Copyrighted material. For private use only.
by Boris Talov
Rossiiskaia gazeta, 28 July 2000
The patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus declared that he is extremely concerned about the fate of Orthodox sancta on the territory of Kosovo-Metokhia. His Holiness said that already ninety Orthodox churches and monasteries have been destroyed on the territory of the historic homeland of the Serbs. The head of the Russian Orthodox church, who served a prayer service at the chapel of the icon of the Kazan Mother of God located on the grounds of the complex of buildings of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian federation did not specify that the ninetieth object of intentional destruction was the church of the Holy Prophet Elijah, which was built back in the fourteenth century. Literally on the eve of His Holiness' statement Albanian separatists blew up this architectural monument that is under the protection of UNESCO. Unique frescoes perished and church property was stolen.
Minister of Internal Affairs Vladimir Rushailo was present at the service. Orthodox analysts conclude that His Holiness was hinting to Rushailo that the power ministries, using every line of their influence outside the boundaries of the Russian federation, are obligated to put an end to the continuing process of the desecration of Orthodox sancta in Kosovo.
According to reports coming from agents of the CSCE mission, back on the eve of the rocket bomb attacks around Yugoslavia representatives of 253 international humanitarian funds showed extremely heightened interest in the Orthodox shrines. After a regular visit of "international observers," Yugoslav military counterintelligence discovered on the territory of churches and monasteries carefully hidden radio electronic transmitters controlling the targeting of "Tomahawks." This is the celebrated highly accurate American weapon!
Orthodox Serb priests, sincerely trusting the pure intentions of the visitors, admitted them to the sacred grounds. But the "tourists," pretending that they were paying attention to the accounts of the Orthodox, distributed the small radio stations that controlled the targeting of the rockets.
According to official data, sancta destroyed included the Holy Trinity monastery at the village of Mushutitsa, built back in the fourteenth century, the church of the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God, dating from 1315, and the monastery of the Holy Angel Gabriel near Vitina. The church of the Presentation of the Most Holy Mother of God near Klina, built in 1620, was looted and the altar was deliberately desecrated.
It would be possible to extend the sad list. As a result of the NATO rocket bombs, unique works of medieval artists were destroyed; thank God that they had been photographed and videotaped. But it must be recognized that NATO rockets destroyed a whole layer of the unique culture of our brothers in faith, the Serbs.
There exist videotapes recording cases of the desecration of churches by Muslim soldiers. What the Serb cameramen documented would be better not shown to Orthodox. Now Russian Orthodox priests are posted to all "hot spots." As His Holiness noted, their task is "to share the griefs and joys of the military personnel." (tr. by PDS)
(posted 31 July 2000)
Russia: The Fyodorovtsy, who are forbidden to marry or proselytize, risk extinction
by Robyn Dixon, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times, 30 July 2000
TISHANKA, Russia--The fresh-faced Shestopalov sisters of Tishanka are keeping their lives simple. No makeup or miniskirts, no alcohol or cigarettes, no complications like romance that could lead to the sin of marriage.
Olga, 23, Nadezhda, 22, and Tatyana, 17, gaze out on their small world in central Russia, their clear blue eyes blazing with the certainty of youth.
They are members of the Fyodorovtsy sect, which believes that Christ returned to Earth early this century as a Russian peasant named Fyodor Rybalkin. The Fyodorovtsy have another belief: that after the Second Coming, marriage is prohibited by God.
Through a lifetime of celibacy, the siblings must suffer for their faith. Suffering, the Fyodorovtsy believe, purifies the soul. Yet because of its very beliefs--that both marriage and proselytizing are sins--the sect seems destined to die out.
A similarly self-denying sect, the Shakers, arrived in America in the 1770s and practiced celibacy, but the group augmented its population by converting people and taking in orphans. For about 60 Fyodorovtsy in Tishanka, it seems that only an outbreak of sin or a miracle can save their population.
Without a new generation on the way, these believers hope only to care for one another in life and bury one another simply in death.
The size of the sect at its peak in the 1920s is unclear, but according to Russian news reports, about 2,000 Fyodorovtsy were sent to a gulag in 1929.
The Fyodorovtsy saw Soviet power as embodying the antichrist, and they vilified the Russian Orthodox Church for cooperating with the authorities. They refused to sign any Soviet documents, serve in the army or work on their religious holidays. In prison, they stubbornly resisted the authorities. Some closed their eyes when they were photographed or gave their patronymic name as "Christ" during interrogations.
