---

Father Kochetkov's defense to theological commission

The discussion about the theological views of Fr Georgi Kochetkov has acquired a new character after the publication by Fr Georgi of his explanatory note to the Synodal Theological Commission, which the commission itself considers a secret working document.

Today the press service of the Presentation brotherhood, led by Fr Georgi, produced a special statement occasioned by the interview given by the secretary of the Synodal Theolgical Commission, Fr Vladimir Shmaly, to strana.ru. In the press service's opinion, the statement by Shmaly that at the presidium of the commission on 7 May "the decision was made to take as its basis the conclusions of the commission chaired by Fr Sergei Pravdoliubov" permits "one to make the conclusion that a serious turn has been made in the course of the review of the works of Fr Georgi."

Fr Vladimir's statement that "the presidium of the Synodal Theological Commission does not plan to get into a theological discussion with Fr Georgi" was assessed by the press service in the following way:  "This apparently means that Fr Georgi will not get the possibility of a substantive response to the accusations put forward and any kind of justification, but he will only be able to 'renounce his wrong thinking,' that is, those of his statements that seem to be wrong thinking from the point of view of the 'Moscow commission.'" The press service also quotes Fr Vladimir's words which pertain to the explanatory note that Fr Georgi submitted to the commission on 7 March: "The presidium was not satisfied with the contents of the explanatory note, taking it as a kind of apology for the wrong thinking that was found by the commission under the chairmanship of Archpriest Sergei Pravdoloibov."

In the view of the press service "all this permits one to conclude that Fr Georgi Kochetkov's response to the conclusion of the 'Moscow' commission was nothing more than a working document of the Synodal Theological Commission.  Thus we now consider it possible to publish it, the more so since the documents of the 'Moscow commission' itself have already been made public long ago on the pages of 'NG-religii' and several internet sites."

The text of Fr Georgi's explanatory note was published today after the announcement by the press service of the Presentation brotherhood on the Internet site of the St. Filaret's school.

We recall that the chairman of the Synodal Theological Commission, Metropolitan Filaret, appealed to members of the synodal commission, and the Moscow commission chaired by Archpriest Sergei Pravdoliubov, and Fr Georgi Kochetkov requesting that they not make public the contents of the commission's working documents in any form. This instruction by Metropolitan Filaret was violated at the beginning of March when first on the narod.ru site and then on the forum of the "Radonezh" society's site the following working documents of the commission were published:  Conclusion of the Commission for Theological Examination of Priest Georgi Kochetkov, Summary of the Conclusions of the Commission for Theological Examination of Priest Georgi Kochetkov, and the Supplement by Deacon Vladimir Shmaly. Excerpts from these documents were then reprinted on 28 March in the NG-religii newspaper. Until now observers have not reached a united conclusion as to who of those who had access to these documents decided to violate openly the instructions of Metropolitan Filaret. Supporters of Fr Georgi think that the articles were beneficial to his opponents since they contain very serious accusations of profession of heresy and frighten believers away from Fr Georgi and discredit him. Opponents of Fr Georgi think that the articles were favorable to Fr Georgi himself since the conclusion of the Moscow commission contains a number of inaccurate quotations from Fr Georgi's books and on this basis it could subject it to serious criticism as a whole.

Today's article is the first case of open publication of working materials of the theological commission and this fact possibly will advance the discussion of Fr Georgi's theological views to a new level when it acquires an open character through the mass media, because until now members of the synodal theological and Moscow commissions have refrained from public statements on this subject, observing the moratorium imposed by Metropolitan Filaret. It is possible that after this publication this prohibition will be lifted. (tr. by PDS, posted 16 May 2001)

EXPLANATORY NOTE

To the Synodal Theological Commission

From suspended clergyman of the city of Moscow, Fr Georgi Kochetkov

Your Beautitudes, worthy fathers, esteemed members of the theological commission.

I humbly ask you to review my explanations with regard to the evaluation of my printed works in the text of the "Conclusion of the Commission for Theological Investigation of the priest Georgi Kochetkov," dated 15 November 2000, that was officially turned over to me.

