Russia and the former USSR, have always been worried about extra-national groups within their borders. The reason? The problem has always been that the USSR for example, was composed of not just diverse "ethic" groups - but often warring nations. Speaking many different languages. Nations that were often literally at war with each other, in recent history.

The USSR therefore was always far, far radically more diverse than say, the USA; differences between peoples were much, much more severe, than our merely "ethic" diversity. To try to deal with this extreme difference, for a time, the "International" appeal of Communism, helped cement these otherwise often violently opposed, warring groups. But it was always a very, very difficult. heterogeneous union; one that, some said, would take a Stalin to bring to terms. Or at least a Medvedev.

It is for that reason primarily, that the USSR - and now, Russia - have always put far more stress on strong - even repressive - central control.

This of course does not excuse it. But it might begin to offer some perspective on, historical reasons for, the Russian situation.

Can Catholics forgive, even love, our former Russian enemies? And understand them? That seems far, far too hard, for many traditional Catholics to do. Or so it clearly seems, here on First Things.

I haven't noticed any Catholics on First Things, even those scary traditional Catholics, refusing to love and forgive Russians. Given the facts cited by Mr. Weigel, one should at least ask whether the Russians, at least the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church, are willing to love and allow ecclesial freedom to their former enemies. Indeed, do they even recognize that enemies are "former"?

The Russian Orthodox Church is a broad institution which encompasses not just the faithful living in Russia proper, but also the so-called (and inapt termed) “Diaspora” of Russians in Western Europe, the United States, and South America. And within this group you have not only Russians and their descendents, but also converts from other Christian confessions, Orthodox of other ethnicities, and previously “un-churched” individuals. Even if the “cold war” between the Vatican and Moscow continues, there are pockets of warmth. To offer one example, Archbishop Iustinian—the hierarch for the Moscow Patriarchate parishes in the U.S.—recently bestowed an award on a Catholic priest in Grand Rapids, Michigan for his generosity in supporting and assisting the small Russian Orthodox parish in that city. No, it’s not the type of gesture that changes the dynamics of Catholic/Orthodox relations, but I hope it at least sends a modest signal that Christian love can cross confessional boundaries.

The Russian religious mind, nay, the Orthodox religious mind is difficult to pin down, particularly at this point in history. Like the Greek Orthodox Church before it, large swathes of the Russian Church suffer under the ideological identification of ethnicity with Christianity. But this is a relatively new development. Even in the 19th C., where there was a worldwide rise of nationalism and the identification of blood with soil, there was still a missionary presence in the Russian Church that stretched from the far eastern reaches of Russia to Mongolia, China, and Japan, and then onward through Alaska. That missionary zeal fell apart in the face of the Soviet Revolution, the violent persecution of the Russian Church, and the mass exodus of Russians from their native land. There was a shock to the Russian conscience and I don’t think it has fully subsided. In order to hold on to what they had, Russians—both in Russia and abroad—began to identify their ethnicity with their Church and vice versa. Now that Communism is no more and relative freedom has been restored to the Church, there is a long road ahead to seeing the Great Commission as something more than a mandate to make sure the right people with the right blood Baptize their kids and attend services once a year.

On the other hand, what are the intensions of the Catholic Church toward Russia and its “near abroad”? On the one hand Rome speaks of dialogue, of forging stronger ties with the Orthodox Church as a whole, and working toward authentic unity, and on the other it appears poised to not just minister to the Catholics living in and around Russia, but to missionize as well. This approach rings strange to the Russian Church and, perhaps, rightly so. Has Rome done anything to persuade the Russian Church that its intentions for dialogue are pure and not, rather, a ruse meant to get them through the door and on to the business of winning souls away from the Orthodox Church? I don’t believe it is controversial to call the Russian State a xenophobic, slightly paranoid polity. They have their reasons and it will take some time for those wounds to heal. In the meantime, the Catholic Church can either accept and work around this reality or it can decry it as wicked, disingenuous, and un-Christian. Which route do you think will be more productive in the short or long term?

Interestingly, some think Lukashenko sees himself or Belarus as an ecumenical bridge between the East and West:

http://rt.com/politics/aleksandr-lukashenko-s-first-european-destination-vatican/

The Pope evidently received him in the Vatican, and Lukashenko took the opportunity to invite Benedict to visit him in Minsk at some point.

Would it be fair to view the contrasting positions in this way? The Roman Catholic Church holds as a principle that choice of an adult's religious allegiance should be a free act depending on the individual. The Russian Orthodox Church either does not believe in this principle or, if it does, holds that it should not be operative in certain situations. The discussion would then revolve around basic suppositions. Such a discussion may well not result in agreement, but it would serve to clarify the reasons for the differences.

Donna:

Traditionally, conservatives have adamantly opposed Russia especially; in Cold War days, until this very day, today, on First Things. But do we always need to foreground the sins of Russia?

Jesus did not tell us to get into mutual recriminations with our enemies. Or to accuse them of lack of tolerance. But to for a moment, suffer even their insults; to "turn the other cheek."

Why did Jesus say this? The wisdom of Jesus, of turning the other cheek, is that if we exhibit a mild tolerance, backing off criticism, even under attack, often this will allow those who are different from us, to see that we are peaceful, and willing to talk. At that point? Perhaps we can peacefully talk out our differences. Instead of coming to blows; instead of starting another conservative war.

Why is it that conservatives never follow Jesus? His command to 1) "love your enemies"? And 2) "turn the other cheek"? Weigel does not seem "loving" above, at all.

Indeed therefore it is worth asking this: are "conservatives" really even Christian at all? Or are they political ideologues? Following the "worldly" "traditions of men," and not of God?

James,

I think the Russian Church's position is more complicated. While I don't believe this represents the views of all of its members (or even all of its hierarchs), I do believe there is a general sentiment that the Russian Church was "robbed" of its believers during the Soviet era and now needs time to readjust and reintroduce Russians to the Orthodox Faith. How long that adjustment period should last is unclear. Obviously the Russian Church would prefer that no other Christian confession make any inroads into its "territory" and I suspect the Russian State would prefer that as well. It's a rather "medieval" way of doing business; it just seems very foreign to us, living as we do in the post-Westphalian West.

With that said, I do find that Russian equivocation of nationality/ethnicity with Orthodoxy to be deeply troubling and fundamentally at odds with the Gospel. There is still all of that rhetoric about the "Russian soul," "Russian Christ," etc. Then again, the Russians aren't the only ones guilty of such behavior.

Mr. Wiegel seeks to take shots at the Russian Orthodox Church once again, while ignoring the offenses of the Roman Catholic Papacy. Roman Catholics love to bring up the Ukraine after the Second World War. How about addressing the Catholic Genocide of over 800,000 Orthodox Serbs in occupied Yugoslavia during the Second World War.

Mr. Wiegel accuses the Russian Orthodox hierarchy of coddling dictators. How about the Pope's concordat with Hitler in 1933? How about the large numbers of Nazi War Criminals that passed through the Vatican after the War and were given identity papers on their way to South America?

Many Orthodox Christians are becoming increasingly annoyed with the lectures coming from the West. Considering the bloody history of the Roman Catholic Church going back to the Crusades, I would suggest that there is no basis whatsoever for Roman Catholics to lecture the Orthodox.

The Orthodox have taken on the brunt of Islamic oppression during the centuries of the Ottoman Empire, and suffered the most under the Communist regimes. Russia today is a model Christian society, in contrast to the secular West. The restoration of the Russian Orthodox Church is a miracle, and Russia should have been received by the West with the spirit of love and friendship.

Rather than being treated with respect, the Russians have been kicked by an arrogant neo-conservative establishment that thinks it is entitled to rule the world. Spare us Orthodox the neocon propaganda. Neoconservatism is a blatantly secular anti-Christian ideology that has ravaged the Christian East.