One of the sect's bearded elders, Alexander Perepechyonykh, 77, walked a hundred miles over stones to his gulag, ran through a gantlet of flailing batons, passed the piled-up bodies of dozens of other prisoners and persevered in a freezing punishment cell, all for the sake of his Christian beliefs.
With their noble prison records, the older members expect the young to suffer--leading celibate lives--in a way that they themselves have not experienced. Most of the older members became followers--and celibate--after they married and had children.
Waiting Tensely for Judgment Day
The Shestopalov sisters, who follow the religion of their parents, are less concerned about the prospect of lives devoid of romantic love and motherhood than the fear of being caught reading light literature or watching television at the moment when Judgment Day suddenly arrives.
"That would not be good," says Olga, who avoids TV and reads only religious tracts, just in case. "We have to be vigilant. We have to think about eternal life all the time.
"Marriage is a sin. Whether you want to or not, you can't get married. In our position, it's best not to think about it. We hope we won't do it. We hope we will stand firm."
The sisters' clothes and deportment convey their asceticism. Crisp scarves, knotted sternly at their chins, cover their heads. Their long skirts whisk and swirl with each brisk step. In the plain front room of their family cottage, they sit with ramrod spines, never once fidgeting.
They hope for strength. So did Sergei Shilov, 33, but he weakened, moved in with the woman he loved and had two children. Now his daily companions are not only his family but also his sin, guilt and repentance. If anyone asks about following his example, Shilov says, he would sincerely advise them not to.
"The feeling of sin is always with me. It was my weakness. I couldn't cope with my feelings," he mumbles humbly.
It is Easter every day for the Fyodorovtsy, who greet each day with a sense of celebration and resurrection.
Tishanka's plain wooden cottages are strung along a wide, rutted dirt road that turns into a slippery bog with every summer rain. The Fyodorovtsy live in polite separation from several thousand other villagers, with little contact between the two groups.
The Fyodorovtsy live frugally and embrace visitors with joyful hospitality, opening their homes without suspicion or defensiveness. Their meals are simple: soured goat's milk and cucumber soup, mashed potatoes, sweet buttery pancakes with honey, fragrant summer strawberries, crunchy baby cucumbers and fresh farm eggs.
Before each meal, Perepechyonykh bows deeply to the icon in the corner and crosses himself three times. His beard is long and white, his eyes are soft, and peeking out from a top pocket is an old plastic comb that he occasionally pushes distractedly through his hair.
In 1967, when he and about 130 other sect members came to settle in Tishanka, 325 miles southeast of Moscow, the Fyodorovtsy were refused registration, ordered to leave and denied their pensions. The villagers refused to sell them bread and threw rocks through their windows. The village children teased and beat up the strangers' children.
When men from the group sought work under contract at a nearby collective farm, the Communist Party representative said there was no room, although the manager begged to accept them. As late as 1986, a local newspaper ran a series of 40 articles about the sect with headlines such as "Aliens!" "Wolves!" and "Doomed!"
The Shestopalov children grew up in the village of Volya, 95 miles from Tishanka, where the teacher told the class that Christians believe in blood sacrifice.
"She turned the class against us. We were not human beings in that class. We were just rubbish. It was considered shameful to socialize with us," Olga says. The family moved to Tishanka 10 years ago.
Murky Accounts About Russian Peasant
The Fyodorovtsy willingly endure their hardships, all for the peasant named Fyodor Rybalkin.
To the Soviet authorities, Rybalkin was a counterrevolutionary from the village of Novy Liman, near Voronezh, who faked miracles and stirred up trouble. In 1929, 16 of his followers were given sentences that afforded "the highest level of social protection": They were shot.
To the Russian Orthodox Church, Rybalkin was a false god whose followers allowed themselves to be led astray.
With these murky, competing accounts, tracing the real history of Rybalkin and what he did is difficult. His dates of birth and death are unknown. He was a peasant who fought in World War I, returned and took to preaching. He was tried in Voronezh, reportedly in 1926. His fate is unclear, but according to some reports, he was sent to a lunatic asylum.
To the Fyodorovtsy, however, Rybalkin was Christ who walked barefoot in the snow and performed miracles. They say he was jailed by Soviet authorities and disappeared, but they believe that he will return to Earth soon, to resume his Second Coming and conduct the Day of Judgment.
