPINIONS

Russia will become stronger

Secondly, the unification will lead to a strengthening of the political role of the Russian Orthodox Church. In addition, it will become more religious and pure, since pre-revolutionary principles have been preserved in the foreign church.

Thirdly, it becomes possible to strengthen Russian foreign policy, since the foreign church has quite a lot of parishes. And these are essentially non-governmental organizations that play a serious role in the world.

In general, this unification helps strengthen the unity of the country and seriously strengthen Russia. And I believe that May 17, 2007 should be declared a holiday.

And I would also like to note that this is a great personal victory for Vladimir Putin and his confessor, Archpriest Tikhon Shevkunov, who were the main organizers of the association.

True, this victory can be balanced by a breakaway of the Ukrainian Church, which Yushchenko and Tymoshenko are preparing. These processes are part of a larger policy that is being waged against Russia.

Bishop MARK, Deputy Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate:

- We view this event primarily as symbolic. Socially, the church (that is, the people who make it up) was divided. People in different countries, having the same faith, could not perform joint worship. Now such an opportunity will appear. That is, the church that talks about peace and reconciliation is itself an example of reconciliation.

On the other hand, this event also has national significance. As Patriarch Alexy says, the church is separated from the state, but not separated from the people. And our people were split. There was an atmosphere of mistrust between those people who were in different communities. And this church unification means the spiritual unification of people in different countries of the world who consider themselves Orthodox Russians.

Boris Knorre, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Humanities, on how the churches split and reunited

In the first years of Soviet power, of all the religious organizations in Russia, it was the Orthodox Church, which was considered the main force supporting the monarchy, that was subjected to the greatest persecution. At first, other religious groups were even given a certain freedom, because the Soviet government saw their allies in them. Seeing what was happening in Russia, the bishops of our church who cared for parishes abroad, as well as those who found themselves in exile, announced the creation of a temporary Higher Church Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad.

At first, this was not yet a break with the church that remained in Russia. But in 1927, the deputy patriarchal locum tenens, Bishop Sergius of Stragorodsky, who then led the Russian Orthodox Church, issued a special declaration of the church’s loyalty to the Soviet government (later the policy of cooperation between the church and the Soviet government was called Sergianism). After this, the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR decided to end relations with the church in Russia, which was recognized as absolutely unfree and controlled by a godless government. This break, however, was perceived not as final, but as temporary and forced, which should end with the fall of the atheistic regime.

The unification of the churches could not happen immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, because differences had accumulated between them over the decades of Soviet power. There were three main differences.

Firstly, Sergianism. “Zarubezhniki” accused priests from the Soviet Union of collaborating with the Soviet government and demanded repentance for this. The bishops from the Moscow Patriarchate responded that the church in Russia is a hard-earned one. It may not be as pure as foreign ones, but the “foreigners” did not endure the suffering and persecution that church leaders had to endure in the USSR, so they have no right to judge.

Secondly, ecumenism. The Church Abroad adhered to a more conservative position regarding ecumenism, that is, communication with non-Orthodox people.

Thirdly, the reluctance of the church in Russia to glorify the holy martyrs of the 20th century and, in particular, the royal family (“foreigners” remained monarchists to the end, and the church in the USSR, of course, moved away from monarchical ideals).

1991-1992 were precisely the years of the greatest confrontation between the two churches, because the “foreigners” began to actively open their parishes in Russia, exacerbating the confrontation.

But over time, the situation began to change. Seeing that a real revival of church life was taking place in Russia, and that its scale was completely incomparable with what could be counted on in Europe and other countries, the “foreigners” began to gradually change their position. The turning point was the year 2000, when the new martyrs who suffered in the 20th century were glorified, and then the royal family. One of the provisions in the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church was considered a rejection of Sergianism, which obliges the church to “refuse obedience to the state”, “if the government forces Orthodox believers to apostatize from Christ and His Church, as well as to commit sinful, harmful acts” (OSK ROC , § III. 5).

And finally, the “foreigners” saw that ecumenical tendencies were subsiding and the conservative trend was gaining strength.

The secular authorities in Russia were also interested in restoring church unity; in particular, Vladimir Putin met with the hierarchs of the ROCOR in 2003 and conveyed to them an invitation from Patriarch Alexy II and on his own behalf to visit Russia. All this led to the fact that in 2007 the heads of churches signed the Act of Canonical Communion, which put an end to the division.

