RUSSIA RELIGION NEWS

Russia Religion News Current News Items

---

Ukrainian church politics in critical state

UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH CALLS CONSTANTINOPLE PATRIARCH NOT TO INTERFERE IN ITS AFFAIRS
Interfax, 24 July 2008

The Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox church called Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew to cease interference in its affairs.

"The Ukrainian Orthodox church is able to resolve its own internal problems independently. Help from other local churches should not turn into interference in the internal affairs of our church," an appeal to Patriarch Bartholomew noted, which was adopted at an extraordinary, enlarged session of the synod of the Ukrainian church and published on the official site of the Moscow patriarchate.

Members of the synod declared that all initiatives for overcoming the church schism in the country should have the consent of the Ukrainian Orthodox church as "the only recognized Orthodox church in Ukraine," and the only member of the family of local churches.

In addition, the synod of the Ukrainian church declared undesirable the interference in this process of state authorities and various political and public forces; in the opinion of participants in the session, such interference always leads to "severe conflicts which may take many years to overcome."

At the same time, the appeal to Patriarch Bartholomew emphasized that in the history of the Constantinople patriarchate of recent centuries "one can see many example of how the interference of politicians in church affairs has led to painful church divisions."

"The present situation in Ukraine is no exception. It is the interference of political forces in church affairs that has led to the existing schism," members of the synod of the Ukrainian church think.

The head of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate, Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad Kirill, also participated in the synod session, at the invitation of Metropolitan of Kiev Vladimir. (tr. by PDS, posted 24 July 2008)

PREPARING TO GO TO KIEV, PATRIARCH ALEXIS II SENDS LETTERS TO LEADERS OF LOCAL CHURCHES WITH URGENT REQUEST NOT TO GO TO UKRAINIAN CAPITAL.
Portal-credo.ru, 23 July 2008

The Internet edition of "Orthodoxy in Ukraine" of the UPTsMP posted a photo copy of a sensational letter from Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus to Catholicos Patriarch of all-Georgia Ilia II in which the primate of RPTsMP recommends to the Georgian patriarch that he not come to Kiev for the celebration of the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Kievan Rus. Observers suggest that such letters from the head of RPTsMP, who plans himself to arrive in Kiev on 26 July, were sent to all primates of local Orthodox churches.

In the letter, the primate of RPTsMP "fraternally" shares "his concern in connection with plans of the Ukrainian authorities relative to future celebrations." "At the time of negotiations with authorized persons of the Ukrainian government, responsible for preparing the holiday events, we learned of the firm intention of the president of Ukraine to invite to the celebration not only Orthodox hierarchs but also leaders of all religious confessions existing in Ukraine," the letter says.

The invitation of heads of UPTsKP and UAPTs and hierarchs of Ukrainian Greek Catholics and other churches to the celebrations causes special resentment on the part of the Moscow patriarch.  "Circumstances which have developed in connection with the possibility of grievous offence of the faithful and threats of new divisions make it impossible for us to participate in events on the state's schedule in which schismatics participate," Patriarch Alexis warns. He also notes:  "With profound regret we are forced to request Your Holiness to refrain from personal participation in the festivities so that under the circumstances that have developed, independently of us, the fact of your presence would not be interpreted as a manifestation of support for anticanonical actions."

Despite the letter, Patriarch Ilia nevertheless will arrive in Ukraine for the celebrations.

Quotes [in Russian] from the letter of the head of RPTsMP have been made by back translation from Ukrainian. The full text of the letter is scheduled for publication on our Portal-credo.ru on 24 July.  (tr. by PDS, posted 24 July 2008)

VIKTOR YUSHCHENKO AWARDS ORDEER OF YAROSLAV THE WISE SIMULTANEOUSLY TO HEADS OF UPTsKP, UPTsMP AND UGKTS ON EVE OF 1020-th ANNIVERSARY OF BAPTISM OF KIEVAN RUS
Portal-credo.ru, 24 July 2008

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko awarded on 23 July the Order of Yaroslav the Wise (1st degree) simultaneously to Metropolitan of Kiev and all-Ukraine Vladimir of UPTsMP, and to the head of UPTsKP (whom he "anathematized"), Patriarch of Kiev  and all-Rus-Ukraine Filaret, and the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church, Supreme Archbishop Cardinal Liubomir Guzar.

