RUSSIA
RELIGION NEWS|
|
|
Links
to Useful
Information |
The delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), which is making its first official visit to Russia, is completely satisfied with the talks conducted with the hierarchy of the Moscow patriarchate. This was expressed on 20 November in an interview with RIA Novosti by a representative of the delegation, the treasurer of the synod of bishops of ROCOR, Archpriest Peter Holodny.
"Members of the delegation are very satisfied with the results of the talks," the interviewee told RIA Novosti. "The talks were conducted in a spirit of love and brotherly mutual understanding," he stressed.
He said that the goal of the talks was "to become acquainted and to look one another in the eyes" and to outline the way for bringing the foreign Russian church and the church in the fatherland closer.
Holodny also reported that they achieved agreement on the creation of special bilateral commissions for resolving separate problems that hinder bringing them closer. "It is no secret that there are several disagreements of both a theological and everyday character," the treasurer of the synod of bishops of the foreign church explained. He said that the commissions will deal with questions of the participation of the Orthodox church in the ecumenical movement (uniting Christians of various confessions), relations between the church and state, the painful property question, and the so-called problem of "banned priests" who have transferred from RPTs to ROCOR and vice versa.
Besides the meetings on 18-19 November with Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus and members of the Holy Synod of RPTsMP, the delegation of the foreign church became acquainted with the life of the mother church during their stay in Russia. In particular, the delegation has already visited the Saint Sergius Holy Trinity lavra, the church of Christ the Savior, monasteries in the capital, and the Saint Serafim monastery of Diveevo.
The visit by the delegation of the foreign Russian church to Moscow began on 17 November and will continue to 22 November. The delegation is led by Archbishop of Berlin and Germany Mark. In includes two other ROCOR hierarchs, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia, and New Zealand Ilarion and Bishop of San Francisco and western America Kirill. (tr. by PDS, posted 21 November 2003)
HIERARCHS OF FOREIGN CHURCH ASK ALEXIS II FOR FORGIVENESS
by Nadezhda Kevorkova
Gazeta, 21 November 2003
The three-day talks about reuniting the Russian Orthodox church (RPTs) and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) ended yesterday with mutual reconciliation. Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus reminded his brethren in the faith how twelve years back he issued to them a call to meet together and "pick up the pieces," and Archbishop Mark, in his turn, asked forgiveness for the years-long accusations against the Moscow patriarchate.
After the conclusion of the talks Patriarch Alexis II described how Archbishop Mark asked forgiveness for all the harsh statements directed against the mother church which had accumulated over the 75 years of the separation of its two parts. Archpriest Nikolay Balashov, secretary of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate, testified for Gazeta that these apologies that resounded in the personal meeting of the patriarch with the delegation were repeated by Archbishop Mark at a meeting with the synod on the second day of the talks, saying how "one would not now want to recall and repeat these statements." "We did not undertake the hostile actions during these years," Fr Nikolai stressed, assuring Gazeta that the property, organizational, and administrative problems that arose in relations between the two churches were not a topic in the current talks.
Patriarch Alexis also reported that he began the meeting with the hierarchs of ROCOR by reading to them his letter of August 1991 that he sent to the first hierarch of ROCOR of the time. In particular, in it he said that representatives of the church "must meet together and look one another in the eyes, because when a pitcher is broken up into tiny pieces, it is necessary to gather these pieces and then use the pitcher." Let's recall that at that time the call was not heard although back in February 1991 Patriarch Alexis renounced the 1927 declaration by Metropolitan Sergius that recognized the authority of the bolsheviks and established the main cause of the schism. It also was not heard in 2000, when the "Social Doctrine of RPTs" stated that the church reserves for itself the right of protest against the actions of secular authorities.
Only now, after asking forgiveness for all the earlier harshness, have the foreign hierarchs acknowledged that they are ready for talks. Thus, from the very beginning of the talks, the sides set aside their chief mutual claims against one another.
Patriarch Alexis warned that "the journey to reconciliation has begun, but it is not such a simple matter and it will require time." The problems of reconciliation, Alexis II explained, will be discussed by the councils of bishops and synods in Moscow and New York, and two special commissions will work them through, but the main plans will be confirmed at the time of a personal meeting in January 2004 between the patriarch and the head of ROCOR, Metropolitan Laurus, who should sign an agreement as to the bases of unity. According to the patriarch, the question of the restoration of eucharistic fellowship could be resolved within a year, and priests of ROCOR will be able to concelebrate and laity will commune together. According to Gazeta's information, this has occurred previously, but it was never publicized in order to avoid the displeasure of the hierarchy.
One of the observers told Gazeta that the talks' success was determined by the very start of the visit. The first act of the ROCOR hierarchs was a visit to the Don monastery where they venerated the relics of Patriarch Tikhon, after whose death in 1925 the schism in the church began. There they also prayed at the grave of the foreign cleric Alexander Kiselev, a former rector of parishes in Estonia, Germany, and USA. It was under this priest that Patriarch Alexis II began his ministry as an acolyte in Estonia. At the Don and Presentation monasteries the foreign hierarchs met simple believers, which was a visible sign of popular approval of unification.