In view of the fact that the text of the Conclusion charges me with direct deviation from a whole series of doctrines of the Orthodox church, I consider it my primary duty to confess publicly my own genuine and unconditional adherence to all Orthodox doctrinal teaching without exception. Repeating to a certain extent my own statement in the press (NG-religii, 28 June 2000) I ask you to accept my sincere assurances that I never have intentionally violated the teaching of mother church nor its integrity. The meaning and actual goal of my publications consist exclusively in my ardent desire to cooperate in the conversion of our fellow countrymen to the faith of Christ and the saving life in his holy church, which is now so needed. I affirm my fidelity decisively to all dogmatic resolutions of the ecumenical councils and I unconditionally deny any distortion of them in any form.

Seeing my own modest task to consist, in accordance with the call of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, only in facilitating the instruction of those who have become believers in the fundamentals of the Christian faith and life, I cannot claim, nor have I ever claimed, to have created any kind of "belief system," and thus statements made in the Conclusion that such an attempt can be found in my books evokes in me only perplexity and pain.

I testify in this regard to my sincere regret and I ask that you forgive me that some of my, perhaps, incautious and insufficiently clear and thought out statements could, apart from my intention, give rise to mistaken understanding and become the cause of certain confusion.

I dare to affirm that in reality the texts of my publications should not be able to serve as a basis for the accusations advanced in the Conclusion.

Thus, for example, the claim that my works do not profess the "dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox church . . . contained in the form, sense, and contents of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed," that "the text of the Orthodox creed is not even inserted here," and that "it is entirely absent from the corpus of the catechetical works of Fr Georgi Kochetkov" can apparently be explained only by the assumption that one of my basic books fell somehow outside the field of vision of the authors of the Conclusion: "Catechism for the Enlightened" (which, however, appears in the list of my works that they examined). In it, on pages 87-89, the text of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed is produced in its entirety, accompanied by commentary on difficult spots. Along with this the instructees are told that it is obligatory from them to memorize it in Church Slavonic and, for those wishing to do so, also in Russian. This is also stated in the methodological instructions in the catechism for catechizers on pages 68-69: learn it by heart "in order to grasp it (i.e. the creed) not only with the mind but also with the heart."

With regard to the question of "the use by Fr Georgi Kochetkov for purposes of catechesis of special (adapted) creeds," one can with no less regret consider this yet another clear misunderstanding, since the texts that the Conclusion identifies as such do not represent "a new creed," but only an attempt to reflect as a general guide for the catechumen the contents of the faith at the beginning stages of instruction before a systematic exposition of the bases of dogmatic Orthodox teaching, but in no way is it to replace that teaching. These texts in no way were intended for presentation in the form of confessional formulas; nobody is required to either read them or learn them and they are not used in the process of catechesis (they are not used in public discussions but in the preface to the catechism).

It is no less sad for me to read that I "equate the Holy Spirit with the concept of divine energy," since I am an opponent of any confusion of the person of the Holy Spirit with, first, a "concept," or with, second, divine energy.

I never have affirmed (although this is said in the Conclusion) that the Holy Spirit is "some kind of divine breath that is always present to God but is not a person of the Holy Trinity," and I hold strictly to the Orthodox dogmatic teaching about the Holy Spirit as a person (hypostasis) of the Holy Trinity, of the same substance as the Father and the Son and proceeding from the Father.