Take a look at the Greek, Armenian, and Assyrian Christians in Asia Minor who slaughtered under Turkish Genocide. Take a look at Christian Cyprus which remains under Turkish occupation and where the Greek Christian population has been ethnically cleansed with the full support of Washington's pro-Turkish cabal.

Take a look at the Serbs of Kosovo. Kosovo is the Serbian Orthodox Rome. The blatant propaganda campaign of the 1990's led to the destruction of Christianity in that province. Following Kosovo, the invasion of Iraq led to the systematic destruction of Christianity in Iraq.

And then there is of course the misery of Palestinian Christians who have been caught up in the poverty and misery of the Israeli occupation.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I see no evidence that most Western Christians have made any kind of effort to fully understand or appreciate the Christian East.

And what business is it of Mr. Wiegel as to what Church-State relations in Russia are? Church-State relations in countries such as Russia and Greece are inherited from Justinian's concept of "Symphonia", harmony.

Criticism of the Russian Church exposes what Mr. Wiegel and his associates are truly advocating, a secular agenda that seeks to take over the independence of the Orthodox Churches for political purposes. This is not
1204.

If Rome wants to improve relations with Moscow it should cease and desist from promoting Unia activities on Orthodox territory.

Theodore G. Karakostas

Excellent 'realist' perspective on the current ecumenical and most specifically ecclesial relations between Moscow and Rome at the moment. As Mr. Weigel points out, there is truly more to the picture than meets the eye amid these examples of East-West Rapprochement. Indeed, there are many positive elements to this reconciliation of sorts. Nevertheless, there are also clear problems. Analogous to what Weigel points out as the tendency of the Russian Orthodox to 'drive a wedge' between Benedict and John Paul II, this is also the case with regard to the relationship of Rome with its Eastern Sui Juris Churches, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church most notable among them. With regard to contemporary ecumenism with Rome, Moscow seems to have played the card to regarding "Uniatism" as a stigma of past proselytization and thus convinced many Ecumenists of the Roman Church (Card. Kasper being one of them) to regard the "Uniate" Churches as historical 'accidents' for which the Catholic Church is to be ashamed. Needless to say, this leaves the Greek Catholic Churches (most notably the Ukrainian Church) with an inflicted identity crisis and makes their abilities discovering their roles as "Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome" all the more difficult. As a Roman Catholic who loves, respects, and values the spiritual and theological patrimony of the East, I will be the first to admit that there is much to gain from this 'thawing' of relations between Rome and Moscow. But we should not be so naive to think that there are not hidden costs as well. Thanks for this insight, George.

Henry,

Conservatives have always distinguished between the bloody tyrants who subjugated the Russian people and the Russian people. Why oppose the tyrants if you don't care about the people? You are way off the mark.

Jesus was above all a truthteller. He turned his own cheek when that was appropriate. He also denounced hypocrisy, greed, and hardheartedness when he saw it among the leaders of the people. Spare us the soupy pseudo-Christianity that sees no evil, hears no evil.

The Sobor of 1946 is certainly embarassing for Orthodox Christians, but please, let's not pretend that the Uniates (and their Roman masters) don't have an equally checkered past. If anyone would like me to, I can detail it in full. However, I don't think that's particularly useful at the present time. Understand, those of us who are Orthodox would appreciate Roman support as we push back against the tide of secularism in the West, but we don't need you. We suffered the martyrdom of 54 million people in the 20th century alone and not only are we still standing, there's a new Russian Orthodox Church dedicated in Russia every three days (for the past 20 years). The ROC has the full power of the Russian State in support of their cause and Rome would be well advised to fall into line on issues related to the Canonical boundaries of the ROC and the rest of the Orthodox world. The Russian Orthodox Church will have there way in the Ukraine regardless, but you will gain (or lose) an ally depending on your actions.

"Throughout the meeting, Hilarion smoothly but unmistakably tried to drive a wedge between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II (whom two patriarchs of Moscow, both KGB-connected, refused to invite to Russia)."

Hilarion? The same Metropolitan Hilarion who is constantly pilloried by Russian Orthodox traditionalists for being "pro-Catholic"? Oh, that must be the Hilarion who sees Benedict XVI as more committed to traditional Christianity than John Paul II ever was! It is an opinion shared by not a few Catholics...

So what if 2 previous Patriarchs refused to invite Pope John Paul II to Russia? Is Weigel aware of the history of the Russian Orthodox Church between 1989 and 2000, when it was fractured by numerous nationalist and anti-ecumenical schisms? Inviting the Pope to Russia in those days would have caused massive upheaval within the Russian Church, not to speak of the diaspora, with its severely anti-ecumenical Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. The primary work of the Moscow Patriarchs was to maintain the unity of their flock, not to make Catholics feel good.

As for the reference to the KGB: said like a true neocon! The Moscow Patriarchate had millions of martyrs against Communism (something we Catholics always forget) and in recent years has canonized / glorified thousands of them. That in itself should make us Catholics reevaluate our tendency to equate "Russian Orthodox" with "Soviet / Communist". There were many instances of shameful collaboration between the Moscow Patriarchate and the KGB, but then, the Catholic Church itself has never been immune to collaboration with various dictatorships, including Communist ones.

As for the references to the Ukraine, perhaps Mr. Weigel should pay more attention to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church's cozy relations with the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyivan Patriarchate", a church that is not recognized either by canonical Orthodox Churches or by Rome. The UOC-KP's current leader, Filaret Denisenko, was one of the worst collaborators with the KGB, far worse then the late Patriarch Alexy Ridiger ever was. And he also persecuted Greek Catholics very harshly. All of that is now forgotten, apparently, because Filaret and the UOC-KP were useful tools of the neocon-inspired Orange Revolution...

The problem with Mr. Weigel's essay is that it presupposes that the Russian Orthodox Church should behave like a good, modern Western Church, committed to limiting itself to behaving like a good player in the public square afforded by Western secular democracy and religious freedom -- ideals that Rome itself condemned until 1958. Weigel forgets that the Russian Orthodox Church has refused to accept many of the presuppositions of the modern world that the Catholic Church itself has accepted only in recent decades -- a refusal which fuels the continuing interest of many Catholics in the Russian Orthodox Church

"Second, the relationship between the Russian Orthodox leadership and the efforts of the Medvedev/Putin government to reconstitute the old Stalinist empire, de facto if not de iure, has to be clarified. Patriarch Kirill’s praise of the dictator Lukashenko, like his forays into Ukrainian politics, suggest the unhappy possibility that the Russian Orthodox leadership is functioning as an arm of Russian state power, as it did from 1943 until 1991."

In Ukraine, the Russophobic, Orange Revolution parties tend to be openly in favor of the uncanonical autocephalist "Orthodox" movements. The previous regime in Ukraine actually tried to engineer a schism using no less than the Patriarch of Constantinople. Accusing the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine of being anti-democratic and of being Putindev's stooge because it supports the Russia-friendly Party of Regions rather than the neocon-backed Orange Parties, is akin to accusing the Catholic Church in the U.S.A of being anti-democratic because it doesn't support the Democratic Party (despite the latter's support for abortion and gay rights).

Mr. Weigel's phrasing also presupposes that the Party of Regions' Russophile stance is part of an attempt to reconstitute "the old Stalinist empire". This is highly debatable and is rejected by numerous political observers outside the American neocon world.

Intersting article , from someone who , as to be expected , would care deeply about The Promise , of what unity can accomplish ....in a world that needs faith , in the goodness and Trintarian unity of the revealed truth , to overcome all sorts of evil ...

Timely too - for this lenten season ; it would have been easy to think that much is right and in the right direction ...except , here again , we are reminded that the roaring lion is not done with its mission yet ..

In the 5th century , a church was established , in a 'new Rome ' - Constantinople , with an icon of our Lord , as 'Holy Wisdom ' in the form of a female ! - equating Him , with what would be created wisdom mentioned in Old Testament !

