Copyrighted material. For private use only.
Almost two months have gone by since the Federation of Jewish Congregations of Russia tried to remove the chief rabbi of Russia, Adolph Shaevich, from his post, after having named an American rabbi, of the hassid Lubavitch branch, Berel Lazar. This attempt was taken by international Jewish organizations to be a crude interference of the administration of the president in the life of religious congregations. On 13 July President Putin had a meeting with the president of the Conference of Presidents of the largest Jewish organizations, Ronald Lauder. After the meeting with the Russian president Lauder sent a letter to Adolph Shaevich: "The Conference of Presidents and the National Conference of Soviet Jews express their solidarity with the Russian Jewish Congress (REK) and they hope for further cooperation in the future. As we already have written, the choice of leaders of congregations is the business of the congregation itself, independent of external pressure. No fantasies in the press whatsoever can change our position and our relations with REK." Adolph Shaevich, reflecting on what has happened, shared his thoughts: "We are Russian Jews and should people with American, Israeli, or any other passports represent us? If these people came to help us, we are grateful for this help. But no tour whatsoever, no matter how long, makes it possible for them to understand all of the complexity of our life. They do not sense the situation from experience. I have been advised to fight. For what? Because someone of the outsider rabbis wants to wear the general's stars. I am prepared to surrender all my stars if it would be for the good of Russian Jewry." Evil tongues have already declared Berel Lazar the chief rabbi of the Kremlin. (tr. by PDS, posted 25 August 2000)
RABBI FOR THE KREMLIN
Moscow News correspondent has tried to figure out the conflict of the two chief fabbis of Russia, Berel Lazar and Adolph Shaevich. He could not figure it out, but it was interesting.
by Mikhail Pievsky
Moskovskie novosti, 15-21 August 2000
On 13 June the congress of the Federation of Jewish Congregations elected a new chief rabbi of Russia, Berel Lazar, an American of Italian descent and representative of the Chabad (Chabad is a religious movement within Orthodox hassidic Judaism characterized by single-minded activity for the return of world Jewry to the bosom of the religion of their fathers). The former chief rabbi of Russia, Adolf Shaevich, who was elected to that post in 1983 by a different religious association, the Congress of Jewish Religious Associations and Organizations of Russia, did not recognize the congress as legitimate.
In the past decade Shaevich represented Russian Judaism on various levels and was a member of the Council on Relations with Religious Associations of the presidency and the analogous commission of the government. Now Shaevich says that the Kremlin gives preference to the new "American" rabbi.
Observers suggest that behind the two rabbis and the two religious associations are different political forces. It is considered that Boris Berezovsky "takes care of" Lazar and Vladimir Gusinsky supports Shaevich's interests. But most important and interesting is that Jews do not have a religious hierarchy. And thus it is the government and not believers that needs a chief rabbi of the country.
Berel Lazar
The office of new chief rabbi of Russia is located in a small synagogue in Marina Roshcha. The synagogue building looks more like a mansion of a "new Russian" and does not resemble at all the usual synagogues of USSR, enormous buildings with columns which would suit better a concert hall, department store, or sports arena. The interior is clean and there is not the mixed smell of old books, communal kitchen, and constant surface repair work. Everything is new, as if from another life, both stained glass and modern shine. Even the women, awaiting reception on personal matters, kill time with electronic games.
Berel Lazar appears very busy. He apologizes for being seven minutes late and as if in confirmation of this very busyness pick axes are knocking at the door behind his back. A congregational center is being built there, the largest one in Europe with an area of 7,000 square meters.
MN: The Russian reader knows little about you.
Lazar (with a smile): Perhaps it is better that little is known.
Biography: Berel Lazar was born in 1964 in Milan in a rabbi's family. At age 14 he went to USA where he studied in yeshivas (schools for training rabbis) in New York and New Jersey. B. Lazar wanted to become a rabbi in St. Petersburg (he liked the city and society). But in 1990 he came to Moscow. From that time he has been rabbi of the synagogue in Marina Roshche. He is married with nine children.
About a rabbi's work
Berel Lazar is a young man who knows the Torah well (incidentally, Adolph Shaevich said this about him). He understands well that the basic function of the synagogue at the present stage is social. Many years will pass and several generations of people will come and go before the return to religion happens. In the meantime--help for old folks and invalids, and free food for the poor, Jews and non-Jews. And, of course, religious education, but gradually.
About taxes
Lazar talked a lot and well. As appropriate to a rabbi, he frequently referred to religious sources, illustrating the greatest variety of life situations.
