Copyrighted material. For private use only.

---

Church's position on Russian anthem unclear

by Evgeny Yuriev
Segodnia, 28 November 2000  (excerpts)

Yesterday in the State Duma before lunch the new Russian anthem was learned:  " Its mighty  wings spread over us; The Russian eagle is hovering high; The Fatherland's tricolor symbol; Is leading Russia's peoples to victory."  The music is by Aleksandrov and the words by Sergei Mikhalkov. According to some anonymous informed source, each had been approved by President Vladimir Putin and he supposedly intended to officially submit it for duma review on Monday, along with a draft law on the state emblem and flag. It seems that the president very much wanted the country to enter the new century with legalized state symbols. But after lunch the advocates of the Aleksandrov-Mikhailkov composition received a disappoinment.

An "informed source"--this time it turned out to be the president's representative in the duma, Alexander Kotenkov--categorically denied the morning's report, stating that the final version of the anthem does not exist and that in general "this question was always difficult for our country and its resolution, possibly, requires special procedures." Perhaps he has a referendum in mind.

According to "Segodnia's" information, one of the duma leaders, who tried to get from the presidential administration a full text of the quoted anthem, was also informed late in the day that the final version does not exist and in confirmation of this he got the next ("one of many") version of the lyrics to the music by Aleksandrov. In a word, in the sensitive matter of the choice of state symbols, the Kremlin has made a real recoil. . . .

It cannot be ruled out that the Kremlin's caution was a result of the influence of Patriarch Alexis II, who yesterday for the first time spoke out on the question of state symbols:  "I have not expressed my position; let's see how the discussion goes. But I think that any anthem that the duma approves should unite people and not divide them."  (tr. by PDS, posted 1 December 2000)

RUSSIA FINDS WORDS FOR 'NEW' ANTHEM
by Patrick Cockburn,
The Independent (London), 30 November 2000

IT'S MIGHTY wings spread over us;

The Russian eagle is hovering high;

The Fatherland's tricolour symbol;

Is leading Russia's peoples to victory.

This is the first verse of what is likely to become the new Russian national anthem. It will be sung to the same rousing tune as the old Soviet national anthem, which was abandoned at the time of the fall of Communism in 1991, but with radically different words.

For nine years, Russia has had to make to do with a wordless melody, which Russians say is hard to hum. The Spartak Moscow football team complained to President Vladimir Putin that the lack of a singable anthem had caused a drop in morale. Russian athletes at the Sydney Olympics said they were embarrassed by having to stand in silence to receive their medals.

Next week the Kremlin is expected to ask the Russian parliament to go back to the old anthem, which was composed by Alexander Alexandrov in the middle of the Second World War, and approved by Stalin. The new words will be written by Sergei Mikhalkov, a children's poet, who composed the original lyrics in 1943.

In his first version Mikhalkov had written lines such as: "O Party of Lenin, the strength of the people/ To Communism's triumph lead us on." This has had to go. A verse that spoke of Stalin's inspired leadership was removed in 1956.

Eight tunes, including one by the Russian pop singer Alla Pugachova, had been proposed for the anthem. But, with the exception of Patriarch Aleksei II, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, who said the music of the Soviet anthem smacked of atheism, opinion polls showed most Russians wanted their old tune back.  (posted 1 December 2000)

RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH FAVORS CURRENT ANTHEM
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Presidential envoy to the State Duma Aleksandr Kotenkov told Interfax on 28 November that reports saying the Kremlin will soon submit to the lower legislative house a proposal for a new national anthem are incorrect. He said that no final selection among the various melodies proposed for the anthem has yet been made. Kotenkov's denials follow reports by AP and Reuters, citing an unidentified Kremlin official, that President Putin favors a speedy reintroduction of the old Soviet anthem as Russia's new national song.

Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Aleksii II told NTV that he is afraid that a new anthem might introduce divisions in society. Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad Kirill told reporters on 23 November that he favors the current anthem melody and believes that "it is possible to write appropriate words to make it an anthem."  [ed. note: compare Kirill's article of 21 November] (posted 1 December 2000)

Changes in church-state relations discussed

"Round Table" at the Moscow editorial offices of "Russkaia mysl"
Russkaia mysl, 16 November 2000

Upon the initiative of the editors of RM in Moscow a "round table" was conducted that was devoted to a discussion of both internal church problems and problems of relations between the state and religious organizations. The discussion included journalists and researchers who are professionally engaged with these questions. We direct readers' attention to fragments of the conversation that ensued.

Alexander Kyrlezhev, religious observer for Russkaia mysl.

This year is not only the jubilee year for Christianity and the summation of the twentieth century. A obvious change of political epochs has been occurred. We are living in a period that is not simply postsoviet but also post-Yeltsin, which leads to several conclusions, which are perhaps tentative, and to thoughts about the future.

All of this pertains as well to the religious sphere and church-state relations (in the broad sense). Where have the confessions, and primarily the largest of them, the Russian Orthodox church, come in the ten years of political and religious freedom? How prepared are they--both from an "ideological" and an organizational point of view--for the changes which are already happening and still will happen in Russia at the beginning of the twenty-first century? And a more specific question: what are the main problems of the Russian church and what must be done to resolve them?

