THE LARGEST MOSCOW PARISH REMAINS WITHOUT ITS BELOVED RECTOR
Conflict in the church of the Dormition of the Mother of God in Pechatniki could have far-reaching consequences for the Russian Orthodox church (RPTs)
by Maxim Shevchenko, Oleg Mramornov
Since the time at the end of 1993 when, by the will of the church leadership the famous Moscow priest Georgi Kochetkov was removed beyond the boundaries of the church of the monastery of the Presentation and the location for his parish was designated in the neighboring church of the Dormition of the Mother of God in Pechatniki (also in Sretenka), the name of this pastor has become associated with certain trends of internal church reform.
Two Components Parts of Orthodoxy
But we do not intend to enter into the details of theological polemics. After the dramatic events happening in the church of the Dormition of the Mother of God in Pechatniki theological issues have moved into the background. We shall say simply that the chief motive of the polemical and preaching activity of Kochetkov is the "expansion of the limits of church activity." The main driving force of this "expansion" is considered to be the so-called "churched intelligentsia." This term itself forces one to pay attention to the heritage of Father Alexander Men, who in the 1970s advanced the conception of a special mission for strata of society educated in the humanities in the "new evangelization" of former soviet Russia. His disciples set "coming to the church through culture," as "more consistent with the spirit of the times," over against other forms of the regeneration of church activity, primarily the resurrection of Orthodox monasticism and the strict adherence to rule that is integral to it along with the somewhat dubious practice at the time of "neo-eldership."
Father Georgi himself was not a disciple of Father Alexander Men. He grew up in the parish of a different, though no less famous priest of the soviet period, Archpriest Vsevolod Shpiller, whose views on the role of the cultured strata of society in the work of restoring the church were not quite as innovative as those of Alexander Men.
Several years ago in the monastery of the Presentation instead of Father Kochetkov's parish there were strict monks who made up the annex of the Pskov cave monastery, which was famous in the soviet period as about the only Russian stalwart of strict Orthodoxy (the second such cloister was the Pochaev lavra in Volynia). The Pskov cave monastery, which in 1920 was in Estonian territory, was not closed. In the Khrushchev-Brezhnev time it was the place of exile of especially prominent monks (meaning that they displeased the soviet authorities). In the middle of the 1980s the monastery had people who commemorated Saint John of Kronstadt. And today one of the most famous confessors of our time, the anchorite archimandrite Ioann Krestiankin, lives in the monastery.
But to what extent do the contemporary young monks of the Presentation monastery continue the glorious traditions of the Pskov cave monastery? Hegumen Tikhon Shevkunov is the abbot of the monastery who is well known as one of the leaders of nationalistic ecclesiastical traditionalism which is unquestioning and consequently brutal in its assured right to the full possession of church truth. But really in the traditions of the Pskov cave elders (including even Father Alipy, the abbot of blessed memory of the 1960s and 1970s) doesn't such strictness turn into violence? And therefore does today's monastery of the Presentation really represent the Pskov cave monastery annex?
War Declared
The story about the eviction of the anxious laity, with their father priest leading, in favor of the monastic brethren is at least strange, without saying anything about the arguments of the church authorities justifying the displacement of people who had worked so hard on restoring their church and the neighboring structures of the Presentation monastery. It even includes masked cossacks with whips and activists of the national patriotic fronts.
The congregation of Father Kochetkov has participated for long in various actions of internal church life and it has initiated a whole series of conferences and meetings, among which some received the patriarchal blessing. But the negative attitude toward the parish on the part of the majority of Orthodox believers, aggravated by a propaganda campaign, has not improved as a result. To the contrary, tension and direct hostility on the part of opponents has grown. (As to the propaganda campaign, it is enough to mention the collection of articles titled Protestantism of the Eastern Rite, including a photo of Father Georgi Kochetkov as the "evildoer," which was published by Hegumen Tikhon Shevkunov without the consent of many of the authors; see Nezavisimaia gazeta--religion, no. 5.)
"Kochetkovites" are accused of protestant excess of charismaticism, heightened mysticism, and abandonment of the required forms of worship. The intellectual quests of Father Georgi's parishioners and of the priest himself are viewed as arrogance and their insistence, despite everything, to find for themselves a path within Orthodoxy is ascribed to pride. It cannot be said that the congregation gave no reason for the stern condemnation of itself. Its claim to exclusive adherence to the true church is exaggerated.
But is Father Georgi Kochetkov to blame for this? There is not doubt that he is a canonical cleric of the Moscow patriarchate and a man who knows and understands church law. But it was difficult for him as the rector (now former?) and the only priest in the congregation, with poor health besides, to direct single-handedly his scattered flock in strict conformity to the law and canon. And the church leadership understood this well.
Conflict with Father Mikhail
It must be said that the congregation has sought for a long time for additional guardians of their souls in the form of persons who are vested with the priestly office, but it stipulated that such fathers must come out of its own ranks since among the spiritual children of Father Kochetkov there are people who are theologically prepared and who have been seeking the rank of preist and pastoral ministry for some time. The church leadership, however, has not permitted this. The almighty vicar bishop of Moscow Arseny does things in his own way.
Two months ago a second priest, completely unknown to the Kochetkovites, was named to the parish. He was a recent graduate of one of the newly established provincial ecclesiastical seminaries, Father Mikhail Dubovitsky. He is a young man and had little experience in pastoral care of the soul. The brief term of ministry of Father Mikhail in the parish of the Dormition church was not satisfactory either for himself nor for the flock that Father Georgi leads.The parishioners of Kochetkov, who spent a great deal of the time in medical treatment and ministered only on Sundays and holidays, were reluctant to make confession to Father Dubovitsky, who had to be satisfied with people who were sent to him or summoned.
