Moscow, July 15 (Interfax) - Head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate Metropolitan Hilarion believes that old concept “Moscow is the third Rome” is outdated and cannot be referred to present-day Moscow.
“I don’t think that today we can use concepts that were formulated many centuries ago, they reflected a certain historical reality, but can hardly be applied to current reality,” Metropolitan Hilarion said on air Church and the World program on Rossiya-24 TV.
He explained that absolute majority of Russians today are not enchurched people and the Church is facing “a great missionary task” - to enchurch people who consider themselves Orthodox Christians, but in fact, are far from being such.
“I think that it is much more important task than any talks about the “third Rome” and the role of Moscow as the the center of Christianity,” Metropolitan Hilarion said.
However, according to him, everyone who comes to Moscow and in Russia notes that Russia is a country with very deep Christian roots.
“And for us Christianity is not a phenomenon of the past, it is a phenomenon of the present and the basis for the future,” the hierarch said, “if we enter the Cathedral of Christ the Savior or any other Orthodox church on a great feast, we’ll see how many people come to the service! Anyway, it is not a reason for triumphalism and creating geopolitical theories which can collapse like a house of cards when the wind blows on a certain way.”
Concept “Moscow is the third Rome” appeared after the fall of Constantinople in period when the Moscow principality was raising, it laid a foundation for Messianic ideas about Russia’s role and meaning in that time. The most authoritative and popular was the version that the concept of the third Rome was clearly worded in 1523-1524 by elder Philotheus from Pskov Eleazar Monastery in a formula: “Two Romes fell, a third stands, and there will not be a fourth one.”
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Moscow is not the third Rome
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Are there any examples of anyone serious in the MP who advocates a "third Rome" ideology? The only people I see bringing it up are EP people using it as a straw man.
ReplyDeleteIn ROCOR it’s not unheard of. People have also commented on the blog with the term often.
DeleteI think it undergirds Moscow's not uncommon view of itself as being more truly Orthodox than "the Greeks".
DeleteIn addition, it is related to Russia's traditionally "more conservative" view regarding the unchangeableness of received Orthodox tradition vis a vis "the Greeks" (and as distinct from their shared view that Orthodox doctrine is unchangeable). That is, Russia received Orthodoxy in its completed Byzantine fullness whereas the Greeks, Arabs, etc. were part of Orthodoxy as its externals and formulations developed over centuries and therefore might have a more "dynamic" view of tradition, e.g., the Biolakis Typikon of the 19th Century, a return to frequent communion under the Kolyvades over then current tradition, the more evolved Greek liturgics and practice relative to the older Russian practices in the lead up to the Old Believer schism.
That's the end of Hilarion's hope of becoming Patriarch!
ReplyDeleteI don't think Hilarion ever wanted to, and even if he did I don't think this would impede it. Metropolitan Hilarion is a great man, and a wonderful hierarch. Speaking the truth in love. I especially like his commentary on the writings of St. Dimitri of Rostov, and his composition "the passion of st. Matthew". Wonderful composer as well.
DeleteI agree with you here, Randy.
DeleteThe thing that is being missed in the commentary so far is that Alfeyev's words are remarkably humble. As opposed to the nonsense that comes out of Istanbul.
Regardless, there is no impediment to Moscow being a future "Third Rome" in his formulation.
Personally, I do believe that "Moscow is the Third Rome and that there will be no other". It's the only thing that makes sense from an eschatological view. Unless of course there are to be other Romes, in which case St Philotheos was incorrect. (Possible).
Regardless, Romanitas is necessary for Christendom to thrive.
I have never learned too much about the whole "third Rome" thing, as I am in the Antiochian church. But from what I have learned about it, it makes sense, but unfortunately has alot of worldly geopolitical issues tied up with it, which is why I'm not too big on it. But it is definitely a viable view, especially considering St Philotheos espoused it. I was not aware of that before btw. Thanks for making me aware! :)
DeleteEither way; Met. Hilarion is truly a great man! I look up to him greatly, and is commentary on the current situation in world Orthodoxy is invaluable to a layman like me.
Delete"Romanitas is necessary for Christendom to survive"......what does Christendom mean in the 21st century?
DeleteIt would make sense for Moscow to assume primacy as the most august and populous Local Church now that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is just a neighborhood in Istanbul. But Moscow doesn't seem terribly interested in primacy. Moscow has plenty of dignitas and influence without doing anything to blow up ecumenical relations. And "primacy," like Orthodox ecclesiology as a whole, is kind of an abstract concept these days.
ReplyDeletePrimacy among sovereigns is a delicate thing. The EP is formally said to be the first among his brother bishops, but then he tried to call a council and his brother bishops told him to pound sand. So it doesn't matter what the canons or the prayers or the traditions say. The reality is the EP no longer occupies the mental space of a first among equals, so his brother bishops are doing things without him, like resolving the dispute between Jerusalem and Antioch.
At least he admits it. For the way that over zealous Americans speak and think, everyone and everything in Russia is already holy and very little sin. And as to the comment about Moscow assuming primacy, they are not even next in line, Jerusalem, Alexandria or Antioch comes before them.
ReplyDeleteWhich makes even less sense. Jerusalem and Alexandria are Greek outposts and Antioch is barely hanging on with, what, four bishops claiming to be Patriarchs who don't even reside in Antioch?
DeleteWords on paper can hold out against reality only so long.
Met Hilarion is a breath of fresh air. So patriarchs have no idea what to make of him. Compare what he says and does to the awkward, sad displays by EP representatives in the US and Britain. One makes me hopeful, the other makes me want to keep my children from knowing bishops exist.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I would agree that the idea of Holy Rus is alive and well, even among those who deny that Russia is the third Rome. I also agree that they are different historical forms of the same idea. In the west it arose as the Germans identified themselves as the continuation of the Holy Roman Empire - which was never really holy any more than Byzantium was ever really holy or the Russian Empire holy. It is a distorted view of history that ceases to see the sin of a given past time period and abstractly sees it as sanctified. It is like the person who thinks they are holy because they are baptized without seeing or acknowledging that they are actually a sinner and have sin present in their actions and thoughts every day.
ReplyDeleteIn ancient Israel they understood themselves as the people of God, but you don't see them criticizing or blaming the pagan nations when they get attacked or are suffering. Instead they see these as the result of their own sins. Where are the bishops today who are calling the people to repent of their sins in the face of the atrocities of war, instead of getting bogged down in the political blame game? The difference between a Christian and a political animal is that a Christian blames themselves when confronted with suffering and a political animal tries to find someone else to take the blame. The Ukrainian blame the Russians, the Russians and Serbs blame NATO and the west, Constantinople blames the Russians.... and we wonder why our Christian witness is without power.
ReplyDeleteof course, in all humility, a trait the ep has yet to master, moscow cannot and should not espuse that they ae the thrid rome - that is for us to do. of course they are the third rome. except for the haitus 1917 - 1987, till now, they exhibited the leadership, charity, love, and growth, that the ep has not. all the ep has done is to meddle in their affairs - estonia, western european exarchate, ukraine etc. the third rome has acted more like a mother and the ep more like a brat child ---- a title such as the third rome is earned not claimed, ergo it would be improper for the metropolitan to claim a title, especially because it has already been bestowed by others - would it not? the ep now has to learn how to play nicely in the sandbox and recognize where the true christianity, and true leadership, true charity exist --- time for the ep to learn old church slavonic
ReplyDeleteLet's not get all hyped up about Moscow's humility yet when the MP is blessing nuclear weapons. Very consoling I am sure to know the nuclear weapons that might fall on us are blessed, maybe if we die by them we will go straight to heaven? They started this in 2007 and only now some are starting to consider that this just might not be Christian? https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/07/11/russian-orthodox-church-considers-ending-blessings-for-nuclear-weapons/
Delete