NEWS SECTION, 1

ROMANIAN CHURCH FACES ITS PAST

A REPORT from Bucharest produced by a Presidential Commission, headed by Vladimir Tismaneanu, to study the Communist dictatorship has exposed collaborators with the regime and has suggested that the Orthodox Church there “made a pact with the devil.” The Church has denied these claims and is taking steps to demonstrate that it is dealing with clergymen who collaborated with the regime, but it appears that the methods that the Church is adopting are not above question. The Church has proposed to the National Council for the Study of Securitate Archives (CNSAS) that it set up its own commission, but naturally the objectivity of such a commission would be doubtful.

PUTIN MEETS THE POPE

PRESIDENT PUTIN, after being granted an audience with Pope Benedict XVI, has stated that he will do everything in his power to aid an inter-church dialogue between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Roman Catholic Church. He assured reporters that “the willingness of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Alexy II to develop friendly and close relations with the Roman Catholic Church.” Of course, politicians often have religious opinions which are at variance with their professed denomination - we need only think for a moment of Bush and Blair - but given that Mr Putin had such a profound influence with regard to the ROCA-MP rapprochement process, one might be right in thinking that he will also be able to influence the Vatican-MP dialogue.

XI WORLD RUSSIAN PEOPLE’S CONFERENCE

THIS GATHERING was held between 5th and 7th March in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. It was chaired by His Holiness Patriarch Aleksii II and comprised participants from various denominations, from other relgions, from the political, cultural and business worlds. It is reported that joint prayers were said at the gathering and that a hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad participated in the proceedings. This fact has called forth a letter of protest from Bishop Agathangel of Tavrichesk and Odessa (ROCA). He writes to Metropolitan Lavr: “I was extremely disturbed by a particular aspect of this Conference: the fact that it was held within the Christ the Saviour Cathedral and was chaired by the First Hierarch of the MP. In other words, in the temple dedicated to Christ those who gathered as esteemed participants and guests of the Conference included those who do not believe in the Most Pure Image of Christ or even distort It, and even those who directly refute His Redemptive Sacrifice. We remember well the words of the Saviour: Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them (Matt. 18:20). But Christ could not have been in the midst of this Conference since it was not called in His name. The Conference opened with joint prayer. To whom did the participants of the Conference pray – for it was surely not to Christ? Was it according to Alexei II’s opinion voiced in his address to the rabbis of New York in 1991, that Orthodox and Jews (and according to that logic Muslims as well) may pray to God the Father? But is it permissible to divide the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, to divide the Trinity One in Essence and Indivisible? That means they could not have been praying to God the Father. Then to whom? I am not going to cite the canons here which excommunicate from the Church those who dare pray with heretics, for they are well known. But in this case it is not a matter of just heretics, but those of different religions. Do we have the right to deny the spiritual and mystical aspect of this conference? Is this not a denial of Christ, even if it is involuntary and unapparent? For this is essentially that very Ecumenism against which our Church has always spoken out. Yet now we ourselves end up among those participating in ecumenical prayer. I know that our representative could not have participated in this event and delivered a speech without the blessing of the Synod. I remain in the hopes that this happened through a misunderstanding and that our Synod will render an exhaustive assessment of this grievous occurrence and assure our flock that henceforth our representatives may only participate in such conferences if they are of a completely secular and not religious significance. It seems that if we were to be consistent, at another such Conference would we be obliged to send our representative, even if the venue would be a mosque or a synagogue? Our Church has always been concerned over the problem of Ecumenism, which was reflected in the Resolution of the IV Pan-Abroad Sobor, and we always expected that the Moscow Patriarchate would withdraw from this heretical movement. But instead, probably for the sake of oneness with the MP, we have in fact now joined Ecumenism.”

MOSCOW HONOURS PATRIARCH SERGIUS

THE “CHURCH GAZETTE” (15/3/07) reports that in January- February of 2007, in many dioceses of the Moscow Patriarchate, celebrations occurred on the occasion of the 140th anniversary of the birthday of its ‘father-founder.’ the author of the Declaration of 1927: Sergius, the first Patriarch put in this post by Stalin. The official Internet site of the MP “Pravoslaviye.Ru” noted in its eulogy: “24th January sees the accomplishment of 140 years since the birthday of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Sergius (Stragorodsky - 1867-1944). This outstanding theologian active in church and society, by the will of God, governed the Russian Orthodox Church for a period of almost twenty years.” Conferences dedicated to the 140th anniversary of the birthday of Sergius were held in the dioceses of the MP and the academic world. Vitaly Shumilo comments: “It is remarkable that the veneration with monuments of Sergius Stragorodsky is being organized on the threshold of the signing of the ‘Act of Canonical Unity’ between the MP and the ROCOR(L). Apparently, not by chance the fact that the signing of this report takes place precisely in 2007, which is the 140th anniversary not only of the birthday of the father-founder of Soviet Patriarchate, but also the 80th of the day of publication of his apostate Declaration of 1927, and what is more... the 90th anniversary of the Bolshevik God-hating Revolution in 1917. The Act of Unia of the Synod of Metr. Laurus and the Declaration of Metr. Sergius thus become one both spiritually and chronologically. This ‘coincidence’ is very symbolic, testifying not only to the complete capitulation of former hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad before Sergianism, but also to their terrible moral (and not only canonical) fall.… As is known, the Synodal commission of the ROCOR(L) on the union with the MP officially recognized the activity of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) as an ‘ascetic achievement [podvig] of first hierarchical service in the worst years of existence of the Church in the Soviet Union.’ This was the first time such a high appreciation was heard from the side of the official representatives of the ROCOR in regard to one of the most offensive figures of recent church history, which marked the beginning of the division of Russian Church and falling away of its part from the purity of true Orthodoxy. In some recent statements of Patr. Alexis (Ridiger) it is evident that the MP is prepared for Sergius Stragorodsky’s canonization, in connection with this the acknowledgement from the ROCOR(L) side of his actions as this ‘exploit of service’ is very far reaching. By this acknowledgement of the Church Abroad all actual obstacles are removed, which had existed until recently to the realization of this undertaking, so necessary for a ‘theological-canonical justification’ of Sergianism itself.” The English of this translation is rather halting and one can regret the vehemence and intemperance of expression with which the commentator speaks, but his words do express a truth.