Sergei Chapnin, editor of the Sobornost internet journal:

A great deal must be changed in our church life. I'll cite one of the most important problems:  at the threshold of the twenty-first century the Russian Orthodox church does not perceive itself as a single living organism and only in theory does it discuss church unity.  In practice what dominates is the tendency to division and factionalism. What causes alarm is not so much the territorial and social divisions; these are the price which the church, like all of society, must pay in an epoch of protracted crisis. Immeasurably more dangerous is the ideological schism among believers that has matured in the second half of the 1990s. This schism has not only a political but also a theological and liturgical projection. From all indications this has become the main problem of the church for the near future.

From this derives what is most desired:  to restore the unity of Russian Orthodoxy. But so long as the temptation to divide all Orthodox into "ours" and "theirs" is being actively supported by the episcopacy, clergy, and the overwhelming majority of the church media, we cannot approach this goal. The most pressing task is to de-ideologize church life.

As regards actions, I think that it is worth supporting the strengthening of church authority, primarily its "vertical." Although in no case would I have in mind a strengthening of the authority of the episcopacy. The strengthening of church authority is the creation of genuinely functioning parish councils (nowadays practically all of them are fictions), diocesan administrations, diocesan assemblies, and the like, all the way up to a local council.  So long as this does not happen, the authority of the Russian episcopacy will remain at a catastrophic low. Nowadays the bishop distrusts not only the laity but even the clergy. They fear him and they flatter him, but they do not trust him.

The restoration of the credibility of church authority would be aided by a genuine revival of the ecclesiastical judiciary. A first step was made in 1990, but it was necessary to wait ten years for the second:  only at the bishops' council in August of this year was a provision about the judiciary introduced into the church statute. How much time will elapse before the church judiciary becomes a reality? The task is enormous: it is necessary to create a genuinely functioning code of church law, to train specialists, to learn how to conduct investigations, and also to find new forms of cooperation with civil jurists.  If church law does not agree with civil law, then decisions of a church court cannot be recognized by the state; and partner relations with the state are nowadays necessary.

Maksim Shevchenko, editor of the NG-religii newspaper

In my opinion the main problem of the contemporary Russian Orthodox church is that its leadership has been unable to direct the energy of the Orthodox renaissance of the 80s and 90s into a channel of strict canonical discipline; it has lost the initiative in church construction to charismatic neo-monasticism ("young eldership").

In the soviet period RPTs had several monasteries housing about 150-200 monks. Today there are several dozen times more monasteries and the monks number in the thousands.

The increase in the formal growth of the number of parishes and monasteries at the cost of theological education and even simple catechesis of believers has brought the hierarchy into a state where it is, in the main, hostage to the monks and the laity whom it has incited to heretical views: having brief experience of spiritual life they in essence have begun imposing their will onto the church.

In the context of the new monasticism sectarian moods have flourished like a brilliant flower, along with gnostic and spiritualistic beliefs and fanciful political utopias. This attracts tens of thousands of laity who trust their spiritual pastors and who sometimes are frank heretics (gnostic monarchists, national patriots, etc) and "bearers of Orthodox truth."

The episcopacy (with rare exceptions) has distanced itself from dogmatic and canonical supervision of the life of the church as a whole and monasticism in particular. Moreover, as the case of Ekaterinburg bishop Nikon showed, bishops themselves have created their own "compromise" which has discredited the church.

It is obvious that the absence of a single theological and controlling organ, commanding rights and authority recognized by the whole church, leaves open the possibility for spiritual and theological anarchy that is corrupting and diminishing Russian orthodoxy, making it a laughing-stock and bugbear of the whole Christian world.  The absence of an agency that can exercise censorship over publications under the stamp of RPTs and the literature sold in its churches promotes the growth of new heresies.

Thus, the absence of control over religious life (which is intensified by the actual distancing of the clergy and laity from adoption of the most important decisions because of the postponement of the local council) is, in my view, the greatest church problem of our times.

A. Krylezhev

I would summarize what has been said in this way.  The main problem that requires serious discussion and search for solution is this:  the relationship of the principle of authority with the principle of community [sobornost]. The church as an institution should be governed, and governed effectively, and this requires an authority structure. But the church must be governed in accordance with its nature and with its theological self-perception, and not by the standards of this world. The so-called hierarchical nature of the church is not sufficient for describing its internal structure. The church is catholic and conciliar, and the hierarchy is called, so to speak, "to structure" this conciliarity and to guarantee its achievement in everyday church life. At the same time conciliarity is not democracy in the secular sense of the word, because it appeals not to the rights of every member of the church but to the plenitude of its accustomed life of grace. As the apostle and evangelist John says: "You have an anointing from the Holy One and you know everything" (I Jn 2.20).

Nowadays a reference to the apostolic teaching about the "royal priesthood" of all members of the church is being taken as a "protestant influence" by many in our country. But without this teaching there is not, nor can there be, any concept of conciliarity and of the equal sacramental gift and corresponding equal responsibility for the church of all of its members, including laity. The strengthening of episcopal authority, which we are witnessing today, makes sense only in the case where at the same time the church awareness of clerics and laity has been elevated. This poses the question about religious and theological education, primarily within the church itself, but about such education in the process of which is taught information about church tradition, and not political religious ideology and mythology.

In other words, church authority must be ecclesiastical, and its administration must be confirmed by theological and ecclesiological criteria.

The subject of authority in the church is connected also with the question of how relations of the church with the state should be constructed. Here, in my view, is the basic problem--finding a balance between independence and mutual action, between freedom of the church from secular authority and the necessity of participating in the life of society, whose organizational structure is the state. Today the discussion of the character of church-state relations has advanced to the forefront, especially in light of the "Bases of the social doctrine of RPTs," which were adopted by the bishops' council.

Alexander Shchipkov, sociologist, editor of the programs on religion of Radio Russia:

It is sufficient to take a look at the presidium of the Interreligious Peacemaking Forum, which took place 13-14 November in Moscow, to be persuaded that the chief characteristic of the contemporary religious process is schism. It was necessary to seat two chief rabbis and two chief muftis on the right and left hand of the most holy patriarch so that they not be separated from each other by the space of an outstretched hand.

The religious situation has never been stable anywhere, by virtue of the irrational nature of religion itself. Thus the state should, without interfering in the internal life of the churches, create a certain model pattern of church-state relations which, on one hand, would permit a liberal way out of the limits of the established pattern and, on the other, not allow the irrational religious element to become dangerous for society.

How can this be achieved? Strive for absolute religious freedom or prefer the paternalism of state control?

In my opinion, sooner or later it will be necessary to review the conception of the legislation on freedom of conscience and instead of the existing registration to establish a consensual system of relations between religious organizations and the state. It will be built on principles of a social partnership between each church individually and the Russian state as a whole.

A consensual system provides for the conclusion of an agreement between each religious organization and the state. Both sides assume certain obligations. The church engages in social work, and the state provides financial support and protection. At the same time the contracting parties get certain rights: the church, to proclamation, and the state, to financial control over dispersed funds.

The rights, duties, and field of action (school, army, hospital, etc.) are agreed upon in each specific case. Such an approach preserves the democratic principle, permits a more complete use of the potential of traditional religious, shields the individual from encroachments of pseudoreligious groups, and precludes arousing conflict among competing religious organizations.

It is time to switch from a state of conceptual chaos to a rational formulation of religious policy.

Alexander Morozov, political scientist:

There is no doubt that now a new agenda is being formulated in the direction of what is called "mutual action of the state with religious organizations." The Putin administration is conducting a consistent revision of the entire Yeltsin heritage. The situation on this "front" is no less negligible than, let's say, in the area of federal relations or control of state property. In any case, four points of the agenda can be confidently foreseen.

First, the deployment of a program which can be conditionally called "Loyal Islam." It is necessary to overcome the consequences of a drawn-out unsuccessful policy in Chechnia and, on the other hand, to resolve the problem of a united representation of Muslims of Russia. Obviously, this requires an investment in the creation of a system of Islamic education in Russia and a revival of the question of Muslim broadcasts on national television. It is extremely difficult to resolve the question of the two leaders of Russian Islam.

The only thing that gives comfort in this point of the agenda is that many European countries also are facing the problem of finding a model for mutual action with the activated Muslim community because of the sharp increase in Muslim immigrants and the awakening of Islam.  Of course, The Russian administration is in a more complex situation because of Chechnia and the absence of massive social programs.

The second agenda point is the creation of a state agency for mutual action with religious organizations. In the first half of the 90s, the Moscow patriarch strongly opposed this. Now such statements have weakened substantially. Back in January of 1999 the chief attorney of the Moscow patriarchate, V. Kalinin, declared that eight state agencies "on mutual action," lacking essential authorization, is a depressing situation.

However the proposal for the creation of a Ministry on Affairs of Cults evokes serious doubts: wouldn't it be a helpless and extremely bureaucratic structure? Whatever the case, the state must place its stake on one of the existing structures (the council under the presidency, the commission under the government, etc.) or create a new one.

The third agenda item is a strategy for mutual action with the Russian Orthodox church. From the point of view of the state, RPTs is, first, a large corporation and a certain sector of the economy; second, it is a possible instrument of stabilization in the situation where the church can develop a greater social (ministerial) work; third, I think the state cannot permit RPTs as a social force to become an exponent of isolationist and antimodernist forces in Russian society.

All these tendencies of the 90s have not received the necessary development. The church's economy is in an extremely confused state; the low level of social work has been caused not only by the weakness of the church after the "seventy-year captivity," but also by the absence in the leadership of RPTs of a strategy for the establishment of ministerial service that is comprehensible to society. There is no doubt that in the second half of the 90s the chief hierarchs of RPTs made frequent declarations distancing the church from xenophobia, nationalism, and aggressive antiwesternism, but in fact they had to maneuver endlessly. In part this maneuvering was an inescapable consequence of the fact that the overwhelming portion of Orthodox church people was of a sharply "anti-Yeltsin" mood.

The fourth complex, so to speak, unites the preceding elements and is directly connected with the answer to the question: what can be done and how? The problem is that the new government has a rather difficult task in entering into dialogue with those who have a long political history with the previous and earlier regimes. This pertains also to the government itself--it faces the need to promote new figures in the area of mutual relations with religious organizations. This is difficult for both sides.

Nevertheless the only positive thing that can now be done is actively to create on both sides groups that can conduct a dialogue and define a new agenda. The Russian church has undertaken these steps:  in November it will hold a large Orthodox conference in the Russian Academy of Sciences; in January there will be the regular Christmas Readings, where around 5,000 participants gather. Possibly all these problems will be discussed there.

In a very short time with mutual trust between the sides the necessary "review" should be developed and enacted. Religious organizations should draw the conclusions of a decade and clearly formulate their suggestions. But not on the level of demands for restitution in general, but on the level of realistic claims for what can, for example, be involved in federal programs of the government. This is the way that grand projects should be determined, which will be financed from extrabudgetary sources but with support--which also means supervision--on the part of the state. (tr. by PDS, posted 01 December 2000)
 

Pope to visit Ukraine

The Vatican on Thursday set the dates for Pope John Paul II's visit to Ukraine as June 21-24.

