Copyrighted material. For private use only.

---

Patriarchal interview in Italian paper

Alexis II set conditions for his meeting with John Paul II
by Aleksei Bykalov
Segodnia, 4 August 2000

All of the self-deprecating "mea culpas" proclaimed by Roman Pope John Paul II in the jubilee year of the bimillennium  of Christianity apparently are insufficient. It turns out that the head of the Roman Catholic church must repent individually for his sins before the Russian Orthodox church and only then will it be possible to talk about the Roman pontiff's pilgrimage to Moscow. This is the conclusion to which you come when reading the interview of Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus, published in the Milan newspaper Corriere della Sera.

The patriarch declared that the pope can visit Russia when "the impediments in the bilateral relations" between the churches "are removed." The primate of RPTs speaks of a dialogue which "is possible and extremely necessary," but he emphasizes that "an exchange of visits" (this is a new point since hitherto Alexis did not intend to go to Rome) depends on resolution of two chronic problems: persecution of Orthodox believers on the part of Greek Catholics in western Ukraine and proselytizing of Catholic priests  "on the canonical territory" of RPTs.

However the patriarch's tone was somewhat moderated.  Alexis II considered it necessary to report that he has profound respect for John Paul II and he hopes that in the shortest possible time a new page in relations between the two churches will be opened.  Alexis II added that the meeting of the two primates, presumably after the removal of the above mentioned impediments and the preparation of corresponding documents, could become a genuinely epoch event and not simply a formal step. This is somewhat softer than the famous FAX of two years ago when John Paul II had just about decided to travel to Austria, to a session of the World Council of Churches, simply because Alexis II had invited him there (the papal jet was already set to go at the Champino airport) and an excerpt arrived by FAX out of a resolution of the Holy Synod of RPTs stating the untimeliness and pointlessness of such a meeting.

This time the patriarch was exceptionally polite and, after mentioning that he was not personally acquainted with John Paul II, acknowledged that his activity as head of the Roman Catholic church, in particular his promotion of inter-Christian and interconfessional dialogue, deserves respect. (tr. by PDS, posted 4 August 2000)

PATRIARCH ALEXIS INDICATES CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A MEETING WITH POPE WILL BE POSSIBLE

ITAR-TASS/Radonezh, 3 August 2000

The Roman pope will be able to visit Russia only after "the impediments have been removed in the bilateral relations " between the Russian Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church, declared Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and all-Rus in an interview with the prominent Italian Russian specialist Vittorio Strade, published 3 August in the Milan newspaper Corriere della Sera. The primate of the Russian Orthodox church speaks of a dialogue which "is possible and extremely necessary," but he stresses that an "exchange of visits" depends upon resolution of two problems: the persecution of Orthodox believers on the part of Greek Catholics in western Ukraine and proselytizing by Catholic priests on the canonical territory of the Russian church. His Holiness the patriarch declared that he profoundly respects John Paul II and he hopes that in the shortest possible time there can be opened a new page in the relations between the two churches. Patriarch Alexis added that a meeting of the primates of the two churches after the removal of the above cited impediments and the preparation of the corresponding documents could become a truly epoch event, and not simply a formal step. The patriarch also described the normalization of relations of the church with the authorities of Russia after the long period when the Russian church was under the complete control of the soviet government. Patriarch Alexis specified that Orthodoxy does not aspire to become the "state religion" in Russia or to be transformed into some kind of "ministry of ideology." The patriarch recalled that the separation of church and state is defined by the constitution of the Russian federation. (tr. by PDS, posted 3 August 2000)

Putin confers with church figures

On 2 August Russian President Vladimir Putin visited the Pskov caves monastery where he had a conversation with Archimandrite Ioann Krestiankin, an elder who is renowned in Russia for his rich experience in spiritual instruction. This was reported by the information agency of the Russian Orthodox church. That source reported that on the day before Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversatoin with Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and all-Rus, who now is at the Saint Seraphim Diveevo cloister and he conveyed his greetings on the celebratin of the patronal day of the monastery that was held on the day of commemoration of St. Serafim of Sarov. (tr. by PDS, posted 3 August 2000)
 
 

from Department of External Church Relations of Moscow patriarchate

On 30 July in the city of Baltiisk, Kaliningrad province, the Day of the Navy of Russia was celebrated. The ceremonies were led by President V.V. Putin and the ruling bishop of the Smolensk-Kaliningrad diocese of the Russian Orthodox church, Metropolitan Kirill, chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate took part.  (tr. by PDS, posted 3 August 2000)

Metropolitan's press conference on Ukrainian church conflict

ITAR-TASS/Radonezh, 1 August 2000

The question of the creation of a united local Ukrainian Orthodox church can be resolved only after putting an end to the interconfessional conflict and the unification of believers. So declared the primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and all-Ukraine at a press conference on 31 July. He reported the decisions of the bishops' council of UPTsMP that ended recently. Metropolitan Vladimir recalled that at the jubilee celebrations Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma spoke out for a rapid overcoming of the schism in Orthodoxy and the creation of a united local Orthodox church. One could hardly find any opponents to this aspiration among Orthodox believers.  "We all are tired of the discords and arguments which are interfereing with the process of normal church life," Master Vladimir noted. The primate of UPTs also said that he would not participate in any negotiations with the unfrocked Filaret. Hierarchs of UPTs sent a letter to Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma requesting cooperation in the church's activity, which includes more than 8.5 thousand parishes, and a prohibition on the interference of government workers in church affairs. A letter also was sent to Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople which stated that the schism in Ukrainian Orthodoxy can be overcome only by the efforts of the church itself. The bishops' council of UPTs adopted an appeal to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and all-Rus requesting submission for discussion at the jubilee bishops' council of RPTs of the "clarification of the canonical status of UPTs, that had been granted in 1918 by Patriarch Tikhon." (tr. by PDS, posted 2 August 2000)

