Public expressions of piety at civic events may tell us something about a culture, but they rarely disclose geopolitical ambitions or strategic designs. One exception to that general rule of religion and public life took place this past February, in Kiev, capital of Ukraine—an exercise in hardball politics under the veil of public piety that was, in fact, a harbinger of danger for religious freedom, for Ukrainian democracy, and for the future of Europe.
Prior to Ukraine’s two previous presidential inaugurations, an ecumenical and interreligious prayer service had been held at the Church of Holy Wisdom in the Ukrainian capital, with all confessional leaders invited to participate and pray for the country and its about-to-be-inaugurated leader. In a country as fractious as Ukraine, with an underdeveloped political culture and little experience of the tolerance essential to democratic civil society, these two prayer services were important indicators of a national intention to build a political community in which Ukrainians of all ethnic and religious persuasions would have a place in the public square. Indeed, Ukrainians of all parties seemed sufficiently impressed with what the pre-inaugural prayer service symbolized for their future that provisions for such an ecumenical and interreligious service were legally codified, in a presidential decree, as an integral part of presidential inaugurations.
That protocol was ignored in February at the inauguration of President Viktor Yanukovych. There was no ecumenical and interreligious service at the Church of Holy Wisdom. Rather, at Yanukovych’s invitation, pre-inaugural prayers were offered at Kiev’s Monastery of the Caves by Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. No other religious leader was invited to participate.
For that matter, no religious leaders other than those affiliated with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Moscow Patriarchate—one of three contending Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine—have been invited to meet with President Yanukovych since he assumed power. The UOC–MP is, for all intents and purposes, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow, which means, in effect, that the principal interlocutor of the Ukrainian government on religious affairs is not a Ukrainian, but a Russian: Patriarch Kirill.
Those who detect in these maneuvers echoes of the geopolitical aspirations of Vladimir Putin, prime minister of Russia and the true center of power in that country, cannot be accused of paranoid speculation. Putin has long made it clear that he is determined to restore Russian influence—and possibly Russian control—over the old “near abroad,” including Belarus, Moldova, the post-Soviet states of the Caucasus and Central Asia, and, of course, Ukraine.
That this intention, fulfilled, would have serious consequences for the nascent democracies of the former Soviet Union should be obvious, as should the geopolitical and strategic consequences for the West—although what seems obvious to others is often not-so-obvious to the present American administration. Be that as it may, the Russian Orthodox Church is making a tacit claim to spiritual jurisdiction in Ukraine; that claim threatens both religious freedom and the ecumenical future.
This tangled web of history, ethnicity, and theology is one of the world’s most striking examples of an intersection of religion and public life with real, on-the-ground consequences.
The Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine, Byzantine in liturgy and polity but in full communion with Rome since the 1596 Union of Brest, was the repository of Ukrainian national identity and aspiration throughout the Soviet period. Knowing this, Stalin used his control over the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow to attempt a canonical liquidation of the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine. In the so-called L’viv Sobor of 1946, “representatives” of the Greek Catholic Church (under the watchful eye of the secret police) dissolved the Union of Brest and placed themselves under the canonical jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow.
Those who accepted the L’viv Sobor became Russian Orthodox. Those who did not became members of the largest illegal religious body in the world. From 1946 until 1991, the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine lived underground: clandestinely worshipping in the woods, clandestinely training and ordaining clergy, with most of its hierarchy dying martyrs’ death in the camps of the Gulag or by outright execution.
One of the crucial figures in the modern life of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Cardinal Iosyf Slipyi, spent almost two decades in the Gulag before being released to Pope John XXIII in 1963 (and becoming the model for the Ukrainian pope in Morris West’s novel, The Shoes of the Fisherman). In his Roman exile, Slipyi worked to sustain the life of the Greek Catholic Church within the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, not least by recreating in Rome the L’viv Theological Academy. The academy had been banned in Soviet Ukraine, but Slipyi imagined it as the seed from which might eventually grow the Ukrainian Catholic University that was one of the great dreams of his noble predecessor, Metropolitan Andrei Sheptyts’kyi. (The university would indeed be born in L’viv in the aftermath of the Soviet crack-up of 1991, and is now the only Catholic institution of higher education in the former Soviet Union.)