The visit, first announced three weeks ago, will be the pope's latest to a mainly Eastern Orthodox country after previous trips to Romania and Georgia.

Ukraine also has a large Catholic population, and there have been bitter clashes between Orthodox believers and Catholics over churches seized during the Soviet period.

Ukraine's Eastern rite Catholics celebrate an Orthodox-style liturgy but remain loyal to the pope.

There has been no confirmation of other foreign trips next year, but pilgrimages to Syria, Malta, Poland and Armenia are under consideration.

John Paul also hopes to visit Greece, but the Greek Orthodox Church has held off giving its approval.

Better relations between Catholics and Orthodox have been an aim of John Paul throughout his papacy. On those lines, the Vatican on Thursday released a letter from the pontiff to Istanbul-based Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who is spiritual leader to the world's Orthodox faithful.

In the letter John Paul said he was "determined to continue the dialogue of truth and charity." Mentioning the difficulties of local churches, an apparent reference to the property battles, he appealed to Catholics and Orthodox to "intensify and affirm ceaselessly their fraternal relations in a concern of mutual and trusting respect."

Copyright 1999 The Associated Press.All rights reserved.  (posted 30 November 2000)

Government concession on taxpayer numbers not satisfying to all Orthodox

New forms developed especially for Orthodox believers have arrived at the tax office.

by Evgeny Strelchik
NG-religii, 29 November 2000

When John the Baptist was approached by tax collectors who asked, "Teacher, what should we do?" he answered them, "Do not require anything more than is allotted to you." It is possible that the head of the Ministry for Taxes and Duties (MNS), Gennady Bukaev, recalls this instruction when he fixes his gaze on the icon of St. Matthew the Evangelist, the very publican who left collecting taxes and followed Christ.

This icon was given to him by Patriarch Alexis II at a ceremony of signing a joint agreement between MNS and RPTs that provided for the introduction of a special form without an indication of a tax identification number. At that time Bukaev declared that his ministry found it possible to meet the desires of the patriarch and Holy Synod and he replaced the procedure of filling out the necessary documents, although this created certain difficulties in the work of his department. But he decided to do this in order not to permit an increase of the social tension on this matter as happened in Greece and Ukraine.

Search for the "number of the beast" continues

The writers of the letter maintain that they have possession of two technical studies of bar codes. One is Greek and the other is Russian, based on a study of the bar code systems that were introduced in Russia. Both studies show unquestionably that one of the most used bar code systems, throughout the world and now in Russia also, contains the triple-six mentioned in the Apocalypse.

Elders of the Saint Sergius Holy Trinity lavra also blessed yet another appeal to Patriarch Alexis II. It says that "the tax agencies are literally setting the administrations of enterprises against their workers out of fear that after 1 January 2001 they will cease accepting financial accounts of those organizations who have not completed assigning tax numbers to their employees. This will lead to fines for delays and, as a consequence, dismissal of Christians. The substitution of the application for a tax number on the form is not an alternative since the assigned number contains, as before, the bar code with the triple-six, which is entered into the personal file of the citizen, which is kept in the computer." The writers of this letter claim that the idea of assigning a tax number has the purpose of pushing Christians to civil disobedience, which will become the premise for beginning new persecutions of believers as well as provoking a schism in the Russian Orthodox church by dividing believers into the "enumerated" and the "unenumerated."

Actually, in his order number 68 Gennady Bukaev assigns several citizens to the category of "problematic" (that is, dissenting from the codification of the tax number) and he proposes keeping them in a separate data base "pending a decision on working with problematic individuals." The press service of the Ekaterinburg diocese reports about letters from believers, who are not connected with enterprise activity, complaining that in their workplaces they are being forced to accept the "number" under threat of withholding of salaries and even dismissal.  "Quite recently in our society believers were people who were not even second or third class but fourth class," Archbishop Vikenty of Ekaterinburg and Verkhotursk commented with regard to the situation. "And now someone is again undertaking the attempt to put our parishioners in the same situation. It's even worse; you will not be hired and you will not be able to buy anything, and so forth. The church cannot permit such an infringement of the rights of our citizens."

Chronology of the fight

If one carefully reviews the events of the past year, it becomes obvious that the INN problem is directly connected with the taxation not only of ordinary Orthodox believers but also the church itself and its institutions. Although the attitude of believers to the collection of taxes is based on the well known gospel adage, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's," the majority of Russian priests maintain on this question a painful memory: they remember well the nearly 60 percent income tax that was especially dreamed up by communists for the clergy. Playing up to believers, the new government at first granted the church certain privileges, but then, when it saw in its cooperation with business a source of overlooked income, it began to cook up a plan for a radical change in the taxation of religious organizations.

The reform was begun at the end of February. At a session of the government, the then head of MNS, Alexander Pochinok, expressed the thought that if religious organizations make a profit on operations that are not connected with religious items they should pay tax the same as others. A week later, on 7 March, the Holy Synod expressed its concern with the new system of total control of the government over the private life of the individual and with the symbol on tax documents, the bar codes and the number 666 included in them, the "number of the beast." This was the first time RPTs had so sharply criticized the actions of the government. The threat, which already had been tried out in Ukraine, was no laughing matter. Several thousand Orthodox fundamentalists, upset with the schemes of the antichrist, were able to destroy the entire tax policy, and everybody who wanted to lighten their tax burden would willingly flock to their banner. This, incidentally, has happened in our days; about a thousand letters from businessmen refusing to get a tax number have arrived at the tax office in Voronezh province. They claim that their decision is based on the fact that as Orthodox believers they cannot trust the church hierarchy on this matter.