APPEAL OF BISHOPS' COUNCIL OF UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH TO PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Pravoslavie v Ukraine/Radonezh, 31 July 2000

To His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople
Your All Holiness, Your Holiness Vladyka

We, participants of the bishops' council of the Ukrainian Orthodox church, which was held at the Holy Dormition Kiev caves lavra on 28 July 2000, have thoroughly reviewed and discussed the situation which has currently emerged in Orthodoxy in Ukraine and we unanimously appeal to you with a feeling of anxiety for the future of our holy church. As is known, despite the church schisms existing in our state, the overwhelming majority of Orthodox believers belong to the Ukrainian Orthodox church, with more than 8.5 thousand parishes. At the same time it is necessary to take into account that the major portion of adherents of the schismatic groupings were torn from the body of the holy church by the efforts of irresponsible politicians, for whom Orthodoxy and the church, as you surely already have been persuaded of personally, is an object for shameless manipulation for the sake of dubious political and personal goals. Today these politicians are even trying to use your respected name, declaring that the intervention of the patriarch of Constantinople in the religious conflict will lead to the abolition of schism in Ukraine.

However we declare responsibly that in the situation which has arisen in the current unhealthy atmosphere of intrigue, ventures, and provocations on the part of the initiators, executors, and leaders of the schism and their associates, drawing Your Holiness into the Ukrainian conflict will produce nothing good; it will not only deepen the existing schism but will even lead to new schisms. The major portion of the faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox church are satisfied with the status of broad autonomy while maintaining canonical unity with the Moscow patriarchate. The attempt to use force to unite artificially the canonical church with the schismatic groupings without their repentance or to make some other change in the structure of church life without appropriate conditions will lead to a situation where the dioceses of the south, east, and central Ukraine will depart into direct subjection to the Russian Orthodox church.

As we have noted already, behind the church schisms in Ukraine stand ambitious politicians who are exploiting the values, traditions, and history of Orthodoxy, as well as patriotism. Any participation by Your Holiness in their ventures could irreparably undermine your authority both as patriarch of Constantinople and as an individual and, what is more dangerous, could evoke a crisis or even schism in the Orthodox world, whose consequences could recall the church tragedy of 1054. It is evident that schism in Ukraine can be overcome only by efforts from within. This really is an internal matter of the Ukrainian Orthodox church, while the overwhelming majority of those who have gone into schism are violators of church discipline.

We hope, Your Holiness, for your understanding and sympathy with regard to the misfortunes and sorrows of the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Ukrainian Orthodox church and we request your primatial prayers for a rapid overcoming of the schism in Orthodoxy of Ukraine. (tr. by PDS, posted 2 August 2000)

DECLARATION OF THE BISHOPS' COUNCIL OF THE UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

Pravoslavie v Ukraine/Radonezh, 31 July 2000

The bimillennium of the birth of Christ has become for Orthodox Christians a year of significant jubilee in Christendom. It has brought us new hopes in connection with the entry of humanity into the third millennium, but at the same time it has engendered new anxiety for the fate of Christ's church and humanity. Especially have these hopes and fears been refracted throughout the church life of Ukraine, which is today experiencing a responsible and difficult time.

At the beginning of the jubilee year of 2000 Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma spoke out in favor of overcoming as quickly as possible the schism in Orthodoxy in Ukraine and the creation of a local Ukrainian Orthodox church. One could hardly find among Orthodox believers any opponents of this aspiration. We all are tired of the discord and arguments which are impeding the process of normal church life. We are also aware that enmity on religious bases leads to tension and instability in society and weakens the state. With sorrow and pain Orthodox Christians of Ukraine recognize this.

However historical experience has already shown many times that any, even the best, idea can be so corrupted that its distorted accomplishment in life can produce results that are directly contradictory to what was expected. The pages of the history of our motherland in the twentieth century that we all recall can serve as a an example, when the attempt to make humanity free, without poverty and suffering, led to the unprecedented theomachistic experiment in the reconstruction of the world, of which millions of people became victims. Today with profound regret we are forced to conclude that the idea of achieving church unity has also been distorted through the fault of those irresponsible persons who have assumed for themselves the right to interfere in the church's life, aspiring to be able to resolve for church people their problems.

Our concern is evoked by the continuous attempts to put pressure on the church. The goal of these efforts is obvious. It is sad that the crude methods of the soviet era are being reborn today in the activity of several politicians and government workers, who consider themselves the rulers of the destiny of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, while they have only an approximate understanding of the nature and essence of the church.  Such people, sadly, do not understand that, in the words of the Savior, "the gates of Hell will not prevail" over the church (Mt 16.18). It is not so much an earthly institution, with which they deal in ordinary life, but, primarily, the church is a sacramental, divine creation whose goal is the salvation of the human soul. To be sure, the church plays an enormous social and cultural role in society, and it cannot be otherwise. After all, our community consists of representatives of the nation, the majority of whom over the course of its thousand-year history have professed the Christian ideals laid down in the gospel. But this function of the church in all of its significance is secondary with respect to its main task, to make the Christian a participant in the saving sacrifice of Christ and to lead the Christian into the Kingdom of Heaven.

However when such an understanding of the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology is absent and when the spiritual and sacramental aspect of the life of the church, which is called to unite the individual with the creator, is completely ignored there appears the temptation to see it only as a means for achieving political interests. This pertains especially to such an extremely difficult, painful, and delicate problem as healing schisms. Forgetting that the basis for the salvation mission of the church in the world is the divinely revealed doctrines and that the church conducts its earthly existence by proceeding from carefully formulated canonical principles, some politicians, not understanding the possible consequences of their actions, have interfered in the delicate fabric of the church's organism, proclaiming their perspective on the problems of schisms that is far from an Orthodox perception and imposing unacceptable plans for their resolution. Such forms of "aid" offered to the church from without, with the goal of overcoming schisms and disorders, replace the Orthodox understanding of genuine church unity with an arithmetic scheme of the formal unification of all confessions.

