The Act of Canonical Communion (2007)

On May 17, 2007 (the Feast of the Ascension), the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate signed the Act of Canonical Communion in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, ending eighty years of separation. The reunion preserved ROCOR’s self-governance while restoring full eucharistic communion and canonical unity.

Tradition: ROCOR-specific

Background: Why Reunion Became Possible

The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 fundamentally altered the conditions that had justified ROCOR’s separation from Moscow. Several developments made reunion conceivable:

The End of Soviet Persecution

  • The Russian Orthodox Church was no longer under direct state control and persecution.
  • Religious freedom, albeit imperfect, was restored in Russia.
  • The Church began to rebuild its institutional life: reopening churches, monasteries, and seminaries.

Moscow’s Glorification of the New Martyrs (2000)

  • At the Jubilee Bishops’ Council of August 2000, the Moscow Patriarchate canonized the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, including the Royal Family (as passion-bearers).
  • This was a key ROCOR demand: ROCOR had glorified the New Martyrs in 1981 and regarded Moscow’s failure to do so as evidence of residual Sergianism.
  • Moscow’s 2000 canonization removed a major obstacle to reunion.

Moscow’s Social Doctrine Document (2000)

  • The same Jubilee Council adopted The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, which included a significant passage (section III.5) affirming that the Church has the right – and even the duty – to resist the state when the state compels actions contrary to the faith.
  • This was widely interpreted as an implicit repudiation of Sergianism, though Moscow never formally anathematized Metropolitan Sergius’s Declaration.

Patriarch Alexei II’s Overtures

  • Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow (1929-2008, Patriarch from 1990) actively sought reconciliation with ROCOR, recognizing that the division was a wound in the Russian Church.
  • Under his leadership, the Moscow Patriarchate took steps to address ROCOR’s concerns.

The Dialogue Process

Initial Contacts

  • Informal contacts between ROCOR and Moscow hierarchs began in the early 1990s.
  • In 2003, a formal dialogue commission was established, with delegations from both sides.

ROCOR Delegation

  • ROCOR’s commission for discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate, established by the Synod of Bishops in 2003, was presided over by Archbishop Mark (Arndt) of Berlin and Germany, with Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff serving as its secretary; other ROCOR hierarchs and clergy participated in the joint sessions. (“Metropolitan Mark (Dr. Arndt),” ROCOR Studies, February 21, 2024; commission materials at synod.com)
  • The course toward reconciliation was endorsed by the Fourth All-Diaspora Council, held in San Francisco, May 6-14, 2006, and subsequently approved by the ROCOR Council of Bishops. (Resolution of the IV All-Diaspora Council, San Francisco, May 2006)

Moscow Delegation

  • The Moscow delegation included representatives of the Department of External Church Relations (DECR), headed at the time by Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev) of Smolensk, who would later become Patriarch.

Key Issues in the Dialogue

The dialogue commissions addressed several critical issues:

  1. The status of ROCOR: What degree of autonomy would ROCOR retain within the reunited Russian Church?
  2. Sergianism: Would Moscow formally acknowledge and repudiate the compromises of the Soviet era?
  3. Ecumenism: ROCOR’s anti-ecumenist stance vs. Moscow’s participation in ecumenical bodies.
  4. Property questions: The status of ROCOR’s churches, monasteries, and other properties.
  5. Commemoration of the Patriarch: ROCOR would need to commemorate the Patriarch of Moscow in its services.
  6. The New Martyrs: Alignment of the two churches’ lists of canonized saints.

The Act of Canonical Communion

The Signing

The Act of Canonical Communion was signed on May 17, 2007 (Ascension Thursday), in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. The signatories were:

  • For ROCOR: Metropolitan Laurus (Shkurla, 1928-2008), Fifth First Hierarch of ROCOR.
  • For the Moscow Patriarchate: Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow and All Russia.

The signing took place during a joint celebration of the Divine Liturgy, attended by hierarchs, clergy, and faithful of both churches. The event was broadcast on Russian television and received extensive media coverage.

Key Terms of the Act

The Act of Canonical Communion established the following:

  1. ROCOR remains “an indissoluble, self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church” (Act, §1): This defined ROCOR’s canonical status – not an independent church, but a self-governing entity within the one Local Russian Church.

  2. ROCOR is “independent in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property, and civil matters” (Act, §2): No transfer of parishes, monasteries, or other property to Moscow was required.

  3. Supreme authority within ROCOR remains its own Council of Bishops, with the Synod of Bishops continuing as the executive organ between Councils (Act, §3).

  4. The First Hierarch of ROCOR is elected by ROCOR’s Council of Bishops, and the election is confirmed by the Patriarch of Moscow and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (Act, §4): This gives Moscow a formal confirmatory role in ROCOR’s leadership but preserves the principle of internal self-governance.

  5. The name of the Patriarch of Moscow is commemorated in all ROCOR churches before the names of the ROCOR First Hierarch and the ruling bishop, “in the prescribed order” (Act, §5): This was a key symbolic act, signifying the restoration of canonical unity.

  6. ROCOR’s bishops are elected by its Council of Bishops, with the elections confirmed by the Patriarch and the Holy Synod; dioceses are established or closed by the ROCOR Council of Bishops in agreement with the Patriarch and the Holy Synod (Act, §§6-7).

  7. ROCOR bishops participate in the Local Councils and Bishops’ Councils of the entire Russian Orthodox Church, which the Act names as the supreme instances of ecclesiastical authority for ROCOR (Act, §§8-9). This provides a mechanism for ROCOR’s voice to be heard at the pan-Russian level.

(Act of Canonical Communion, May 17, 2007; official English text: https://www.synod.com/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html)

Reactions Within ROCOR

Majority Support

The majority of ROCOR’s bishops, clergy, and laity supported the reunion. The process had been lengthy and deliberate, with extensive consultations at all levels of the church. Several All-Diaspora Conferences and Clergy Councils were held to discuss the terms. Metropolitan Laurus led the process with patience and a conciliatory spirit.

The Minority Opposition

A significant minority within ROCOR opposed the reunion, arguing that:

  • Moscow had not sufficiently repudiated Sergianism: The Moscow Patriarchate never formally anathematized Metropolitan Sergius’s Declaration, and ROCOR’s opponents argued that the spirit of Sergianism (compromise with secular power) persisted.
  • Moscow’s ecumenism was unacceptable: The Moscow Patriarchate remained a member of the World Council of Churches, which ROCOR had anathematized in 1983.
  • The reunion was premature: Some felt that the conditions for genuine unity had not been met and that more reforms in Moscow were necessary.
  • Loss of ROCOR’s prophetic voice: By uniting with Moscow, ROCOR would lose its ability to speak freely and critically about the state of the Russian Church and world Orthodoxy.

Splinter Groups

Those who refused the reunion formed or joined several groups, each claiming to continue the “true” ROCOR. It is important to distinguish the bodies created in 2007 from earlier separations:

  • The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad – Provisional Supreme Church Authority (ROCA-PSCA, commonly “ROCA(A)” or “ROCOR-A”): On May 22, 2007, days after the signing, Bishop Agafangel (Pashkovsky) of Odessa – the only ROCOR diocesan bishop to reject the Act – announced the formation of a “Provisional Supreme Church Authority,” invoking Ukaz No. 362 of Patriarch Tikhon (November 7/20, 1920); he was suspended by the ROCOR Synod for inciting schism. In December 2007 he performed new episcopal consecrations with bishops of the Greek Old Calendarist “Holy Synod in Resistance,” and in November 2008 a self-styled “Fifth All-Diaspora Council” elected him Metropolitan and First Hierarch. The group’s parishes are concentrated in Ukraine, with scattered communities elsewhere. It has itself fragmented: in 2016 several of its hierarchs, including Archbishop Andronik (Kotliaroff) of Syracuse, broke with Agafangel and convened a rival council in 2017, producing further micro-jurisdictions. (Statement of Bishop Agafangel, May 22, 2007; ROCOR Synod of Bishops decisions, 2007, synod.com; interview with Archbishop Andronik, rocana.org, 2017)
  • Earlier separations, not products of 2007: The Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) under Valentin (Rusantsov) of Suzdal had already left ROCOR in 1995, and the Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC) was formed in 2001-2002 by Archbishop Lazar (Zhurbenko) and Bishop Benjamin (Rusalenko) after the Mansonville schism of Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov), whose own group became known as ROCOR(V) / ROCiE. These bodies were separate from ROCOR well before the Act was signed, though they received some clergy and parishes that rejected the 2007 reunion. (Mayer, Jean-François. “Orthodox Churches: Schism in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR).” Religioscope, January 26, 2002; “The Russian True Orthodox Church,” saintjonah.org)

The splinter groups collectively represent a small fraction of ROCOR’s former membership. The overwhelming majority of ROCOR parishes, monasteries, clergy, and faithful accepted the reunion.

Significance for World Orthodoxy

The 2007 reunion was significant beyond the Russian Church:

  • Healing a historic wound: The reunion ended the largest and longest-standing schism within the Russian Orthodox Church.
  • Demonstration of reconciliation: The reunion showed that ecclesiastical divisions, even those rooted in profound historical grievances, can be overcome through patient dialogue.
  • Strengthening the Russian Church: The reunited Russian Church became, at least institutionally, the largest Orthodox church in the world by membership.
  • Complex precedent: The reunion also raised questions about how ROCOR’s distinctive positions (particularly on ecumenism) would coexist with Moscow’s more moderate stance.

Aftermath and Ongoing Dynamics

Since 2007, the practical outworking of the reunion has involved:

  • Liturgical communion: ROCOR and Moscow Patriarchate faithful receive communion together freely.
  • Episcopal cooperation: ROCOR bishops participate in All-Russian Bishops’ Councils.
  • Preserved distinctiveness: ROCOR has largely maintained its liturgical conservatism, its anti-ecumenist heritage, and its institutional culture, even within the larger Russian Church.
  • Metropolitan Laurus’s repose: Metropolitan Laurus died on March 16, 2008, less than a year after the signing. He was succeeded in May 2008 by Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral), who served as First Hierarch until his death on May 16, 2022. (“Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) in Memoriam,” ROCOR Studies, May 30, 2022)
  • Ongoing tensions: Some within ROCOR continue to express concern about Moscow’s ecumenical activities and the potential loss of ROCOR’s distinctive identity.

See Also

References