RUSSIA RELIGION NEWS

Russia Religion News Current News Items

---

Prospects for new patriarch--3

WHO WILL BE ELECTED NEW HEAD OF RPTsMP?
by Alexander Musin, doctor of historical sciences, kandidat of theology
Gorod 812, 15 December 2008

Already a few days have passed since the day of the death of Patriarch Alexis, and he is already nearly forgotten; "we mourned about a half hour," as Galich wrote regarding the death of Pasternak. Everybody is interested in only one thing: who will be the next patriarch? The main intrigue swirls around two names:  Metropolitan of Smolensk Kirill, the "minister of foreign affairs" of RPTs, if we translate his office into secular language, and Metropolitan of Kaluga Kliment, "minister of internal affairs" of RPTs.

With the same precise efficiency the Bishops' Council, which will nominate the candidates for patriarch, was scheduled for 25 January 2009 and the local council, for 27-29 January, and the enthronement-inauguration of the patriarch, for 1 February. Although according to the statute the church had a half year in order to think over calmly what kind of patriarch it needs, everything will be done barely later than the forty days of memory for the patriarch.

Electors

The patriarch will be elected in a "closed session" of the local council consisting of bishops and representatives of clergy, monks, and laity. Some of the members of the local council will be present ex officio and some by election.

According to the statute of 1988 the procedure for election of members of the local council is determined by the Synod; now it is by the Bishops' Council, that is, a more collegial body. However the democratic nature of this measure is superficial: the Bishops' Council, a clumsy structure of 200 persons, will vote obediently for the suggestions of the synodal bureaucracy. Besides, the statute provides an alternative whereby the whole procedure is determined by the Synod and the council merely confirms it after the fact. And this is what has happened this time.

According to the present procedure, delegates for the local council of RPTs ex officio were all bishops, heads of bureaucratic structures of the patriarchate (chancellor, Department of External Church Relations, Academic Committee, etc.), rectors of ecclesiastical academies and the head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem. It is interesting that members of the newly created Commission for Preparing the Local Council also are members. The majority here are subordinates of Metropolitan Kirill.

Also ex officio members of the council are abbots of patriarchal monasteries, otherwise known as stauropigial monasteries, if they are bishops. Of the 11 only three are bishops: at St. Sergius', Valaam, and Novospassky in Moscow. This provision has absolutely no meaning and serves as a peculiar "consolation prize" for past "proximity to the body": all three already are members of the council on the basis of their episcopal rank.

There also will be elected delegates at the council. Outwardly everything is simple and democratic. Parishes elect their delegates to the diocesan assembly and this assembly elects delegates to the council from the diocese. But the peculiarities of inner church life turn such an election into a farce. In Moscow the diocesan assembly was scheduled for 12 December. It was practically unrealistic for parish meetings to be held by that time. Consequently at the general meeting there will be present only the rectors and their aides, symbolizing their "laity." In St. Petersburg the date for the assembly is still not known.

All elections must be held before 31 December and the lists of delegates must be presented to the commission preparing the local council by 15 January.

Three delegates from each diocese will be present in the council: a priest, monk, and layperson, "elected" at diocesan assemblies. Whereas in 1988 the diocesan assembly was the "supreme organ in cooperation with which the bishop rules the diocese," now according to the statute of 2000 this is simply "the organ of administration of the diocese," subordinate to the bishop. According to the previous statute, the assembly consisted of an "equal number" of representatives of the clergy and laity, and it was especially stressed that laity "consists" of men, women, and youth. Now it simply "consists" of clergy, monastics, and laity living on the territory of the diocese.

Monastic representation

It is worth noting that at the local council of 1990 representatives of all monasteries participated, but now it is not all. Today there are more than 700 monasteries, but the issue is by no means about quantity but the quality of the monastic material. The majority of monks are in complete solidarity with the position of former Bishop Diomid, and to admit them to the council would mean to sink into the mire of arguments about Individual Identification Numbers and ecumenism as portents of the antichrist.