Representatives of the tax office consider that many authors of these letters are not trying to save their sinful souls but are motivated by the "elementary human calculation of wishing to fish in troubled waters." However let's return to six months ago. In the spring, on 18 April (a bit more than a month after the synod's appeal) Patriarch Alexis II visited the Moscow tax department where he got acquainted with its director, Gennady Bukaev, who personally persuaded His Holiness that the triple-six is not in the bar codes. Another two weeks later, on 9 May, the famous elder of the Pskov caves monastery, Archimandrite Ioann Krestiankin, called Orthodox not to oppose the assignment of numbers. Forty days later, on 25 June, Alexander Pochinko, now in the post of minister of labor and social development, had his marriage sanctified in the church of the icon of the Georgian Mother of God in the Raifsk monastery. But since monks do not have authority for conducting marriage, he was given written permission for this from the patriarch.

The arguments quieted down during the summer vacations and the final period was placed on them in August by the bishops' council. Then it was said for the first time that now Orthodox are not required to sign the applications but need only fill out the form. On the eve of the religious forum the Ministry on Taxes and Duties sent to Patriarch Alexis a sample of the form for the individual, which is an alternative to the application for assignment of INN. This is how the government, six months later, responded to the March request of the Holy Synod and replaced the procedure of obligatory submission of an application for assigning a taxpayer number. On 27 October, at the patriarchal residence of Saint Daniel's monastery there was a solemn signing of a joint agreement of MNS and RPTs, providing for the introduction of a special form for Orthodox believers. "Like all citizens," the patriarch declared, "we pay taxes and try thereby to set an example." (tr. by PDS, posted 30 November 2000)

RUSSIAN CHURCH NAMES PATRON SAINT OF TAX POLICE
Reuters, 30 November 2000

Russia's Orthodox Church has named the apostle Matthew patron saint of the country's feared tax police, the  Sevodnya newspaper reported on Thursday.

Russian tax police -- known for storming buildings in black ski masks to conduct an audit -- have had something of a public relations  problem, as did the widely despised Roman tax collectors, or "publicans," of biblical times.

St Matthew himself was a publican, before giving up the profession to follow Jesus. In Matthew's book of the Bible, Jesus frequently lumps  tax collectors along with prostitutes as being allowed to enter  heaven if they accept God.

Sevodnya quoted tax police spokesman Yury Tretyakov as saying the agency had won the support of the Church in part by helping to renovate a cathedral located in part on the territory of its headquarters.

"It is not just a fashion statement, and we are not planning to make our heavenly protection into a cult," Sevodnya quoted him as saying.

"It simply means that tax police will have another holiday, November 29, St Matthew's day."

Copyright 1999 Reuters.All rights reserved. (posted 30 November 2000)

Patriarchate tries to woo back schismatics

Strana.ru/Sobornost, 27 November 2000

With the blessing of Patriarch Alexis II, a solemn prayer service was held on 27 November in the Dormition cathedral of the Kremlin in which Old Believer priests participated on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the reconciliation of a portion of Old Believers (the United Believers, edinovertsy) with the Russian Orthodox church.

After the prayer service a scholarly conference commenced in the "Daniel" hotel complex of RPTs. Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus greeted the participants with his blessing and wishes for success in their work. The patriarch expressed regret that much suffering had often been caused to Old Believers because of insufficiently wise and ill-considered state policy. The patriarch expressed high appreciation for the piety and sacrifice of the United Belief Old Believers and their faithfulness to the traditions and heritage received from their ancestors. The patriarch expressed hope for the strengthening of United Belief parishes as well as for a future complete reconciliation of Old Believers with the mother church, all of whom he again called to return to her bosom.

Conference participants unanimously agreed that the unification of Moscow and Starodub Old Believers with the church, which was carried out in 1800, was a significant roadmark in Russian church history. Moreover, the creation of United Belief could become a model for the reconciliation of all Old Believers with the church. While the 200th anniversary of United Belief is being celebrated by only an insignificant portion of Russian Old Believers, the others are conspicuously ignoring this jubilee that has earned patriarchal attention and blessing. (tr. by PDS, posted 29 November 2000)

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF UNITED BELIEF
by Mikhail Tulsky
Nezavisimaia gazeta, 29 November 2000

On Monday in Moscow a jubilee conference devoted to the 200th anniversary of the existence of United Belief parishes within the bosom of RPTs was held. Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus sent the participants his blessing and wishes for success in their work.

United Believers (edinovertsy) constitute a particular portion of Priestly Old Believers (staroobriadtsy-popovtsy) who transferred to the jurisdiction of RPTs in 1800 after a decree had been signed by Alexander I.  [tr. note: this decree was signed by Emperor Paul I, not by Alexander, who began his reign in 1801]

Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad delivered a report at the conference. United Belief has often been used as an instrument of pressure against Old Believers whereby the government has tried to achieve the division and subsequent destruction of Old Belief, Metropolitan Kirill noted.

Thus, in the opinion of Metropolitan Kirill, long ago there arose the need for creating a special structure within the Moscow patriarchate which could be concerned with the coordination of vital activity of United Belief Old Believer parishes. (tr. by PDS, posted 29 November 2000)

OLD BELIEF WILL NOT CORRUPT RPTs
by Pavel Korobov,
Kommersant-Daily, 28 November 2000

The history of the schism has been completed.