"We're expecting him any day now," says Yegor Lepyokhin, 62.
Only one inhabitant of Tishanka, Arseny Ivashenko, who is now dead, claimed to have met Rybalkin and seen his miracles. The survivors all got the word of the Second Coming through Ivashenko, and the sect's existence today is partly attributable to his conviction and charisma.
The room where the Fyodorovtsy gather for prayer and song is adorned with icons; hand-painted pink, red and green Easter eggs trimmed in gold; and festive Easter bread.
Their songs are neatly written into a communal exercise book. With no recognized priests to carry out the highly stylized Orthodox service, the meetings are casual and homey, ambling free-range through various psalms and discussions.
The Fyodorovtsy see themselves as true Orthodox faithful but believe that all the true priests died in the early years of Soviet rule--another reason there can be no legal marriage ceremonies.
The women sit at the back of the meeting room, and the men sit at the front. Here, women mildly accept their role--to serve and obey the men.
When three elderly women venture an opinion during an interview, two senior men, Perepechyonykh and Lepyokhin, glaringly cut them off with sharp words and an impatient gesture of the hand.
At mealtimes, the women stand respectfully back from the table, ladling out food to the men and guests.
For Lyudmila Yevstigneyeva, 20, the day begins at 5 a.m. with prayer. Since the age of 17, she has not only been serving the men in the communal house where she lives but also caring for a group of frail elderly women, whose numbers have dwindled to five.
"It's physically hard, but it's satisfying helping people," she says. Like the Shestopalovs, she unquestioningly accepts a life without marriage. "I prefer to live here with some suffering to be safe in the next life."
One woman, Agafya Volchkova, 73, left her husband and three grown children in Siberia to join the sect in 1970. "And to think at the time I felt sorry for that!" she exclaims.
In the communal house, the oldest woman is Vera Shabelskaya, 98. Questioned proudly by her religious brothers about a virtuous life, she mutters repeatedly, "Nothing to be proud of. Nothing to be proud of."
Her temporary life of suffering is nearly over. One day, in her memory, they will plant a plain wooden cross over a grass plot, with no name, no epitaph, no adornment that might damage her soul on its way to a higher place.
Several dozen wooden crosses are huddled at one end of the village graveyard. In coming decades, it seems, the number of crosses will grow like a forest, and the survivors coming to tend the graves will decline.
After the last cross is planted there, the world will go on. "But it will be the end of the spiritual world," Perepechyonykh says. "If there's no belief in God, it means there is no world, because God is the world."
Yakov Ryzhak of The Times' Moscow Bureau contributed to this report.
(posted 30 July 2000)
Patriarch Alexis II advocates protecting the independence of Forestry Service
by Dmitrii Koptev
Izvestia, 22 June 2000
On 21 June a report was circulated that Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus supported the protests of ecological organizations evoked by the abolition of the federal Forestry Service of Russia (Rosleskhoz). The patriarch expressed his opinion in a letter addressed to the president of the Russian Society of Foresters, Anatoly Pisarenko. In it, in particular, he said that "the forest, as one of the basic resources of Russia, should not be subjected to extreme exploitation and thoughtless selling off."
The fact that Patriarch Alexis II considered it necessary to express himself on a matter that has no relationship at all to Orthodox life or religious life in general is not surprising. The influence of the primate on the political life of the country is very great and all political forces of any significance try to enlist the support of the church. Besides this, the church itself constantly seeks ways for improving its political positions. Criticism of the decisions of the leadership of the country with regard to the structure of the government is one of these.
What is amazing is something else. As a reporter for Izvestia has managed to determine, the letter in which the patriarch expressed himself on this matter did not go through the secretariat of the Moscow patriarchate for communication with public organizations nor through the communications service (the analogue of a secular press service), nor even through the chancellery of the patriarchate. However, as Izvestia was told by the head of the chancellery of the patriarch, Vladimir Divakov, this was not required at all. He said that it often happens that the drafts of letters are submitted to the patriarch immediately at the time of a reception and, thus, they do not come into the field of vision of the chancellery. Evidently this is what happened with the letter to Anatoly Pisarenko. It is another matter that an extremely limited circle of people are able to get a reception by the patriarch, mainly those whom the primate invites himself. Consequently it seems likely that the entire initiative for sending the letter came from one of the regional hierarchs of RPTs. The question remains open who could lobby for such a step on the part of ministers of the church, although this had to be an organization with great influence. There are very few such organizations within the Russian ecological movement. Only the ecological party "Cedar" or "Greenpeace of Russia" have sufficient force.
