www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Old news?

I found this news blurb and thought I would post it.

Moscow lays down its conditions
for the Pope's visit to Russia

"A spokesman for the patriarchate of Moscow stated to the Interfax news agency on Tuesday that the probability of John Paul's II visit to Russia would grow to the extent that the problems currently rendering his visit impossible were resolved. Moscow wants a formal ban on any conversion of the Orthodox to Catholicism and a resolution of the Uniate problem in the Ukraine. The Russian Orthodox Church was reacting to a statement made by Mgr Tadeuz Kondrusiewicz, Apostolic Administrator of Moscow, which claimed that Patriarch Alexis II's resistance to the Pope's visit was weakening."

(La Croix, 26 October 2001)


Does anyone know if the Patriarch of Moscow has ordered his clergy not to accept converts from the Catholic Church?

Laus --

I think that the issue is not voluntary conversion but proselytism. It appears that there is rather little hard proselytism going on in Russia from RCs, but my guess is that there is probably quite a bit of soft proselytism. In any case, IMO this is a reaction that is caused by the rampant Protestant proselytism going on throughout the territory of the former USSR, and is more of an anti-western reaction than a specifically anti-Catholic one.

"Does anyone know if the Patriarch of Moscow has ordered his clergy not to accept converts from the Catholic Church?"

That's a different kettle of fish, WADR. The ROC is in the process, still, of reestablishing itself after 70+ years of official persecution and extreme limits on its ability to function. It is trying to do so in territory where much of the population has been officially unchurched for generations, and with meagre financial resources and even fewer institutions for clerical (and lay) religious education. Under these circumstances, a helping hand is welcome (and I think that the ROC has welcomed the help offered by the RCC), but it's really offensive for proselytism to be going on, because the ROC itself has to re-proselytize thr Russian people. If the western confessions are proselytizing in Russia at the same time, it leads to a competition -- and a rather unfair one, given the hugely disparate resources involved.

Brendan

In a word, the Patriarch of Moscow has NOT ordered his clergy not to accept converts from the Catholic Church.

I think most everything Brendan has said is true, but it is not the whole story. If Greek Catholic proselytism is occuring in Russia, it is woefully unsuccessful. The Unitarians in Russia have more members than we do.

It is, in many ways it's really offensive for proselytism to be going on, particularly to those who already have a religious affiliation (Russia is about 40% Orthodox). It is also offensive and a sin against human dignity to use the state to limit, prohibit and obstruct evangelization of the unchurches (or of anyone). These two wrongs exists independently of one another, the practice of one does not justifiy the other.

Troubling to many who wish the ROC the best is also the fact of very mixed messages from them as to if they really desire to evangelize the unchurched people of Russia. Some have noted that large elements of the Church seem to have little interest beyond re-creating a thin patina of faith among the elite and a vague religion among the rural sector. Sadly, the element of ROC that is most active with evangelization are views as dissentents and trouble makers by the episcopacy.

All in all, it is a very sad situation.

K.

Dear Brendan,

O.K., O.K., now I really want to know what "WADR" stands for!

Through you, Counsellor, I would like to ask some questions of the Patriarch of Moscow regarding the "Uniate Problem."

1) Your Holiness, do you feel that the Uniate problem is best resolved by a return of the Uniates to Orthodoxy, with the willing consent of the Pope?

2) Your Holiness, what other possible church structures would you envision that would solve, in your view, the "Uniate problem?"

3) Your Holiness, if the Uniates ever returned to Orthodoxy as a body, would you be willing, as a condition of reunion, to recognize a completely autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church, totally independent of your control, as canonical and that would be composed of all the current Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine?

4) What is Your Holiness' position on the Reunion Sobor of 1946? Was it justified and to what extent are you willing to accept the responsibility of the Orthodox Church as an ally, willing or unwilling, of the state at that time?

5) Would Your Holiness ever feel that a formal apology to the Uniates would ever be in order for that Sobor?

6) Your Holiness, how do you envision future relationships between your Church and those of Ukraine and the Baltics?

Just a few thoughts from a problem Uniate.