The highest state award of Ukraine was presented by the president of the country to religious leaders after a session of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations, devoted to the celebration of the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Kievan Rus, which was held in Kiev, the Ukrainian edition of the "Kommersant" newspaper reports.

Participants in the ceremony called attention to a curious detail. When the marshal of the ceremony began announcing the name of the head of the Ukrainian Orthodox church of the Kievan patriarchate, Metropolitan Vladimir rose from his seat which, according to official Ukrainian protocol, he yielded to Patriarch Filaret. (tr. by PDS, posted 24 July 2008)

AUTHORITIES' ATTEMPTS TO CREATE INDEPENDENT UKRAINIAN CHURCH COMPLICATE RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN RELATIONS
Interfax, 24 July 2008

Participants in an international conference in Kiev, "The 1020th Anniversary of the Baptism of Rus; to the question of the civilizational choice of Russia and Ukraine," expressed concern over the attempts to politicize the celebrations in Kiev on the occasion of this date.

"It is difficult to overrate the significance for our common history of the Baptism of Rus, the triumph of light over darkness and civilization over barbarism. If we all really believe this, the upcoming days in Kiev will be a celebration and a real sign of love and brotherhood," says a declaration summing up the conference, which was held on 22-23 July on the initiative of the Institute of the Countries of CIS in the Ukrainian affiliate of this organization in Kiev.

"But we cannot help but express serious alarm in connection with attempts made by the Ukrainian authorities to politicize the jubilee for the sake of achieving the dubious goals of the creation of a so-called 'united local church,'" states the document, which was delivered on Thursday to Interfax-religiia.

According to the participants in the meeting, "the persistence with which the state authorities in Ukraine have directly and crudely interfered in the affairs of Orthodoxy, under the slogan of 'unity,' promoting the schism of the Ukrainian church from Moscow, cannot help but engender new disturbances and worries in the souls of believers who have only just been brought into the church after decades of militant state atheism."

"We protest against the tactics of all manner of intrigues with regard to His Holiness Patriarch Alexis II, wishing to cause conflict between the Moscow and the Ecumenical (ConstantinopleÑ"IF") patriarchs and persecutions of Orthodox citizens of Ukraine who advocate the unity of canonical Orthodoxy," the declaration says.

As its authors noted, such phenomena appeared also in the present conference, one of whose invited participants, the head of the Union of Orthodox Citizens of Ukraine, Valery Kaurov, was arrested on the eve of the event in Odessa, and another, the announcer of the TV program "Postscript," Aleksei Pushkov, was not able to get to Ukraine because of a conflict with the confiscation in Kiev of journalists' video materials made for his program in preparation for the jubilee of the Baptism.

"We would like to hope that the Ukrainian authorities will display real, and not false, hospitality to His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus, and we express alarm about the latest attempts to turn the holiday of the Baptism into a settling of accounts regarding the unity of Russian and Ukrainian Orthodoxy. We are convinced that such attempts will not happen without consequences both for their initiators and for Ukrainian-Russian relations as a whole," the participants in the event stress. . . . (tr. by PDS, posted 24 July 2008)

UKRAINIAN CHURCH CONFIRMS PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW RECEIVED REPRESENTATIVES OF UPTsKP and UAPTs IN CONSTANTINOPLE
Portal-credo.ru, 24 July 2008

Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew received in his residence in Istanbul the heads of UPTsKP and UAPTs, who are considered by the Moscow patriarchate as "schismatics," Patriarch Filaret and Metropolitan Mefody. This was reported to an "Interfax-religiia" correspondent by the head of the Department of External Church Relations of the Ukrainian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate, Archimandrit Kirill Govorun.

The result of this meeting led to an extraordinary Bishops' Council of UPTsKP, at which tentative ways for overcoming the "canonical isolation" of this church were discussed.

