Getting to the Essence.

A Look at the Schism Through the

Eyes of Professor Osipov
orthochristian.com/118769.html

The following is a translated transcript of a Spas (Savior) Orthodox TV channel special edition
of their program, “Straight to the essence”. In these extremely disturbing times, people want to
hear a familiar, trusted voice of experience and sound theology. Professor Osipov is that voice.
We would like to present to our readers what he has to say about the schism, Constantinople,
and the measures that the Russian Church has taken so far.

Watch Video At: https://youtu.be/CqWJRn2_914

—I won’t hesitate to say that today in our studio we have one of the most well
known theologians of our country. Hundreds of thousands of people listen
attentively to his opinions and assessments, and of course during this complicated
time for our Church we cannot but ask for help in getting to the essence of what is
going on. Alexei Ilyich Osipov, Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy.
Alexei Ilyich, good evening.

—Good evening.

—Of course, many of our faithful are very disturbed by what is happening today
and by the recent actions coming from the Constantinople Patriarchate, their
decision to accept the Ukrainian schismatics, the so-called Kievan Patriarchate and
the other schismatic church. What is going on? How could they just go and make a
self-willed decision to accept a schism that has existed for many years and which
has scandalized hundreds of thousands of people in Ukraine?

—Unfortunately, this event, although it sounds shocking to all of us, in fact has its
prehistory. We have seen these attempts already a long time ago by the Constantinople
patriarch, and I am not talking about Bartholomew but the all patriarchs taken together
in this case—attempts to view the Constantinople patriarch as something akin to the
Roman primate. There are many such instances, and if we just take a look at history then
we are left with no doubts. Therefore, now the first thing is: How can we explain this fact,
and the second is: What will it lead to? How we can explain it. Unfortunately we pay very
little attention to human passions, which give no peace—neither to specific individuals,
nor to nations, nor to societies, nor—alas!—to churches. Here we are regrettably up
against this manifestation. We well know that in the eleventh century a tragic schism
occureed in the Western-Eastern Churches—in fact this is not a reliable way to express it;
in fact, we should say more precisely: There was a true falling away of the Western
Church, first in the person of Rome, and then naturally in all the churches and Christians
subject to him. And there is a sufficient amount of literature, copious, and convincing
literature written about this. So, what was the reason for this at that time? Not the
hidden, but to the contrary the pronounced—decisively pronounced—ambition (love of
1/14
power) of Rome. “You must submit to my authority!” it said, and that’s all there is to it.
You know, this was marvelously illustrated at the First Vatican Council of 1870. Of course,
this [papal primacy and infallibility] was already generally accepted [by Roman
Catholics], but it was simply illustrated and enshrined, if you will, by such a grandiose
event as a council. It was then stated right out that when the Roman high priest makes a
statement as the teacher of all Christians, the chief teacher of all Christians, his decisions
are infallible with that infallibility (and just listen to the words they used!), which the Lord
gave to His Church. Where [in Scripture] is this written? Where? Nowhere. But just
imagine—his voice possesses infallibility, and therefore everything he says is
irreversible. There you have it—that same main point, if you like, that same main reason,
the same source from which such disasters flow. Just as it was 1000 years ago, so now
has it sprung up barefaced—precisely barefaced—with the Constantinople Patriarch
Bartholomew. This is very unfortunate. Although, there were already things leading up to
it.

—You mentioned Rome and the actions of the Roman popes. So, it turns out that
we can draw parallels with what happened 1000 years ago, and that today
Patriarch Bartholomew is, let’s say, sinning by his ambition for his own infallibility,
that he is repeating the logic of the popes, becoming or claiming to occupy the
position of a sort of Eastern pope within the Orthodox world.

—That’s absolutely right. I am speaking precisely of that. And he is not ashamed to say
this. The press informs us that in Patriarch Bartholomew’s reaction to the decision of our
Synod, he is not ashamed to say that the Russians will accept [what he has done in
Ukraine], that they have no choice, that he’ll force them to do so, and so on! Already! You
know, there is no greater sin in the Church than pride. A person can make a mistake
about doctrine. Well, I made a mistake, it was explained to me, and that’s it! I repented.
But where there is pride, then its, “I say that two times two is three and a half. Period!”
That is the most terrible thing.

—Yes, Patriarch Bartholomew’s words really are amazing. One get’s the feeling
that he has no inclination whatsoever for dialogue with us, and aims only at the
logic of subjecting his “brother Slavs”, as he calls us, to his own will.

—Yes, “brother Slavs”. Absolutely, brothers (laughs).

—I would like to ask you to comment separately on these words, when he said
that our Slavic brothers cannot accept the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch
and “our people” or “race”—the Greek text has been variously translated—in this
case in Orthodoxy. How should we understand this? What is this pretension for
Greek hegemony in the Orthodox Church?

Note: The website Orthodox Synaxis posted a translated transcript of a speech given by
Patriarch Bartholomew that shows clearly, in black and white, that Patriarch Bartholomew
firmly believes in the Greek race’s hegemony in the Orthodox Word. It is a speech that smacks
with pride and Greek ethnophyletism:
2/14
“This can be seen on display in a recent speech by Patriarch Bartholomew to an audience of
parishioners from Istanbul. In it, he speaks of the preeminence of their common genos in the
Orthodox Church and triumphalistically mocks ‘Slavic’ attempts at usurping it. The language
that Patriarch Bartholomew uses is somewhat difficult to translate into English precisely
because his is a post-imperial ideology rather than a nationalist one of the sort that we are
more familiar with. That is, where one might use Hellenismos to describe the nationalism of
the Greek nation-state (ethnos), Romiosyne describes a concept of Greekness that transcends
nation-states and is centered more on the role of Greeks in the Orthodox Church than in
worldly politics. The key term in this speech is the word genos, which is the origin of the word
“genus” and could be translated as ‘race’, ‘kind’, ‘sort’ or, as we’ve chosen to translate it below,
‘people’, though it is noteworthy (not to say alarming) that in this speech Patriarch
Bartholomew uses the term phyle (‘tribe’ or ‘race’) as a synonym of genos.”

[From the transcript:] “The Romiosyne of the City [i.e., Constantinople] is a part, a section, of
world-Romiosyne, among which we are numbered. However, we are in no way simply a piece
of world-Romiosyne. We are, I would say, even if we are speaking about ourselves, a select
piece of world-Romiosyne, for here beats the heart of our people [γένος]. It is the womb of our
people. It is our Ecumenical Patriarchate. From here extend the ideals and values of our
people, the glory of our people, the sufferings and martyrdoms of our people, their source is
here. From here we serve worldwide Orthodoxy, we contribute to pan-Christian unity, we
contribute to the peace of the whole world”...

“At this time our Patriarchate is working hard to solve the ecclesiastical matter of the Ukraine
a n d displays the privileges and rights which it has from the canons of the Ecumenical
Councils. And these canons of the Ecumenical Councils—and, indeed, that of Chalcedon
[*gesturing towards the Metropolitan of Chalcedon*], the fourth Ecumenical Council, which
gives the specific privileges of appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarchate—these canons are
binding for the whole of Orthodoxy. Whether or not our Russian friends like it, sooner or later,
they will follow the solution that the Ecumenical Patriarchate will provide, because they do not
have another option”...

“The dark propaganda of the Russians has as its object, as its ‘victim’, if you like—in their eyes,
for we ourselves are never victims—in their eyes, it has as its aim the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
because our Slav brothers can’t stand the precedence that our Ecumenical Patriarchate has,
nor, consequently, our people in worldwide Orthodoxy.

“I am made proud by this, I keep this in mind, and I try in my everyday struggle to maintain
these privileges and these rights, with which God’s providence, through the decisions of the
Ecumenical Councils, has crowned the all-august Ecumenical Throne, the first-seated church of
Orthodoxy”...

[On articles written against what he’s doing:] “God gave us two ears [*laughter*]: these things
come in one ear and go out the other. Glory to God.”

3/14
—You know, this phrase very unpleasantly slipped out. One simply doesn’t want to
believe that he is riding on some sort of nationalism. Because that is just what is behind
it. I simply don’t want to believe it. But I will tell you that truly and regrettably, the Greeks
really do have this idea, which they brood over like a hen on her egg, that we gave you
the faith, you received Christianity from us, we enlightened you. I can’t help recalling our
wonderful grandfather, Ivan Andreyevich Krylov1: “Well, our ancestors saved Rome.” With
him [Patriarch Bartholomew] this sounds very stupid, as, incidentally, any passion does.
Any passion is stupid. And it’s the same thing here. They do have this idea, and I have
been forced to become convinced of this dozens of times.

Photo: from-italy.ru

You know, vainglory is one thing. We are all vainglorious—what can we do? It’s another
matter when this concerns not separate individuals, or even when it concerns just
Patriarch Bartholomew. This is in fact what the Synod stated—that is, the Local Council of
the Constantinople Church. They stated it on October 11 [2018]. This is not just a
personal opinion or a personal sin, but since the synod stated it, then it would follow
that all who consider themselves members of the Constantinople Church are in
agreement with all these decisions, they accept this and it becomes their belief, their
conviction. This is the danger. It is very dangerous when a man on such a high level says
such things that have been long ago condemned by everyone, by the whole of world
society as they say. God preserve us from nationalism. And now it’s suddenly slipped out.
He couldn’t restrain himself. This note came out. This is very sad, I’ll tell you.

​—And in your perception, how should the other Local Churches now react to this?
After all, essentially the behavior of the Phanar and Patriarch Bartholomew is
among other things a challenge and threat to all the other Orthodox Churches.
After all, similar things could happen to them. They could be told, “This is your
4/14
place. We are the first in the Orthodox world, listen to us.”

—Well, first of all, now is only the beginning. And we of course will see. Certain primates
a n d representatives of Churches have already declared what any reasonable person
understands—that the relationship between the Churches, especially Local Churches of
varying significance, can only regard each other as he himself expressed it, fraternally.
And a brother does not lord it over a brother. Christ Himself said that, “you call me
teacher, but I have washed your feet. You do the same.” What “lording” can there be
here? Such a thing was not even mentioned [in the Gospels]. So, what I think is that if
Christianity still exists in our minds and hearts, then in the final analysis, despite this
slow reaction, all must in one form or another express their negative regard for what
Constantinople is doing. They must. And several have already expressed it. If we follow
the order of the dyptichs, then even the Alexandria patriarch recognizes only
Metropolitan Onuphry as primate [of the Ukrainian Orthodox Chruch]. The Antiochian
Patriarch, too. And the Serbian Patriarch, yes… You can also see this with certain Greek
hierarchs, and the Polish Church. A process has already begun, and I will suppose that in
the end everyone or at least almost everyone will express the same opinion on this.
Otherwise there will be a schism, a terrible schism. It will be a schism comparable in
nature only with the eleventh century schism.

—That is, we can’t avoid drawing that parallel in this case?

—The situation, the tendency, in any case is the same.

—Alexei Ilyich, what do you think, is there any point in… well, obviously we can’t
give advice to our higher clergy, but… can the Moscow Patriarchate organize or
initiate a meeting of the primates of the Local Churches in order to discuss this
synodically? So that we would not be making a solitary answer to the other side,
but calling for a truly brotherly discussion of the disaster that is happening.

—Well, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill already called for this, from the very beginning. This is
truly a natural step. When such complicated problems arise, all the primates need to
gather and discuss it in a brotherly manner. Especially since Constantinople’s claims are
completely unfounded. There is no foundation—not dogmatic, which is especially
important, nor moral, which is absolutely obvious. No canonical foundation either. I
mean on a level, so to speak, because even what Constantinople at times wants to cite is
no foundation. I am talking about canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. What is
written there is very interesting. It is written there in black and white that the
Constantinople patriarch can appoint or appoints metropolitans in only three regions.
Three regions are named: The Pontus, Asia Minor, and Phrygia. He can appoint bishops
a n d metropolitans only there, and that’s all, that’s the whole geography. This is the
Fourth Ecumenical Council, a very high canonical level to appeal to. This is not to mention
the other councils, Local councils, which forbid a bishop from one Church to interfere in
the affairs of another diocese. This is straightforward. And just think: Where then is the
basis for what the current Constantinople patriarch is doing? There is none. Niether
doctrinal, nor moral, nor canonical. Therefore, if the heads of all the Churches would
5/14
gather, I suppose that even with all the relationships that certain Local Churches have
with Constantinople, they would be forced after all, it seems to me, to speak honestly
about this matter. This would be very beneficial.

—In this case, how should we properly understand this primacy of the patriarch,
the title of Ecumenical itself? What does this really mean? If he is ecumenical
[universal], then supposedly his authority extends over all, universal Orthodoxy.
How should we view this?

—A confusion of terms has taken place here. Alright, if we are going to call it ecumenical,
then let’s take a look at the Greek word. Oh, so it’s “ecumenical”? So that means
ecumenism? This term was taken from the time of the Roman Empire, and this Roman
Empire was the “oecumeni”. Well, that’s understandable. Rome was proud. It was huge, it
subdued peoples, and became a gigantic empire. And it proudly called itself
“ecumenical”, that is, “universal”. That is where that term came from; it’s purely
geographical and nothing more. And of course, it was political. So what happened then?
What was Rome, in fact? Later when the division came between the eastern and western
parts of the empire, the emperor naturally assumed that title. That is where that term
came from. It has no relationship, absolutely no relationship and no idea that would
extend the authority, even the canonical authority of the Constantinople patriarch over
all the other Churches.

—Apparently Patriarch Bartholomew want’s to be the bishop of the New Rome,

and claims that it has inherited this tradition of Rome’s.

—Yes, that’s it. In general I’ll say that these claims look ridiculous. Why did
Constantinople possess this prerogative? Only because it was a capital city. But what
relationship does a capital city have to religion? It is a political reality. It has no
6/14
relationship whatsoever. But if we’re going to talk about a religious, or I would say
Christian significance, then we should gather together at an Ecumenical Council and say,
“We’ve had enough!” It’s not Rome, or Constantinople, or Moscow, or Sophia, or any
other. Jerusalem—that is the source of Christianity, and so let it be the first. There is the
source! By the way, it’s perfectly clear where, if you want, primacy of honor should be.
Primacy of honor, but in no way of authority; this is what Christ spoke of at the Last
Supper when He said, “I am the teacher and I washed your feet, and you do the same.”
Just look at the political realities and prerogatives that they’ve transferred to the Church.
How sad! What does this signify? I would call it “worldlification”, and nothing else.

—To return to the situation with the schismatics. How can we explain to our
viewers what is happening with the church that has accepted and recognized a
schism in this manner? After all, a schism is not simply a graceless situation. Does
this schism cast a shadow, from the sacral point of view, over Constantinople?
Now allegories are being put forth that a schism is like a “virus” if accepted self-
willfully, which can among other things spiritually infect those who have agreed to
associate with it.

—I remember the words of St. Barsanuphius of Optina, who wrote that in reading the
holy fathers he suddenly came across a thought that stunned him. As it turns out, the
passions are infectious. Yes, of course, especially the passion of love of power

—this is one of the cruelest passions, which infects many people. The wise old Russian
proverb is right, which says, “If you want to know what a man is really like, give him
power.” He seemed to be a normal person, but they raised him up a step, made him a
corporal. Hard to tell whether he’s an officer or a soldier. But look at what happens to
him! Therefore without the Christian principles of life, without an understanding of the
very principles of spiritual life—which the holy fathers have laid out very clearly based on
the Gospel—then this is definitely an infectious disease. And it can lay many people low.
For now this is on a lower level. It is not as terrible—not that it’s good, but only not as
terrible. But when it becomes Church doctrine, then it has become a complete
perversion of the very nature of a Local Church. This is what happened with Rome. There
is a reason why I cited the decision of the First Vatican Council of 1870. You know that at
the Second Vatican Council this dogma [of papal infallibility] was not only not dampened
a bit, but was stated in an even stronger form. There you have a terrible passion, which
became a dogma of the Catholic church. This is the worst disaster, because then people
are involuntarily infected by this spirit. Passions really are infectious. And God forbid that
these schismatic actions that Constantinople is now committing should begin to take
hold spiritually. Canonically it all seems clear, and dogmatically everything seems
defined. But God forbid that it become spiritual! You know how it can be when the air is
pure and suddenly poisonous gas is released. That would truly be a disaster. Such a
distortion of the Church in and of itself can happen not just locally, but on a more
significant scale.

7/14
—One gets the impression that this “poisonous gas” is now beginning to enter the
minds of our Orthodox society. Today, concerning the cutting off of Eucharistic
communion between Moscow and Constantinople, we encounter the opinion that
the most important thing is the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and these bans that
our hierarchs are forcing on us are nothing more than ecclesiastical squabbles.
They say, “If I happen to be in a church of the Constantinople Patriarchate and the
priest comes out with the Chalice, with the Holy Gifts, why shouldn’t I receive
Communion? After all, this is highest thing for us.” How do you view that logic?

—Apparently that is what people say who do not know the history of the Church, never
mind its doctrine. Here is the essence of the matter. I would say to such people: Have
you ever heard of the “Arians”? That was in the fourth century. Have you heard of them?
Well, an Arian comes out with a chalice. Are you going to go and receive Communion
from him? Have you heard of the Nestorians? My God, there have been so many of them.
Don’t you understand that when a schism happens—and it could happen as a result—
there are two main manifestations coming from one and the same cause. What are
they? It can happen because of a violation of Church doctrine. We call this heresy. That is
what Arianism was. It can happen because of moral causes, when there is love of power,
pride. It’s not important how. They are equal in their influence on the nature of the entire
teaching and nature of the whole Church, which is caught up in this manifestation.

God resists the proud, writes the apostle Peter, and gives grace to the humble. Well,
when this happens, when there is conscious opposition—be it on the path of doctrine or
moral life—a conscious opposition to what is truly the teaching of the Church; that is,
when a person consciously falls into pride, love of power, then we have to understand:
What spirit of God can there be there? Just look at what the saints write even regarding
one person. When is Baptism valid? When a person is dipped three times and a formula
is pronounced? St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes that if you are being hypocritical about your
Baptism, the Holy Spirit will not baptize you. What does that mean? Mark the Ascetic
writes the same thing—that the Holy Spirit is given immediately at baptism to those with
firm faith, but it is not given at baptism to those who do not believe or who believe
wrongly. And Saint Seraphim of Sarov said straight out on this subject: On earth you
received communion, but in heaven you remain uncommuned. St. Seraphim put it
mildly, while the apostle Paul writes up front: “From this, many of you are sick and
dying.” That is what it means to just come and receive Communion. When false doctrine,
love of power, or heresy seizes a Church, then everyone who then communes there
enters into mystical communion with this, including through Communion. What
happens? At best [the communicant] receives nothing. At worst, “That is why many of
you are sick and die.”2 Then the Lord said straightly, in part condemning the sin of
fornication, that whoever unites himself with a harlot becomes of one body with her. Do
you understand? And through the Eucharist the same unification takes place. If a church
has distorted its teaching, demands power, demands submission, and demands primacy
for itself. That is, if it violates the main Christian commandment of love, with whom are
we communing there? We have to understand what the Eucharist means in its original
sense. And if you know, and nevertheless you approach the chalice, then you are going
8/14
against the truth, you are sinning. With what are you uniting? With what the apostle Paul
wrote: “What communion hath Christ with Belial, and light with darkness?” This is an
enormous danger. I am not talking about those who do not understand yet and do not
know better. This is a completely different question. We have to talk about this
separately. But those who know perfectly well why the schism happened, know what has
happened, and nonetheless say, “They’ve brought out the chalice and I’m ready to
receive communion”? Then, forgive me, you are going directly against the Spirit of truth.
What is that sin called? Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

—Alexei Ilyich, then it turns out that this whole situation that our Church is now
experiencing is as if a test of faithfulness to the Church for practically each one of
us. And perhaps this is almost the first time we have stood before such a choice, as
to whether we are ready to share the burden of this crisis situation with our
Church, or is it more important to us that we be able to receive communion in
Parisian churches for example, of which we are essentially deprived today—about
which many grieve.

St. Maximos the Greek. Photo:

days.pravoslavie.ru
—Yes, you are right. For many this is
already becoming an everyday, difficult
reality of life, because this has in fact
happened. There is a church right near
you, and you can’t receive communion
there? Well we have to understand what it
means to receive Communion. That is
what we are talking about now. We have to
make a choice. Throughout human history
we have always had a choice before us—
whether we should commit one or
another sin, or in the present case [go
against the directive of our Church]. So, we
have to have patience. What about when
people are in prison for a year, or ten
years? Take St. Maximos the Greek, for
example. He was in prison for years, and begged to be given Communion but they
wouldn’t give it to him. Just imagine that. But here we have people saying, “How is it that
I can’t have Communion?” This is just not serious. The essence of the matter is that
where the Spirit of God is not present, there can be no true Eucharist, because God
resists the proud. So we shouldn’t try to justify ourselves.
—So it turns out to be a sort of inconvenience that makes many indignant—“How
could you, the Church, cause me this inconvenience?”

9/14
—Yes, you’ve said it well. There is everyday comfort, and there is religious comfort. “Why
can’t I?” they say. You can! The Church does not forbid anything. It only warns. God
Himself does not forbid anything. God’s commandments are not a ban; man still has his
own free will. God only warns: Don’t walk on nails or you’ll get very hurt! Don’t jump from
the third floor window—go down the stairs, or you’ll break your arms and legs! This is
what the commandments and Church recommendations mean. But if someone
nevertheless, regardless of all warnings, goes ahead and does it, then he is pushing
himself out and that is all. They say, “Don’t walk on nails!” but I go and walk on them.
Well, as you wish! But there will be consequences...

—Alexei Ilyich, you have talked much today about the passion of love of power

, which we are unfortunately seeing here. Doesn’t it seem to you that it matches
up with the direct love of power of politicians? That is, secular people are actively
trying control the situation. And in general, what is your feeling on this, how
strong is the interference of external political powers, which are trying to resolve
their own political interests at the expense of the Church, in this conflict?
—I think that without a doubt, this is happening. I simply have not said anything about it;
I just didn’t want to talk only about that. But that political motives and even actions,
intentions, aims, and influences are present here, there can be no doubt. This is perfectly
obvious. But I am afraid that it could go even deeper than the political. Remember the
behavior of even the Constantinople patriarch Metaxis, how he behaved himself during
the Revolution in Russia, the civil war, and the emergence of renovationism, when our
Church was bleeding real blood. He supported the renovationists, and even rejected our
Church. I repeat: the Church was bleeding real blood. And instead of sympathy, what did
it get? That was not even politics, it was something worse. One even gets the impression
that he was working for some dark forces that were warring against Christianity. This is
perfectly clear. Or take Athenagoras—the same thing—when in 1975 the Constantinople
Patriarch Athenagoras, suddenly in the same unilateral fashion “removed the
anathema”, as they put it, from Pope Paul XVI. What was that? When these anathemas
were placed there was no such manner. In this case, almost no other autocephalous
Church was included in this decision. Can such serious actions be taken unilaterally?
What is going on here? What sort of childish game is this? No, unfortunately, these
people were not children. We cannot but believe that there are hidden forces that are
obviously just trying to destroy Christianity in any way possible, including through such
schisms and actions that destroy the Church from within.

—For some reason it is generally not accepted to openly recognize the existence of
these forces; this is laughed at, and those who do so are mocked for trying to see
the influence of these forces in such situations.

—Well, this is not surprising. This has gone on throughout history. A wise man walks
through Alexandria at midday with a torch. The sun is hot. I don’t remember his name,
perhaps Diogenes. They ask him, “Why are you walking around with a torch?” “I am
looking for a man.” “Ha-ha-ha, for a man! There are people everywhere and he’s carrying

10/14
a torch, to look for a man.” Really, what a fool, right? Smarties everywhere. No, it’s not so
simple to find a man. It’s the same thing here. A tree is known by its fruits. And when we
see such actions that are openly destroying Christianity from without and within, then
we have to think: Why is this happening?

—Today there are voices being published from the opposite flank by some very
zealous Orthodox people. They are calling for the anathematization of Patriarch
Bartholomew. What position do you think should be dominant? Should he be
anathematized, or should we just be praying that the Constantinople primate be
brought to reason?

Professor Alexei Osipov

—Extreme measures are just that—
extreme. And that is why they are taken in
extraordinary circumstances, especially as
regards such things as this. We cannot do
this. In order to anathematize any primate
or individual in Local Churches, a council is
needed, and not just of one Church. If
individual Churches start anathematizing
each other, what will it all turn into? This is
simply some kind of unreasonableness.
We love extremes, unfortunately. And we
wave them around like no one’s business.
No, you said it right—we have to pray.
Pray, but what actions should we take? We
have to act according to God’s will. How do
we act according to God’s will? This means
acting reasonably and according to our
conscience. And in the present situation, it
seems to me that the decision of the
Synod that was held here on October 15 [2018] bears that character. It only did not
explain what the breaking of Eucharistic communion is. It doesn’t explain it, but it is
perfectly understandable what they are talking about. They are not saying that they
forbid us to receive Communion. Who is usually excommunicated? Someone who had
committed serious sins. But we did not sin. That means that is about something else—
about how we mustn’t approach that chalice, so that what the apostle Paul spoke about
will not happen to us. We mustn’t play with such things. In the Eucharist, all become one
body. And if instead of becoming of one body in Christ we find ourselves in one body
with those who are directly and openly going against Christ’s commandments? That is
the crux of the matter. It is dangerous; we mustn’t do it. This will bring disaster upon the
person who starts receiving Communion within a church or community that is seriously
sinning at the moment. Repentance is needed. But as you see, there is no repentance
whatsoever, absolutely none. Nothing but stubbornness. This is frightening.

11/14
—Certain secular commentators who have suddenly become great experts on
Orthodox theology, journalists and polemicists who are totally worldly, some even
atheist, are now telling us all about the Church. They say that the Russian Church
instigated the schism in world Orthodoxy, and secondly, the Russian Church is
dooming itself to isolation; that this isolation is very terrible and we’ll end up all
alone in the Orthodox world, that we are cutting ourselves off. Is this distorted
logic?

—How clairvoyant they all are! Do you see how many primates have already announced
their condemnation of Constantinople? Yes, and we can suppose that their numbers are
increasing. I think that soon Constantinople will find itself isolated, and not us. That’s
first. Secondly, you know that the truth is not tolerant. And furthermore it [isolation] is
not important. At one time the Jerusalem Church was concentrated in a section of
Jerusalem. That was not a problem. And when they tore Orthodoxy apart, when the
separation happened with Rome, what do you think—how should we have acted? We say
Rome, but in fact how many Western churches were there? There were the Italian, the
French, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the German, the English... And yes, there was a
break with all of them. What can be done? Furthermore, I’ll repeat: Truth does not
tolerate untruth. Two times two is not three and a billion tenths, but four and only four.
It’s the same here; it’s a situation of that order. So there is nothing bad about it even if
some sort of isolation really does come about. God only grant that we preserve the truth.
We are not preserving ourselves, but the true teaching, the true understanding, the true
life, if you will. This is very important. This is extremely important, and we have nothing
to fear, even if this were to happen in some part. This could possibly happen, because
someone will obviously stick with Constantinople. And I think that those forces about
which you and I spoke earlier are working precisely to this end, so that there would be a
schism in Orthodoxy itself. It’s no accident that Bartholomew is constantly in Rome. He’s
meeting with the Roman pope. The poor man, that’s not so easy. After all, we do not
commune with the Catholics. No. So what are we so afraid of now? Yes, there are some
with whom we cannot commune. The Eucharist is the pinnacle of all the sacraments, and
it must be cherished as a great treasure. And therefore independently of whether we are
left all alone or not alone, we have to preserve this treasure uninjured, and not look at it
in terms of, “Oh my God, what will Princess Maria Alexeyevna say.”

—I would like to ask in conclusion: Many Ukrainian faithful watch us, and they are
very grateful to us for discussing these topics very attentively. What would be your
parting words or spiritual counsel to them—specifically to the Ukrainian flock that
is remaining faithful to the Moscow Patriarchate under today’s very complicated
circumstances?

—I think that such counsel is being given now. And His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry
gave a very good homily. He said that difficult times have come, and this is a very positive
sign for the Church. Perhaps he didn’t mention it, but there is a remarkable homily by St.
John Chrysostom

12/14
: “The worst persecution is no persecution.” Why is it the worst? Because then we settle
into nice warm water and begin to dissolve. But under a cold shower... Apparently we
need that. From time to time, it’s necessary. And now of course over there it’s a cold
shower. But may God grant them courage, patience, and a true Christian life. One has
not only to endure, but to live rightly, because if there is no true Christian life, no striving
for a life according to the commandments, if there is no prayer about our sins, then I
think that there will be little benefit from endurance. After all we have to know the great
truth that everything sorrowful that happens to us is not some kind of punishment from
God, as some insensible people think. Absolutely not. It is the consequence of our
incorrect spiritual life, and it shows us that it is not too late to change. That is why in
history whenever something difficult would happen to our people, what would they say?
That we have to repent. We have sinned. This is not God’s punishment, but a warning, a
bringing to our senses; it, if you will, shows us what sin is. And what is it? It is a wound.
And a wound has to be healed. How? By sincere repentance in our lives.
—Alexei Ilyich, I thank you with all my heart for today’s talk and I am sure that
your words will help many of our viewers to make sense of what is happening in
the Church today.

—Thank you very much.

—Dear friends, this has been a special edition of the program, “Straight to the
Essence” with Professor Alexei Osipov of the Moscow Theological Academy. Thank
your for being with us, and all the best to you.

***

Editor’s note: We have translated below some of the comments that appeared under the
YouTube video of this talk.

—Better alone with Christ than with everyone and the demons!

—It’s not hundreds of thousands who listen to Osipov, but millions.

—Almost 2 million listen and the absolute majority are thankful. May God preserve our
respected AI.

—Dear Alexei Ilyich! I am writing to you from Ukraine. Thank you very much for your wisdom
and profound knowledge, which you give to us all and which helps us to make sense of what
is going on; for your instruction and support. And thank you Elena for giving us the
opportunity to see and listen to you. May the Lord save you!

—May the Lord save you! The truth is with us and that means that God is with us. From
Ukraine, from Volhynia itself!

—Alexei Ilyich is the mind, honor, and conscience of our age and our Church!

13/14
—Finally! Only why do you call it, “Through the eyes of Osipov”? What’s that fear—to call a
spade a spade? What Professor Osipov is saying here is not, “through the eyes of Osipov” It’s
theology 101.

—Christ save you! Alexei Ilyich, as always, clear and precise. In simple and accessible
language. But unfortunately very few people are listening at all to the voice of God, the voice
of the Church, and the voice of the Church’s enlighteners. All are trying only to show their
“smartness”. May God Grant many, prosperous years to Alexei Ilyich, health and help from
God and blessings to continue many more years to help people properly learn Orthodoxy and
make sense of all the ecclesiastical and fringe-ecclesiastical questions!

—We Orthodox Ukrainians are proud of our pastors, headed by His Beatitude Onuphry. They
have not betrayed Christ. They are standing in the faith and Truth of Christ. Even if the Judases
take away our church buildings we’ll pray under the open skies. O Lord, give strength unto Thy
people.” Grant us all to know and do Thy will. Amen.

—Thank you, Alexei Ilyich, for your support for us Ukrainian Orthodox.

14/14