MN--Tell me, please, whether a believing Jewish businessman in Russia should obey the tax laws, recognizing ahead of time that this is practically impossible and will lead to ruin?
Lazar: The law of the country is a law for Jews, so long as it does not contradict the Torah. For example, work on the Sabbath is a violation. In that case the Torah is higher than the law of the country. Taxes must be paid in full according to the law. If one cannot do it then it is necessary to change professions or countries. If it is hard to pay, then organize a party, write to the press, to parliament, the president.
MN--That is, if, let's say, Boris Abramovich Berezovsky came to you and said that he cannot physically pay all the taxes and he is forced willy-nilly to violate the law, you would advise him to change his profession or leave Russia. You understand that I say "let's say" because in this case he can pay taxes and even overpay.
Lazar--Quite right; one must pay taxes according to the law.
MN--Incidentally, does Berezovsky help you?
Lazar--No, he does not help. For the time being he does not help.
MN--And Gusinsky?
Lazar--Gusinsky has always helped us. That's why I entirely do not understand the campaign in the press setting me against Gusinsky.
MN--Tell me, please, who is your basic sponsor?
Lazar--Our basic sponsor is Lev Leviev. When we Chabad rabbis came to Russia, our American sponsors said to us: "Work and don't worry about finances." But then interest in us declined noticeably and the scope of our work significantly grew. We began feeling this very acutely at the end of 1991 and beginning of 1992. I do not know how to ask for money. I wasn't taught this. Leviev himself came to me and offered to help. And he has helped to the present.
Basic sponsor
The name of Israeli businessman Lev Leviev was known until recently just to specialists in the area of the diamond market. Apparently in the near future it will be written about often in the Russian press (the first articles already have appeared). In the opinion of experts, Leviev's "LLD" (Lev Leviev Diamonds) company already had the exclusive right to Angolan diamonds and in the near future may throw down the challenge to De Beers and will try to force it out of Russia.
About the conflict
Time went by and I understood that the question about the conflict could not be avoided. The interview was turning out to be artificial. A reporter comes and doesn't ask about "it." That would be somehow strange.
MN--Mr. Lazar, I want to pose a question to you; you know what about.
Lazar--I do not know, but go ahead.
MN--Your election corresponded in time with Gusinsky's arrest. Is that a coincidence?
Lazar--It's a coincidence.
And Lazar said what he thought with regard to the conflict. He does not understand why Shaevich "unwound a campaign in the press" against foreign rabbis. In genera he considers that Shaevich was the initiator of the crisis situation.
Lazar--Not a week goes by that I do not phone Shaevich with a suggestion about reconciliation.
MN--Do you consider that there will be a reconciliation?
Lazar--I have no doubt about it.
A very Russian synagogue
The Moscow Choral Synagogue on Arkhipov street is a big, old, and somewhat absurd building. In the dark corridors visitors and security guards show up, a sign hangs there "Kosher Mayonaise for sale." In the yard is a synagogue of Mountain Jews, which was restored by the family of a businessman who was killed a year ago. Morning prayer has ended and Adolph Shaevich came to his office.
MN--Adolph Solomonivich, Berel Lazar says that he is seeking a path to reconciliation.
Shaevich--I have not disputed with him. I considered that he was being used for political purposes. It is a pity that he does not understand this. And if he does understand, then one could give this a different definition.
Biography:
Adolph Solomonovich Shaevich was born in the home of his grandmother in Khabarovsk in 1937. He spent his childhood and youth in Birobidzhan where his parents moved to build the Jewish paradise in the taiga. Shaevich's father was an authorized trader and mother was administrator of a hotel. Shaevich graduated from Khabarovsk Polytechnic Institute and worked as head mechanic of the administration of mechanization No. 5 of the city of Birobidzhan. The further administration No. 5 penetrated the taiga the more Adolph Solomonovich, like all of his colleagues, drank heavily. Having reached fully to delerium tremens, in 1972 he understood that he had to leave for Moscow. After arriving in Moscow Shaevich found the first Jewish emigration, which he had not even suspected. He could not get work. Shaevich spent nights in airports and train stations, and in the summer he spent time in Silver Forest where he played Preference, swam, and slept under a boat. His Preference friends persuaded him to go to the synagogue. He went and was received into the yeshiva and became a watchman. Shaevich lived at the synagogue.
In 1973 Adolph Solomonovich entered the yeshiva of the city of Budapest from which he graduated in 1980. In 1983 he became chief rabbi of the Moscow Choral Synagogue and chief rabbi of USSR. He is married, with two sons.