It is possible that this misunderstanding was evoked by the fact that in the explanation for the catechizers (who typically have advanced theological education) of the first verses of the book of Genesis I make a distinction between the Spirit of God, which is "uncreated energy transcending the world, the Spirit of God, which perhaps is not God in his substance and thus is not a Who but a What, but which is immediately from the three-in-one God," and the "personal Holy Spirit of God, the individual Spirit and the individuality of spiritual life . . . the Spirit of Consolation sent by Christ, i.e. that Spirit 'who proceeds from the Father.'" Such a distinction, dating back to the holy fathers, specifically to St. Gregory Palama (see, for example, Archimandrite Kiprian Kern, Anthropology of St. Gregory Palama, p. 237-304), has been worked out in detail particularly in the works of V.N. Lossky, who wrote of the "natural, energized, nonpersonal" procession of the spirit as a joint action of the Holy Trinity and of the "personal, hypostatic" procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone (see V.N. Lossky, "Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox teaching about the Trinity," in the book "In the Image and Likeness," M., 1995, p. 89-90). This distinction between the nonhypostatic and hypostatic procession also is emphasized by me in the corresponding pronouns "What" and "Who" (with capital letters). The interpretation of the Spirit of God in the first verses of Genesis as a divine force (energy) is found, for example, in St. John Chrysostom: "What do the words the Spirit of God moved above the water mean? It seems to me that they mean that a certain vital activity was given to the waters and that this was not simply standing, unmoving water but moving water that had a certain vital force" (SPb, 1998, vol. 1, p. 15).

In principle I reject the teaching about Christ ascribed to me in point 2 of the Conclusion to the effect that "the Lord Jesus Christ is a righteous man chosen by God, whom he gradually adopted." I confess, and in my published catechisms this is directly affirmed, that 'Jesus is the Son of God from the beginning, he is the Son of God not because he is Christ but rather the other way around, he is Christ because he is the Son of God . . . incarnated from the Virgin and Spirit . . ., he is the Son of God, as eternally begotten from the Father . . . . This spiritual bond is for us the most important thing for in it lies the basis of all Christology, all doctrine, and any other teaching of the church about Christ. Here is the source of all theology and of all Christian teaching proper."

Along with the whole church I believe and confess that Jesus "was incarnated from the Spirit and Virgin," and on the pages of the catechism I write directly that "in New Testament history the form of the Mother of God, the Theotokos is the most holy, most pure, most blessed perpetual virgin (i.e. always virgin) -- the incarnation of modesty and humility, wisdom, or in the apostolic words, 'imperishable beauty of a modest and silent spirit.'"

I fully embrace the Orthodox confession of faith in the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church." In presenting the teaching about the church I warn the instructees against the protestant contrast between the Church with a capital letter and churches with a small letter. On the contrary, I speak of the necessity of "giving emphasis to attention not only to the difference between these notions but also to their unity . . . . The Church with a capital letter exists on earth and manifests itself in the church with a small letter, gathered for the Eucharist in church buildings."

As regards the question of the boundaries of the church, following such theologians as Archpriest Georgi Florovsky, Archpriest Nikolai Afanasiev, and many others, I acknowledge its complexity. As Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin rightly notes in his article "On the question of the boundaries of the church," containing a detailed description of the problem (Bogoslovskie trudy, 1986, p. 217, 221), "It is impossible to give an unambiguous answer to this question."

On the question about the presence of apostolic succession in various Christian confessions I share completely the point of view held in Orthodoxy, and I state this directly in my catechisms:  "The most difficult and painful question in relations with protestants remains the question of the church and the priesthood. We, with rare exceptions, do not recognize their priesthood as such, i.e. as canonically valid, because among them it has historically come out that they have lost the apostolic succession of ordination." As regards the concept itself, that there is in the church an apostolic succession, I completely share the position on this matter of such a theologian as Archpriest John Meyendorff (see, for example, his Introduction to Patristic Theology).

I unconditionally believe and confess that communion in the church is communion in the most holy body and true blood of the Lord and God, our Savior Jesus Christ, in two forms--bread and wine (and only in this sense "consecrated (in the Eucharist) Bread and Wine," and not simply "consecrated bread and wine," as is ascribed to me in the Conclusion.

I have never affirmed the possibility of a "female priesthood" in the Orthodox church. On the contrary I wrote the following: "In order to disclose herself fully before God, a woman cannot present herself to the throne of God, although to a certain extent this was done in the ministries of ancient deaconesses and presbyteresses (as one knows perhaps it will be again in some new form) As regards the offices of deaconess and presbyteress, their existence is a historic fact, even if today we do not know quite clearly just what a presbyteress was. (On the possible restoration of the office of deaconess, see, for example, the appropriate report of the Department on Church Discipline of the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1917-1918).