The Patriarch at the time had already been in rebellious insubordination - caliming the title of ' Univeral Patriarch !' - year 588, Mohammed , 18 y.o , as the sword being readied !

In Providebtial Mercy , The Father moved hearts, at the council of Toledo, ( Spain - year 589 ) to reemphasise the role of The Beloved Son, in the Spirit being with us , of His Passion , with the strenght and loving Presence of The Spirit , to grant us same , when we unite our own lives, sufferings and all ,in trusting love , with Him ..

Constantinople was also ravaged by what is called the greatest pandemic of lague, soon after the building of the church - now, an Islamic museum ; pretty much same fate for the other two churches, in Orthodox territories , under same title .a title which seems to indircetly deny the Oneness of our Lord , with The Father ...? an indirect result of the earlier denial of honor to The Father figure , by the declaration of status of 'universal Patriarch' !


Much has happened since ...since the roaring lion has been allowed to wander and plunder ..

killings in Serbia..Iraq - all of it also condemned by The Church , who strives ardently, to bring in the antidote of faith through unity , promised against all the ravages of our enemy .

If Russia today enjoys freedom in relgion, in these days of internet, hopefully her children would see that they have a powerful patron, in Pope John Paul II , who still pray for them, as well as many others too .

And our shared love for our The Mother would hopefully free many from the need for overcontrol - we are seeing again what the results can be when such is the case, in lands that used same ; even communism , was that too not a fearful result !
If The Church shows wisdom , to let the reiens loose , that too would be wisdom of tending responsibly - our Lord Himself had told the disciples - 'do you also want to leave ?'

Our Lady of Fatima , pray for us all !

It is also worth noting that the Moscow Partriarchate, shamefully still denies the Ukranian Holocaust of 1932-34, when Stalin starved perhaps as many as 10 million of his own citizens to death.

Pardon and mercy , for the spelling errors in the previous post :) !

Based on what I have read in the past, "Catholic" is almost a synonym for "Polish" in the Russian Orthodox mind. As if Poland is somehow a threat to Russia!
Religion and nationalism is a toxic mix. The Catholic Church was guilty of it, but it has been expunged from the Church. Unfortunately, it is still a problem in Orthodoxy, as "Peter" illustrates.
As for "Joseph Roberto"'s saying the Orange Revolution was a "neocon" fraud imposed on the Ukrainian people - where is the evidence? He sounds like another "Blame America Firster".

I am simply amazed at how “Orthodox history,” from the time of the Second Crusade up through the aftermath of Communism in Russia can be compacted into a discrete narrative where every Orthodox Christian living today, whether he was born on a farm in Des Moines, Iowa or to wealthy parents in Athens, gets to have a claim on the pain, suffering, tragedy, and martyrdom which has been not just the history of Orthodox Christians, but many Christians—indeed, many non-Christians (e.g., the Jews)—during that same period as well. The only difference is that I’ve never met a Pole yet who speaks as if he was personally wounded by the French Revolution or an Irishman lamenting the fate of German Catholics after the Reformation, etc. Different peoples with different histories, regardless of shared confessional commitments, typically don’t invoke the entire span of their Church’s suffering as a red badge of courage entitling them to engage in righteous indignation against some ill-drawn “other”—unless, of course, those peoples happen to be Orthodox Christians.

Setting this silliness aside, the actions of “the West” (whatever that means) against Serbia or the cool relations between Russia and parts of the European Union and the United States are complex problems that have little-to-nothing to do with the fact Serbia and Russia are populated by (an ever shrinking proportion of) Orthodox Christians. As for the Catholic Church’s position with respect to these geo-political matters, I have never seen a statement from the Vatican praising the bombings in Kosovo or the tensions which exist between Russia and certain Western powers. And as for the Turks, again, the U.S. relationship with Turkey has everything to do with expediency and absolutely nothing to do with the Orthodox Church. That doesn’t make it right, of course. But trying to tie these problems into a new narrative of Catholic/Orthodox tensions strikes me as silly to say the least.

No one doubts, not even the Catholic Church, that Orthodox Christians have suffered through history and continue to suffer. But so have many groups, including Catholics. But where, I wonder, is the compunction from the Orthodox Church or the regions where Orthodoxy has historically had a strong presence concerning the grave wounds inflicted on whole populations by the Byzantine Empire or “Holy Russia” (which, to be honest, wasn’t all that holy)? Only after the Soviet oppression and the dispersal of the Russian Church did it get around, in the 1970s, to lifting its anathemas against the Old Believers for refusing the make the Sign of the Cross with three fingers. And to the best of my knowledge, the Russian State has never apologized for the tens of thousands of Old Believers it violently displaced, tortured, and murdered from the 17th C. onward. And that’s just scratching the surface, mind you. There is a lot of historic blood on a lot of people’s hands, East and West. The Orthodox Church doesn’t get a “free pass” on penitence just because its adherents like to break out the proverbial violin every time a Catholic is looking.

As for the “Uniates” (a derogatory term if there ever was one), let it go. The Union of Brest is over 400 years old and the other Eastern Churches which have aligned themselves with Rome, though not always for the “purest” reasons, are there and they are there to stay. Why the Orthodox believe they have automatic claim on these groups simply because they share similar liturgical rites is beyond me. I don’t see the Catholics or Anglicans falling over themselves to declare the various “Western Rite” groups of the Orthodox Church properly theirs. And if the Orthodox really believe these Eastern Christians should be with them, then so be it. Open your doors, Orthodox, and let them come. If they do, fantastic; if they don’t, hush and quit whining. It looks like sour grapes. (But let’s be honest, the last thing the Orthodox Church has been doing to anyone except those with the “right blood” or “right ethnicity” is opening their doors. The few mission-oriented parishes in the United States are the exception which proves the rule.)

Finally, while I generally don’t agree with Weigel’s “hawkishness” on most international issues, I don’t believe he is off base in trying to clarify the exact state of Vatican/Moscow relations. What I tried to add in my original comment is that while there may be a “cold war” at the highest levels of authority within these two confessions, at the ground level there has been some improvement. (The earlier remarks with respect to Metropolitan Hilarion were spot on, though at times it’s hard to discern when he is speaking for himself with respect to Rome and when he’s serving as the mouthpiece for the Patriarchate.) But as has already been discussed, there needs to be clearer terms of reference on the table for what both sides want out of their so-called “dialogue.” If it’s just an excuse to eat some sumptuous meals, drink some fancy wine, and talk about how Europe is going to hell in a hand basket, fine. But let’s be honest about it. If there are other, more concrete, issues on the table, that’s fine as well. But, again, let’s be honest about it. Only then are we going to have a proper yardstick to measure successes and setbacks.

It seems to me that Mr. Weigel's brave question about the relationship between religion and ethnicity is the correct one to ask in this context. However, because of this mix, this is also a very sensitive area touching on the inner sanctum of many believers, thus the limits of such an inquiry must be respected.

Nevertheless, to this Roman Catholic, ethnicity and religion are in different classes, and should not coexist in close proximity - healthy separation seems to keep both humble. I see this as a valid, if an uncomfortable, question.

To Gabriel Sanchez

Orthodox are more than aware of our own shortcomings. My comments were motivated by the continued criticism of Russia over the events of 1946 in
Ukraine and the criticism of Russian Patriarchs. If Roman Catholics are going to repeatedly raise these events, then Orthodox will raise their own grievances.

The Uniate Church is looked upon with suspicions by Orthodox because they are seen as a Trojan horse as a means of bringing the Orthodox under Rome.
They are a reminder of the Council of Florence in 1439 as well as the Union of Brest in which Rome sought to benefit at the expense of the Orthodox.

The rest of the issues I raised because the Western Church along with Western foreign policy sees Russia as a target. Being of Greek descent myself, I have a great admiration for Russia as the largest Orthodox country. True,
the Tsars did not always exemplify the best of the faith.