"these guys"
Shaevich calls the leadership of the Federation of Jewish Congregations of Russia "these guys."
Shaevich: I go to receptions at the Kremlin and there in the VIP area are four of these guys. Did someone let them in? I am convinced that these guys consider me a Gusinsky man.
MN--What do you think; who stands behind your confusion?
Shaevich--I think that it is Leviev.
MN--But what has Leviev to do with this? What relationship does this have to his business?
Shaevich--These guys are very ambitious. They want their own chief rabbi and they put him in place.
However Shaevich made a qualification. He has nothing against the presence of Chabad and its band of rabbis in Russia. He even was at a reception at the place of the last Lubavitch rebbe who blessed him for work in Russia. However Adolph Solomonovich dissents in one matter: the chief rabbi of Russia should be a native of Russia. And that's that.
I thanked Adolph Solomonovich and went out into the corridor. There visitors thronged going about their personal business. . . .
Very personal opinion
A great gulf lay between the biographies of the two rabbis and their attitude toward life. Although at the base there is the same faith, life at the window has too great an effect, especially in Russia. From this inequality with many strangers describing the essence of the conflict connected with the election of a chief rabbi of Russia the rabbis themselves can be excluded. They both, although they are very different people, are doing their work honestly and they are hardly the initiators of the intrigue. One could even dare to exclude their sponsors (or at least put them in parentheses). After all the sponsors also are people and they unselfishly (or almost unselfishly) donate for charity. But there remains one factor that is not ruled out; that is the Kremlin. Someone in the final analysis is opening the doors and drawing up the invitation lists; someone is coordinating this process. After all the office of the chief rabbi of Russia is an office for the Kremlin and it is its problem.
MN dossier: Lev Leviev was born in Uzbekistan in 1956 in a rabbi's family. At sixteen he emigrated to Israel and studied at a yeshiva. He married the daughter of one of the largest diamond cutters, and he developed and expanded his father-in-law's business. In the list of the wealthiest people of Israel he holds second place. Leviev's diamond industry has an annual income of one billion dollars.
In Russia Leviev owns the largest diamond cutting enterprise, "Ruiz
Diamonds," which has had the right to purchase twenty percent of Urals
diamonds for three years. Leviev partially controls the mining
of Urals diamonds and has purchased entirely the Erevan diamond cutting
factory "Kristall." Leviev's sphere of interests also extends to the petroleum
industry. His funds "Or Ovner" and "Or Chana" finance the "Chabad" in the
CIS. (tr. by PDS, posted 25 August 2000)
RPTs has requested restoring its property within prerevolutionary borders
by Aleksandra Tolstikhina
Segodnia, 18 August 2000
In the near future arguments over the ownership of church and monastery buildings and lands, as well as works of art, that belonged to the Russian Orthodox church and were nationalized by the soviet regime may intensify. The bishops' council of RPTs that concluded late Wednesday evening sent a request to Vladimir Putin to accelerate the process of returning to the church its property. In the letter for the first time it was openly declared that RPTs makes claim not only for the return of church buildings but also the land around them and secular buildings. It is curious that the letter seems quite radical in comparison with the patriarch's position, who, in the opinion of observers, usually occupies an extremely cautious position in matters of property. The tone of the document gives evidence that the letter was written under pressure from the conservative wing of RPTs and that its very appearance possibly is an attempt to balance the even-handed decisions on the other matters reviewed at the council. "In the years of troubles the state illegally confiscated from the church property that had been made by the labor of many generations of believers," the letter says. In conditions of economic crisis, "only the return of the many forms of church property will balance the budget of the Moscow patriarchate." "The state has exerted almost no effort for even partial compensation for the confiscated structures, land, and valuable objects of art," the bishops noted. "Churches, icons, and shrines cannot remain any longer removed from the liturgical prayer life." According to their words, each parish needs premises for Sunday schools, libraries, and meeting places and each monastery needs land for farming. The bishops' council suggested to the state authorities that they begin negotiations "regarding the full or partial compensation of those who lose property," noting that "problems of the current users need not be insuperable obstacles to the return of church property." Thus, in essence RPTs has openly advocated church restitution.
Here is the way the chairman of the scientific methodological council for protecting the heritage of the ministry of culture, the director of institute of artistic studies, Aleksei Komech, commented on the situation: "There are several extremely complicated aspects to the request of RPTs. First, we have not had a law on denationalization adopted and consequently there cannot be a process of return. The adoption of such a law carries the threat of another global redistribution of property. Besides it is not clear to whom the property would be returned; before the revolution churches could be owned by the synod, parishes, and private persons."