Pope John Paul II admired and protected Slipyi, despite frequent and sometimes volatile tensions caused, on the one hand, by the Ukrainian prelate’s tenacity and determination, and on the other by the conviction of the Vatican’s diplomats and ecumenists that Rome principal interests ad orientem lay in a rapprochement with Russian Orthodoxy, largest of the Orthodox communions. The latter did not, of course, acknowledge that Slipyi’s Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church existed; the Greek Catholics, for their part, not infrequently denounced what they regarded as a naive and potentially dangerous Vatican dialogue with Russian Orthodox leaders who were tools of the KGB.
The choice of Lubomyr Husar as major archbishop of L’viv and head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in January 2001, and his elevation to the cardinalate a month later, meant that two men of high intelligence and considerable political sophistication—Husar and Karol Wojtyla—were now the senior figures in the dialogue between Rome and Ukraine, and positive results were not long in coming. John Paul II’s June 2001 pilgrimage to Kiev and L’viv was a triumph for both the Pope and for Ukraine: a visit respectfully and, in some cases, enthusiastically received by those parts of Ukrainian Orthodoxy not allied with the Moscow patriarchate.
Throughout the pilgrimage, John Paul, speaking fluent Ukrainian, lifted up a compelling vision of the Ukraine of the future: an independent country living out its distinctive cultural and linguistic reality while integrating itself into Europe, its various Christian communities working together to rebuild a shattered civil society and to carry out the Christian missions of education and charity. The only churlish comments on the pope’s Ukrainian visit came, predictably, from the Patriarchate of Moscow and its Ukrainian adherents.
Under the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, those golden days now seem rather distant. The flourishing Ukrainian Catholic University, led by Father Borys Gudziak (a Ukrainian–American priest with a Harvard doctorate in history), continues to be one of the most impressive educational institutions in the lands of the former Soviet Union, drawing support from all responsible sectors of Ukrainian society. Its students played a not-insignificant role in the 2005 Orange Revolution that reversed Viktor Yanokovych’s fraudulent victory in Ukraine’s previous presidential election. But Fr. Gudziak now believes himself to be under regular surveillance by the SBU, the successor to the Ukrainian KGB, and was recently visited by an SBU officer for a lengthy conversation redolent of old KGB recruitment and intimidation tactics (see this document for Gudziak’s memorandum on the encounter.) As Edward Lucas of the Economist suggested while posting lengthy excerpts of the Gudziak memorandum, “it is a good thought experiment to ask oneself in which European countries this sort of thing would be inconceivable, in which it would be possible but outrageous, and it which it would be all too likely.”
The Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church has been working hard to create a new image of itself in the West. Patriarch Kirill’s successor as the Church’s chief of “external affairs” (the patriarchate’s curious name for ecumenism), Metropolitan Hilarion, has spoken publicly of the Russian Orthodox Church’s need for deep internal reform, and Hilarion was recently in Rome for several days, participating in Vatican events highlighting the glories (and they are many) of Russian Orthodox culture. Russian Orthodox leaders have spoken of the possibility of a papal visit to Russia—a courtesy they cruelly and obstinately refused to extend to John Paul II.
Under other circumstances, these might be regarded as welcome signs of a new realism in Russian Orthodoxy about its need for both internal renewal and for a genuine ecumenical engagement with the Catholic Church.
But then one comes back to the image of Patriarch Kirill, alone, come from Moscow to Kiev to bless President Yanukovych’s inauguration.
Kirill is far too intelligent and sophisticated to think that such an act could be passed off as simply a pastoral response to an innocuous invitation.
Given contemporary recent Ukrainian history, the internal tensions between Ukrainian citizens who remember fondly the old Russophone Soviet order and those determined to forge a new, democratic, path, as well as Putin’s Great Russian revanchism, Kirill’s presence at Yanukovych’s inauguration, and the Yanukovych administration’s freezing-out of religious communities other than the Orthodox allied with Moscow, could indicate that the Patriarchate of Moscow is prepared to work in tandem with, or at least parallel to, the Russian state in order to diminish, eviscerate, or even end Ukrainian independence.
