Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (Diocese of Suzdal). Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (RPAC) Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church

Roman Vershillo

Sin, says the Apostle, is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). The sin of the schism that took place in Suzdal in 1993 is a violation of church laws.

In order to understand what has happened, we need to reject sin from the very beginning, distance ourselves from the schismatics, and only then, with all possible caution, examine the self-justifications of the schismatics.

First of all, you should know that the schism has already been condemned by the church authorities, which issued the following decree: "consider Bishop Valentine deprived of his holy dignity on the basis of church canons, and consider his so-called sacred rites invalid"(decision of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia of September 10, 1996). (one)

This schism has a corrupting influence both in its preaching and in its very existence. The schismatics appear to have a Christian name, sacraments, scriptures, and confession, and by this cause great sorrow to the hearts of the pious (Blessed Augustine).

Recall the order of events:

1990

In April Archimandrite Valentin (Rusantsov), rector of the Tsar Konstantinovsky Church in Suzdal, submits a petition to be received under the omophorion of Metropolitan Vitaly and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), with a promise; "I will do my best to be an honest and conscientious cleric of ROCOR" (2) .

reference: Archimandrite Valentin (Rusantsov), was born in 1939. In 1961 he was ordained a hieromonk, from 1962 to 1973 he was rector of the Assumption Church in the city of Makhachkala. Since 1973 - Rector of the Tsarekonstantinovsky Church in the city of Suzdal, Vladimir Region.

1991

February 10 in Brussels in the church of St. Job the Long-suffering Archim. Valentin was ordained bishop, with the title of Bishop of Suzdal.

June 5-6 in St. Petersburg, a meeting of a part of the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Free Church (ROCOR jurisdiction) is held, chaired by Archbishop Lazar (Zhurbenko).

At this meeting, the first attempt was made to separate from ROCOR under the pretext of the decree of St. Patriarch Tikhon No. 362. The "Central Church Administration" of the Russian Orthodox Church was created with its center in St. Petersburg.

Ep. Valentin denounces this decision as "revolution in the Russian Church".

autumn at a meeting of the ROCOR Synod, ep. Valentine demands that those who threaten to secede from ROCOR on the basis of Decree No. 362 be severely punished.

reference: Archbishop Lazar (Zhurbenko), in 1982, secretly ordained bishop of ROCOR, with the title of Tambov and Morshansk, since 1991 - archbishop.

1992

the 13th of November in Moscow at a press conference in the magazine "Spark" ep. Valentin, together with other representatives of ROCOR, condemned the "Memory" society.

9th December- the decision of the ROCOR Synod to prohibit the clergy from participating in political movements.

1993

May 4-15 The Council of Bishops of ROCOR receives a statement from Archbishop. Lazar (Zhurbenko) about his withdrawal from ROCOR on the basis of Decree No. 362.

22nd of June The Suzdal Diocesan Congress issues a resolution: "Due to canonical violations by representatives of ROCOR and in accordance with existing legislation Russian Federation, withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Church Abroad and form the Suzdal Diocesan Administration of the ROCA as a self-governing religious association of believers who are in prayerful union and Eucharistic communion with ROCA" (3) .

At the end of 1993 Bishop arrives in Suzdal. Gregory (Grabbe) with the project of the Provisional Higher Church Administration (VVTsU).

reference: Bishop Gregory (Grabbe)- long-term manager of the office of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops, then the director of affairs of the synodal office, then a consultant to the ROCOR Synod and secretary of the Synod. In 1979 he was ordained a bishop. From the mid 1980s. was at rest.

1994

Early 1994 established VVCU, according to the project of Bishop. Gregory (Grabbe), the VVTsU included archbishop. Lazar (VVTsU chairman) and Bishop. Valentin (Deputy Chairman of the All-Russia Exhibition Center). They suggested that ROCOR recognize this new institution.

great post- archbishop. Lazar and Bishop Valentine jointly ordain three assistant bishops: Theodore of Borisov, Seraphim of Sukhum and Agafangel of Simferopol.

March 22 The congress of the Suzdal diocese announces the termination of administrative ties with ROCOR.

29th of November in the Lesna Monastery (France) at the ROCOR Council of Bishops Archbishop. Lazar and Bishop Valentin sign the Act of Abolition of the VVTsU.

1995

January 25-26 a meeting was held in Suzdal, where the archbishop. Lazarem, ep. Valentine, Theodore, Agafangel and Seraphim rejected the Act on the abolition of the VVTsU.

February 22- Decree of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops on the prohibition of Archbishop. Lazarus, ep. Valentine, Theodore, Agafangel and Seraphim.

Archbishop Lazar and Bishop Agafangel obeyed this prohibition.

December 8- the decision of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops to remove Archbishop. Lazarus and Bishop Agafangel of prohibition. Archbishop Lazarus is ordered to refrain from the administration of the diocese, consecration and tonsure.

9th December, after the rite of confession of faith and the oath of allegiance to the ROCOR Synod of Bishops, the hierarchal consecration of ep. Agafangela was recognized, he was given the title of Bishop. Simferopol.

During 1995 VVCU, despite the return of the chairman to ROCOR, continues to operate. Ep. Valentine, with his two assistants, ordains three bishops: Arseny of Bryansk and Tula, Alexander of Kazan and Mari, Victor of Latvia and Daugavpils.

1996

January 15 The Suzdal VVTsU is transformed into the "Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church".

In July"Bishop" Arseniy of Bryansk and Tula separates from the "Suzdal" schismatics.

10 September- decision of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops: "since Bishop Valentine caused a schism in the church and, being banned from the priesthood, continues to serve, which violates the rules"(28 ap. right; 29 (38) right. Carf. sob.; 88th right. St. Vas. Vel.);

And for serving in a forbidden state, the rule states that " before hearing his justification, he who dares to enter into communion, we recognize that he pronounced the sentence of condemnation on himself.(38 rights. Karf. sob.).

Thus, Bishop Valentine exposes himself to the above rules and therefore is subject to defrocking.

2 October At a meeting of Russian bishops who remained under the jurisdiction of ROCOR, it was decided to restore Archbishop. Lazar in the rights of the ruling bishop. On January 28, 1997, the ROCOR Synod of Bishops approved this decision.

Late 1997 from the "Suzdal" schismatics, the "bishop" Alexander of Kazan and Mariy is separated. He and "bishop" Arseniy go to the Ukrainian self-consecrated Volodymyr.

Such was the course of events that led to the formation of a schismatic group headed by the former Bishop Valentine. This group operates most often under the name of the ROCA, implying, when it is to their advantage, that they are in connection with the ROCA. Sometimes calls itself the "Russian Orthodox Church".

What is the "Suzdal split"?

To begin with, let's listen to the schism teachers themselves:

"Regulations on the Supreme Provisional Church Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church.

1. The VVTsU was established in accordance with paragraph 2 of Decree No. 362 of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon of November 7/20, 1920.

VVTsU is not the highest instance of church authority for all of Russia (within the borders before the collapse of the USSR), but only for the dioceses under the jurisdiction of the VVTsU.

2. The VVTsU unites the dioceses and individual parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church that have remained faithful to the Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, the dogmas, canons and rules of the holy apostles and the holy ecumenical and local councils, the decisions of the local councils of the Russian Orthodox Church, the decrees of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the decisions of the highest church authority that were before the separation 1927 ...

4. VVCU is the highest instance of the ecclesiastical court for the dioceses that are part of the VVCU.

5. The ultimate goal of the VVTsU is to convene a free All-Russian Local Council" (4) .

From the point of view of the "Suzdal" schismatics, no one can change "this historically accomplished fact ... is the creation of a legal and canonically legal Supreme Church Administration in Russia" (5) .

Let's see if this is the case.

The Suzdal Higher Church Administration in Russia cannot be legal, since it was not created. In this we have the recognition of the dissenters themselves.

Decree No. 1 of the VVTsU states that "VVCU is not the highest church authority in Russia" (6) .