The head of OVTsS of UPTsMP also reported that in the run-up to the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Kievan Rus, Patriarch Bartholomew sent to heads of all local Orthodox churches invitations to participate in the Kievan ceremonies and even arranged in Istanbul for press credentials for coverage of the festivities in Ukraine.

Earlier, representatives of RPTsMP had frequently called on Bartholomew "to cease interference in the ecclesiastical affairs of Ukraine, which is the canonical territory of the Moscow patriarchate," and Patriarch Alexis II personally sent to heads of churches a letter with the urgent suggestion not to go to Kiev. (tr. by PDS, posted 24 July 2008)

GEORGIAN PATRIARCH DECIDES TO FULFILL MOSCOW'S REQUEST AND NOT GO TO CEREMONIES IN KIEV
Portal-credo.ru, 24 July 2008

Patriarch of all-Georgia Ilia II decided to heed the urgent request of Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus and not take part in celebrations of the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Kievan Rus, which are beginning in Kiev. This was reported on the "Orthodoxy in Ukraine" site, citing a source in OVTsS UPTsMP.

Thus, at the level of church heads, beside the Moscow and Constantinople patriarchs, only the Greek (Archbishop Hieronymos) and Albanian (Archbishop Anastasy) churches will be represented at the celebrations.

The Georgian church will be represented at the holiday in Kiev by an official delegation, and the Cypriot church, whose primate was in Moscow several days ago, will possibly completely abstain from participation in the celebrations.

According to the chairman of OVTsS UPTsMP, many representatives of local Orthodox churches have sent questions to his office concerning the desirability of participation in the jubilee events. (tr. by PDS, posted 24 July 2008)


YUSHCHENKO CALLS JOURNALISTS "TO BE UKRAINIANS" AND NOT SPECULATE ON TOPIC OF CONSTANTINOPLE PATRIARCH'S VISIT TO UKRAINE
Interfax, 24 July 2008

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko asked journalists not to speculate on the topic of the visit of Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew and the celebrations devoted to the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus.

As Yushchenko said on Thursday at a press conference in Kiev, he understands well that there will be much speculation around the events connected with the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism and the visit of the Constantinople patriarch.

"There will be colossal attempts to use journalists in order to present incorrectly the role, place, and significance of this event," the president said. At the same time he called journalists "to be Ukrainians and take a dignified position."

Yushchenko called the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew a great event for Ukraine.  "It is a colossal honor for our land and for our people to meet the Ecumenical patriarch," the president declared, noting that this is the first visit of a patriarch of Constantinople to Ukrainian land in the past 350 years (although the last visit by Patriarch Bartholomew to Ukraine took place in 1997Ñ"IF").

"It seems to me that this visit establishes fundamental processes for the consolidation of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, which should bring us to a united local church," the president noted.

Viktor Yushchenko again gave assurances that he will do everything possible so that in Ukraine there will be a united local Orthodox church.  (tr. by PDS, posted 24 July 2008)

YUSHCHENKO SELECTS A PATRIARCH FOR HIMSELF
1020th anniversary of Baptism of Rus may lead to new schism
by Boris Klin
Izvestiia, 24 July 2008

Ceremonies devoted to the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus are being presented by Kiev as a demonstration of the unity of Orthodox peoples. But in the end one gets the impression that the jubilee has been arranged in order to deliver a mighty blow to the Russian Orthodox church. For the time being this operation is proceeding successfully. One need only walk around Kiev and it becomes clear:  Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus, who is preparing to arrive in Kiev on Saturday, will be in second place in this holiday. Experts predict an uproar and the most pessimistic of them see something like a catastrophe for Orthodoxy.

"Ukraine welcomes Patriarch Bartholomew": such posters decorate all of Kiev. In the majority of them President Yushchenko stands next to the patriarch of Constantinople.

The authorities have announced that the visit of their Turkish guest will proceed "according to the same protocol as for the Roman pope." Events in which the patriarch of Constinople participates will be broadcast simultaneously by five Ukrainian TV channels. What is such attention for?