Alex

Kurt --

I think the only point that we disagree on is what should be the posture vis-a-vis the "unchurched". These are "unchurched" due to 70+ years of communism. In my view, these should be proselytized by the ROC, not by whoever gets there first/whoever has the most resources to do it. If we take the latter course, it becomes a competition, which I think is not where it should be.

Alex --

The point of clarification I'd like to add first is that the proselytization issue and the unia issue are two separate issues. I don't think that the MP is complaining about GC proselytism in Russia -- he's complaining about (1) proselytism in Russia by Western confessions and (2) the problems in Ukraine relating to the Greek Catholics. These are two separate issues.

Now some specific responses.

"1) Your Holiness, do you feel that the Uniate problem is best resolved by a return of the Uniates to Orthodoxy, with the willing consent of the Pope?"

That would be nice, but it won't happen. The Eastern Catholics should be free to either remain where they are or to come to Orthodoxy -- either individually or corporately. I doubt that any Eastern Catholic Church would corporately leave Roman communion at this stage, but an acknowledgement that individual Eastern Catholics can become Orthodox with Rome's blessing would be a nice gesture (but unlikely as well due to the dogmatic differences).

"2) Your Holiness, what other possible church structures would you envision that would solve, in your view, the "Uniate problem?""

I don't see any models that would work.

"3) Your Holiness, if the Uniates ever returned to Orthodoxy as a body, would you be willing, as a condition of reunion, to recognize a completely autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church, totally independent of your control, as canonical and that would be composed of all the current Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine?"

That's an interesting question. There is a lot of bad blood under the bridge at this point, but I think that an independent Ukranian Church may be a foregone conclusion in the medium term. Having said that, I think (as you know) that Orthodoxy is ill-served by further subdivisions based on national boundaries, and that rather what Orthodoxy needs is a return to multinational regionalism as the basis of church organization, as it was in the early church, and as it continues to be the case in the middle east.

"4) What is Your Holiness' position on the Reunion Sobor of 1946? Was it justified and to what extent are you willing to accept the responsibility of the Orthodox Church as an ally, willing or unwilling, of the state at that time?"

It was problematic and, in many ways, unjustified -- so much has been admitted by reps of the Office of External Relations of the MP.

"5) Would Your Holiness ever feel that a formal apology to the Uniates would ever be in order for that Sobor?"

Yes, that should happen, in my opinion, but only in the context of an apology from the Greek Catholics for what happened in 1991-93, and what continues to happen in Western Urkaine to this day.

"6) Your Holiness, how do you envision future relationships between your Church and those of Ukraine and the Baltics?"

The most likely thing is a continuation of the process of splintering into every more national-boundary-based churches -- something that is as regrettable as it is apparenlt inevitable.

Brendan

Brendan,

I'm not even sure we disagree on that point. I think you and I agree, the question is that we have third parties that don't agree with us and should the secular arm be used to force the to conform to the Kurt-Brendonian viewpoint.

We may have a different reading of history. I think Russia was a lot more unevangelized before 1917 than the mythology of 'Holy Russia' suggests. Communism did its evil, but large segments of Russia were unevangelized under the imperial dicatorship as well.

K.

Dear Brendan,

Yes, but I do think that there are (and I know there are) GC's who are directly involved in trying to bring over Orthodox. That is inevitable and many of our GC prayerbooks over here often talk about the need for missionaries to a liberated Eastern Europe to bring Catholicism back etc.

Russian Orthodox churchmen have been known to become Uniate, I know of two in recent months, and this surely does not escape the notice of the MP.

I am (still) having trouble understanding your point about national-based church jurisdictions and how it is bad to have more of them.

Are we to understand that your model of unity in Eastern Europe is this: The Moscow Patriarchate is a national-based jurisdiction (which is not ideal) but that having more such jurisdictions would be worse and therefore the Orthodox Churches that were formerly part of the MP (not NECESSARILY by choice) should return to it?

Estonia, as I understand it, won't allow the Russian Patriarchate to call itself "Estonian" but the "ROC in Estonia." Moscow doesn't like that. Would you, in all sincerity, maintain that Moscow has no geopolitical designs on this and other "nationally-based" churches?

We've had this discussion before and we agree to disagree not on religious grounds, but on a different perspective of the role that national-cultural factors play here.