Yesterday the foreign delegation went to the Saint Serafim monastery in Diveevo. This trip also was significant. It was Serafim of Sarov, who was canonized in 1903 by the efforts of the royal family, who remained the symbol of the unity of the church through all the years of separation, and the centennial of his canonization in August of this year was conducted with the participation of the president of Russia.
Today the foreign hierarchs will attend a patriarchal service in the Kremlin which is conducted in the cathedral of the Archangel Michael every year, and then they will disperse to their dioceses. (tr. by PDS, posted 21 November 2003)
posted on the Portal-credo.ru site, 21 November 2003
Russia Religion News Current News Items
The dialogue between Orthodox Christians and Catholics and Christians of other confessions is proceeding on a regular basis but it has its ups and downs. There were two major events in Novembers: the second meeting of President Vladimir Putin with Pope John Paul II, and the visit of a delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA), which began on November 18. The ROCA split with the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1920s, when revolutionary atheists came to power in Russia till the end of times, as they thought.
However, these two events cannot fling the door wide open. Putin's meeting with the Pope was an element of political etiquette. Mikhail Gorbachev, the first and only president of the Soviet Union, and Russia's first president, Boris Yeltsin, visited John Paul II to promote state rather than religious relations. But it was a good sign in our mad world.
Regrettably, the hypothetical reunification of the two Orthodox churches could strengthen their isolation from the rest of the Christian world. The conservative Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has denounced ecumenism as heresy.
Some observers believe that a broader dialogue with the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches could encourage awareness of modern realities in the Russian Orthodox Church.
Why does the Russian church prefer isolation and rapprochement with the ROCA to broad dialogue with other Christian confessions? One of the main reasons is the numerous Russian phobias, in particular the fear that the Roman Catholic Church wants to absorb the Russian Orthodox Church, says Rev. Georgy Chistyakov, priest of the Church of Saints Kozma and Damian (Stoleshnikov Pereulok) and dean of the Church of Virgin Mary in the Pediatric Republican Clinical Hospital. (Chistyakov is also board member of the Russian Biblical Society, rector of the Open Orthodox University, and a prominent historian, theologian and public figure.)
In his opinion, the top hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, though they zealously protect their interests, would nevertheless agree to talk with Roman Catholics. On November 10, Archbishop Antonio Mennini, the newly appointed representative of the Holy See in Russia, met Metropolitan Kirill, head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church. They agreed to carry on talks to improve relations between their churches and mapped co-operation prospects in the social sphere. But only six months ago the Metropolitan denounced the Roman Catholic Church for unethical attempts to change its structure in Russia. The reason for that accusation was apparent: a struggle for spheres of influence.
No wonder relations between the two churches are so complicated and have more than one layer. On the one hand, members of the Holy Synod and Patriarch Alexy II are children of the era when religion in Russia survived largely thanks to the powerful assistance of the Roman Catholic Church. Besides, there were many more Catholic dioceses and flocks before the Bolshevik Revolution, yet the churches did not clash.
On the other hand, we cannot expect relations to improve rapidly at the level of ordinary people. One can cite numerous examples when local governments, the press and provincial public attack people of other confessions. "The strong rejection of Catholicism by believers exists at the psychological level," says Rev. Chistyakov.
There is one more side to the problem and it does not clash with either of the former two. Polls show that 75% of Russians believe Catholics and Orthodox Christians can coexist peacefully and 60% of the respondents have a positive attitude to the potential visit of John Paul II to Russia.
Regarding the problem from the psychological angle, George Chistyakov believes that Orthodoxy is looking into the past in terms of structure and guidelines. It sees the modern world as an era of degenerating belief, a time when the world is departing from God. Personal will to suffer privations, fast and pray are very important in the Russian Orthodox Church. So, fervent believers who try to apply the principles of Christianity in secular life will resort to Catholic experience simply because there is no such experience in the history of Orthodoxy.
The first groups of young families have appeared in Russia who call themselves the Movement of Cana of Galilee and emulate the Catholic association in France. We now also have the movement Mothers in Prayer, also modelled after a Catholic movement. Monastic life outside the walls of monasteries and nunneries is not widespread in Russia and this is where we can draw on the experience of other confessions, too.
"Contacts between Orthodox believers and Catholics are developing where life is churning, where human beings remain Christian believers in the midst of daily routine," says Rev. Chistyakov. The country has opted for Western guidelines in its secular life and is gradually becoming integrated in international organisations. But religion in Russia is still dominated by anti-Western sentiments. This situation is in serious contradiction with modern realities.
Theologians are coming to believe that the Orthodox Church will have to review its dogmas or else it will lose the public's trust. Sergei Filatov, director of the project the Encyclopaedia of Modern Religious Life in Russia, says the importance of religious rituals will decline under the influence of current processes, but the role of social service to any religion will grow. It should be said that the ritual side of believing is so strong in the Russian Orthodox Church that even non-believers frequently strive to comply with them.