It is hoped in Kiev that he finally will recognize the schismatics of the so-called Kievan patriarchate (UPTsKP) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church (UAPTs). These organizations arose with the support of the Ukrainian authorities after the fall of USSR. From the point of view of official Kiev, their main virtue is independence from Moscow. The problem is that the Ukrainian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate is considered legal by world Orthodoxy, and UPTsKP and UAPTs are considered schismatics.

So now it is hoped in Kiev that Patriarch Bartholomew will recognize at least one of them. A more likely scenario is thought to be the acceptance of UPTsKP with "Patriarch Filaret," and of UAPTs with "Metropolitan Mefody" in the capacity of a metropolia of the Constantinople patriarchate. This step could be taken at a time when Patriarch Alexis is still in Ukraine; everything is ready in Kiev for the appearance of a church that is in no way subordinate to Moscow.

Whether Yushchenko has already managed to get the consent to this of Bartholomew will become clear at the end of the week. For now the head of the press service of UPTs of the Moscow patriarchate, Vasily Anisimov, says::  "People are being brought by bus from all over the country to Kiev; they want to assemble 50,000 persons. They hint that Patriarch Bartholomew will say something important about Filaret Denisenko."

A quite different reception awaits His Holiness Patriarch Alexis II.  President Yushchenko does not plan to meet him. In Kiev there is still no mention of Alexis's visit to Ukraine, which, incidentally, is the first in ten years. The Moscow patriarchate reported that attempts to decorate Kiev with posters "Ukraine greets its patriarch" were met with the prohibition of the authorities. Yesterday the situation with the posters was resolved; they appeared, but in minimal quantity. And just yesterday evening the Kievan authorities finally gave permission for holding a concert of the groups DDT and "Brothers Karamazov," which was supposed to be held with the blessing of the patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus. The Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs issued a warning:  Alexis II's arrival may provoke protest action.

In itself the invitation by President Yushchenko to Patriarch Bartholomew was a kind of diplomatic chicanery with respect to RPTs. The Turkish guest, who lost his flock long ago, but who retains the title of "Ecumenical," is considered first by right of "honor." But it would nevertheless be quite logical to expect that the chief guest at the celebration of the Baptism of Rus would be its, Rus', patriarch. However for him the authorities still have prepared a role of second rank, at a minimum.

And what if Bartholomew still recognizes the "self-anointed ones"?

Russian and Ukrainian scholars tried to find the answer to this question at a conference in Kiev on 22 July. Political scientist and State Duma deputy Sergei Markov thinks that the transfer of the schismatics to the jurisdiction of Constantinople will lead to a sharp reduction of the number of Orthodox believers in Ukraine. He said that it was like that in Poland in 1924; the Polish church did this under pressure from the government and the number of its parishes was reduced to one tenth. "We will still commune from a common cup; there will be no military conflict between Russia and Ukraine," the director of the Institute of the Countries of CIS, State Duma Konstantin Zatulin gave assurances. He recalled the civil wars in Yugoslavia:  "After all, this was a single nation, speaking the same language. They simply grazed in different places." The chief editor of "Political Class" journal, Vitaly Tretiakov, thinks the struggle over the church is a consequence of the struggle between the West and the East for Ukraine.  And he adds sadly:  a civilizational schism in Ukraine is inevitable.

And here the Ukrainian scholar, associate of the Institute for the Study of Russia, Viktor Konstantinov, sees the chief threat not in a civilizational schism. The church may lose trust as a public institution:  "In ratings of trust, churches today occupy the first places, but as soon as hierarchs act like politicians, trust immediately falls. For example, the rating of confidence in the Armenian church fell 5 to 6 percent after the Armenian monks fought with the Greeks in Jerusalem. People willingly forgive a fight in the parliaments, but not monks in churches. (tr. by PDS, posted 24 July 2008)

Russian original posted on Interfax site, 24 July 2008.

