RUSSIA RELIGION NEWS

Russia Religion News Current News Items

---

Conscientious objectors in eastern Russia

4 BAPTISTS AND JEHOVAH'S WITNESS CHOSE ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
Regnum.ru, 25 October 2007

In the Altai territory, five draftees will be sent this autumn, because of their religious belief, to perform alternative civilian service. Four of them are Baptists and one is a Jehovah's Witness. This was reported today, 25 October, to a correspondent of IA REGNUM by the military commissar of the region, Alexander Generalov.

Four residents of the Slavgorod region and one from Khabarovsk region selected alternative service. One young man will work as an orderly in the Berdsk rest home for veterans of labor, and a second as a stoker for an industrial hearth in the Baturin nursing home for the elderly and invalids in Smolensk province. A third is assigned to work as a mason in construction directorate No. 806 in the Udmurt republic.

Yet another alternative service worker will be a reindeer herdsman in the "Odugen" municipal enterprise in the republic of Tyva where five other draftees also work, only as hunters. "In Altai territory many young people wish to perform alternative civilian service, but when they learn that it is necessary to serve longer and they still have to work far from home, they decline. And in the end there remain only those draftees whose faith will not permit them to bear arms," Generalov emphasized.

According to the military commissar, the term for alternative civilian service in 2007 is 31.5 months. For those who serve in the armed forces, this term equals 27 months and for citizens who have higher education it is 21 months. Beginning in January 2008 the term for alternative service will be reduced to 21 months and for service in the armed forces, to 18 months.

As IA REGNUM reported previously, it is expected that for the autumn the plan for the draft in Altai territory will remain unchanged and will amount to 2,500 persons. Among the innovations of this draft campaign, thirty Altai conscripts will serve in the presidential regiment. (tr. by PDS, posted 30 October 2007)

Russia Religion News Current News Items

---

Pentecostal legal case to be appealed to European court

RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION CANNOT BE LIQUIDATED MERELY BECAUSE IT ENGAGES IN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY
Slavic Legal Center, 26 October 2007

A religious association cannot be liquidated because the society organized a Sunday school. This was the way the head of the Department for International and Interconfessional Relations of the Ministry of Culture of the Chuvash republic, Mikhail Krasnov, commented upon the situation regarding the liquidation of the Christians of Evangelical Faith [KhVE] Bible Center, in an interview at the press service of the Slavic Legal Center. He said that it was difficult to say something concrete regarding the details of this case, but if educational activity was being conducted without a license, then appropriate organs should give written notice to cease such activity, but not prohibit the existence of the church itself. As Krasnov noted, "here there is not something like that, and they have clearly overreacted, the more so since many religious organizations are engaged in teaching and no kinds of licenses are required for Sunday schools for children and adults."

The directors of the KhVE Bible Center, Aleksei Sapozhnikov and Pastor Andrei Nikitin, according to Mikhail Krasnov, had not appealed to him personally and thus he does not even know precisely the essence of what happened. Krasnov emphasized that many problems of religious life in Chuvashiia have been discussed periodically at the republican Council for Relations with Religious Associations, of which Krasnov is executive secretary. Representatives of the Orthodox diocese and Islam are members of the council, but representatives of other confessions are invited to sessions. As Mikhail Krasnov declared, republican authorities have developed good relations with all religious organizations and cooperation has emerged with both registered and unregistered organizations. As an example Krasov cited a round table and a number of lectures that were organized in the Cheboksary Department of Religious Studies of the Russian Academy of State Service of the Presidential Administration of RF, headed by Olga Vasileva.  Representatives of all religious associations were invited to the round table. Besides this, as Mikhail Krasnov noted, Cheboksary has become one of those cities where the authorities have received with pleasure the bicycle expedition for a healthy lifestyle and against drug addiction that was organized by the Russian Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists.

