www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox Church leader accuses Catholic Church of expansionist aims

Two stories about the same meeting, The first from Rome, the second from Moscow.
__________________________________________
ROME - Moscow's Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II broke his silence in what has become an increasingly bitter battle with Rome, insisting that the Vatican drop its "expansionist strategy" if it seeks to improve relations between the churches.

In an interview with an Italian Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana, Alexy made no mention of any possible meeting with Pope John Paul II, an encounter long sought by the Roman Catholic leader.

Instead, Alexy listed a series of grievances against Catholics, most of them linked to Orthodox claims that the Vatican is intent on poaching on traditional Orthodox territory.

Earlier this month, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Russia appealed to Russian and international human rights groups to protest what he called a "large-scale anti-Catholic campaign" that includes the expulsion of priests and the vilification of Catholics.

Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz said that five foreign-born Catholic priests have had their Russian visas revoked this year, and that Catholics have also experienced bans on constructing new churches and vandalism and desecration of existing churches.

Vatican spokesman Joaquin-Navarro Valls said the expulsions were tantamount to persecution.

Tensions have risen around the Catholic Church following Pope John Paul's visits to Ukraine and other former Soviet republics and the Vatican's decision to upgrade its presence in Russia by creating full dioceses.

The Catholic Church says it is not seeking converts, but simply trying to provide pastoral services to Russia's estimated 600,000 Catholics, a tiny minority in a nation of 144 million where two-thirds of the population consider themselves Orthodox.

In the interview with Alexy, conducted in early September and carried by the magazine in its latest edition Wednesday, the patriarch said Catholics act as if "there exists neither a church nor a Christian culture in Russia."

He said it was clear that the Roman Catholic Church had a "vast expansionist strategy for Russia" and urged the Vatican to end a policy of "pressure and unilateral decisions."
__________________________________________
HIS HOLINESS PATRIARCH ALEXY II RECEIVES A LARGE GROUP OF PILGRIMS FROM ITALY

MOSCOW - His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia met with participants in the pilgrimage to Russia organized by the popular Catholic Familia Christiana magazine, on September 3, 2002, at the Danilovsky hotel complex.

For 150 members of the pilgrim group including clergy and faithful of the Roman Catholic Church, a personal meeting with the Primate of the Russian Church was a crown of their impressive introduction to Russian spiritual traditions and venerated Orthodox shrines.

Welcoming the Italian pilgrims to the oldest monastery in Moscow, His Holiness spoke about the history of Orthodoxy in Russia, the hardships experienced and the feat of confession performed by the Russian Church in the 20th century as well as her today's revival and active involvement in building the spiritual and moral foundations of Russian society today.

Speaking about the relations of the Moscow Patriarchate with the Vatican, His Holiness noted that the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue was not experiencing the best time. He set forth in detail the position of the Russian Orthodox Church on the whole range of disputed questions clouding relations between the two Churches and outlined his own vision of the ways of coming out of the present crisis through respecting the principles of mutual respect, taking into account each other's interests in taking important decisions and keeping faithful to the spirit of Christian cooperation. This, in its turn, presupposes that the practice of Catholic proselytism in the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church should be abandoned and the inalienable rights of the Moscow Patriarchate's flock in western Ukraine where it represents a religious minority should be respected.

At the same time the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church noted with satisfaction the continuing fruitful contacts of the Moscow Patriarchate with a whole number of Catholic dioceses, educational institutions, research centers and charitable organization which, in accordance with the traditions of Vatican II, continue to see in Orthodox believers their fellow brothers in Christ and spiritual children of a sister Church.

Patriarch Alexy welcomed the now popular practice of Catholics coming on pilgrimage to holy places in Russia. It allows them not only to see Russia's sights with their own eyes but also come in touch with the great spiritual experience of Russian Orthodoxy and receive at first hand the witness to the life, faith and aspirations of the Orthodox Christians.

As a token of the Russian Orthodox Church's openness and her invariable readiness for constructive and mutually respectful dialogue in the interests of Christian unity, His Holiness conveyed the text of his answers to the questions of Familia Christiana to the leader of the pilgrim group, Rev. Antonio Sciortino, who is editor-in-chief of the magazine. It will be published in one of the next issues of this Catholic edition with its millions-strong audience.

The remarks by the Primate were interrupted repeatedly by the Italian pilgrims' applause.

Speaking on behalf of his fellow travelers, Father Antonio Sciortino warmly thanked the Primate of the Russian Church for the happy opportunity to open for themselves the great spiritual beauty of Orthodoxy. The Russian Church not only restores ruined churches but also works indefatigably to revive the spiritual and moral foundations of the life of her people, he said, adding, we believe that through the intercession of St. Sergius of Radonezh, the sins and ulcers of this age, which formerly blighted Western society and now threaten Russia, will be overcome. A reverential pilgrimage to Orthodox shrines in Russia as nothing else makes one convinced of not only the absolute value of both Christian traditions - Western and Eastern, but also of urgent need for their fraternal cooperation bringing the faithful of the both Churches to their common old spiritual source and root, Father Antinio said.

