What is happening in churches today. Once again: what is happening in the Russian Orthodox Church and how we got to such a life. What will happen to the Kiev-Pechersk and Pochaev Lavra

Many analysts who are now trying to give an analysis of what is happening with the churches in Ukraine hardly imagine the structure of the hierarchy of the Ukrainian churches and give absolutely amateurish analyses.

Since I lived part of my life in Ukraine (before the reunification of Crimea with Russia) and was forced to study such a vile subject as the history of Ukraine, I know much more about Ukrainian churches and can give a much more adequate description of the current church processes.

To begin with, everyone needs to understand that since ancient times, the church in Ukraine has not one, but four:

1. Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. Subject to Patriarch Kirill. Approximately 50% of all believers. Distributed to a greater extent in central and eastern Ukraine. Canonical Orthodox Church.

2. Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate. Non-canonical Orthodox Church (that is, not recognized by other Orthodox churches). He submits to the non-canonical Patriarch Filaret, on whom an anathema was erected, but the other day this anathema was removed. Less than 20% of all believers.

3. Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. It is half Orthodox, half Catholic. It was formed in 1596 as a result of the Union of Brest, which tried to unite the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Subject to the Pope. Distributed mainly only in western Ukraine. Approximately 30% of all believers.

4. Ukrainian Catholic Church (or Roman Catholic Church). This is a purely Catholic church. Subject to the Pope. Approximately 3% of all believers, the parishioners are mostly ethnic Poles, Hungarians, etc.

I will not mention the rest of the churches such as Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, their influence is insignificant.

And now this is what happens:

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who sits in Constantinople, wants to make Church No. 2 canonical in Ukraine. And church #1 will lose its influence and will even be forced to give its temples to church #2.

And the ROC now has two choices:

Either come to terms with this and lose parishioners in Ukraine, giving up all the churches;
- either do not come to terms with this and continue to fight for parishioners in Ukraine, but at the same time there is a big risk that Patriarch Bartholomew will declare us schismatics, since we do not obey him.

The choice is difficult mentally.

Still, everyone is probably interested in the question, will the parishioners of the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate fight for their churches if Russia does not want to come to terms with the granting of autocephaly to the UOC of the Kyiv Patriarchate? I’m afraid that they won’t, because they will be told on Ukrainian TV that Patriarch Bartholomew decided there, now the Kyiv Patriarchate is canonical and everything is in a bunch.

Churches in Ukraine are mostly visited by rural residents who speak Surzhik, so they will even be happy if their rural church, which was the Moscow Patriarchate, switches from Russian and Church Slavonic to Mov. And the townspeople will not fight for the Russian-speaking church, because they don’t go to church every Sunday, they have other things to do on Sundays: bowling, karaoke and cinema. Russian-speaking townspeople appear in the church only at weddings, funerals and christenings, and no one will fight for Russian-speaking at such rare events: there is no point.

Therefore, in any case, the alignment is not very good. But so far autocephaly has not been granted to Ukraine, there is still time for maneuvers.

https://www.site/2018-09-09/rpc_vstupila_v_otkrytyy_konflikt_s_konstantinopolskim_patriarhatom_chto_proishodit

“Patriarchy openly entered the warpath”

The Russian Orthodox Church entered into open conflict with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. What's happening?

Russian Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople

The Russian Orthodox Church has entered into an open public conflict with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is considered "first among equals" among all autocephalous (independent) Orthodox churches. On September 8, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church made an official statement in which it expressed “strong protest and deep indignation” at the decision of the Church of Constantinople to appoint two of its exarchs (special representatives) to Kyiv. The roots of the conflict are in the political events in Ukraine.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church accused Constantinople of exceeding its powers

The Patriarchate of Constantinople announced the appointment of Archbishop Daniel of Pamphylia (USA) and Bishop Hilarion of Edmonton (Canada) as Exarchs of Constantinople in Ukraine. It is indicated that they will be engaged in the preparation of the autocephalous status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This threatens to take the Ukrainian Orthodox out of Moscow's influence.

“This decision was made without the consent of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and Metropolitan Onuphry of Kyiv and All Ukraine and is a gross violation of church canons that forbid the bishops of one Local Church to interfere in the internal life and affairs of another Local Church,” the Synod said in a statement. “It completely contradicts the unchanging position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and personally Patriarch Bartholomew who has repeatedly stated that he recognizes His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry as the only canonical head of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.”

