Russian Orthodox Patriarch Reacts to Election of Benedict XVI

National Catholic Reporter ^ | April 25, 2005 | Stacy Meichtry

[RussianBoor]

Ukraine is independent and has an independent Orthodox church which has nothing to do with Alexis II.

[Romanov]

Just about every religious group could claim the same in the FSU. However, I do know many Orthodox Russians who do not trust any Orthodox priest who was practicing during communist times. As you correctly pointed out - thousands were killed during Lenin's and Stalin's reign. Because of this a lot of Orthodox believers felt (and feel) that the "new" priests (who appeared after the purges) were co-opted by the MGB and later the KGB. Alexandr Yakovlev's democracy fund has documented (via archives) cases of Orthodox collaboration with the KGB. It's not so unusual when taken into context with what went on in the Soviet Union (the KGB had it's tentacles in every aspect of life).

I was a bit disappointed by the Patriach's stance on the Pope. His fears were a bit unreasonable, after all, if an Orthodox wants to convert to Catholicism, they'll do so regardless of a visit of the Pope. (I'm not Catholic)

There are some who believe that Alexy II is actually "Drozdov" - an orthodox priest fitting his description who was recruited by the KGB in Estonia. Who knows, but what is interesting is hardliners still loath Pope John Paul II for his role in the demise of the Soviet Union. During the hullabaloo about the Pope's desire to visit Russia there were some that surmised Alexy II was yielding to his former "friends" (only possible if "Drozdov" was indeed Alexy II). The Orthodox Church has been kind of clumsy on answering questions about Alexy II and "Drozdov" and an alleged citation awarded to him. Having said that, the Orthodox Church has been making a positive impact on Russia and that is worthy of praise.

[TaxachusettsMan]

With the Jubilee Year and the work of Pope John Paul II (soon, no doubt, to be Blessed John Paul the Great = hey, if Alexis Toth qualifies as a Saint, who doesn't?), the Roman Catholic Church was APOLOGIES-R-US.

I still haven't heard a kind word out of Alexy II.

Nor any public disavowal of his ties to the KGB.

By the way, where is the OCA in all of this? I remember a Bishop of the OCA agonizing - a number of years ago, of course - whether to use in the final blessing the words "the Soviet New Martyrs" as he had been doing - precisely because there WAS a delegation from Moscow present.

[TaxachusettsMan]

"leave you alone"

Gee, I thought the words of Pope John Paul II in returning the icon of the Virgin of Kazan (not a popular move with our beloved right-wing, by the way) were quite sincere, utterly eloquent in both their contrition and Christian optimism.

Alexy II, of course, made sure the icon was brought to him first, lest the Moscow Catholics venerate it before he did ("Humility, that low sweet root / From which all heavenly virtues shoot.")

And your snide indictment "Uniatism", by the way, flies in the face of the literally THOUSANDS of Ukrainian Catholics (not to mention Melkites and Maronites, etc. etc.) whom I've met over the years, who are both happy and proud of their communion with the Pope of Rome.

In fact, in my experience, most of the Orthodox who aren't are ex-Episcopalians or Southern Baptists who - in becoming Orthodox - found in the residue of anti-Uniatism a perfect (and, sadly, ecumenically acceptable) outlet for their anti-Catholicism.

[dangus]

Forcing people to leave their own church to join the official state-sanctioned, KGB-dominated Church is what you call "forcing them to become Christian"? Nice attitude.

The truth is that the state propped up a state-controlled Patriarch and gave all those who would come under his authority security, while it murdered all others.

[Thorin]

>>>>>Well, talking about nonsense... Communists forcing people to become Christians... I guess you've just won a top prize for ignorance. Congrats!

As unbelievable as this sounds, it is true. When the Soviets conquered the Western Ukraine (which had been part of Poland or Czechoslovakia before WW II), they held a synod in which some clergy renounced their union with Rome, and then persecuted all those who ramained faithful to Rome. The churches of the Eastern Catholics were handed over to the Eastern Orthodox churches, which were implicit in the persecution.

[dangus]

>> I have yet another question: If we are going to reunite all Christians, why start with Orthodox? There are many more non-catholic churches in the world. Why bother so much about Orthodox Christians? <<

Because whereas Rome considers the Orthodox "sister churches," the Protestants are "gravely deficient."

[dangus]

"Ukraine is independent and has an independent Orthodox church which has nothing to do with Alexis II."

It is the Ukraine that Alexis is wailing about.

[RussianBoor]

I would add to the clash of Orthodox and Catholic churches in Eastern Europe that a couple of military Catholic orders like the Teutonic Knights had a very explicit goal to conquer Russia and convert the people into Catholicism. They elected to do this right during Mongolian invasions, helping Mongols against fellow Christians. Old memories die hard. Orthodox people also remember well the help they got from Catholics during the Fourth Crusade.

[lizol]

Hmmmm... really???

How about this:

STATEMENT OF THE HOLY SYNOD OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW CATHOLIC DIOCESES IN UKRAINE


The Russian Orthodox Church has repeatedly stated that Catholic proselytism among the traditional Orthodox population in Russia and other countries of the Commonwealth of the Independent States presents a serious obstacle for normalizing Orthodox-Catholic relations. The events that took place in Ukraine, where an overwhelming majority of the faithful belong to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, point to the Vatican's firm intention to pursue the policy of missionary expansion unacceptable for the Orthodox side.

On July 13, 2002, a new bishop was installed to a new diocese of the Roman Catholic Church, the diocese of Odessa and Simferopol with its center in Odessa, established by the decision of Pope John Paul II of Rome made on May 4, 2002. On the same day, announcement was made about the decision of the head of the Roman Catholic Church to establish another diocese in Ukraine, that of Kharkov and Zaporozhye with its center in Kharkov.

The Russian Orthodox Church, respecting the need of Ukrainian Catholics for pastoral nourishment, has not been against Rome's creating dioceses in regions where they have lived historically. However, the newly-established bishoprics have emerged in regions where they have never been and where the number of Catholics is very small.

Attempts to spread its influence to the West of Ukraine have also been made by the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. In mid-January 2002, John Paul II approved the decision of the Greek Catholics to establish an "Exarchate of Donetsk and Kharkov" by separating it from the "Exarchate of Kiev and Vyshgorod". The leaders of the Greek Catholic Church have made public their desire to move to Kiev and establish a "patriarchal" see there.

People in the South and East of Ukraine have always stood for the Orthodox faith. The attempts to Latinize them or to impose Unia on them have been invariably abortive. It is needless to remind that this region has never had any Greek-Catholic episcopate.

The above-mentioned steps have pointed once again to the strategic intention of the Vatican to continue its eastward expansion at any price and by all possible means. Five months ago, in February 2002, similar actions were undertaken by Rome in the Russian Federation, which has actually suspended relations between the two Churches.

We state with all conviction that those who are responsible for the adoption and implementation of such decisions have consciously sacrificed the fate of interchurch dialogue for the sake of tactical "successes", which, incidentally, failed to bring and will fail to bring any real benefit to the Catholic Church. The developments show that the Vatican leaders ignore the position of our Church on proselytism and on division of the spheres of pastoral responsibility. We have repeatedly heard, even in recent times, the Catholic side stating that Rome condemns proselytism. But unfortunately, deeds testify the reverse.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church reiterates the position set forth in the documents sent to the Vatican on June 28, 2002. We believe to be proselytism the very fact of Catholic mission carried out among Christians of the apostolic faith who have no historical or cultural links with the Catholic Church whatsoever. The reaction of the Catholic hierarchy to this point of view has only confirmed a fundamental disagreement between the positions of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. The Catholic side has again stated its desire to continue "preaching the gospel" to all people without any reference to the fact that some of these people belong to another Christian tradition and to their own Local Church.

There can be only one real way out of the crisis, which has been aggravated by the new steps of the Roman Catholic Church in the territory of Ukraine. It is necessary to abandon the theoretical condemnation of proselytism "in general" and to recognize that missionary efforts made in the territory of the pastoral responsibility of another Church are inadmissible.

The Russian Orthodox Church resolutely condemns the actions of the Catholic side, calling it to common sense and reason. At the same time, we ask the Orthodox Christians: be faithful to the mother Church as never before and "be always prepared to make a defence to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" (1 Pet. 3:15).

http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/ne207173.htm

Well - "nothing to do with Alexis II" indeed.

[TaxachusettsMan]

Old memories die hard.

Gee, I guess.

Paul VI kissing feet at St. Peter's.

John Paul II sending back icons.

What else do we have to kiss? And is there anything else we can send to at least move you folks beyond the Fourth Crusade?

And - what would really be funny, if it weren't so pathetic - all the "Orthodox" anger for Rome's past sins on the part of people who two years ago were Episcopalians or Southern Baptists.

PUHHLEEEEEZE, get real.

[RussianBoor]

Well, knowing firsthand how the Communists prosecuted Christians and, for instance, what a grave risk was taken by my parents when they baptized me in 1960-s, I wonder about "state-sanctioned church". Quite possibly some of the clergy in Western Ukraine were eager to please Soviets to save their necks. I do not know what exactly happened at that particular time, and I do not support fights between Christians, especially those that do not involve questions of faith but rather are about who is the boss. However, I do think that even now the policy of the RC church is too aggressive.

[lizol]

You forgot John Paul II apologizing to Patriarch of Greece for sins committed by sons and daughters of Catholic Curch against Orthodox faithfuls.

Greek fury over Pope visit

[RussianBoor]

Sorry, if you could explain me the difference? In practical terms, say the Church of England is as independent as the Orthodox Church.

[Romanov]

Woah, time out here. The Russian Orthodox Church hs martyred victims of Communism. Try a trip to St. Pete's Peter and Paul Fortress and take a gander at the tomb for the last Tsar's family (and servents). Try a visit to any area where Communist crimes are on display - you'll see a chasovnya (a small "church" type building) where people can pray.