In the area of sacramentology and specifically on the question of who, how, and when church liturgical sacraments may be performed, I have never transgressed the borders of church canons. Following Orthodox tradition and practice, I think that "laity may baptize those who have come to faith and people who are prepared for the sacraments, including Christian infants, only in the case where it turns out to be internally or externally impossible for an ordained church minister." Along with this I add that "all Christians must know clearly that every baptism that is not performed by bishops [or] presbyters . . . requires an obligatory "completion" by them, without which there cannot be full participation of the newly baptized in the life of the church, and primarily participation in the Eucharist."

I have never anywhere claimed that church mysteries require any "supplementation." In my dissertation the issue is simply that if during the performance of a sacrament something essential should be for some reason "omitted or overlooked," then this requires a subsequent "completion" (for example, this pertains to lay baptism just described). According to canon law (see, for example, Laodicaea, 45-47), baptism must be completed (not "supplemented") by instruction (if for some reasons, for example in the case of mortal danger, it was not ended) not because the sacrament requires "supplementation," but because, as Archpriest A. Schmemann wrote, instruction "in the eyes of the church . . . is an integral part of the sacrament" (A. Schmemann, By Water and Spirit, M., 1993, p. 14-15). As Professor A. Almazov wrote, "in conducting baptism in exceptional cases without any instruction, primates of the church have required that for baptism, when the danger passes, such persons make up the shortcomings of a clear and precise, full and definite awareness of the faith" (A.I. Almazov, History of Procedures of Baptism and Annointing," Kazan, 1884, p. 60)

I have always been an opponent of any kind of rebaptism and I have insisted that "belief 'in one baptism' and consequently annointing and communion must remain indisputable," and I even have written a special article about this, "Anabaptism in Orthodoxy" (Pravoslavnaia obshchina, 8, 31-41). However taking into account well known statements of holy fathers (for example, "the water receives you but the Spirit does not" [St. Kirill of Jerusalem, "Instructional teaching," M., 1991, p. 4) it is necessary to allow that a situation is possible when, despite the ritual performed, the mystery is not completed and in this case the ritual (and not the sacrament) requires repeating. Thus everybody knows about the ritual of the repeated annointing of St. Methodius, patriarch of Constantinople. I declare responsibly that I have never performed a repeated ritual procedure of the sacrament of baptism. (tr. by PDS, posted 16 May 2001)

Russian Religion News Current News Items

Controversial priest denies he is heretic

The priest Georgi Kochetkov, whose theological views and pastoral practice have provoked such sharp discussion, gave an interview to strana.ru in which he explained his position on many important matters.

--Father Georgi, how do you assess the conclusion of the Moscow commission which recently was published, and on the whole what is your assessment of the course of this discussion which now is being conducted in the Synodal Theological Commission?

--So far there has not been any discussion; what's going on is a self-confirmation of individual positions which obviously were known, and this is sad. As to the conclusion, this also is a sad matter. I do not understand why people cannot understand what is written, although everybody who is a member of the Moscow commission is well enough educated and intelligent. Why is it that they, as it goes, say "black" for white and "white" for black? I sincerely do not understand.  Unfortunately, we have never met together and I would be happy to meet with them. Why not meet and, as the canons require, discuss these questions? Why are these accusations expressed in absentia and without knowledge of the matter? When it comes to my pastoral practice, it also is being criticized by folk who have never seen it. For example, the practice of the agape is condemned in articles by a very strange person who never understood what it is even in the brief time that he was in our brotherhood, Fr Konstantin Bufeev. They are published anywhere and everywhere and they say that agapes are practically heresy, although this is simply his personal opinion.

I sent my response to the Synodal Theological Commission, but so far I have not seen that it was used at all. Some members of the commission took my response as "some kind of apology for mistaken thinking which was reviewed by the commission under the chairmanship of Archpriest Pravdoliubov," as Fr Vladimir Smaly said in the interview with strana.ru. Excuse me, where is there an apology when all that was there were quotations from the holy fathers and simply a restoration of elementary correction of quotations and their logic? You know, in the conclusions of Fr Sergei's group there are even factual mistakes and in a number of cases inaccurate quotations of my words.