A rectors' conference is supposed to elect 5 representatives from the ecclesiastical seminaries. The congress of 12 abbesses of stauropigial convents will elect 4 delegates. Almost certainly one of them will be Hegumena Barbara of Piukhtintsk cloister in Estonia: all patriarchal convents are "daughters" of this organizations. Another one should be the abbess of the Zachatiev convent in Moscow, a sage advisor and favorite of the late Alexis, Hegumena Iulianiia. On the territory of the St. Petersburg diocese there is only one stauropigial convent, St. John's on Karpovka headed by Serafima, a former attendant of the patriarch. The authority of St. John of Kronstadt could fully help her get to the council.

Patriarchal parishes abroad will also send their delegates to the council. The seemingly disproportionate attention to stauropigial monasteries and parishes is not accidental. Today, besides Moscow, they are in Petersburg, Kaluga, Arkhangelsk, and Novgorod provinces, in Karelia, Estonia, and Ukraine. Thanks to the late patriarch this is a materially secure and rather authoritative structure. In addition they should be an object of trade in the upcoming struggles for the throne of Moscow patriarchs. Stauropigial monasteries, which are not subject to the local bishops, always were an irritating factor for them. It is possible to get a vote in one's support by promising "to resolve" this problem in the future.

St. Petersburg will be represented in the council by at least 6 persons. These are the Petersburg bishopsÑMetropolitan Vladimir and his vicars, Bishop Markel and Bishop Amvrosy. The latter gets to the council directly by two "nominations"Ñas a vicar bishop, aide to the metropolitan, and as rector of the academy. A fourth will be the representative of St. Petersburg monastics, most likely Arkhimandrite Nazary, abbot of the Alexander Nevsky lavra and dean of local monasteries. In addition, there should be one priest and one layperson. The people elected will be those whom the metropolitan personally identifies. From among the clergy this may be either Archpriest Vladimir Sorokin, secretary of the diocesan council, or Archpriest Sergius, his "gray cardinal;" from the laity (to take a guess), the treasurer of the diocese Ivan Raevsky. The maximum number of representativea of St. Petersburg, 8 persona, will come about if Hegumena Serafima gets to the council and if the "rectors' conference," in which academy rector Ambrosy will participate, elects as one of the 5 representatives the rector of St. Petersburg Seminary.

Kirill versus Kliment

The procedure of election is not as interesting as its result, although it is worth mentioning the "preelection technology." Kirill requested that the election of the patriarch not be likened to the election of the president. And it is true that the technologies do not have the odor. At the council of 1990 the rector and warden of the patriarchal cathedral in Moscow where Alexis now lies in peace, Matfei Stadniuk and Nikolai Kaptiuk, passed among the delegates with cognac and caviar, urging them to vote for Vladimir Sabodan.

The majority are persuaded of the election of the "Petersburgian" as patriarch, Metropolitan Kirill, thinking that he is assured of this by his new post as acting patriarch. However, it is the indeterminacy of the future election that has forced members of the Synod to make him "caliph for the time." Kirill himself is taking advantage of this possibility by speeding up the convocation of the council. Whereas in 1990 after the death of Patriarch Pimen, such haste was explained by the fact that the country was at a crisis point, today this is by no means the explanation.

Metropolitan Kliment, a product (like the majority of bishops) of the St. Sergius Holy Trinity lavra, is able to assemble an opposition from among the "guardians," but in his deliberation he needs time, and he doesn't have time. Opposition to Kirill has formed on the basis of his image in the news media as a "modernist" and "westernizer," but Kirill is really a pragmatist, which all of the episcopate understands well.

This pragmatism is also esteemed by the Russian leadership with whom Kirill gets along more easily than with the bothersome Kliment who constantly brings up the issues of restitution of church properties and the introduction of the law of God into the schools.

As acting patriarch Kirill will be able to be photographed on the eve of the council with the president and prime minister at Christmas, showing to the council delegates that here "everything is locked up." It cannot be ruled out that such a meeting will have an especially organizational character. It seems that the Ukrainian bishops also support Kirill since he sent to them a definite message pertaining to a positive resolution of the question of independence from Moscow for the local church.

However, taking into account the groupings peculiar to us, Orthodox, the actions of the council will not be either a simple election or a vote of confidence, but will be the result of the correlation of clan interests. Besides the two candidates compromise figures are possible. First among them is Metropolitan of Minsk Filaret Vakhromeev, who by the logic of things should decline. A second person still has not appeared. Naturally our dear Metropolitan of Petersburg Vladimir is not in the running. Although he is a member of the Synod, his nickname among the bishops, "dry toast," explains a lot.

St. Petersburg prospects

Properly speaking, for Russia there are two possibilitiesÑeither Kirill will be patriarch or not; but for St. Petersburg there is only one. In the event that Kirill becomes patriarch, he will not tolerate the present state of affairs in his native city, and one of his first acts will be an honorable retirement of Metropolitan Vladimir and his replacement by a man close to St. Petersburg and Kirill himself. Incidentally, this could be Archbishop of Novgorod Lev, a one-time personal secretary for their common teacher, Metropolitan Nikodim Rotov (1929-1978). However, he is the one to whom the teacher addressed the words:  "You are a fine man, but aristocratic pride will undo you." Novgorod has already tasted the fruits of this prediction.

If Kirill does not become patriarch, then the fate of the Petersburg see also is determined. He will appear here himself; no patriarch could tolerate next to himself his former opponent. Such a fate befell the current Metropolitan of Kiev Vladimir Sabodan, the chief competitor of Alexis at "elections-90." Alexis waited two years to provoke the then head of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, Metropolitan Filaret Denisenko, into schism and then replace him with Vladimir, ushering him out of Moscow. Within the framework of such a scenario, Kirill will have to give up the foreign policy activity of RPTs in the capital in exchange for St. Petersburg.

Other intrigues

But the chief intrigue is not even the election of the patriarch but the agenda of the council. At its base is juridical nonsense. The council is supposed to approve the new statute of RPTs, which was adopted by the Bishops' Council of 2000. From the point of view of law this is possible only in the event that the local council was convoked in accordance with the old rules. This council is supposed to approve all the actions of the bishops' council since 1992. Among them is the defrocking of Diomid, who has many supporters. And the main problem remains the question of the independence or autocephaly of the Ukrainian church.

In 1992 the Ukrainians were promised that this question would be reviewed at the next local council, which is why no council at all has been convened for almost 20 years. If the Ukrainian delegates forget about this, then they had better stay in Russia.

As regards the late patriarch, he always repeated, speaking about human death: "to go the way of all the earth." He also repeated the common fate of all earthly things. The history of his pontificate is not worthy either of sweet molasses or vulgar abuse. One thing now is clear. In Russia everybody understands that we do not need an heir to the patriarchal throne. The gospel testifies that a person after death will be judged not so much for the evil that he did as for the good that he did not do. Thus the patriarchate of Alexis should be assessed from this point of view. (tr. by PDS, posted 16 December 2008)

Russian original posted on Portal-credo.ru, 16 December 2008

Russia Religion News Current News Items

---

Prospects for new patriarch--2

GUARD THE PLACE
Post of head of Moscow patriarchate after death of Alexis II stood vacant barely more than a day
by Alexander Soldatov
Ogonek, December 2008

Russian wisdom declares:  "A sacred place is not vacant!" This pertains literally to the church. The post of head of the Moscow patriarchate after the death of Alexis II stood vacant barely more than a day. As acting patriarch in the office of "guardian of the place" emerged the most influential hierarch of Russia, Metropolitan Kirill.

What kind of office is this, guardian of the patriarchal place? If one holds it long, such are its powers, can he not become the patriarch? And how is it that suddenly the metropolitan whom only the lazy do not criticize has turned out to be practically the only candidate for successor to Alexis II?