If that is not the case, it would be helpful if the Patriarchate of Moscow would publicly affirm the legitimacy of the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine and foreswear any intention to involve itself in internal Ukrainian political affairs.
A quiet nudge toward that statement and that posture from the diplomatic and ecumenical leadership of the Holy See might be helpful. Meanwhile, those who admire what has been built out of the rubble of Soviet totalitarianism in Ukraine will want to do whatever they can publicly to support Fr. Gudziak, the Ukrainian Catholic University, the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine, and others in the Ukrainian Christian community who have been laboring to build an ecumenical and religious civil society capable of sustaining Ukrainian democracy.
Those men and women, and the Ukrainian democratic project, are in danger.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.
Comments:
While Christians in Ukraine are divided among different churches, having an inauguration at the canonical Orthodox Church as you described is only natural for Orthodox Christians, just as, say, the Italian president would be to have a service in a Roman Catholic church.
Nothing more.
I invite you to talk to some Orthodox in America to get our sense of why this is not a political, but religious question. Thank you.
A powerful rebuke to the Moscow Church can be seen in Kyiv at St. Michaal's Monastery, home to The Kyiv Patriarchate:
http://gettingthegirls.blogspot.com/search/label/Ukrainian%20Famine
I should be careful in denying the factual Orthodoxy of the autonomous and aftocephalous churches in Ukraine. The (autocephaly of the) OCA is not recognized by Constantinople (nor by the ROCOR wing of the Church of Moscow if I remember correctly). I would not therefore deny the fact of the Orthodoxy of the OCA.
God bless Ukraine, Fr. Boris Gudziak and the Orange Revolution principles that promised so much hope for Ukrainian statehood, but are now in peril. Please pray for good sense and judgement on everyone's part. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press--democracy. Ukrainian language, Ukrainian culture on par with other nations of the world! Ukrainians want it and need it; after years of Soviet terror and domination, the people deserve to be free.
Ukrainian Catholic Education Foundation
2247 W Chicago Ave
Chicago, IL 60622
www.ucef.org
How fervent is the prayer for "unity of the churches of God..." as the liturgy begs? Is that prayer distorted by politics of "national" or "religious" sentiments?
Is Rome naievely walking into a trap when entertaining Moscow without due consideration to Constantinople and the Kievan input?
It seems the tenacity of the Ukrainian Catholics throughout the Soviet interferrence (as well as the same tenacity by many Russians) gives it a legitimate place in efforts to stabilize the religious and political situation in their homeland irrespective of how history has made a confused mess of expansionism and colonialism.
objectionable. There is only one legitimate Orthodox Church in Ukraine,
and that is the Church under Metropolitan Vladimir under the Patriarchate of
Moscow. This is the sole Orthodox Church of Ukraine whose ordinations,
sacraments, etc. are recognized by the whole of Eastern
Orthodox Churches.
The other 2 Orthodox jurisdictions are not considered to be Canonical and do
not posess Apostolic Succession. This matter is an internal Orthodox matter
for Orthodox hierarchs and prelates, theologians, and Canonists to resolve.
Mr. Wiegal is not an Orthodox Christian or theologian, and it is simply none
of his business to indicate what should be done with Orthodoxy in Ukraine.
The internal affairs of Eastern Orthodoxy do not concern the political interests and ideologies of outsiders. The advocacy of trying to remake the Orthodox
Church according to political interests (ie Russophobia) in order to weaken
Orthodoxy is no different than the way in which totalitarian regimes have
in the past attempted to control religious institutions for their own agenda.
With regard to the "Greek Catholic" Church. It is the height of naivete and
arrogance to suggest that the Russian Orthodox Church should recognize
the Unia. Mr. Weigel talks about the events of 1946 which saw the Unia
come under Moscow, but does not discuss the brutal details of how the
Unia in 1596 was created at the expense of Russian Orthodoxy. These
were former Orthodox Churchs compelled and pressured to accept
Rome, and the basis for their existence came from the long discredited
Council of Ferrara-Florence which the pious Greek people of Constantinople
and their champion Bishop Saint Mark of Florence repudiated and condemned.
The so called "Greek Catholics" will NEVER be accepted by the Russians, or
any other Orthodox Autocephalous Church. In 1992, in Constantinople under
the auspices of the Ecumenical Patriarch, all Orthodox Primates gathered and
agreed that the dialogue with Rome was to be limited only to the issue of
Uniatism. All Orthodox unanimously condemned the Papacy's support for
Uniatism in Ukraine, Rumania, and elsewhere.
In 2004, when John Paul II suggested that the "Greek Catholics" be upgraded
to the status of a Patriarchate, every Orthodox Church from Constantinople
on down immediately threatened to terminate their relations and dialogue
with Rome.
Roman Catholics such as Mr. Wiegel do not fully grasp the extent to which
the Orthodox have been harmed over the centuries by the Latin Church.
The "Greek Catholics" are the real imperialists on the Canonical territory of
the Russian Orthodox, not Moscow. Ukraine belongs to the Russian Church,
plain and simple.
It is clear that there is an anti-Russian program emanating from Washington
in terms of political interests, and that is manifesting itself despicably through
religion. No Orthodox Christian will ever accept the Greek Catholics, nor will
Orthodox Christians accept the dismemberment of the Russian Church, or
Holy Russia itself which has since 1453 been the protector and guardian of
Orthodox Christians.
With all due respect to Roman Catholics such as Mr. Wiegel, a greater degree
of sensitivity should be extended toward the Orthodox. There remains a great
deal of anger among Orthodox Christians over Roman misbehaviour in the past,
from the time of the Fourth Crusade which resulted in the destruction of the
Holy and Imperial City of Constantinople, to the time of the Croatian Ustashe
movement during World War 2, in which Croation Catholic clergy took part in the genocide and forced conversions of Orthodox Serbs.
Save your criticism of the Orthodox sir, for your own fellow Catholics. It is
precisely the support of the "Greek Catholics" and the blatant intervention
in Orthodox affairs in Ukraine that breed mistrust for the Western Church
by the Orthodox.
With the Pope presently planning a visit to Cyprus, there is already a great deal of anger among Bishops and Monks of the Greek Orthodox Church of
Cyprus over the Papal visit.
Until the Church of Rome withdraws support for the illegitimate Uniates, there
will continue to be mistrust toward the Roman Church. Russia today is not
Byzantium 1204 or 1439, it is not at the mercy of Rome.
Respectfully
Theodore Karakostas
Then later, "In 2004, when John Paul II suggested that the "Greek Catholics" be upgraded to the status of a Patriarchate, every Orthodox Church from Constantinople on down immediately threatened to terminate their relations and dialogue with Rome."
So who is interfering in whose internal affairs? And who is respecting the wishes of their Christian brethren more?
It is very sad to read such a level of anger and hostility in Mr Karacosta's post.
Why should the Orthodox be angry that the Pope is visiting Catholics in Cyprus? Rid yourself of all anger, envy, slander...
Pope John Paul II made an official apology for the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders and it was formally accepted by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. Jesus teaches us to forgive each other. It is very wrong for the Orthodox to keep nursing their old hatreds.
Sorry you feel so threatened, Mr. Karakostas.
FYI, one of the reasons the Russian Orthodox Church gets so angry about Ukraine is because it is on the territory of Ukraine that they have the majority of their believers. Russia itself, with a population 6 times that of Ukraine and with no significant competing confessions, has fewer adherents than Ukraine. Hmmm, methinks there's more involved here than evangelization...
I am certain that many Catholics such as yourself have good will toward
the Orthodox, but the fact remains you are unaware of what Uniatism
represents for the Orthodox.
These were native Orthodox Christians compelled and forced to come
under Papal rule. The Uniate Church represents a trojan horse against
Orthodoxy. The Ecumenical Patriarchate and other Orthodox Churches
opened up a dialogue with Rome in the 1960's with an understanding
that there would be mutual respect.