However the entire two-millennium experience of the existence of Christ's church on earth persuades us that, with such a simplification of the problem of schisms and heresies, attempts to reduce them to a utilitarian governmental and political interpretation inevitably have produced for the church (and then as a consequence for the state) new troubles. It is sufficient to cite as an example the attempt of the Constantinopolitan patriarch Sergius and emperor Heraclius to use political and administrative means to achieve a compromise between Orthodox and monophysites. The results of this short-sighted aspiration turned out to be catastrophic; for the church another problem appeared in the new heresy of monothelitism, and for the Byzantine empire, in new opposition on a religious basis. This opposition that was unintentionally created by the state on the very eve of the Arab invasion resulted in the loss of the entire East, which fell under the Islamic yoke.

Unfortunately, such obvious lessons of history have been forgotten, and the risk of a repeat of such mistakes has become ever more acute. Trying to resolve the problem of schisms in Ukrainian Orthodoxy by their own lights, several politicians have forgotten that with regard to the church, where the Holy Spirit resides, it is impossible to apply those stereotypes which have been formulated in political life. Church life cannot be conducted without taking account of its basic principles such as the hierarchical structure, conciliar basis, and the approval and support from the church people for those decisions which the hierarchy makes.

Proceeding from this, we declare with all responsibility that for the church, suggestions regarding relations in the spirit of political partnership are unacceptable. We cannot help by notice that many people have committed sin before God and the church and have wounded Christ's body. Specifically this makes it impossible for us to enter negotiations with the anathematized Mikhail Denisenko. As regards the others, there always are within the church its own means and possibilities which could lead to possible cooperation in the achievement of church unity.

Orthodox believers are profoundly upset by the continuous attempts of some politicians to link closely the problem of overcoming schisms with the question of the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox church. We have frequently pointed out the impermissibility of an approach to such a complex problem that uses political measures. Autocephaly of one or another local Orthodox church is not an attribute of state sovereignty, but a measure which promotes the welfare of the universal church. In dealing with the resolution of the problem of establishing the autocephaly of a new local church, one must consider not only the political factor. This would be a crime with respect to the church and would also be profoundly mistaken.

Those who today are trying to link the problem of overcoming schism with the need to establish the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox church cannot but know that the problem of schism itself arose, in the first place, because of differences among Orthodox believers of Ukraine with regard to the issue of autocephaly. It is generally known that, in the main, those who went into schism were ones who demanded the immediate establishment of church independence, basing this on political arguments and nationalistic ambitions, and not on an understanding of the welfare of the church. Such an approach to the resolution of the problem was recognized by us as profoundly mistaken and thus not in accord with Orthodox consciousness.

We often have emphasized that the hierarchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox church has not closed the question of the possibility of autocephalous existence of our church and it has not erected a barrier to the discussion of this problem. But we recognize clearly and precisely that at the present time among Orthodox believers of Ukraine there is no unanimity with regard to the question of autocephaly. The number of opponents of autocephaly among believers today exceeds the number of its advocates, which is the result of the anti-church activity of schismatics and politicians who by their actions have discredited the very idea of church independence. We emphasize again that under these conditions, with general opposition and in the absence of unanimity, to open again the discussion of autocephaly is not only untimely but threatens new conflicts and disorder on the basis of it.

We cannot be controlled by those who demand the immediate establishment of autocephaly today, because in such a case those who disagree with this decision could tomorrow go into schism. It is obvious that the establishment of canonical autocephaly will not resolve the problem of church unity in Ukraine, but under present circumstances could only make it worse. We call all Orthodox believers of Ukraine first of all to cease interconfessional opposition and to be united in a single church flock and only then to set about together the conciliar resolution of the question of the future canonical status of our local church.

We note with pain that despite the obvious correctness of the position we have taken, several hot heads have not heeded our request not to interfere in the resolution of the problem of healing the schisms and establishing autocephaly and they do not have the necessary understanding of their responsibility for their actions. These people are continuing to show "zeal without knowledge," and since they do not have the blessing of the hierarchy for this they permit themselves to sow troubles through the mass media by reports about some secret negotiations, drawing into the conflict ever new participants in the opposition, including representatives of other local churches. Consoling themselves with the sinful joy coming from receiving worldly popularity, such politicians "from the church" actually are simply committing the sin of Ham, placing on show the pain and misfortune of our mother, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, raising our interconfessional squabbles to the level of an international scandal. We are obligated to warn these irresponsible persons that dragging representatives of other local Orthodox churches into the religious conflicts of Ukraine threatens to spread the conflicts into new regions and could set off a chain reaction throughout the whole Orthodox world. Stop before it is too late!

The position we have chosen is not the result of some political ambitions. It follows from a clear understanding of the fact that only in this way is it possible to preserve the church from new destructive strife. There is no point in raising the distraction of conciliar wisdom and hanging on us the label of "fifth wheel of Moscow" simply because for the sake of the well-being of the church we have recognized today that it is more beneficial to maintain prayerful canonical unity with the Russian Orthodox church. The church is obliged to be above national ambitions and prejudices, because in it "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, nor free, but Christ is all and in all" (Col 3.11).  (tr. by PDS, posted 2 August 2000)

Ukrainian church appeals to Moscow

Sobornost, 31 July 2000

His Holiness Alexis II, patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus
Bishops' council of the Russian Orthodox church

Your Holiness,

We, by the mercy of God assembled at the bishops' council in the magnificent sanctum of our people, the Holy Dormition Kiev caves lavra under the protection of the Queen of Heaven and in the prayerful keeping of the caves' righteous saints, after receiving the bloodless sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, moved by concern for the unity of Orthodoxy in Ukraine, make the following appeal to you.