Prominent soviet-era dissidents challenge Moscow patriarchate (again)

DOCUMENT:  Open letter from priest Gleb Yakunin and historian Lev Regelson to primate of UPTsMP Metropolitan Vladimir and Moscow episcopacy

Your Blessedness, Monsignor Vladimir
Reverend Archpastors

The celebration of the millennium of the Baptism of Rus in Moscow in 1988 was marked by radical changes in the social status of RP:Ts: for the first time in many centuries the harsh governmental dictatorship was removed. At the time it seemed that nothing could prevent the church from displaying its incarnational nature and become for society the living image of active love and supreme morality.

However the opposite has happened: under conditions of freedom the chronic illness of the church only worsened and now has entered the stage of acute crisis. This crisis is displayed in the conflict between the hierarchy of RPTs and the rebel bishop of Anadyr and Chukotka Diomid. Having long ago received from his theses accusing them "the constantly growing heretical teaching of ecumenism" and other deviations from the purity of Orthodoxy, the leadership of the church, shaken by the unprecedented impudence of a provincial bishop, displayed their own helplessness and incompetence in theological dialogue and intrachurch diplomacy. In the end, the reaction of the Bishops' Council was hysterical and aggressive and only intensified the acuteness of the conflict.

For us there are two obvious causes of the contemporary crisis on the church. The first is that the ideology of utopian fundamentalism, with which Bishop Diomid has armed himself, matured long ago and has been intentionally implanted in broad strata of the Russian church, from the upper hierarchy to the "unchurched laity." The second is the uncanonical, anticonciliar, bureaucratic structure of the Moscow patriarchate, because of which a vacuum has formed between the totalitarian church authority and the believing people who are deprived of genuine spiritual training and enlightenment. In an atmosphere of religious ignorance the people easily are bewitched by apocalyptic myths, medieval fears, and nationalist historical utopias.

The Diomidite ideology finds its foots in the idea of the Pan-Orthodox Conference of 1948, which in terms of its representation and the scope of questions discussed laid claim to the status of an Ecumenical Orthodox council. The conference was held on the initiative and under the control of Josef Stalin, who intended at the time to "sanctify" Marxism with the Sergianite ideology which would cater to his regime and facilitate the achievement of world dominance of the soviet empire as the Third Rome. Russian church historian Johann Chrisotomos, assessed the significance of this conference thus:

"At the center of attention of the organizers of the conference was located world Orthodoxy. It was supposed to show itself as a moral force upon which the eastern bloc could operate in contradiction to the other churches of countries of the free world" (Church History of Russia in Modern Times," in German, 1965-68, vol. 3, p. 119)

According to Stalin's intent, the center of Orthodox should be transferred from Constantinople to Moscow, which would make not the ecumenical patriarch but the Moscow patriarch the head of world Orthodoxy.  "The leader and teacher of all progressive humanity" would assume the figure of the Orthodox emperor; and this nightmarish parody was accepted by the Russian church hierarchy with sincere delight.

The Pan-Orthodox Conference of 1948 (whose decision have never been rescinded) adopted the resolution "The Ecumenical Movement and the Orthodox Church" which opposed the ecumenical initiatives of Catholicism and Protestantism.

Before Bishop Diomid, the positions of the conference of 1948 were developed in the works of Metropolitan Ioann Snychev, who from 1990 occupied the Leningrad see. His book are still being published in colossal edition and they are dominant among the religious literature that is distributed through Orthodox churches, while Metropolitan Ioann is honored by many as a contemporary "teacher of the church." The basic ideas of his "confession" are Russian Orthodox exclusivity, struggle with non-Orthodox Christians, monarchical utopianism and antidemocracy, xenophobia, and antiglobalism. Representing, in essence, a development of the positions of the conference of 1948, the works of Metropolitan Ioann have become the chief source of "Christian enlightenment" for a whole generation of believing Russian people.

Bishop Diomid preaches the confession of Metropolitan Ioann, which is shared by the majority of the hierarchy of RPTs. Obviously it is for this reason that the Chukotka rebel was not subjected to some kind of doctrinal accusation but the measures to which he was subjected, without a trial and investigation in an unprecedented extra-mural procedure, were based solely upon disciplinary violation which supposedly occurred on his part. But Diomid, in contrast with Metropolitan Ioann and the leadership of the patriarchate, is a convinced antisergianite and an opponent of "spiritual compromise (neosergianism), that subordinates the church authorities to the secular, often antitheist authorities, infringing upon god-given freedom."