On the morning after the death of the patriarch, a commission for organizing the funeral assembled in the building of the patriarchate on Chisty Lane. The session was conducted by the patriarchal chancellor Metropolitan Kliment. It seemed that everything had been predetermined for "the succession to church authority." But in the evening of the same day, from the residence of the patriarch in Peredelkino came the news of the election of the Guardian of the Place [locum tenens] Metropolitan Kirill. And he also headed the funeral commission, whose morning session was declared illegitimate. Soviet party history gives a clear answer to the question of what the selection of the head of the funeral commission means. It is the selection of the future general secretary. But is that the way things go in the Russian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate?

"Metropolitan Kirill is the better choice," says Fr Georgy Kochetkov, who nurtures the Moscow intelligentsia and has a reputation as a liberal. "He is an organizer who can get everything straight with the governmental authorities." It is paradoxical that he is seconded by the co-chairman of the radical Union of Orthodox Brotherhoods, Hegumen Kirill:  "Metropolitan Kirill is a very sharp personality and a great erudite. Frankly speaking, nobody compares with him.

According to statute and tradition

According to the Statute on Administration of RPTsMP, adopted by the Bishops' Council in August 2000, the acting patriarch "fulfills the duties of patriarch as they are set forth in point 7 of chapter IV of the present statute, except for point "ts." Subpoint "ts" is the investing of bishops "with titles and high ecclesiastical distinctions" (for example, elevation to the rank of metropolitan). For the rest, the acting patriarch (guardian of the place) is a full-fledged patriarch, although only temporarily. He is commemorated at every service in all churches of RPTsMP (in our case, they also commemorate Grandfather Kalinin, whose family name is in Kirill's title, Kaliningrad), he oversees all synodal departments and the budget, and he issues letters in the name of the church and has direct contact with the state. But never the less the chief task of the acting patriarch is to convene the local council for election of a patriarch no later than six months after the death of the previous patriarch. Kirill was not about to drag things out; the local council was set for the end of January and the enthronement of the new patriarch for 1 February. One knowledgeable priest, despite the mourning, joked: this is the same as scheduling the baptism of a yet unborn infant. And that's true. After all, the statute of the church does not oblige the local council to sit for only two days (as Master Kirill has planned) and elect a patriarch without fail. But in our case the council plays a basically ceremonial role. More about this below. . . .

The term "guardian of the place" appeared in the Russian church at the same time as the patriarchate, at the end of the 16th century. The lengthiest of all, 21 years, was the guardianship of Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky under Peter I, and in the end the tsar completely abolished the patriarchate and declared himself head of the church.

It was decided to return to the patriarchate under Nicholas II. The church participated in its own way in the revolution of 1905 and called a Preconciliar Conference for preparing the restoration of the patriarchate. In the course of the next revolution, in 1917, the patriarch was elected, but his power was restricted by a bicameral parliament in the form of a Synod and Supreme Church Council. Patriarch Tikhon died in 1925 and Metropolitan Peter became his locum tenens; he was arrested the same year and up until the time he was shot in 1937 he was never released. But a year earlier, in 1936, with the approval of the authorities, Metropolitan Sergius declared himself acting patriarch and he became the founder of the contemporary RPTsMP. It was he whom Stalin received in the night of 4 September 1943, who proposed the regeneration of the church "at Bolshevik speed." Sergius, a doddering old man, displayed Bolshevik speed; he was elected patriarch on 8 September by 17 bishops who had been hastily flown to Moscow in planes of the Red Army. Hundreds of other bishops at the moment languished in the camps and thousands had been eliminated. The soviet authorities approached the election of the next patriarch, Alexis I, more thoroughly. He was acting patriarch for a year after the death of Sergius in April 1944 and in that time the Council for Affairs of the Russian Orthodox church liquidated "renovationism," whose bishops joined the RPTsMP. Alexis was elected unanimously (despite the statute of the council of 1917-1918) by a local council in which almost 40 bishops participated. The authorities also were concerned about bringing to Moscow several eastern patriarchs, who were presented 80 valuable gifts out of the Kremlin museums.