Now the ROCOR exists as a relatively autonomous structure, but subordinate to the main strategic decisions of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. True, not all members of the foreign church wanted to accept the act of canonical communion, which is why independent “splinters” of the ROCOR still exist.

The opinion of experts does not represent the position of the university

The history of the ROCOR (otherwise it is called the “foreign”, “Karlovak”, or “Synodal” church) began during the years of the civil war, when the south of Russia was occupied by the White army. In May 1919, a Church Council was held there, establishing a Temporary Higher Church Administration, which was headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev as the oldest Russian hierarch. The first meeting of the Directorate took place in November 1920 on a ship traveling from Crimea with refugees to Constantinople, the city that it was decided to choose as its place of residence.

The canonical basis for the existence of the ROCOR is Resolution of Patriarch Tikhon, the Synod and the Supreme Church Administration No. 362, issued during the civil war in 1920 and allowing bishops who found themselves out of touch with the central church administration to create temporary associations.

However, soon, by the decision of the Serbian Council of Bishops, Metropolitan Anthony was given the patriarchal palace in Sremski Karlovci (Yugoslavia), where in November 1921 a Church Council opened, which did not openly recognize communist power in Russia; in response to this, under pressure from the Bolsheviks, Patriarchal Decree 348 was issued, abolishing the Supreme Church Administration.

The subsequent, in May 1923, Council of Bishops (with the personal participation of 12 bishops and with written reviews from sixteen others) decided that the highest body of the ROCOR was the annual Council chaired by Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev.

The final break in relations with Moscow occurred at the end of the 20s, when, after the adoption in 1927 of the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) on loyalty to the Soviet government and the possibility of cooperation with it, signatures under this declaration began to be required from Russian Orthodox bishops who were abroad, which , of course, was unacceptable to them.

In parallel with the ROCOR abroad, the Archdiocese (exarchate) of Russian Orthodox parishes in Western Europe also arose, founded in Paris by Metropolitan Eulogius (Georgievsky) and which came under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical (Constantinople) Patriarch. A small part of Russian emigrants remained faithful to the Moscow Patriarchate.

During the Second World War, the new leadership of the ROCOR had to move the Council of Bishops to Munich and cooperate with the Nazi authorities.

In 1950, its Foreign Synod moved to New York.

The ROCOR did not have full-blooded relations with the Moscow Patriarchate due to disagreements that existed since the Karlovac period. Representatives of the foreign church named two main obstacles to unity. First of all, this is “Sergianism” and “ecumenism” - the cooperation of the Russian Orthodox Church with the godless Soviet government (declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of 1927) and the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in the ecumenical movement - the movement towards the unity of all Christian denominations, including Catholics and Protestants. Special criticism The Russian Orthodox Church's membership in the World Council of Churches is being affected, but representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church believe that concessions to Soviet power were the only possible condition for preserving the church institution in the country, and participation in the ecumenical movement is necessary for witnessing Orthodoxy in the outside world.

The process of reunification of the Russian Church turned out to be difficult. After the collapse of the USSR, the hierarchs of the foreign church demanded repentance from the Moscow Patriarchate for years of collaboration with atheists, while at the same time accepting a number of parishes in Russia under their jurisdiction, which only worsened the schism. Thus, despite the liberation of the Church in Russia from communist oppression, the schism of the Russian Church remained. Calls for a return to the bosom of the Mother Church, which repeatedly came from the Moscow Patriarchate, were not accepted abroad.

On April 1, 2003, Patriarch Alexy II sent a message addressed to the hierarchs leading various Orthodox branches of Russian origin. There are three such branches: the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (ROC), the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) and the Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople for parishes of the Russian tradition in Western Europe.

Patriarch Alexy II proposed a plan that provided for the creation of a semi-independent Metropolitan District, uniting all “branches” of the Russian Church under the formal leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate and with the prospect of granting autocephaly in the foreseeable future.

However, the dialogue with ROCOR that began soon moved much further than the stalled process of forming a metropolitan district in Western Europe.

The diplomatic mission of Russian President V. Putin played a key role in this process. While on a visit to America in September 2003, the President met with the First Hierarch of the ROCOR, Metropolitan Laurus, and members of the ROCOR Synod and conveyed to them an invitation from the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II to visit Russia and establish dialogue.

On November 17, 2003, Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, Archbishop Hilarion of Sydney and Australia and New Zealand, and Bishop Kirill of San Francisco and Western America arrived in Moscow for a meeting with Patriarch Alexy II. This was not the first time that the most prominent hierarchs of the ROCOR visited the Russian capital, but this visit took place at the official invitation of the Patriarch and the blessing of the head of the foreign church, Metropolitan Laurus.