We recall that the appeals college of the Supreme Court of Russia, on 16 October, adopted the unprecedented decision that left in force the decision of the Supreme Court of Chuvashiia for the liquidation of the Christians of Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals) Bible Center for teaching religion to their adherents within the framework of a Sunday School and Bible college. The Bible Center of the Chuvash republic was liquidated by court decision of 3 August 2007. The court excluded it from the unified state register of legal entities. The initiators of the liquidation of this local religious organization were the prosecutor's office of Novocheboksary, who were supported by the prosecutor's office of the Chuvash republic. The basis for the liquidation was that the Bible Center was engaged in educational activity without a license. Despite that the right to religious teaching is written into the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations," the prosecutor charged the religious organization with organizing "an intentional process of religious teaching with consequent certification." At the same time, the prosecutor effectively demanded licensing of the activity of the college, which is not even registered. The Chuvash prosecutor cited the resolution of the government regarding licensing of educational activity, according to which an institution may be closed for absence of licensure.

In the course of the session of the judicial college of the Supreme Court, the co-chairman of the Slavic Legal Center, attorney Vladimir Riakhovsky, noted that the decision on liquidation of the KhVE Bible Center was illegal. According to the attorney, standards pertaining to licensing of educational institutions, and standards of the law "On education" which regulate the activity of religious organizations are not applicable to the Bible Center. The court and prosecutor did not take into account that the KhVE center is not an educational but a religious organization.

In the case of the liquidation of the KhVE Bible Center, as co-chairman of Slavic Legal Center Anatoly Pchelintsev noted, it is obviously that the violations are fantasy. There already has been a similar legal precedent in the Chuvash republic, when organs of justice wanted to liquidate a protestant church because it practiced prayers for the healing of sick persons without a license. At that time this nearly humorous situation ended in the triumph of common sense. The plaintiffs in the demand for liquidation of the protestant congregations on such a ridiculous basis were called off. If they had not been, that would necessitate the closing of all religious organizations, since praying for healing of the sick is practiced in them.

According the Pchelintsev, Sunday schools and catechesis courses, both for children and for adults, exist in Orthodox, Catholic, and protestant parishes, but for some reason they decided to close a Bible college, which is a Sunday school for adults, only in the case of the KhVE Bible Center in Cheboksary. It is also disturbing that in the process of investigating this college the agents of the prosecutor's office searched for extremist literature. In Anatoly Pchelintsev's opinion, either the law enforcement agents did not understand that such literature does not exist in a Christian church or this was an intentional provocation if, for example, they would plant in a protestant church some Orthodox antisectarian or anti-Islamic literature. All suspicions and actions of the agents of the prosecutor's office and registration service, according to Pchelintsev, are, at least, offensive for believers. It is also sad that the Supreme Court of Russia, where the best juridical forces of Russia are collected, was not able to figure out this obvious case. At the present time the Slavic Legal Center has already prepared a draft of an appeal to the European Court on Human Rights. (tr. by PDS, posted 29 October 2007)

Russia Religion News Current News Items

---

New Moscow Catholic leader installed

PATRIARCH ALEXIS II COUNTS ON IMPROVEMENT IN RELATIONS WITH CATHOLICS
Portal-credo.ru, 29 October 2007

Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus hopes that the new head of the Catholics archdiocese in Moscow, Paolo Pezzi, whose consecration was held 27 October, will strive for the development of good relations with the Russian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate [RPTsMP], Interfax-religiia reports.

In his letter, which was read at the celebration in the Moscow Catholic cathedral of the Immaculate Conception by the vice-chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate [OVTsSMP] Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, Alexis II expressed hope that P. Pezzi's tenure of the Episcopal see will become a time "of the development of good relations between the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches and very rapid resolution of the problems standing between us."

"The reality of the testimony to the world of the values of Christianity depends upon this," the patriarch noted.

The chairman of OVTsSMP, Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad Kirill, whose letter also was read, emphasized that for normal Orthodox-Catholic cooperation "it is necessary to resolve the problems on the agenda in our relations."