The first serious conflict happened when Father Mikhail decided to repeat the reading of the silent invocations over the Holy Gifts, after these prayers already had been read by the rector of the church, Father Kochetkov. He justified his actions by claiming that Father Georgi had read the priest's prayer in a noncanonical translation into contemporary Russian.
But however Father Georgi may have read them, even in French, Chinese or some kind of incomprehensible gibberish, Father Mikhail could and was obliged in case of disagreement with the actions of the rector to appeal to the ruling bishop, who in his turn would be required to appoint a theological commission for investigation. Until an Orthodox church council declares that translation of the liturgy into contemporary language is a heresy, it can only be suggested to be such. No single bishop and no single priest has the right to declare someone else a heretic privately. Any autonomous action leads to ecclesiastical disorder and in the final analysis to schism. Father Mikhail interfered in the eucharistic actions of the rector and thus acted as a schismatic. But "Divine peace for the time is more important that justice."
From here it was not far to a break up. It happened in the last Sunday of June. Father Dubovitsky refused to fulfill the rector's order at the morning service and, leaving the altar, he wlaked in full priestly garb to the church exit. He was stopped and asked the remove his vestments before leaving the building. This same request was made at the altar, to which Dubovitsky then went. Then he began to shout that he was being beaten and he called for help. The policeman who was called (he went into the sanctuary armed!) declared from the platform (in front of the sanctuary) to the parishioners that there had been no violent physical actions with respect to Father Mikhail (a tape recording of the officer's declaration exists). However the shouts in the sanctuary continued. Then one of the parishioners called a psychiatrist and medics in an ambulance. The doctor was ushered into the sanctuary and he decided it was necessary to hospitalize the priest who was there. With shouts of "They are killing me" the priest Dubovitsky was led from the sanctuary (witnesses confirm that he walked under his own power) and was put into the vehicle of psychiatric first aid and taken to the appropriate clinic where he was treated and released the next day.
This version is one side of the story. The other side appeals to a survey of the statement signed by the chief of the eighteenth police department, senior lieutenant Rimsky, which state that "having arrived at the scene, a quick respond team discovered a fight in the sanctuary between priests, one of whom, who subsequently turned out to be Mikhail Vladimirovich Dubovitsky, had marks of a beating and torn clothing. . . ." Besides this the opponents of Father Georgi Kochetkov affirm that Father Dubovitsky originally was taken to the psychiatric hospital on special order of a psychiatrist who is a close associate of the Kochetkovite congregation.
In any case, an official document exists signed by the chief of the department of psychoneurology, Mr. A.S. Karpov, testifying that the commission of the Moscow Psychiatric Hospital "found no signs of psychiatric illness" in Father Dubovitsky.
Sad Outcome
What really happenedn the church must be decided by a court--a church court (which the Moscow patriarchate refuses to call) or if the Orthodox can stand to have outsiders judge among them a civil court. The events that happened in the church in Pechatniki evoke an image as if the bleak times of Archpriest Avvakum have returned when priests are dragged by force from the sanctuary. Whatever the case may be, everyone suffers--the church suffered and Russian Orthodox suffered.
An order of the most holy patriarch removed Father Georgi Kochetkov from the responsibilities of rector of the church of the Dormition of the Mother of God and forbade him to minister "for his inability to stabilize the internal parish life" until the circumstances of the scandalous events are clarified. The acolytes who were guilty of the beating were excommunicated by the patriarch until they make full repentance.
And now it is time to identify the consequences of the scandal:
--It has been a long time since the chancelery at Chisty Lane has shown such concern for the opinion of simpole believers. Kochetkov's congregation has several thousand members. It is possible that this is one of the biggest parishes not only in Moscow but in Russia. And the parish is homogeneous and internally unified. There is no official conciliar decision, as said earlier, that it is "heretical." Sending to such a parish a priest who is so foreign in spirit to it was a blatant provocation, calculated to cause an incident and conflict, with subsequent violence against the objectionable actions. Perhaps the Right, which now is openly exulting in the ban on Kochetkov, think that they will trambple only on the coucnilial rights of the Kochetkovites? No! If the "public" (including also "Radonezh," which has been stirring up this conflict all the time) commits reprisal only uopn those who are objectionable to them, nevertheless it is a canonical church parish and soon the time will come for others, for example, the "hundren Moscow priests." No one will be permitted to have a private opinion, neither the Right nor the Left.
--the conflict was not resolved by the parish in a spirit of church love and reconciliation. From the outset the young priest was actually boycotted. Fighting and taking the priest to the psychiatric clinic were impermissible.
--Above all the young priest now will be a hero among the Right. But what is the reality? In reality his liturgical church ministry began with schism and war. Will this be good for his soul--his confessor must decide that. But it seems doubtful that, for example, Serafim of Sarov or John of Kronstadt would approve several of his actions.
--And finally, perhaps most important. After this conflict even the most superficial discussion of those church and theological questions with which Father Georgi's name is associated has become impossible. Neither the question about the Russian language in the liturgy nor the role and place of the congregation in contemporary Orthodoxy now can even be raised. Because raising them will bring up criticism of the persecuted "Kochetkovites."
Of course there are further consequences. There simply are not enough newspapers to present all of them. Clearly what happened was a real drama. The church authorities have the resonsibility to evaluate objective what happened. It would be desirable for all to be forgiven. . . .