Moscow Patriarchate

Writing on the RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty Power Vertical blog, Brian Whitmore suggests that there may be a little too much symphonia in a recent move by Russian Patriarch Kirill to work closely with the United Russia political party. Whitmore:

What motivated United Russia and Patriarch Kirill I to reach an agreement giving the Russian Orthodox Church an unprecedented voice in the legislative work of the State Duma?

Aleksei Malashenko of the Moscow Carnegie Center tackles the issue in today’s issue of “Nezavisimaya Gazeta.”

He begins by asking why the ruling party would want to enter into such an arrangement:

Why? Because United Russia desperately lacks something despite its triumphs in elections throughout the country and the overwhelming majority in the lower house of the parliament. And what does it lack? It lacks society’s respect. It lacks recognition as a genuine political party and not just an organization founded and coddled by the Kremlin.

Because the crisis will inevitably require unpopular decisions that will be endorsed (blessed) by the Patriarch as a means to temper society’s discontent.

Because the crisis might foment social unrest and it will certainly benefit the ruling party to have such a formidable an ally.

And last but not the least, because United Russia would like to share responsibility for its actions and transform the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia into Vladimir Gundayev, supporter of the ruling party ever ready with religious authorization.

Vladimir Gundayev, it should be noted, is Patriarch Kirill’s birth name.

So what’s in the deal for the Kirill? Continue reading →

From the Religious Information Service of the Ukraine:

MOSCOW—Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) expressed confidence that foreign structures will not interfere with church problems in Ukraine. In particular, they mean the Constantinople Patriarchate, which, according to the ROC representatives, the Ukrainian authorities hoped to engage in the establishment of a national church separate from the Moscow Patriarchate.

“They (Constantinople Patriarchate) understand well that Ukraine is an integral part of the Russian Orthodox Church, that there exists spiritual unity of nations – Russians, Ukrainians, Moldovians, Belarusians,” noted the head of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Archbishop Ilarion (Alfeiev) of Volokolamsk, at a press conference in Moscow about the visit of the head of ROC to Istanbul in early July.

News.ru reports that in the archbishop’s opinion, the very tone of the past negotiations shows that the Constantinople Patriarchate “does not envisage stabs in the back,” and gives hope that no “negotiations, aimed at supporting the schism” will be conducted. The archbishop noted that “no documents in this regard were signed” but the very “climate” of the negotiations implies a respectful attitude. Continue reading →

The Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate distributed “A Mission in the World,” an interview of Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk by Expert Magazine (Issue No. 23 (661) June 15, 2009).

Expert Magazine Your Eminence, one hundred days have passed since the enthronement of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. What has changed in church-society relations since? Have any new tendencies emerged?

Archbishop Hilarion The man who ascended to the throne of the Moscow Patriarchate is one who has been known for many years for his focus on mission and his capacity to shed light on matters. He has long been in active co-operation with all parts of the society, hosting a TV programme of his own and making regular appearances in the print media. Even before he was elected Patriarch, he was known and loved by millions of Russian Orthodox faithful throughout the world. He has gained authority in broad public circles. Metropolitan Kirill accumulated a unique experience during his work at the Department for External Church Relations and through his close cooperation with the late Patriarch Alexy II. This has fully prepared him for the new role he assumed upon his election to the Moscow Patriarchal throne. But the most important thing is that he is a man who is absolutely committed to the Church; there is no private agenda for him. He has deposited all his abilities and talents at the feet of Christ, as St. Gregory the Theologian put it.

Patriarch Kirill’s enthronement has given a new impetus to the entire complex of relations between the Church and the world external to it. Patriarch Kirill tends to issue challenges to the clergy and the whole Church in a very tough and clear way. At the same time, he is a church leader not only because of his position but also by virtue of his personality. He can inspire people, mobilizing them to a more pro-active missionary and educational work.

EM In your view, what are essentially the changes introduced by the Patriarch?

Hilarion Our problem is that we are still lacking in bridges linking Orthodox parishes to the outside world.

Currently what happens to a person who enters an Orthodox church for the first time out of curiosity or inner dissatisfaction or in search for the truth? At best no one will say anything to him. He will be given an opportunity to stand and listen to the service, to look around, etc. But, coming in touch with God’s grace through the atmosphere of the church, he may come to feel something. And he will come again and, later, again. Then he will begin searching for books. In this way, gradually, through self-education, he will get involved in the life of the Church. It is a very long and not easy way. A person will have to surmount his own numerous barriers separating him from the church world – barriers psychological, cultural and linguistic.

At worst a newcomer coming to a church from the street will encounter just plain rudeness. He could be scolded by the babushka who serves behind the candle box. She might condemn him for making the sign of the cross in a wrong way, for standing at a wrong place, for wearing wrong clothes, etc. And after coming to church two or three times, the person will lose any interest in coming back.