Note: Rosleskhoz and the State Committee for Preservation of the Environment were abolished by order of President Vladimir Putin on 17 May 2000. By this decree the functions of both administrations were transferred to the Ministry of Natural Resources. Immediately after the publication of the decree ecological organizations, led by "Greenpeace of Russia," issued a sharp criticism of this decision. In their opinion, it is impermissible to unite into one administration the functions of preserving and exploiting resources. If that were to be done "Russia will be defenseless before an armada of industrialists and entrepreneurs who will shameless steal the natural wealth of the country." Besides this, dissatisfaction has been expressed by nonecological organizations. For example, after the abolition of Rosleskhoz, the World Bank halted the financing of the delivery of forestry technology to Khabarovsk territory pending a complete clarification of the question of the status of environmental protection in the region. (tr. by PDS)
WHAT DOES THE PATRIARCH'S POSITION SIGNIFY?
Communications service of OVTsS refutes conjectures about the church's interference in questions within the competence of the government
[NGR editorial note]: On 15 July Izvestia printed in abridged form a refutation from the Communications Service of OVTsS in connection with the publication of a note by D. Koptev, "Church in the forests." Below we are publishing the entirety of the text of the letter sent by the Communications Service to the editor of the newspaper on 27 June. We publish this text because it seems to us to be socially significant and indicative of the real position of the Moscow patriarchate.
To the editor in chief of the newspaper Izvestia, M.M. Kozhokin
Esteemed Mikhail Mikhailovich!
In the note by D. Kopteva "Church in the forests" (Izvestia, 22 June 2000) it is maintained that His Holiness Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus supposedly supported the statements of a number of ecological organizations of Russia that were protesting against the abolition of the Federal Forestry Service (Rosleskhoz). From this premise the writer draws the that the church is interfering in matters of state administration, expressed in this case in "criticism of the leadership of the country with regard to the structure of the government."
However, as frequently occurs, the false premise led to mistaken conclusions. In support of his version, the writer of the note quotes a reply sent on 20 April by His Holiness the partiarch to the president of the Russian Society of Foresters, A.I. Pisarenko, who had asked His Holiness to intercede with President V.V. Putin for preservation of the indicated service. Unfortunately, the writer of the note avoids quoting the substantive portion of His Holiness' letter. For the information of Izvestia readers, who have the right to complete and trustworthy information, I will provide it:
"Along with you I consider extremely important those tasks of preserving, protecting, and renewal of the forests that the service has been engaged in for more than two centuries since its establishment by Emperor Paul I. However I do not consider it possible to intercede in written form with the president of the Russian federation for the restoration of the independence of the Federal Forestry Service because I hope to find other forms of support for the request your have expressed."
The letter of His Holiness Patriarch Alexis has the proper dispatch number and other registration requirements of the patriarchal chancellery, which refutes the writer's opinion about the activity of some all-powerful "lobbyists" who supposed acted in circumvention of established procedure. Other rumors, versions, and suggestions with which the note abounds have similar worth and probative value.
And the final thing to which I would like to call attention with regard to this article. The Russian Orthodox church has frequently stated and affirmed its principled premise of noninterference in matters of governmental administration and of nonparticipation in the political struggle. It has often proven its fidelity to this choice and it does not plan to reject it in the future. I inform the writer of the note of this, inasmuch as it seems that he has neglected this well-known fact.
At the same time nobody can deprive the church of the right to express itself on matters which, in the opinion of the reporter, do not have any "relationship at all to Orthodox life or religious life in general." Everything that happens in the country and the world, including the political and economic spheres, directly affects the lives of millions of Orthodox believers, and thus cannot be removed from the area of the church's attention. The church cannot be imprisoned within the church yard fence. It is for this reason that His Holiness the patriarch continuously expresses himself on socially significant problems, responding to the concerns of people and fulfilling the church's prophetic mission. However such statements never bear the character of interference in the sphere of governmental authority, as the text of the patriarch's letter testifies.
With respect and sincerely good wishes,
V.N. Malukhin
Director of Communication Service of Department of External Church
Relations of Moscow patriarchate
(tr. by PDS)
[Note: the Moscow patriarchate's translation of this letter is available on its Web site.]