The role of initiator in the suppression of the Diomidite uprising has been taken on by one of the three most influential hierarchs of the Moscow patriarchate, Metropolitan Kirill Gundiaev. A worthy disciple of Metropolitan Nikodim Rotov, he, chameleon-like, has changed his ideological orientation, compliantly fulfilling any order from the state authorities. If Metropolitan Nikodim tried to theologically "unite" Orthodoxy with communism and place all interconfessional contacts under KGB control, then Metropolitan Kirill is heading up the World Russian Assembly, has worked out the concept of social service of the church, and has taught Russian legislators how to understand correctly the juridical and humanitarian principles of human rights. The billionaire (in dollars) who holds in his hands the ecumenical contacts and has for years appeared on television screens, Metropolitan Kirill, like his late patron, presents himself as an ideal target for Diomid's attacks, and for engendering among church people obscure conspiratorial legends and alarming apocalyptic rumors.

As in former times, "heresies walk in pairs," presenting themselves as mutually exclusive rationalistic or mystical distortions of the truth. Also as before, one can discover this truth only on the narrow line between contradictory false teachings: in the patristic era, between Nestorianism and monophysitism; yesterday, between Nikomidovism and Snychevism; and today, between Kirillism and Diomidism. Of course, no kind of opinion can be subject to canonical prohibition, so long as it has not been condemned by the conciliar reason of the church, but we also have the right and even the obligation to sincerely and responsible express our attitude toward these false and harmful teachings.

The chief false teaching of our time, the swamp from which all the others flourish, is the ecclesiological heresy of sergianism.  The spiritual illnesses of the contemporary church take their origin from the uncanonical, pseudoecclesiastical innovationÑthe sergianite Synod formed in 1927. It is no accident that the leading figures of the Moscow patriarchate, the Nikodimites, Snychevites, conservative bureaucratic functionaries, despite all the disagreements among themselves, unanimously sing the hymns of praise addressed to Metropolitan Sergius Stragorodsky, calling him "the great pilot of the church ship" and "caretaker of the House of the Lord."

For a way out of the blind alley of sergianism the church needs to return to the decisions of the local council of 1917-1918, the violation of which is the source of the crisis of Russian Orthodoxy. Today the Moscow patriarchate faces a question of life and death: either a saving acceptance of the ecclesiological truths of the great council or cessation of its historical existence in the capacity of a local church.

The experience of church life in the post-stalin epoch has shown that even in those conditions it was possible to achieve the personal feat of one, single bishop, who, counting o the support of the church people, fulfilled to the end his archpastoral church ministry, despite the wishes of the secular powers and the accompaniment of the entire "episcopal corps." We have in mind Archbishop Ermogen Golubev, your fellow countryman, son of the famous professor of the Kiev Ecclesiastical Academy, who was personally ordained a priest by Patriarch Tikhon and installed as abbot of the Kiev caves lavra. This outstanding hierarch, who served a lengthy term in prison camp  and was, by an "oversight" accepted into the ranks of the episcopate in the "stalin convocation," did not allow during the time of the Khrushchev campaign the closing of a single church in the Tashkent, Omsk, and Kaluga dioceses which he successively ruled. More than that, what seemed quite unthinkable, he built several new churchesÑa first in all of the soviet epoch (of course, under the pretext of "repair"), including an enormous cathedral church in Tashkent.

Sentenced by the bishops led by Patriarc Alexis I, for his "conflicts" with the secular authorities, to forced retirement, Master Ermogen did not remain retired and in his new capacity continued to fulfill his Episcopal duties. In his letter to the patriarch on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the restoration of the patriarchate he subject to critical analysis the canonical divergences of the patriarchate from the resolutions of the local council of 1917-1918. This analysis retains its pertinence entirely to this day. In particular, on the matter of the necessity of the participation of representatives of the laity in local councils he wrote:

"From a principled, ecclesiastical canonical point of view the question of the composition of the council must first of all be decided in dependence upon the manner of the formation of the episcopacy. If bishops are elected by dioceses in accordance with procedures established by church canons and as a consequence of this are really representatives of their dioceses, then, it seems, the council, as a representative organ of the church, may consist of bishops only. If bishops are not elected, as the church canons require, but in violation of them they are appointed, then it is clear that the episcopate formed in this way cannot have either the canonical or moral right to represent those dioceses which did not elect them."