Yesterday in the conference hall of the "Daniel" hotel of the Moscow patriarchate a conference was held on the theme "The 200-th anniversary of the canonical existence of Old Believer parishes in the bosom of the Russian Orthodox church." At the conference it was proposed to call the United Belief Old Believer church "Old Believer parishes within the bosom of RPTs." If this suggestion were adopted, the history of the Russian schism could be considered completely over.

Before the conference a prayer service was conducted in the patriarchal Dormition cathedral of the Kremlin by United Belief Old Believer priests in the presence of hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox church for the first time in the 350-year history of the schism.

After having worshiped in accordance with the "old rite," conference participants went to the "Daniel" hotel complex where the conference itself was held. It was opened by Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus who said, "We now are marking 200 years from the day when the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church, moved by an attempt to heal the harmful division, reviewed the request of a portion of the adherents of the ancient Russian rituals to be received into church communion with the restoration of a canonical priesthood and made the decision for reunited to the church those who were returning from schism. It approved their conducting the liturgy in accordance with the ancient books in observance of the old Russian rituals. . . . In the face of historic facts it is impossible not to admit that persecutions and restrictions with regard to Old Believers and the use of force for overcoming the schism have been the means of an ill-considered state policy in Russia over the past centuries that created a division in RPTs that has been hard to overcome and has existed to the present day."

Following the patriarch, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad took the floor and emphasized that the 200 years of the canonical existence of Old Believer parishes within the bosom of the Moscow patriarchate is testimony to work on both sides within both RPTs and Old Belief.  One should not try to find winners and losers in the movement to meet one another. In conclusion the mteropolitan suggested a rejection of the term "United Belief church," which has provoked many disputes, misunderstandings, and suspicions, and its replacement by "Old Believer parishes within the bosom of RPTs." (tr. by PDS, posted 29 November 2000)

PATRIARCH ALEXIY TO ADDRESS OLD BELIEVERS
ITAR-TASS, 27 November 2000

For the first-ever time in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), a public prayer is to be said in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin here on Monday, with the blessing of Patriarch Alexiy II of Moscow and All Russia, by Old Ritual priests from parishes which are within the fold of the ROC.

Old Believers, or Old Ritualists, were dissenters from the ROC and members of various religious groups developing from the schism of the 17th century in protest against liturgical reforms.

Monday's event is dedicated to the bicentenary of the decision taken by the Holy Synod on bringing back repentant dissenters. The Old Believers were given the right to perform divine services with the observance of old Russian religious rites. At that time several tens of thousands of Old Believers reverted to the fold of the ROC. After the !917 October revolution, Old Believers were subjected to the same kind of persecutions as the were clergy and bishops of the ROC.

At present, there are 15 Old Ritual parishes in the fold of the ROC in Russia. But the Moscow Patriarchate hopes that the jubilee will bring about positive changes in the cause of reunification of the two parts of the Russian Church. A conference is to be held in Moscow on the same day, with Patriarch Alexiy addressing the Old Believers from its rostrum.
(c) 1996-2000 ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved.  (posted 29 November 2000)

PATRIARCH CALLS ON OLD BELIEVERS FOR RECONCILIATION
Itar-Tass, 27 November 2000

Patriarch Alexy II, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, has called on members of the Old Believers faith to forget past grievances and enmity with the church.

Opening a church conference in Moscow, Alexy said the Old Believer schism over three centuries "remains a cause of deep sorrow for our people" and that past persecution of the followers of old rites had been unfair.

He cited the Holy Synod's decree of 1800 allowing their reunion with the Russian Orthodox Church. After this, many returned to the orthodox church but many stayed away because decrees of the Church Council of 1656 and 1667 banned the Old Believers. The Church Council revoked the ban in 1971.

The patriarch admitted that "persecution and restrictions towards the Old Believers and violent methods of overcoming the schism were a consequence of the ill-considered state policy of Russia" which "played a most tragic role in the deepening of the schism."
(posted 29 November 2000)

Moscow protestants denied reregistration

Yesterday, on the 28th of November, the Moscow City Court dismissed the cassation filed by the "Salvation Army" Moscow branch. Vladimir Ryakhovsky of the Slavic Center for Law and Justice believes that thus a dangerous precedent was created that may be used to challenge the registration of many other organizations having centers abroad.

In fact, the ruling confirmed the decision of the Presnensky district court which read that the "Salvation Army" Protestant Christian organization is a "military association". "It is difficult to imagine something as absurd as that",  Ryakhovsky says.

The Moscow branch of the "Salvation Army" was refused state reregistration and appealed to the Presnensky court. The Court, however, did not even review some of the points of this appeal and ruled that the refusal was justified. The court also came to the conclusion that the "Salvation Army" was a "military association" and, being subordinated to a foreign center, might not be reregistered as an organization enjoying full rights but could only exist as a representation of a foreign religious organization in Russia. This last point directly contradicts the interpretation of the law on religion given by the Constitutional Court of Russia in its ruling of April, 13, 2000.

"The decision of the Presnensky Court contains so many mistakes in terms of law and procedure that it should have been overturned by the court of cassation right away", Ryakhovsky believes. However the Moscow City Court left it unchanged and having full legal force.