The support for Uniatism by the Papacy is an affront and an abomination
before the Orthodox Church. The previous Pope cited the Uniates as a
model for the union between Rome and the East. This shows total
ignorance of the Ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church.
The Orthodox Church rejects the institution of the Papacy and the so
called "infallibility" of the Pope. The Pope's control of the Uniates is
considered to be an act of aggression by the Orthodox. Every Orthodox
Primate has rejected Uniatism.
Neither I nor other Orthodox Christians are angry, but we will defend our
faith and our leaders such as Patriarch Kyrill from the unprovoked attacks
of Mr. Wiegel and others.
Sorry, but refusing to accept Papal dictates does not constitute anger.
Rome has interfered in the Orthodox Church in Ukraine and that is why
all Orthodoxy threatened to sever relations back in 2004.
No, we Orthodox are not angry, we have in fact been very forgiving. The
fact is that the Latin side has been profoundly misinformed and ignorant
of history, as well as insensitive toward the Orthodox Church.
It is certainly not for George Wiegel and his associates at the think tanks
to decise whose Bishops are legitimately Orthodox. By the Canon Laws,
traditions, and sacraments of the Orthodox Church Metropolitan Vladimir
of Kiev alone is the spiritual leader of Ukraine.
The Unia represent a foreign dogma before the Orthodox Church, and one
that has been advanced at the expense of Orthodoxy through means not
Christian.
Most respectfully.
Theodore Karakostas
Russia has suffered the greatest martyrdom since the early Church. A little
respect is in order for a country that suffered the horrors of Lenin and Stalin,
added together with the horrors of Hitler's racist war.
The resurgence of Christianity in Russia is a miracle attesting to the triumph
of the Cross!
Russia is the true bastion of Christianity in the world today, in real contrast
to Europe or America which have been secularized.
Ukraine belongs ecclesiastically under Orthodox Canon Law to Moscow.
Rome's mistaken belief that the Orthodox will submit to its rule is the basis
for its supporting the "Greek Catholics".
I do not for a minute feel threatened. But I do feel rather irritated by the
Papists who have taken no time or consideration to understand the
sensibilities of the Orthodox Church.
The Orthodox Church since the 1960's has made moves to adopt a friendlier
attitude toward Rome, and what in the end we have gotten is the attempt
to subvert the Canonical structures of Orthodoxy in Ukraine, a war against
Orthodox Serbs in Yugoslavia which opens up a whole other issue, and
repeated failures of the Catholics to understand Orthodoxy either in dogma
or its historic experiences.
I am not all threatened. Why should I be threatened? As an Orthodox
Christian I hold to the faith of Christ, the Apostles, and the Holy Fathers
as pronounced by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. I believe in the original
Creed as delivered by the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea in
325 AD and Constantinople in 381 AD.
The Creed which stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and has
never been altered in the East by one Bishop who without foundation
proclaims himself superior to the whole of the Church.
Orthodox Christians have no need to be threatened. Orthodoxy has
suffered the yoke of Arab and Turkish Islam, Communism, and so on, and
the faith has remained unaltered.
The Orthodox Church, especially in Russia, is undergoing a resurgence.
Can the same be said of any Western Churches?
Ukraine belongs ecclesiastically under Orthodox Canon Law to Moscow." It never has and never will.
No one forced Ukrainians to come in union with Rome. I rather be in union with Rome than be bamboozled by your Patriarch Aleix who worked for the KGB for over 25 years and was given an honor by the commies for his work. Some piece of work for a christian man. Your Kirill is no better. No wonder there is no confession because the people were turned in to the KGB by the orthodox priests. How many Ukrainians catholic Priests and people were sacrificed by the brutality of Russia and what did the Russian Orthodox Patriarchs do, absolutely nothing.
You have moved the discussion from the two main points at hand.
1) The appropriateness of non-Orthodox attempting to dictate who is
a legitimate Archbishop. Under the Canon Laws of the Orthodox Church,
Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev is the legitimate Bishop of Ukraine. That is
a fact. All Orthodox Churches, not just Russia consider this to be the
case.