Priest Igor Palkin / Press Service of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia

The Russian Orthodox Church criticized the decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to take into consideration the issue of granting autocephaly (administrative independence) to the Orthodox believers of Ukraine. This decision, according to the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, "was taken against the will of the episcopate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which unanimously spoke in favor of maintaining its existing status."

“In order to justify his interference in the affairs of another Local Church, the Patriarch of Constantinople cites false interpretations of historical facts and refers to the exclusive powers he supposedly has, which he does not actually possess and never possessed,” the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church said in a statement.

The position of Constantinople and the dispute about the events of the XIV-XVI centuries

The conflict escalated after the meeting on August 31 between Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. Cyril tried to convince Bartholomew not to give autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, but the “Muscovite” failed to convince his Constantinople colleague.

The next day, September 1, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople accused Moscow of a series of "non-canonical interventions" in the affairs of the Kyiv Metropolitanate since the 14th century, when the Kyiv see was transferred to Moscow "without the canonical permission of the Mother Church" (that is, Constantinople).

The Church dispelled rumors about an attempt to poison Patriarch Bartholomew at a meeting with the head of the Russian Orthodox Church

In addition, it is stated that when in 1686 the Kyiv Metropolis became part of the Moscow Patriarchate, this happened allegedly on a temporary basis, and Constantinople never ceased to consider Ukraine its canonical territory.

Thus, the historical roots of the relationship of the Ukrainian Church to Moscow are called into question.

“Since Russia, as responsible for the current painful situation in Ukraine, is not able to solve the problem, the Ecumenical Patriarchate took the initiative to solve the problem in accordance with the powers granted to it by the sacred canons and jurisdictional responsibility over the diocese of Kyiv, having received a request to do so from the venerable Ukrainian government, as well as the repeated requests of the “Patriarch” of Kyiv Filaret for an appeal against our consideration of his case, ”said Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople.

What is the essence of the dispute?

The essence of the dispute is under whose influence the Orthodox Church in Ukraine will be. Now in Ukraine there is the largest Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate - a self-governing Church with broad autonomy, but still under the wing of Moscow. There are 11,358 parishes and 191 monasteries in the UOC-MP. It is headed by Metropolitan Onufry (Berezovsky). With all reservations, we can say that Onufry, on the whole, acts in accordance with the interests of the Russian Orthodox Church and Moscow. For Moscow, Orthodoxy is an important tool for influencing the situation in Ukraine.

Kremlin.ru

There is also a canonically unrecognized Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, separate from Moscow, which has 2,781 parishes and 22 monasteries. The UOC (KP) is politically closer to the authorities of Ukraine. There is also a self-proclaimed Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC). All three churches are vying for influence over believers and primacy in Ukraine.

In Russia, the Patriarch of Constantinople was previously accused of working “to separate Ukraine from Russia,” and now his position has come into sharp conflict with the interests of Moscow and the Russian Orthodox Church. By appointing exarchs, Constantinople confirmed its intention to grant Ukrainian believers the status of autocephaly, that is, to make the Ukrainian church completely independent of Moscow. This will deprive Russia and the ROC of an important lever of influence on Ukraine.

In addition, the rhetoric of the Patriarch of Constantinople may raise the question that in fact this ROC should be subordinate to Kyiv. This is consonant with the position of the Ukrainian authorities. In particular, the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko stated: “Moscow claims to be “motherhood”, but in reality “it is a subsidiary of the church in Kyiv”.

What will happen next?

The Russian Orthodox Church stated that these actions lead to a deadlock in relations between the Russian and Constantinople Churches, and pose a real threat to the unity of all world Orthodoxy. They said they were preparing retaliatory steps, but did not yet say which ones.

“Thus, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has now openly embarked on the warpath. And this is a war not only against the Russian Church, not only against the Ukrainian Orthodox people. This is a war, in fact, against the unity of all world Orthodoxy,” said Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the department for external church relations.

Theoretically, the situation could break or minimize the relations of the Russian Orthodox Church with Constantinople, which has the status of "first among equals." However, the ROC has repeatedly stressed earlier that primacy does not mean primacy: the Patriarch of Constantinople cannot be considered the head of the Ecumenical Church, although he is endowed with the right to convene a Pan-Orthodox Council.