Metropolitan Kirill also noted that Pezzi already has experience of life and ministry in Russia and that should help.

In his turn, Fr Vsevolod wished the new head of the Catholic see and all Moscow's Catholics "God's help in every good work and peace in the place where we live and labor, and peace in relations among people who confess diverse faiths."

The words of the primate of the Russian church were met with prolonged applause from all present."  (tr. by PDS, posted 29 October 2007)

Russia Religion News Current News Items

---

Old Believers' problems aired

METROPOLITAN JUSTIFIED, "PITIFUL NEOPHYTES" EXPELLED.
Chronicle of 2007 Old Believer Sacred Sobor in the eyes of delegates
by Andrei Ezerov, Aleksei Shishkin
Portal-credo.ru, 25 October 2007

At the beginning of October 2007 there appeared on the official site of the Russian Orthodox Old-ritualist Church (RPSTs) a notice regarding the convocation of the annual Sacred Sobor of RPSTs, the place of its conduct (Rogozhskoe, Moscow) and the date of the start of its work (16 October 2007)

The registration of participants in the Sacred Sobor began 15 October. At that time the first attempt was made to deny permission to several participants who had credentials from parishes:  Sergei Vurgaft, Aleksei Shishkin [one writer of this reportÑtr.], Dimitry Kozhemiakin, and Dimitry Baranovsky.  The reason for denial of their registration was the oral order by Metropolitan Kornily changing the procedure of election and denying registration to delegates who had been elected by "parishes that were not theirs." In the bylaws of the church and the rules for election of delegates that had been confirmed by a sobor, there is no such requirement and previously the election of delegates by parishes of which they were not officially members had been a permissible practice. After Aleksei Shishkin and Sergei Vurgaft, who until quite recently had directed the press service of the metropolia, submitted a written appeal to the sobor, they were permitted to participate in its work.

The regular Sacred Sobor of RPSTs began 16 October 2007 at 11.00 on the territory of the Moscow Rogozhskoe settlement. By the start of the sobor 180 delegates had arrived. Subsequently, more than 200 delegates from various regions of Russia, countries of the near abroad, and Australia were in attendance at the sobor.

A sobor traditionally has begun with a prayer service in the Pokrov cathedral church. The sessions of the sobor were opened and proceeded to the building of the former church of the Nativity of Christ which still is not completely restored and was not ready for conducting liturgies.

The first day of the sobor began with a report by the chairman of the mandate commission, Priest Sergei Lisurenko. Then Aleksei Shishkin asked for the floor and informed the sobor's participants that on the basis of a unilateral change in the rules of election to the sobor, an attempt had been made to exclude a number of delegates. The angry reaction to Shishkin's speech by a majority of sobor delegates gave evidence that they supported the attempt to exclude from the sobor the above named delegates. Priest Sergii Lisurenko and Archpriest Leontii Pimenov tried to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the delegate credentials of Andrei Ezerov, but they were not supported by the sobo,r and the diocesan bishop of the Caucasus, Zosima, from whose parish in the village of Kumskaia Dolina the credentials of Andrei Ezerov [one writer of this articleÑtr.] had come, confirmed their authenticity.  After the election of the executive of the soborÑFr Nikola Dumnov (Barnaul) and Fr Gennady Chunin (St. Petersburg)Ña personal vote was held on the possibility of excluding from the sobor a number of persons elected by parishes of which they were not officially members, which had never been the case in the practice of previous sobors. Lector Viktor Moseichuk reported to the delegates that the day before, Sergei Vurgaft had given an improper (from his point of view) interview to the Kommersant newspaper, which Moseichuk, obviously hastily, inaccurately quoted, in some distorted form. This became the basis for the majority to vote to exclude Vurgaft from the sobor.