I don't understand such arguments. We ran into something like this back in 1993 when a commission on liturgical language was created. At that time nobody came to our church to see what really was being done. And when Bishop Arseny came he did not object to anything and said only, "It's unusual." The same in 1997. I don't understand such things. I don't understand why they violate elementary principles, even Old Testament ones, to say nothing of the New Testament. I don't understand how such a thing can be in the church. The attempts of some members of the synodal commission to approach this matter more objectivly and to remove the froth of personal hostility and emotions have not succeeded. One gets the impression that the decision was made long ago and they simply need to confirm it in order for it to be implemented. Everything is returning to a variation on 1993 and 1997. I don't see anything new. Or, perhaps, I simply don't know anything? I don't understand the roots of the hostility toward me. When they say to me that somebody is simply envious, let's say, the St. Tikhon's Institute, I don't understand, because there is reason to respect this institute and we have cooperated with it for many years and we could work together. So we understand some things differently, so what? That's normal. The apostle Paul said "there should be diversity of thought among you."

So far I haven't seen in our "opponents" any accusation which really would constitute any error. There are various readings just as there are various traditions within the church. But we can see these even among the holy fathers. Compare the position of the holy fathers on one and the same matter and you will see that there is more disagreement among them than there is between us and Metropolitan Filaret's "Catechism." But everything cannot conform to this "Catechism;" that is impossible and it never was like that in the church.

I am afraid that now it is going to be the same as in 1993 and 1997. None of our explanations will be taken into account and even now they are not being taken into account. But nevertheless we have to try to find a common language on disputed matters. There are disputed matters even in my practice and my writings, as in the writings of any person. It must be discussed and that requires we meet together and organize a discussion as equals. We would like this very much, but it is not happening. I am ready to go and talk at any place and time.

--Father Georgi, if there are no heresies in your works, or what could be understood as heresy, why have such prominent theologians as those who made up the Moscow commission led by Fr Sergei Pravdoliubov found them in your works?

--There can be two versions here: either it is a matter of human weakness, somebody has some prejudice perhaps associated with personal relations, it's hard for me to say precisely, or else there is simply a different reading, I think primarily because our ecclesiastical education has been in crisis for so long. It is easy to understand after seventy years of the absence of free development of theological education in our country. It is understandable that now it is difficult both to give and to get this education. Therefore, if this version is taken first it seems to me that in the process of growth some misunderstandings are possible. People underestimate how one and the same thing can be put somewhat differently. They are used to their own formulas, approaches, and emphases, and they think that it is the only possible form of expression of the faith in the church. That our faith can be expressed in very many ways within each nation and each culture, that it is expressed differently in every age, that among different ones of the holy fathers it is not expressed identically and the same--all this is not taken into account. I think that this is a problem of education. People need to learn that the Spirit gives birth to the form and the form itself is not the principle created by the Spirit. Perhaps this was always lacking in our Russian system of education and even in the nineteenth century, as is known, there was, we recall, for example Pomialovsky's "Seminary Notes."

Of course, at the beginning of the twentieth century a great deal was done and spiritual life was elevated, but all this was very quickly interrupted by historical events and social upheavals, and then almost the entire cultural element of the nation went abroad and here people remained firm in their faith and they were confessors, saints, but, of course, it was impossible even to speak of any development of theology in that time. Theology was within life; theology was created by life. I consider that this experience should be collected and it could be the basis for the regeneration of the system of education in our church. So far we have not gotten to this and therefore we have sharp collisions.

--Father Georgi, how would you assess the condemnation of you by some people as a person who thinks that it is not necessary to be grounded in the doctrinal teaching of the church and who considers himself above all doctrines? What is the real case?

--It is not at all the case; on the contrary, I have often declared openly and officially that I hold to all doctrines and all canonical traditions that our church has maintained. For us it is an important matter of principle that we have changed nothing.  Even when I was tempted to try to formulate something new and to organize something new in the church, I always consciously suppressed this in myself because I thought that it is not possible to do that now. From the start we had to restore that tradition which we inherited in all its details and very fine. That is when it will be inside us, not near us or on the shelves of our libraries, but within ourselves this tradition will live and the church will realize itself as Love, as St. Ignatius the God-bearer said, and then, if the Lord will favor us, the development will correspond to his righteousness and his truth.