Priest Igor Palkin / Press Service of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia

As the metropolitan, whose position is published on the official website of the Moscow Patriarchate, said, if autocephaly is granted to the Ukrainian Church, “we will be forced to break communion with Constantinople, and then Constantinople will not have any rights to claim leadership in the Orthodox world.” “Now the Patriarchate of Constantinople positions itself as a kind of leader of the 300 million Orthodox population of the planet, the Patriarch of Constantinople is perceived as almost an Orthodox pope. But at least half of this 300 million population will no longer recognize him even as the first in the family of Orthodox Churches,” Illarion said.

The Russian Orthodox Church has strong trump cards in this dispute: the Russian Church is the largest of all Orthodox churches in the world. If it formally ceases to recognize the legitimacy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, this will also weaken the latter.

Not so long ago, a photo from the all-night vigil on the eve of the great twelfth holiday appeared on the network. Pictured is an empty church. And now the wonderful priests are discussing among themselves why this is so. After all, in Soviet times, and in the 90s, and even in the zero, there was no such thing.

I thought about it. I tried to streamline my observations and reflections, bring them into a coherent system, but so far this did not work out, I decided to simply write them down point by point.
So: What is happening in the Church:

1. Many people in the 90s and 2000s came to the Church for the wrong reason. They thought that they had come for Christ, while they themselves were looking for an ideal human community. Society, people, having escaped from the socialist collective farm, became atomized, individualized. Someone, suffering from this, came to the Church for community and community, for their memories of childhood in pioneer camps, for songs by the fire, for the good old mythologized comfort of communal apartments. Behind your desire to be with someone hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder. For unanimity. They did not find unanimity, they did not find community either, here, with us, it is also every man for himself.

2. The concept of good and evil blurred in the 90s, but in the Church this concept remained unchanged, at least in words. People read books about monks, about saints, and they came to seek the same in the Church. They were looking for kind, good, extraordinary people. Many have been deceived. We did not find such people as in books. They saw that in the ordinary life of the Church, good and evil are as mixed as in the world.

3. Many in the 90s were tired of the lack of instructions on how to live. Therefore, in large numbers, infantile irresponsible people came to the Church, which suddenly proclaimed obedience as the main virtue, trying and trying to shift responsibility onto spirit-bearing elders and far-sighted confessors. Many have been disappointed.

4. Many came, having bought into many years of preaching about the Church as a means to solve all their earthly problems. Failed to cope with earthly means - God will help. They came for health, strong families, faithful husbands and wives, obedient God-fearing children, for help in finding a job, for miracles - it didn’t work.

5. Many came for ideology. Finding no ideological support around them, they decided that the Church is about a strong, mighty, glorious Russia, about the state, continuity and bonds. But having received Putin's state in recent years in the form of a powerful source of such ideas, and even putting these ideas into practice, they no longer need the Church.

6. Church leadership, which has chosen for the Church the role of ideological service to the authorities and unconditional support for all the actions of this government, pushed away the intelligentsia, which for the most part turned out to be in opposition to this government, and which, in fact, filled churches in large cities.

7. Several image-destroying companies of the leadership of the Church, such as the refusal of merciful intercession for imprisoned members of the Pussy Wright group, the encouragement of radical groups that interfered in the course of avant-garde exhibitions and performances, the interference of local bishops in the cultural life of their dioceses, as well as the stupid campaign to seize St. Isaac's Cathedral, specifically aimed specifically at St. Petersburg intelligentsia, pushed away and even largely pushed the intelligentsia out of the Church. And it simply made the previously non-church creative intelligentsia anti-church. And to this day, anti-intellectual conflicts continue to be generated from the church environment, in which representatives of the Church suffer a public defeat, since the intellectual level of their opponents each time turns out to be much higher.

8. Leadership and Speakers of the Church Haven't Acted as an Intercessor in the Last Decade in front of the authorities for the public characters abused by this authority , in general, the leadership of the Church does not consider it necessary to assume the role of intercessor before the authorities for those in prisons. Which leads to new and new denunciations of him by the intelligentsia. Moreover, the Church asked the state for special criminal articles to protect itself from external enemies. And now this system of persecution operates automatically and independently of the Church. Each criminal case “for insulting the feelings of believers” collects more and more coals on our church heads. And in these criminal cases, the Church also refuses to act as an intercessor before the authorities.