We have to break this mechanism of alienating people from the Church or merely expecting that they will turn up and surmount all the barriers on their own. We should create a system that helps people without much church experience to get involved in church life gradually. The resources of clergy alone are insufficient to do it. We need active lay people. Our task is to mobilize the laity for proactive missionary and educational work. It is not that nothing is being done.There are people who do things. There are many who work in this area, helping the clergy to bring people to God. But we need a completely different scale of welcome. Continue reading →

A quick roundup: Andrei Zolotov, Jr., Chief Editor of Russia Profile and Deputy Director of the RIA Novosti Foreign Service, says that the recent Chambesy conference organized to discuss the “diaspora” resulted in Constantinople making concessions to Moscow. A report in the Kyiv Post says the patriarchs are putting on “a united front” despite the fact that they were to discuss the “sensitive issue of the churches in Ukraine and Estonia during the three-day visit to Turkey.” The Greek news service ANA says “Patriarch Bartholomew underlined the need for unity within the Orthodox Church in order to meet the challenges of the times.” Kathimerini reports that “the outcome of the meeting is keenly awaited by senior clerics both in Moscow and at the Vatican.”

Full text of Zolotov’s analysis follows:

A three-day visit by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia to Istanbul is more than just his first official trip abroad as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church or than his first visit to the Patriarch of Constantinople, also known as Ecumenical Patriarch.

The Moscow Patriarchate is serious about dramatically improving relations between the two most influential Orthodox Sees, switching from smoldering rivalry and at times explosive conflict to closer cooperation.

Taking into consideration that the Greek American community constitutes the main political and financial base for the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the official Washington has always patronized this once glorious See in the capital of the Byzantine Empire, which faces many perils in modern Turkey, one could be forgiven for drawing a distant parallel with expectations of a “reset” in the Russian-American relations.

The last serious conflict in relations between Moscow and Constantinople occurred about a year ago around the time of the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko tried to involve Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople in resolving the issue of the Orthodox schism in Ukraine in a way that could marginalize the Moscow Patriarchate and violate the rights of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church under its jurisdiction.

Only intense talks shortly before the celebration made it possible to avoid a disastrous development and the meeting between Patriarch Bartholomew and the late Patriarch Alexy II in Kiev was the beginning of normalizing relations.

Last October Patriarch Alexy took part in a meeting of the heads of Orthodox Churches in Istanbul, but within two months Patriarch Bartholomew was to preside over the funeral service for the Patriarch of Moscow.

“We need to avoid confrontation and conflict and to create a system of mutual trust, because local Orthodox Churches constitute a single family,” said Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department of External Church Relations. Continue reading →

The Moscow Patriarchate has released a statement, in English, on the work of the all-Orthodox pre-conciliar meeting in Chambesy, Switzerland, earlier this month. The patriarchate explains how “episcopal assemblies” are to be constituted.

Text follows:

The 4th Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference, which took place at the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s Orthodox Center in Chambesy near Geneva, completed its work on 12 June 2009. The delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church led by Archpriest Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations, included Archbishop Mark of Berlin, Germany and Great Britain, Russian Church Outside Russia, Archpriest Nikolay Balashov, DECR vice-chairman, and Mr. A. Churyakov, an interpreter.

The conference was chaired by Metropolitan John of Pergamon. Metropolitan Jeremiah of Switzerland, Patriarchate of Constantinople, acted as its secretary. It was attended by delegations of the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria as well as Orthodox Churches of Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Poland, Czech Lands and Slovakia. They were led by their hierarchs.

His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia addressed a message of greetings to the conference.

As had been agreed by primates and representatives of Local Orthodox Churches at their meeting in October 2008 at Fanar and reaffirmed by subsequent correspondence, the 4th Conference focused on the canonical order of the Orthodox diaspora. This decision on the agenda was made by the participants in the beginning of their work. The rest of the agenda items for Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences, including a procedure for declaring authocephaly and autonomy and the diptych order, will be considered in the sessions to follow the preparatory work to be done by the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission.

The participants considered documents prepared by the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission at its meetings on 10-17 November 1990 and 7-13 November 1993 and the conference of canon law experts which took place on 9-14 April 2009 in Chambesy. The documents were clarified and amended by consensus.

The conference agreed that the problem concerning the canonical order of the Orthodox diaspora, that is, those faithful who reside beyond the traditional boundaries of Local Orthodox Churches, should be dealt with on the basis of ecclesiology, canonical tradition and practice of the Orthodox Church. To this end, it was agreed to set up bishops’ assemblies consisting of all the canonical Orthodox bishops who take pastoral care of the community in a given locality. The task of bishops’ assemblies will be to ascertain and consolidate the unity of the Orthodox Church, to provide common pastoral care for Orthodox people in a region and to bear common witness before the external world. The assemblies’ decisions are to be made on the basis of consensus reached by the Churches whose bishops are represented in them. The authority of a bishops’ assembly exclude interference in the diocesan jurisdiction of each of the bishops and does not restrict the rights of his Church including in her relations with international organizations, governments, the civil society and mass media as well as other confessions, governmental and inter-confessional organizations and other religions.

The conference also adopted a revised draft procedure defining basically the work of regional bishops’ assemblies in the Orthodox diaspora.

DECR Communication Service (Dept. of External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate)