Metropolitan Laurus, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, has passed away – and this is a sad event, much like any other passing. However, the grief caused by this lamentable occasion is coupled with positive feelings. Metropolitan Laurus managed to complete the most vital deed – the rapprochement of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate, which has become the most crucial event for Russian Orthodoxy over the past decade. Metropolitan Laurus was born in 1928 in Slovakia and linked his life with the Russian Orthodox Church. Of course there have been many other important events, but the aforementioned rapprochement is of historical importance. It is associated solely with Metropolitan Laurus and took place in the last year of his life. It would be more than appropriate to speculate on the essence of this rapprochement.
“The establishment of canonical communion between the Churches on May 17, 2007” – this is the official way of designating the rapprochement in official papers. The essence of this event is hard to convey to people outside the Church. It does not presuppose the direct unity of the two structures. Both Churches will remain autonomous and will keep their internal organizational pattern. Peculiarities of the event (like the possible joint performance of the Eucharist) also will make a difference only for the believers. Certain administrative consequences, resulting from the signing of The Act of Canonical Communion, are somewhat outside the religion. However, they again make a difference only for people involved in Church affairs. The important point is that the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad recognizes the priority of the Moscow Patriarch, and the next head of the ROCOR appointed by its Bishops' Council is to be approved by the Patriarch and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. In other words, two branches of the Russian Orthodox Church separated in the 20th century and influenced by each twist of its history have recognized each other and stopped charging each other with apostasy. (If we consider the history of Russian orthodoxy, which dates back a thousand years, both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad are equal and the dispute about who is more important is pointless).
If we consider the event from the point of view of the epoch in which Stalin's question “How many divisions does the Vatican have?” sounded relevant, we will hardly manage to understand what happened after the Act of Canonical Communion was signed in the Savior Cathedral on May 17. It was a mutual recognition of the historical choice made by various groups of Russian people in the 20th century. And this choice was determined by the country’s history. This recognition did not generate the final showdown, the identification of the right and wrong sides, and the mistakes made over the past decades. Such a rapprochement was possible because the people who dreamed about it, including Metropolitan Laurus, understood that common historical and cultural traditions (serving as the uniting element and giving the two Churches this special “Russian air”) are more important than holding on to recriminations and mutual claims. However, at times, these claims and recriminations were unfortunately justified. What is more important is the future of Russia and Russian culture (as the church preserves a vital share of this heritage). The fact that the Churches will remain autonomous in terms of administrative regulations will save them from the need to touch upon the sore points or strictly identify opposing points of view on these issues.
The signing of The Act of Canonical Communion made it possible to unite the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church and to downplay the controversy fostered by the historical events of the 20th century; these are the main achievements that will always be associated with Metropolitan Laurus, Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow (and to a certain extent, Vladimir Putin, who did his part for the establishment of a dialogue between the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church). This might even serve as a possible pattern for the reunification of the Russian World; we must not forget about our common historical and cultural background, and, when thinking about the future, we must recognize the right of individuals and groups of people who seek this reunion, from all points of view. Acceptance of such a viewpoint will be the best way to respect the memory of the deceased Metropolitan Laurus.