9. In general, it turned out that the non-church intellectual part of society read the Gospel in detail and thoughtfully. Unlike many church people. And all the claims that the intelligentsia makes to the Church, she makes from the point of view of their understanding of the gospel. The Church, in response, is not ready to use this fact to involve the intelligentsia in a discussion around the Word of God, because the position of the Church in these matters suddenly turns out to be weak and anti-evangelical.

10. The Church refused to respond to gay scandals. In Russia, everything is simple: if they are silent, then they are to blame. For example, society reacted unequivocally to the denunciations of "traitors in cassocks" - such denunciations in our free time testify to the internal lack of freedom and totalitarianism of the Church. On the contrary, a loud public cleansing of the field of sexual purity preached by the Church would be evidence that our words are not at odds with deeds. But that doesn't happen.

11. The Church categorically refused to respond to the demand formed in society for a non-possessive, impoverished Church. From Patriarch to Priest. Once, in the Russian outback, a rural priest, having learned that I was an Orthodox publicist, attacked me:
– Why do you journalists write all the time that we, priests, should not acquire? By the way, we did not take a vow of non-possession.
The negative effect is multiplied by the fact that the state has taken seriously the transparency of income not only for businesses, but also for citizens. And the Church in its financial activities, which is entirely based on donations, refuses to be transparent even before those very donors.

12. Completion of the restoration of most churches and monasteries, as well as the growth in the welfare of the city priesthood coincided with the fall in the incomes of the country's citizens after 2014 and to the present day. Donors, from large to ordinary parishioners, see that the Church is not the part of society that needs donations the most. Donations are shrinking.

13. Change of generations among the visitors. The visitors are getting smaller. The active economic phase included people born after the USSR. They are practical people, not connected by succession, traditions, very well versed in the sources of information. Not survived the disappointments of the 80-90s, confidently standing on their feet. The church, like a crutch in everyday life, which offers them the religious minimum of “candle-water-water-verbochka”, turns out they do not need it.

14. Change of generations among parishioners. People who are not accustomed to violence against them, to the word "should", who believe that everyone can and should choose for themselves. Practical. Not wasting time. In those cases to which you have to force yourself, they are limited to a minimum. What is all night for? Enough liturgy. Why the liturgy every week? Enough once a month. And in principle, enough for Christmas and Easter.

15. Inflexibility of the calendar and charter. When everyone celebrates and travels in winter, the Church insists on fasting. When everyone eats ice cream in the summer, Orthodox children are served fish soup. More than 200 fast days a year require the average person to be significantly different most of the time. Departure from the external manifestations of religiosity, like fasting, leads many to despondency and the impossibility of returning to a normal liturgical life.

16. The obligatory and salvific nature of the fasts and rules is still preached more than the obligatory nature of the Eucharist. The Christian's refusal to take communion and even simply attend the Sunday Liturgy because a person could not observe several days of fasting before taking communion and read the rules of prayer has become widespread in the church.

Photographer Monk Onufry (Porechny), site of the Solovetsky Monastery

17. More about the evening services. In blended families, and there are many of them, if one of the spouses tries to attend the entire Sunday service, there is no time at all for the usual fellowship of the whole family. Not to go on a visit, not to receive guests, not to the cinema, not to the theater, not to take a walk outside the city, not just to sit against each other, to be silent.

18. Incomprehensibility of worship. Now, especially as a practical young generation comes to the Church, one should rather talk about his departure from the Church. They do not understand at all what is happening in the Church. The older generation also does not understand and did not understand, but they are accustomed to the words “must” and “as it should be”. Young people do not want and will not listen to incomprehensible texts. We are simply losing these people.

19. Transparent information world. Thanks to him, among other things, the Church lost its external sacredness. It turned out that it has all the misfortunes of the ordinary world: lies, corruption, acquisitiveness, rudeness, lust for power and sycophancy. No matter how hard we try to close ourselves, the Church, open to all winds, is now open to all eyes and ears. And no one harms the Church more than the church people themselves.

20. Nightmare and horror of political and patriotic sermons. Instead of Christ, one can very often hear from the pulpit about great Russia and the decaying West. If I hadn't heard it many times myself, I wouldn't have written. If I had not seen people who ran away from the Church from such sermons to nowhere, believing that this is Orthodoxy, I would not attach any importance to this either.

21. Mission failure. With the complete freedom of the Church, there is no active mission. No one brings the Word of God into the world. The flock does not increase in number. Should we consider the 1.5-2 percent of the population of the once Orthodox country in our churches to be the norm, or is it still a complete profanity of the apostolic nature of the Church?

22. Infantilism of church communities. Lack of responsibility for the fate of the parish, for the relationship of the community with the rector, for the relationship of the parish with the bishop. Often this infantilism is encouraged by the authoritarianism of the priests themselves. The church, which is not supported by the community, is not needed by the community. It is necessary to serve in the garage, in the apartment, in the gazebo. Situations when a village priest is engaged in agriculture to maintain the temple, sells souvenirs to tourists, with an income of twenty thousand rubles, is looking for sponsors in the capital for an envelope for a bishop of thirty thousand rubles - this is an anomaly, this is not normal, it may even be vicious.

23. Our Church is episcopal and everything depends on our bishops. I think that the turn of our hierarchy to face the people and the problems described above will not come from the fact that the issues of good and evil will begin to worry them with some special force, but from the fall in income. Incomes will decline, it will come to bankruptcy of parishes, the inability to pay diocesan fees in the previous volumes, and the refusal of priests to serve in parishes without income. Or maybe there won't be a turning point. The relics will be transported from Greece not once every two years, but every month, and not in several cities, but throughout the country, and there will be no need to turn to face anyone.

I consider it necessary to publish two articles about what is happening in the Russian Orthodox Church, which not all Orthodox laity know about. In the meantime, both of these pieces of news could become life-changing for all Orthodox in the Moscow Patriarchate. This material was published on the sites "Moscow - the Third Rome" (/) and "Holy Fire" (). The content of this article can be called news with a stretch (only for those who do not yet know about this event), because. happened almost a month ago. I had no plans to report on it, but an event recently occurred (God willing, there will be a separate publication about it a little later), in the light of which what happened takes on a truly terrible color.

News
On the 50th Anniversary of Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev), a Renovation Rite Service Was Served
26.07.2016

On July 24, 2016, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia celebrated the Divine Liturgy in the Moscow church in honor of the icon of the Mother of God "Joy of All Who Sorrow" (Transfiguration of the Lord) on Bolshaya Ordynka.
During the service, prayers were offered for the rector of the church, Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev), honored that day, in connection with the 50th anniversary of his birth.
This service was unusual and very reminiscent of both the liturgical practice of the Renovationists of the early 20th century and the modern practice of Catholics when celebrating Mass: the altar and the seven-candlestick were placed in the middle of the church (another, “real” altar remained in the altar!), and the pulpit in front of the Royal Doors was turned into a high place, on which Patriarch Kirill sat with his back to the iconostasis, the altar and the "real" throne.
They never sit on the pulpit. Even bishops. The pulpit has a deep symbolism, because of which even the patriarchs only stand on the pulpit for worship. The ambo is the place of the resurrection of Christ, the Gospel is read from it, from it the bishop makes his gospel - a sermon. To sit on the pulpit is not only to sit on the gospel, it is to prop up a soft spot with your own sermons. They sit on the pulpit. The pulpit is always in the center of the temple and in the High Place. But due to the fact that the altar was taken to the center of the temple, now the pulpit has become a High Place. And this breaks all the traditional symbolism of the liturgy.
Such a modernist liturgical service not only distorts the mystical meaning of the iconostasis as a spiritual and material boundary between the space of the altar (the place of the Divine presence) and the temple (the place of gathering of the people of God), but is also a flagrant liturgical outrage. It is Catholics who celebrate Mass without an iconostasis. In fact, they no longer have an altar.
If the religious consciousness of Orthodox believers is accustomed to surround with special reverence the place where the greatest of the sacraments, the Holy Eucharist, is performed, then the reformers-renovators of the 1920s. they demanded to open the altar and even to move the throne from the altar to the middle of the temple, so that the actions of the priest could be seen by those praying. This is exactly how Bishop Antonin (Granovsky) performed divine services in the Zaikonospassky Monastery, pushing the throne from the altar onto the salt. At the "sobor" of the "Church Revival" Union, Antonin said:
“The people also demand that they be able to contemplate, to see what the priest is doing at the altar during the service. The people want not only to hear the voice, but also to see the actions of the priest. The “Church Renaissance” Union gives him what he needs” (Proceedings of the First All-Russian Congress or Council of the “Church Renaissance” Union. M., 1925, p. 25).
Antonin (Granovsky) told how in 1924 he suggested to the believers that they petition the authorities to open one church, but on the condition that they adopt the Russian language and open an altar. The believers turned to Patriarch Tikhon for advice. His Holiness Tikhon replied: it would be better if the church fails, but don’t take it on these conditions.
Antonin spoke about the statement of Patriarch Tikhon: “Look at the sectarians of all stripes. No one arranges birdhouses in their chapels. All Catholicism, all Reformation, keeps the altars closed but open. These two acquisitions of ours: the Russian language and the open altar represent two of our striking differences from the old church order. They abhor Tikhon, that is, the clergy, so much that he is glad that such churches fail.”
In 1922, another Renovationist figure, Fr. I. Egorov also arbitrarily reformed the traditional service in the same way as Bishop Antonin: he switched to Russian and moved the throne from the altar to the middle of the church.
Neo-renovators of the late 1990s shared the opinion of their spiritual predecessors of the early twentieth century. So, for example, priest A.Borisov wrote in his book Whitened Fields:
“Once, in the 1920s, the bold reformer Bishop Antonin Granovsky tried to introduce the service of the liturgy with an altar placed in the middle of the church, with the Eucharistic prayers being read aloud by all the people. Then it caused ridicule of church snobs. But maybe it's not so funny after all? Perhaps some time will pass, and our descendants will wonder how it could happen that ... millions of Christians for many centuries were fenced off by the iconostasis ... Obviously, the time has come to think about whether there will be a liturgy service similar to that resumed by a bishop Antoninus, to promote a fuller and more conscious participation of all those in the church in the Eucharist” (pp. 175–176).
It’s interesting - how can you simultaneously shake your head and say “oh, darling St. Tikhon, oh, bad Renovationists” - and do the same thing as the Renovationists and stomp your feet on the orders and precepts of St. Tikhon? This is not even hypocrisy, this is a cynical spit on him ...
Thus, the outrageous serving of the liturgy by the Patriarch on the altar placed in the middle of the church repeats the practice of the Renovationists of the early 20th century and brings the liturgy closer to the Catholic practice of serving the Mass. Such liturgical arbitrariness is, in our opinion, disorderly and unforgivable behavior, even if such a liturgy was led by the Patriarch himself. One gets the impression that the teacher of the organizers of such a divine service is not St. Tikhon, but his sworn opponent, Renovationist Bishop Antonin Granovsky.
And the worst thing is that this is not just an “ordinary worship service in an ordinary church.” This is an instruction for dioceses that it is necessary to serve like this now and in the future.

The publication uses materials from articles by N. Kaverin and the blog "Orthodox of the Japanese Rite".

I.N Now strange events are taking place in the Orthodox Church. Patriarch Bartholomew has declared a division within the church, and the Moscow Patriarchate is taking strange steps that lead to the escalation of the conflict.

At the same time, the Pope of Rome also takes a great part in the affairs of the Orthodox Church. Believers, most likely, understand little about these events, and therefore cannot manifest themselves and their will in them. But according to some statements by Bartholomew, it becomes clear that Ukrainian and Russian believers are being pushed into bloody showdowns because of the property of churches. It turns out that now the church through the church decided to unleash a war between Russia and Ukraine? What is happening, and what is really behind the ongoing split in the churches?

The MM Schism of the Churches is a fake disguise for the ecumenization of the Orthodox Church in line with the New World Order. The schism is a staging that has long been discussed within the Roman Catholic elite, headed by the Pope, as a detonator for the complete collapse of the and so little stable Orthodox Church, headed by Father Cyril.

