Posted on 04/21/2002 5:34:47 PM PDT by history_matters
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 21, 2002 (Zenit.org).- The Vatican protested to Russian authorities over the expulsion of Bishop Jerzy Mazur of the Catholic Diocese of St. Joseph of Irkutsk, in Eastern Siberia.
On Friday night, when the Polish-born bishop arrived in Moscow´s Sheremetievo-2 airport "he was expelled from the territory of the Russian Federation and forced to take a flight to Krakow, from where he came," says a statement issued Saturday by the Vatican Press Office.
The bishop "was given no reasons for the measure," the statement adds. The Vatican "State Secretariat and the pontifical representation in Moscow appealed immediately to the Russian authorities, requesting an explanation and the restitution of the bishop´s visa."
The Vatican State Secretariat called a meeting with Vitaly Litvin, the Russian Federation´s ambassador to the Vatican, who said that he had not been informed about what happened, the missionary agency Fides reported.
The Vatican note stated that what "has happened to Bishop Mazur, a few days after the expulsion of Italian priest Stefano Caprio, parish priest of the Holy Rosary church in Vladimir and Ivanovo, represents a grave violation of the commitments assumed by the Russian governmental authorities, who signed the conclusive document of the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe, in January 1989."
In Article 16 of the principles of that document, the signatory states commit themselves to respect the right of religious communities "to choose, name and replace their own personnel according to their respective needs and their own norms."
Vatican spokesman Joaquín Navarro-Valls ends the statement by requesting "the review of the measure adopted and that Bishop Mazur be able to return soon to his faithful in Eastern Siberia."
In statements to Vatican Radio, the bishop, 48, said that his visa expires next January. "I was surprised that I was not given any explanation," he said. "I was told at the airport that the decision came from higher up and that they knew nothing about it; they only knew I was not allowed to enter."
"It never occurred to me that they would not let me return to my diocese, where I carry out my pastoral work as bishop," he added. "At this difficult time, we must trust the Lord even more. I ask everyone to pray for the Catholic Church in Russia and for all Christians."
Father Caprio´s expulsion and now that of the bishop of Irkutsk has caused fear among the 215 Catholic priests in Russia, the vast majority of whom are foreigners.
Metropolitan Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz of Moscow said in a statement: "Russian Catholics are wondering who will be next, and how long this will last. Are constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience and the right to have their own pastors, including the right to invite them from abroad, also valid for them?"
Last week the Russian Duma failed to halt a motion asking President Vladimir Putin to close the four Catholic dioceses recently created by John Paul II. The motion states the "activity of the Catholic Church in Russia must be prohibited because it represents a threat to Russia´s integrity," given its alleged intent "to impose its will on our people" as if the country were "a spiritual desert."
In 1439, the Florence council of Orthodox and Catholic high clergy formally united the two churches separated until then. The Pope felt triumphant. Yet the former Metropolitan turned Catholic Bishop Isidore was nearly torn apart by a crowd of the 'formerly Orthodox' who had no wish to fall into the bosom of the motherly Catholic Church. The Union of the churches fell through scandalously.
On February 11, 2002, the Vatican formalised its presence in Russia by establishing a full-fledged Catholic Diocese. A solemn mass was followed by a press release of the Pope John-Paul II himself, concerning the creation in Russia of a 'province of the Roman Catholic Church', according to Strana.ru website. This is how Russia has become just another province of the Vatican.
According to Russian Orthodox clergy, this is nothing if not an openly missionary activity on the part of the Vatican. As Alexei II, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, wrote in his statement that did not take long to follow, 'The establishing in Russia of this church means an actual challenge to Christian Orthodoxy, which has been rooted in this country for many centuries. There has never been anything of this kind in the history of Russia. Moreover, such organisation of the Catholic Church is not typical even for purely Catholic countries where there are no Catholic provinces and whose dioceses are, in fact, governed by metropolitans'.
As goes public consciousness, the idea of 'missionary activities' is usually associated either with islands in Oceania or with redskins visited, in long ago times, by Catholic priests trying to spiritually enlighten savages wallowing in their sinful fallacies. Very often these priests were used for food.
Missionary activities in the country that adopted Christianity over a thousand years ago seem somewhat strange.