Present at the audience with the Italian pilgrims were also Archimandrite Alexy (Polikarpov) father superior of St. Daniel's monastery, Protodeacon Vladimir Nazarkin, DECR protocol chief, Rev. Alexander Abramov and Ioann Lapidus of the DECR secretariat for inter-Christian relations, and Mr. V. Malushkhin, DECR communications director.

These statements make me think about some things.

If someone was baptized in the Latin Rite and then he wants to become Orthodox. Does this mean that the Orthodox Church has to close the doors to him or her, only because of Ecumenism?
And if an Orthodox wants to become Catholic, does Ecumenism forces the Catholic Church to send him/her back to the Orthodox?

If a full communion Orthodox-Catholic is re-established. Does this mean that all christians in the Catholic nations must be catholics and the ones who live in Orthodox countries must be Orthodox?

These thoughts of His Holliness Patriarch Alexy, and Bishop Tadeusz confirm that we're not prepared for a union.

Remie,

You are doubtless correct. I say let all churches expand as rapidly as the Holy Spirit prompts. Let God sort out the jurisdictional issues. Don't we take the great commission seriously?

Dan Lauffer

Well I don't know much about this Alexy fellow, but he seems like a whiney bully. My gosh, heaven forbid a Church try to expand! I don't see the Italian government doing this to its Orthodox citizens...and isn't Russia supposedly a democratic nation? How pathetic. I'm not saying that this kind of stuff hasn't happened on both sides in history, but come on, we're in the 21st century in "democratic" nations.

ChristTeen287

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Actually ChristTeen, it has. As I understand it, Italy denied the Russian Orthodox Church permission to build a church in Rome.

Also, something I'd never heard of was that at byzantines.org someone said that at one point the Pope and the MP agreed that Italy was Rome's canonical territory and Russia was Moscow's & that they would not build churches in each others territory. That the MP even pulled its clergy out of Italy and ROCOR took them over. When the Latin Catholic Church started building many new churches in Russia and then later formed dioceses, the MP's complaints fell on deaf ears.

Years later they asked to build a church in Rome for which they were denied. So it doesn't suprise me what is happening in Russia. It seems it could be tit for tat. God Bless!

Nik,

The "tit for tat" business seems childish, unless you consider that the MP is and perhaps still is a Communist front organization. Why would the Church want such an organization in Italy? Didn't they have enough trouble with the Communists already. It would be nice if the MP's could show evidence that all or most of the former KGB agents are out of MP leadership.

Dan Lauffer, The Rusnack

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dan, it may be, but it seems that the Italian & Russian governments are probably playing it.

But I can understand it, whether I agree or not. I mean if Country A doesn't allow Country B do X, then is Country B not allowing Country A to do X wrong? Looking at it in an equation like that, we can remove any of our prejudices to the situation.

I don't know about the KGB agents in the MP, I mean would anyone even trust the "proof" if they presented it? God Bless!

Well personally, I think this "canonial territory" junk is bull, from both sides. The whole world should be "canonical territory" for both Catholic and Orthodox. Claiming entire countries and saying "This is my territory, get out!" further perpetuates the mistrust, I believe.

ChristTeen287

To gain some insight into this problem, take an afternoon and review the last two to three years of press items collected at:
http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/00currentchoices.shtml

The recent interaction of the Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches is occuring in a specific context: the development of a new religious law within Russia, in which religious organizations will be classified in a number of ways, with rights limited in accordance with their classification.

A possible outcome of this legislation is that only religions that are deemed to be "historical" in Russia will be allowed to be freely practiced. Others will sustain a variety of restrictions ranging from the allowance of limited service to foreign citizens to outright banning.

Coupled with this legislation is an effort to have Catholicism be classified as a non-historical, foreign religion. ISTM that, in light of these developments, the Vatican decided to develop structures within present-day Russia that have clear ties to older structures with the aim of making a case for "historical" status.

Russia and the ROC have to decide which is worse: having a limited Catholic presence in Russia, or demonstrating a continuing mindset of religious repression.

Nik wrote:
Nik:
Is this true? There was an interesting discussion of this elsewhere, earlier this year
(http://www.cin.org/archives/cineast/200202/). While aspects of the design were criticized, it was not clear the permission for construction had been withdrawn. Can you give a link that verifies your understanding?