At the threshold of the third millennium, Ukraine and along with her also the Ukrainian Orthodox church, being in prayer and canonical communion both with the Russian Orthodox church and with all local churches, are enduring complex, difficult, and at times even tragic moments in our history. The fruits of the atheist ideology and open persecution of Christ's church are manifesting and declaring themselves today as never before. The existence of schism in the Orthodox church is the most painful and bloody wound on the body of the church organism.

Certain political movements and political leaders, which have nothing in common with the church and are far away from it and even have acted in the capacity of its overt persecutors, have in their time injected a spirit of discord and open opposition among Orthodox people. To a significant degree several former church hierarchs are guilty of this, who are under the control of the forces of this world, ignoring the holy church canons, rules, and decrees of the holy fathers. Purely human ambitions and selfish calculations have placed brothers in faith and blood upon opposite sides of barricades. Today everyone is suffering from this, the church, the state, and society. Moreover, some government officials and political leaders have openly supported the schismatics and are the cause of the destabilization and tense circumstances in the church and society.

Today the fate of those people who for various reasons have left the saving fold of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox church and are in schism disturbs us and fills our hearts with grief.  We, as archpastors, are upset and worried about their spiritual condition and the salvation of their souls. In recent times the situation has continued to become more strained. We call all Orthodox believers of Ukraine, first of all, to cease interconfessional opposition, to be united into one church fold, and only then together to set about the conciliar resolution of questions regarding the future canonical status of our local holy church.

Moved by a sincere desire for immediate rectification of the situation arising in the church we appeal to you, Your Holiness, to bring up for discussion at the jubilee bishops' council in Moscow the question of clarifying the canonical status of the Ukrainian Orthodox church, which was determined for it by the confessor, prayer warrior, and saint Patriarch Tikhon at the historic local council of 1918. A thoughtful, balanced approach to the resolution of this question, and notification of all primates of local Orthodox churches and the full plenitude of Orthodoxy about it will become a concrete, constructive step toward the resolution of the problem of schism in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. We strengthen ourselves by faith that the Orthodox church in Ukraine will be united and worthy of its canonical structure, if that be the will of God.

Kiev, 31 July 2000

(tr. by PDS, posted 1 August 2000)

Ukrainian church situation mars Orthodox-Catholic relations

by Maksim Shevchenko
Nezavisimaia gazeta, 29 July 2000

In Emmitsburg near Baltimore (USA) on 9 to 19 July the eighth session of the official dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches was held. The meeting was conducted under conditions of heightened secrecy and reporters were not permitted into it. The head of the delegation of the Russian Orthodox church, secretary of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate, Hegumen Ilarion Alfeev, responded to our reporter's questions.

--Father Ilarion, after the conclusion of the meeting in Baltimore several mass media carried the sensational report that the dialogue had ended in practically a rupture between the two churches. What really happened? What led up to the meeting?

--The Baltimore meeting was the first plenary session of the commission after a seven-year hiatus. Previous meetings were held in Freising in 1990 and in Balamand in 1993. Both were devoted to the topic of the Unia, the most painful subject that arose with special acuteness at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s in connection with the restoration of the Uniate structure in western Ukraine, Romania, Poland, and several other regions.

At Freising and Balamand joint documents were signed in which the Unia was recognized as unacceptable. There were no differences in principle between the two documents, in my opinion, although the Freising agreement was not officially ratified by the Catholic side while the Balamand one was. However the Balamand document met opposition both among Greek Catholics, who disagreed with the sharp condemnation of the Unia, and among some Orthodox, who were dissatisfied that the document used the term "sister churches" with regard to the Orthodox and Catholic churches. The Balamand document was, in particular, officially rejected, on one hand, by the Greek Catholic church of Romania, and on the other hand by the Greek Orthodox church. However the majority of Orthodox churches have viewed both documents, Freising and Balamand, as an imporant step in the direction of resolving the Uniate problem. For the first time in several centuries the Roman Catholic church officially recognized the Unia as a method for achieving unity to be unacceptable.

--What happened after Balamand?

--For a long time after Balamand a plenary session could not be convened.  Only the coordinating committee met, in Rome in 1997 and in Aricia in 1998.

--Is it true that at Aricia both sides recognized the church situation of the Greek Catholic churches to be "abnormal" and that this evoked a sharp negative reaction among the Uniates? And why at Baltimore did you not manage to strengthen these preliminary agreements which they managed to achieve at Aricia?

--The Catholic delegation came to Baltimore with the firm intention of not permitting the official recognition of the church situation of the Greek Catholic churches as "abnormal." At the very beginning of the session Catholics declared that for them the situation of the Greek Catholic churches was absolutely normal in the sense that these churches are in complete fellowship with Rome. It turns out that the Unia is abnormal but its consequences are normal! But such an approach categorically does not suit Orthodox. We stated this directly. After several days of tense negotiations we were unable to come to agreement and thus no joint document was written.

--Doesn't that mean that the hard position of the Catholics at the Baltimore meeting is a reversion to the "preecumenical" times and a rejection of the line on rapprochement with the Orthodox that was conducted by the Vatican in the years of the pontificates of John XXIII and Paul VI?

--I wouldn't start speaking about "reversion," but at the same time I cannot but express regret that the separation in the positions on the Uniate question has not narrowed in recent years, but widened.

--What was your mandate as head of the RPTs delegation?

--I was supposed to describe what has happened in recent years in western Ukraine as well as to state our position on the dialogue. At the first session I described the incidents of violence as the result of which over 1,000 Orthodox churches were confiscated and three dioceses almost entirely devastated.  We don't advocate the destruction of the Greek Catholic church structures; we only advocate a peaceful, nonviolent resolution of the conflict situation. What the atheist authorities did with regard to the Greek Catholics in 1946, driving them into the catacombs, was an historical injustice. But it is impossible to try to rectify one injustice by means of another injustice. It is impossible to try to restore by violent means the prewar status quo, without taking into account that in the past fifty years for several generations of people in western Ukraine it is the Orthodox church that has become their spiritual mother and they have no intention of returning to the Unia.

--What is your general conclusion with regard to the results of the meeting in Baltimore?

--I announced this conclusion at the last session. I said that it is my impression that constructive suggestions which have come from the Orthodox have been systematically blockaded by the Catholic side, as a result of which real progress could not be achieved. The Catholics called my position "insulting." Unfortunately, I could not say anything different. I would be happy if things turned out otherwise.

At the same time I am satisfied that all Orthodox churches that sent their representatives to Baltimore unanimously spoke out for the continuation of the dialogue on the Unia subject, despite the existing disagreements. The dialogue is especially important for those churches which are dealing with the Uniate problem in real life such as the Russian, Romanian, and Polish churches.

--But it seems that voices calling for a complete ending of the dialogue with Catholics are being heard. They often appeal to Mark of Ephesus, who was the only bishop who did not sign the Florentine Unia at the time.

--The easiest thing is to end the dialogue. But then how would the problems be resolved? How can we struggle against proselytizing and how can we resolve the problem of the Unia and other painful problems?  As regards St. Mark of Ephesus, he did take part in the council of Florence, after all, and he did not refuse to go to it. He participated in all events of the council and was present at the Latin liturgies. He stayed at the council to the end, despite his disagreements. But when they began signing the Unia, he refused. That is exactly how we are acting. We will never sign a single word that would contradict the position of our church. But we will participate in dialogue. The true spiritual heirs of St. Mark of Ephesus are not those who withdraw from dialogue but those who participate in it.

--Does proselytizing by Catholics on the territory of Russia really pose a threat to Orthodoxy?

--It is obvious to me that the Catholic church in Russia never will become, so to speak, a "national church," like the Russian Orthodox church. Thus I have no fear in the face of so-called Catholic expansion. Russia is a multiconfessional country; here live Catholics and protestants and representatives of other confessions and religions. The Orthodox church has not supported and it will not support any infringement of the rights of believers of other confessions. But attempts to proselytize have always been decisively rejected by us. However, if conversions of Orthodox to Catholicism happen, then these are isolated instances. There will not be any mass conversions.

I would like to say this. We are against proselytizing, but we are not against cooperation in the area of evangelism. On the contrary, it seems to me that we would be able to do a great deal jointly with the Catholics, for example, in combating the sects who pose an enormous danger for our peoples, as well as conducting various charitable, educational, and other projects, and resisting the challenges of atheism, secularization, and the propaganda of violence and corruption. Much has already been done in this area jointly by Orthodox and Catholics. In cases where there are substantial tensions and misunderstandings between the official Vatican and Moscow, contacts at the local level take on special significance. We will devote every effort in order to strengthen them.

Much divides us. The crusades and frequent attempts to impose the Unia and many other things that fill the sad history of the second millennium and the memory of these cannot disappear without a trace, even if, let us hope, nothing like it ever again is repeated. There are disagreements on the doctrinal, ecclesiological, and other levels. We, for example, can never recognize the Catholic doctrine about papal infallibility.

But in all this we are united by faith in God, in the Blessed Trinity, and in Jesus Christ as God and Savior, veneration of the Mother of God and saints, the doctrine of the sacraments, apostolic succession of the hierarcy, and many other things. The Orthodox and Catholic churches preserve the concept of tradition as the basis of the church's existence and thereby are distinguished radically from the church societies of the protestant tradition. It is impossible to forget this. And it is impossible to forget that the first ten centuries of Christianity are our common spiritual heritage.  We should not reject the consciousness of this original fellowship.

--In conclusion, the traditional question: what are the prospects for a meeting between the patriarch of Moscow and the pope of Rome?

--Such a meeting has been in planning for a long time and nobody has rejected this idea. But we recall the recent visit of Cardinal [Edward I.] Casssidy to Moscow and his conversation with His Holiness Patriarch Alexis. When the subject of a possible meeting was broached, His Holiness said:  "Let's wait for what Baltimore resolves." Unfortunately Baltimore resolved nothing. But whatever happens on the Orthodox-Catholic level, we will continue our bilateral dialogue, that is the dialogue between the Russian and Roman churches. Just as soon as a breakthrough on the subject of Uniatism is achieved or if some practical levers for affecting the interconfessional situation in western Ukraine are found, then such a meeting can be held. This will be a historic meeting and thus it should be prepared well.  (tr. by PDS, posted 1 August 2000)

ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC RELATIONS AT AN IMPASSE AFTER BALTIMORE TALKS

by Jonathan Luxmoore
Ecumenical News International Daily News Service , 28 July 2000

Warsaw, 28 July (ENI)-High-level talks between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches which ended in the United States last week were marred by "methodological deficiencies" and a "polemical atmosphere", leaving relations between the two Christian communions at a dead-end, according to an expert on ecumenism who took part.

Professor Waclaw Hryniewicz, a Catholic theologian and director of the Ecumenical Institute at Poland's Catholic University of Lublin, said that the leaders of Catholic and Orthodox churches now appeared "unwilling or hesitant" to recognise their churches as "sister churches". Future ecumenical dialogue would depend on better relations at the local level, particularly in Eastern Europe.

"I'm disappointed - I was expecting a healthy compromise worthy of the name," Professor Hryniewicz told ENI.  "This meeting was not in vain. But when there's a conflict between two [partners acting in good faith], you have to reach a compromise. The fact that we couldn't explains why there was no joint declaration."

The 64-year-old ecumenist was speaking to ENI after attending the eighth plenary of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which ended on 19 July in Emmitsburg, Baltimore, in the US state of Maryland, without producing the expected joint declaration on progress between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.

The two communions have much in common, but must resolve several bitter differences, including the issue of papal primacy, before they can come any closer to one another.