However, during the dark centuries when Orthodox Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Rumanians were under the Ottoman Empire, only the Russians spoke on behalf of the suffering Christian East. During the Ottoman years, when the Orthodox populations were in large part deprived of education and knowledge, foreign and unscrupulous missionaries (Catholic and Protestant alike) entered the Empire with the intent of converting them to their own Churches.

Whereas the Russian Tsar, sought the partition of the Ottoman Empire (rightfully, this was a monstrous Islamic Empire) and sought to bring about the freedom of Greeks, Serbs, Rumanians etc.. the Western governments brought about the preservation of the Ottoman Empire at the expense of the Christian East.

Russia is a great country that has produced great literature, music, etc..

Historically, the West has backed the Islamic Turks over Christian Russia.
Why?

During the Communist decades, containment of the Soviet Union was correct, but why the Russophobia before 1917, and why the Russophobia today?

As far as I am concerned, Orthodox should forgive Roman Catholics for historical events that took place long ago. That is not the issue.

The issue is that Roman Catholics and Western intellectuals in general are ignorant about the Orthodox East, and are profoundly insensitive.

Has the Papacy not made some mistakes in the past? So it is with Orthodox hierarchies from time to time. The moralizing is what many Orthodox object to,
in addition to the fact that it appears that when an Orthodox country is set to be strong, there is an inclination by Western governments (ie NATO) to encircle it.

And seen in the aftermath of the demise of Serbia, it raises suspicions. The Russian Church (and the Church of Greece) expressed its support for the Catholic Church in Italy two years ago when the European Court ordered the removal of Crucifixes from Italian schools. Orthodox are willing to work together with Catholics on matters of common ground.

Why the blatant hostility to the Russian Orthodox Church, which is the largest Orthodox Church in the World?

Theodore G. Karakostas

Theodore:

Since you are of Greek descent, you may have an interesting point of view on this question:

How do you perceive the interplay between Russian Pan-Slavism and Russian Orthodoxy?

As a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic I wish to thank George Weigel for this article. Some of the responses above, however, seem to not comprehend the religious situation in Ukraine. Ukraine is NOT Russia. From the article: "In any event, he [Hilarion] continued, it was always legitimate for straying members of the Russian Orthodox flock (as he regarded the Ukrainian Greek Catholics) to return to their true home (i.e., Russian Orthodoxy)."

A historical fact: those parts of Western Ukraine annexed by Stalin in 1945 where the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church existed had NEVER been a part of Tsarist Russia, nor of the Soviet Union, until Hitler and Stalin made in an alliance in 1939 to divide up Eastern Europe: they have never been a part of Russian Orthodoxy! Hilarion is unclear on his history and his approbation of a KGB enforced synod which physically liquidated and tortured in Soviet Secret Police prisons the hierarchs of the Ukrainian Catholic Church speaks volumes as to his conception of Christian ethics. One poster chided Catholics to turn the other cheek. Well, they have (even the late Cardinal Lubachivsky of the Ukrainian Catholic Church sent a letter of mutual forgiveness to the Russian nation while the Ukrainian Catholic Church was still in the catacombs). There, however, has not been one bit of apology from anyone in the Russian Orthodox Church for its enabling role under Stalin in destroying Ukrainian Catholics, even after the Soviet Union collapsed and the collaboration was there for all to see.

If anything, the hierarchy of today's Russian Orthodox Church has no problems in celebrating and blessing the anniversary of the creation of the USSR's Nuclear Rocket Force! which they did: unbelievable - to bless the creation of a totalitarian atheist state in modern Russia. There is more continuity in Russian history from the Czars to the Soviet Union (russification) to today's kleptocratic KGB regime. The Czar - White, or Red like Stalin, or today's KGB Czar - rules over a xenophobic state where the watchwords of Russian Nationalism, Autocracy, and Russian Orthodoxy still provide the lodestars for the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church to a very sad degree. The Russian Patriarch seems to serve the Kremlin quite well. Where is the Russian Church's condemnation of the utter corruption and criminality which has subsumed Russia under Putin and his siloviki oligarchs? Not one word; (did and does the Russian Orthodox Church still engage in cigarette and alcohol imports into Russia?)

Indeed, the current Moscow Patriarch, back in 1972, under the Soviets, became the Russian Orthodox Church's representative to the World Council of Churches. Now nobody would have received such a position unless it would be KGB approved one can surely believe. Some wags mentioned today's Patriarch knew more in the KGB before Putin who only became a stooge of the Soviet KGB later.

As for all this talk of Orthodox suffering under the Soviets: well, why is it that a prominent Russian Orthodox priest like Gleb Yakunin who was imprisoned by the Soviets for his truly Christian beliefs is Excommunicated from today's post-Soviet Russian Orthodox Church for pointing out the KGB collaborators while the latter were and are in today's Russian Orthodox hierarchy?

There is much overlap between the worlds of today's Russia's FSB, former communists, and the Russian Orthodox Church. Indeed, the head of the Orthodox Women's League in Ukraine is none other than an unreconstructed pro-Russian communist Natalia Vitrenko.

As for all the talk of some dark "neo-con" agenda with respect to all this - I find this unbelievable! Too much tinfoil tea leaf reading. If anything, the danger is the Vatican and its Secretary of State will not support the native Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and surrender any defense of it in its naive belief in a wonderful Ostpolitic with today's Moscow Patriarch and the Kremlin. The Vatican was willing to engage when Moscow was communist; it will surely do so now. Rome should first make sure its Eastern Catholics are protected first, before involving itself in unfounded ecumenism. The Russian Orthodox Patriarch cannot see eye to eye with his fellow Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople : Moscow literally sees itself as the new Rome, much to Constantinople's chagrin. If Moscow treats Constantinople like this, what chance of any respect for Catholics or specifically Eastern Catholics.

Among Orthodox Christians there are no real divisions.

There are Slavic nationalists, as well as Greek nationalists but we are all Orthodox, even if from time to time there have been moments of disunion as during the Ottoman period.

The Russians have tended to support the Greeks this goes back during the
Ottoman period when Catherine the Great forced the Turks by Treaty to cede
better treatment of Orthodox Christians in the Empire. Earlier than that, the
Greek Patriarch of Constantinople in 1610 or so was executed by the Turks
because a writing of his had been found in which he expressed the hope that
Russia would help liberate the Greeks from Turkish captivity.

During the Greek War of independence, Russians provided assistance to Greece, as they later did to Slavic Serbia and Bulgaria.

Dostoevsky once wrote about Russia "Slavic and Greek alike: Russia is their
protector and even, perhaps their leader, but not their ruler; she is their
mother but not their mistress."

Last August, there was a historic liturgy at ancient Greek Monastery in Turkey
for the first time since 1923 presided over by the Ecumenical Patriarch. It was a very emotional service and the descendants of Pontian Greeks whose families were either slaughtered by the Turks or forced to flee returned to attend the service.

It was a great day for the Christian faith in Turkey. Russian Bishops took part in the service which I believe says a great deal about the support that Russian Orthodox leaders give to all Orthodox Christians, not just Slavic ones.

The Russians have also been very vocal in championing the plight of Orthodox Greeks in Cyprus and Orthodox Serbs in Kosovo.

Russia's Christianity is not constrained to the Eastern Orthodox either. During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, Tsarist Russia was supporting the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire who are neither Slavic nor
Orthodox. The Armenians were also getting support from Russia during the First World War until the Tsar was overthrown.