The court decision puts the "Salvation Army" Moscow branch under direct threat of dissolution as the term of reregistration expires on December 31. Besides it can form a legal basis to challenge registration of other religious organizations with the centers abroad which include the Roman-Catholic Church, many Protestant denominations, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, etc. "This decision must be canceled by all means", Vladimir Ryakhovsky says. (posted 29 November 2000)

RUSSIA: MOSCOW SALVATION ARMY RISKS CLOSURE
by Tatyana Titova,
Keston News Service, 30 November 2000

Exactly two years after it first applied for re-registration, the Moscow Corps of the Salvation Army has lost a second court battle to overturn the rejection of its application. The Salvation Army now risks being closed down in the Russian capital. Since the deadline for re-registration of religious organisations runs out in a month, the Moscow Corps' only hope of staving off official closure is if the Salvation Army manages to gain registration as a centralised religious organisation by the 31 December deadline.

On 28 November the Moscow City Court rejected the Moscow Corps' appeal against the decision of the Presnenski district court of Moscow. Having been refused re-registration by the Moscow City Department of Justice, the Moscow Corps appealed to the Presnenski district court. However, the court confirmed the refusal on the grounds that the Salvation Army is a "militarised' organisation subordinated to a foreign central body.

Colonel Kenneth Baillie, the head of the Salvation Army in Russia and the CIS, told Keston News Service that he was concerned that two Russian courts had made decisions based not on the law but on the reasoning of ill-disposed officials.

The Salvation Army was registered in Moscow in 1992 and, as required by the 1997 amendments to the religion law, submitted documents for re-registration in November 1998. The Moscow City Department of Justice demanded amendments to the application and additional documentation, which dragged out the application until February 1999. Then the process stalled, since, according to the deputy head of the Moscow Department of Justice V. Zhbankov, religious affairs experts were examining the documents. On 16 August 1999 re-registration was officially refused.

The co-director of the Moscow-based Slavic Centre for Law and Justice, Vladimir Ryakhovsky, who represented the church this week in court, told Keston on 21 November that the Moscow Corps was refused re-registration on formal grounds (lack of clarity in the Statute and minutes). Another reason given was that since it is subordinated to a foreign central body it cannot be re- registered as a religious organisation but can exist only as the representative office of a foreign religious organisation. However, this contradicts last April's ruling of the Constitutional Court relating to the Jesuit order (see KNS 26 May 2000).

During hearings at the Presnenski district court, the court did not examine the essence of the case and ruled that the refusal of re-registration was in accordance with the law. As well as the grounds cited in the original refusal the Presnenski court included in its ruling the explanations submitted to the court by the Moscow Department of Justice, in particular that the Salvation Army is a militarised organisation subordinated to a foreign central body. The Moscow City Court also failed to examine the essence of the case and simply refused the Moscow Corps' appeal.

In the European part of Russia there are 14 corps of the Salvation Army, of which five have been registered under the 1997 law. At present the registration of a central organisation of the Salvation Army on the basis of three local organisations is being considered by the Justice Ministry. If a central organisation is registered, this will solve the problem of the registration of all the other local congregations, including the Moscow corps.

The department for the registration of religious organisations at the Ministry of Justice told Keston on 30 November that a meeting of the committee of experts on 28 November had considered the Salvation Army's application. An expert ruling was being prepared and a decision would be taken by the end of December.

The Salvation Army is not the only organisation established by a foreign religious organisation to have encountered problems in Moscow. The Church of Christ has also been refused re-registration and it too is submitting an appeal to the courts. The court action in the Golovinski district court seeking to close the Moscow congregation of the Jehovah's Witnesses has already lasted several years. The next court session - after an adjournment of eight months - is to take place on 6 December.

In response to Keston's written request for information on progress in re- registering religious organisations in Moscow, the deputy head of the Moscow City Main Department of the Ministry of Justice replied on 10 November that `the Federal Law on freedom of conscience and religious organisations does not require registering bodies to provide information about religious organisations which have been re-registered or which have not succeeded in re- registering'.  (posted 1 December 2000)

Search for model of church-state relations

Blagovest-info/Sobornost, 27 November 2000

The Russian Academy of State Service (RAGS) of the presidency of the Russian federation was authorized to prepare a doctrine of state-church relations. A working group will be created in RAGS for this purpose.

The draft of the doctrine will be presented to the Council for Relations with Public Associations and Religious Organizations of the presidenct of RF and sent to all religious organizations that are members of the council. In the opinion of the deputy director of the Department for Relations with Religious Associations of the Chief Administration of Domestic Policy of the presidency of RF, Alexander Kurriavtsev, work on the draft will be conducted "openly" and will last no less than one year.

The plan for preparation of the doctrine was scheduled to be reviewed at a session of the council set for 10 November. The 10 November session, however, was not held.

In the opinion of a member of the Expert Council for Conduct of State Religious Studies of the Ministry of Justice of RF, Genrikh Mikhailov, work on the doctrine "will face difficulties," since "there already exist 7 or 8 doctrines." In particular, in the "Basis for the Social Doctrine of RPTs" there is proposed a model of state-church relations. The authors of the current doctrine will have to "squeeze their model into a Procrustean bed" of the already established forms of relations of the state with the church. (tr. by PDS, posted 28 November 2000)

Patriarch repeats complaints against Vatican

On 28 November there was a meeting of His Holiness Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus with Italian President Carlo Ciampi at the patriarchal residence in the St. Daniel's monastery.

The primate of the Russian Orthodox church stated that Russia is ready to enter into the European community, but only on condition that its cultural and historical distinctives are preserved. Fully sharing this point of view, the president of italy noted the special significant of Orthodoxy as the faith of the majority of Russians. The meeting's participants noted that Russia and Italy are united by their Christian origins.