(posted 28 July 2000)
Detractors of former priest sometimes also express dubious judgments themselves
by Nikolai Konstantinov
NG-religii,
26 July 2000
Their trial has long been ready (M., PSTBI, 2000, 184 pages)
A new interesting publication by the St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Institute (PSTBI) immediately attracts attention because of its accusatory character. It purports to be an attempt by opponents of the Kochetkovites to unite their efforts in advance of the bishops' council by collecting critical material into one book to show that many theological views of Fr Georgy Kochetkov are heresy. Let's see how well they have succeeded.
In the course of becoming acquainted with the materials of the publication a strange discrepancy between the arsenal of the means used and the declared goals emerges. If an entire "doctrinal system" exists, then such a phenomenon, one must think, would require a careful and, most important, systematically argued investigation. The uninformed reader immediately is confronted by the fact that the writers of the articles of this monograph do not trouble themselves with arguments.
Thus, the author of the first article, Malkov, writes that "the author of the catechisms (i.e., Fr Georgy Kochetkov) decisively and consistently maintains that we must speak about not one but two (!) Holy Spirits." Then Malkov writes that the first of them is the "personal" hypostasis Holy Spirit, who participated in the creation of humanity only. The second Holy Spirit is the uncreated divine energy (this refers to the biblical text ". . . and the Spirit of God moved over the water"). No citation at all is given in support of this accusation. The problem is that Mr. Malkov did not understand that Fr Georgy Kochetkov is inclined not toward the interpretation of St. Basil the Great (that the Spirit of God in Genesis is the Holy Spirit) but to another, also patristic exegesis where the Spirit of God is called a force (for example, in St. John Chrysostom). However in the course of the affair Fr Georgy manages to receive a number of stunning reproaches to the effect that he does not know the holy fathers and that if one compares his interpretation with the seemingly similar ideas of St. Gregory Palamas it turns out that they are completely incompatible. We have decided to inquire why.
It appears that "Fr Georgy maintains that 'this force is the uncreated energy that transcends the world, the Spirt of God, which perhaps is not God in his essence and thus is not a Who but a What, but which comes immediately from the three-in-one God. It is not God himself. . . .'" Then follows Mr.Malkov's interpretation: "As we see, for the author of the catechism the divine energies are still not God himself; they are only a certain lower and impersonal divinity, to whom we cannot appeal or say in prayer 'thou.' For Palamas, 'energy' was not by any means a kind of lower divinity but, on the contrary, a genuine manifestation of the personal God ad extra."
However this question is not so simple as it seems inasmuch as St. Gregory Palamas himself speaks of "higher level and lower level divinity" (cf. for example Archimandrite Kiprian Kern, Antropologiia sv. Grigoriia Palamy, M., 1996, 313).
The priest Oleg Davydenko smoothly brings the reader to the notion of Fr Georgy's nestorianism and his failure to respect the Mother of God as ever virgin while Fr Georgy, affirming unconditionally the virgin conception, says that proclaiming the physical aspect of this mystery was not accepted in Christianity. According to Fr Oleg this leads to the conclusion that Fr Georgy maintains the pretence of knowing more about this than anybody else.
The priest Konstantin Polskov imposes upon Fr Georgy adherence to the Bultmannian approch to exegesis of the New Testament for this reason, that in his works on isagogics (the division of biblical studies that deals in introductory information about holy scripture, usually of a historical and archaeological character) Fr Georgy sorts the textual material of the Gospels into four divisions: parables, logia, proclamations, and general and transitional passages, using Bultmann's classification, and thus he is an obvious advocate of the exegesis (i.e., the system of theological interpretation) of the German biblical scholar simply on the basis that with regard to the material of the proclamations about miracles and signs Fr Georgy dared to say such a completely banal thing as that "signs are in essence mythologized (legendary) theophanies." The critic instantaneously reacts to the effect that Kochetkov does not believe the reality of evangelical miracles. Actually here one deals with the notion that every theophany, since it transcends the natural order of things, can be expressed in mythologized, or in other words mythopoeic language.