Theodore G. Karakostas

For the record, I have no hostility toward the Russian Orthodox Church per se. I find its spirituality, liturgical life, and sense of the beautiful to be worthy of much praise and admiration. Some of the staunchest Christians I have ever known have come from either the Russian Church or one of its descendents (ROCOR or the OCA) and I have good friends who are and always have been Russian Orthodox Christians. With that said, when I look at the Russian Church as a whole and the Moscow Patriarchate in particular, I see a wounded confession. And while I am sensitive to the historic reasons surrounding these wounds, that doesn’t mean they aren’t there or that the road to healing won’t be long. What concerns me the most, and what continues to concern me, is that while the Russian Church has take a defensive posture with respect to other Christian confessions “encroaching” upon “their territory,” they have not, and probably will not for an indefinite period, go back on the “offensive” to being a missionary church. In other words, Russian Orthodoxy remains, by and large, “for Russians,” just as all of the other local expressions of Orthodoxy (Greek, Serbian, Romanian, etc.) remain for those ethnic groups. Only in the United States do you see any real inking of mission work and, as I noted in my previous comment, those efforts have been sporadic at best. Up until just over a decade or two ago, most converts to Orthodoxy had to kick in the door and even then it was far from sure that they’d be accepted. Even today, when many Orthodox services and writings have been translated into English, there is still hostility toward converts and an ever-present sense of their “otherness.” (But to be fair, Orthodox converts tend to see the “ethnics” as “sub-Orthodox” who are more interested in holding on to a cultural club than being Christians. The polemics go back n’ forth.)

I apologize for the intemperate portions of my first post.

Hey Gabriel,

While I wholeheartedly concur with most of what you're saying and your general sense of realism when it comes to Orthodox behavior, I take issue with your assessment of the all but utter lack of the OC's missionary activity save for the "sporadic" instances in the United States. Speaking as someone currently living in Russia, I can attest to the fact that, under the auspices of the Moscow Patriarchate, there are active and lively parishes in Russia performing services in Tatar, Mari, Yakut languages, and my own home parish, one among many in the Chuvash Republic, holds daily services in Chuvash. I'm in a particularly interesting region of Russia in terms of the history of Russian Orthodox missionary work, but if anything, it attests to the fact that there is more to the ROC than what goes on in Moscow, which is about the only exposure to the ROC that we get in the "west." I had the pleasure a few weeks ago to visit the Seminary in Kazan which, from what I gather from conversations with a handful of students (which, by the way, included Chuvash, Maris, Tatars and even Russian Germans) and the place was bubbling with genuine missionary zeal.

I'll be the first to admit that holding services in the vernacular doesn't automatically amount to missionary success (I understand your use of the word "missionary" in this context to mean something like evangelism), but it's a pretty important step, and if we're not too cynical about it, we can say that a great number of formerly pagan inhabitants of the middle-Volga region have become faithful, Orthodox Christians in the last 200 or so years since (minding the gap), which was largely facilitated by just that step. Granted, the ROC has not, as of yet, managed to get out there and make waves in its surrounding Central Asian countries, and it'll be a long time before it does. It is certainly a wounded confession.

Here I'm responding more to Weigel's article. The Russian Orthodox Church was around before the Russian ethnicity was ever conceived as such and therefore many historical lands and ethnicities fall under its umbrella as "Russian," though these regions and peoples decidedly do not descend from the historical Rus', though, perhaps ironically, most of Ukraine DOES. I'm not trying to justify 1946, and the entire historical process of forming ethnicities and assigning names to them is extremely complex, especially when an enormous, multi-ethnic Church labels itself "Russian," but there's much, much more at stake here than Weigel realizes.

To Gabriel Sanchez,

You are mistaken when you presume that Orthodoxy has been kept to its own
ethnic groups. A case in point is Archbishop Anastasios of Albania. He is one of
Orthodoxy's great conemporary missionaries. He spent much time in Africa and
he succeeded in Albania in restoring the Albanian Orthodox Church following
the collapse of Communism.

In terms of missionary activities, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of
Alexandria continues to carry out a great deal of missionary activities in
Africa. In Africa there are Orthodox building Churches, schools, hospitals etc..

The Church of Greece is also active in supporting missions, as is the Russian
Church. With regard to the terms Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox etc...
this is no different than the term Roman Catholic. Most Catholics in the world
are not from Rome.

Greek Orthodox is named because the Byzantines were Greek speaking.
The Russian Church is Russian Orthodox because it became an Autocephalous
Church independent of the Greeks at Constantinople.

I do not comprehend why it is that Orthodox socieities should open the door
to foreign missionaries? The manner in which foreign missionaries swept into
Russia after the fall of Communism was profoundly unfriendly and totally
devoid of scruples. Most of these missionaries (I am criticizing mostly
Protestant groups here) took no trouble to research the Christian background
of Russia, or to respect the murders of millions of Russians under the
Communists.

As such, Orthodox everywhere, were generally offended by the extent to which foreign groups with a great deal of cash at hand while the Russian Orthodox Church was struggling to get on its feet flooded Russia.

Why is anybody troubled by the fact that Orthodox countries forbid foreign
missionary activity? The Orthodox Church relation with the government is based on the Byzantine concept of "Symphonia" (harmony). These countries
are predominantly Orthodox.

In Greece for example, the national survival of the country under centuries of
Ottoman Turkish rule occurred in large part because of the Church. The Church
kept alive the Greek language, history etc... the very idea of independence one
day. The Church preserved illegal secret schools which educated children in
matters of faith as well as the history of the nation before the arrival of Turkish
Islam.

The Church in Greece for example was behind the Greek War of Independence.
The survival of Christianity in Greece was bound up with the the survival of the
nation.

Conservatives ostensibly are opposed to secularism. The demand that Orthodox societies should seperate Church from State is that of the secular
left which takes offense at anything that is Christian. Conservatives should
applaud the Orthodox for standing firm against the encroachment of the
secularists.

Every country has the right to decide for itself on Church-State relations based
on its own Creed, its own history, and its own interests

Theodore G. Karakostas

Mark,

I think our views are closer than you assume. Consider where this missionary activity is directed: within the sphere of Russia's "near abroad" (which, typically. constitutes its former Soviet holds). That's not exactly the "missionary" presence I was talking about, though I have no quarrel (obviously) with these efforts. I am perfectly open to amending my original position to include these activities, but I'm skeptical that it in any way draws near--not so much in numbers, but in priorities--to what Catholics or a lot of Protestant groups do. But, just to be clear again, I am willing to cut the MP a break in this area. Where I am less sympathetic is with respect to the false equivocations of nationality and Orthodoxy--a view that can still embrace a multi-ethnic understanding while remaining thoroughly parochial.

" I'm in a particularly interesting region of Russia in terms of the history of Russian Orthodox missionary work, but if anything, it attests to the fact that there is more to the ROC than what goes on in Moscow, which is about the only exposure to the ROC that we get in the "west.""

Very, very little of what really happens in the historically Orthodox world, or in the extensive Orthodox missions in Africa, ever gets reported in the English-speaking Catholic world. For that matter, so many significant things that happen in the Catholic Church in continental Europe and Latin America (not to speak of Asia and Africa) don't get reported at all in the English-language Catholic media or blogosphere of the USA. This is why relying solely on what appears in the US media (whether secular or Catholic) to form a picture of what REALLY is happening anywhere, especially the former Soviet world, is dangerous and liable to mislead, to say the least.

Perhaps its time to admit that ecumenical dialogue really is going nowhere. Too much history and politics keeps getting in the way. We may have to wait for better times, when the generation that suffered during the Cold War has gone to the Lord...

For us Catholics, time to give a bit more support to the Russian Greek Catholic Church...

George Weigel brought attention to Ukraine that is of major political concern for Russia – an exclusive sphere of influence for the state and the ROC.

Metropolitan Hilarion’s mission is not ecumenism per se, but to carry water for the state where symphonia – religion-and-state harmony reintroduced by Putin – is fully embraced by both sides. Watching staged pageants of public services make a pretty picture, but believers like Fr. Gleb Yakunin (on whose behalf during the Soviet regime I lobbied many a time) are out of sight in the expansive PR campaign abroad by cool and talented ROC’s churchmen.

Dictates and exclusivity are motivated by politics, not with concerns for rapprochement between great Christian traditions. For ecumenism to succeed it has to be inclusive and respectful of the history and experience of those Orthodox Churches that are in communion with the See of Peter. The early tries at communion are an invaluable experience for today’s ecumenical process. We could not have expected an encyclical on Petrine ministry in the 16th century, but we got one at the end of the 20th century in “Et Unum sint”.

Imperfection abounds, but to deny a community their past and the right to live and develop today, plainly speaking is the ongoing sin of intolerance and division.

Too different things to know something about ROC from orthodox books or watch on it from USA coast and to live here, in Ukraine, and observe how they work and what they like to say here and what they like to tell to western people. It quite different realities. We, ukrainian greek catholics, sometimes can not understand what games Vatican plays with ROC and Moscow. ROC do not want any ecumenism, they do not want no unity they only want "their" lands back. So they use to say - "stummbling block of ecumenical dialog is UGCC". "Delete" uniates in Ukraine and then we will speak about unity. But it is false. They do not want unity. They publish a lot of books in which catholic called heretics. And they always fom their believers against West. In minds of their people there is bad West, and good East. "Russian World" about which they now speak is a fortress of goodness against Western civilization. Everything they want from Western countries and Vatican is that West must "give" back Ukraine and UGCC to Russia and ROC. They want to built new USSR. They always want to speak with Vatican about UGCC with out representatives of our Church! And we fear about every meeting of Hilarion and Pope... Open your eyes "people of the West"! To play with Moscow is to play with fire...

To R Hayda

With all due respect. Those Eastern Churches that are in communion with
Rome are not Orthodox. Roman Catholics are forgetting that these Churches
were brought under Rome through the use of coercive pressure in 1596.
The basis for this Union was the failed Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1439
when Constantinople on the eve of the nightmare of the Turkish conquest
was pressured by Rome to sign a theological document that its Emperor and
Bishops did not agree with.

It is not only the Russians who are offended by Rome's offensives in Ukraine,
all Orthodox Churches are. In March 1992, a Pan-Orthodox Synod under the
Presidency of his holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew chose to
terminate the dialogue with Rome based on the activities of the Unia.

In 2004, the Papacy sought to upgrade the Uniates in Ukraine to the status
of a Patriarchate, a blatant provocation against the Orthodox. Each and every
single local Orthodox Church under its Patriarch and Bishop declared outright
that all relations with Rome would be severed if such a step were undertaken.

Many Roman Catholics have not bothered to understand the Orthodox
perspective on this. The Uniate Churches are a contradiction. If they wish to
be Roman Catholic that is fine and well. Orthodox theology differs
significently from the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholics
represent an incursion on Orthodox territory and revive the terrible historical
memories of the Crusades, the Teutonic Knight invasion of Russia, the
Union of Brest, Ferrara Florcence etc..

You write that for Ecumenism to succeed it has to be "inclusive and respectful"
for the Unia. Why is it only the Orthodox need to be respectful and inclusive?

I have previously raised the activities of Croatian Catholic Ustashe movement
during the Second World War when Croatia was a Nazi puppet state. During
that time, Catholic clergy took part in the killings and forced conversions of
Orthodox Serbs. Catholics want to talk about the Russian Church and the
Unia in 1946. Why do you not discuss the Croatian Church's genocidal
assault on the Serbian Orthodox Church during World War 2?

Pope John Paul II put Croatian Archbishop Stepinac up for Sainthood. This
cleric was a well known persecuter of Serbian Orthodox Christians.

The name of Father Gleb Yakunin keeps coming up for discussion. Father
Yakunin was a very courageous Russian Orthodox Priest. He was defrocked
however by the Moscow Patriarchate because he ran for political office.

The Canon Laws of the Orthodox Church prohibit clerics from holding political
office.

Theodore G. Karakostas

This discussion has diverged in many directions. As a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic, I would like to assert the following:
1. The martyrdom of Russian and other Orthodox Christians at the hands of the Bolsheviks is to be honored.
2. The commitment of the Russian Orthodox Church to oppose secularism is to be praised.
3. Byzantine-Kyivan rite Christians who choose to be in communion with Rome do so of our own choice, and no one has the right to forbid it -- least of all self-professed Orthodox "ecumenists."
4. No one can force us to choose between Rome and Byzantium, because we believe that is a false dichotomy. Unlike the false ecumenists, we really do believe in the unity of all Christians, as Jesus himself urged.

To Andrew Sorokowski


Very well said with regard to the Russian Church as regards its martyrs, and
its opposition to secularism. We can disagree on some issues and certainly
cooperate on matters of common ground.

Theodore G. Karakostas

Theodore:

You wrote:

"Roman Catholics are forgetting that these Churches were brought under Rome through the use of coercive pressure in 1596."

This is flatly contradicted by Norman Davies in his book "Europe - a History", page 505.

To Mark Va

"In 1569 the Union of Lublin united Poland and Lithuania. The Eastern
Orthodox subjects of the new state found themselves socially disadvantaged
and facing the active presence of the Roman Catholic Church, which
enjoyed a priveliged position and enjoyed a highly educated and disciplined
clergy, especially in some of the religious orders. Poland viewed all contact
between the Orthodox hierarchs and their mother Church in Ottoman ruled
Constantinople, and all contact with Russia, with equal suspicion."


The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity

"There followed a series of measures against the Orthodox who refused to
join the Uniate Church. Bishops were given only to Uniates, including the
Metropolitan see of Kiev, though the Uniate nominee never ventured to
reside there. The endowments of dissent sees were confiscated, and their
holders deprived of episcopal privileges

The Great Church in Captivity by Steven Runciman

No Orthodox Christian would have submitted to Rome voluntarily.

Theodore G. Karakostas

Yeshua, I trust in Thee !

Increase our trust , in You and in the gift of the guidance of the Spirit in Your Church , freeing our hearts from fear and pride, such as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira who mistrusted The Spirit and Your anointed !

May many more hearts see Your compassionate , Fatherly gaze , given to us , esp. in the icon of Mercy .

May the celebration of Your mercy , Your invitation to bring all , to the Ocean of mercy , esp. through the Novena of prayers and The Feast of Mercy , bring miracles , like it did , when Your children trusted even partially in Your invitation to join hearts , against the Red Dragon !

May The Spirit touch hearts , to surrender all areas of past grievances that need to be surrendered to Your mercy , to allow freedom for those who yearn for the Spirit of union and communion , so that atleast they would not be expected to be against their brethren , while parttaking of the Sacraments !

May Your Holy Wisdom thus take us to our true roots !

Theodore:

Moscow Patriarchate was created in 1589 by Fedor, son of Ivan the Terrible, and from the beginning this new Patriarchate claimed sole jurisdiction over the Orthodox living in the Polish-Lithuanian Union. These claims resulted in a crisis among many of these Orthodox, who historically submitted to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

In response to these claims from Moscow, in 1596 in Brest, these Orthodox chose to lay the foundation for the Greek Catholic Church of Slavic Rite, under the jurisdiction and protection of the Pope. It is true, however, that for a period of time, the Orthodox remnant that did not join this Union, was banned.

The Moscow Patriarchate has never, even to this day, reconciled itself to the existence of the Greek Catholic Church of Slavic Rite. It continues to threaten and demand that this Church be disbanded.

Perhaps it is a belief among some of the Orthodox that "No Orthodox Christian would have submitted to Rome voluntarily", but it does not stand the test of history. The Uniate Church is part of the Universal Church, and will continue to exist, as long as it pleases God.

If you want to examine a parallel situation, but at a greater emotional distance, analyse the responses of many Continuing Anglicans to the recent papal document Anglicanorum Coetibus. Many of them, likewise cannot conceive of their fellow Anglicans voluntarily choosing to be in communion with the Pope. Since they cannot credibly claim that any coercion is involved, they usually resort to calling them poorly informed, naive, or deluded.