--So if you were asked to renounce any of the works in which, as the conclusion of the Moscow commission indicated, there are places that are dubious from the point of view of Orthodox dogmatics, would you do it?

--Of course; you know, I already have declared that I won't cling to my position. I think that I will be able to maintain this principle to the end; I really will not cling to my own thing. I will cling to Christ and to Christ's love, from which nobody is able to separate us. I will not cling to my own, it doesn't matter what we're talking about, about catechisms or anything else. Besides my books are not required in our parish for anybody. We do not even publish them. It is simply my personal experience; I am simply giving an example. I do not lead the groups in catechesis; I have only one group and that not even every year.

If they say to me: "You do not believe the perpetual virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos," then, excuse me, why did I translate all the main liturgical texts and why do I read them every day myself. Before God I declare that it is not so. But if you, let's say, find a quotation from which someone can draw the conclusion that it is so, I can renounce that quotation.

For me the holy patristic tradition is important and I will cling to it, but that is not just my thing. I cannot call it something that is just mine and I do not cling to it because it is mine. If they tell me to leave our institute, I'll leave the institute, and so forth. I know what I must cling to and what not. And what I must cling to I will never renounce. You know, the same apostle said "Who will separate us from the love of Christ?" All the rest is not so important. Everything grows from this root alone: if this root is there, everything will follow; if it is not there, nothing will come of it. Catechisms mean something and they cannot mean nothing. These are all relative values. Even I myself conduct catechesis each time in a different way; I do not read my own catechism. Incidentally, these books have different titles: "Go and Teach all Nations" and "In the Beginning was the Word," and the word "catechism" is a subtitle.

--Do you now agree with everything you have written in your works? Could there be some mistakes?

--Well, of course. There could be mistakes; indeed it would be strange if there weren't. You can write without mistakes only in handwriting exercises. As soon as you deal with any sharp church problems, and certainly in the present day under conditions when no dialogue has been organized in the church, or developed, and so long as people do not trust each other and are often closed to each other, even among priests this is not rare, then of course it is possible to have incorrect formulations to some degree and even downright mistakes. Why not; I'm a man. But we work every day for correcting this and we repent every day, but otherwise there would not be anything to repent.

--From the outside it can appear that you are leading your flock not to Christ but to yourself, as if you are eclipsing him.

--As a matter of principle I pay attention to these things and I know that such a danger always exists in any person to whom people come for one reason or another. I know church history too well not to understand the negative consequences of this if it happens. But just as soon as I see some signs of this happening, openly or covertly, and surely such mistakes happen with people, I am the first to prevent this by all means. I have talked quite openly about this over the course of years, and that can easily be confirmed by many facts. I am very much afraid of "young eldership," as was mentioned in a famous resolution of the Holy Synod; you know, that's the way it was characterized. But now this is a very widespread phenomenon and it is extremely dangerous.  We are struggling against it as this is one of the basic things which I consider to be unacceptable in the church. Nobody is insured against this, unfortunately, because many people are accustomed to authorities. Not everybody understands Khomiakov's words, it seems:  "For me even Christ is not an authority because I love him." Authority is something external and people want to cling to something that is external. Over time love can lead to some authority but if there is no love then the authority is dangerous and it is transformed into false eldership, false spirituality, and false authority. This is very horrible in the church.

--How do you assess the prospects for the review of your question in the Synodal Theological Commission? What assurance do you have that this decision will be favorable for you?

--Well, let's see, that depends first of all not on me. I think that everything will be decided in the final analysis at the highest level, at the level of His Holiness and perhaps at the level even of the synod. Of course, I would wish to hope for a favorable decision and I hope for this because the Lord performs miracles, but to say that it will be that way, in human thinking, and I have many reasons for such thoughts, I cannot do that.

--I have had occasion to hear the opinion that you consider yourself to have some kind of special charisma, special grace, which is even superior to that of a bishop; is that so?

