Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

17733Bp Gabriel NRS interview - probably not the best translation....

Expand Messages
  • Basil Yakimov
    Aug 31, 2006

      Bishop Gabriel, the Secretary of ROCOR and Bishop of the Manhattan diocese
      on the union with MP

      The joint commissions of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
      (ROCOR) and the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) continue their work, but the
      issues dividing the two churches remain the same. All the while, the
      Russian press continues to speak of the union of the churches as a settled
      matter. Novoye Russkoye Slovo (NRS) was able to have its question on these
      issues answered by Bishop Gabriel, the Secretary of ROCOR and Bishop of the
      Manhattan diocese.

      Archpriest Alexander Lebedev, the Secretary of the ROCOR joint commission,
      recently told a journalist in Russia that the Synod of Bishops in New York
      City was developing a grand ceremony to mark the union. Have matters really
      gone that far?

      Archpriest Alexander probably meant to say that if the ROCOR episcopate
      ratifies the proposal known as the “Act for Eucharistic Communion” between
      our two churches, that is to say the two parts of the Russian Orthodox
      Church that were never united, then at that time it would be appropriate to
      develop a ceremony to mark the signing. First we must accept the “Act.” At
      the next scheduled meeting of our Synod, planned for early September, this
      matter is slated for discussion. Many points in the proposed “Act” require
      further deliberation. The issues of the Moscow Patriarchate’s involvement
      in the World Council of Churches (WCC), and the MP’s position on the
      well-known “Declaration of Patriarch Sergius” remain unresolved.

      Who would authorize the commission’s secretary to discuss the matter of the
      solemn ceremony before the signing of the “Act?”

      It would be best to ask Fr. Alexander himself about that. It’s possible
      that he is rushing matters along in anticipation of union, but this haste
      seems premature to me and many others in ROCOR. Even President Putin
      remarked that matters related to the process of union of the churches
      should not be forced.

      Isn’t Archpriest Lebedev duty-bound to keep his statements in line with the
      official positions of his superiors?

      Certainly. He is in a subordinate position and answers to the chairman of
      our commission, Archbishop Mark, the Bishop for Berlin-Germany and Great

      Who is, as we all know, one of the primary proponents of immediate union.
      Is it possible that the dioceses of western Europe may join with the MP on
      their own, without waiting for agreement by the Synod?

      As Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, I know of no such plans. I cannot
      answer on behalf of the dioceses of western Europe, they have their own
      ruling bishops. My wish, though, is that we can come to a common agreement
      on the matters before us and that it will not lead to a schism.

      In his discussion of the ceremony, Lebedev says that it will include
      expressions of repentance from the ROCOR representatives. What repentance
      could there possibly be?

      I did not read such statements in Fr. Alexander Lebedev’s remarks. I
      believe you are referring to information provided in an article in the
      newspaper “Nasha Strana.” This newspaper represents the views of schismatic
      groups who seek to do harm to our church. It would seem to me that if there
      is talk of repentance, we should expect it from those who consider
      themselves disciples of the false teachings which the MP has followed since
      the 1920’s. If we have erred somehow in the past and this is brought to our
      attention, then I believe we will repent accordingly. I would think the
      main matters of contention would be our opening of ROCOR parishes in
      Russia, or the ordination of Archbishop Valentin of Suzdal. I agree that
      the ordination of Valentin was a mistake, but to put this mistake on the
      level of the “Declaration of Patriarch Sergius” is just not possible, by
      simple fact of their difference in magnitude. The “Declaration” was a grave
      deviation from the church’s norm and recognized a regime which openly
      persecuted the church.

      I have often heard accusations that ROCOR collaborated with the Nazis
      during World War II. Perhaps someone expects repentance for that?

      The German government, which was headed by Hitler, helped ROCOR build a
      church in Berlin in 1938. At that time, all the nations in the West and
      East were actively cooperating with Hitler (who was the legal head of the
      German government. Ed.). Excellent relations were maintained with him by
      Moscow and Washington. People from all over the world attended the Olympics
      in Berlin (in 1936. Ed.). The situation changed only after World War II
      erupted. And to call the establishment of churches in the parts of Russia
      occupied by Germany “collaboration with the Nazis” is unthinkable. Let’s
      not forget that these churches were closed, defiled, some even turned into
      warehouses by the Soviet regime. If that had not happened, it would not
      have been necessary to restore them as churches. Also, that earlier some
      ROCOR bishops blessed the work of the ROA (Russian Liberation Army. Ed.),
      we need to remember the mindset of the Russian émigrés of the time. They
      believed the ROA (even though German led) could be the force that could
      liberate Russia from the Bolsheviks.