To Mark VA

The quotes I cited previously indicate that the submission to Rome by the
Uniates was not without a great deal of coercion.

With regard to the Moscow Patriarchate. The Russian Church established
its own Patriarchate through the permission of Ecumenical Patriarch
Jeremias II. This was a valid act.

The resentment by the Orthodox (not the Russians, alone but the whole of
Eastern Orthodoxy) emanates from the fact that Rome took advantage of
Orthodoxy's misfortunes.

The Uniate situation in any case has more recently appeared as a problem.
Most recently, the Uniates sought to move into Kiev, the historic heart of
Russian Orthodoxy. The Unia have very little following in Kiev. Why the
necessity to expand if it is not being done at the expense of Orthodoxy
which Rome wants to bring into its fold.

Theodore G. Karakostas

A Ukranian Catholic cathedral is under construction in Kyiv (Kiev):

http://tinyurl.com/4rzcovo

According to Wikipedia's history of this church:

http://tinyurl.com/4v5sf2n

the see was in Kyiv before it was moved to Lviv (Lvov), in the western part of Ukraine. The creation of this church was due to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which controlled western and central Ukraine. God bless.

Kiev was Orthodox before the foreign invasions of the West.

"The Christianity of the ancient Kievan State was Byzantine. Prince Saint
Vladimir and his son Iaroslav forged close links with the Byzantine Empire
and the Church of Constantinople".

From your Wikipedia article

The Ukrainian Catholic Church did not exist, as such, until the Union of Brest in the late 16th century,


Henceforth, until the forcible and coercive measures by the Catholic Church,
Ukraine was solidly Orthodox.

Theodore G. Karakostas

Theodore:

Thank you for your responses. Regarding the Orthodox resentment of the Catholic Church, I think it would be a fair statement that at least in some measure, the problems the Orthodox face are of their own making. For example, rival claims of intra Orthodox jurisdiction have really nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

Regarding the Greek Catholic Church of Slavic Rite, its members are not being coerced into remaining in communion with the Pope. I'm not sure they would agree with the assertion that their ancestors were being taken advantage of. Perhaps some of them would care to weigh in on this.

It is abundantly clear that the existence of this Church remains a problem for many Orthodox. Likewise, the emergence of the Ordinariates is an aggravation to many Continuing Anglicans. One hopes that in the future such attitudes will be set aside.

To Mark VA

There are certain areas where Orthodox can find common ground with the
Catholic Church. We do have a common history. The Papacy of John Paul II
was historic and helped liberate millions of Orthodox and Catholics under
Communist rule. We do appreciate this very much. There is also the support
that Pope Benedict has given to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in
Turkey. His visit to Constantinople brought about a great deal of attention to
the propblems that Christians in Turkey face.

Orthodox appreciate many things about the Catholic Church.

You mention intra jurisdictional conflicts in Orthodoxy. How did that have
anything to do with the establishment of Uniate Churches in Ukraine?

The biggest problem I see with the Uniates or Eastern Catholics today is
their potential to spread into Orthodox areas. This is what the major problem
is all about. John Paul II wisely abandoned plans to grant the Uniates in
Ukraine Patriarchal status when all fourteen Orthodox Primates (not Just
Moscow) reacted strongly.

Add to this the political factor. NATO's attempted expansion to the Russian
border. The East-West divide has been on for many centuries, and the
association of political moves eastward can be interpreted as having certain
Ecclesiastical motivations as well.

Orthodox do not understand how it is that Eastern rite Churches that
have certain Orthodox practices (married priests for example) can be
compatible with the Roman Catholic Church. How is that Catholic priests are
not permitted to marry, but another segment of Churches in communion with
Rome are permitted to do so? That is just one example of the confusion
brought about by the Eastern Churches.

Orthodox would like strong relations with the Catholic Church, we have many
similar problems and challenges. Ultimately, from the Orthodox view it does
not appear that Rome is paying attention to us.

Theodore G. Karakostas

Theodore,

I don't understand where you're coming from. Are you saying that all of Europe east of Germany belongs to Orthodoxy? Did Rome "steal" the Poles from Orthodoxy? Do Sts. Cyril and Methodius, whom are also recognized as saints in the Catholic Church, only belong to Orthodoxy?
Are you not aware of the toxic blend of religion and ethnicity/nationalism? As I have said before, the Catholic Church was guilty of that, but it is no longer sanctioned.
What happened centuries ago is past. By your logic, a Hispanic Catholic who discovers he or she had Jewish ancestors who were forcibly converted to Catholicism in fifteenth-century Spain should convert to Judaism.

To Chris Balducci,

What I am saying is that any effort on the part of Rome to expand at the
expense of Orthodoxy is an unfriendly act. This entire discussion was
triggered by the article by George Wiegel. First Things routinely publishes
anti-Russian commentaries that makes against the Russian Church.

In terms of what is toxic, it is the mixture of political aims with religion as
is being espoused by George Wiegel. The unwillingness of George Wiegel
and many Catholics to recognize the new reality in Russia that Communism
is gone, that the Russians have returned to Christianity is problematic.

It is unreasonable to suggest that Russia as country should take a
submissive approach to the West, or that the West should be able to define
Church-State relations in Russia. Every country is unique, has its own history
and sovereignty.

If the Orthodox and Catholics are to cooperate and remain on friendly terms,
Catholics are going to have to be respectful of the Orthodox Church on its
Canonical territories.

Ukraine is 90% Orthodox, thus it is an Orthodox country. If Rome seeks to
overturn Orthodoxy in Ukraine and Russia, it is going to cause tensions.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism have been in dialogue since 1964 when
Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras met with Pope Paul VI in Jerusalem.

If the Catholic Church seeks to convert Orthodox Christians, relations are
going to sour. The past is past, history is triggered by present day events
not only in Ukraine, but in Russia where the Catholic Church attempted to
establish itself among the Orthodox.

Theodore G. Karakostas

Theodore, you wrote:

"Ultimately, from the Orthodox view it does not appear that Rome is paying attention to us."

I think it would be accurate to say that Pope John Paul II paid much attention to the Orthodox Churches. One of his unfulfilled goals was to visit the Patriarch in Moscow. Perhaps in the future such a papal visit will be allowed by Moscow.

Pope John Paul II did many good things which the Orthodox can applaud.
Helping dismantle the Communism is the most obvious. Another great move
was his visit to Greece where he apologized for the destruction of
Constantinople by the Crusaders. That made a strong impression on the
Church of Greece and subsequently resulted in the late Archbishop
Christodoulos of Greece being the first Archbishop of Athens to visit the
Vatican when he visited Pope Benedict in 2007.

Things are not entirely gloomy between the Orthodox and Catholics. The
Orthodox Church of Greece has shown interest in working with the Vatican
to counter the anti-Christian policies of the European Union.

In addition to Greece, Pope John Paul II visited Romania and Georgia as
well.

With Russia, all is not as optimistic. The attitude toward Russia has political
implications. Placed in context, the Uniate problem exists with the
expansion of NATO to the Russian border and with a tendency by many
neoconservatives in the West to suggest that Russia is a continued threat.

Russia needs to be respected as a sovereign power with interests, and the
Russian Orthodox Church's Canonical interests among all Orthodox in the
territory of Ukraine and Russia need to be respected.

Theodore G. Karakostas

Theodore,

The existence of the "Uniate" church has nothing to do with "neoconservatives" or NATO. The church was around long before them. It is a Ukrainian issue. Not all Ukrainian Orthodox are under the thumb of the Moscow Patriarchate. The last I checked, there were four separate Ukrainian Orthodox denominations in that country - the UOC (Moscow Patriarchate), the UOC (Kyivan Patriarchate), the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church Canonical. From what I can tell, the divisions are political, not theological. Who knows, maybe not all of them are bothered by the existence of the "Uniate" Church.
Since you didn't answer my previous questions, I'll ask you one more.
Do you think the Pope should suppress the "Uniate" church - yes or no?