Shlomo Nik,
Actually you are both correct and mistaken. It is correct that the Roman government denied the Russian Orthodox permission to build a Church in Rome, but that was because it did not follow the historic lines of the area. The Vatican then GAVE the Russian Orthodox a Church in the area that was not being used. The Orthodox Church found a new site outside of the historic designation site and started building St. Catherine's in Jan. 2000.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

The "We were here first!" argument sounds awfully familiar. I remember in the 1950s-60s musical film "Lil Abner" that the U.S.A. announced the invention of yokumberry tonic. Russia replied, "We got it first!" It was jokingly viewed as a predictable communist russian pose. Nowadays the MPs position brings to mind the old adage "The more things change, the more they stay the same." It would be nice if Moscow could come up with a new and better way to deliver its particular Christian message, rather than by trying to justify their dominance by saying that they were there first. Perhaps then people of other confessions and cultures could feel they have a reason to be more interested in what they have to say.

If Yuhannon's report is accurate we are back to the original observation that the MP's are being rather unreasonable.

It would seem to me that we Jurisdictions and "historical" churches are important then Russia ought to be given over to the Church that existed when the Russian Church was founded, not to what it became. It should be given over to the one Church that can claim that it is united with Rome before the schism. Maybe we ought to put in our claim to Russia.

Dan Lauffer

[but that was because it did not follow the historic lines of the area. The Vatican then GAVE the Russian Orthodox a Church in the area that was not being used. The Orthodox Church found a new site outside of the historic designation site and started building St. Catherine's in Jan. 2000.]

At the request of another poster, who sent me a private email, I had agreed to come out of voluntary exile to reply to this.

You are not quite right. Some time in the 90's the MP made an agreement with the Vatican and agreed to close its existing church in Rome and pull back its clergy. This was done. I thought ROCOR took over the parish but it is not listed in their Church Directory. It's one of those things that you read and remember. Then two years later it comes up and you can't remember where you read it. I will continue to search for more info. If I find it, I will come out of exile once again to post it.

As far as the new Church of St Catherine's, you are partially right. It is under construction and both the Vatican and the Roman authorities tried to stop its construction. The Pope even offered the ROC a church if they would cease its planned construction.
The objection has nothing to do with the architecture of the building. It has everything to do with its closeness to St Peter's and the fact that because its being built on one of the seven hills of Rome, its dome will be able to be seen from all points of Rome and will appear to be higher than that of the dome of St Peter's. This has the Vatican and the Pope in an uproar.

However, it is being built on Russian Embassy grounds. This means it is officially on Russian soil and there is nothing either the Vatican or the government of Rome can do about it.
It also adhere's to the agreement made between the Vatican and the ROC. That's it in a nut shell.

Dan writes:

[Russia ought to be given over to the Church that existed when the Russian Church was founded, not to what it became. It should be given over to the one Church that can claim that it is united with Rome before the schism. Maybe we ought to put in our claim to Russia.]

Dan all I can say is that as a Protestant you were ignorant of Church history. That hasn't changed. Read the history of the early church my friend. And quit putting a 21st century interpretation on events that happened 2000 years ago. That's a Protestant error that you seem to have retained.

Back into voluntary exile.

OrthoMan

Orthoman:

I hope that continue to try to find some support for your claims. Especially the one about the Pope being in an "uproar". I came up empty, but it may require searching in Italiano.

Architecture does of course include the manner in which a structure harmonizes with its surroundings. Some part of the difficulty in completeing construction of the RC church in Pskov is, ostensibly, its towering domination of the city. Likewise you can imagine the storm that would brew in any historical city if someone tried to impose some new, dominating structure. In your own city, there was a long-standing prohibition on skyscapers towering over Wm Penn's statue on city hall. And in the old towns of New England, the paint color that you plan to use on your own home must be approved by the town.

I am intrigued by your assertion that the civil authorities in Rome can do nothing about construction on Russian embassy grounds. I suspect that whatever is built must comply with local codes, and would certainly rely on taking delivery of materials and procuring labor through Roman channels; this provides enormous leverage - as evidenced by the nightmare of the last US embassy constructed in the Soviet Union (so many bugs installed by the locals that we never took occupancy of it.)

Thnaks for coming back out of exile. Hope to hear from you more regularly.

djs

I still think that we're wrong if this is the ideal intercommunion that the Churches want to have: separated churches that exist only in a country and that cannot exist outside their nations.

This is opposed to the ancient tradition before the schism, when latin parishes peacefully co-existed with Byzantine (in Hungary, during the time of St Stephen). The views of the canonical territory must not imply that only the western chruch or the eastern church must exist.

I think it would be unfair if those who prefer to be Orthodox in Poland or Mexico are forced to worship in latin parishes, or that the Russians have no right to become catholics if they want and feel atracted by this spirituality.