The Russian Orthodox Church joined the Ecumenical Movement in 1961. It energetically supports the peacekeeping actions of the World Council of Churches and maintains a dialogue with its participants also on other issues. "It is believed in Russia that Christians from all churches stand in opposition to the modern a-religious world," says Rev. Chistyakov. When elaborating the European Constitution, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Protestants joined forces to demand that Christianity be mentioned in it as the spiritual source of the European civilisation. In this age of secular thinking, we should support each other because "we all stand for firm families, against abortion, drugs and mass culture, which makes human beings the slaves of the consumerist civilisation," the priest holds.
"The life of a Christian is not in denying himself or herself meat on fasting days but in carrying on Christian ideals, so that they triumph not only in personal but also in societal life," says Rev. Chistyakov. "When Orthodox Christians come to see this, they will also understand that ecumenism and co-operation of believers of different confessions is the only road for Christians."
So, is the Russian Orthodox Church opening the door? It seems so. But this process will be complicated and slow, owing to internal confessional and national features. And it would be useless to try to speed it up. As the Russian saying goes, "Move slowly but surely." , ((c)1999-2003 "PRAVDA.Ru" , posted 21 November 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
The Russian Orthodox Church has cut ties with the Episcopal Church in the United States over its ordination of an openly gay bishop.
In a statement issued Monday in Moscow, the Russian Orthodox Church said the ordination of a homosexual bishop makes any communications with the bishop or those who elected him impossible. The Russian Church went on to describe homosexuality as a grave sin, adding it could not show any sign of acceptance of a position that it considers un- Christian and blasphemous.
The U.S. Episcopal Church consecrated Gene Robinson as bishop two weeks ago. Bishop Robinson is openly gay.
The Russian Orthodox Church has been taking part in ecumenical meetings with other Christian Churches for several decades.
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH SUSPENDS CONTACTS WITH AMERICAN EPISCOPAL CHURCH
FOR ELEVATING A HOMOSEXUAL TO THE POST OF BISHOP
RIA Novosti, 17 November 2003
The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has to suspend the work of the joint co-ordinating committee and contacts with the American Episcopal Church after the latter elevated, on November 2, Rev. Gene Robinson, who does not make a secrete of his homosexuality, to the post of bishop.
The Moscow Patriarchy's foreign church relations department has issues a statement to this effect.
The Russian Orthodox Church believes it impossible to maintain further contacts whatsoever with the church that elevated a homosexual to the post of bishop and with the bishop himself. "We will not be able to co- operate with those people either in the realm of theological dialogue or in the humanitarian, religious and public spheres. We cannot afford even to a certain degree share their position, which is, in our opinion, profoundly anti-Christian and sacrilegious," reads the ROC statement.
"Homosexuality is a sin, which detaches man from God. The Church does not deny help to the poor souls possessed with this evil malady. However, the Church must not approve of perversions of man, who was created in the image of God. It must not bless distortions of the image of God," says the statement.
The Moscow Patriarchy sees "a great danger to modern man in the processes underway in the American Episcopal Church and some other Christian churches of the western world." "People are getting used to treat homosexuality not as a perversion, but as a 'love', which is approved even by the church." The Russian Orthodox Church emphasises that it has, for nearly 200 years, maintained contacts and cooperation with the Episcopal Church of the USA and is seeking to preserve these relations. (posted 20 November 2003)
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH FREEZES RELATIONS WITH EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN USA
Interfax, 17 November 2003
The Russian Orthodox Church is freezing relations with the Episcopal Church in the United States, the External Relations Department of the Russian Orthodox Church reported on Monday.
Gene Robinson's ordination as a bishop of the church was cited as the reason for this decision, the department said. Gene Robinson is the Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop.
The Russian Orthodox Church believes "homosexuality to be a sin, which isolates man from God."
The Moscow Patriarchate referred to a verse in the Bible stating that sex between two men is loathsome and neither fornicators nor sodomites will enter God's realm.
"The Church does not deny assistance to the unfortunate people who suffer from this ailment. God is love, and Christians must pray for all sinners and for their salvation. However, the Church cannot approve of perversions of human nature created by the Lord himself," the statement says.
The Russian Orthodox Church had maintained good relations with the Episcopal Church in the United States for almost 200 years, including during the Cold War period, "when Christians retained mutual understanding in a world divided by military blocs," it says.
"However, the bishopric of a homosexual makes impossible any contacts with him and his electors in clerical dialog and the humanitarian, religious and public spheres," the statement says.
"We must not show any signs of consent with their position, which we regard as anti-Christian and blasphemous," the Moscow Patriarchate said. At the same time, the Russian Orthodox Church is praying "to God, the Lord of love and reconciliation, to bring members of the American Episcopal Church to their senses and help them return to the path of truth." (posted 21 November 2003)
"THE CHURCH CANNOT APPROVE OF THE PERVERSION OF HUMAN NATURE CREATED
BY THE CREATOR HIMSELF"
The Statement of the Department for External Church Relations of the
Moscow Patriarchate
Office
of Communication, Russian Orthodox Church Department for External Church
Relations, 17 November 2003
In connection with the episcopal consecration of an openly gay priest V.Gene Robinson, the Department for External Church Relations is empowered to make a special statement.
The Church has always regarded homosexual contacts as a grave sin.