Of what business does Mr. Wiegel and his think tank have in attempting to
declare who is and is not a legitimate Archbishop? Please discuss this
aspect of the article. It does not matter whether you agree or not, Orthodox
consider the Archbishop under Moscow the Canonical Orthodox Bishop.
What Mr. Wiegel advocates is the blatant intervention in the internal affairs
of the Orthodox Church for secular purposes, something expressly forbidden
by specific Canons of the Orthodox Church.
2) The Unia issue. The Orthodox were in fact compelled to join with Rome
in 1596 with the Polish conquests East. Orthodox Christians would never
have felt like joining Rome were it not under the threat of force.
The Council of Breast in 1596 was a revival of the Council of Florence which
the Greek people rejected outright and which the Bishops who signed it did
so under the threat of a Turkish conquest which was imminent.
As for the issue of the Russian Church and the Communists. Are you sure you
want to go there? We could also discuss the Vatican's support for the pro-Nazi
Ustashe regime whose Catholic Church slaughtered hundreds of thousands of
Orthodox Serbs and forced many to covert to Catholicism.
The Russian Church at least was under the physical threat of harm and whose
flocks were being killed or imprisoned.
The Popes have been quite comfortable over the decades haven't they, with
their own little State at Vatican City. And what of the silence of Pius XII during
the Holocaust, the concordat with Hitler in 1933, and the fact that numerous
Nazis were given Vatican protection and assistance to escape the allies after
the war.
I mean no disrespect, and I would not have brought these issues up had you
not brought up the Russian Church and the KGB.
Theodore Karakostas
The late Ukrainian Catholic Cardinal Lubachivsky wrote an article of mutual forgiveness to the entire Russian nation in 1988 while his Church was still in the catacombs. Nobody from the Russian Orthodox Church even bothered to respond. Christian brotherhood indeed.
It is an open question how much the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia AND Ukraine is a religious body, and how much a political tool to prop up Putin's K.G.B. Russian czardom. Kirill of Moscow, recall, was appointed the Soviet Union's representative to the World Council of Churches in 1972. To get such a gig, one had to be entrusted by the Soviet K.G.B. Kirill has never renounced his past, nor the ROC's role in the liquidation of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. He could speak of these things but won't.
Ukrainian Catholicism in Halychyna and Zakarpattia is the majority denomination. Let these poor people be for once. They have served Christ and suffered terribly in history. Now pro-Kremlin Ukrainian President Yanukovych is bringing secret police pressure to bear on the Ukrainian Catholic University. Yanukovych is head of the brutal Donestk clan and has a criminal record. Should he be the political voice for Russian Orthodoxy in Ukraine?
Ukraine's Orthodox were originally subject to Constantinople, until by hook-and-crook apparently it fell under Moscow's jurisdiction in 1686.
Some prayers please for the Ukrainian Catholic Church in these worried times.
Not all the examples I cite come from previous centuries. The Croatian
Ustashe movement in which Catholic clerics participated in the forced
conversions and genocide of Orthodox Serbs with the Pope's knowledge
took place during the Second World War.
In addition, it is an outrage for you to question whether the Russian
Orthodox Church is a religious body. Orthodox believe that the Church is
the body of Christ on earth. We have Canon Laws which have prohibit
clerics from being appointed by secular rulers, and we have canons which
address the question of whether the sacraments are valid even if administered by unworthy individuals.
The Russian Church found itself in the worst form of persecution since the
early persecution of Christians by the Romans. The Orthodox were the first
to suffer under the Communist yoke, and suffered for the longest time.
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia for decades harsh critics of the
Moscow Patriarchate has made peace with the Church of Russia. It is a new
day.
Getting to the issue of Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin is a faithful and devout
Christ loving Orthodox Christian. He has assisted the Russian Church in its
effort to reach the unChurched. Thanks to him, prayer is in the Russian
Schools, and Russian school children are learning about the Saviour.
Church-State relations in Orthodox Countries is modelled on "Symphonia",
(harmony) which defined Church-State relations in the Byzantine Empire.
