Bishop Hilarion on Church unity

H/T: Voices from Russia

This is long long long, but explosive and thought provoking.

The forthcoming Archpastoral Council of the MP can become a watershed in its recent history. The theme of the Council is the unity of the Church. First of all, the discussion shall deal with the main event that occurred since the last session in 2004, the reunification of the MP and the ROCOR. However, there is also an imperative need to discuss the present threats to church unity, which are proceeding from different quarters.

One of the most basic threats to church unity is the aggressive policy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, a policy that could end in a schism within the Orthodox world. Recently, the EP has intensified its activity after its present primate arrogated to himself the role of the “Eastern Pope”, claiming that he was the head and supreme arbiter of the entire Orthodox diaspora. Today, the main opponent to this notion, and, by the way, the only Local Church that is capable of disputing his claims to hegemony over the entire Orthodox world, is the MP. Therefore the EP tries to weaken, divide, and confuse us, on as many fronts as possible.

Firstly, the EP uses every pretext to separate parishes, or even complete dioceses, from the canonical authority of the MP, as it tried at the Assumption Cathedral in Budapest in Hungary, the Diocese of Sourozh in Britain, or the Orthodox Church in Estonia. In Budapest, the EP suffered an ignominious defeat, since the Hungarian courts on three separate occasions ruled that its claims were unsubstantiated and frivolous. In Estonia, the EP fomented a schism and it created its own church jurisdiction [on the canonical territory of the MP], in parallel with the canonical MP hierarchy. In Britain, the EP also managed to finagle a schism in the Diocese of Sourozh. It created the so-called “Vicariate of Amphipolis” headed by “Bishop” Basil Osborne.

Estonia and Sourozh are only the first prototypes of the programme that the EP has formulated against the MP. In the end, they wish to detach from us all the millions in our overseas dioceses and seize all the parishes of the MP that are located outside of its recognised canonical territory and subject them to the authority of the EP. Indeed, more than once, the EP has voiced this opinion, according to which it is the only canonical Orthodox Church in the diaspora (their concept can only be described charitably as overly broad).

To achieve this goal, the overriding goal of the EP is to expel us, at least temporarily, from inter-Christian dialogues and from ecumenical organisations such as the WCC and the Council of European Churches. They use the so-called “Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church” as tool in this effort, for they know that we do not accept the canonical legitimacy of this body. The EP includes representatives of this schismatical body as part of its delegation to inter-Christian or ecumenical conferences, and we are forced to leave the session, for we must follow the decision of the Archpastoral Council of 2000. In our absence, the EP advances its claims in any report issued from the conference.

Specifically, this happened at the sessions of the Orthodox-Catholic theological commission, where I was the main opponent of Metropolitan John Zizoulas, who tried to force all the Orthodox participants to agree with the EP assertion that it was equal with Rome, and thus endorse the EP’s claim that it had real authority over the entire Orthodox world (not only a primacy of honour, as it had for a period of some centuries). In Belgrade in 2006, I was able to have this notion expunged from the final document. Then in 2007, without the courtesy of a preliminary notification to us, Metropolitan John included Estonian schismatics amongst the EP delegation to the Ravenna session of the theological commission, knowing full well that this would remove us from the dialogue. In our absence they placed all the disputed points that I had successfully opposed in Belgrade into the final document.

Besides these actions of the EP, one hears internal criticism in the MP advocating that we leave all inter-Christian dialogues and organisations. Leaving to the side the many antics that one sees in such meetings that do deserve criticism and censure (this judgement, in any case, is already given in our document Basic Principles in Relations with the Heterodox approved by the MP Archpastoral Council of 2000), the end result of the campaign of the “zealots for the purity of Orthodoxy” would, in essence, hand the field over to the machinations of the EP. Indeed, if we left such dialogue, in which all other Local Churches participate in to one extent or another, we would be forced unavoidably into isolation. Moreover, this isolation would mean that we would be unable to articulate our position on the matter.

I am convinced that our participation both in inter-Orthodox and inter-Christian dialogues is more important than ever before. If the Russian Orthodox Church is, indeed, our dear Holy Mother, we must do everything possible to strengthen her, not do anything that might weaken her. We must resist all attempts to divide us vigorously. In particular, there are materials disseminated over the internet and in the anti-Church press under the signature of Bishop Diomid of Chukotka, which both individually and in general are provocations intended to cause division in the Church and to sow distrust in the hierarchy. All such materials are based on nothing but lies and disinformation, and they are aimed at people who only have a small knowledge of actual church theology.

For example, Bishop Diomid claims that the MP “constantly increases its ecumenical activity, which is an attempt to unite all faiths in one syncretistic religion”. However, in the first place, by no means is ecumenism “an attempt to unite all faiths in one syncretistic religion” (at least, one should distinguish the inter-Christian dialogue from inter-faith conferences). In the second place, the MP only participates in those inter-Christian forums that do not contradict its own understanding of itself [as a part of the Orthodox Church], that is, that we are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Thirdly, the Orthodox Church categorically condemns the so-called “branch theory”, which is what Bishop Diomid accuses us of holding (this is clearly discussed in the Basic Principles document of 2000).