Besides, in the very posing of the question about the return of churches there is a certain amount of dissembling. According the Aleksei Komech's information, throughout Russia there are no fewer than 10,000 "unowned" churches that urgently need restoration. However RPTs does not have the resources or appropriate personnel. In this sense the example of Yaroslav province is curious, where 280 churches were turned over to the church and 340 remained the property of the state. RPTs could not "develop" them. Even with regard to prosperous Moscow one can identify no fewer than ten churches of architectural value which still remain in limbo. Hence this prompts the conclusion that the church is interested not so much in church buildings as in museum valuables, land, and secular buildings (which is stated in the letter). The appeal to the need to balance the budget of the Moscow patriarchate is clear confirmation of this.
And finally the most complicated aspect of the matter is the dispute between RPTs and museums over property. It is sufficient to recall the conflicts at the outdoor museum of Ostankino, the church of the Protection at Fili, and the Saint Sergius Holy Trinity lavra where RPTS with more or less success tried "to return" the church buildings or parcels and land and museum collections. There remains a tense situation at the New Jerusalem monastery where there is not a single monk to the present day but nevertheless RPTs lays claim to the entire monastery complex. The question has been raised about the transfer to RPTs of the cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin which has been taken care of thanks to the newly constructed church of Christ the Savior. No less complex is the question of museum exhibits, principally icons. "Here we must seek some compromise versions," considers Aleksei Komech. "For example, 'Trinity' and 'Kazan Mother of God' have been moved from the Tretiakov to the St. Nicholas church and are displayed there. Although normal world practice is otherwise; museums collect and protect the better icons from the churches. And this is the way the basic museum collections have been constituted; take Tretiakov, GMII, or the Museum of Medieval Art at Neurenberg. Besides this, we know, the consecrated copies of icons are just as sacred as the original." However believers do not want to pray before copies. The ancient tradition of venerating miracle working icons has remained practically unchanged in Russia. This gives RPTs a moral right to demand the products of icon painting as its property. (tr. by PDS, posted 20 August 2000)
CHURCH ASKS PUTIN TO RETURN PROPERTY
Kommersant, 18 August 2000
At the conclusion of its work the jubilee bishops' council prepared a letter "To the God-loving pastors, worthy monastics, and all faithful children of the Russian Orthodox church." In this letter it is noted that "the bishops' council and the subsequent consecration of the church of Christ the Savior occupy a central place in the celebrations of the great jubilee, the bimillennium of the birth in the flesh of our Lord and Savior." The "glorification for churchwide veneration of a synaxis of Russian new martyrs and confessors" was deemed the "most important action" of the bishops' council. More than a thousand names of newly glorified saints were entered in the calendar of saints of the Russian Orthodox church. In the category of passion bearers, the sovereign emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich and members of his family, Sovereign Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, the heir tsarevich Aleksii, and grand princesses Olga, Maria, Tatiana, and Anastasia, were enrolled in the canon of saints. The council expresses the hope that this glorification will become "a turning point in our history."
The letter says that today "the church cannot be indifferent to the life of society. Thus today we say for all to hear, both the powers that be and the common people and all humankind: without spiritual renewal, without God, without fulfilling his commands, no knowledge and material means whatever and no power and authority whatever will bring to a person genuine happiness, fullness, and harmony of life."
Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus and the members of the Holy Synod also sent a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The reason for the communication were "requests from many pastors and believers of the Russian Orthodox church who are concerned about the problems of the return of church property." The letter says in particular: "Your excellency. . . . the public ministry of the church cannot develop without the necessary material resources which we are deprived of today as a consequence of the years-long persecutions." At the same time it is noted that "the church does not wish to claim the entire body of property that formerly was at its disposal during any historical period. However churches, icons, and shrines can no longer remain apart from the liturgical, prayer life." In the opinion of the writers of the letter, in Russia the process of transfer of church property to believers "not only is not completed but actually it has not begun." The letter expresses gratitude to Boris Yeltsin, who did much for the return of church valuables, and greater hopes in this matter are placed in the current president. (tr. by PDS, posted 21 August 2000)
LETTER OF PARTICIPANTS OF BISHOPS' COUNCIL TO PRESIDENT PUTIN
from Communications
Service, Department of External Church Relations, Moscow patriarchate
16 August 2000
From the Jubilee Bishops' Council of Russian Orthodox Church
Moscow, 13-16 August 2000
To His Excellency Vladimir Putin, president of the Russian federation
Your Excellency, highly esteemed Vladimir Vladimirovich
The participants of the jubilee bishops' council of the Russian Orthodox church that was held from 13 to 16 August of this year in Moscow at the church of Christ the Savior testifies to its respect for you and wishes you success in the difficult labors that you are conducting for the good of the peoples of Russia and the world.