The next guardian of the place in 1970, after the death of Alexis I, was Metroolitan Pimen. His election was in preparation for more than a year and it took place in June 1971. After the Stalinist legalization of RPTsMP, acting patriarchs automatically became patriarchs (in 1943, 1945, adnd 1971). The established tradition was terminated by the "ultrademocratic" 1990, when the head of RPTsMP was elected in a contested and secret election. The election took a long time, three rounds. The acting patriarch of the time, Metropolitan Filaret, lost the election to Metropolitan Alexis, who was more pleasing to the Moscow nomenklatura, having occupied the post of chancellor of the patriarchate almost 25 years. Incidentally, Filaret never the less became patriarch, only not of Moscow but of Kiev, for which Alexis II pronounced an anathema upon his former brother.

Which scenario for election is being conducted now? "Automatic," like in the time of strong soviet power, or "ultrademocratic," like in the time of its disintegration? If the answer is not evident, it is necessary to deliberate some more.

Corporate event

In 1988, when the millennium of the Baptism of Rus was widely celebrated, the local council in the St. Sergius Holy Trinity lavra adopted a rather liberal statute for RPTsMP. It contained the requirement of secret, contested elections, several rounds of  voting, and so forth. The statute gave to the local council the plenitude of ecclesiastical authority and provided for its convocation "no less often than once every five years" (under soviet rule there had been only four local councils in all). The vote of the body of priests and laity weighed equally with the vote of the bishops, according to the statute.

After 1990 it was crudely violated. Local councils were not convened; in their stead Bishops' Councils were held. It was desired to celebrate the bimillennium of the Nativity of Christ with a local council, but at the last moment there were second thoughts and a Bishops' Council was substituted. At it, in the newly constructed church of Christ the Savor, a new statute prepared by the current acting patriarch was adopted, which abolished the church democracy of the 1988 form. It was adopted despite the fact that the former statute permitted introduction of amendments only to a local council. According to the 2000 statute, there is no more regularity in the convening of local councils, which are required only for election of a patriarch and that decision takes effect only after confirmation by two-thirds of the bishops. This is why the upcoming council will be ceremonial and the broad representation of priests and laity in it is a fiction. Real power remains with the bishops.

Without contestants?

Is there any chance of anyone besides Kirill becoming patriarch? Theoretically, yes. According to the statute, the candidate must be over 40, have advanced theological education, experience, reputation, and "have a good testimony from outsiders." In practice, no. And that is not just because Metropolitan Kirill is the richest bishop in RPTsMP or that he has smooth relations with the Kremlin or that he is psychologically more powerful than the rest. All of this is true, but even if it were otherwise, it would be impossible to put forward other candidates and assemble a sufficient number of supporters for them in the six months that remain. Master Kirill has never slipped backward in his career; he has moved only forward and has not concealed his patriarchal ambitions. And now there are not in RPTsMP even the last remnants of opposition in the person of Bishop Diomid. Indeed, the current statute of the church does not even require a contested election.

The logic of the current Russian administrative system does not permit a free contest in the election. They have shattered this system. In a period of crisis, such experiments are doubly dangerous. And even more so in the sphere of the patriarchate which is so sensitive for society and of symbolic significance for the government. It is an important source of the legitimacy of the authorities. The government does not have the right to try to advance the "Lukashenko man" Filaret of Minsk or the "Ukrainian separatist" Vladimir of Kiev or the "Moldovan winemaker" Vladimir of Kishinev. It would thereby pull the symbolic sacred rug out from under its feet. There still remain the aged metropolitans Vladimir of Peterburg and Yuvenaly of Krutitsy, but they themselves say that they are physically unable to "bear the patriarchal cross." There is also the young Metropolitan Kliment, who was considered the "candidate of the Kremlin" after Putin appointed him, and not Kirill, to the Public Chamber. But, first, Putin is not now the president and, second, society has been sent several signals that Kliment "is not approved": he was not allowed to direct the patriarch's funeral, the 10 December session of the Synod was held not in his domain, Chisty Lane, but in Kirill's domain, St. Daniel's monastery, and he was given the busy-work task of secretary of the preconciliar commission. In the church where  it is accepted to curse democracy and to idealize the "golden age" of soviet Orthodoxy of the 1940s, there is no basis for reproducing the democratic models of the 1990s.