During the meeting the issue of the relations between the Moscow patriarchate and the Vatican was raised. His Holiness considers that the basic problems that complicate mutual relations of the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are the use of force by Greek Catholics against the Orthodox in western Ukraine and the matter of Catholic proselytism on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox church. "Orthodox parishes in western regions of Ukraine have been deprived of their church buildings. We do not agree with the statements of prominent Vatican leaders who consider Russia a field of missionary activity of the Roman Catholic church," the primate of the Russian Orthodox church declared. The position of the Russian Orthodox church was received by the president with understanding.

As a memento of the meeting His Holiness Patriarch Alexis presented President Carlo Ciampi an icon of the Mother of God.  (tr. by PDS, posted 28 November 200)

RUSSIAN PATRIARCH WARNS OF "OBSTACLES" TO POPE JOHN PAUL II MEETING
Agence France Presse, 28 November 2000

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Alexis II, warned Tuesday that certain obstacles would have to be overcome before any possible meeting with Pope John Paul II, Interfax said.

"We do not rule out the possibility of a meeting but believe it should be well prepared and the obstacles removed," the patriarch told Italian President Carlo Ciampi during talks here.

The two main obstacles preventing a papal visit to Moscow are Catholic proselytism in Russia and the persecution of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine, according to Alexis II.

The patriarch categorically disagreed with the view that Russia is "a field for the Catholic Church's missionary activities," Interfax said.

Alexis II first raised the possibility of a papal visit to Russia in June, but Russian President Vladimir Putin failed to invite the 80-year-old pontiff to Moscow during a meeting with John Paul II in Rome shortly afterwards.

The Russian press speculated that Putin had given in to pressure from the Russian Orthodox Church after moving closer to the religious body since assuming the presidency.

The Russian patriarch said Ciampi, who arrived in Russia Monday on a three-day official visit, had "listened with understanding" to his viewpoint, Interfax said.

The Italian president voiced the hope Tuesday that both sides would smooth the path to facilitate a meeting between the rival churches' leaders.  (posted 28 November 2000)

ALEXY II, ITALY PRESIDENT DISCUSS PATRIARCH-PONTIFF MEETING.
by Olga Kostromina
ITAR-TASS News Agency· 28 November 2000

Alexy II, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and Italian President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi have discussed a possible meeting between the heads of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

Meeting on Tuesday, the Italian president said he hoped for such a meeting and Patriarch Alexy did not preclude the possibility if certain obstacles were removed.

Key problems needed resolution in Western Ukraine, where Orthodox parishes had been destroyed in Lvov, Ivano-Frankovsk and Ternopol, Alexy said. "Orthodox believers were left virtually under open skies," he revealed.

The patriarch also challenged Roman Catholic evangelising on the territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. "We disagree with pronouncements by some prominent functionaries in the Vatican that Russia is a field for missionaries of the Roman Catholic Church," he said.

Orthodoxy had been caring for the people of Russia for a millennium and now led spiritual revival throughout the country, he said, noting that "these words were met with understanding by the Italian president. "

Alexy stressed Russia's willingness to join the European community, while preserving its historic and cultural traditions, a view shared by the president in references to the Christian culture and roots shared by both countries.  (posted 28 November 2000)

Church-state round table at patriarchate

Metropolitan Mefody Nemtsov: "RPTs is the church of the majority"

by Sergei Mulin
Segodnia, 18 November 2000

An exchange of letters of greeting between the head of the administration of the president of RF, Alexander Voloshin, and Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus, read by their appointed representatives, became the highlight of yesterday's round table "Church-state relations at the turn of the centuries" in the capital "President Hotel." Voloshin's deputy Vladislav Surkov, who was supposed to preside over the discussion, did not show up in the auditorium (the administration was represented by assistant to the head of the administration of domestic policy, Sergei Abramov) and thus the other side was represented at the "Kremlin" event by Metropolitan Mefody of Voronezh and Lipetsk. Despite the breadth of the announced topic, for some reason there were no representatives of other confessions besides Orthodoxy and the only ones who could oppose the hierarch were former teachers of scientific atheism. But they could not stand the pressure. Metropolitan Mefody immediately gave the conversation a harsh tone: "We should recognize that RPTs is the church of the majority."

When the same thought resounded in the letter of the primate of the Russian Orthodox church and the epistle from the Kremlin noted as a positive step the "process of returning worship buildings, churchware, and ancient books" to their true owner, one expected to hear the imperial "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality" and "God save the tsar," although they were not heard. The clergy who spoke for RPTs (in the main over forty years of age) first, in full correspondence with the decisions of the last bishops' council, pragmatically demanded the return to the church of all its prerevolutionary property, and second categorically opposed its legal establishment, which is understood to be the subordination of the bishops to secular authority. "Two centuries of the experience of the synodal path," as Mefody expressed it, testify to the danger of such a kind of "symphony of church and state."

However, everything sounded quite harmonious. When the deputy minister of education, Alexander Kiselev, cautiously expressed doubt that Orthodox priests are prepared to work with children, he was sharply rebuffed by Archbishop Ioann of Belgorod and Starooskolsk: "I myself taught in the institute for future teachers. . . . And it is very easy for us to train an adequate number of teachers for the schools."

The majority of secular participants in the discussion wanted, in the literal sense of the word, to stand at attention before the clergy. The situation was described by Kremlin employee Abramov as best he could: "This is a round table; but they usually sit behind the table. . . ." (tr. by PDS, posted 25 November 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/.