What Russia has today, is precisely what Greece has in terms of Church-
State relations. A sharp contrast to the West where the display of a
crucifix, or the mention of the name of God leads to the outbreak of
hysteria
Vladimir Putin and the hierarchy and the hierarchy of the Russian Church
are disliked because they are Orthodox, and not Western (Catholic or
Protestant). Westerners such as Mr. Wiegel along with the Washington
think tanks and neocons are prepared to attack and sabotage the revival
of Christianity in any country if it is not the western form of Christianity.
You denigrate the Tsars in your comments. The Tsars were from the
perspective of oppressed Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire the
champions of religious freedom who put enormous pressure on the Sultans
to improve the status of their Orthodox populations.
The Patriarch of Constantinople in 1710 or so was executed after the Turks
found a letter he had written expressing the hope that Peter the Great would
expel the Turks from Constantinople. In 1774, Catherine the Great forced the
Turks to grant equal rights to Christians in the Ottoman Empire.
The Western powers, Christians so called, propped up the murderous Turkish
Sultan and extended the horrendous persecution of Christians in the Ottoman
Empire.
Orthodox Christians look to Russia with the utmost respect and reverance.
We Orthodox Christians have a different outlook from the West. We love
our Churches and our shrines more than our politics.
You refer to the fact that Ukraine was under Constantinople. Constantinople
lost all its glory and its territories over the passing of time because of the
situation it found itself in with the Turks. I am profoundly glad that the
West looks upon the Ecumenical Patriarch with respect, but unfortunately
Christian Europe sacrificed his Great Church to the altar of Islam, when
the Christian Europeans aided and abetted the Turks in Asia Minor in
1922, and prevented Christendom's greatest City from being liberated by
its Greek founders.
When the West rediscovered the Church of Constantinople during the 1960's,
it was too late.
You can talk about the Russian Church and the KGB, but we Orthodox have
serious grievances with the West, much of them dating to the twentieth
century.
Several months ago, Patriarch Kyrill whom you disparage expressed his
support for the Catholic Church in Italy when the European Court on Human
Rights demanded that Crucifixes be removed from Italian schools.
The Church of Greece likewise expressed its support and sympathy for the
Catholics. After all, Orthodox and Catholic alike have the same antagonists-
secularism and terrorism.
Why is the West trying to sabotage Christian Russia, if for no other reason
that it belongs to the wrong Church.
Theodore Karakostas
I am drawn to the liturgy and spirituality of the east and believe in the primacy of Rome. History, like place, cannot and should not have any bearing on what I choose. It seems as though Mr. Karakostas would have history, place, and church laws trump religious freedom and freedom of conscience.
Being a Greek Catholic comes from no ill will toward Orthodoxy. Why bear ill feelings toward me or any other eastern Catholic?
What of the Melkites? Compulsion, imperialism? I think not.
I would leave you to do what you like. That is fine and well. But what
Orthodoxy has reacted to, is the attempt to expand in Ukraine at the
expense of the Orthodox.
Why do the Uniates need their own Patriarchate? And why in Kiev which
is not Uniate territory?
What aggravated the crisis in 2004 in which the Orthodox Churches threatened
to terminate the dialogue with Rome was the intention to establish a Patriarchate in Kiev which has no "Greek Catholic" presence.
Moving beyond the Uniates.
I ask yet again about the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Why exactly do
Catholics like George Wiegel have an interest in promoting Orthodox
factions that are in opposition to the Patriarchate of Moscow?
This is a question I have asked repeatedly and received no responses from
Catholics.
In fact, this was the real heart of the George Wiegel article more so than
the Greek Catholics.
To TN,
I believe it was George Wiegel who accused the Patriarchate of Moscow
of imperialism in the Ukraine even though he exercises the proper Orthodox
authority in Ukraine, as his holiness Patriarch Bartholomew reaffirmed
in Russia on May 31.
I simply pointed out that it is Rome who in fact was behind imperialism in
Ukraine when it repressed Orthodoxy in Poland and Ukraine in the
beginning.
And no, we Orthodox are not irrational. Many Catholics (not all of them, many
more familiar with Orthodoxy are in fact are quite sensitive on these issues).