I don't see a problem with the Ukrainian Catholic head apologizing for what the Byzantine Catholics did and are doing.

In some way, taking back what was stolen from you might not be as serious a sin as taking away what was not yours to begin with.

But an apology all around is in order, to be sure.

My point is that the MP still considers the Uniates as their stolen property which is why it is even throwing this issue into the Pope's face.

And if it considers the Uniates its property, how much more would it consider the Ukrainian and Baltic Orthodox its property?

The national-cultural factor is an important one to consider here, as you are well aware.

The idea of a "return" of Ukrainians (holding in abeyance their religious affiliation) to Moscow is also something that just won't happen.

Unless Moscow is willing to open up on this issue and allow for real autocephaly for these Churches (who are finding a place under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople anyway), the Pope's visit to Moscow will remain good public relations and nothing more.

The fact is also that Moscow must realize that it does not nor cannot exercise the same "trans-national" role in Orthodoxy that the Ecumenical Patriarch has and does.

But who knows? Perhaps the Pope will become Orthodox at the same time as the MP decides it wants to become Catholic!

Then we can start a new thread on this issue . . .

Have a Happy Armenian Christmas!

Alex

Alex --

"Are we to understand that your model of unity in Eastern Europe is this: The Moscow Patriarchate is a national-based jurisdiction (which is not ideal) but that having more such jurisdictions would be worse and therefore the Orthodox Churches that were formerly part of the MP (not NECESSARILY by choice) should return to it?"

My PERSONAL opinion on this (which doesn't count for more than a hill of beans) is that the nation-based system of churches is a distortion of Orthodox ecclesiology, as Fr. Alexander Schmemann pointed out. It is just as much of a distortion for the Church of Russia and the Church of Greece as it would be for the Church of Ukraine and the Church of Estonia. What we need is the return of regional Patriarchates that cross national lines. It's likely that, due to historical factors, the present Patriarchates in Eastern Europe -- particularly the MP -- cannot serve in that regional role. Therefore, new regional Patriarchates are needed -- both in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans -- to get the church away from the nation-based structure that is such a distortion to our ecclesiological vision. Pending that, the present structures should be preserved -- for the simple reason that the more national splinter churches that we create in the coming years the harder it will be to regionalize later. The logic of the national church ("hey, everyone else has one, why can't we?") is extremely powerful and is a very big problem in Orthodoxy today -- it can't be overcome by creating more national churches. At some point, that process has to stop and be replaced with a regional process (one that would also cause the Churches of Greece and Russia to become subject to regional Patriarchates). That would be moving towards the true roots of our Orthodox ecclesiology. I don't give this much of a chance of happening, and that's why I see the further splintering as inevitable, if extremely harmful in the medium term.

As for property, it was the EP who considered the entirety of North America its property when it rebuked the MP for granting autocephaly to the OCA in 1970 (and this, after the EP had directed the North American delegation that asked the EP beforehand to Moscow on the basis that this was a "Russian issue" -- only to make an about-face once the MP actually -- oh, MY! -- DID SOMETHING about the situation in North America). Constantinople is not a straight shooter in these matters and has vested interests of its own that are at the heart and core of the problem in North America. We ought to take that into consideration when eveluating the actions that the EP has taken in Eastern Europe, and not look at the situation there in isolation.

Brendan

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: Brendan ]

Dear Brendan,

O.K., O.K., I see your points.

But the difference, don't you think between the EP and the MP, is precisely that, that the EP does represent one of the ancient, trans-national patriarchates in fact and the MP does not?

Also, there is bad blood between the MP and other national churches and that fact won't go away. It is about national identity not only religious.

A church as sensitive and jealous of its own rites and rights as the Ukrainian church does not have a problem being under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This Patriarchate, in fact, never tried to do to the Ukie Church what the MP tried.

You said your view doesn't count for a bag of beans. Well, my view counts for less then . . .

But I'm bringing forward some of the very political concerns involved here which are perhaps best left to the church politicians like the Patriarchs and Dr. John . . .

May we all be as devoted to Christ and committed to the Church as you!

Alex

I am sitting here in my living room and PBS is showing a documentary on a totem-pole raising in a village in Alaska. The Pole was carved by the father (and family/friends)of a young man who died as a result of substance abuse. (The 'totem pole' is a spiritual reality made present in the images of the pole) and the different images represent a wide variety of beliefs and values. After the carving period, the pole is carried by the 'clan' and taken to a special location to be raised. These are the very people who were missionized by the ROs in the last century. And the ROs converted these people to Orthodoxy.

And in Eklutna (north of Anchorage), there is a cemetary for the baptized Inuit, Athabascan, and Tlingit people. The cemetary contains little 'houses' or 'churches' (about 2-3 feet high) with crosses, but the edifices are 'spirit houses', in harmony with the tradional practices and customs of the native peoples-- a place for the soul to dwell and to return to. (I've just returned from a week in Alaska; it was wild, wonderful and cold. I love Anchorage and Fairbanks! Even in December.)

What concerns me is this: if the Russian missionaries were willing to allow these native nations people to retain aspects of their own traditional theology about the dead, then why should the current Russian Orthodox Church feel compelled to insist that any Uniate community not be allowed to continue to practice its own traditions were it to come into union with Orthodoxy? Including its insistence on understanding the role of Peter in the life of the Church?

My suspicion is that the ROC would be willing to allow the "heathen" (unbaptized) to integrate their Christianity with Orthodoxy, but this privilege would not be extended to 'separated' Christian brethren. I guess, in some ways, it would be acknowledging that the 'separated' brethren were 'sinners' who needed to be taught the "right way" in their return. The poor heathen just don't know any better and so are forgiven their uniqueness.

The EC seems to see its role as fostering Orthodoxy among the different nations, and not necessarily forcing folks to adopt Greekness in the way that Moscow seems to require Russification.

Why is it that when I go to an "Orthodox Church in America" parish, I am confronted with icons of saints from "over there" (wherever 'over there' might be) and veneration of the 'over there' that comes along with it. For the Greeks, no big deal; there hasn't been a universal 'canonization' for a long time. The Russians, however, seem to have been on a canonization rampage what with all the 'new martyrs', etc., including veneration in America. The problem is: the Romaniaks have Mother Seton, Mother Cabrini, Bp. Neumann, Kateri Tekakwitha, Mother Katherine Drexel, etc. What do us Eastern folks have: No body from here. They're all from processes "over there". Our only American hope is Fr. Ciszek-- a true saint if there ever was one.

The fact is: Russian Orthodoxy is, and will remain "Russian". And the Orthodox Church in America is still the RUSSIAN Orthodox Church in America -- just witness their saints and their universal kowtowing to everything Russian High Slavonic. The Greeks are just "Greeks in Exile" and their "Greek Friends". And the Arabs are indeed Arab. And the Armenians are Armenian. Etc.

So, why should one suspect that the Russian Orthodox (or OCA folks) would be amenable to consideration of the so-called "uniates" into the fold of Orthodoxy? And, since the Greeks don't really care about anybody non-Greek, the sole objection would seem to come from the Slavic enclave.

Perhaps us Uniates should become "Alaskan Natives", and then perhaps the ROs/OCAs would give us some kind consideration as potential co-religionists?

Of course the problem in the US is compounded by the fact that the "Orthodox clergy" (OCA) is more than 50% protestant converts who oftentimes carry a whole mess of "anti-Rome" baggage with them. This is no secret.

And, although this might strike some folks as anti-convert (and I DON'T mean it that way), I would hope that the OCA people-in-the-pew, the native Slavs and erstwhile Greek-Catholics, could be approached to intervene in the matter of "family" Church and to tell the interlopers that they won't put up with anti-Nashi bashing just because the other 'nashi' belong to another community.

Blessings!

Dr. John,

I find your comments about the OCA quite interesting. I have many pious OCA friends here in Oregon who think that back east the OCA isn't traditional enough, with all the former Greek-
Catholic influences. For them, they would visit ROCOR or MP parishes if they went back east. The fact of the matter is that regional differences have a lot to do with how one views the OCA, and the attitudes of various bishops and how they run their dioceses.

Again, with Oregon as an example, no OCA parish has 100% Slavonic services here, (very, very little used actually). St. Spiridon's Cathedral in Seattle might, but its an old Church from pre-revolution days, so I can understand that-there are actually quite a few old parishes out here on the west coast, and quite a few Russian immigrant parishes (I think a lot of immigrants came to California, for example, after the Chinese Civil War).