After this, a vote was held on the rules of behavior in the sobor. Some innovations were introduced like a restriction on the number of times one participant in the sobor could speak on each question discussedÑtwice or thrice, maximum. In addition, the practice of censure "for improper conduct" in the sobor was introduced, which provided for canceling the mandate after a third censure (that is, denial of the right to speak and vote during the entire sobor) and removal from the sobor after a fourth censure.  At the same time, the degree of correctness of one or another speech would be determined by the executives of the sobor subjectively and the cancellation of the censure would be made by general vote. Both such a measure itself as well as the need for its application did not exist in previous sobors.

After a member of the canonical commission, Archdeacon Viktor Saveliev, stated that delegates from the Far East diocese could not vote nor generally participate in the work of the sobor, since they were under canonical discipline from their diocesan bishop German, the question of the rules switched to a discussion of the situation in the Far East diocese. In response, the far eastern delegates stated that they had separated from Bishop German because of his heretical actions and statements:  permitting confessed Nikonians to pray in the Liturgy, allowing them access to sacred objectsÑthe holy cross and icons   And after this ensued his discipline, which they did not recognize. After a stormy discussion Bishop of the Don and Caucasus Zosima suggested that the sobor lift the discipline from both parties "as if they had never been," and permit the far eastern delegates to participate in the sobor, and after the conclusion of the sobor to send a commission headed by Metropolitan Kornily to the Far East diocese to investigate the situation on the spot. This was supported by a majority of delegates. At the end of the first day, the agenda for the second day of the sobor was approved.

The second day, 17 October, began with Metropolitan of Moscow and all-Rus Kornily's account of his work. In his speeches the metropolitan has frequently acknowledged that he has made mistakes due to his inexperience during interconfessional contacts and so-called "dialogue" with RPTsMP. The metropolitan often, no fewer than four times, specified that "Nikonianism" is a heresy of the second order. Nevertheless, he considered his practice of interconfessional contacts on the whole to be necessary and substantial, and he asked for the sobor to affirm it.

Then followed a report by Andrei Ezerov, "On the heresy of ecumenism and its apocalyptic significance." The author noted that ecumenism is not only the summation and collection of all possible heresies and apostasy from the truth, but also the preparation for, prototype, and precursor of the religion of the antichrist. In addition, he pointed to its tie with the ancient heresy of Origen regarding universal justification and ecumenical spirituality. After a lively discussion, sobor participants proposed drafts of a formulation for declaring ecumenism a heresy. The secretariat began drafting a single formulation and definition of the heresy of ecumenism.

Another speaker on this question was Dmitry Baranovsky, who delivered a report on the subject "Communism as an occult and mystical doctrine." The reaction of some delegates to this report was very painful and there rang out from the audience cries and demands that the reading of the report be stopped. No censures to the violators of discipline were made. After the report, by majority vote, it was declared to be an inappropriate topic, with which the author of the report disagreed.

