THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH HAS NO POLITICAL AMBITIONS
by Maxim Shevchenko

Interview with Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad (born 1946)

--In 1918 the Greek-Catholic Russian Orthodox church, as it was then called, was separated from the state by Lenin's decree. It is well known that Patriarch Tikhon threatened with anathema everyone who would implement this decree. To what extent does the church agree with its separation from the state?
--I would like to begin with a correction. Patriarch Tikhon did not impose an anathema on the practice of the separation of church and state. Obviously he clearly understood that in new historical conditions separation has several positive features. Today the model of the relations of church and state is just being created. I cannot describe this model in details, but its contours are quite evident. The church must be separated from the state and must have freedom to speak the truth in the state. Its prophetic ministry in society, at this time, when society is politicized and split into parties, is especially substantive. And if the point of view of the church is different from the point of view of the parliament, president, or any party, then all those who disagree with the truth of the church should learn how to listen carefully to this truth. Not to take up arms. Not to compose quickly some compromising articles. Because the word spoken by the church is not threatening for anyone. The church has rejected participation in political power and struggle. In 1992 they said to us: "Announce your candidacy and we will support you." All the way up to the candidacy for the presidency. But the church decided to restrict the activity of priests, finally forbidding them to stand for election. A frank voluntary renunciation of power. The church has no ambitions to occupy the place of the government. There is a multitude of complex problems in whose resolution both the church and the state are interested. Dialogue is needed. But not the dialogue of the horse and rider, as was the case in the soviet period. Thus in sum I would describe the partnership of church and state in this way: the church must be free to express its voice and the interests of the people and its noninterference in political life.

--In this regard it is impossible not to recall the Moscow local council of 1917-1918 [of the Russian Orthodox church]. Many of its resolutions have not been implemented to this day. How do you feel about the implementation of all of them?
--The council of 1917-1918 was the greatest church event of the twentieth century. It strongly defined its time. When later we had occasion to study the documents of the Second Vatican council I constantly caught myself thinking that its decisions followed the ideas of our local council in many respects. They were extraordinarily innovative. Preparations were under way for more than ten years and they involved the best minds of Russia. The council was the first democratic (in the best sense of this word) church assembly, convoked on the principle of equality of participation. But it is possible to say that both in spirit and ideals it nevertheless was somewhat anachronistic. Perhaps it was in this anachronism of its ideas that the cause of subsequent failures lay. We say that the persecution prevented the realization of the ideas of the council. Correct. But if these ideas had not been so progressive, it is possible that they could have been realized. I think that sooner or later the time will come. We must begin with the regeneration of parish life. Because the activity at the level of the parish at the beginning of the century far outstripped the activity of contemporary parishes.

--Among the decisions of that council was also the decision about the election of the episcopacy and the partial election of priests. Do you think that this should be put into practice now?
--These decisions thoroughly corresponded to the traditions of the Orthodox church. The election of bishops is practiced today, but with this one difference that the Synod elects the bishop and not the diocese. So the point has to do with the representativeness of the body that elects the bishop. And the fact that today the deciding vote on this question belongs to the Synod fully corresponds to the realities of the time. If the level of parish and diocesan life becomes as high as it was in 1917-1918, then the restoration of the ancient practice of election will not be delayed. But today this could lead to extremely negative phenomena in church life.

--Doesn't it seem to you that the gratuitous receipt by the church of colossal financial means from the state, for example for the restoration of the cathedral of Christ the Savior, will lead to dependence on it? Won't eventually those who pay demand a return of the obligation? And the dependence of the church on the state will be restored, only on a new, commercial basis?
--There is a bit of truth in this criticism. The full independence of the church from the state is normal. Incidentally, now the state has no line in the budget for aid to the church. And in practice it give almost no help. But the church should be materially independent. This is one of the conditions of its genuine freedom. And this not only from the state. It must be independent from the powers of this world and power in today's world is determined not so much by the position of a person as by the thickness of his pocketbook. And Lord deliver us from the church's being dependent upon banks and commercial structures. It should develop a system of self-financing. Although here, of course, problems arise. The church cannot be engaged in economic activity, but it can delegate such a right to other organizations. But in our conditions this entails great risk.