God Bless,

Michael

Dr John --

I think you're being fairly selective.

"Why is it that when I go to an "Orthodox Church in America" parish, I am confronted with icons of saints from "over there" (wherever 'over there' might be) and veneration of the 'over there' that comes along with it."

Many OCA parishes I have been to include icons of our American Orthodox saints, most often of St. Herman of Alaska, but also of St. Innocent of Alaska and of the recently glorified St. Raphael of Brooklyn (under the Russians' omophor, but not a Russian, as you know). A few even include an icon of St. Alexis Toth (the OCA Cathedral in DC has an icon of him in the choir loft fresco).

"And the Orthodox Church in America is still the RUSSIAN Orthodox Church in America -- just witness their saints and their universal kowtowing to everything Russian High Slavonic."

No offense intended, Dr. John, but this is the typical Greek view of the matter. My experience in many OCA parishes is rather different from this view. Yes, there are certainly a good number of "Russian" parishes (St. Nicholas in DC comes to mind, as does Holy Trinity Cathedral in SF, but there are surely many others), and there are a larger number of somewhat 'russified' non-Russian parishes, usually of Carpathian background. But there is a substantial number of non-ethnic parishes (ie, pan-Orthodox) that don't reflect Russian/slavonic practice in many respects, and there are also the Romanian, Bulgarian and Albanian dioceses (as well as the Serb parishes in the territorial OCA dioceses) that are not Russian in a meaningful way. Take your local OCA parish -- St. Mary's in Falls Church. It's in the Romanian Diocese of the OCA, but the priest is not a Romanian, the services are in English, the parionshers are pan-Orthodox, and there aren't *Russianisms* abounding in the liturgy -- vestments are Greek style, like they are in Romania (and throughout the "slavonic" Balkans), and the service format is an admixture of Greek elements and Slavonic elements (as it was in Romania under the Phanariotes bishops). Last time I was there I even noticed an icon of St. Raphael of Brooklyn on the confession table.

"Of course the problem in the US is compounded by the fact that the "Orthodox clergy" (OCA) is more than 50% protestant converts who oftentimes carry a whole mess of "anti-Rome" baggage with them. This is no secret."

I think that the AA clergy is along the lines you have described. There are substantial numbers of converts in the OCA clergy as well, it is true, but the number is lower than in the AA, and there are significantly more Catholic converts in that number (including 2 of the current Bishops) than is the case for the AA.

Michael --

"I have many pious OCA friends here in Oregon who think that back east the OCA isn't traditional enough, with all the former Greek-
Catholic influences"

Wel, Bishop Tikhon certainly does run a rather conservative diocese, doesn't he? I wouldn't attribute the differences to the Greek-Catholic influences (although I understand that is fashionable in some circles), but rather to a certain, um, traditionalist mindset among some in the Diocese of the West. The Eastern dioceses seem to be more open ecumenically, more balanced, less overtly traditional and less overtly Russian (while not ashamed to be traditional and Russian!). I've been to Holy Trinity Cathedral in SF (the seat of Bishop Tikhon), and it's quite a traditional Russian-esque parish -- but no more so, really, than St. Nicholas Cathedral in DC (the seat of Metr. Theodosius).


"Again, with Oregon as an example, no OCA parish has 100% Slavonic services here, (very, very little used actually)."

There are several here back East that either (1) alternate by weeks or (2) have two liturgies each Sunday, one in English and one in Slavonic. The latter approach may be impugned for being untraditional, but it should be borne in mind that the local ROCOR Cathedral follows the exact same practice.

Brendan

Dear Dr. John and Brendan,

Thank you for your comments and discussion on this important matter.

I find the MP attitude to the "Uniates" interesting, given that Russian Orthodox priests have been among the first to 1) criticize me for being critical of the Unia (one told me, "It is part of God's will and also God's will that you are in it") and 2) encourage me to be as "Eastern" as possible within the context of the Unia.

Home-grown saints reflective of our having laid down roots here are always important.

St Raphael of Brooklyn, St Alexis Toth, St Alexander Hotovitsky of New York and others do, I believe, set excellent examples of true Orthodox inculturation outreach (is that a term?) in North America.