Disagreeing with Master Ermogen in his response, Archbishop Alexis Ridiger, who then was the chancellor of the patriarchate, wrote:

"According to the sense of what has been expressed, it follows that all bishops of the synodal period and also after the restoration of the patriarchate are noncanonical."

This answer was a crafty attempt to create the impression that Archbishop Erogen had placed in doubt the apostolic succession of the synodal episcopate. But that is not the point. The question is only about the canonicity of the representative nature at the local council if bishops who were appointed from above and not elected and thereby about the canonicity of such a council. As is known, in the synodal period there were no local council and, consequently, no higher church authority, but the council of 1917-1918, which restored the canonical church structure and the patriarchate, was formed on the basis of the elective principle. Thus, the honest and simply presentation of the facts in the bishop's letter turns out to be fatal for the whole concept of the church's structure established after 1927.

It is impossible to say that "the brother bishops" did not understand this. The resonse to Master Ermogen's letter on their part was panic, not to say hysteria.

It is difficult to assess in any other way the statement of the same Archbishop Alexis, who at a session of the synod on 30 July 1968 literally cried out, addressing Bishop Ermogen who was present at the session:  "The harm inflicted by you must be corrected, erased, and obliterated."

We are convinced that the doctrinal testimony of the most worthy bishop of the Russian church has never been able to be "corrected, erased, and obliterated."

Your Blessedness Master Vladimir!

Esteemed archpastors!

Perhaps now the time has come when the arguments of Master Ermogen should be carefully studied and placed at the basis of conciliar work on the restoration of the canonical church structure. Archpriest Pavel Adelgeim, a disciple of Master Ermogen, has repeated his achievement: he also at the time of persecutions dared to build a new church, for which he was harshly punished. Fr Pavel worthily continued the canonical studies of his teacher. In his book "Doctrine of the church," which today may be considered a "clergyman's handbook," he subjects to a detailed analysis the new bylaws of RPTs, adopted by the bishops' council of 2000. Fr Pavel shows that all the changes in the bylaws were directed to restricting the role of the local council and transferring its authority into the exclusive domain of the episcopate. Thus, in the previous bylaws of 1988 there was confirmed the key determination of the council of 1917-1918 that "In RPTs the supreme authority in the spheres of doctrine, church administration and ecclesiastical justiceÑthe legislative, executive, and judicial authorityÑbelong to the local council." The new bylaws declare that the local council has supreme authority only "in the area of doctrine and canoncal structure." Thus, "the power of administration and justice, legislative, executive, and judicial," is transferred from the competence of the local council in favor of the bishops' council. A multiplicity of supplementary provisions and restrictions in the new bylaws strengthen this tendency to transforming the local council into a demonstrative fiction, not leaving to it any practical possibility of exercising even doctrinal authority. In particular, even when there are elected priests and lay persons present, the bylaws provide for a so-called "bishops' conference" within the local council, to which all final decisions belong. As a result the church as a whole "of canonical subdivisions" (as the bylaws of 2000 put it) the most numerous of which are "parishes and monasteries," actually is deprived of real participation in the election of the patriarch and the formation of organs of church administration, a well as in the resolution of questions of doctrine and canonical structure.

With regard to this Fr Pavel poses the legal question: 

"If the church is replaced by an episcopal corporation, then where do the clergy and the people of the Body of Christ come out? Where is their place? If the Body of Christ include clergy and people, it is necessary to recognize that the episcopal corporation does not constitute the whole church but only a part of it. Then the corporate interests of bishops may not coincide with general church interests. The part may deform the whole by virtue of its restrictions."

And further in connection with questions of doctrine he writes:  "Who is the maintainer and spokesman of Christ's truth in the church? The bishops' college? The clergy and people? Perhaps their conciliar unity? Then where is the organ in which their voice may be heard?"