All the things that previously had been considered weaknesses of Metropolitan Kirill have now been turned into his accomplishments. He cooperated with the regime and had the code name of agent "Mikhailov," and participated in the ecumenical movement? That strengthened the authority of the Soviet Union and protected the church from persecution. He got the nickname of "tobacco metropolitan" for importing cigarettes for humanitarian aid and he bought up former soviet monopolies? That laid the foundation for the economic independence of the church. He promoted the slogan of "Russia is a mononational, monoconfessional country," and supported the "Russian doctrine" calling for the use of a "clean nuclear weapon" against the West? It is because of this that Russia has risen from its knees and henceforth neither the West nor the East nor any minorities have the right to prescribe for it how and for what to live. A strong country needs a strong patriarch. Now nobody will be able to recall the petty sins of the metropolitan, on the basis of the evangelical principle that "whoever of you is without sin may cast the first stone."

We agree that now is not the time to cast stones. As recently as October and November Metropolitan Kirill gathered them for Russia in the fields of Namibia and the birthplaces of Venezuela, on the Isle of Freedom and in the depths of the jungles of Paraguay. They say that he has many limousines? But they are black, which is the color of monasticism.  Private jets? But they are white, which is the color of paschal joy. A villa in Switzerland? But it is needed for ascetic solitude. A penthouse in the "House on the Embankment"? But it has a panoramic view of the church of Christ the Savior and this promotes a prayerful mood. A rich country should not be ashamed of a rich patriarch. As was said by his predecessors Sergius, Alexis I, Pimen, and Alexis II, "our church will always be with her own people!" (tr. by PDS, posted 15 December 2008)

Russian original posted on Portal-credo.ru site, 15 December 2008

Russia Religion News Current News Items

---

Prospects for new patriarch--1

RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY:  FAREWELL, MIDDLE ROADS
RussiaÕs next patriarch may be harder-line than Alexy II
The Economist, 13-19 December 2008

Like most Orthodox Christian rites, the funeral of Patriarch Alexy II on December 9th was a mix of choreography and spontaneity. Massed choirs and sad dignitaries, including RussiaÕs political leaders, packed the incense-laden interior of MoscowÕs cathedral of Christ the Saviour: not the loveliest but perhaps the best-known of the 20,000 or so Russian Orthodox churches to be built or rebuilt on the patriarchÕs 18-year watch. For all the formality, there was nothing scripted about the way AlexyÕs fellow bishops took turns to lean over his open coffin and sob as they bade farewell. In the Russian Orthodox world, many will miss the prelate who oversaw the churchÕs revival after acting, in his early life, as a loyal servant of the Soviet state.

But people outside that world may ask: miss him for what? By no Western standards could the patriarch be described as an enlightened or reformist figure. Westerners who welcomed the restoration of religious freedom in post-Soviet Russia were often dismayed by the cosy relations that AlexyÕs church enjoyed with the Kremlin. They winced when he disciplined or defrocked liberal Russian priests; they were disappointed by the churchÕs support for a 1997 law that curbed the activities of Ònon-traditionalÓ faiths, like non-Orthodox forms of Christianity.

Inside the church, things looked rather different. On the churchÕs ultraconservative fringe, Alexy was excoriated for being too pro-Western. An emollient speech that he made to New York rabbis in 1991, stressing the common past of Christians and Jews, was held against him by zealots. When he merely disciplined liberal priests, the hardline camp said that he should have excommunicated them. Typical of AlexyÕs Òmiddle roadÓ was his reaction to the burial in 1998 of bones that the government, after DNA tests, deemed to be those of the slain royal family. Ecclesiastical hardliners said the bones were not those of the Romanovs, but Boris Yeltsin wanted a funeral. Alexy declined to pronounce on the bonesÕ identity but agreed to their burial anyway.