Then following a report by Aleksei Shishkin about heresies that are being maintained within the current teaching of RPTsMP, on the basis of a draft of a new ritual for renunciation of the Nikonian heresy that was worked out by a commission on rituals. The reading of a draft of a new ritual for receiving believers from the Nikonian heresy was begun. But the speaker did not finish within the allotted time, after which he asked for an extension of the time for the report. And although the report, on the whole, evoked genuine interest, Shishkin's request was not granted in a rude form, which caused the speaker a certain puzzlement.  Discussion of this report commenced. With regard to the draft of the new ritual for receiving believers from the Nikonian heresy, the opinion was expressed that there should be no haste in its adoption and it was necessary to study the question more deeply. In the course of the discussion the speech of Fr Leonty Pimenova (Orekhovo-Zuevo) rang out in which he suggested that the document with a definition of the Nikonian heresy be sent for review to the Moscow patriarchate and only after receiving back observations and additions would a sobor of RPSTs confirm the document. To this D. Baranovsky stated that Fr Leonty Pimenov was proposing, in essence, joint conciliar work of the two churches and, thus, he was acknowledging in a covert way an ecclesiastical unity between us. One of the delegates expressed the idea that because of the disagreements between Old Believers and Nikonians, there could be no dialogue between us, but only a debate. Dialogue is possible only between fellow believers. Surprisingly, this opinion was supported in principle even by Fr Leonty Pimenov. The suggestion also was heard that since RPTsMP actually is joined to the state, then the sobor's affirmation of its heretical state could lead to state persecution of Old Belief, and thus "for the sake of ecclesiastical peace" it would be better not to do this.  Archpriest Dimitry Shmakov from Izhevsk proposed baptizing all Nikonians without exception as heretics of the first order. One of the writers of the draft of the new ritual of reception, a worker of the informational and publication department of the RPSTs metropolia, Gleb Chistiakov, noted that it has been five years now that the practically completed draft of the ritual of reception, for unclear reasons, has not been confirmed and it has been forwarded from sobor to sobor. He stated his opinion that there are always going to be more and more new heretical teachings in Nikonianism and if one tries to study them completely then the draft will never be adopted at all. He suggested, in view of the critical need for a new ritual of reception, the current edition should be adopted and then improved at subsequent sobors. Speaking in the debate, A. Shishkin spoke for the necessity of the sobor's affirmation of Nikonianism as heresy. Then Fr Aleksii Lopatin (Moscow) spoke and recalled that Nikonianism has already been defined as a heresy of the second order by the fathers of earlier sobors, in 1832 in Moscow (when the decision about a quest for bishops was made) and 1846 in Beloe Krinitse (in the decision about the ritual needed to receive Metropolitan Amvrosy). He suggested that for now the sobor limit itself to confirmation of the decisions of the earlier sobors. An overwhelming majority of delegates' votes (165, for; 8 against; 2 abstentions) adopted this suggestion and the draft of the ritual of reception from the Nikonian heresy was remanded for further development.

At the end of the second day a discussion began regarding the open letters that had been circulated in parishes of RPSTs on the eve of the sobor. The suggestions was made not to read them at all "in order not to profane the ears of delegates of the sobor," but immediately to impose discipline upon their authors. But a majority of the delegates still favored giving the floor to the authors of the letters.

A report was heard from monk Alimpy, who told about instances of ecumenical activity within RPSTs which lay at the base of his open letter that is notorious among Old Believers. But because the time limit allotted to Fr Alimpy for his speech had expired, he was not permitted to read the text of his open letter.  After this a stormy and emotional discussion commenced. Separate opinions were heard, particularly from Lector Ivan Oshin (Tomsk) that, in any case, some of the instances adduced corresponded to reality and they should be an occasion for serious review. Fr Leonty Pimenov expressed the opinion that "we do not have a church crisis, nor can we have one, because we have remarkable church choirs, which perform capably and sing traditional music." Several delegates called the authors of the letter provocateurs and paid agents and accused them as "enemies of the church." Fr Leonty Pimenov's reply, presented outside of the regulations and lasting, despite the regulations, an hour and a half, did not deal essentially with the questions raised in the monk Alimpy's address. It consisted of verbose, unsubstantiated accusations against the speaker. It was decided to postpone discussion of other letters to the next day. At the end of the second day, the agenda for the next day was confirmed.

The third day of the sobor, 18 October, began with a vote on the draft of the condemnation of the heresy of ecumenism. This decision was made unanimously and ecumenism was anathematized. Such astounding unanimity among the delegates was not to be had on any other question.

Then the sobor continued discussion of the open letters. Their authors spoke:  iconpainter Dimitry Baranovsky, a former attendant of Metropolitan Kornily lector Dimitry Kozlov, priest Alexander Chernogor, and ecclesiastical college teacher Aleksei Shishkin.

D. Baranovsky, citing rules of the first ecumenical council and Basil the Great about the impermissibility of consecrating as clergy persons who have apostasized without coercion, expressed the opinion that former members of CPSU may not be made church clergy, and on this basis he called Metropolitan Kornily to voluntarily become an anchorite. The reaction of the audience turned out to be very stormy. A majority saw in this speech only personal attacks upon the metropolitan. Fr Leonty Pimenov affirmed that membership in CPSU does not pose an impediment for ordination nor does it constitute apostasy from God, since, in his opinion, communism was the state ideology. The opinion was expressed that, following from the interpretation of Byzantine canon lawyer Valsamon, consecration to episcopal rank cancels all sins committed before it. By majority vote it was recognized that Metropolitan Kornily's occupation of his post was canonical.

After this Fr Alexander Chernogor read the text of his open letter. His letter was excessively emotional and little supported with facts, but nevertheless it showed the pain and suffering of the writer in connection with his participating in ecumenical contacts with other confessions by RPSTs. The letter was considered to be unsubstantiated.

The former attendant of Metropolitan Kornily, lector Dimitry Kozlov, began reading his open letter.  Upon the holy cross and the gospel, he gave his personal testimony that Metropolitan Kornily frequently tried to convince him of the salvation of the Nikonians and even of Catholics. Metropolitan Kornily, in his turn, denied these accusations, which left the situation unresolved.

A. Shishkin began to read the text of his article "The Dialogue of Metropolitan Kornily with RPTsMP." Before beginning the reading he gave evidence of the persecution that in his opinion was occurring against those workers of the metropolia who were known for their antiecumenical activity, specifically, A. Ezerov, G. Chistiakov, and A. Muraviev. A. Shishkin expressed the opinion that the negative attitude toward Ezerov began after his article in the "Staroobriadets" [Old-ritualist] newspaper, where the Nikonian evangelist Isidor was called "a sodomite and gravedigger." In response to this Metropolitn Kornily said that Isidor was considered by the new ritualists to be a holy martyr and that such expressions disrupt "our interchurch dialogue." Metropolitan Kornily denied a connection between his personnel and disciplinary decisions and any kind of persecution of antiecumenists. Archpriest Evgeny Chunin, after a pause, declared that A. Ezerov had been dismissed from the ecclesiastical college for . . . .  At this point the archpriest stopped short. A. Ezerov asked Fr Evgeny Chunin still to report to the community why he had been kicked out, since he was not permitted to attend the Academic Council at the time and Fr Evgeny had not reported any charges to him. After remaining silent a bit more, Archpriest Evgeny Chunin said that Andrei Ezerov had presented to one of the women teachers a book by V.V. Rozanov which, in Fr Evgeny's opinion, "destroys Orthodox marriage."

Many of the items in Shishkin's speech, particularly about the ambiguous statements of Metropolitan Kornily in the news media, were not refuted. At the same time a number of statements ascribed by Shishkin to the metropolitan were not confirmed by witnesses. Archdeacon Viktor Saveliev informed the sobor that if confirmed facts are not found in an accusation against a bishop, then all of the accusation is considered false and slanderous. It should be noted that Shishkin's open letter was conceived as a publicistic work for the news media and not as a statement to a church court.

The sobor considered some of the facts in the materials under discussion to be true, but it also was noted that they contained imprecise and unsubstantiated information. On the basis of this the writers were accused of slander against the metropolitan and the archbishop's court was authorized to discuss discipline against them. A. Shishkin requested forgiveness personally from the metropolitan and from the entire sobor for those factual inaccuracies that were found in the article, although he noted that the basic facts were confirmed and occurred in reality. Then A. Ezerov asked for forgiveness from Metropolitan Kornily and Bishop of the Don and Caucasus Zosima for reproaches and impudence that he had directed at them. At the same time A. Ezerov declared that he renounced his signature on the open letter by monk Alimpy, where "the metropolitan is not even mentioned, although the contours of the church crisis were sketched."   In addition, A Ezerov, following Aleksei Riabtsev, noted that he does not belong to either the party of radicals or a party of conspirators. After this Ezerov asked Archpriest Leonty Pimenov to tell him to his face the accusations made by him to the sobor in his absence. Fr Leonty Pimenov, with indignation, refused this request, after which, seeing his anger, A. Ezerov asked for his forgiveness.