Mikhail Zheltov does not mince words, calling the "historical and theological systems of Fr Georgy Kochetkov pseudoscientific and pseudotheological." This is gotten easily: he quotes long, sometimes one and a half to two pages of excerpts out of Fr Georgy Kochetkov's master's dissertation, which sometimes lead to such conclusions as: "the subjectivization of the apostolic succession of the hierarchy leads Kochetkov to the subjectivization of the role of the laity in the church" (without commentary), with accusations of falsehood in, for example, the words "the church never can recognize spiritless and fruitless baptism as its own, that is, as a valid sacrament of baptism, even if it was performed by its genuine representative in accordance with all the basic extermal formulas and rules." It would be interesting to see how one should deal with the memory of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, whose words Zheltov quotes from the dissertation, "The water will receive you but the Spirit will not." Really was the sainted bishop also guilty of falsehood or is it the case that the sacrament cannot be reduced to the correct performance of the procedure? We also add that by his conclusions Zheltov declared in passing that the Saint Sergius Theological Institute in Paris, which is known throughout all the Orthodox world and where the dissertation was defended, is unsound.
The accusatory chorus reaches its peak in the basic conclusion of the final article by the priest Boris Levshenko, where he quite frankly says that he and Fr Georgy Kochetkov belong to different churches. One would like to know whether in using the capital letter in designating the two churches Fr Boris wants to emphasize that both have grace. Besides this, Fr Boris writes in his article: "The church has cast out all that is superfluous, all 'hindrances' to it (for example, the agape love feasts and chiliasm were removed in the second and third centuries respectively). . . ." It is not clear how it is possible to place in a par the agapes, which were a passing moment in church practice, and chiliasm, which represents the doctrine of the thousand-year reign of the kingdom of Christ on earth that was condemned by the church. It turns out that the heretical doctrine has been recognized by the church for a long time and then it "grew old" and was repealed. In this way the judgments of Fr Boris himself, whose article is the concluding one in the book, evoke serious doubts from a theological point of view. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 27 July 2000)
Story of how one rabbi went to the Kremlin and another celebrated a wedding
by Boris Viner
NG-religii,
26 July 2000
At a ceremony for the message of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Federation Assembly that took place on 8 July in the Marble Hall of the Kremlin palace, the heads of Russia's religious confessions were among the participants and guests. Judaism was represented officially by the person who was recently elected chief rabbi of Russia by the congress of Jewish congregations of the country, Berel Lazar. The president of the Congress of Jewish Religious Congregations and Organizations of Russia (KEROOR), Rabbi Adolf Shaevich, was not in the hall. We stress that in the invitation telegram from the president of the Russian federation he was named specifically "president" of KEROOR and not chief rabbi of Russia.
Adolf Solomonovich thanked Vladimir Putin for the invitation, but he did not arrive at the Kremlin because, in his words, "the event is being held on Saturday at the time of the religious holiday of Sabbath." This circumstance supposedly did not permit him to respond to the invitation of the first person of the state. But not restricting himself to a statement of his zealous observance of the standards of Jewish life, Rabbi Shaevich began to criticize Rabbi Berel Lazar because he, supposedly, violated the strict rules of Judaism by going to hear the president's message on the Jewish holy day. We remind non-Jewish readers that on Sabbath a Jew is forbidden to work.
We have tried to clarify with Lazar's office the circumstances of the so-called violation of Sabbath. The press attache of the Federation of Jewish Congregations of Russia, Borukh Gorin, explained to NGR that it cannot be considered that Rabbi Berel Lazar violated religious standards. In his words, Berel Lazar consulted with "very authoritative rabbis in Belgium and France," who affirmed his right to listen to the president's message on Saturday provided that he observed the so-called "thirty nine Sabbath prohibitions." These include, in particular, the prohibition on riding in transportation, cutting with scissors, cooking food, writing, using a microphone, carrying keys and documents, etc. It is possible to read and listen.
Rabbi Lazar walked to the Kremlin and back on foot, he did not write, he did not use a microphone (he did not give an interview) and he had arranged beforehand with the security guard of the Kremlin that he could arrive without documents. Lazar's documents had been presented to the officers of the security service at the entrance to the Kremlin already on Friday before the start of Sabbath (which begins for religious Jews in the evening).
And what about Rabbi Shaevich, who was zealously observing Sabbath? We tried to clarify just what he did on that Saturday. To our amazement it turned out that he was not at the synagogue from 6 to 11 July and moreover he was not in Russia. Perhaps he was in Israel? We discovered Adolf Solomonivich's tracks on the Azure Coast in France. On 6 July he flew to Nice to take part in a wedding celebration which happened in Monte Carlo for the second marriage of the daughter of the famous actor and president of the Moscow Jewish Congregration, Gennady Khazanov. We do not know for sure whether Rabbi Shaevich observed the Sabbath in Monte Carlo (walking, not writing, not giving an interview, not cooking food, eating only permitted Kosher food, etc) or played the cassino. It turned out to be absolutely impossible to get intelligible comments in this regard at the choral synagogue on Arkhipov Street. Nobody was aware that Rabbi Shaevich was in France.
But perhaps all this was proper. After all it is much more useful to pal around with the actor who does splendid parodies of presidents than to listen to the message to the nation of the president himself. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 27 July 2000)
Wish to throw Russian Orthodox church out of Ukraine along with Russian language
by Viktor Yadukha
Segodnia, 3 July 2000
In the middle of July at the Swiss hamlet of Chambesi there will be an event that is unprecedented for the whole Orthodox world. The ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, and the head of the administration for external relations of the Moscow patriarchate, Metropolitan Kirill, will decide what to do with Orthodoxy in Ukraine. As a result of the long-term and painful schism there, three hostile churches have been formed. Representatives of all three churches have been invited to the meeting: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate (UPTsMP), the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAPTs), and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kiev Patriarchate (UPTsKP).
It is not believed that there will be one hundred percent attendance or a compromise resolution of the conflict; the hierarchs and believers of these three churches are extremely unfriendly to each other. The greatest mutual intolerance distinguishes the UPTs of the Moscow and Kiev patriarchates. After the former metropolitan of Kiev, Filaret Denisenko, decided in 1991 with the support of the first president of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk to lead Ukrainian Orthodoxy out of canonical subordination to Moscow he was excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox church and subjected to anathema. In ten years UPTsKP has not been recognized by either the Orthodox or Catholic world, but the government in Ukraine continues to support Filaret and even has made his church the official confession of the Ukrainian army. But the majority of russophone believers in the south, east, and central provinces of Ukraine continue to remain loyal to UPTsMP, which is not surprising. In Filaret's church worship is conducted in Ukrainian. Believers are convinced that the support of Filaret by the Ukrainian authorities is an explicit measure for wiping out the use of Russian.
As events have shown, the Ukrainian government has not restricted itself to legislative derussification and support of Filaret's group.As has become known, in Kiev it is being planned to force Russian Orthodoxy out of Ukraine completely, with the support of Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople. And this is being done under the guise of unification of the feuding churches.
Details of the unification process were agreed to at a meeting of the "leader [vozhd] of derussification," vice premier Nikolai Zhulinsky, with Bartholomew I, after which the latter made it understood that he would cooperate in this process and a "single Ukrainian Orthodox church" could be formed as soon as August. It will be subordinate not to the patriarch of Moscow but to Bartholomew himself.
For many this came as a bolt out of the blue. An age-old struggle for spiritual leadership has been going on between the Moscow and Constantinople patriarchates. At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and during the soviet period Constantinople was afraid to challenge the status of Moscow as "third Rome," but after the fall of the empire the ecumenical patriarch got the chance to extend his influence. The Moscow patriarchate charges that Bartholomew I aspires to the role of "eastern pope" and that he is backed in this by USA, which wishes to break up RPTs. Preachers in Ukrainian parishes of the Moscow patriarchate have exposed the clandestine meetings of Constantinople and Kiev. On 26 June believers in Simferopol held a demonstration of protest against the visit of "false patriarch" Filaret, who arrived in the Crimea to greet graduates of the Sevastopol institute of the Ukrainian navy. His car was pelted with rotten eggs. The next day Filaret was forced to abandon his mission under threat of physical explusion on the part of believers in Sevastopol. He approached the shores of Kherson on a naval cutter but believers blocked the approaches to the cathedral of St. Vladimir, which was built on the place that Saint Prince Vladimir was baptized. Last summer Filaret was attacked by believers in Mariupol, where he had gone to consecrate a chapel.