      After the proceedings of the 4th All-Diaspora Council ended, many opponents
      of union at any cost began to have a more accepting view of the work of the
      joint commissions. They realized that the bishops stand firm in their
      positions and immediate union with MP is not expected. Nevertheless, one
      reads in the Russian press the opinion that the Council had only a
      consultative role, while the issue of union will be decided by the Synod of

      In accordance with the Holy Canons, all final decisions are made by the
      episcopate, the Synod of Bishops, but as those same Canons stipulate, it
      cannot ignore the wishes of the clergy and laypeople, and even the bishops
      themselves, as the Resolution of the Council in San Francisco was agreed
      upon by all of them together.

      After the proceedings of the 4th All-Diaspora Council ended, a priest in
      New York City, Fr. Victor Dobroff, said in an interview with a NRS reporter
      that he believed it would make sense at this time to reconsider the
      composition of the joint commission, as it does not reflect the opinions of
      either the laypeople or the clergy.

      This proposal was also made at the All-Diaspora Council. Such matters
      should be decided by the Synod. Perhaps, the question of the need to change
      the personnel of the commission will be raised during the Synod’s meeting
      in September, when its work relating to the proposed “Act” will be

      A statement has been made in the Russian press, that joint prayer has been
      established. That is, that official union is simply a formality. Is that

      I heard just such a sentiment last year from his Holiness the Patriarch of
      Moscow. He informed me that during a visit to Moscow, that praying together
      occurred and that joint prayer was established. I feel that view is
      somewhat of an exaggeration. Typically, in the Orthodox Church, full
      Eucharistic communion is achieved only when clergy serve the Holy Liturgy
      together. This has not occurred yet. A memorial service to the New Holy
      Martyrs of Russia was held at which our delegation was present. That can be
      considered, if you wish, only a sort of common prayer.

      Are you surprised that the Moscow Patriarch constantly sends letters of
      congratulations to leaders of communist countries like Vietnam, North Korea
      or Cuba?

      This gives a basis for the fear of many of our clergy and laypeople that
      the MP has not yet broken with its Soviet past. This involvement in
      international matters is especially unusual, when the Russian people are in
      such need of religious education. Less than 2% of the Orthodox believers in
      Russia go to church. This is the problem that the MP should be attempting
      to resolve. Instead, the Patriarch sends out congratulations to heads of
      states which persecute Christians.

      At the Council in San Francisco, an informal poll was conducted of the
      delegates on their opinion of the union. The poll revealed that most were
      opposed. How do you think the clergy and laypeople feel about it?

      I think the press often makes the same mistake, either saying that “a
      majority of émigrés oppose union” or “a majority is for union.” I believe a
      significant majority of our Church support the idea of union, but the
      argument, which is sometimes heated, is about how and in what way that
      union will be achieved, but only after those two critical issues, which
      ROCOR puts to the MP, are addressed. Even if someone says they are against
      union, that does not mean that that person categorically does not want
      anything to do with the MP under any circumstances. One needs to only
      question the person further and you will find that he or she insists on the
      resolution of those two points that ROCOR has always required of the MP. We
      desire union, after the MP leaves the WCC, which will answer the wishes of
      millions of the MP’s own clergy and laypeople, and after the MP loudly and
      clearly explains its stand on the “Declaration” of Metropolitan Sergius. We
      fully understand how difficult it is for the hierarchy of the MP, but we
      also have problems, and there are many, related to the coming together of
      our churches. That is why we must proceed with extreme caution.

      You meet with representatives of MP, how willing do you believe they are to

      One gets the impression that at this time, not very. Our requests go
      unanswered. The MP continues to participate in ecumenical events and the
      same can be said about their stand on sergianstvo. An official
      acknowledgement, in unequivocal terms, of the mistaken “Declaration” of
      1927 is not expected. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to believe that
      many in Russia still feel that Sergius’ actions were the only possible ones
      at the time and that he saved the church from being destroyed completely.
      One can understand such a view, but that does not mean it “trumps” our
      opinion. Those who do not admit their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

      Let us imagine that all disagreements are resolved and the “Act” is signed.
      What degree of independence will ROCOR still have?

      The “Act” talks of restoring Eucharistic communion and the recognition of
      the Moscow Patriarch as the spiritual head of the Russian Church, but at
      the same time, ROCOR will retain its administrative, proprietary and
      financial independence. Nothing will change in those regards. The worry is
      that the MP hierarchy will interfere in our life for no good reason. For
      now, we must still overcome the obstacles you allude to in your question.
      Let us be patient.

      This is the English translation of the
      interview which was conducted by a
      Reporter of the “Novoye Russkoye Slovo.”
      New York, August 25, 2006.

      The translation was published
      in LiveJournal of Dr. Magerovsky
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic