Consequently, nothing could be further from the truth than to repeat, as the Western press did on the occasion of the Rhodes Conference, that the Orthodox Churches had not met for more than a millennium. Even if we leave aside the councils that took place in Kiev, Iasi, Moscow, Bethlehem and Jerusalem, let us recall that only in Constantinople councils met in 1285, 1341, 1351, 1454, 1484, 1589, 1638, 1672, 1691, 1735, 1842 and 1872, among which the most important were the councils of the fourteenth century devoted to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and grace; in the seventeenth century – the attitude of Orthodoxy to the Reformation, in the nineteenth century – the understanding of the Church.

Only from the middle of the last century, when many new autocephalous Churches appeared in South-Eastern Europe, did the pentarchy system begin to become obsolete. But if Constantinople tried to slow down the process of obtaining new autocephalies, the Russian Church, which enjoyed the support of a powerful empire that in its Balkan policy sought to protect Orthodoxy and the Slavic peoples, encouraged their ecclesiological "emancipation." Thus, for example, in 1872, contrary to the opinion of the Mother Church and what was left of the pentarchy, it recognized the Bulgarian autocephaly.

Constantinople understood that the Orthodox world was being organized in a new way and that in the new system the national Churches would already represent only themselves. In 1902, Joachim III, in the same letter in which he called for rapprochement between Christians, invited sister churches to consult with each other every two years. However, it took the shock caused by the First World War and the Russian Revolution for the Churches to part with their inertia. Patriarch Meletius IV convened the First Pan-Orthodox Conference in Constantinople in 1923, at which, on the occasion of the 1600th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, it was decided to convene a council in 1925. But political circumstances forced the Council to be postponed, and then to cancel it. A preliminary conference held on Mount Athos in June 1930 decided to convene 626

Pre-Council Conference in 1932. But this intention was not crowned with success, but it made it possible to hold a Pan-Orthodox Theological Conference in Athens in 1936. The general weakness of all these conferences was that the Russian Church could not participate in them, in view of her tragic situation and the schisms that tore her apart.

World War II forced the Soviet regime to search for the "moral unity" of the Russian people, which made it possible to reorganize the Moscow Patriarchate and cope with schisms. The restoration of the one and weighty Russian Church, many of whose leaders, following the regime and the people, were adherents of zealous patriotism, seemed to revive the old theme of the Third Rome and put Orthodoxy in a difficult position. This is how the "Orthodoxy of the East" was formed, coordinated by the Moscow Patriarchate, which insisted on the independence and complete equality of all "autocephalies", denied Constantinople any prerogative other than the primacy of honor, and, finally, considered the World Council of Churches, founded in 1948, an instrument of Western imperialism. On the other hand, there was the "Orthodoxy of the West," which recognized, though not without reservations, the role of the "center of concord" that belonged to Constantinople, and continued to participate in the ecumenical movement.

Moscow reorganized in its own way the Churches of Poland and Czechoslovakia, to which Constantinople, referring to its pan-Orthodox responsibility, granted autonomy in exceptional conditions – in the interval between the two wars. Moscow refused to recognize the similar autonomy that the Phanar had granted to the Finnish Church. It did not agree to recognize the creation of the "Russian Exarchate" of the Church of Constantinople in 1932 for the most numerous Russian emigration in Western Europe. This care was considered "temporary," it made it possible for Russian religious philosophy, which then bore its most ripe fruits, to develop freely and to contribute to the birth of the ecumenical movement. However, Moscow's objection was justified: how can one be called a "Russian Orthodox" outside the Russian Patriarchal Church without dismissing it for political reasons?

Two understandings of the Church clashed: on the one hand, the modern concept of the complete independence of the sister Churches, and on the other, the traditional concept of primacy, not in terms of jurisdiction, but as a guardian concern for their communion in the universal Church.

The election of Athenagoras I only exacerbated this situation. The new patriarch had lived in the United States for sixteen years, became an American citizen, and made no secret of his friendship with President Truman. His message of 1950 on the occasion of the Triumph of Orthodoxy was very unfavorably received by the Churches in the East, where a cry of neo-papism arose. The Ecumenical Patriarch recognized Bulgarian autocephaly in 1945. In 1953, the head of this Church, who bore the title of exarch, was elevated to the rank of patriarch without any consultation with Constantinople, but with the full approval of Moscow. Constantinople expressed its surprise. But everything remained so.

The date of 1953 has a special significance: Athenagoras I decided to put an end to a process that threatened to lead to the dismemberment of Orthodoxy. His true greatness was evident here: he loved the United States, where the Greek diaspora flourished, his very election took place partly within the framework of the policy of "containment" of Soviet pressure, he counted on American support for the reconciliation of Greeks and Turks and respect for the interests of the Orthodox minority in Constantinople. And at the same time, being faithful to his vocation to "preside in love," he understood that Orthodoxy rises above ideological boundaries, that there can be no unity of Orthodoxy without or against the Russians.

* * *

He

Acting without the Russian Church has been and will always be fraught with schism. In order to avoid this, it was necessary not only unselfishly, but also through heavy sacrifices, to involve this Church in the process of Orthodox unification and movement towards the unity of all Christians, which meant making this process, in which all sister Churches must participate, irreversible. The Russian Church, in spite of all the vicissitudes and temptations that have occurred in its history, has always retained ties with Constantinople, from which Russia received Christianity. The Russian soul remains illumined by the vision of divine beauty that touched the envoys of Grand Duke Vladimir in the Church of Hagia Sophia. St. Gregory Palamas was a theologian of light, but only the Russian, Andrei Rublev, was able to express this light in painting. Up to the 19th century, Russian Orthodox thought was nourished by Greek thought, but this was the case until the Russians themselves became the first in theology and religious philosophy. Remember the role of Maximus the Greek in the sixteenth century, the Likud brothers in the seventeenth, the "Philokalia" of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries... Even after the awakening of the great Russian thought, Khomiakov greeted the message of 1848 with enthusiasm, finding in it an impulse and a nourishing medium for his idea of free ecclesiastical communion. Throughout the Ottoman period, the Russians helped our Patriarchate with inexhaustible generosity. For its part, Constantinople helped the brotherhoods of the laity to successfully resist the onslaught of the Uniates in the Western Russian lands when they were in the hands of Poland. The Russian people dreamed of "Tsargrad", its pilgrims and monks filled Athos for centuries. And in the south of Russia there were and still are numerous and prosperous Greek colonies.

The Greeks, as I have told you, are often critical of my love for the Russians. But I love Holy Russia, which today remains hidden, but which will one day return to its spiritual mission on the historical stage. I love her for her saints, for her theological thought, but especially for her martyrs... That is why it is necessary for the Russian Church to be with us.

I