You need to know that today's Orthodox Church, on its basis, has long been ecumenical, since it preaches the teaching of the false Apostle Paul, who introduced a monstrous distortion into the teaching of Christ in his time. Namely, in the role of the Father of Christ, instead of the Absolute Light, Jehovah appeared, whom Christ the Savior denounced as “the devil, the murderer and the father of lies…”.

The substitution of God the Father - Absolute Light, for the essence of the devil, has remained for centuries within the newly formed religion called Christianity. Catholicism, Orthodoxy and many sects based on Christianity have always arisen precisely because of such a substitution. Bloody wars and the power side of religious ideology, which provides aggressive colonial wars, have also always been based on this substitution. Diavolo World - the system of Darkness, gained momentum and captured absolutely all aspects of the life of earthlings in countries under the influence of a perverted biblical concept.

Therefore, it is not surprising that at the end of the times of the system of Darkness, there appeared a tendency towards a mature unification, already realized by the patriarchs, of all religious trends that arose within Judaism, including Islam, which was also split from within by the substitution of the main Deity and His Teachings.

What is now called a split is not. Church hierarchs are in collusion, and they are negotiating outside the flock's field of conduct. And what is characteristic, they perfectly find a common language. The conversation is not at all about the division of the property of churches, but about how it would be more dexterous and imperceptible to bring your flock, already so many times deceived, into complete submission to the devil's essence of the New World Order. Ecumenical ideas conquered the Vatican and Constantinople, and are also quite acceptable for the Russian Orthodox Church, together with the Ukrainian Church. The desire to incite the believing public to a conciliatory policy on this issue will not stop before the bloody events in the performance inside the church showdowns, which have nothing to do with that wrong side of the betrayal of the Holy Synod towards its parishioners, which consists in the fact that their souls will become the prey of the devil essences of the cosmic Bottom finally and irrevocably at the moment when people take up arms to protect the PROPERTY of the churches, which they have collected from the meager possibilities of believing old people and depraved magnates who atone for their sins.

The trade in wine, cigarettes and icons, put on streams, has long ceased to distinguish the church from an ordinary enterprise with limited liability. But, at the same time, it is not subject to taxes and intervention of financial authorities.

In the modern church, that sacred essence of the Teachings of Christ the Savior has long been absent, and therefore it must undergo complete disintegration and destruction of all former foundations, like the rest of the infrastructure of the system of Darkness. People who believe in Christ and know His true Teaching, which is expressed in just one single phrase: “GOD IS LIGHT, AND THERE IS NO DARKNESS IN HIM”, can send their Faith, bypassing church traps, directly to the name of Christ the Savior, and through Him - to God the Father - the Absolute Light of Infinity! And this will save their Souls from the disastrous bacchanalia of church squabbles.

If he is talking about the Church schism, then there is a need to accept a simple truth, which consists in a conscious choice between the devilish essence, which the Church exposes as the father of Christ, and God the Father, whom Jesus Christ himself called his Father - GOD IS LIGHT, AND THERE IS NO THERE IS NO DARKNESS IN IT!

The schismatics in this case will be truly as honest as possible with themselves and with the fate of their Souls. And they will not be touched by the diabolical pandemonium around the property of churches and the names of priests - traitors who lead their Souls to the slaughter to the devil's essence.

The split between the direction to the Outer Darkness and to the Light of Infinity - this is the split that truly must occur in today's religious currents. And the property and composition of the devil's servants should no longer be of interest to anyone.

“God is Light, and there is no Darkness in Him!” It is this symbol of not only Faith, but real Knowledge, that is the key inside the Power of Light, being a complete picture of all aspects of life within the New Formation. Not the Church, but the very structure of all life within the Power of Light, and, thanks to the Higher Horses of Light, which underlie the New Constitution, is a condition for observing the dogma of Christ the Savior. Everything from the beginning of life, including the full composition of the human needs of the physical body, emotional mood and mental orientation, as well as spiritual aspirations, will become embodied in real life through the very device of the State of Light.

The State - the Temple of Light, the Kingdom of God on Earth - this is what the Power of Light is, and therefore you should not pay attention to the destructive processes inside the rotten religious receptacle of the devil's substitution. Let it collapse. The believers themselves from the Light need to step aside and observe how the false appearance of the “holy” fathers will bubble and burst, exposing the diabolical signs of ghouls and spiritual dead.