How the "Orthodox discord" in Ukraine will end is difficult to say. When at the end of June the relics of the great martyr Panteleimon arrived in Kiev, Leonid Kuchma, who came to venerate them, prayed to the saint for an end to church disputes. For which variety of reunification of the churches he prayed is unknown. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 26 July 2000)
PUBLIC ASSOCIATION OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN OF UKRAINE AGAINST SCHISMATICS AND SELF-ORDAINERS FOUNDED
by Kirill Frolov
Pravoslavie 2000, 15 July 2000
On 15 July 2000 the founding congress of the public association for the support of canonical Orthodoxy "Saint Prince Equal-of-the-apostles Vladimir Way of the Orthodox" (Put pravoslavnykh) was held. This congress was conducted in the Kiev Dormition caves lavra with the blessing of His Beatitude Vladimir, metropolitan of Kiev and all-Ukraine.
Elected president of the association was Galina Maximovna Starovoitova (not to be confused with the late Russian democrat), a deputy of the Ukrainian parliament of the 13th convocation, who has shown herself an active member of the deputies' association in defense of canonical Orthodoxy. The leadership of the new public movement includes people known for their long-term firm position in defense of UPTsMP from schismatics: deputy of the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine, Yury Bolsyrev, advisor to Metropolitan Vladimir, Sergei Tsygankov, and the most authoritative priest of Ivano-Frankovsk, Mikhail Shuvar, who has defended Orthodox and not been broken by unceasing physical attacks of Uniates and schismatics. At the congress it was noted that believers of UPTs (more than 30 million persons) are an enormous social group, whose rights have not been protected, and who have been subjected not only to informational, but also physical terror. (tr. by PDS)
DECLARATION OF THE UNION OF ORTHODOX CITIZENS OF UKRAINE
from Pravoslavie
2000, 17 July 2000
We, Orthodox Christians, representatives of the clergy, Orthodox brotherhoods, and patriotic Russian and Slavonic movements, who are members of the Union of Orthodox Citizens of Ukraine declare
Being Orthodox Christians who feel our responsibility for the fate of the Russian Orthodox church, we declare our decisive rejection of the schism instigated by the patriarch of Constantinople when he entered into fellowship with the self-appointed group of protestantizing renovationists who do not have apostolic succession, the so-called "Ukrainian Autocephalous Church." Having recognized the "episcopacy" and "priesthood" of this confession as valid, the patriarch of Constantinople has placed himself outside the bounds of the canonical field and from now on his clergy includes "bishops" and "priests" who do not have apostolic succession. This is not a mere schism (an ordinary schism would have been the creation by Constantinople of a "parallel" jurisdiction and in that case all its actions, orders, letters, ordinations, disciplines, according to the immutable canons, would be invalid and could not be recognized); this is an unprecedented violation of the entire canonical structure of the Orthodox church, which demands immediate judgment by the collective reason of the church. If we did not condemn these actions of Constantinople, we would create a dangerous precedent of the destruction of apostolic succession and thus the destruction of the church. We consider that Orthodoxy in Ukraine is under mortal threat; we call attention to the fact that the so-called "Ukrainian Local Church," which has been artificially created against the will of the Orthodox people and with the crude interference of the government, will not have any connection to Orthodoxy, and it will not have apostolic succession, that is, it will be a self-appointed assemblage.
In connection with this we decisively declare that we stand as one in defense of holy Orthodoxy and for the unity of our mother, the Russian Orthodox church, and we call all Orthodox Christians to the fulfillment of this sacred duty.
We will fight for every shrine, every church, and every soul. We believe that our hierarchy will stand for the purity of Orthodoxy and will not enter into any compromises with the schismatics. We must recall that there are millions of us, true children of the Russian Orthodox church. If we are united we will be able to give a sufficient rebuff to the handful of Mazepist schismatics. The schism will not happen.
Holy Rus, preserve the Orthodox faith.
President of the Union of Orthodox Christians of Ukraine, S.A. Syrovatsky
(tr. by PDS)
(posted 27 July 2000)
Sobornost (Blagovest-info), 25 July 2000
The question of including the family of the last Russian emperor, Nicholas II, in the canon of saints of the Russian Orthodox church still remains undecided, Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus reported on 21 July, responding to reporters' questions after a prayer service at the Kazan church at the ministry of internal affairs of Russia.
In the words of the primate of RPTs, the question of canonization of the royal martyrs will be resolved at the bishops' council that begins 13 August. At the same time the patriarch noted that he does not want "to anticipate the decision of the council."
The head of RPTs reported that at the bishops' council "the names of Russian martyrs and righteous ones will be glorified," over 1,000 persons who suffered for faith in the twentieth century. The hagiographies of these saints, the patriarch noted, had been composed using materials of the KGB archives. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 26 July 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/.