Regarding Southern Baptists and others - sounds like you're Catholic and if so, you're engaging in the same rhetoric you claim they are. Casting stones, eh? BTW, I'm a former Southern Baptist and I can't for the life of me recall ever hearing that Catholics were bad and must be converted...

[katnip]

And - what would really be funny, if it weren't so pathetic - all the "Orthodox" anger for Rome's past sins on the part of people who two years ago were Episcopalians or Southern Baptists.

Two years ago I was neither of those. I was Roman Catholic and am now Eastern Orthodox and belong to a church in OCA. I have no anger towards Rome and think it was proper for the pope to return the icon and the bones of the Saints.

I have found peace and proper worship with the EO and don't think about the RCC at all anymore. I was sad when the pope died and happy for the RC church that a good man was made pope. No anger, just puzzlement why the RC's here want the Orthodox to join them so badly that it angers them?

[Agrarian]

"Gee, I thought the words of Pope John Paul II in returning the icon of the Virgin of Kazan (not a popular move with our beloved right-wing, by the way) were quite sincere, utterly eloquent in both their contrition and Christian optimism."

I do believe that JPII was very sincere in wanting to promote steps toward reunion between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The problem was that symbolic gestures like returning relics and copies of famous icons are very nice, but the proper response to such gestures is returning things that Orthodox have stolen from Catholics (I can't think of any, but I'm sure they exist), or to give nice gifts in return. The things that the Orthodox need to see in order to be interested in steps toward reunion are of a very different order.

"Alexy II, of course, made sure the icon was brought to him first, lest the Moscow Catholics venerate it before he did ("Humility, that low sweet root / From which all heavenly virtues shoot.")"

If JPII wanted the icon to go to Moscow Catholics, he could have given it to Moscow Catholics. It, after all, was in the possession of the Vatican. Likewise, I doubt very much that Patr. Alexey would have minded if JPII had come to Russia on a state visit and served mass in existing Catholic churches. I'm sure Catholics living in Moscow would have been glad to have him visit their parishes. But that isn't what JPII wanted -- he wanted to do a big ecumenical thing with the Patriarch, do masses in the big stadiums, etc...

I've never understood why he would expect that he could give the gesture/concession of his choice and be given, in return, the gesture/concession of his choice from Moscow. The sign of humility would be to ask the Orthodox what is important to them, and then either give that -- or not.

There was nothing snide about "Uniatism." The term "Unia" is a Latin one used to describe what happened, and was not invented by the Orthodox. The move to eliminate that term was primarily an intra-Catholic thing, since it was felt that for Latin Catholics to speak of their brothers as "Uniates" made them into second-class citizens within the Catholic church. I used the term because the Unia was very tied up with political power back at the time of its institution -- I simply found it amusing that the pot would call the kettle black on this point. If Ukrainian Catholics are happy being under the Pope, more power to them. I don't see how what I said was at all an "indictment" of Eastern Catholics, who have mostly been used as rope in a tug-of-war.

As to your last paragraph, it is a bit incomprehensible. It certainly shows an inadequate familiarity with Orthodoxy. Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that the Orthodox hierarchy in Russia and Eastern Europe and the monks on Mt. Athos stand firmly against any kind of reunion with Rome at this time because they are former Southern Baptists.

[Thorin]

>>>>>>Well, knowing firsthand how the Communists prosecuted Christians and, for instance, what a grave risk was taken by my parents when they baptized me in 1960-s, I wonder about "state-sanctioned church".

I do not doubt that the Communists persecuted Orthodox faithful and that many Orthodox bravely resisted this persecution. I certainly honor them as heroes of the Faith and, for the ones who paid the ultimate price, as martyrs.

But the persecution of the Ukrainian Catholics was particularly severe; the church was outlawed entirely, making it the largest illegal religious organization in the Soviet Union. And, sadly, the Communists favored the Orthodox over the Eastern Catholics, giving the Eastern Catholic churches to the Orthodox.

[Thorin]

>>>>>I simply found it amusing that the pot would call the kettle black on this point.

There is nothing "amusing" about the treatment of Eastern Catholics. The Union of Brest and the Union of Uzhgorod were peaceful unions reuniting Christians. The Orthodox response to these Unions was always one of violence, from the martyrdom of St. Josaphat to the massacres of the Cossacks in the areas of Poland annexed by Russia after the partitions to the Stalinist suppression in which the Orthodox were complicit. It is a testament to the Faith of Eastern Catholics that their churches have survived at all.

[TaxachusettsMan]

You doubt that Alexy would have minded JP II going to Moscow?

You don't get out enough!

Like I said, What else do we need to kiss?

What else shall we send via courier-Cardinal?

And my last paragraph - maybe others reading this have experienced the same - refers to the fact that I have OFTEN met Orthodox folks deeply resentful of Rome's past sins and present foibles -- only to find out they're RECENT CONVERTS who, of all people, should be bring NEW BLOOD to their new church, not having transfusions of BAD BLOOD for offenses they've never suffered.

Maybe it's just my experience, but the ANTI-Romanism of these folks is sometimes quite spectacular!