Hryniewicz said Roman Catholic negotiators had wanted to retain the term "sister churches" to describe the relationship between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. However, the use of the term sister churches in past documents of the commission had been rejected as "insufficiently thought over" by most Orthodox churches, while Roman Catholics had also now acknowledged that it "posed certain difficulties".

The commission's 10-day meeting was devoted to a key issue of dispute between Orthodox and Catholics - the "ecclesiological and canonical implications of Uniatism". The gathering was the commission's first plenary session in seven years.

A communique released at the end of the Baltimore meeting stated that participants had expressed "reserve and even outright opposition" to documents prepared for the meeting. Participants at the meeting agreed that further studies were needed of "theological, pastoral, historical and canonical issues" arising from the "exceptionally thorny question of Uniatism".

Uniatism refers to the historical process by which Orthodox communities accepted the jurisdiction of Rome, but retained their eastern liturgy. The process, which gathered momentum after the 1596 Union of Brest, continued for two centuries, during which more than a dozen Greek Catholic (also called Eastern Catholic) churches were created in Ukraine, Romania and other countries, in the face of vigorous opposition from the Orthodox Church.

Professor Hryniewicz told ENI that the atmosphere at the Baltimore talks had been "generally tense" because of the complexity of the issues and some personal animosities.

He added that Orthodox delegates had had to "argue hard among themselves, sometimes exceeding the rules of courtesy". The Roman Catholic co-chairman of the talks, Cardinal Edward Cassidy, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, had at one point staged a walkout.

"Besides difficult moments like this, caused by the very polemical atmosphere, the talks also lacked sound methodological organisation," Hryniewicz said. "Such discussions should be led in an intelligent, orderly way. If the method had been better, we could have expected better results."

He said that Uniatism continued to provoke "deep divisions" among Orthodox churches, adding that some Orthodox participants had had difficulty "tolerating" the presence of a Romanian Greek Catholic bishop at the talks.

Some Greek Catholics had recently shown "definite signs" of a more conciliatory attitude towards Orthodoxy, although Orthodox leaders were still reluctant to acknowledge the past sufferings of the Greek Catholic churches, said Professor Hryniewicz. "These are historical complexities which require a neutral, objective approach. The Orthodox expect a deeper understanding from Catholics, but this must apply to both sides. No one knows how long it will take to achieve agreement. But an honest, sincere and patient dialogue is the only way to go about it."

Disputes over the revival of Greek Catholic communities in Eastern Europe, most of which were suppressed under communist rule, have dominated the official relationship between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches over the past decade.

At a press conference on 19 July, Cardinal Cassidy said that Uniatism had become the "real core" of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, but it was too "complicated and involved" to allow an "easy solution".

The commission's Orthodox co-chairman, Archbishop Stylianos of Australia, said he believed the issue was connected with the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, both of which were unacceptable in their present form to the Orthodox.

In his interview with ENI, Professor Hryniewicz said that points of agreement that seemed acceptable to Roman Catholic theologians were often deemed unacceptable by those "representing the Catholic Church officially". He said further ecumenical progress would depend on "local improvements" in Catholic-Orthodox ties in Eastern Europe. A decision to establish a joint inter-church commission in Ukraine, taken during a recent visit by Cardinal Cassidy to Moscow, was a "very encouraging sign".

"If acts of proselytism cease, and good, local relationships emerge, this would enormously contribute to improving the general situation," Hryniewicz told ENI. "The commission members must now report back to their churches, who will try to offer solutions capable of ensuring the dialogue's peaceful continuation. The future depends on both sides - although we seem to have reached a dead-end, the situation isn't yet entirely desperate."

Professor Hryniewicz, who also holds the Catholic University's chair in Orthodox theology, was one of three Polish delegates at the Baltimore talks. In interview with ENI in April this year, he provoked international controversy by calling on Greek Catholics to rediscover their eastern traditions and to open a "sincere dialogue" with Orthodoxy.

A Polish Orthodox delegate to the talks, Archbishop Jeremiasz of Wroclaw-Szczecin, said he recognised that the "ecclesiological status" of Greek Catholic churches affected "key elements" of Roman Catholic teaching. But he also agreed that the Baltimore talks had been marred by a lack of "organisational care". Archbishop Jeremiasz said that the term "sister churches" had been used "over enthusiastically". But he did not believe either side had rejected it.

"I don't think the talks were a failure - only that they marked a very difficult phase, in which official views appear to have triumphed," the 56-year-old archbishop told ENI. "Some participants have begun to harden their positions self-defensively, while external non-church factors have also exerted too much influence. But, given sufficient will and theological freedom, as well as improved procedures, the dialogue should continue."

(c) Ecumenical News International

"THORNY" ISSUE PROVES TO BE OBSTACLE FOR CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX COMMISSION

Fate of Eastern Catholic Churches in post-communist Europe and Russia still unresolved.

By Chris Herlinger

A joint theological commission of Roman Catholic and Orthodox clerics and theologians has concluded 10 days of meetings in the United States, but was unable to resolve a controversy that has been brewing between the two churches since the end of the Cold War.

The meeting of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, held at Mount St Mary's College and Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, from July 9 to 19, centered on the controversy over the Eastern Catholic churches that are linked to the Pope, but practice Eastern liturgy, similar to Orthodox rites.

The Orthodox Church views these churches as a threat to its existence, while for centuries the Roman Catholic Church viewed the Eastern Catholic churches as a possible "bridge" between Orthodoxy and the Latin church. However in recent years Rome has begun to modify its views.

A statement issued on July 19 said that agreement could not be reached on "the basic concept of uniatism," prohibiting a joint declaration on the issue. (The Orthodox Church commonly refers to the Eastern Catholic churches as "Uniates," but the use of the word is vigorously rejected by the churches themselves.)

According to the statement, the theme discussed during the plenary was the "Ecclesiological and Canonical Implications of Uniatism."

The statement added that documents touching upon "theological aspects and practical guidelines were met with some reserve and even outright opposition, sometimes from each side."

As a result, the statement said, "it was felt necessary to continue the reflection by the Joint Commission in order to find common understanding on this extremely thorny question."

Calling the discussions "far-reaching, intense, and thorough" and touching upon "many theological and canonical questions connected with the existence and the activities of the Eastern Catholic Churches," the commission opted "for further study of the theological, pastoral, historical, and canonical aspects related to this issue."

"Despite all the difficulties the commission hopes that through this process it will be able to develop further its quest for full communion between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches."

At a news conference after the meeting--the commission's first gathering in North America--Archbishop Stylianos of Australia, the Orthodox co-chair, said the leaders were a "little saddened" that that they had been unable to create a common document, but did feel they had "achieved a common knowledge of each other."

"We have come to a certain point where we can state some points commonly. We now have to wait a while to breathe,'' Archbishop Stylianos told reporters.

Cardinal Edward Cassidy, the Roman Catholic co-chair and president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, who is also from Australia, said the eventual goal of unity between the two churches "is not one easy to discuss and to be able to find an easy solution to. At the same time it's a very vital question for the relationship between our churches and to restore unity."

The controversy over the Eastern Catholic churches has grown in the last ten years because, since the fall of communism, they have been campaigning for ownership of church properties which were taken from them by communist governments and, in many cases, given to Orthodox churches. For the Orthodox Church, however, the mere existence of the Eastern Catholic churches is offensive. Another sensitive issue for the Orthodox Church is the growth of Roman Catholicism in parts of Eastern Europe, particularly in and close to Russia.

The Baltimore gathering was the eighth plenary session of the Joint International Commission, which began its work in 1980. Previous meetings were held in Munich (1982), Crete (1984), Bari (1986 and 1987), Valamo, Finland (1988), Freising, Germany (1990), and Balamand, Lebanon (1993).

The historic meeting included a wide geographic representation, with Catholic archbishops, bishops and scholars from the United States, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Germany, Greece, Israel, Lebanon, Poland, and Romania taking part.

Orthodox metropolitans, bishops and scholars represented the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Moscow and Romania, as well as the Churches of Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Poland, Finland, and Estonia.

Copyright 2000 ENI

(posted 1 August 2000)

Ukrainian Orthodox warn of new schism

Blagovest-info, 31 July 2000

A bishops' council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate (UPTsMP) was held on 28 July on the day of commemoration of Saint Prince Vladimir, equal of the apostles, in the Holy Dormition Kiev caves lavra, under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and all-Ukraine.  The council reviewed questions connected with the pressure that has been growing recently on UPTsMP from the side of central and local governments of Ukraine demanding a unification of UPTsMP with other Orthodox churches of Ukraine, whose canonicity UPTsMP does not recognize.

With regard to this the bishops' council adopted the text of an appeal to Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma in which, in particular, it is said:  "We declare with all responsibility that the proposal regarding relations in the spirit of a political partnership is unacceptable for the church.  We cannot avoid noticing that many leaders have committed sin before God and the church and have wounded the body of Christ. And this is what makes it impossible for us to enter into negotiations with the anathematized Mikhail Denisenko [former Metropolitan Filaret of Kiev--tr]. As regards the others, in the church there always are means and possibilities which could lead to cooperation in the achievement of church unity. But Orthodox believers are profoundly disturbed by the persistent attempt of certain politicians to link closely the problem of overcoming the schisms with the question of the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox church.  We have often pointed out the impermissibility of approaching this very complex problem using political means. Autocephaly of one or another local Orthodox church is not an attribute of state sovereignty but a measure that promotes the welfare of Christ's universal church."

The council also adopted the text of an appeal to Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople.  "Today politicians are trying to use your respected name, declaring that the interference of the patriarch of Constantinople in the religious conflict will led to the eradication of the schism in Ukraine," the document states. "However, we declare with all responsibility that in the situation that has arisen in the current unhealthy atmosphere of intrigue, ventures, and provocations on the part of the instigators, executors, and leaders of the schism and their associates nothing good could come from the involvement of Your Holiness in the Ukrainian conflict.  It will not only make the current schism deeper but will also lead to new schisms.  Any participation of Your Holiness in these ventures could irreparably undermine your authority both as the patriarch of Constantinople and as a person, and even more dangerously could evoke schism in the Orthodox world whose consequences would recall the church's tragedy of 1054."  (tr. by PDS, posted 1 August 2000)

PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE DOES NOT SUPPORT IDEA OF CONDUCTING A JOINT COUNCIL OF ORTHODOX OF UKRAINE BY UNCANONICAL MEANS

Sobornost, 31 July 2000

According to a report in the newspaper "Letopis pravoslaviia" (Zaporozhie), at the end of June there was a forty-five minute meeting between the primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox church, His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir, and Ukrainian President Leonid Danilovich Kuchma.  It is known that recently the idea of convoking a so-called "council" of representatives of UPTs, UPTsKP, and UAPTs has been bandied about in leading circles of the country. It was proposed that the heads of these confessions should lay down their leadership positions and the "council" would select by secret ballot a new primate for all of the "united" confessions.