The reason for our communication to your excellency is the requests from many pastors and believers of the Russian Orthodox church who are concerned about the problem of the return of church property. Today the church is striving to be a creative force that has as its first concern the regeneration in society of the moral values and the ancestral faith which, we are convinced, is a solid foundation for the regeneration and ordering of national life in the economic sphere, in the area of state construction, and in all other areas. But the public ministry of the church cannot develop without the necessary material resources which we today are deprived of as a consequence of the years-long persecutions. In the years of trouble the state illegally confiscated from the church property that had been created by the labors of many generations of believers and, what is much more important, was consecrated to God, that is, it obviously was not subject to any kind of alienation. Without this property today the comprehensive regeneration of our church and the accomplishment of its educational, evangelistic, social service, whose products our country and nation need, are unthinkable. With the current modest contributions as a result of the economic difficulties, only a return of the great varieties of church property will balance the budget of the Moscow patriarchate which the church requires for the good of the people and the good of our fatherland, returning the small contributions of the people not only to them themselves but also to their heirs.
In many countries of central and eastern Europe church property has been completely returned to the believers. In Russia this process not only has not been completed but actually it has not even begun. There is no doubt that your predecessor in the post of president of Russia did much for the return of churches and several other church buildings, holy relics and icons, and sacred objects. For this we are extremely grateful to the civil authorities. However the children of the church, as before, are disturbed that the greater part of the returned buildings and objects have not been turned over to church ownership. The state has undertaken practically no efforts for partial compensation for the structures, lands, and valuable art objects that were confiscated.
Concerned for the good of the nation, the church does not wish to claim the entire body of property that was at its disposal in the course of any historical period. However churches, icons, and shrines cannot remain any longer apart from the liturgical, prayer life. At least each parish needs premises for Sunday schools, libraries, orphanages, and meeting places and each monastery needs land for farming and each diocese needs buildings for regional church institutions and theological academic institutions.
Recalling that the return of property that historically had belonged to it is an internationally recognized right of the church, we ask you to use all possible efforts for confirming this right on the national level, for which there should follow negotiations regarding the full or partial compensation of those who lose property. The problems of the current users of the property need not become insuperable obstacles to the return of church property.
We hope that the requests of believers will be heard and the church, which until now has been weakened as a consequence of the years-long persecutions, will again be able fully to serve God and people, actively cooperation in the rebirth of the Fatherland.
With profound respect
Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus
Members of the Holy Synod
(tr. by PDS, posted 21 August 2000)
Why are the names of many martyrs and confessors not among the new saints?
by Aleksei Makarkin
Segodnia, 19 August 2000
The canonization of new Orthodox saints unquestionably is a festive and happy event. However a barrel of honey isn't safe from a spoonful of tar. The proverbial spoon in this case is the absence from the list of new saints of a number of names that are highly esteemed among Orthodox believers.
For example, in the Saint Daniel's monastery in Moscow the name of Archbishop Feodor Pozdeevsky enjoys special respect. He was well known as a strict zealot for Orthodoxy who in his time criticized Patriarch Tikhon for excessive weakness. He was shot in 1937. Recently many articles have come out about the pious life and spiritual achievement of Master Feodor and a documentary film about his fate was produced. It would seem that there would be no impediments to his canonization, but he is not in the list of saints. In church historical literature there is garbled information suggesting that there exist minutes of the interrogations of the archbishop by NKVD investigators in which the archpastor named the names of his "collaborators." However nobody has explained anything clearly and the flock remains confused.
Yet more puzzling is the story of another famous bishop, Manuil Lemeshevsky. He remained alive after the repressions but he spent long years in prisons and exile. When he was released he became the author of the multivolume dictionary of biography of Russian bishops of the twentieth century, a unique collection of data about the fates of church hierarchs who were persecuted by the authorities. At the council several confessors were canonized, that is, people who were persecuted but survived. But as far as is known the question of Metropolitan Manuil was not raised. Even some devotees of the bishop are upset that a rumor is circulating about the patriarchate: it seems some people were arrested on the basis of his testimony. It is extremely difficult to separate truth from slander on this.