It is necessary to add that the report by monk Alimpy also was not heard, and there often were expressed calls for punishment of the writers of open letters on the part of a number of respected priests. Unfortunately, several of the delegates lost their nerve and all of the far eastern delegation, headed by Archpriest Elisei Eliseev, and some delegates from other places who supported them rose and quit the sobor, declaring that they were breaking prayer fellowship with the sobor, since an unjust judgment had been made against them. At the same time, while leaving, Fr Elisei indulged in unrestrained statements, accusing the sobor of heresy and calling it a "Jewish mob." At the end of the third day the agenda for the next day was confirmed.

On the fourth and concluding day of the sobor, 19 October, a decision was made to change the procedure for electing delegates to the sobor. From now on, parishes may delegate only their own members to the sobor. Then the decision of the archbishop's court was announced. Various degrees of punishment were imposed upon the authors of the open letters and upon A. Ezerov. The priest Alexander Chernogor was impeded from ministry until the next council of the metropolia. The monk Alimpy and the laymen D. Baranovsky and D. Kozlov were excommunicated from the church until their repentance and the publication in the news media of renunciations of their previous articles. A. Ezerov and A. Shishkin were banned from the sacraments (communion, kissing the cross at the end of the liturgy, etcÑed.) for a period of one year and penance was recommended for them.

Then was reviewed the question of rescinding the discipline of the monk Simeon in connection with his repentance of ecumenical activity. He had been inhibited by earlier sobors for open propaganda of ecumenical views, but he did not submit to the decision of the sobor and, while under discipline, continued to celebrate the liturgy autonomously. In addition, for some time he joined RPTsMP in order to take monastic vows there. According to church rules he undoubtedly is liable for unfrocking. On this matter Fr Leonty Pimenov took the floor and said that "monk Simeon is a very smart and educated man" and he can do great good for the church and thus he should not be unfrocked but on the contrary should be permitted to celebrate. This decision was confirmed by a majority of votes.

Fr Gennady Chunin proposed unfrocking Archpriest Elisei Eliseev for desecrating the sobor and attacking the metropolitan.  Summoned three times, Archpriest Elisei arrived on the third time and justified his opposition to the sobor's majority by saying that, in his opinion, the metropolitan had been insufficiently decisive in his renunciation of the course of rapprochement with RPTsMP. To a direct question from one of the sobor's participants, Metropolitan Kornily gave testimony to the nonsalvific efficacy of Nikonianism. Despite this, Archpriest Elisei Eliseev declared that he did not recognize the action of the sobor and he left it. By majority vote the sobor declared his unfrocking. In the second half of the day a number of separate questions were reviewed.

The sobor's session concluded with a report by layman Aleksei Riabtsev about the canonical state of the hierarchy of the Russian Ancient Orthodox Church (RDTs), which is the second largest accord of priestly Old Believers, after RPSTs. Metropolitan Kornily suggested censuring A. Riabtsev for publishing a brochure with the text of his report without imprimatur because, in his opinion, this could impede the development of dialogue with RDTs. This suggestion was not adopted.

After this Metropolitan Kornily delivered his final speech, from which the delegates learned that there is no crisis in RPSTs, and there even had not occurred any argument, but a "pitiful bunch of neophytes" had left the church:  "they went out from us, but they were not of us." With this the Sacred Sobor concluded its work.

In conclusion it may be acknowledged that the 2007 RPSTs sobor, despite the fact that one could wish that its preparation and conduct were better, and that a number of the disciplinary measures taken elicit doubt, still bore an historic character. It again declared and unambiguously condemned the heresy of ecumenism and confirmed the traditional attitude of Old Believers toward Nikonians as clear heretics and a general internal church consensus was achieved. At the same time, the church's body was wounded with disputes which, judging by everything, will not likely be healed in the near future.  (tr. by PDS, posted 29 October 2007)