Regarding your points.

1) Both Unia and the schismatic Ukrainian Orthodox (more on that below)
are being supported for political reasons in Washington by think tanks etc..
that are anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox. The right wing neo-cons have
generally been anti-Orthodox when it comes to Greece and Turkey, the
Turkish occupation of Cyprus, the Orthodox Christians of the Holy Land under
the Israeli occupation, and Serbia.



All of a sudden, neo conservatives are sympathetic to those factions of the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church and seek to interfere in the internal affairs of
Eastern Orthodoxy (not Russian, but Eastern Orthodoxy as a whole).

2) The Ukrainian Church situation is NOT POLITICAL. It is Canonical. It has to
do with the fact that the Ukrainian Church under Moscow is the one that
conforms with Orthodox Canon Law, has Apostolic succession, and valid
ordinations and sacraments. It is a Canonical and Ecclesial matter.

George Wiegel has previously (as have others) expressed sympathy for the
schismatics in Ukraine. That is a direct political challenge to the internal
affairs of the Orthodox Church. Every autocephalous Orthodox Church
(including Constantinople) recognizes as legitimate only the Ukrainian
Church that is under Moscow. The schismatic factions are not in communion
with any part of the Orthodox world.

The valid Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not under the "thumb" of Moscow.
That term says a great deal about how non-Orthodox view the situation.
It is indicative of the attempt to crush the Canon Laws of the Orthodox
Church in order to impose the combined Western Church-political agenda
on the Russians.

Orthodoxy is not governed by political or secular goals. They are governed
by sacred Canonical principles. One does not simply carve out a Church at
will for political reasons.

If non-Orthodox interfere with regard to the Ukrainian Orthodox situation,
then things are really going to get tense.

As for the Unia, do I think the Pope should suppress them? I think the Pope
and the Catholic press should stop complaining about not being invited to
Moscow, and should sit down and come to an agreement that will satisfy
the Orthodox (not just Moscow, but all the Orthodox).

Why does the Pope need the Uniates anyway? Is it not a contradiction for
the Latin Church to bar married priests on the one hand, and then be in
communion with and have under its jurisdiction the Uniates who have
married priests and the Eastern Rite?

The Pope wants to visit Moscow triumphantly, but such a visit is not possible
as long as there are tensions that have not been worked out. A few years
ago John O Sullivan took a shot at the Orthodox after the passing of John
Paul II by saying the Orthodox rejected the gestures of the late Pope.

Such sentiments are self deceptive. The Orthodox have gone out of their
way to improve relations with Rome and to cooperate on matters of common
concern. Rome however refuses to listen (not just on the Uniate issue either)
and behaves as if the theological and Ecclesiological differences do not exist.

John Paull II did well when he apologized to the Church of Greece for the
Crusades. If the present Pope wants to improve relations with the Church
of Russia he should adopt a similar stance of reconciliation.

Theodore G. Karakostas

Theodore:

In your opinion, do you think the Orthodox Church has anything to apologize for to the Catholic Church?

For any wrongs we have perpetrated, we should apologize. That is the
Christian way.

Theodore G. Karakostas

Thank you, Theodore, for your answer. I asked a Continuing Anglican priest the same question once, but the answer in that instance was negative.

It seems to me that a closer and friendlier relationship between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church, should be built on the mature foundation of mutual forgiveness , plus the recognition of our commonalities.

I asked this question because of your mention of an apology Pope John Paul II made to the Orthodox. Cardinal Wojtyla once wrote, in another context, but also in a general way:

"It can never be that in relations among peoples, especially when such long periods of time are involved, there is nothing they may not have to mutually forgive each other for."

Theodore:

After searching about you on the Internet, I have concluded you are an ethnic grievance-monger. I don't know what country you live in, but you sound like someone who wants to blame America and "the West" (including Rome and Israel) for the problems of the world. I know there has been a strain of anti-Americanism in Greece amongst all of its political factions for a long time. I hope you are not typical of the Orthodox mind, with your fear of the Catholic Church as some sort of Trojan horse for Western imperialism. As a Catholic, I believe the Church has the right to minister everywhere it pleases, just like your Church does. I do not believe a country should have an "official" religion. Instead of religion influencing the state, the state influences the religion and corrupts it. Catholics have been down this road before, and we know it is bad for the Church.
A lot of what has been written on all sides has run afoul of Christian charity. Sadly, it seems like there has been a "cold war" between Catholicism and Orthodoxy long before that term referred to the conlict between the West and the Soviet Union. That is all I'm going to write on this subject.

Mr. Balducci,

I am sorry you feel that way. Your response is indicative of the ignorance
that exists in certain quarters of the Roman Catholic Church about the
Orthodox East. If you want to talk about the State corrupting religion, you
can do so when the Pope gives up his status as a head of State, along with
his embassies and Ambassadors.

Theodore

To Mark VA

I am most appreciative for your kind comments. My apologies if I have come
on a little strong in my defense of Orthodoxy. It has not been my wish to
give offense. My contributions in this forum have been to simply carry on
an intellecually motivated discussion on the way we Orthodox tend to see
things.

There is a great deal of positive things that we do in fact have in common.
Orthodox do respect the Church of Rome which is considered an ancient
Patriarchal see. In the eighth century, the Monks of Byzantium appealed
to Rome for support in their struggle against the Iconoclasts.

The Lord said, "Know the truth, and the truth shall make you free". Whatever
else comes, at least Rome and the East are in dialogue which is in itself
tremendous progress.

Theodore

George Weigel's article, "Rome and Moscow", misses something of the Byzantine subtlety of Metropolitan Hilarion's response to the question, was the 1946 forced reincorporation of the Byzantine Rite Catholics in the Ukraine a “theologically legitimate ecclesial act,”? Metropolitan Hilarion responded "yes" to the "theological" aspect of the act without reference to the embarrassing fact that it was an affront to human free will. As Orthodox, we would hold that the reunion of the Uniate Byzantine rite with the fullness of Orthodoxy is absolutely right theologically and ecclesiastically, but the vast majority would hold that the forcible nature of the 1946 reincorporation was wrongly carried out. Keep in mind that it was the Soviet state that "forced" the reincorporation, not the then powerless Moscow Patriarchate. Nevertheless, it is a black mark on our record that we participated in any way, shape, or form in an act that attempted to force people into unity with the Church. Such behavior is generally alien to Orthodoxy throughout our history.

My only wish is that Mr. Weigel, who repeats his negative views regarding Orthodoxy in an article in the most recent issue of First Things magazine, would take the time to look more deeply into the history and theology of the Eastern rite as seen from an Orthodox Christian theological and ecclesial perspective. One would not expect him to agree with our viewpoint, but it would be good for him to understand it. The forced union of Orthodox with Rome in 1595 was no less ugly (and political) than the one of 1946. Neither were morally justifiable, though, from utterly opposite perspectives, they were theologically and ecclesiologically correct. Both 1595 and 1946 are powerful arguments against the use of force to accomplish what can only be done through heartfelt conversion.

Many Orthodox Christians are becoming increasingly annoyed with the lectures coming from the West. Considering the bloody history of the Roman Catholic Church going back to the Crusades, I would suggest that there is no basis whatsoever for Roman Catholics to lecture the Orthodox. It was a great day for the Christian faith in Turkey. Russian Bishops took part in the service which I believe says a great deal about the support that Russian Orthodox leaders give to all Orthodox Christians, not just Slavic ones.

Mr. Wiegel accuses the Russian Orthodox hierarchy of coddling dictators. How about the Pope's concordat with Hitler in 1933? How about the large numbers of Nazi War Criminals that passed through the Vatican after the War and were given identity papers on their way to South America? "Throughout the meeting, Hilarion smoothly but unmistakably tried to drive a wedge between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II (whom two patriarchs of Moscow, both KGB-connected, refused to invite to Russia)."