There are clear and indisputable testimonies in the Bible about the inadmissibility of such relations between people for Christians: 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination', 'If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed abomination; they shall be put to death (Lev 18:22; 20:13). St.Paul definitely said about 'dishonourable passions' of people who 'exchanged the truth about God for a lie': 'their women exchanged natural relations to unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another'. The apostle pointed at the inevitable 'God's decree' not only about those whose conduct was improper and who 'were filled with all manner of wickedness, ...covetousness' but also about those who 'approve' (cf. Rom 18-32).
Such people separate themselves from the unity of faith. According to the Apostle, they will not inherit the eternal life: 'Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters... nor homosexuals... will inherit the kingdom of God' (cf. 1 Cor 6:9-10).
The advocates of the ordination of homosexuals maintain that there is no direct condemnation of these kind of sexual contacts in the Holy Scriptures and that the above-cited texts from the Bible should not be understood literally, as, according to them, only the fundamentalists and conservatives do. Yet in this case any Biblical text can be interpreted in any sense, depending on the instant desires of a particular group of people.
The Biblical texts about the condemnation of homosexualism are clear and unequivocal. They have formed Christian morals, educated many generations of people and created modern culture. The negation of the direct meaning of the words of St.Paul contradicts the centuries long Christian tradition of the comprehension of these texts and is contrary to common sense.
Homosexualism is a sin, which separates man from God. At the same time the Church does not deny help to those unfortunate people, who are possessed with this ailment. God is love, and Christians should pray for all sinners and wish them salvation. However, the Church cannot approve of the perversion of human nature created by the Creator Himself. The Church cannot bless the distortion of the image of God, Who is the most profound foundation of human dignity. The Church teaches about the original differences of both sexes, about chastity and predestination of man for sanctity. The Church safeguards the tradition of Christian marriage between man and wife blessed by God Himself at Cana in Galilee. The Church will cease witnessing about holiness, purity and the truth of God, if she gives up the teaching revealed to her by God.
We see a great danger to a modern man in the processes, which are going on in the Episcopal Church in the USA and in some other Christian communities of Western world. People are becoming accustomed to the notion that homosexualism is nor a deviation, neither a perversion, but just a kind of 'love', which even the Church blesses. For instance, the leadership of the Episcopalian Church in the USA at the General Convention in Minnesota last summer approved of a possibility of blessing the unisexual marriages. The document adopted by the Comvention gives the 'local communities' and parishes the right to elaborate the rituals for the blessing of unisexual couples.
The consequences are terrible, as even people with normal sexual orientation are joining in homosexualism.
Our faith is built upon the Word of God, which has preserved the immutable Truth of God. The liberal view on the attitude of the Church to homosexualism is the way to the destruction of the very foundations of the Church and to its likening to secular pubic institutes.
The Russian Orthodox Church has maintained good relations with the Episcopal Church in the USA for almost two hundred years. Our relations remained warm and friendly even in the period of the 'cold war', when Christians had mutual understanding and supported one another in the world divided into the confronting military blocks. The Episcopal Church in the USA supported Orthodox Christians in our country at the time of persecution for the faith in Christ. Particularly friendly relations between our two Churches have been established in the early 1990s, when a Joint Coordinating Committee for Cooperation between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Episcopal Church in the USA was set up. The Committee prepared and carried out three theological conversations, successfully implemented common social and educational projects and arranged visits to one another.
However, the 'consecration' of a gay priest has made any communications with him and with those who consecrated him impossible. We shall not be able to cooperate with these people not only in the theological dialogue, but also in the humanitarian and religious and pubic spheres. We have no right to allow even a particle of agreement with their position, which we consider to be profoundly antiChritian and blasphemous.
Because of this situation the Russian Orthodox Church is forced to suspend the work of the Joint Coordinating Committee and to freeze her contacts with the Episcopalian Church in the USA.
We want to maintain contacts and cooperation with those members of the Episcopal Church in the USA who clearly declared their loyalty to the moral teaching of the Holy Gospel and the Ancient Undivided Church.
We pray our God, God of love and reconciliation, to put sense into the members of the Episcopal Church in the USA and help them return to the way of the Truth, which is our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Jn 14:6). (posted 21 November 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
--Some of your teachers, metropolitans of the previous generation, thought that Christianity and communism had much in common. Now the political line is different: the church condemns communism. Serbian Patriarch Pavel got up the courage to oppose Milosevic. How is the strength of faith manifested in our country?
--At first glance, the communist morality that existed in our country during the seventies of the past century and Christian morality had much in common. The notorious Code of the Builder of Communism in places nearly literally quoted moral maxims of Christianity. However the chief difference in principle consists in the total lack of religious bases for communist morality, which, incidentally, the beloved metropolitans whom you mentioned never disputed. Communist morality had no ontological motivation and this is one of the reasons for its internal impotence and failure. The center of the Christian world view is that it is Christ who gives the strength to follow his commandments; it is he who preserves his church "and the gates of hell will not overcome it" (Mt 16.18). The strength of faith is manifested in a readiness to live in accordance with the Lord's commands and not in opposition to one or another political figure or doctrine. Sometimes people expect loud political declarations from the church, not understanding that its purpose is to unite people on their paths to Christ, not to be an actor in political processes.