The Regulations on the VVTsU say; "VVTsU is not the highest instance of church authority for all of Russia (within the borders before the collapse of the USSR), but only for the dioceses under the jurisdiction of the VVTsU" (7) .

Therefore, according to the documents of the VVCU, the Supreme Church Administration is not by the highest church administration, and by the same documents on which it was approved, it was destroyed.

The illegality of the VVTsU is confirmed by the words of the Bishop himself. Valentine. In 1991, he protested against such a VVTsU, and, it must be said, more convincingly than later in his defense.

Here is what he said in 1991: "Not only me, but also many others are alarmed by the ultimatum statement of Fr. Sergius Perekrestov, who stated ... that "if the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia does not take into account the will of the clergy, we will be guided by the decree of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon No. 362 on the self-government of the diocese, lost contact with the church center".

And ep. Valentine continued: “The desire to achieve autonomy and self-government, independent of the Synod Abroad, is a very destructive desire. It shows through a lack of understanding, and perhaps complete ignorance of the very dogma about the Church ... It is not surprising that the actions of the St. Petersburg clergy, who approved the draft regulation on the “All-Russian Supreme ", or the so-called "Central" administration of the Russian Orthodox Free Church, are directed towards schism, separatism, parochialism in our church movement... Let me once again confirm my (Bish. Valentina's) unshakable conviction that both all of our Church, only unity of command is urgently needed! By the grace of God, we have the First Hierarch and the Synod of Bishops, which there is no need or sense to replace or duplicate. And therefore there can be no "Central" or "All-Russian Supreme Administration" now. This must be immediately abolished so that it would not be habitual to others " (8) .

So, as we can see, the VVTsU never existed as a legitimate higher church administration, but, according to Bishop. Valentine, was a split, a manifestation of separatism, parochialism. The goal of the VVTsU was, as Bishop rightly noted. Valentine: to replace the legitimate bodies of church government.

VVCU, convicted Bishop. Valentin in 1991, at the beginning of 1994 it was created by him, and at the beginning of 1996 it was transformed into the "Synod of Bishops".

Two deaths of VVTsU

The illegal VVTsU was abolished twice: the first time, immediately after its emergence, by the ROCOR Synod of Bishops: "The so-called "The Supreme Provisional Church Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church ... cannot be recognized as legal, as it violates the basic church canons."

Two years later, the Suzdal VVTsU makes an attempt to get rid of itself and transform into a synod of bishops.

The actions of the ROCOR Synod are fully justified. But how do the schismatics explain their decision?

Either the VVTsU acted so successfully that it completed its tasks in two years. Or VVTSU turned out to be useless.

Since the All-Russian Local Council has not been convened, the only declared goal of the All-Russian Higher Artistic University has not been fulfilled. It remains to be assumed that the schismatics destroyed the VVTsU because it was useless. Then they should not complain about the church authorities, if she punished them back in 1994 for creating a useless body.

Unwittingly, the creators of the VVTsU recognized the correctness of the punishment to which they were subjected. But on the other hand, former ep. Valentin and his assistants did not have the right to create the VVTsU, and now they do not have the right to abolish it. It was created not only by them, but by another ruling bishop. This bishop was the chairman of the VVTsU, and, having repented, returned to ROCOR.

VVTsU, albeit illegal, is a phenomenon of general church significance, and not diocesan. And the diocese cannot decide the fate of the general church institution,

The creation of the VVTsU was an anti-canonical and criminal act. Some of its creators have repented, others are stubborn, trying to destroy the traces of their crime.

Exit motives

So, we are convinced that the VVTsU continues to operate in Suzdal, which is not a legal, higher, church administration.

Now it is necessary to find out what arguments the "Suzdal" schismatics put forward as reasons for separating from ROCOR and not submitting to its authority.

The clearest statement of the reasons for the separation from ROCOR came recently in a letter from "Bishop" Theodore. He talks about the former ep. Valentine that he "in view of the fact that ROCOR has associated itself with the fascist organization "Memory", and also because of the refusal of the ROCOR hierarchs to return to their homeland for the revival of Russia and Orthodoxy, by decision of the Provisional Supreme Church Administration, the ROCOR administratively separated from ROCOR"(nine) . Let's consider these arguments in order.

Society "Memory"

Some ROCOR clergy really showed sympathy for "Pamyat" and participated in its meetings. This caused protests, including from Bishop. Valentine. He stated this at a press conference in the Ogonyok magazine on November 13, 1992.

A few weeks later, at a meeting of the ROCOR Synod on December 9, 1992, Bishop Valentin presented a report in which he stated, "that ROCOR needs to dissociate itself from political parties, all kinds of fronts and movements".

Based on this report, the following resolution of the Synod of Bishops was adopted: "Forbid the clergy to take part in any organizations, fronts, movements, political parties" (10) .

It is hardly fair, after such a decision, to accuse ROCOR of supporting Pamyat. Moreover, on March 23, 1993, Bishop Valentin stated in an interview: "I can't say that I fell out of favor because I dissociated myself from "Memory", since I strictly observe the decision of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops" (11) .

The former speaks much more clearly. ep. Valentine is elsewhere. "When I openly expressed my opinion at a press conference about the impossibility of the Church's unity with nationalist and fascist claims to Orthodoxy, I made enemies for myself in ROCOR as well. This was the beginning of our division" (12) .

In fact, many then expressed their suspicion that Bishop. Valentine is driven not by apoliticality, but only by political sympathies of the opposite kind. And these suspicions were soon confirmed. In September 1993, a few days before the presidential troops stormed the Supreme Council in Moscow, Bishop. Valentin sent a greeting to BN Yeltsin with an appeal to put an end to the enemies of democracy. Thus, ep. Valentine violated the decision of the Synod, taken at his own insistence, and supported the usurper in the fight against the highest state body - the Supreme Council. At that moment, Boris N. Yeltsin was, of course, the representative not of his own voters, but of a narrow political group of people.

ROCOR Synod does not return home

As is clear to any sensible person, the fact that the Synod of Bishops and the First Hierarch of ROCOR are not moving from North America to Russia cannot in any way be a reason for an administrative separation from them.

The Russian Church, for example, for most of its history had its administrative center abroad - in Byzantium. And then, when the obstacles to communication were incomparably greater, the connection between the church center and the Russian metropolis was broken only a few times.

Moreover, history testifies that the obstacles in the form of distance, borders, wars and disorder have been repeatedly used by ambitious church leaders. Supported by local rulers, they sought to lead the Russian Metropolis without the approval and participation of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Such, for example, is Metropolitan Klim Smolyatich, appointed in 1147 by a cathedral of six bishops at the insistence of his patron, led. book. Izyaslav Mstislavich.

With the support of book. Dmitry Donskoy priest Mikhail Mityai conceived in 1378 to secede from Constantinople and become a Russian metropolitan without the blessing of the patriarch.

It happened that the majority of Russian bishops were drawn to the path of self-will, but bishops, faithful to church truth, rebelled against this.

The Church made its decision both about those ambitious people and about supporters of fidelity to the church center outside the boundaries of the Russian state.

Klim Smolyatich and priest Mityai were convicted, and St. Nifont of Novgorod (who refused to recognize the appointment of Klim) and St. Dionysius of Suzdal are glorified. The last spoke led. book. Demetrius: "Who taught you to pervert the laws? This business should not be like that, but Mitya should receive a blessing from the Patriarch according to the ancient order."

It is noteworthy that the former ep. Valentin in his writings speaks with sympathy of Metr. Hilarion, precisely because he became a Russian metropolitan without the consent of Constantinople. But the Church judges otherwise: Met. Hilarion, despite his outstanding gifts, we do not find among the saints glorified by the Church, and Metropolitan himself. Hilarion, obviously, was of a different opinion than the former. ep. Valentine, because he voluntarily ceded the chair to the legitimate metropolitan.