On November 18, 2003, a closed meeting of the visiting bishops with members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church took place.

On November 19, 2003, the second, extended round of negotiations between Patriarch Alexy II and the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad ended at the patriarchal residence in the Moscow St. Daniel Monastery. All members of the foreign delegation and members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church took part in it. The meeting participants discussed the problems of rapprochement between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Church Abroad, and also created commissions to work on problems that impede unification. The delegation of the Church Abroad "expressed a request to forgive all harsh statements addressed to the Moscow Patriarchate."

On December 13 - 17, 2003, the Church Abroad held a Council of Bishops, the main topic of which was the further fate of the Russian Church Abroad and the ways of its rapprochement with the Church in the Fatherland. On the eve of the Council, Patriarch Alexy sent a special message to its participants calling on them to overcome the tragic division between the two parts of the Russian Church. At the same time, His Holiness expressed repentance for those words and deeds that did not contribute to reconciliation. The Council accepted the appeal to the flock and approved the text of the response message to Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus'.

The meeting participants considered the issue of the timing of the visit of the First Hierarch of the Church Abroad, Metropolitan Laurus, to Russia.

The commissions, which were established in December 2003 by the clergy of both sides, were tasked with developing a joint understanding of the following topics: the principles of relations between the Church and the state; about the principles of relations between the Orthodox Church and non-Orthodox communities, as well as interfaith organizations, corresponding to the tradition of the Church; about the status of the ROCOR as a self-governing part of the ROC; on the canonical conditions for establishing Eucharistic communion.

From May 14 to 28, 2004, a visit of the ROCOR delegation and an epoch-making meeting and negotiations between two high priests, the heads of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (ROC) Patriarch Alexy II and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) Metropolitan Laurus took place. Their main result was that they managed to find a common language, coordinate approaches and express the common desire of the parties to unite. At the negotiations, it was also recognized as necessary to continue the general scientific and historical study of church events of the twentieth century, in particular the feat of the holy new martyrs and confessors of Russia and the experience of the existence of the Church in conditions of persecution.

The pilgrimage of the ROCOR delegation to Russian shrines - to Yekaterinburg, Kursk, Nizhny Novgorod and Diveevo - once again assured foreign bishops and priests that the Orthodox faith in Rus' has not disappeared. The final visit of Patriarch Alexy and Metropolitan Laurus to President Putin, who received them in Novoogarevo, strengthened the negotiation process.

From June 22 to June 24, 2004, the first working meeting of the commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad took place in the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate on the territory of the St. Danilov Monastery in Moscow. The commission's chairman, Archbishop Innocent of Korsun, Archbishop Evgeniy of Verei, Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, Archimandrite Tikhon, Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, and the secretary of the commission took part in the work of the commissions on behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

On behalf of the Russian Church Abroad, the chairman of the commission, Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, Bishop Ambrose of Vevey, Archimandrite Luke, Archpriest Georgy Larin, and Archpriest Alexander Lebedev, secretary of the commission, participated.

The commissions discussed a number of issues in accordance with the agreements reached during the official visit of the delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, headed by Metropolitan Laurus in May 2004. Coordinated proposals were developed on issues of relations between church and state, on relations with heterodox and interfaith organizations.

After the June meeting, a settlement of property disputes was announced. It was announced that, among others, a draft document “On the canonical status of the Russian Church Abroad as a self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church” had been prepared.

Disputes about the past of the two branches of Russian Orthodoxy have been overcome. At the June meeting, the main issue was raised - Eucharistic communion. The strangest thing about the quarrel between the two Orthodox churches, which lasted almost 70 years, is the ban on their parishioners to confess and receive communion from each other..

The documents developed during the meeting were approved on July 5, 2004 at a meeting of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad in San Francisco, and on August 17, 2004 at a meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in Moscow.

In addition, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church called for an end to legal cases between the two parts of the Russian Church and to intensify pilgrimage, publishing and other joint activities of clergy and laity.

In July 2004, at a meeting between Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad with Archbishop Hilarion of Sydney, Australia and New Zealand, it was stated that the Russian Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate were going to conduct joint pastoral work among Orthodox Christians outside Russia.

From September 14 to 16, 2004, in the premises of the Cathedral of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in Munich, the second working meeting of the commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad took place.

The Russian Orthodox Church took part in the work of the commissions: the chairman of the commission, Archbishop Innocent of Korsun, Archbishop Evgeniy of Verei, Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, Archimandrite Tikhon, Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, and the secretary of the commission.

On behalf of the Russian Church Abroad, the chairman of the commission, Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, Bishop Ambrose of Vevey, Archimandrite Luke, Archpriest Nikolai Artemov and Archpriest Alexander Lebedev, secretary of the commission, participated.
The commissions continued the work begun at the first joint meeting, held in Moscow from June 22 to 24, 2004.

The result of two joint meetings were agreed upon draft documents covering the entire range of issues entrusted to the commissions, in particular, on the relations of the Church and the state, on the relations of Orthodoxy with non-Orthodox communities and interfaith organizations, on the canonical status of the Russian Church Abroad as a self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church, and also about overcoming canonical obstacles to the establishment of Eucharistic communion.

During further joint meetings of the commissions in Moscow (November 17-19, 2004) and Paris (March 2-4, 2005), drafts of a number of documents were prepared, which were subsequently approved by the Hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad.

In accordance with the agreement reached, approved by the decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (April 20, 2005) and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad (May 23, 2005) by the Moscow Patriarchate Commission for Dialogue with the Russian Church Abroad and the Russian Church Abroad Commission for Negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate Four documents were jointly developed:

1. On the joint work of the Commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad.

2. On the attitude of the Orthodox Church to heterodox faiths and interfaith organizations.

3. On the relationship between the Church and the state.

4. Commentary on the joint document “On relations between the Church and the state.”

On June 21, 2005, on the official websites of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate and the ROCOR, documents of the counter commissions on dialogue between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR) on the restoration of church unity were simultaneously published.

In accordance with the draft “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Church Abroad will become a self-governing part of the Moscow Patriarchate, like the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

According to the project, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR) will be independent in pastoral, educational, administrative, economic, property and civil matters. The highest authority within the Russian Church Abroad will be exercised by its Council of Bishops.

At the same time, decisions that go beyond the competence of the Council of the Church Abroad will be made in agreement with the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. The highest authority of church power will be the Local and Bishops' Council of the Moscow Patriarchate - bodies whose members will be the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad.

In addition, according to the document, “the Russian Church Abroad receives holy chrism (special sacred oil) from the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'” as a sign of its unity with the entirety of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Members of the commissions of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Church Abroad also proposed to abandon all mutual reproaches voiced during the long period of division, and to recognize as invalid all previously issued acts that impeded the fullness of canonical communion.

The Act on Canonical Communion will come into force if it is adopted by the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR and the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, which received authority for this from the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, held in 2005.

On May 6-14, 2006, the IV All-Diaspora Orthodox Council of the Church Abroad was held in San Francisco. It was convened for the first time in 32 years - specifically to consider the issue of the readiness of the clergy and laity of the ROCOR for reconciliation with the Church in the Fatherland. 127 deputies and 11 bishops gathered from all over the world. Among the clergy and laity there are representatives from Germany and Australia, South and North America, England, Siberia and Ukraine.

The IV Council became the most significant in terms of the importance of the problems raised at it. His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II, Serbian Patriarch Pavel, Bulgarian Patriarch Maxim, Georgian Patriarch Ilia, Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Western Europe Archbishop George, monks of Athos and Optina Hermitage sent their greetings to him.

The third day of the Council was decisive. A report on the work done in the conciliation commission over two years was made by Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany.

On May 12, 2006, the IV All-Diaspora Council in San Francisco adopted a resolution on the restoration of Eucharistic communion with the Church in the Fatherland. The resolution was adopted by open vote, almost unanimously. Less than 5% were against.

The document consists of six points. Serious debate, as expected, was caused by points about the relationship between the Church and the state, or the so-called “Sergianism”, and ecumenism (the movement towards the unity of Christians of all faiths).

The restoration of Eucharistic communion means that the clergy of the ROCOR and the Church in the Fatherland will be able to serve together, and the faithful will be able to receive communion at the liturgy from the same Chalice.

The final Act on the canonical communion of the ROCOR and the Church in the Fatherland should be adopted by the Council of Bishops of the Church Abroad, which will take place in San Francisco on May 15-19.

At the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR, it is expected that an Act on Canonical Communion will be adopted, which will then be signed by the First Hierarch of the ROCOR, Metropolitan Laurus, and the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II and will open the way to Eucharistic communion between the ROCOR and the Church in the Fatherland.