The strength of faith is manifested in the way more and more people are now coming to the church. In entering upon the path of obedience to the ideals of the gospel people from the most diverse strata of society are gradually changing the moral atmosphere in the family and society for the better and they are filling it with Christian contents. This is the "victory that overcomes the world: our faith" (1 Jn 5.4)
--Your Beautitide! Do you agree that qualitative changes in state-church relations have occurred in the past year? The church always spoke about the necessity of enlightenment and about the importance of faith for the soul of the country; the church asked to be admitted to society but it was not heeded. And suddenly the state has heeded the church; ministries have been concluding agreements with it, priests are in the schools, hospitals, and military detachments, and all on legal bases. Who was the initiator of these changes?
--It's true that there have been changes for the better in relations between the church and the state. These changes, to a great extent, are the fruit of an intensive dialogue between the church and the state. We value especially the opportunity for this dialogue, because only fifteen years back a free and open discussion of the problems in church-state and church-society relations was unthinkable.
However it would be an exaggeration to say that all problems in our interrelations have been solved. The right of a citizen to religious education has not been achieved to the full extent; church educational, social, and cultural programs need to be developed. The economic condition of the church remains complicated although society and the state now are coming to understand that the solution of the problems facing the country is impossible without a healthy moral climate and that the church possesses the potential to cooperate in changing this climate for the better. Thus it is more accurate to speak not about an initiator of the changes that are occurring but about the movement of the state and the church toward meeting one another.
--Speaking of the participation of the church in the life of society, one often has in mind its social activity and charity. Tell us, please, whether there exist today church orphanages for children, and shelters and soup kitchens for the homeless. How many Sunday schools are there in Russia? Do monasteries hire the homeless to work for food? If so, how large is this "labor army"?
--For centuries charitable work has been the most important and essential mission of the church. Our task is not only to solve the painful social problems but also to revive in society the Christian spirit of compassion, sympathy, and mutual aid.
In the postrevolutionary period church charity, like all private charity, was prohibited in our country. Today much has to be recreated literally from zero. The basic work in this direction is being conducted by dioceses, monasteries, and parishes of our church and by brotherhoods and sisterhoods, church humanitarian organizations, and charity services. Children's homes and boarding houses and free dining rooms and overnight shelters have been opened. Nursing homes have been created and special programs for victims of AIDS are in operation. A great many church charitable institutions have been created in recent years. For example, for more than a year an orphanage for young boys has been operating under the sponsorship of the Savvino-Storozhev monastery, a "House of Mercy" has been opened in Minsk, and orphanages have been operating in the neighborhood of the Saint Sergius Holy Trinity lavra and there is an orphanage for girls at the Khotkovsk convent of the Intercession and there are orphanages for boys in the village of Toporkovo and the city of Viazm. Rehabilitation centers for alcoholics and drug addicts and for the victims of pseudoreligious associations have been created. In addition, in a majority of parishes there are Sunday schools for children and adults that are making a substantial contribution to the spiritual enlightenment of the nation. Many monasteries feed homeless and indigent people, sometimes offering them the opportunity to work for the good of the cloister. However it is hardly possible to call these workers a "labor army" because, as a rule, they cannot meet the needs of the monastery for qualified workers.
--Sometimes it has been observed that pious people chase the needy out of a church. Can you comment on this?
--I will remind you of the words of Christ the Savior: "My house shall be called a house of prayer" (Mt 21.13). Without doubt, aid for the needy is an extremely important aspect of the activity of a church parish, but the needy should not interfere with the proper conduct of the liturgy in a church and they should not hinder people from praying. So traditionally the collection of alms has been assigned to a place outside the church.
--What is being done today in order to take into account the negative prerevolutionary experience of the church? How can we avoid a massive influx of uninformed teachers of religion into the schools who will simply alienate the children from the church within a generation? How can you protect the flock from the plethora of "spiritual elders" who advise them to eat the dirt from the graves of saints? How can you keep neophytes who venerate the relics and icons, but know nothing about Christ, from falling into a new paganism?
--Many of the failures and difficulties of the church life in Russia in prerevolutionary times were intensified because the church was a part of the state machinery. It was not free to solve its own internal problems. It is possible that a negative role was played by neglecting a certain truth that says that "the one who is compelled is not a true worshipper."
However one should not look only at the negative phenomena in the church life of the time before the October revolution; there was more that was good. Leaf through the church's periodical literature of the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries and you will be persuaded that the church consciousness of a majority of believers even today, after fifteen years of church regeneration, has still not reached the level that it had before the catastrophe of 1917. The church that was under state patronage and often restricted gave Russia and the world a multitude of heroes of the faith and piety, and bishops, scholars, preachers, and missionaries. The level of theological education and theological scholarship was extremely high at that time. It was in the prerevolutionary period that the church raised up millions of Orthodox Christians who maintained their loyalty to Christ and his church in the years of the most fierce persecution. The church has enlisted many of them into the canon of saints, new martyrs, and confessors. Today we turn to them for prayerful support and aid.