The "Suzdal" schismatics, in no particular order, add one or another reproaches against ROCOR to the fundamental argument "about non-return". For reasons that are not clear to us, they care neither about being faithful to the truth, nor about being faithful to any kind of falsehood. For example, former ep. Valentine says; "The leadership (ROCOR) did not wish not only to return to Russia, but also to understand Russia, to understand and live through the path traveled in thought and heart"(13) . This means that the return of the Synod to Russia in itself will not lead to reconciliation, if the Synod is required to "understand and experience the path" passed by the Suzdal schismatics.

In official documents, the schismatics declare: ROCOR must, "having recognized the fact of the end of the persecution of the Russian Church, transfer your administration to Russia"(14) , Only in fantasies can you combine "the fact of the cessation of persecution" welcome back. Moreover, history has shown what such returns lead to. In the 1945-1950s, under the slogan of ending the persecution of faith, dozens of foreign clergymen returned to the USSR.

These prominent hierarchs: archbishop. Demetrius of Hailar (father of Metropolitan Philaret, First Hierarch of ROCOR), Metropolitan Nestor, archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) and many others were mistaken not about whether the persecution of the faith had actually stopped, but about whether one should remain faithful to church duty and obey the ROCOR Synod of Bishops.

For us, the holy example is dear. John (Maximovich), who did not violate his church duty, despite the general return and betrayal of the hierarchal oath. The bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate forbade St. John in the priesthood, but St. John declared from the pulpit: "I will submit to this only in the event that they prove to me by the Holy Scriptures and the laws of any country that perjury is a virtue, and loyalty to an oath is a grave sin."

Yes, some hierarchs returned to the USSR, and their act could be justified if it were only a question of whether the persecution had stopped or not. But they left their pulpits, which they were not entitled to. So now - the department of Met. Vitaliy is referred to as Eastern American and Canadian, and he does not have the right to change his title and church area.

But, in order to finally be convinced that the "Suzdal" schismatics do not need any return of the Synod to Russia, let's listen to their most frank statement: "the canons forbid the ROCOR Synod from any attempt to lead the Russian Orthodox Church and call itself the highest church authority" (15) .

If the canons forbid the ROCOR Synod from any attempts to lead the Church, then why was it necessary to first turn to the Synod with a request to receive it under omophorion, and subsequently accuse ROCOR of collaborating with "Memory", why demand a return to Russia?

If the canons really forbid the ROCOR Synod any leadership, then all the actions and statements of Bishop. Valentines are meaningless.

In the statements of the "Suzdal" schismatics, we see opposition to the highest church authority. Only it manifests itself with greater, then with less frankness.

Revolt against authority

The schismatics convinced themselves that anarchy, ecclesiastical and state, had set in in Russia, and the one who made the best use of this anarchy would be right.

But the very idea that there is no power higher than yourself is so destructive for the human consciousness that the schismatic is not able to stop in his desire for destruction. The nature of the schism prompts the "Suzdal" schismatics not only to ignore the decree of the Synod of Bishops, but also to overthrow the power in the Russian Church in general.

The schismatics assert that there is no church authority in Russia. It may seem unbelievable, but here is what they write: "The central Church authority in Russia ceased to exist with the death of the last Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, indicated in the Testament of St. Patriarch Tikhon - Metropolitan Peter" (16) .

"The Russian Orthodox Church was destroyed by the Bolsheviks" (17) .

“Canonically, the Supreme Church Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church was absent all these years, and the only basis for the legal existence of parts of the Russian Church faithful to St. Patriarch Tikhon and the decisions of the All-Russian Local Council was the Decree of the St. Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council of 7/20 November 1920 for No. 362" (18) .

"Currently in Russia there is no higher canonical administration
Churches" (19) .

"There is no legal government of the Church in Russia" (20) .

We agree with the "Suzdal" schismatics in two things:

1) in the Russian Church - a schism,

2) in the Russian Church there are no legitimate higher central organs of government.

In the Russian Church, there is a schism, but not anarchy, when a Christian allegedly can freely choose whom to obey, while the bishop is supposedly allowed to choose his own canonical path unhindered by anything.

The schism in the Russian Church consists in the fact that, in addition to the Russian Church, there is also the Moscow Patriarchate, "catacomb" and Ukrainian self-consecrates, Suzdal impostors who call themselves the same as the Russian Church. The Russian Church remains united and not split into parts.

Overcoming the schism will consist in the fact that the Orthodox will reunite with the Church, and the rest will cease, one way or another, to call themselves members of the Russian Local Church. Therefore, in the most troubled times schism and disunity, it is forbidden to break away from the Church and join the impostors.

Secondly, no one will deny that the Supreme Church Administration does not operate in the Russian Church, in the form in which it was provided for by the Spiritual Regulations (that is, the Synodal form), or by the All-Russian Church Council of 1917-1918.

After the 1920s, there was a very long break in the activities of the administration, but the highest power in the Russian Church itself did not disappear. It is necessary to distinguish between the correct organization of management - from the power in its essence. Governing bodies - prepare decisions and monitor their implementation, and the government approves or rejects these very decisions. Otherwise, the absurd idea will turn out that church authority ceases to exist, for example, when the Supreme Church Council is prohibited from meeting under the Patriarch, and indeed at the slightest interruption or interruption in the course of administrative affairs.

But for everyone, except for the Renovationists, power continued to belong to Patriarch Tikhon even after the Bolsheviks actually destroyed the governing bodies. After the death of the Patriarch, the same power belonged to the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Met. Peter, although due to the circumstances of the time he could no longer manage the Russian Church.

But what happens after the death of Mr. Peter? Maybe at this moment anarchy sets in in the Russian Church? Nothing like this. Because the Russian Church is alive, and the disappearance of power in the Church means her death. Then the apostolic succession would be interrupted, and we would have to resort to the supreme authority of another local church.

Let us explain this last point. If there is no supreme central authority in the Russian Church, then there is no Russian Church, ordination is impossible. Since the ordination of a bishop is impossible without a council of bishops: not an arbitrary meeting of clerics, but a council of a certain region. In this case, for example, Bishop Valentine was never a bishop.

Russian Church exists

If the Russian Church exists, then it has a central and supreme authority in the form of a council of bishops. Now it remains for us to find out where she is, how to find her, and - to give reasons for these conclusions.

Let us return to the reproaches of the "Suzdal" schismatics (21):

1) ROCOR is a part of the Russian Church, and a part cannot govern the whole.

2) ROCOR has its governing bodies abroad, and they must be located in Russia if ROCOR is the highest church authority in Russia.

3) If ROCOR does not return to Russia, then it finds itself in a subordinate position and must comply with the decisions of the "Suzdal Synod".

These three formulas are intended to show that ROCOR is not a power for Russia.

In fact, let's try to imagine how the lawful HCU of Russia should have acted: 1) enter into negotiations with the MP at the highest level; 2) enter into negotiations with the state authorities; 3) to ordain bishops to all major sees; 4) to hold an All-Russian Local Council with the election of the Patriarch and to establish the Higher Bodies under the Patriarch; 5) announce the excommunication from the Church of all those who do not obey the HCU and 6) announce the end of the schism.

What is the Church Abroad doing? She does not enter into negotiations with the MP, with the authorities, she does not return to Russia, she does not change anything in the structure of her church life and administration.

And thereby manifests a high awareness of her dignity as the bearer of the highest church authority.

The bearer of legitimate authority does not need anyone's permission to act, but the act itself must be justified. When the Orthodox clergy and laity in Russia voluntarily acknowledged the authority of ROCOR over them, then she was given the opportunity to act according to the right that she had before, and to act justifiably; ordain bishops, receive MP parishes.

The Church Abroad is the highest church authority in Russia. And she proved it in three acts:

1) the acceptance of the Tsarekonstantinovsky parish of the city of Suzdal, headed by Archimandrite Valentin, under his omophorion;

2) an announcement through the message of the Council of Bishops on the acceptance of parishes from the MP;

3) the ordination of Archimandrite Valentine as Bishop of Suzdal.

These actions of the highest ecclesiastical authority cannot be disputed by the former. ep. Valentin, especially since two of the three deeds of ROCOR concerned him. The merit itself ep. Valentina, in carrying out the decisions of the highest church authority in Russia, sweeps aside and completely destroys his later writings on this topic.

Cathedral management

The separation from the Church led the "Suzdal" schismatics to devastating conclusions. They quickly moved from not recognizing the foreign center to the idea that the Russian Church had been destroyed, and ultimately to the abolition of the church's catholic structure.

The schismatics assume that the diocese headed by the bishop is the Church. As one of the employees of the former writes. ep. Valentine: "One of the most important principles of church organization is the unification of the local church around its bishop... The unification of clergy and laity around their bishop is the Church that the gates of hell will not overcome. The canonical church administration of several dioceses is the next stage of church organization, characteristic of the Local Church " (22) .

Indeed, the bishop and the diocese are independent in those matters that relate to the internal life of the diocese, but to resolve any other issues, the bishop is obliged to form councils with neighboring bishops of the region and obey the regional metropolitan (see Ap. . sob.).

The appointment of a bishop is made only with the consent of all the bishops of the region (19 Ave. Antioch. Sob.). Changing the boundaries of the region is also not within the competence of the diocese (or several dioceses). Moreover, separation from the region cannot be a matter of internal diocesan life. And in all such matters, the decision is made at the council of all the bishops of the region under the presidency of the pre-eminent bishop.

The internal issues of the diocese are resolved by the bishop, clergy and people independently, all other issues - only at the councils of bishops. Moreover, the cathedrals are not of arbitrary composition.

Let's see how the "Suzdal" schismatics did. The creation of the VVTsU is not a matter of diocesan, but of general ecclesiastical significance. The appointment of new bishops is also a matter of general church. Separation from ROCOR is also not a matter of local importance.

So, all the decisions of the Suzdal VVTsU, and its very creation, are illegal, since they represent the seizure of power by several bishops, which belongs only to the council of all Orthodox bishops.

These actions repeat the actions of all schismatics. Metropolitan Sergius, for example, caused a schism in the Russian Church by issuing my"Declaration" on behalf of the Russian Church.

If the bishop and the diocese are the Church, the schismatics argue, then it is necessary to find a bishop and, "stealing" grace, to establish itself on its own canonical basis. In accordance with this view of things, Russian schismatics since the time of Patras. They tried to lure Orthodox bishops to Nikon, until in the last century their attempts were unsuccessful. One of the retired Bosnian bishops, Ambrose, with the consent of the government of Austria-Hungary, headed the schismatic hierarchy. He ordained bishops, and, as the schismatics believed, they acquired a legitimate hierarchy.

The "Suzdal" schismatics believe that ROCOR acted in the same way as this Ambrose once did. If the bishop and the diocese are the Church, then ROCOR, by ordaining Bishop Valentine and appointing him to the Suzdal diocese, thereby created a new "Church", that is, a schism.

The "Suzdal" schismatics, as we see, agree with the arguments of the Moscow Patriarchate, which asserts that ROCOR exists abroad legally, but its clergy and laity in Russia belong to the schism.

In proposing to ROCOR to recognize the Suzdal VVTsU, the schismatics wanted the Church Abroad to admit that it had caused a schism in the Russian Church. ROCOR could not and had no right to act otherwise than to confirm that its clergy in Russia were not schismatics, and also that it would not allow a new schism. For this, the instigators were banned from serving, and the stubborn Bishop. Valentine - defrocked, and he failed to "steal" the grace of episcopal consecration.

The schismatics argue like this: "we have a bishop, and therefore we are the Church".

Any diocese can say about itself that it is the Church, but only if its bishop is in union with all the Orthodox bishops of the region and is subject to conciliar decisions.

In Suzdal, we are not dealing with the Church, but with a schism

This is a split - because Bishop. Valentine separated himself from the Council of Bishops and made an attempt to usurp the powers of the First Hierarch. It happened on June 22, 1993, when the Suzdal Diocesan Congress decided "withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Church Abroad and form the Suzdal Diocesan Administration of the ROCA as a self-governing religious association of believers who are in prayerful communion and communion with the ROCA" (23) .

This is not just a split, but with a renovationist ideology. Its creators not only violated the rules of church organization, but began to teach that the Russian Church was destroyed, that there was no supreme church authority in it. Finally, the schismatics consider it acceptable for themselves to do without conciliar governance, which speaks of a break with the Orthodox teaching about the Church.

Decree No. 362

If heretics use Holy Scripture and Tradition for evil, then it is not surprising that schismatics base themselves on the canons of the Orthodox Church. At the same time, they reinterpret the canons, and what should serve for the building of the Church begins to serve for Her destruction.

The "Suzdal" schismatics referred to the 362 decree of St. Patriarch Tikhon. Let's recap their discussion.

The decree prescribes the rules for the case when the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council cease to function under the Patriarch.

As you know, Decree No. 362 was the last joint resolution of His Holiness the Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council. So, this decree came into force in 1920.

In that case (point 1) "The diocesan bishop, for guidance on the service and for the resolution of cases, according to the rules that go back to the highest church administration, must apply directly to His Holiness the Patriarch, or to that person or institution that will be indicated by His Holiness the Patriarch for this" (24) .

Further, the decree takes into account the possibility that, due to the circumstances of the time, the bishop will not be able to fulfill paragraph 1 of the decree, "if the diocese, due to the movement of the front, changes in the state border, etc., finds itself out of any communion with the highest church administration or the highest church administration itself, headed by His Holiness the Patriarch, for some reason ceases to operate"(item 2) (25) .

In these two cases (severance of communication with the highest church administration or
termination of the activities of the highest church administration) "the diocesan bishop immediately enters into communication with the bishops of neighboring dioceses on the subject of organizing the highest instance of church authority for several dioceses that are in the same conditions
(whether in the form of a temporary higher church government, or a metropolitan district, or in another way)" (26) .

Paragraphs 4-9 of the Decree deal with the situation when a diocesan bishop cannot establish relations with the bishops of neighboring dioceses. He "takes upon himself the full power granted to him by church canons, taking all measures to arrange local church life"(clause 4); divides his diocese into several dioceses (clause 4); "grants to its vicars... all the rights of diocesan bishops"(clause 5); "establishes, by conciliar judgment with other bishops of the diocese, if possible, in all significant cities of his diocese, new episcopal sees"(p. 5) (27) .

As a result (point 6), an ecclesiastical district is formed, headed by the bishop of the main diocesan city (28).

The "Suzdal canonists" considered that the order outlined in the decree justifies the creation of a new church in the best possible way.

There is neither His Holiness the Patriarch nor such an institution that the Patriarch would point to. Thus, paragraph 1 of the decree is not enforceable.

Since the highest church administration, headed by His Holiness the Patriarch, has ceased its activities, it remains to fulfill point 2.

For this ep. Valentine entered into relations with another bishop of the neighboring diocese, which was in the same conditions as the Suzdal one, and created the highest instance of church authority in the form of a temporary supreme church government.

Then, due to the return of the bishop of the neighboring diocese to ROCOR, paragraphs 4-9 of the decree come into force.

Ep. Valentine assumes full power, grants his vicars all the rights of diocesan bishops, and so on.

It is not difficult to see that the schismatics believe that Decree No. 362 encourages schism and actually abolishes all orderly government in the Russian Church. After all, it is clear that those who separate from the bishop. Valentine, they can also resort to a decree.

And in general, any split could find support in such a decree, which the "Suzdal" schismatics composed for themselves.

There is no church unity at all, which means that it is impossible to punish those who violate it.

Let's try to figure out what the mistake of the Suzdal canonists is.

This is a mistake not only of a canonical nature, but above all of a moral one. It is impossible never and under no circumstances to separate from the unity of the Church. No wonder the Apostle offers a comparison of the Church with a body in which the eye cannot say to the hand: I do not need you (1 Cor. 12 ch.).

The canons and decrees of ecclesiastical authority should be considered only for this purpose: how best to observe the will of God, how to preserve the unity of the Church. Any other use of the canons is wrong because it is contrary to their purpose.

Church historian V. V. Bolotov once said a very unfortunate phrase: "What is good for the Church is canonical". And this phrase was adopted by many canonists in the 20th century. They seek to prove that the canons are needed to justify lawlessness, because this is useful for Met. Sergius, Eulogy, Valentine, etc.

But to use canon law in this way is contrary to the very purpose of law. It's like using Scripture to justify heresy. As St. Vikenty Lirinskiy: “when we see that some bring apostolic or prophetic sayings in refutation of the universal faith, we will not doubt in the least that the devil speaks through their mouths”.

So we should ask; what do you use canons, decrees, etc. for? If it is to preserve the inviolable and unchanging order in the Church, then we can continue to talk about the intricacies of legal argumentation. And if to undermine the unity of the Church, then whatever the arguments, they are false.

Before discussing this decree and applying it, you need to understand: what is the purpose of the decree, its purpose. It is necessary to delve into what His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon had in mind.

As the documents of the "Suzdal" schismatics and the canonists who supported them show, they believe that the Holy Patriarch wanted to create a basis for all kinds of schisms, for the destruction of the conciliar church authority as such.

The Orthodox believe that the Holy Patriarch wanted to confirm the already existing rules and ensure the central conciliar administration of the Russian Church and prevent the danger of schisms.

If the schismatics are right, then the Church should condemn the decree and its creators,

If the Orthodox are right, then the Church should condemn the schismatics, who interpret to the detriment of what serves for church unity.

Now back to Decree No. 362.

Decree No. 362 does not introduce anything new or different in comparison with the usual church system. The diocesan bishop resolves only local issues (29), forms councils with neighboring bishops or with his former vicars, who also become independent.

Such regional councils have been prescribed by church canons since the time of the apostles, as well as the fact that they are chaired by the oldest bishop - the metropolitan (30).

In their competence only regional internal questions.

Decree of St. Patriarch Tikhon confirms these rules of church organization, and does not refute them. There is not the slightest hint in the decree of the possibility that the powers of a diocesan bishop may go beyond the limits of his diocese, and the powers of a regional council - beyond the limits of the church area.

The only thing that is provided for by the Decree is that within these boundaries the bishop is forced to act without approval of his actions by the highest central church authority (due to the absence of this authority or the rupture of conciliar communication with it). But it acts necessarily with the approval of the cathedral of its district.

The Decree repeatedly marks the limits of the actions of a diocesan bishop who finds himself in such extraordinary circumstances. First of all: "the bishop takes upon himself the fullness of the authority granted to him by church canons, taking all measures to arrange local church life". Note: the power granted to him, that is, not to the pope, not to the patriarch, not to the regional metropolitan, but to the diocesan bishop.

The canons speak of the full power of the diocesan bishop as follows: he has the full right to preach in his diocese, to take care of Christian education in his diocese, of sound teaching in his diocese, to supervise the content of the sermons of the clergy of his diocese.

The diocesan bishop has the right to perform all sacred rites in his diocese.

Everyone who is part of his diocese depends on him, no one in his diocese can perform services without his supervision, build a temple or a monastery in his diocese, the prohibition to serve the priest of his diocese depends on him, increase or decrease penitimia, distribute funds in his diocese. diocese, reward clergy, oversee property.

And everything else that he has the right to do concerns him and only his diocese.

Decree No. 362 obliges the diocesan bishop to take all measures to arrange local church life. Let us note: not general church life, not the fate of the Russian Church, but local church life.

The decree does not allow the possibility of separation from the general church center or from the regional council, since separation from them is not included in the powers of the diocesan bishop.

Nowhere in the decree does it say how to understand the impossibility of communication with the center and neighboring bishops. This is not an oversight, but a calculated precaution: to prevent one from separating from the council of bishops at one's own discretion.

The decree does not say anything about this, since the center itself must recognize the impossibility of communication with the center, and the council of bishops must recognize the loss of communication with the cathedral. That is, the highest authority recognizes that a certain diocese has lost contact with the center, and not vice versa: the diocese suddenly begins to assert that it has no connection.

The manner in which the decree was applied confirms that the Patriarch himself and his successors understood it in this way. By their direct instructions, they gave permission for the self-government of the bishops abroad. In particular, this is shown by the approval by the All-Russian Synod of Met. Evlogy at the Western European Chair with the wording: "in view of the decision of the Supreme Church Administration abroad" (31) .

Metropolitan Sergius, while still the lawful deputy locum tenens of the Patriarch, wrote to Russian bishops abroad in 1926: The Patriarchate cannot be "the leader of the church life of Orthodox emigrants, when there is virtually no communication between them" (32) .

To base ROCOR on a decree, it would not be enough simply to prove that the actions of the HCU abroad do not contradict the decree. It was necessary to prove, and it was proved, that it was the will of the legislator himself: the patriarch and his legitimate successors.

The Church Abroad executes the decree in accordance with the will of the legislator: St. Patriarch. How to make sure? Having found out the will of the legislator himself, which was done by Bishop. Grigory Grabbe, prot. Mikhail Polsky, N.D. Thalberg and others.

A similar situation developed after the Declaration of Met. Sergius.

In the majority of appeals announcing separation from the "Sergian" synod, Edict No. 362 is not mentioned, although the very mode of action of the episcopate exactly corresponds to that described in the decree.

We are mainly interested in how the bishops motivated their separation from the synod of Met. Sergius, to which authority they turned.

Metropolitan Iosif Petrogradsky believed that building a church business correctly means: to manage independently, "turning all eyes and hopes to the only legitimate Locum Tenens: Metropolitan Peter" (33) .

This idea is heard in dozens of documents of that time, from letters to messages and resolutions.

This path is closed in our time, because there is no locum tenens, but the continuation of the thought of Met. Joseph is directly related to the present time; he calls for self-management, "turning all eyes and hopes to ... the future Local Council of all the current saints, and not random selecting them individuals" . This is the Cathedral "the saints who remained faithful to Orthodoxy" (34) .

This is what true ecclesiastical thought is! Metropolitan Joseph does not resort to arbitrary "cathedral" several bishops, not to the future council, it is not clear by whom and from whom it was composed (see VVTsU resolution 1, paragraph 5), but to the council all current Orthodox Russian bishops. Such a council certainly exists in the person of the ROCOR Council of Bishops.

If the schismatics are not satisfied with the composition of this Council, then they should immediately seek the convocation of another legitimate council. "and, if they are powerless to do this, they must honestly leave the stage themselves" (35) .

There is one question that we have to answer: if, as we said,
Decree No. 362 does not introduce anything new, then why is it needed at all.

If by the word "necessary" one understands that without it chaos and anarchy would set in, and the Russian Church would cease to exist, then the decree is really not needed. He only clarifies what the Church has always observed, applied to the new conditions.

This is proved by the fact that on May 18-24, 1919, a Church Council was held in Stavropol, which elected the HCU in southern Russia, headed by Archbishop. Novocherkassky Mitrofan. From November 1919, the HCU in southern Russia was headed by Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky).

These actions were not a schism or arbitrariness, but a legitimate action of church authority, although a year and a half remained before the issuance of decree No. 362. These actions would have remained legal even if the decree had not been issued at all. Because, firstly, they corresponded to the spirit of church rules, and secondly, they were undertaken with the oral blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch.

Finally, let's draw a line under our argument about the "Suzdal" split.

This schism is not an isolated phenomenon, but part of the general corruption of the Christian principles of life.

This is a schism - that is, a rebellion against the legitimate church authority.

It is an ideology that rejects the existence of any power at all.

This is a schism that claims that the Russian Church has been destroyed.

This is a schism that seeks to destroy the catholic administration of the Church.

Finally, this is where we started: this is a schism condemned by the legitimate church authorities. For this schism, Bishop. Valentine, as his instigator, was defrocked (decision of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops of September 10, 1996).

Roman Vershillo, 1998

Notes:

(1) Dates everywhere in the new style.

(2) Suzdal Pilgrim. - 1994 - Nos. 18-20. - S. 7.

(3) Ibid. - S. 121.

(4) Ibid. - S. 165.

(5) Ibid. - S. 6.

(7) Ibid. - S. 165.

(8) Bishop Valentine's report at the ROCOR Synod of Bishops at the end of 1991. //Suzdal Pilgrim. - 1994 - Nos. 18-20. - S. 44-45.

(9) Letter from "Bishop" Theodore to the editor of the newspaper "Call" April 20, 1997//Church News. - No. 6. - 1997.

(11) Suzdal Pilgrim. 1994 - Nos. 18-20. - S. 81.

(12) Ex. ep. Valentine, interview with Express Chronicle April 3, 1997//Church News. - № 4. - 1997. We have preserved the spelling of the original.

(13) Ibid.

(14) Definition of the "Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church" dated November 10/23, 1996//Church News, No. 1. - 1997.

(15) Message from the AUCU, October 1995//Church News. - No. 6. - 1995.

(16) Definition of the "Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church" dated November 10/23, 1996//Church News. - No. 1. - 1997.

(17) O. Andrey Osetrov. Russian Orthodox Church: will the gates of hell overcome?//Suzdal Pilgrim.-1994 - No. 18-20. - p. 3.

(18) Ibid. - S. 5.

(19) Decree of the VVTsU No. 1, March 5/18, 1994//Suzdal Palomnik. - 1994 -
Nos. 18-20. - S. 171-172.

(20) Ep. Valentine. Easter message 1994//Suzdal Pilgrim. - 1994 -
Nos. 18-20. - S. 191.

(21) Definition of the "Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church" of November 10/23, 1996. Church News. - No. 1. - 1997.

(22) O. Andrey Osetrov//Suzdal Pilgrim. - 1994 - Nos. 18-20. - p. 4.

(23) Suzdal Pilgrim. - 1994 - Nos. 18-20. - S. 121.

(24) Ep. Gregory (Grabbe). On the history of Russian church divisions abroad. - Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1992. - S. 57.

(25) Ibid. - S. 57.

(26) Ibid. - S. 57-58.

(27) Ibid. - S. 58.

(28) Ibid. - S. 58.

(29) 34 app. etc.; 9 Ant. sob.

(30) See 14 pr. twice. sob.

(31) April 8, 1921 Protopresbyter George Grabbe. The Truth about the Russian Church at Home and Abroad, - Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1989. - S. 193-194.

(32) Ibid. - S. 202.

(33) New Russian martyrs / Comp. Protopresbyter M. Polsky. - Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1957. - T. 2. - S. 5.

(34) Ibid. - S. 5.

"Themes"

"Bishop of the ROAC"

1. Theodore
Archbishop of Borisov and Otradnensky

2. Seraphim
Archbishop of Sukhumi and Abkhazia

3. Victor
Archbishop of Daugavpils and Latvia

4. Hilarion
Archbishop of Smelyansky

5. Timothy
Bishop of Orenburg and Kurgan

6. Irinarch
Bishop of Tula and Bryansk

7. Andrey
Bishop of Pavlovsky

8. Jacob
Bishop of Sukhodolsk

9. Trofim
Bishop of Simbirsk

10. Mark
Bishop of Armavir

news

INTERVIEW:
Metropolitan First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church
Suzdal and Vladimir FEODOR about their plans in connection with the criminal
persecution and how fragments of the relics of
Suzdal saints

Metropolitan Theodore: I'd rather read you the text of the warning about criminal prosecution, so that everything is accurate:

"A warning
head - debtor - centralized organization Russian
Orthodox Autonomous Church, centralized religious
organizations Suzdal diocese of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous
Churches. Article 315 criminal liability warning
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation No. 1.
link: http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=97305

Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church loses lawsuit again

How
informs Portal-Credo.Ru the Vladimir Regional Arbitration Court
satisfied three claims of the regional department of property and land
relations with the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church.
link: http://gorod33.ru/art/14346/

Consideration
materials about administrative offense regarding the ROAC
postponed to December 14, and Metropolitan Theodore was given a second
prosecution warning

Repeated warning of criminal liability under Art. 315
of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was handed on December 7 to the First Hierarch of the Russian
Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) to the Metropolitan of Suzdal and
Vladimirsky Theodore. According to the correspondent of Portal-Credo.Ru, in
On this day, the Primate of the ROAC visited the Department of the Federal Service
bailiffs of the Russian Federation in the Vladimir region (UFSSP), accompanied by
representatives of the Church.
link: http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=97265&cf=

Metropolitan
The ROAC issued an official warning to Theodore about a criminal
persecution, and heavy
fines

Bailiff-executor Anna Filippova, leading executive
proceedings under the decision of the Vladimir Arbitration Court on the withdrawal from
Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) and its Suzdal
diocese of the relics of the saints, delivered on November 29 to the First Hierarch of the ROAC Metropolitan
Suzdal and Vladimir Theodore (Gineevsky) official
warning of criminal liability under Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
reports the correspondent of Portal-Credo.Ru.
link: http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=97114&cf=

The First Hierarch of the ROAC celebrated the liturgy in the church at the Golovinsky cemetery in Moscow

First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC)
Metropolitan of Suzdal and Vladimir Theodore celebrated on December 9, in
Week 27 after Pentecost, solemn Liturgy in the church of St.
Tsar-Martyr Nicholas and All New Martyrs of Russia on Golovinsky
cemetery in Moscow, according to the correspondent of Portal-Credo.Ru. Temple
is under the jurisdiction of the ROAC and is the center of the Moscow deanery
Suzdal diocese of this Church.
link: http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=97298&cf=

Federal
Arbitration Court of the Volga-Vyatka Arbitration District of the Russian Federation took to
the cassation appeal of the ROAC and its Suzdal diocese in the "case of
relics"

Judge of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Volga-Vyatka District of the Russian Federation D.The.
Chernyshov issued on November 29 a ruling on acceptance for production
cassation appeal of the Centralized religious organizations Russian
Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) and the Suzdal diocese of the ROAC on
decision of the Arbitration Court of the Vladimir Region dated May 31 and
decision of the First Court of Appeal of September 19 on
seizure from the ROAC and its Suzdal diocese of the relics of St. Euthymius and
Euphrosyne of Suzdal, according to the correspondent of Portal-Credo.Ru.
link:

An extremely small group of bishops and clergy who recognized Metropolitan Sergius were given part of the churches closed in the 1930s, allowed to open religious educational institutions, and publish a magazine "for official use". This is how the modern Moscow Patriarchate was formed, which gradually grew and, with the help of the authorities, took the place of the historical Russian Church in the minds of the Russian people.

Meanwhile, the true Russian Church - the Catacomb Church - remained persecuted. Almost all of its episcopate was in prisons and camps, and a significant part of the clergy was also there, who did not want to enter the Moscow Patriarchate. Already in the 30s, due to the lack of central church authority (the canonical Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter was shot in 1937, but 12 years earlier he was deprived of the opportunity to govern the Church), movements formed among the Catacomb Christians, as a rule, named after the names of their bishops-confessors, for example: "Josephites" - after the name of Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd (Petrovs), "Buevtsy" - children of Bishop Alexy (Buy), etc.
...
The incessant persecution of the Catacomb Church in the USSR led to the fact that by the beginning of the 90s of the XX century, the Russian Catacomb Church no longer had its own hierarchy. It is quite natural that the Catacomb Christians turned to ROCOR, where the legitimate Russian hierarchy was still preserved in the purity of faith. Many catacomb clergy commemorated Metropolitan Philaret, and then Metropolitan Vitaly, the First Hierarchs of ROCOR, during Divine Services. The communities of the Josephites in St. Petersburg and the North-Western Territory, as well as the "buevites" of the Voronezh region and the catacombs of the Moscow region were fed by priest Mikhail Rozhdestvensky (+ 1988). Several priests, hieromonks and an archimandrite took care of the "Galyns" of the Vyatka region, Tatarstan, Mordovia and Chuvashia. The head of their branch, Archbishop Anthony (Galynsky-Mikhailovsky), died in Kyiv in 1976, leaving behind a small number of clergy and a large flock. The inept policy of ROCOR in Russia led to the ordination in 1982 by foreign hierarchs of Archbishop Lazar (Zhurbenko), who was distrusted by most of the catacombists.