A third example. Metropolitan Serafim Alexandrov, one of the closest associates of the future Patriarch Sergius Stragorodsky and an advocate of compromise with the authorities so long as church canons were kept unshaken. Back in the 1920s Orthodox people who were more hostile to bolsheviks accused Master Serafim of being in too close contact with "competent organs." However neither then nor now has there been any proof. Here it is necessary to guess why Metropolitan Serafim is not on the list of saints: perhaps he really worked for the Chekists or perhaps he simply didn't withstand torture.
It is possible to enumerate many more names of bishops, priests, and laypersons who did not make the list of new Orthodox saints confirmed by the council. However it says in the council's action that not all new martyrs and confessors are known by name; the names of some are still known only to God. It also is reported that the current canonization is not the last. However in this case the issue has to do with very famous people in order to suggest the possibility of "postponement" of their glorification a few years more.
Therefore to avoid misunderstanding it is necessary to know the whole truth, however bitter it may be. However there is the fixed opinion that the truth should not be told because it could damage the memory of the deceased. But this is an interesting thing. Information about cooperation with the "organs" of represenatives of the renovationist church has been published in historical works, along with an indication of the real names of "operatives." Or, for example, Archbishop Varfolomy Remov, according to reliable information, converted to Catholicism after he had signed on as a "seksot" (secret informer). And this fact has often been published in historical works. However there is not a bit of reliable information, supported by documentary proof, about the "informing activity" of bishops who maintained external loyalty to the church (clearly this "loyalty" was actually betrayal). At the same time even the very fact of perishing in the years of repression does not by any means signify that one or another person did not work for the "organs." At the end of the thirties people were shot without any special investigation. So it is often not completely clear how people whom believers respect behaved during interrogation. Therefore it is necessary to clarify this on the basis of indirect evidence which does not rule out mistakes entirely. Therefore it still is not clear to Orthodox people in a number of cases whether to pray to a martyr who still has not been glorified or to regret the sad fate of someone who denounced himself or others or to turn one's back. (tr. by PDS, posted 19 August 2000)
WHAT DISTINGUISHES A MARTYR FROM A CONFESSOR
Segodnia, 19 August 2000
In the Orthodox church there are various designations of saints depending on the nature of their actions. Saints are designated as martyrs (mucheniki) when they accepted death for their faith (exceptions to this are tsars and princes who in this case are called passion bearers). In Russia those who perished for Orthodoxy in the twentieth century are called new martyrs in order not to confuse them with those who suffered in antiquity.
Confessors (ispovedniki) are those who endured persecution but remained alive. Saintly patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops are called holy hierarchs (sviatiteli); saintly priests are called righteous saints (sviatye pravedny); saintly monastics are called venerable ones (prepodobny), and holy fools usually are called blessed ones (blazhennye) although two western saintly intellectuals, Augustine and Jerome, also are called "blessed" in Orthodox tradition. Rulers who are canonized for service to the church have received the designation holy pious ones (sviatye blagovernye). Saints who are venerated within the boundaries of just one or a few dioceses are called local saints.
The bishops' council meeting in Moscow glorified 860 martyrs and confessors and in addition decreed the churchwide veneration of 230 local saints of these two categories. Members of the tsarist family were canonized as passion bearers. Besides this, nine holy hierarchs, holy righteous persons, and venerable persons, and 34 martyrs from the Valaam Trasnfiguration cloister who perished at the hands of newly converted Lutherans in 1578 were enrolled in the canon of saints. In addition, church wide veneration was decreed for the venerable Iov of Anzersk (a local saint of the Solovki monastery) and thirteen elders of Optino who also had been locally venerated saints previously. (tr. by PDS, posted 19 August 2000)
DISGUSTING
by Hegumen Innokenty Pavlov
Segodnia, 19 August 2000
Disgusting. That's the way any normal church person would express his reaction to the canonization of the former Russian emperor and his family by the just-ended council-2000, regardless of whether he is associated with the right wing or should be called "liberal" in the categorization developed by the local media. Quick sociological surveys conducted recently have shown Russian society to be practically evenly divided into two groups with regard to whether Nicholas Romanov is a worthy saint. Clearly, canonization is an internal church matter and if the issue were some ancient or modern zealot of piety it would remain that way.
It is a different matter in the case of the last Russian emperor whom many are inclined to view as the chief culprit of the national catastrophe of 1917. However even within the church, which is about the 4.5% of the population of Russia who can be called practicing Orthodox (while regular attenders of churches of the Moscow patriarchate constitute only about 1.5% of Russians), the attitude toward this canonization apparently reproduces the opinions on the national scale. It is quite obvious that here we are dealing with what church historians call a political canonization.
At the same time "politics" in this case does not cover the banal servility before state authority that existed in the middle ages, when both the Catholic and Orthodox churches competed to canonize various European sovereigns while many of them were far from the ideals of Christian sanctity. Here the current leadership of RPTs has clearly sided with the fundamentalist half of church society which yearns for the monarchy and the empire "which we have lost."
Some of the reporters who write on church topics are prepared to see here a "politics" that is aimed at reconciliation with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, which canonized Nicholas II and his family within a synaxis of "Russian new martyrs" back in 1981. However such a view is a hasty one. First, ROCOR considers that such a rapprochement could be achieved simply by the Moscow patriarchate's simply recognizing the action of canonization that occurred in New York two decades ago.
Second, this problem has a more profound aspect, a moral one. For many Russian monarchists, who were such back in the soviet years, as far as I recall, object to the very fact that the work that is sacred to them should be conducted by former KGB agents who displayed well known zeal in their cooperation with the soviet repessive machinery that was guilty of the death of the former sovereign. For these people the suspicion has not been dispersed that Patriarch Alexis was agent Drozdov, who consciously entered into cooperation with KGB in 1958.
Or let's take Metropolitan Kirill (whom some consider to be agent Mikhailov). I personally remember well how in 1981, when he was rector of the Leningrad Ecclesiastical Academy and Seminar, on orders from KGB without thinking a moment he expelled from the student body one monastic priest because he had led a requiem for members of the slain tsarist family. Most interesting, this monastic priest himself was not the initiator of that requiem but, as priest of the academy's church he read, among other things, a note given to him "about rest for the slain servants of God Nicholas, Alexandra, etc.," without even mentioning their royal titles, as has become the practice in RPTs after 1991.
It is also possible to point to yet another "zealot" for glorification of Nicholas II at the present council, Metropolitan Pitirim (at the beginning of the 90s the mass media identified him as agent Abbot). Now he is in the shadows, but twenty years ago he was the mouthpiece of the patriarchate, heading its publishing department. Readers of the "Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate" of the time well recall how, expressing the official position of the patriarchate, he condemned the church abroad for glorification of the last Russian emperor. This list could be continued even further. But why? Even without that it's disgusting. (tr. by PDS, posted 19 August 2000)
SAINT GRIGORY RASPUTIN
Some Orthodox consider that the "elder" should be canonized
by Aleksei Makarkin
Segodnia, 17 August 2000
After the decision of the bishops' council of the Russian Orthodox church on the canonization of Nicholas II and his family a group of Orthodox citizens would not mind posing the question of enrolling Grigory Rasputin in the canon of saints. According to "Segodnia" information, members of a number of marginalized near-Orthodox organizations have created a kind of informal "Rasputin club" (the economist Oleg Platonov who is well known for his antimasonic "investigations" is named among the admirers of the elder and Fr Dmitry Dudko called the '"elder" a national righteous person).
At the Moscow patriarchate nothing is yet known about such an initiative. However there is a standard procedure for preparing the canonization of new saints. As a rule, diocesan bishops present materials about one or another martyr or ascetic to the synodal commission on canonization headed by Metropolitan Yuvenaly. After its makes a positive decision the matter is presented for review by the Holy Synod and then a bishops' council. Such a complex procedure safeguards against any surprises. Unofficially we were told that there is hardly any bishop of the Russian Orthodox church who would consent even to pose the question of Rasputin's canonization.
However it has come to our attention that in recent times positive aspects of the activity of Grigory Efimovich are mentioned more often in church history works (for example his gift of healing) and all the "negatives," including the drunken debauches and lechery, are ascribed to slander on the part of masons and other conspirators. And some of these publications are being issued with the blessing of Patriarch Alexis II. However His Holiness himself declared in his report at the council that often the use of the patriarchal blessing appears in books without his knowledge.
As regards the most zealous admirers of Rasputin, they have already produced apologetical books about their idol. Three "icons" have been painted with a representation of the "holy elder." Even a special akathist (prayer text) has been composed, which is addressed to "elder" Grigory, who is called none other than a new prophet and new miracle worker. However in this case we are dealing with a kind of sect that openly opposes the hierarchy.