Certainly, the ROCOR is very Russian, to be sure.

But what impresses me about the OCA is that the Ukrainians I know who are members have been able to grow in their cultural awareness and development within that jurisdiction.

That is to the OCA's credit, to be sure!

The Orthodox Churches' cultural backgrounds are a strength, I believe.

Adaptation to North America is important, but "up here" when one belongs to a particular "ethnic" Orthodox Church that means that one is deliberately choosing not to go with the Anglo-conformity model of mainstream society.

Our challenge here is to maintain our Slavic identity and traditions within the context of the Eastern Church and to relate this to the North American mainstream as such.

The way I see it, anyway. . .

p.s. Brendan - are you bucking for the title of fourth defender of Orthodoxy? Remember, they are all Greeks, Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus etc.

Have a great day!

Alex

"p.s. Brendan - are you bucking for the title of fourth defender of Orthodoxy? Remember, they are all Greeks, Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus etc."

Very funny, Alex! :-)

Really, though, there is a deep-rooted problem here that is seldom openly talked about in Orthodoxy. An excellent piece -- perhaps the most insightful piece I have read about this -- is an essay entitled "A Meaningful Storm" which Fr. Alexander Schmemann wrote in the wake of the international brouhaha following Moscow's declaration of autocephaly for OCA in 1970. The article, interestingly, does not focus on the issues relating to that specific declaration, but instead focuses on the various perversions of Orthodox ecclesiology that were masquerading as "Orthodoxy" at the close of the 20th Century -- and is still very much on point today. As is usually the case with Fr. Alexander, everyone comes in for criticism -- the nation-based Churches (yes, including the Russians), the Greeks (who, in his view, are still living in the world of Imperial Christianity with the EP at the epicenter -- a kind of Orthodox Pope, but perhaps a little less powerful), the diaspora Orthodox who are either (1) trying to recreate an "old country Orthodoxy" that either no longer exists or is itself pathological in many respects or (2) zealous converts who want to "go ethnic" to become Orthodox or (3) well-intentioned but ultimately flawed ideas about organizing yet another nation-based "American Orthodox Church" or "French Orthodox Church", etc. Fr. Alexander does a good job of explaining how it is neither the nation-based system, nor the ethnic-based system, nor the Imperial system that is really the true model for Orthodoxy, and how Orthodoxy as a whole cannot really breathe again unless it breaks out of these models which developed of necessity in most cases but which nevertheless are distortive and harmful, spiritually, to Orthodoxy.

It's a wonderful article, and I *highly* recommend it to everyone who is interested in understanding why the Orthodox Church looks the way it does today.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

I am happy I can still amuse you, Friend, at least a little!

I admire Fr. Alexander Schmemann very highly (+memory eternal!) and not only because we share the same first name . . .

His book on the Sacraments is something I quoted in my oral defense of my doctoral dissertation.

The profs were so impressed with Schmemann that they insisted I include that discussion in the body of my work! And these profs were, by and large, agnostics!!

Anyway, I understand and agree with what you are saying by way of an ideal that we are still a long way off from realizing.

As you know, I like the fact that the Orthodox Churches have a national-cultural base and I don't see anything wrong with that, not only on the basis of my own personal convictions and experience, but also as a sociologist.

I think it's just natural for Churches to go that route. That will always exist and my own view is that any theological discussion of the "ideal" set-up for the Church is itself tainted with a kind of unrealistic view of human social relationships that theological academics are notorious for. Just my view . . .

And it is unworkable. The Russian Church is Russian, the Greek Church is . . .

The most we can hope for is for better relations among the Churches and for greater sharing of spiritual goods and the like.

The idea of a North American Church, while nice, is still not ready to come about since most of us here define themselves, ultimately, on the basis of European and other roots that are outside North America.

Sure, we're North Americans, with a love for baseball, hotdogs, shopping and other aspects of cosmopolitanism.

But until North America gets a better idea of what "culture" really is, our Churches will cling to their various cultural roots, jurisdictions and all.

God bless, Defender and Pillar of North American Orthodoxy!

(St Brendan was the first to travel here, wasn't he?)

Alex