Only after the beginning of "perestroika" and after the fall of the Soviet regime, when ROCOR began to open its legal parishes in Russia, was the trust of the catacombs in the Church Abroad restored. The first major parish that came under the jurisdiction of the ROCOR Synod and was directly subordinate to Metropolitan Vitaly was the parish of the Tsar Konstantinovsky Church in Suzdal. Almost a year after his accession, on February 10, 1991, the rector of the parish, Archimandrite Valentin (Rusantsov), was ordained Bishop of Suzdal in Brussels. At this time, catacomb communities began to join the Russian Orthodox Free Church (ROC) (as the canonical structures of ROCOR in Russia were called). At the same time, priests and parishes who have left the MP are accepted through repentance. In Suzdal itself and its environs, all the catacombs, along with the flock of Bishop Valentine who left the MP, become parishioners of the Tsarekonstantinovsky Cathedral and other churches of the Russian Orthodox Church. New communities and parishes are also being created. The distrust of the catacomb workers towards Archbishop Lazar, who provided care for the "illegal" part of the Russian Orthodox Church, prompted them to turn to Bishop Valentin of Suzdal. As a rule, the communities sent their proxies to Suzdal in order to find out exactly who the ROCC was, its hierarchy and clergy, and whether they really professed True Orthodoxy. Representatives of the "Buy" and "Iosiflyan" communities of Voronezh and St. Petersburg come to Suzdal and join the ROCC. The current abbess of the Rizopolozhensky Monastery in Suzdal, Schema Euphemia, came to Suzdal from the community of Voronezh catacomb workers.

In 1992, a large number of catacomb communities of the "Galyns" of the Vyatka region joined the ROCA, and their priest, Archpriest Valentin (ordained in 1965 by Archbishop Anthony (Galynsky)) was tonsured a monk in 1997 and ordained in Suzdal as Bishop of Yaran. Catacomb nuns come to Suzdal from different places, for whom Bishop Valentine creates a monastery in honor of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco (St. John was the spiritual father of St. Anthony (Galynsky) and maintained a correspondence with him).

In 1991-93 catacombs from the Caucasus came to Suzdal. For the care of the catacomb communities of the Caucasus and the South of Russia, the catacomb monk Seraphim, who labored for many years in the mountains of Abkhazia, was ordained Bishop of Sukhumi in 1994. The well-known confessor (who spent 25 years in the camps) and the organizer of catacomb parishes in the Kuban and Ukraine, nun Seraphim (Sanina), also comes to Suzdal, who is appointed abbess of the Suzdal catacomb monastery in honor of St. John of Shanghai. Following her example, many catacomb communities in Ukraine and Belarus joined the ROCC. Later, in 1998, their Bishop was ordained for them - His Grace Hilarion Sukhodolsky.

Nuns, the spiritual children of the catacomb hieromonk Seraphim (Goloshchapov), move from the Kuban villages to Suzdal; one of them - the mother of Alexander - is now abbess in the monastery of St. John of Shanghai.
...

However, the rapid growth of the ROCA was hampered by the non-canonical and provocative actions of some ROCA hierarchs, which eventually led to the discrediting of ROCA itself in Russia and to a conflict between the Synod and the Russian hierarchs. The reason for such actions of some of the foreign hierarchs was their illusions about a "genuine spiritual revival" in distant and little known Russia, as well as a fundamentally wrong and contrary to the confession of the Catacomb Church, the view of the MP as the Orthodox Church, captivated by atheists, or<мать-церковь>.
...

As a result, the contradictions between the leadership of the ROCOR Synod and the Russian bishops, who adhere to true Orthodox, catacomb positions, grew. The bishops of the Catacomb Church, who were under the jurisdiction of ROCOR, Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Valentine, were illegally dismissed from their chairs in 1993. After all their requests for a fair trial and the restoration of the trampled Sts. The Synod of ROCOR left the canons without results, they were forced to administratively separate from ROCOR, forming, on the basis of the decree of St. Patriarch Tikhon and the bodies of the Supreme Church Administration under him, No. 362 of November 20, 1920, autonomous self-government in March 1994. They ordained three more bishops for the Russian Church: Theodore, Seraphim and Agafangel.

A year later, after unsuccessful attempts to find an acceptable way of self-governing Russian parishes, on February 11/24, 1995, the ROCOR Synod uncanonically banned five Bishops of the Russian Church from serving at once. This prohibition was also illegal because it was committed without the ecclesiastical court required by the canons. Thus, the Synod of ROCOR made an attempt to usurp power over the Catacomb Russian Church, power that belongs only to the All-Russian Local Council. As a result, a split occurred between the ROCOR Synod and the Russian Church. The unity of the Russian and foreign parts of the Russian Local Orthodox Church - from 1921 to 1990 spiritual, and from 1991 to 1994 also administrative - turned out to be terminated through the fault of the Synod Abroad, which headed for rapprochement with the MP and saw an obstacle in the face of its own Russian parishes. The illegal actions of the ROCOR hierarchs in relation to the Church in Russia brought the Synod Abroad itself to the brink of a canonical schism. At the ROCOR Council of Bishops in 1994, the "new course" of ROCOR was officially proclaimed, which, in particular, was expressed in the conciliar acceptance of the ecumenical teaching of the Greek Metropolitan Cyprian and in communion with the official Serbian Patriarchate, a member of the ecumenical World Council of Churches.

In 1995, Archbishop Lazar and Bishops Benjamin and Agafangel returned to ROCOR, and only three bishops remained in the ROCA, headed by Archbishop Valentine.
...

Meanwhile, as a result of the constant meetings of Archbishop Mark of Berlin (ROCOR) with the leadership of the MP (in particular, with the patriarch himself), an agreement was reached between the MP and the ROCOR Synod to simultaneously remove the priesthood from Bishop Valentine, who was an obstacle to the reunification of ROCOR with the MP. This was done by ROCOR in September 1996, the MP in February 1997. The Russian bishops recognized these actions as having no canonical significance, since they were directed against clergymen who were not members of the ROCOR clergy, and the MP could not and cannot be recognized as Church. Back in 1994, Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) in his report to Metropolitan Vitaly called such "prohibitions" and "defrocking" as "unprecedented lawlessness."

In October 1998, the ROAC was re-registered under the name "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" (ROAC). Currently, the episcopate of the ROAC includes 12 bishops. The head of the Church was elevated to the rank of Metropolitan in March 2001. History of the ROAC

"The Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (abbreviated as the ROAC; until 1998 - the Russian Orthodox Free Church) is a religious association officially registered by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation in October 1998; does not have communion with the Moscow Patriarchate; is also not recognized by any of the local Orthodox Churches. Considers itself as the legitimate heir to the historical Orthodox Russian Church and the Kievan Metropolis as part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.In the Moscow Patriarchate it has the designation "Suzdal schism"
...

The basis for the emergence of the ROAC was the “Regulations on free parishes” adopted on May 15, 1990 by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), which proclaimed the course of the ROCA to establish its own (parallel ROC) church structures (dioceses, deaneries and parishes) within the USSR. In April 1990, Archimandrite of the Suzdal diocese of the ROC Valentin (Rusantsov), who had previously refused to fulfill the decree of Archbishop Valentin (Mishchuk) to transfer him to another city, transferred to the jurisdiction of the ROCOR along with his parish, in view of which, by the decision of the Holy Synod of the ROC, he was banned from serving.