As regards the danger you mentioned of incompetent teaching of religion in schools, we are quite conscious of that. This is why we welcome the introduction of a state educational standard for a "Theology" specialty. Graduates of higher educational institutions with this major will be able to teach religious and cultural studies in schools. Besides exercising the rights of citizens for getting an education free from a skeptical attitude toward matters of faith, this will permit teaching at a modern professional level and prevent spreading under the guise of Orthodoxy misconceptions that have nothing to do with it.
Responding to the last part of your question, I will recall that on 28 December 1998 the Holy Synod made an extremely important determination in assessing some distortions of church tradition, the so-called "young eldership." The resolution of this problem consists in serious enlightenment and educational work which already today is being conducted by dozens of ecclesiastical educational institutions, publishing houses, and enlightenment centers. The result of this work should be a widening of the circle of priests who do not simply perform the liturgy in parishes but are capable of fulfilling the mission given to them by the church "to become all things to all in order to at least save some" (1 Cor 9.22) at a high spiritual, moral, and intellectual level.
--Catholics throughout the world were leaders of the antiwar movement, including in countries that supported the military operations of USA and Great Britain against Iraq. In Russia the church is against the war in Iraq, but it is for the war in Chechnya. Doesn't it seem that the church is afraid to oppose the majority even when it affects its basic commandments, "do not kill," and "do not bear false witness"?
--I am amazed at complaints about conformism aimed at the church, which has endured persecutions of exceptional scope and brutality based on its special position that set it apart from the official ideology. As regards our attitude toward military operations against Iraq and military actions in Chechnia, the hierarchy of our church has frequently spoken out on these questions as well as on problems of war and peace in general. The church has always considered war evil and a manifestation of internecine hatred that resides in human hearts. However the church does not forbid its children from participating in military actions if we are talking about the defense of the fatherland, freedom, and the security of our loved ones. In such situations war is considered extremely undesirable but a necessary means. We do not have the right to forget about the explosions in Moscow, Buinaksk, and Volgodonsk and about the expulsions of tens of thousands of Russians from Chechnia that has been seized with a criminal bacchanalia or about the murders and kidnapping of people, the invasion of Dagestan by terrorists armed to the teeth and the taking of hundreds of hostages in the center of Moscow last fall. We are convinced: evil will must be stopped. Sometimes this demands use of force and we recognize this sad necessity with grief.
With regard to the military operations by USA and Great Britain in Iraq I must explain again: the church expressed its disagreement with them on the basis that the beginning of military actions was a violation of standards of international law and an affirmation of a new world order based on the "right of might." The suspicion on the part of the leadership of a number of countries that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction has not received any confirmation although several months have already passed since the end of military actions. One gets the impression that the threat about which so much was said on the eve of the bombardment of Iraq has turned out to be imaginary. The governments of the countries of the anti-Iraq coalition have not been able to convince the world otherwise. It is especially hard to convince the residents of Iraq of this, who are suffering today from a lack of medical care, food, and water. It is quite impossible to persuade families of Iraqis who perished from explosions of bombs and shells.
--Stalin gave the patriarch a residence, governmental hospitals, and vehicles. Isn't it time to reject this?
--Let's turn to the history of the question. The Great Patriotic War which began early on Sunday morning of 22 June 1941, the day when the church celebrates the memory of all saints resplendent in the Russian land, changed the mood in our country. For many the beginning of the war was seen as God's punishment for persecution of the church in prewar years. It became obvious that the bolshevik ideology could not be the basis for nationwide opposition to the enemy and that what was required was some much more profound basis for uniting the nation's energies. Over the course of many centuries that base was the Orthodox church. The broad persecution was halted, a local council for electing a patriarch was called, throughout the country churches and monasteries began to be opened, and subsequently the activity of the ecclesiastical educational institutions was renewed. To a certain degree this was a recognition of the historic role of the church in defending the fatherland from enemies. It was at this time that the patriarch was given the building on Chisty Lane about which you speak. The residence turned out to be quite necessary for normal work. However all of this, the churches, monasteries, and the residence on Chisty Lane, cannot be compared with what was taken away from the church during the years of persecution. As regards vehicles, they have long since become museum rarities.
--What kinds of income are acceptable for the church and its ministers outside of the church? Is it permissible to rent out church buildings or to sub-let them?
--Before the revolution the church had immovable property and it rented it and received income. In many countries besides rent from church property religious organizations are permitted to engage successfully in charity work, scholarship, and education. Often this is the only way for a church to get resources for conducting a multitude of social programs in which the state and society are so interested.
--Have you personally met Pope John Paul II?
--In performing my duties as the chairman of the Department of External Church Relations, I have had occasion to meet Pope John Paul II. At these meetings I had the opportunity of laying out for the head of the Roman Catholic church our position on the key problems in relations between the two churches. However the personal contacts and official conversations have turned out to be insufficient to get the situation to change in some noteworthy manner for the better.
--In your view, why does the pope desire to get to Russia so intensely? Does the pope want to get to China with similar persistence?
--Probably this can be explained by the prominent place our country occupies in the world community, because it is hard to explain this in terms of internal church problems of Russian Catholics. They represent an extremely insignificant minority in Russia. It is hard for me to say whether John Paul II desires to visit China. But so far as I know the very possibility of such a visit is extremely indeterminate because of the complications in relations between the Vatican and that country.