What lies ahead for the Russian church, which has seen a surge in its visible strength, at the price, some say, of forfeiting all ability to speak truth to power? In late January bishops from Russia, Ukraine and the Slavic diaspora will meet to elect a new patriarch. The ostensible favourite is the current locum tenens, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, a tough and sophisticated practitioner of geopolitics as well as politics of the ecclesiastical sort. He has fought MoscowÕs corner in a contest with the Istanbul-based Ecumenical Patriarchate for sway over eastern Christianity. (Curiously, Britain is one of the arenas where that competition is going on. An English court is due to rule next year in a dispute over the assets of a diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate, whose acting leader, Bishop Basil Osborne, left MoscowÕs jurisdiction for IstanbulÕs in 2006, along with a group of priests and faithful. The bishop has said he wishes that the matter could be solved by negotiation or arbitration.)

Other bishops in the running to take over from Alexy include two senior insiders: Kliment, seen as a cautious conservative, and Juvenaly, a veteran of the Soviet era who has epitomised the enigmas of Orthodoxy by seeming to be a loyal son of the state, while acting in private to protect the churchÕs liberals. People make similar claims of Metropolitan Filaret, head of the church in Belarus. And some say of the patriarchate the same thing that Kremlinologists often say of Russia: the next leader could be a dark horse, so conservative that todayÕs players will seem like bleeding-heart softies.  (posted 15 December 2008)


Russia Religion News Current News Items

---

Georgian church opposes Saakashvili government

GEORGIAN OPPOSITION BLESSED
Patriarch Ilya II supports Saakashvili opponents
by Mariia Yurieva
Moskovskii komsomolets, 12 December 2008

An opposition movement intending to take an active part in the public and political life of Georgia has been born in emigration. On Wednesday opponents of Saakashvili actually received the blessing of Catholicos Patriarch of all-Georgia Ilya II, who declared at a meeting with the initiative group of the World Assembly of Peoples of Georgia (which is what the new movement will be called) that he hopes for the peaceful development of Russian-Georgian relations.

"Georgia needs a strong Russia and Russia also needs a united and friendly Georgia. I think that with God's help we will achieve this," the Georgian patriarch declared after arriving in Moscow to participate in the funeral ceremony for Alexis II. His visit with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was called by the patriarch "historic."

In the opinion of the patriarch, Georgia and Russia must value those good relations which developed between them over centuries. "I leave with hope," Ilya II said. These statements were made at a meeting organized on the initiative of the leader of the World Assembly of the Peoples of Georgia, the famous fighter and athletics figure Gocha Dzasokhov. The irony is that Dzasokhov, who is an Ossetian from the Gori region of Georgia, was forced to emigrate after the August war because of persecution on the part of the Saakashvili regime. This persecution began after he openly spoke out against the actions of the authorities in South Ossetia. Now Dzasokhov intends to unite Georgians and representatives of all "nontitular" peoples of Georgia in the new movement. And that the Georgian patriarch accepted his invitation signifies the approval of this undertaking on the part of the church.

Other famous figures were noted at the meeting with the patriarch including leaders of the Georgia diaspora Mikhail Khubutiia and Vladimir Khomeriki, diplomat Petr Chkheidze, a former associate of Aslan Abashidze, Badri Meladze, the former Georgian ambassador to Russia Zurab Abashidze, and others. There were representatives of various national societies of Georgia. There is no doubt that the new movement will be sharply oppositional since Dzasokhov has already called earlier for the removal of Saakashvili. (tr. by PDS, posted 13 December 2008)

Russian original posted on Portal-credo.ru site, 12 December 2008

Russia Religion News Current News Items

---