So while the participants of the bishops' council voted for the canonization of the passion bearers, there are people who also consider themselves to be Orthodox who have addressed their prayers to one of the most odious personalities of Russian history. (tr. by PDS, posted 20 August 2000)
--Your eminence, how do you assess the position of President Leonid Kuchma on the problems of Ukrainian Orthodoxy?
--I can say that the president treats our church benevolently. He is my great friend. He really suffers from the divisiveness and the confrontation, especially on the part of the Filaret groupings which are constantly creating tension. When we came here Filaret declared at his press conference that Moscow would give autonomy but that it would be incomplete and his church would not recognize it. He would await the decision of the ecumenical patriarch who would grant it autocephaly. He thought that the bishops' council in Moscow had been specially called to prevent this. There are many such provocations as the result of which the nation is divided. This problem has acquired state significance and causes natural anxiety for the president. He thinks that autonomy would help to overcome all these divisions. But the apostolic rules and canons which have existed 2,000 years cannot be replaced by anyone.
Now the situation has been sharply worsened by the unprecedented interference of the patriarchate of Constantinople in the canonical affairs of the Ukrainian Orthodox church. In response to our appeal Patriarch Bartholomew sent a bitter letter. Recently he has clearly wished to teach Moscow and the Russian church a lesson because he considers that it has become arrogant. Although the ecumenical patriarch himself has 6,000 believers of American descent.
--Tell us, bishop, if Filaret has announced his retirement or whether he will retire from church business or has any influence on the resolution of the general Orthodox problems in Ukraine?
--Knowing Filaret's character I can say that he would never do this. When we were negotiating in Zurich in Switzerland we talked about this. It began with the delegation of the Constantinopolitan patriarchate insisting representatives of Filaret be present at the negotiations, which were supposed to be held on 15 July. Metropolitan Kirill and I said that we could not agree and that if this were done we would be wiping out the entire ten-year struggle we have had with Filaret. If we invited him then he could say that he had been recognized by both the Moscow and Constantinopolitan patriarchates. Then all of our labors would be destroyed. We were ready to invite for an initial meeting on 15 July the representatives of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox church and then for some time also representatives of the Ukrainian government. We were ready to invite representatives of Filaret's church if he himself agreed to retire. However he would not retire and the Constantinopolitan side understood this.
At the first meeting in Chambezy they mentioned that Metropolitan Kirill had given his consent to Filaret's participation. Metropolitan Kirill answered that this was only in principle and the procedures had not been worked out nor the agreement. Therefore we cannot agree with their presence.
When Patriarch Bartholomew learned about this he convened his synod on 27 July and, as reported in the press, [compare "Allegation refuted by Constantinople" RRN ed.] declared Ukraine his canonical territory. In connection with this at our jubilee bishops' council on 28 July we sent a letter to the ecumenical patriarch in which we asked him not to interfere in the affairs of UPTs and not to support those adventurists who were complicating the situation because this would have a negative impact upon his authority as ecumenical patriarch. This letter was signed by the whole council, all thirty five bishops. However the ecumenical patriarch took it badly and did not recognize us as a self-subsisting Ukrainian church. He said that this was not a bishops' council but simply an assembly and we were practically guilty of schism in Ukrainian Orthodoxy.
--Bishop, is there any reaction to the situation in Ukrainian Orthodoxy on the part of the head of local Orthodox churches other than Patriarch Bartholomew?
--So far, there has been no official reaction, but there is unofficial information that the Greek church does not support it, as well as the Albanian and Alexandrine, and Jerusalem Patriarch Diodor always has been with us. Patriarch Bartholomew considers the Ukrainian church a metropolia of Constantinople that was illegally annexed by the Russian church.
But first of all it is necessary to determine why the ecumenical patriarch should be the determinative judge of all Orthodox churches. According to the thirty-fourth apostolic canon, one of the patriarchs has preeminent honor in that he has the right to stand as first among equals in the liturgy, but as to questions of faith and ethical teaching all patriarchs are equal. If one examines this then preeminent honor should belong to the patriarch of Jerusalem inasmuch as the gospel events happened on his canonical territory. However it developed historically that the preeminence began to belong to the patriarch of Constantinople. The Kievan metropolia, which never has been a patriarchate, was under the jurisdiction (omophorion) of Constantinople for around 600 years and has been under the jurisdiction (omophorion) of the Russian Orthodox church for the last 400 years. (tr. by PDS, posted 18 August 2000)
If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication
from which it came.
It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material
is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL, http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.