We are familiar with history and with the actions of the Vatican. The lack of
appreciation by Roman Catholics for the past and its attempts in recent years
to expand at the expense of Orthodoxy (the very reason why the 1992
Synod in Constantinople was called) is why we do not trust the Uniates.
Theologically and Canonically, the Greek Catholics are unsound. They look
Orthodox but are under Rome and accept Roman dogma (if I am not mistaken
here) while maintaining an Orthodox liturgy.
Theodore
Although I did not expect agreement on our differences, I was at least
hoping there would be at least some understanding. It appears that
the Western Christians have very little understanding or appreciation
for the Orthodox. That is a tragedy.
We Orthodox do not care whether you recognize Russia or not. Call it
the third rome, or anything else, Russia is a thriving Orthodox Country.
Considering the desire of the late John Paul II and the current Pope to
meet with the Russian Patriarch, it is apparent that the Russian Orthodox
Church has more significence and importance than you let on, or imply.
It is also the Pope that has been more anxious for "Unity" than the Orthodox.
John Paull II stated in 1995 that he desired unity between East and West
before 2000. It is the Orthodox East that has put the brakes on such
a move.
Orthodoxy considers that it has the fullness of truth. Orthodoxy is for the
most part, despite some rough challenges ahead, generally thriving.
Churches in Greece and Russia are usually quite full on a Sunday. How
are the Catholic Churches in Western Europe doing, while Mosques are
being constructed?
Interesting you mention the Crusades. The Orthodox Church has never
manipulated doctrine for secular political reasons and has never justified
the murder of other human beings because they belonged to another
religion, as the Pope did when he told the Crusaders there sins would
be forgiven them for participating in the Crusades.
The future of Christian Russia seems at the present time, much more
assured than the Papacy in its present difficulties, which is being challenged
more and more by secular Catholics in America and Europe.
Islam and Communism have taken their best shots at the Orthodox
Church. We survived.
We shall see how Rome manages the mounting difficulties headed its way.
In any case, we would prefer less conflict and more cooperation on matters
of common concern. Once more, I make reference to the Churches of
Greece and Russia which support the Catholic Church in Italy in its
campaign to resist the movement to remove Crucifixes from public schools.
The Muslims these days stand together in Muslim brotherhood. Should we
as Christians not stand together as well?
Theodore
The twenty year allusion that there is only one superpower, the US, has come to an end. There are four superpowers: Europe, Russia, US and China. One is liberal (Europe). One is conservative (China). And three are Christian (Europe, Russia and US). Brotherhood among Benedict, Kirill, Bartholomew, Obama and Putin is certainly desired.
Ukraine seems similar to a handful of European countries that lean toward Brussels to launder money while looking toward Moscow to launder sins. Ukraine’s short term fate is predictable if Ukraine can forget about the forced famine of 1933 that is.
Pope Benedict wants a true world political authority. It seems that a one world Christian authority would be a first step. In that, it is doubtful that Pope Benedict intends to ask the Orthodox and other Christians to look to the Vatican.
I applauded the election of Dimitris Christofias to President of Cyprus. Pope Benedict's visit was a wise intermediate step. It also coaxes the Orthodox Patriarchs to talk amongst themselves.
Later, the one world Christian authority certainly will be in a position to expand its charter and become a one world Judeo-Christian authority but it’s too early to contemplate that now.
It is easy for Muslims to appear united in brotherhood because they have a common enemy, Israel. Take that away and Muslims appear to be only stirred up and fractional. General Patraes was right in asking Israel to tone it down because subsequently to all this, the Judeo-Christians authority would be in a position to select the fostering of a relationship with either the Sunnis or the Shiites.
Only the timeframe of Christian reconciliation is uncertain but it will be soon.
http://blog.nola.com/news_impact/2009/07/large_benedict.jpg
“Those who practice charity in the Church's name will never seek
to impose the Church's faith upon others. They realize that a pure and
generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by
whom we are driven to love.”
But we reserve the right to change our mind when favorable conditions present themselves. Welcome aboard.