The last attempt to enlighten Muscovites was made by the Vatican in the 13th century when knights from the orders of Sword Carriers and Teutons were sent to baptise Slavic savages with sword and fire. That time, the forcible 'baptising' was very successfully stopped at the root by a good Christian believer, prince, later canonised St. Alexander Nevsky. Since then, there have been no more papal attempts to bring its version of the teaching of Christ to Russia by force. The Vatican's actions later became more 'politically correct'. These politically correct actions included the Florence Union of the churches, the quest of Dimitry, the pseudo-heir to the throne of Russia, who, by the way, did not at all justify the hopes invested in him by Polish Catholic Priests, and the much later setback the Orthodox Church suffered in Russia during the reign of Peter the Great, the pro-Western tsar. More than during other times, Catholic and other organisations flourished in the Russian Empire under Alexander I, when the majority of Russian aristocrats were under the influence of some ore other mystic teachings. The first and foremost among those was the teaching of Free Masons adhered to by great many Decembrists to be. The 'blessed emperor', however, changed his mind soon enough and banned all such 'non-governmental organisations'.
The following monarchs did not have much patience with Catholicism and allowed papal parishes to preach to churchgoers only if not too far from the western borders of the empire. Of course, while the Russian Orthodox Church was officially married to the state, another treatment of other churches could hardly be expected.
Today is a different time. Church is separated from state and secular powers-that-be of the Russian Federation allow all, be it totalitarian sects, scientologists, or harmless followers of the Society of Krishna Consciousness. Under such circumstances, the decision of the Vatican to create a Catholic diocese in Russia does not seem too farfetched. Indeed, without such entity as a diocese, handling parishioners true to the tradition of the Sacred Heart of Jesus is not easy at all.
However, remembering the traditions and history, the Vatican acts as 'politically correctly' as possible. Thus, in his statement, Thaddeus Condrusevic, who represents the Pope in Russia, wrote, 'to express our due respect for the dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church and their highly respected arch-pastors, the Catholic dioceses in Russia are named after saints and biblical events rather than after the cities where their centres are located'. That is, not to confuse Tikhon, the Archbishop of Novosibirsk and Berdsk, and Joseph Vert, the Archbishop of Novosibirsk, the latter will be referred to as Joseph Vert, the Archbishop of the Hholy Transfiguration. In the meantime, the new stronghold of Catholicism in Russia, Moscow, will be called the Diocese of the Mother of God, probably not without a hinted reference to Russia being the Domain of the Mother of God, according to Russian Orthodox tradition. That the Vatican's move is not just religious but also strictly political is no big secret. The rhetoric of the official statement of Thaddeus Condrusevic, the head of the Catholic Church in Russia, is full of far from original cliches as goes assuring of 'mutual friendship and cooperation'. Such, for instance, is the expressed hope that 'the latest changes in the structure of the administrative units of the Catholic Church in Russia will be well understood by Russia' public, while serving the country's further progress on the way of democracy and religious freedom'. No doubt, having a dialogue is a good thing, yet there are limits to that. The assuring of friendship and cooperation sounds even stranger in the light of NATO's increasingly obvious eastward expansion.
Of course, at this time, the Russian Orthodox Church can hardly claim being the spiritual leader of the nation. The reasons for this are many, from the fact that over half of our people adhere to other religions to the profound internal crises and contradictions. Yet such an open expansion of Catholicism, the religion that has never been close to the people who have all their lives grown and lived under the influence, if often at the subconscious level, of the cultural and spiritual heritage of Russian Orthodoxy, absolutely must be met with a harsh response not only on the part of the Moscow Patriarchy but also on the part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
According to Strana.RU, 'The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has expressed its regret that the decision of the Pope John-Paul II was made without due consideration of the opinion of Russia's government'. The statement further reads, 'The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recommends that the Holy Throne abstain, for the time being, from transforming the administrative entities of the Catholic Church into dioceses and discuss the matter with the Russian Orthodox Church'.
Yet the Vatican's decision still stands. The question what may be the further response of the Russian Orthodox Church in need of preventing the outflow of its followers toward the foreign spiritual source remains open.
Pavel Zhitniuk, Rosbalt News Agency here
It probably goes deeper than that. Prince Vladimir chose eastern orthodoxy because of the splendor of the Byzantine liturgy, back while the two were united. He rejected the Jewish religion because they had been hounded place to place and rejected the Muslim religion because the Russians couldn't do without their vodka. (From the book "Christ in Russia").
First, Ukraine is an independent nation. Second, there are and have been large numbers of Ukrainian Catholics. Third, there are no less than three Orthodox Churches claiming Ukraine of which 2 do not recognize any authority of Moscow over Ukraine. Fourth, even the Ecumenical Patriarch has had difficulty dealing with Patriarch Aleksy II and the Russian Orthodox Church. Goodness, the Russian Patriarch had the audacity to remove the Ecumenical Patriarch's name from the dyptichs during their disputes of late.
Shall we then talk about Patriarch Aleksy II and his relationship to the Soviet regime?
Now they don't appear to want a catholic presence there.
That's right, history. So come home.
I did not know that Saint Michael was patron saint of visas and passports!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.