--Let me return to specifically church affairs. You mentioned the Second Vatican council which literally overturned the life of the western church. Tell me how important its decisions were from the Russian Orthodox church and for Orthodoxy in general?
--Before the Second Vatican council Catholics treated Orthodox as schismatics. This meant in practical church life that they did not recognize our church as with grace. Of course, the greatest theologians even before the council declared that the Orthodox church is nevertheless the chruch. But the official Catholic teaching was otherwise. Hence as a result: once we were not a church with grace then for people's salvation is was necessary to establish another church organization besides ours. This is what caused the historic church conflict between East and West, which was intensified by the Union of 1596. The Second Vatican council named the Orthodox church a "sister" and recognized its sacraments. For Catholics this meant a rejection of the necessity of replacing the Orthodox church, of aggression. Unfortunately, after the fall of the USSR our relations with the Vatican have become very complicated. Many Catholic priests who have come to Russia seem to have forgotten the decisions of the council. They have undertaken to organize new Catholic congregations and even to convert Orthodx to Catholicism. Then in dialogue with the Vatican we even suggested that the Catholics be more consistend, basing our mutual relations on the earlier adopted decisions. Today the situation is changing. We hear that Rome has directly declared that it has not pretentions for Russia. That Russia will never be a Catholic country, never will be subordinate, in ecclesiastical relations, to the pope. May God grant it. We also oppose proselytism and efforts to seize human souls. Such efforts cast a shadow over all of Christianity.

--But it is possible to object that noone will bother Orthodox. That in Russia the mass of the population actually is not Orthodox, nor Catholic, nor Muslim, and God knows what. Can't they preach among non-Christians?
--Here's the specific point that distinguishes our relationships with Catholics from relations with others. Many Protestants do not recognize the Orthodox church as a church, considering it a dangerous phenomena of religious life. You begin to talk with them and they respond: 'Who are you?' But if the Catholic church declares that the Orthodox church is with grace, that our people were taken away by force, then it cannot raise the question whether the Orthodox church has the right to bring back to itself, if not those people who were taken away from it, at least their children. These people should be in our fold. It is a historical falsehood that they were not there. And those who conduct proselytizing work against us indulge this falsehood. It seems that such talk is not juridical; it does not deal with laws and principles of human rights. One can talk this way only with brothers in the faith. But we appeal to the most sincere feelings of Christian brothers. If we achieve mutual understanding, that will be good. But if we do not, that's bad. Because we have experienced this alienation of the people with great pain.

--Tell me, is a meeting between the patriarch and the pope planned?
--Continual dialogue is going on between the two church on a variety of questions. Several times such a meeting has been discussed in principle. Both sides consider that under certain conditions it could happen. But this requires the right time, right place, and a clear agenda.

--Recently in Lvov (NG wrote about this), at an Orthodox conference devoted to the 400th anniversary of the Union, the participants spoke out against John Paul II's coming to Orthodox territory.
--We also consider that today a visit by the pope within the borders of Orthodox states of the CIS has no purpose. In western Ukraine, if there is not an open war, at least the conflict is extraordinarily severe. In such conditions the visit could have very bad results. Such visits in general should bring to an end the difficult and gloomy period, opening a new, bright page. It is important that they not have a declamatory character but be aimed toward the resolution of existing problems.

--Today on a single territory two or three, or even more, Orthodox bishops are acting. How can you evaluate such a situation?
--This is one of the problem being discussed by the pan-Orthodox conference for preparing a pan-Orthodox council. This is a very negative phenomenon, especially today in connection with the announcement of the jurisdiction of Constantinople in Estonia. Incidentally, it was the patriarch of Constantinople who initiated the discussion in the diaspora. They said to us: 'Look, how bad it is. In America there are more than 14 Orthodox jurisdictions, in western Europe, in Paris, there are several Orthodox bishops.' We answered that it was so and that this contradicts the basic ecclesiastical principle of Orthodoxy which says: 'In one place there is one bishop.' And we supported Constantinople. And then he himsell establishes by not entirely legal canonical means a new jurisdiction on our territory. May God grant the Orthodox church to overcome these disagreements.

--Tell me whether these exist other claims of the Russian Orthodox church on Constantinople besides the Estonian question.
--There are many unresolved question. At first, of course, we want to decide the Estonian conflict. But it seemed that in the process of its resolution a whole series of theoretical questions arose which required resolution. Several representatives of Constantinople began to talk about his authority in categories very close to the categories that describe the authority of the Roman pope. For example, that Constantinople has the right to interfere in the business of any local Orthodox church if this is required by some higher purposes. If, for example, there is an appeal to it for help.

--And even the Russian Orthodox church?
--Any church. There was a case where one of their representatives declared that a person cannot consider himself Orthodox if he is not in communion with the patriarch of Constantinople. That is 100 percent Roman Catholicism, which is absolutely unacceptable to us. We must carefully determine whether in our disagreements there may be profound theological and ecclesiological differences. I, of course, am persuaded that there are no such differences. And with the help of serious theologians we shall quickly reach the truth. But in the polemical fervor expressions are permitted which would Orthodox consciousness. And I know that it is not only of the Russian church.