Bishop Valentin, gradually distancing himself from the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR, on June 22, 1993, left the jurisdiction of ROCOR, remaining with her "in prayerful union and Eucharistic communion." In March 1994, Valentine and Lazar (Zhurbenko), who had been illegally caring for ROCOR members in the USSR since 1982, switched to autonomous self-government and ordained three new bishops, creating the Supreme Church Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church. In the winter of 1994, a temporary reconciliation with ROCOR was achieved, but on February 24, 1995, the ROCOR Synod banned all 5 bishops from serving, and declared the Vladimir-Suzdal see widowed. The Provisional Higher Church Administration of the ROCA, at a meeting on March 14, 1995, decided to recognize the definitions of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops in relation to the ROCA "contradicting the holy canons and not recognizing them as having force."
...
In June 1995, the Supreme Church Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church was restored. It was headed by Archbishop Valentine, whose diocese in Suzdal became the center of the new church. In October 1998, the old name "Russian Orthodox Free Church" during registration was replaced by the ROAC. According to Mikhail Ardov, the word "autonomous" had to be added to the name ("it was slapped on us in the Ministry of Justice"), since the name "Russian Orthodox Church" was assigned to the Moscow Patriarchate.

In 2001, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church decided to raise Archbishop Valentin (Rusantsov) to the rank of metropolitan with the right to wear two panagias.
...
In 2001, a group led by Archpriest Andrei Osetrov broke away from the ROAC, who became one of the ideologists of the persecution of Metropolitan Valentine. In 2004, Bishop Gregory (Abu-Assal) does not obey the demands of the Synod and creates the ROAC in America. Thus, by the beginning of 2006, most of the parishes in the far abroad (USA, Bulgaria, England) were lost, and, in most cases, this was due to the metropolitan's incompetent personnel policy.

...
In May 2007, a new, alternative center took shape in Bezhetsk (Tver region) - the "Provisional Church Council" (VTsS ROAC) under Bishop Sevastian (Zhatkov) of Chelyabinsk, which coordinates the activities of a significant part of the parishes. The Synod of the ROAC did not recognize this body, and canonical punishments were applied to its members, up to and including anathematization of Sebastian.
...
On November 5, 2008, a final schism occurred in the ROAC, as a result of which Sevastian (Zhatkov) and Ambrose (Epifanov) transformed the "Provisional Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" into a new non-canonical religious organization, which received the name "Bishops' Conference of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" and on the next day, hegumen Grigory (Lurie), banned by Valentin (Rusantsov), was ordained "bishop of Petrograd and Gdov." The latter was elected Chairman of the "Bishops' Meeting of the ROAC".
...
On February 5, 2009, the Arbitration Court of the Vladimir Region, on the suit of the Federal Property Management Agency, decided to confiscate 13 churches from the ROAC due to the lack of an agreement for their use.
....
In October 2010, three of the 11 priests that the ROAC had in Suzdal and the region moved to the Moscow Patriarchate.

The text was prepared within the framework of the project “Dynamics of the Religious Situation and Confessional Identity in the Moscow Region”. The project uses state support funds allocated as a grant in accordance with Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 68-rp dated April 5, 2016 and on the basis of a competition held by the National Charitable Foundation.

Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church(ROAC, until 1998 - Russian Orthodox Free Church) - an alternative church organization, represented primarily in the Russian Federation, but with several parishes in the United States (ROAC in America), and at least one in a number of other countries: Bulgaria, Serbia, Brazil, Italy, etc.

The Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church was registered by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation in October 1998. Previously, it operated under the name of the Russian Orthodox Free Church. In the early 2000s The ROAC has experienced a number of public scandals related to the personality of its head, Met. Valentina (Rusantsova). In 2002, he was sentenced to 4 years of suspended imprisonment (sexual offenses involving minors), and two years later the sentence was declared invalid. However, this lawsuit is considered the beginning of a significant weakening of the ROAC. Bp. Grigory (Lurie), who convened the Bishops' Conference in St. Petersburg; at the moment, among his supporters there are 3 bishops, 6-7 parishes and several hundred parishioners.

In parallel with the institutional crisis, there were conflicts with local authorities. Since most of the ROAC communities are concentrated in the Vladimir region, mainly in the Suzdal region, in the circles of the ROC MP this denomination is called the “Suzdal Schism”. The administration of the region in court during 2009-2010. confiscated about 13 churches of the confession. Later, almost all of them were transferred to the use of the ROC MP. The last historical temple of the ROAC was seized in the spring of 2016. Also in 2015, the church was deprived of a cult relic - the relics of St. Euphemia and Euphrosyne of Suzdal, which the local authorities transferred to the Rizopolozhensky Monastery of the Russian Orthodox Church in Suzdal.

At the moment, the official head of the denomination is Metropolitan Theodore (Gineevsky). Official title: "Metropolitan of Suzdal and Vladimir". He is the second First Hierarch of this church. He was elected head of the church on January 23, 2012. The unofficial, however, actual leader of a part of the ROAC, namely its "Bishops' Conference", is Bishop Gregory (Lurie). The official title is "Bishop of Petrograd and Gdov".

population

Calculating the number of believers and parishes of the church is difficult due to several circumstances: firstly, the fact that some of them operate underground, and secondly, the fact that since the second half of the 2000s, it has gradually lost a significant part of the churches (see. Further). At the moment, the church has about 35 officially registered parishes, about 30 operate as religious groups, and about 20-30 more exist in the conditions of "catacombs", i.e. illegally; it has 10 bishops, 40 priests, 20 nuns and approximately 5,000 laity. Figures are from an internal source and are approximate.

creed

The general doctrinal doctrinal part of dogmatics coincides with Orthodox dogma. Also, the ROAC is characterized by extreme anti-Sovietism, and in connection with this, radical criticism of the ROC for Sergianism (agreements with the Soviet government), ecumenism, renovationism, and a totalitarian church structure. The leadership of the church advocates the rejection of politics, bureaucracy and deviations from the traditional theology of the Orthodox Church. In general, the views of its supporters can be characterized as conservative, taking into account some freedom inherent in all near-Catacomb jurisdictions in terms of organizing church life and operating everywhere except Suzdal and the Vladimir region. orientation towards autonomy and self-government of parish communities.

The priestly corporation is characterized by the presence of a greater degree of freedom in comparison with the ROC-MP, which was often the reason for the transition of clergy to the ROC.

Social work

Among the representatives of the ROAC, two personalities can be distinguished who are known in the media space as representatives of the cultural intelligentsia. Bishop Gregory (Lurie), leader of the alternative "Bishops' Conference" of the ROAC, is a well-known patrologist and researcher of the history of Christianity. He is a recognized specialist in Orthodox theology in Europe and Russia. He is the editor-in-chief of the authoritative French patrological journal Scrinium. Revue de patrologie, d'hagiographie critique et d'histoire ecclésiastique.

The most famous cleric of the church to a wide audience is Fr. Mikhail Ardov - publicist, memoirist, rector of the Moscow church of Sts. of the Royal Martyrs and New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia at the Golovinsky Cemetery, who transferred to the ROAC from the ROAC in 1993. Alexander Soldatov, manager of the ROAC AS, is an observer of religious life in the Russian Federation and manages the very influential Credo.ru portal. On this Internet resource, the religious and political analysis of events is presented from an alternative point of view (often the main content of the portal is presented by critical materials in relation to the ROC MP).

The administrative center is the Tsarekonstantinovsky Cathedral in Suzdal, Vladimir region.

The official print organ is Suzdal Diocesan Gazette.

The only current Internet resource of the church is the site "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" in English.

In addition to the aforementioned temple, located in Moscow itself, in the Moscow region. The ROAC owns two parishes - St. Tsarevich-Martyr Alexy in the village. Mytishchi and St. Xenia of Petersburg in the village. New Kupavna, as well as the Holy Trinity Monastery in the village. Ostrovo (near Orekhovo-Zuevo).

A. Zygmont and E. Voinov

See pages of this edition.