They dream about autocephaly in Abkhazia
04/05/2011
Gocha Gvaramia
“The Club of exsperts”
On May 15th it can get really hot in Abkhazia. But in this case it will not be due to natural cataclysms. Temperature will soar in religious sphere where so-called young wing of the Abkahzian Orthodox society comes out against “servant” of the Russian Orthodox Church and self-appointed head of the Abkhazian diocese (part of the Georgian Orthodox Church) “Pop-Mauser” (priest-Mauser) Vissarion Apliaa. A main cause of the confrontation is a problem of which language should be used for the church service. At the time when Applia supports conduction of the church service in the Russian language young priests are for its conduction in the Abkhazian language. The confrontation even took such proportions that one of them, Father Dorofei, was forced to leave Abkhazia and find refuge on Mount Athos in Greece, while Father Andrey was left altogether without a monastery. A lot have been written on this subject, and we did not leave this issue unaddressed. Therefore, we will not trouble a reader with a description of further developments.
Interest is roused as to how any insignificant event will be used in the occupied Abkhazia to intentionally, by an incorrect interpretation mislead readers.
In particular, in connection with the church-people gathering scheduled for May 15th in Abkhazia, on May 2nd the website of radio station Ekho Kavkaza published meaningless comments of editor-in-chief of one of the Abkhazian opposition newspapers Inal Khashig. At first glance, this is a description of well-known facts regarding current events. There is nothing new in Khashig’s comments and would not have been worthy of attention, if not one, concluding sentence which reveals far-reaching goals.
In connection with the arrival of Father Dorofei to the gathering in Abkhazia, Khashig, as if incidentally, notes that “… a few days before Easter, Father Dorofei was awarded title of Archimandrite, and this was done by Metropolitan of the Church of Constantinople. Until now, there has not been a monk in Abkhazia, with such high monastic rank. And this is actually a direct road to creating one’s own not only diocese, but maybe even the church as from archimandrite to bishop is just a small step. And here, of course, in the context of the internal church conflict it is a very powerful argument in favour of young Abkhazian clergy”.
Two points have been highlighted in the seemingly harmless utterance of Khashig.
First, it is understandable that Apliaa lost credibility among the majority of the society. It is therefore necessary to create an information background in order to remove “pop-Mauser”, who enjoys support of the puppet regime of Abkhazia, and representatives of the higher circles of the church hierarchy in Russia, from the Abkhazian Diocese. If we consider the statement of Khashig only in this sense, we cannot expect anything new from this. Abkhazia will remain occupied, and newly appeared “spiritual father” of Abkhazia certainly will not care about the return of refugees.
But, let’s take a look at this statement from a different angle. By referring to the status of the Church of Constantinople, which is the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Khashig is trying to show the public that, despite the neglect of the issue of Abkhazia’s independence by the international community it is supported by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. And if the Father Dorofei leads the Abkhaz diocese, then after a while Abkhazia will officially have not just its own diocese but the church as well which would mean recognition of the independence of Abkhazia by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. And after this, recognition of political independence can easily be achieved.
It all sounds so vivid that it is difficult to doubt reality of such event development. But activities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as well as of the international community are defined by clearly laws. And they implicitly recognize the canonical borders of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Abkhazian Diocese is recorded as its integral part. So, Khashig’s comment serves to mislead the public.
As to the elevation of Father Dorofei into the rank of Archimandrite by the church of Constantinople, according to the Orthodox canons, only the patriarch of a country has a right to confer orders to clergy in his own church. And since the church of Constantinople belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church, the Father Dorofei is a priest of the Greek Church. Therefore, according to the Orthodox canonical rules he more likely will be not its priest, but a guest in the Abkhazian diocese, even if in the self-proclaimed one.
It would be better for Inal Khashig to quit dreaming about the autocephalous status and to get better acquainted with the canonical positions of the Church, and also to understand that misleading of the public can maybe help achieve certain goals at the initial stage, but the truth is still impossible to hide. Sooner or later, and especially in the XXI century of high technologies, it will only take several minutes and a few easy manipulations on a computer keyboard for a reader to easily find necessary and interesting information.