--What kind of impediments are there for such a visit? Would it really be possible to correct what is preventing the visit: to get the Vatican to renounce proselytism in Russia, abolish the Catholic dioceses, and cease hounding Orthodox believers in western Ukraine?
--We have already often repeated that the basic impediments to a visit by the Roman pope to Russia are problems that exist in relations between the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, namely, the policy of Catholic proselytism in Russia, including their unceasing attempts by missionary orders to convert Russians to Catholicism, and the oppression that our Orthodox believers have experienced in three provinces of western Ukraine, Lvov, Ternopol, and Ivano-Frankovsk, on the part of Greek Catholics. We believe that these are quite resolvable problems; otherwise there would be no sense in discussing them in official conversations over the course of many years. However this requires good will on the Catholic part. We cannot talk about any kind of "compulsion." Everything should proceed on a mutually acceptable and constructive basis.
--Why has RPTs never identified the really essential reason: Catholics have a well worked out program for "Russian Catholicism," using the Orthodox liturgy in the Russian language? There is no difference, although everything is comprehensible and brief. Doesn't the pope really understand the patriarch. Are you prepared to conduct conversations with the Holy See over this? Wouldn't it perhaps be simpler to translate the liturgy into Russian for our people?
--It should first be noted that Catholicism is represented in Russia almost exclusively in the Latin rite. There are extremely few parishes of the Byzantine rite in our country, literally single digits. Thus in this case it is more appropriate to speak about the Latin mass which has been translated into Russian. It differs substantially from the Orthodox divine liturgy. And I do not think that the Orthodox liturgy is at all inferior to the Catholic mass. The beauty and emotion of the service of our church has earned recognition throughout the whole world long since. The liturgical language of the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches cannot be the subject of bilateral conversations because this question is for each confession to decide for itself, apart from the details of dialogue. In this important and delicate question the opinion of their own believers must be taken into account primarily.
--Catholic and protestant foundations have not helped their own fellow believers in Russia but RPTs. Isn't that so? They help Orthodox believers, but yet the Orthodox call them "heretics" in their textbooks. Is this necessary?
--It's not quite like that. One cannot say that Catholics and protestants have not helped their own fellow believers in Russia. As regards the amount of humanitarian aid shown the Russian Orthodox church by individual Catholic charitable foundations, one should not exaggerate this. This has always been the initiative of literally two or three organizations and not a deliberate policy of the Vatican. They have helped us to eliminate the grievous consequences of the long years of persecution, and we believe that this has been done in an absolutely self-less manner, "from the heart," so to speak. We cannot talk about some kind of trade off, of dogmatic or canonical concessions in exchange for humanitarian aid.
--If, as you claim, Orthodox constitute 80 percent, then what is so frightful about Catholics and protestants?
--That Orthodox believers constitute the overwhelming majority of Russian believers is an indisputable fact. But that is not the point. I do not see any reason that we should be afraid of anybody. Our church, which possesses the most ancient apostolic traditions and the priceless treasure of the Orthodox faith, does not suffer from any complexes with regard to other confessions. If complications have arisen, then as a rule this is because people who call themselves our brothers are actually behaving in an unbrotherly manner. I think that it is time for them to stop viewing Russia as a strategic space for their mission and the Russian people as their potential flock.
--Why has the Ukrainian Orthodox church not gotten the status of autocephaly?
--The Ukrainian Orthodox church, headed by His Beautitude Metropolitan of Kiev Vladimir has the rights of autonomy in administration. At the present time there are various opinions on the question of the future status of this church that represent completely opposite points of view. Many in Ukraine think that autocephaly could lead to a serious split and weaken the position of Orthodoxy.
--What are the complications in relations with the patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew?
--Earlier the Russian Orthodox church had differences in views with the patriarch of Constantinople on several questions: for example, on the problem of the Orthodox diaspora, on the matter of who has the right to grant autocephaly or autonomy, and what role the patriarch of Constantinople has in world Orthodoxy, etc. However this did not prevent the development of relations with Constantinople. The situation was extremely complex when the Estonian church problem arose and when in 1996 Constantinople made the decision to create its own church structure in Estonia, where from antiquity the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox church had existed. Recently the positions of the two patriarchates on this matter have begun to converge, although it still has not led to a final and just resolution of the Estonian church problem.
--When could one expect a new ecumenical Orthodox council? The patriarch of Antioch and the whole East, Ignatius, pointed to the year 2004. Will there be such a council? Why is it needed after a thousand-year interruption?
--You have correctly noted that ecumenical councils have not been convened for over 1,000 years now. Naturally, in such a long time an enormous number of unresolved problems have accumulated. As regards the time for conducting such a council, this depends directly on the preliminary resolution of a whole series of problems, including such things as the situation of the Orthodox church in Estonia. (tr. by PDS, posted 7 November 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
The leadership of the Catholic community of Russia thinks that problems in relations between RPTsMP and the Vatican are a misunderstanding, "NEWSru.com" reports, citing Interfax.