--Are there contacts with Russian parishes in western Europe who are under the omophor of the patriarch of Constantinople? Can the situation come about when they can return to the bosom of the mother church?
--This is a conflict that was connected with both the revolution and the cold war. Today, when there is neither, many Russian people who belong to that jurisdiction ask: 'Why in a canonical sense does everything continue as if there had been no political change?' Moreover, until recently there was not even any eucharistic fellowship between us. Of course, when believers go to Paris they go to the church of Alexander Nevsky on Rue Dariu, they confess and commune. Last year there was a historic event: for the first time in 50 years I was invited to serve the liturgy along with the head of this jurisdiction, Archbishop Sergei, in the Paris cathedral. There were many emotional moments. One woman said: 'I awaited this moment all my life. It's a shame that my parents did not live to see this.' This is the mood of many in the Russian diaspora. After this Bishop Sergei visited Moscow, where in Dormition cathedral he concelebrated with the most holy patriarch. This is a complete restoration of communion. There is now no question about their change of jurisdictions. We formulate it thus--Russian parishes in Europe should be well organized and should be recognized by all local Orthodox church, and they should be materially delivered from that need in which they now are. But let them decide for themselves what jurisdiction they are in.

--Please explain the situation surrounding the conversations with the ancient Orthodox church which separated from us after Chalcedon.
--Formally the dialogue with them is completed. And the sides have agreed that despite several differences in terminology they have one and the same faith. Theologians who participated in the dialogue were very satisfied with the corresponding document they signed. The next step is the ratification in the churches. And in the process of study several substantive expressions were formulated. The chief of these was that in agreements regarding the faith there can be no alternatives. There should be precise theological formulation which which the sides either do or do not agree. And in this document there is a desire both to preserve the differences and to declare the presence of unity. In theological conversations there should be no diplomacy. That is it should conduct meetings and establish their atmosphere. But here a desire for diplomacy appeared in whatever was reported. And this led to the situation where the document needed to be reworked. But we are for dialogue with the pre-Chalcedonian churches, including, for example, the Coptic Egyptian church. Those who were in Egypt know about the remarkable ascetic monastic life in that church. Ancient monasteries of the Egyptian desert which are associated with the names of saints venerated by us preserved this tradition of monasticism. The Coptic church's love for the Russian church is great. The same is true of the Ethiopian church. When we fellowship with our brothers from these churches we feel that we are very close to each other, in fasting, ritual, and piety. But there are differences. The dialogue must continue. It is important that our sin not be a barrier to the achievement of unity.

--Nevertheless, these differences, as before, exist regarding the understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ?
--Yes, quite true. And differences in the understanding of church history. They do not accept some of the Orthodox councils. There is a suggestion to act as if this were not so. But this is impossible. Various councils took various decisions. How can we agree, for example, with the idea that part of the Orthodox church will not respect the seventh ecumenical council, associated with the veneration of icons.
--And do you consider the Armenian church monophysite?
--In essence, the Armenians are not monophysite. When they begin to talk about their faith in the union of the two natures in a single person of the Lord Jesus Christ, that is practically the same faith as ours. But historically they did not accept the Chalcedonian council. And that means all the others. We need to work to overcome the differences which seem to us not to be insurmountable.

--Tell me what is your attitude toward the possibility of the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox church?
--The main problem here is that the absolute majority of Orthodox Ukrainians oppose autocephaly. All declarations about autocephaly can be viewed only when there is broad support of the clergy and church people. If now, God forbid, someone declared autocephaly, this would lead to a division of the church in Ukrain into those who proclaim autocephaly and those who will never recognize it. Now we have them two schisms. If autocephaly were declared, there would be three. All of this should grow from church reality. At the present there is not unanimity. The Russian church gave full independence to its Ukrainian portion. All internal life is conducted independently. There is only one area in which ties with Moscow are maintained--the head of the Ukrainian church is the second ranking member of the Holy Synod after the patriarch, and, in particular, after his election he must receive the blessing of the Moscow patriarch.

--Is there a possibility that Filaret Denisenko would return to the bosom of the church?
--He was defrocked and he will not be restored. This decision is final. But he can repent and be received into fellowship with the church as a monk. I think that each person has his own pathway to repentence. And the former metropolitan Filaret has his.

--Is there a possibility of the interference of Constantinople in the affairs of Ukrainian Orthodoxy?
--This would mean the ruin of Orthodoxy. God save us from this happening. If the situation in Estonia brought about a rupture of relations, they any uncanonical action in Ukraine could bring about fearsome consequences. We must pray and do everything to keep this from happening.