--You know, I see this very simply. I consider that all Christians possess special charisma. This is a word that comes from the Greek which means "gift," "grace." If a Christian does not have grace then he is not a Christian, no matter what his service. Despite all human sins and shortcomings, everybody who can be called a Christian, everybody who has grace, has charisma. And that is the church and I am one of all of them, I hope. I cannot judge this about myself, I don't have the right, because testimony about one's self is not true, as the scripture says. I can only hope, I can feel this, I can testify that it has been given to me, that it is so, considering that other people say something of the sort, but I am not able to put my signature to it. To maintain that other people have this grace and that it is in them and works through them and works miracles of the spirit, and not just outwardly--I can't do that.

--They also say that you elevate yourself above the "hierarchy."

--It repeat, it's hard for me to judge about myself, but I say again: I have never wanted to elevate myself above it and, it seems to me, I have never done that. It is another matter that I do not think it possible for a Christian to submit merely outwardly, without consideration, without discussion. Nevertheless it seems to me that the church should not simply be an army. Obedience is not identical with submission. When they tell me that I should do what I do not agree with, I reply, I don't agree with that, but if it is not heresy or sin, then I will submit. In that case I submit to the hierarchy, and when I agree, even if something is very difficult for me to contain, I display obedience.

--If the hierarchy makes the decision to ban you from ministry or even to unfrock you, will you recognize this decision?

--Naturally, I really will not cling to my own. I just today posed that question for myself and I came to the conclusion that I am ready not to cling even to the possibility of priestly service and my ordination. In the final analysis, if what I do pleases God, then quite apart from ordination I will say, along with the apostle Paul:  "I am not obliged to baptize but to preach the gospel." And if it is not pleasing to God, then praise God for everything, it means that I am not worthy of this gift. (tr. by PDS, posted 15 May 2001)

Russian Religion News Current News Items

Anti-pope demonstration leader arrested

After the conclusion of the protest march against the pope's visit to Ukraine on 12 May agents of the "Kitai gorod" OVD arrested the chief editor of the "Pravslavnaia beseda" magazine and the president of the Union of Orthodox Citizens (SPG), Valentin Lebedev. He was taken to "Kitai gorod" OVD where he was charged with organizing an unsanctioned demonstration. Lebedev called this accusation absurd.

As SPG press secretary Kirill Frolov told strana.ru:  "In reality around 2,000 Orthodox Christians walked in a LDPR column and in agreement with the organizers who had registered the march and with the authorities; the LDPR marchers went to their own congress in the Hall of Columns in the House of Unions and the Orthodox column went to Manezh Square and began to disperse." The Union of Orthodox Christians, which acted as one of the organizers of the march, did not submit an application for registration of the march and used the LDPR registration, and when representatives of that party separated from the column of Orthodox then the police had a formal basis to make a charge against the Union of Orthodox Citizens.

However Valentin Lebedev himself pointed out that "a column of almost 2,000 could not disperse instantly." It was announced by megaphone that the event was over and that the people should disperse. And everybody began dispersing when Lebedev was suddenly arrested and accused of organizing an unsanctioned demonstration. His trial was set for 14 May. In the morning of 14 May Valentin Lebedev and his attorney and witnesses appeared at the scheduled time at "Kitai gorod" OVD, where he spent about an hour. Then representatives of MVD arrived and announced that they did not have any claims against Lebedev and they offered apologies. In connection with this incident Valentin Lebedev made a special declaration in which he did not rule out political motives in his arrest, for "somebody does not like active protests of Orthodox Christians against the expansion of Catholicism in Ukraine." "Our march with banners along the main street of the capital could also evoke dissatisfaction on the part of those who would like to drive Orthodoxy to the sidelines of public life and for whom the activity of Orthodox laity has become a 'bone in the throat.' It is these forces that hold up the confirmation of a state curriculum for "Theology" in higher educational institutions and poke a 'stick into the wheel' of the church's mission in the educational system and smear it with dirt in some of the mass media," Valentin Lebedev stated.  (tr. by PDS, posted 15 May 2001)

Russian Religion News Current News Items

If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication from which it came.
It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL, http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.