"If there exist some complications in relations between our churches, they are explained exclusively as misunderstandings," the general secretary of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of Russia, The Reverend Igor Kovalevsky, told Interfax yesterday. He rejected the accusation on the part of the Russian church that Catholics in Russia have converted Orthodox believers to Catholicism. "We do not engage in proselytism and we do not use unworthy methods for this," the interviewee told the agency. "Of course, conversions of Orthodox believers to Catholicism have occurred in Russia, but this is of free volition and is in no way connected with enticement of believers of another confession."
"If I were engaged in proselytism, I would have several times more Catholics in my parish than there are now," Kovalevsky suggests. He also indicated that the Catholic church has the right to create its own structures in Russia, which the Moscow patriarchate considers to be its canonical territory. The priest explained that "the concept of canonical territory is actually for religious organizations of a single confession." "In this sense," Kovalevsky added, "the question of canonical territory could become acute, for example, in Moldavia, where today jurisdictions of two Orthodox churches are operating, of the Moscow and Romanian patriarchates. To the contrary, we and the Russian church represent different confessions, and the church structures of the Vatican in Russia are called to provide pastoral care to Catholics who live there."
The interviewee also told the agency that the leadership of the Catholic community of Russia hopes for an improvement of relations between RPTsMP and the Vatican following the meeting of Russian President Vladimir Putin with the Roman pope, which happened yesterday. "I hope that this meeting will facilitate further strengthening of relations not only between Russia and the Vatican as states but also between our churches and it will facilitate overcoming the disagreements that exist between us," Kovalevsky said. In his opinion, "the friendly character of this meeting also gives evidence that relations will improve." (tr. by PDS, posted 7 November 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
On the eve of the audience of Vladimir Putin with John Paul II, a representative of the Holy See granted Kommersant an interview.
--What do you think about the possibility of the pope's visit to Russia?
--I think that a possible visit of His Holiness to Russia could become a very important and significant event. However events of such a level must be prepared very responsibly. As His Eminence Varican State Secretary Cardinal Sodano said several months ago, this visit, which has a primarily religious character, should be an occasion for joy and hope not only for Russian Catholics but for the whole country, including believers of other Christian confessions and other religions. Thus the possible visit of the Holy Father must be planned principally in harmony with the Russian Orthodox church. It is impossible to imagine that the pope would decide to make a visit that would lead to the increase of tensions instead of to mutual understanding. In connection with this the position of Pope John Paul ii seems to me very wise since he preferred to turn down the invitations given to him by presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin, specifically because of His Holiness' deepest respect for the Orthodox people of Russia and their church. (tr. by PDS, posted 7 November 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
John Paul II assured President Vladimir Putin that he prays for Russia, and thanked the leader for his commitment to bring Orthodox and Catholics closer together.
Relations between the Holy See and the Russian Orthodox Church became more difficult following the Pope's decision in February 2002 to establish four Catholic dioceses in Russia. The Orthodox have similar jurisdictions outside Russia.
During the audience today, John Paul II had his aides bring into the Vatican Library for the meeting an icon revered by Russian believers, the icon of the Mother of God of Kazan. The icon usually hangs in the Pope's private chapel.
Putin watched as the Pope blessed the icon, and then the Russian leader himself kissed it, Vatican interpreters said.
According to Russian reporters who were in the room, the Holy Father then said in Russian, "I want to thank President Putin for everything he has done to bring the Russian Orthodox and Catholic Churches closer together, and for peace in the world."
Before leaving on a state visit to Italy, Putin told Italian reporters in Moscow that he wanted to help end the dispute between the Vatican and the Orthodox Church, but that Russia would defend its faith and identity.
"I see my task not in ensuring the Pope's visit to Russia, but in helping these steps toward unity," he said. "Naturally, it would be possible only if the Churches reach an agreement."
Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls reported that "in a parallel manner to the audience, Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano addressed the same topics with Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Affairs Minister, and the other Ministers of the delegation."
"In particular, they examined the new initiatives under way for peace in the Holy Land," he said. The spokesman added: "The audience given by the Pope lasted 30 minutes and was very cordial." (posted 7 November 2003)
VATICAN PRESS STATEMENT ON PUTIN'S VISIT
Zenit.org,
6 November 2003
Here is the press statement published Wednesday by Joaqu_n Navarro-Valls, director of the Vatican press office, at the end of the audience that John Paul II granted to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
* * *
"This afternoon the Holy Father received Vladimir V. Putin, President of the Russian Federation. The meeting, which was very cordial, lasted 30 minutes. The Holy Father asked that the icon of Our Lady of Kazan be kept in the room and he showed it to President Putin."
Navarro-Valls then quoted Putin in reference to his last visit with the Pope: "Although three years have gone by, it seems like yesterday."
"During the conversation, topics of mutual interest were reviewed, specifically Catholics in Russia and their ecclesiastical structures. Both parties expressed hope for a positive development in the dialogue between the Holy See and the Patriarchate of Moscow.
"On international issues there was an exchange of opinions on the conflict in the Holy Land and on the Iraqi question.
"At the same time, Cardinal Secretary of State Angelo Sodano met with Igor Ivanov, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and other Ministers in the entourage. During their conversation, they exchanged opinions on the situation of ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox. They then examined the new initiatives for peace in the Holy Land and in Iraq." (posted 7 November 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items