The president informed His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir that these plans did not come from him and he has ceased all actions directed toward the accomplishment of these utopian dreams. In addition the primate of UPTs informed the head of our state that in the event of the accomplishment of these dreams, the Orthodox people of UPTs would not accept such a decision by the "council" and unquestionably would appeal to Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow for a transfer of their parishes into his immediate jurisdiction, as a result of which serious instability could arise in society where the young Ukrainian state, burdened with a multitude of problems, is creating a democratic system. (tr. by PDS, posted 1 August 2000)

Patriarch greets Putin

by Alexander Porfiriev
Segodnia, 29 July 2000

Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus yesterday sent to President Vladimir Putin greetings on the day of his patron. Reporters were told at the patriarchate that it was because Saint Prince Vladimir, equal of the apostles and baptizer of Rus, whose memory the church is honoring on these days, is the heavenly guardian of the current head of the Russian state. In his greeting His Holiness placed high value on the service of the head of state:  the church sees in the person of Vladimir Putin "a wise and far-seeing leader, tirelessly caring for the welfare of the transformation of the Fatherland, alert to the needs of the church, and using the power that has been given him for good in practice."  His Holiness wished the celebrant strength of energies, patience, and courage in service to the Fatherland in his supreme and responsible position: "May the Lord keep you in health and prosperity for many years!"

In the dialogue between the church and state the patriarch has previously invoked the intercession of heavenly guardians of leading Russian politicians. Thus, on 23 February 1998, on the Day of the Defender of the Fatherland, the patriarch presented Boris Yeltsin an icon of the faithful passion-bearer Boris and Saint Anastasia (the heavenly guardians of the first president and his spouse). Yet earlier, in August 1997, on the commemoration day of saints Boris and Gleb the patriarch conducted a minor consecration of the chapel of Boris and Gleb on Arbat Square in Moscow, in the presence of Boris Nikolaevich. In May 1998 the mayor of Moscow transferred to His Holiness a genuine portion of the relics of the great martyr Saint George the Conqueror that he had gotten during a visit to Jerusalem. The russified form of the name George is Yury, so the saint is the heavenly guardian not only of Moscow but of Yury Mikhailovich himself. The holy relics are now residing in Moscow in the church of Saint George the Conqueror on Poklonnaia Hill.

And although His Holiness regaled Boris Yeltsin and Yuru Luzhkov with flattering epithets, they never got to the point of the adjectives "wise" and "far-seeing." During Yeltsin's time as president the periods of unity between the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox church alternated with periods of tension. Yeltsin resisted for a long time signing the law on freedom of conscience, which His Holiness supported. At the time of the burial of the remains of the royal family everything ended in an uproar; the president attended the ceremony without the patriarch (the Holy Synod still has not recognized the authenticity of the "Ekaterinburg remains").  The RPTs still has not had a single conflict with Putin. For example, the president was not about to invite the pope to Moscow. Orthodoxy and statehood have become the pillars of the new governing policy. (tr. by PDS, posted 1 August 2000)

Questions as canonization of tsar looms

Sobornost/Blagovest-info, 28 July 2000

At a press conference at the central council of the National Republican Party of Russia (NRPR), held on 25 July at the information agency "Ekspress Khronika" in Moscow, an open letter of NRPR was made public, which  Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus had received earlier. The letter was devoted to the problem of the canonization of the last Russian sovereign, Nicholas II.

"In the atmosphere of informational hysteria, whipped up by pseudo-patriots and enemies of Russia, the idea of the canonization of Nicholas II has been manipulated," the document says.  "The central council of the National Republican party expresses a firm protest against attempts to canonize the last Russian emperor."

Members of the party posit that Emperor Nicholas II was a person "whose obligations included paying any price to defend his state and citizens," but who "gave way in the face of the challenge of rioters, betrayed his people and abandoned them, forsaking his own sacred obligations." NRPR specifically blames the last Russian sovereign for the fact that tens of millions of innocent citizens were cast "into the confusion of revolutionary chaos and bolshevik terror."

"If a martyr's death is considered sufficient basis for the canonization of Nicholas II," the letter remarks, "then millions of Russian people should be canonized because they were subjected not only to being shot but to tortures, plunder, and the humiliation and torment of famine. The Russian people and other peoples of Russia were martyrs and saints, but not the person who scorned his obligation to resist brutality and violence. There is no justification for a traitor; there is no justification for one who surrendered the sword and state into the hands of enemies."

Members of NRPR are upset "by the spectacle of the burial of doubtful remains" and they demand "an end to pressure upon Patriarch Alexis as well as the amazing attempts to call the Russian people to repentance before the deceased emperor.  We consider such actions as a political provocation intended to create in Russians a complex of guilt and historical inferiority."

The conclusion of the document states the NRPR maintains its right "to resist the canonization of Nicholas II by all available political means."  The letter was signed by the chairman of the central council of NRPR, Yu.A. Beliaev.  (tr. by PDS, posted 1 August 2000)

PATRIARCH MENTIONS QUESTION OF AUTHENTICITY OF EKATERINBURG REMAINS

ITAR-TASS/ Pravoslavie 2000, 25 July 2000

Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus explained the special position of the Russian Orthodox church with regard to the "Ekaterinburg remains" in a personal visit by Prince Michael to Moscow, at the latter's request. The head of RPTs stressed that "the question of the identification of the 'Ekaterinburg remains' does not affect in any way the problem of the canonization of the tsarist family." "This problem should be settled at the upcoming bishops' council in August," the primate of the Russian Orthodox church explained. He noted that  "so long as there is doubt about whether the remains are authentic, the church cannot call believers to venerate them." Answering the prince's question of what needs to be done in order to establish the truth, the patriarch said:  "It is necessary to compare the investigation of 1918 and the current investigation, whose conclusions are diametrically opposed."  The patriarch also advocated cooperation with a foreign commission working in USA. This commission consists of prominent emigres of the first wave and has been dealing with this question for more than seventy years.

Alexis II considers it improper that the exhumation of the remains of Grand Prince Georgy Mikhailovich in the fortress of saints Peter and Paul was conducted under the cover of darkness in the presence of only one witness. "In such an important investigation the presence of at least several people who should be witnesses is necessary," he said.

"Clearly such an investigation should be conducted scrupulously and responsibly. But the state commission was in a hurry to complete its work since they did not have any money for further investigation," the patriarch emphasized.  (tr. by PDS, posted 1 August 2000)

If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication from which it came.
It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL, http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.