Obviously, the question should be raised whether it is permissible to use the Russian language for at least some parts of the divine services (in particular, for the Gospel, the Apostle, the Psalter). The Local Council of 1917-18 answered this question as follows:

The Slavonic language is the main language of our divine services. In order to bring our church services closer to the understanding of the common people, the rights of the common Russian language for divine services are also recognized... The partial use of the common Russian language in divine services (the reading of the word of God, individual hymns, prayers, the substitution of individual words and sayings, etc.) in order to achieve a more intelligible understanding of the divine services with its approval by the church authorities is desirable at the present time.452

When deciding on the reading of the Psalter in Russian, the following difficulty will inevitably arise: the Synodal translation of the Psalter, made from the Hebrew, differs markedly from the Slavonic translation made from the Greek. Obviously, in the event of a decision on the possibility of liturgical use of the Russian Psalter, it is necessary to translate the Psalter into Russian from Greek (similar to the translation made at the end of the 19th century by Professor Yungerov). All these questions are not easy to answer now, in the midst of the struggle against "neo-renovationism," when a very sharp polemic is being waged around the Russification of divine services. But sooner or later they will have to be answered.

Now the primary task is to publish special manuals that would explain the divine services in an understandable, modern Russian language. The text of the Divine Liturgy should be published with a parallel Russian translation; in the same way, the texts of the All-Night Vigil, the divine services of the main Christian feasts, the rite of Baptism, Marriage and other sacraments should be published. These texts should be available in churches in large quantities, so that those who want to know the meaning of the service can follow the service from the book.

Liturgical texts need to be theologically comprehended. There was a need for books that would reveal the dogmatic meaning of Orthodox worship, that would introduce Orthodox believers to the meaning of church feasts.

There is a need for books on the sacraments of the Church, written in simple and accessible language and containing an explanation of the rite of the sacraments. Priests are faced with a paradoxical situation: since there are still a lot of people who want to be baptized, there is no time for long-term catechesis, but there are no books that could make up for the lack of such catechesis. The presence of a small book on the sacrament of Baptism, in which twenty pages would explain why one should be baptized, and then the meaning of the rite of the sacrament would be revealed on another twenty pages, would greatly facilitate the life of both parish priests and those who are preparing for Baptism.

Thus, it is obvious that the Church needs to develop a strategy of educational, catechetical, missionary work, which would make the treasury of Orthodox worship accessible to people in its entirety. Without this strategy, it is impossible to fulfill the "global missionary task" of which His Holiness the Patriarch spoke.

6. Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy

The topic of the relationship between Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy was also among the issues discussed at the Local Council of 1917-18. A "department for the unification of the Churches" was even created; this department managed to hold seven sessions before the closure of the Council, considering, in particular, the topic of the possible reunification of Anglicans and Old Catholics with the Orthodox Church. Subsequently, the topic of heterodoxy was discussed by theologians of the Russian emigration, among whom there were many active figures in the ecumenical movement.

The topic of ecumenism is widely discussed today in church circles. The church community is divided into supporters of ecumenism and its opponents, and the latter are much more numerous than the former. At the same time, there is no discussion between them: the parties do not want to hear each other. If there is a polemic, then it is politicized to the utmost: the topic of ecumenism is used as a bogeyman, accusations of "ecumenical heresy" are brought against church hierarchs and theologians in order to discredit their activities. In the same vein, the topic of the possible withdrawal of the Russian Church from the World Council of Churches and other ecumenical organizations is discussed.

The author of these lines has to constantly participate in the work of such structures as the World Council of Churches and the Commission "Faith and Order". I must admit that the more I come into contact with these structures, the more critical my attitude towards them becomes. The theological discussions that take place at the meetings of Faith and Order seem to me to be very far from what the Orthodox Church lives today. And in the World Council of Churches, the position of the Orthodox in general is completely unsatisfactory: they do not have a real influence on its agenda, since this agenda is formed by the Protestant majority. Many of those who are involved in the work of the Council, aware of the danger of isolationist tendencies within the Orthodox Church, at the same time cannot but see that participation in the work of the existing ecumenical structures created decades ago, in completely different cultural and historical conditions, is unproductive, since these structures have outlived their usefulness.

It seems to me that we need a dialogue with non-Orthodoxy, but not in the forms in which it is now being conducted in the World Council of Churches. We need some other forum where Orthodox Christians would feel at home, and not as guests. In addition, it is necessary to develop bilateral dialogues. Meetings between the heads of the Churches and representatives of their leadership are very important: only through personal communication can the numerous barriers that exist between Christians of different confessions be overcome. But no less important are meetings of theologians, and at different levels, both official and unofficial. In order to participate in such meetings, we need theologians who are not only in perfect command of the riches of their own tradition, but also who are well acquainted with the heterodox tradition with which they enter into dialogue. There are practically no such specialists in the Russian Church today.

We need to take into account the experience of the ecumenical movement of the 20th century on a new level, taking into account the experience of the ecumenical movement of the 20th century, to theologically comprehend the problem of church divisions, schisms, attitudes towards non-Orthodoxy and relations with non-Orthodoxy. A variety of views have been expressed on this problem in Russian theology: from the complete denial of the grace of the heterodox churches to the complete denial of the reality of the existing church division. And now there are those who believe that "human barriers do not reach heaven," and there are those who, on the contrary, are convinced of the impossibility of salvation for the non-Orthodox. Obviously, a certain difference in views here is quite acceptable and natural. And one should not expect that all Orthodox Christians will take the same position on this issue. But whatever position this or that member of the Orthodox Church expresses, it is necessary that behind this position stand not only neophyte pathos or zeal for the purity of Orthodoxy, but also deep knowledge. For any position has the right to exist only when it is reasoned and theologically justified.