In sum, fro the arguments of Archbishop Ermogen and Fr Pavel the conclusion undoubtedly follows:  no canonical local council in the Moscow patriarchate is in principle possible until there is restored beforehand the conciliar unity of the church people and the episcopate. From the impossibility of local councils flows also the absence of the canonical validity of church authority. The current Moscow patriarchate has authority only over those whom its has elected, that is, over the bishops' college. But this authority is purely administrative, that is, it does not have a mystical or charismatic character, which Metropolitan Sergius himself also recognized. The last one who possessed the fullness of church power was His holiness Patriarch Tikhon, elected at the last canonically valid local council.

The synod, patriarch, or bishops' council may, of course, by administrative procedure prohibit the ministry of Bishop Diomid, but only within churches that are under their control. It is quite a different matter when the current church authorities claim the right of rescinding episcopal grace, that is, of "divesting from the cloth," and also of rescinding baptismal grace, "exclusion from the church." Bishop Diomid has every basis to repeat on this matter the words of one of the founders of the catacomb church, Metropolitan Joseph, on the occasion of his punishment on the part of the sergian synod:  "Let these resolutions lie on longsuffering paper and ubiquitous senseless air, but not upon the living sould of the faithful servants of the church of Christ."

We have already expressed our attitude toward the false teaching which Bishop Diomid preaches, but canon law requires recognition that no administrative decrees about divestment from the cloth have real force.

The flood of "prohibitions," "divestments," and "exclusions" has for 80 years accompanied the "victorious procession" of the uncanonical organ, the Moscow patriarchate. But the creators of these punishments obvious do not believe in their reality. There were so many of them heaped on the heads of bishops of ROCOR that over there, it seemed, there could be no remaining traces of grace; but now, after their reunification to the RPTs they, as if nothing happened, have been accepted into fellowship in full orders. What happened: for 80 years there was not grace in ROCOR, but President Putin wanted to reunite the church, and suddenly it appears. Perhaps there also were persons without grace in the bishops of the catacomb church prohibited by the patriarchate, but whom now it canonizes as sacred martyrs.

Your Blessedness Master Vladimir!

Esteemed archpastors!

The Ukrainian and Russian parts of the Moscow patriarchate are seized by one and the same ecclesiastical crisis, but the dynamics of the development of this crisis in Ukraine and Russia are qualitatively different.

If one ignores the heat of political passions and tries to get to the profound ecclesiological essence of events that are occurring, then we will see the most important thing, namely that here in Ukrainian Orthodox a truly tectonic spiritual feat has been accomplished: before our very eyes "parish people" have recalled their apostolic descent and have again been transformed into "church people."

Our hope that the general regeneration of the church may begin with Ukraine is not utopia or an idle dream. Orthodoxy in Ukraine is a powerful and growing force. Already today the number of churches in which the Orthodox liturgy is performed on the territory of Ukraine is almost equal to that on the territory of Russia, and the number of active believers is significantly greater! At the same time in Russia, despite the growth in the number of church buildings, the total number of worshippers within them is steadily falling, while in Ukraine it is just as steadily growing. So that the Ukrainian church is not some small and insignificant part of the entire Russian church but, rather, it is greater and, we dare say, not an inferior part. Ecclesiastical healing, which has begun in Ukrain, can fully be spread from here also to the Russian church which is now the sickest part of the Moscow patriarchate.

We sincerely believe and hope that it will be you who can achieve the greatest Union in Christian history, the reunification of the episcopate with the church people proper. Once achieved within the borders of Ukraine, the regeneration of Orthodox ecclesiology can become an example for the whole church of Russia.

Moved by these brilliant hopes, we great you on the great jubilee which now is being celebrated where it should be, there, where the Baptism of Rus happened and where the living roots of the original Russian church are preserved. And let this holiday serve as a sign of the beginning of a new historical process, the healing and regeneration of Orthodox both in Ukraine and in Russia!  (tr. by PDS, posted 24 July 2008)


Russia Religion News Current News Items