Amongst the documents issued under Bishop Diomid’s signature is one that is supposedly an appeal by “the Local Churches of Serbia, Jerusalem, and Georgia for the MP to leave the ecumenical dialogue”. However, neither the Churches of Jerusalem or Serbia have left the ecumenical dialogue, they remain members of the WCC, participate in all sessions of its central committee, and also in all bilateral dialogues, including the Orthodox-Catholic one. The Church of Georgia left the WCC in 1997, but, it still participates in bilateral dialogues. For example, in 2007, delegates of the Churches of Serbia, Jerusalem, and Georgia participated in the Ravenna session of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

Bishop Diomid asserts that the Church hierarchy has “a tacit agreement with the government, so, it does not expose the anti-national policies of the present administration”. Firstly, the assertion that the present administration is anti-national is only Bishop Diomid’s personal opinion, and, in any case, it does not reflect the viewpoint of a majority of the people (if the people considered the present administration anti-national, then, one would not see 70 percent of the eligible voters voting in the elections). Secondly, the Church does not always agree with state policy and it issues frequent criticisms of various governmental actions (such as the recent cancellation of draft deferments for clergymen). Yes, the Church actively participates in the discussion of such issues as the demographic crisis, and it proposes its own solutions for these problems.

Certainly, the Church hierarchy could speak out more critically in regards to this or that governmental action, but, who is Bishop Diomid to say such to His Holiness the patriarch and the Holy Synod? Assume that people in his diocese were critical of the present Governor, Roman Abramovich, who is the present representative of the state and holds its power in Chukotka. Meanwhile, what does Bishop Diomid indicate in an interview with the Moskovsky Novostyam (Moscow News)? He mentioned that Mr Abramovich allotted some of his personal wealth to help build the new cathedral, so, therefore, “we pray for the welfare of Roman Arkadyevich in the services”. Bishop Diomid declared, not long before the end of the first term served by Mr Abramovich, that he prayed that he would remain the head of the administration in Chukotka. Taking money from “the Jew Abramovich” (so Bishop Diomid called him in an interview in 2001) and holding public prayer for his health in an Orthodox church… well, that is normal. However, when the patriarch prayed at Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris… this is an affront to the purity of Orthodoxy. Such double standards are not only inconsistent, they are immoral.

In his interviews, Bishop Diomid fibs, saying that he is supporting by the “vast bulk” of the churches and by “all bishops”. He was asked, “Who amongst the bishops supports your assertions?” He answered, “All the bishops agree with me, but, they cannot speak”. He wrote the following as proof of the complete support of his ideas by all bishops. “I received many greetings on the anniversary of my elevation to the episcopate and on my name-day. They were all messages of support, encouraging me to bear the cross of archpastoral service on my thorny path”. Thus, he says that the traditional messages of greeting that sent from one bishop to another are proof that they all support him! Is this nothing but a bald-faced lie, an attempt to pass off the desired for the real?

However, some of the statements of Bishop Diomid towards certain bishops and church figures is characterised by undisguised spite. “The Archbishop of Nizhniy Novgorod promises to anathematise anyone who supports me. Well, we need to anathematise HIM”. Recently, Bishop Diomid attacked Metropolitan Hilarion, the first hierarch of the ROCOR, for his statement that there is a possibility that we could use Modern Russian in certain sections of the divine services.

Nevertheless, the most scandalous and demented libel that came from the mouth of this “hierarch” of the Russian church was when he compared His Holiness Patriarch Aleksei II of Moscow and all Russia with the traitor Judas. “On Holy Wednesday, the traitor Judas betrayed our Lord Christ. Wasn’t it similar when the First Hierarch of the MP participated in joint prayers at a Roman Catholic cathedral? Your Holiness, what did you do? The Lord awaits your repentance and conversion”. Such accusations can only proceed from one who has lost all reason and who no longer listens to the voice of his conscience.

I hope that the Archpastoral Council shall investigate thoroughly the statements made by Bishop Diomid. It is important that this scandalmonger arrive at the council in person, so, that his brother bishops could engage him in a calm, honest, and open dialogue, which would lead, one hopes, to his understanding the full perniciousness of his accusations, thereby bringing him to forego them.

Furthermore, I hope that the council shall devise a detailed strategy for our future inter-Orthodox and inter-Christian activity, which, it seems to me, must be oriented towards preventing crisis, not merely reacting to it. In 2000, we enacted a prohibition against participating in dialogues where any representatives of the so-called Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church were present. In its time, this stance played an important role in drawing the attention of the entire Christian world to the Estonian problem. However, is this a viable tactic for the present? Has it lost its validity? Has not experience taught us that leaving in a huff and slamming the door does not lead to victory? Rather, does it not mean that our enemies expect this and they intend to profit from it?

Is it not worthwhile to consider a new approach to the problem? For example, we could stay at the session, but, insist on the seating of a delegation from the Estonian Autonomous Orthodox Church of the MP. In addition, we could insist on the seating of delegates from the Orthodox Churches in America and Japan, which are not recognised by the EP, as well as delegations from our self-governing exarchates in the Ukraine, Latvia, and Moldavia, as well as the MP Estonians. Some of the people in the MP DECR think that this is one of the best solutions to this problem.

In the end, the main thing that I would hope from the forthcoming Archpastoral Council is that we would approach all problems in unity of spirit and sobornost , so that all the decisions reached may contribute to the further prosperity of our Mother Church and lead to the strengthening of Her Unity.