Orthodox
Conference in the German Diocese
The annual Orthodox
Conference held every year in Munich came to an end. The Conference
opened on the morning of 26 December with a solemn service
of supplication at the Cathedral of the Holy New Martyrs of
Russia. All the Conference members sang at this moleben, over
a hundred people having gathered from all over Germany,. Both
bishops of the German Diocese were present: Archbishop Mark
of Berlin and Bishop Agapit of Stuttgart. Protopriest Nikolai
Artemoff headed the Conference.
After the moleben,
Archbishop Mark read a lecture at the parish hall: ÒThe Unity
of the Russian Church—the Situation Today.Ó Vladyka gave a
brief overview of the history of the division of the Russian
Church in the 20th century, then told of recent events in
the life of the Russian Church, of which he was a direct participant:
the meeting with President Putin, the delegation of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia to Moscow, the recent Pastoral
Conference in the USA. After many weeks of anxiety over these
events, which were widely discussed on the internet, the seminar
participants were eager to hear about all this through the
personal impressions and thoughts of their archpastor. The
thoughtful position of Archbishop Mark, which is devoid of
any extremes, stressed both the need for as well as the difficulties
in conducting dialog with the Russian Orthodox Church/Moscow
Patriarchate. In part, Vladyka noted, on the basis of Ukase
No 362, Òwe cannot speak of being granted autonomy from the
Moscow Patriarchate, only that the autonomy which in fact
exists be recognized.Ó
After lunch, the
eldest priest of the German Diocese, Protopriest Ambrosius
Backhaus, gave a speech on the topic: ÒHalf a Century of Church
Life in Germany; a Personal Account.Ó Possessed of a rare
gift for language, Fr. Ambrosius spoke about his pastoral
experience in the German Diocese in a lively and interesting
manner, and with a great sense of humor. The lecture was delivered
in German, with concurrent translation into Russian. Fr. Ambrosius’
lecture was very well received.
After a brief recess, the Conferees went to the Cathedral
for vespers and matins. Vladyka Mark and two priests took
the confessions of the Conference participants. Sixty people
partook of Holy Communion at liturgy, which began at 7:15
am on Saturday.
After breakfast, Alexander Vladimirovich Zhuravsky, Professor
of Theology and History, who was invited from Moscow, spoke
on ÒThe Ecclesiology of Holy Martyr Kyrill, Metropolitan of
Kazan, as the Basis for the Unity of the Russian Church.Ó
The young historian was a participant in two history conferences
held by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in Hungary
and Moscow. Having studied the case and all the surviving
letters of St. Kyrill of Kazan, Zhuravsky wrote a dissertation
on the ecclesiology of the holy bishop. In his lecture, Zhuravsky
first of all pointed out that St. Kyrill held fast to the
Òroyal pathÓ in his ecclesiology, veering neither to the right
nor to the left. For this he was assailed from both sides.
The main position
of St. Kyrill was that, while recognizing the validity of
the Mysteries of Sergius’ jurisdiction, he refrained from
liturgical contact with Metropolitan Sergius and those under
him. The fact that St. Kyrill was glorified by the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and by the Moscow Patriarchate
attests to the fact that the ecclesiology of Metropolitan
Kyrill can serve as the foundation of dialog between the two
parts of the Russian Church. The lecturer noted that one does
not hear calls for the glorification of Metropolitan Sergius
at the present time, while Metropolitan Kyrill was in fact
glorified. The lecture also touched upon the recognition of
those who previously did not commemorate Metropolitan Sergius,
for example, the commemoration by St. Afanasii (Sakharov)
of Patriarch Alexii (Simansky). St. Afanasii was a particular
point of interest in the lecture, since he was a student of
St. Kyrill. Zhuravsky explained that the decision of St. Afanasii
to commemorate Patriarch Alexii was conditioned upon the fact
that during the election of Patriarch Alexii I, not one lawful
locum tenens of the patriarchal throne survived. Therefore,
said the lecturer, there was no usurpation of church authority.
The young scholar A.V. Zhuravsky showed a great deal of erudition,
yet he spoke clearly, with an apparent love for his topic.
While discussing
the interrogations of St. Kyrill, Zhuravsky spoke of the deep
impression Metropolitan Kyrill’s responses had on the Chekists:
ÒOne gets the impression,Ó said the lecturer, Òthat each word
was spoken for posterity. Metropolitan Kyrill keenly sensed
the need for Christian witness, that is, he bore witness to
Christ consistently, evenly and with dignity. Here I saw what
the true value of an Orthodox Archpastor is. I examined hundreds
of cases of other clergymen. But such a person as Metropolitan
Kyrill I had not seen. It cannot be related in words.Ó A
question-and-answer period followed, with a lively discussion.
Archbishop Mark expressed his bewilderment at the decision
of St. Afanasii (Sakharov), noting the structure of ecclesiastical
administration was nonetheless inherited from Patriarch Sergius.
Questions were also posed to Zhuravsky on contemporary church
life.
After lunch on
Saturday, a concluding session was held after which many participants
hurried home to their parishes for vigil. Hopes and suggestions
were offered for the nextOrthodox Conference in Germany.
-Nun Vassa |
