In English:
Patriarchs Bartholomew of Constantinople and Alexy of Moscow meet in Kiev
ANNOUNCEMENT: A Faith and Order Consultation on “Tradition and traditions” to take place in Cambridge
Resolution of the Russian Orthodox Church Bishops Council on the Internal Life and External Work of the Russian Orthodox Church

En français:
Intervention de l’évêque Hilarion à la Conférence de Lambeth
Un concert requiem pour la famille impériale russe à la cathédrale Christ-Sauveur de Moscou
Mgr Hilarion: «L’Esprit Saint dira à l’Église à quel moment introduire l’utilisation des langues modernes»

Auf Deutsch:
Bischof Hilarion Alfeyev: Das Universum (II)

Patriarchs Bartholomew of Constantinople and Alexy of Moscow meet in Kiev

Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople and Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia were jointly conducting an open-air divine service in Kiev on Sunday 27 July 2008, marking 1020 years since Christianity was adopted in Kievan Rus’. The festive service unfolded near to the monument to St Vladmir.

The Russian Patriarchs arrival and emergence from a limousine was cheered by applause. Parishioners chanted: “Alexy, Alexy!” as the Russian Patriarch and Bartholomew I were walking past them along an ally to the place of the service. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko greeted the two church notables near a large scarlet platform, set up for the occasion.

Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev, Archbishop Hieronymus of Greece, Archbishop Anastasios of Albania and representatives of other local Orthodox Churches concelebrated with the two Patriarchs. The choir of the Kiev Theologian Academy and a Greek choir sang ancient Byzantine hymns one after another. The service was broadcast live by all Ukrainian national channels.

After the service, Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Alexy had a meeting during which the church situation in the Ukraine was discussed. At a short press-conference following the meeting Patriarch Bartholomew said: “Dialogue is even more useful when there are problems between the two fraternal Orthodox Churches.” The two parties agreed to work on improving relations between the two churches and recognized bilateral responsibility of “Orthodox unity and common Orthodox testimony to the world,” the Patriarch of Constantinople said. He also expressed hope that Patriarch Alexy II will be able to attend a meeting of the primates of all Orthodox Churches scheduled for this October in Istanbul.

“We agreed to resolve all controversies between our churches through discussion and dialog,” said Patriarch Alexy II, adding that an agreement to discuss controversies by delegations of the two churches so that to work out decisions “that would meet our interests” was reached.

On 29 July, after the return of Patriarch Alexy II to Moscow, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, gave a press-conference dedicated to the celebration of the 1020th anniversary of Christianization of Russia.

“The break up of the Soviet Union led to a schism created under the influence of very specific political forces in Ukraine, which tried to make it legal all these years, especially recently when very big efforts were made to make this happen,” said Metropolitan Kirill at the press-conference. “There was a danger that this could happen at the celebration of the 1020th anniversary of Russia’s baptism. Thanks to the divine mercy, what was so dangerous and horrifying for the Ukrainian religious life and for the integrity of our Church did not happen”.

“This meeting lent, and will undoubtedly lend in future, a correct dimension to all talks (between the two churches), because both Churches attested to their willingness and desire to undo the knots that were tied by history,” emphasized Metropolitan Kirill.

Sources: Interfax/Orthodoxeurope.org

---

ANNOUNCEMENT: A Faith and Order Consultation on “Tradition and traditions” to take place in Cambridge

On 1-5 September 2008 Westminster College, Cambridge, will host an ecumenical consultation on the “Tradition and traditions”, with special emphasis to the study of patristic heritage. The participants in the consultation are from Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed and other Christian traditions.

The consultation will resume the work which was begun by the Fourth Faith and Order World Conference in Montreal in 1963 and was continued by the Faith and Order Commission meeting in Bristol in 1967.

In Montreal, it was stated that the “Tradition” (with a capital T.) refers to “the Gospel transmitted from generation to generation in and by the church, Christ himself present in the life of the church.” The term “traditions” (with a small t) was used to indicate both confessional traditions and diversity of forms of expression. The Montreal Statement spoke of the common inheritance of the Tradition by Christians, the common roots in the Old Testament, succession of the revealed truth from generation to generation for all. Therefore Christians exist by the virtue of the Tradition of the Gospel testified in Scripture. Such an analysis of the Tradition makes it equally significant for all in preaching of the Word of God, in worship, in teaching, in mission and witness to Christ.

The study on patristics presented in Bristol contains similar messages about the shared roots which appear in the Montreal Statement. The Bristol Report reads: “In all understanding and proclamation of the Word today, we come from and are dependent on the tradition of the Fathers as those who have spoken the Word to us (Heb. 13:7), whether we know it or not.” The study on the Fathers was seen as a fundamental task of theology because through this study historical continuity penetrates theology.

The Bristol text speaks about the importance of rediscovery of patristics as a living tradition from the point of view of the Faith and Order agenda for unity. Also, it gives a suggestion to discover ways of “translating” the philosophical conceptions of the patristic texts into the “corresponding contemporary conceptions.” The latter is a huge task and can be achieved through coordinating the work undertaken in various parts of the world (within various confessions) in the field of understanding (or meaning) of patristic writings in today’s life of Christians.

The Bristol document says: “A schematizing distinction between a permanent content and a changing form is an extremely problematic undertaking, theologically and historically, in which the historicity of the Church and its proclamation are not taken into account.” Then the text formulates where to seek contemporary significance of patristics: “in its hermeneutical function for the understanding of Scripture with reference to interpretation and proclamation.” Theologians in Bristol agreed that any contemporary interpretation of Scripture pays tribute - in different measures - to patristic writings. The latter statement became a cornerstone for the proposal of the present endeavour on Traditions and traditions. One of the remarkable points shared in Bristol was listening to the message of the church Fathers within the context of listening to the Word of God in the Church.

The forthcoming Cambridge consultation will study the significance of patristic heritage for today’s Christians. How did the early church Fathers read the Bible? How much of their understanding is valid for contemporary Christians? How authoritative is patristic understanding in Christian traditions today? Is it possible to come to a common understanding of the church Fathers? What have the churches done to understand the Fathers for the last few decades? How far can Christians of different traditions go in their common understanding of the Fathers? These and other related questions will be addressed by the participants of the Cambridge consultation.

The co-moderators of the consultation are Bishop Dr Hilarion Alfeyev, Representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions, and Rev. Dr Susan Durber, Principal of Westminster College, Cambridge.

The list of participants includes:

Eastern Orthodox

Roman Catholics

Lutherans

Oriental Orthodox

Anglicans

Methodists

Reformed and other Churches

Faith and Order Staff

---

Resolution of the Russian Orthodox Church Bishops Council on the Internal Life and External Work of the Russian Orthodox Church

1. Thanking God for His all-powerful help, the Bishops Council is gratified by the continued revival of church life throughout the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate and in the diaspora. The Council approves the work carried out by His Holiness the Patriarch, the Holy Synod and Synodal institutions in the pre-council period. The Council commends the state of church life in the capital city of Moscow, whose ruling bishop is His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia, as well as in many other dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church.

2. The number of parishes, monasteries and theological schools has increased. Churches are being built and restored. While pointing to these achievements, the Council deems it necessary to renew the areas and priorities of church revival so that more attention could be given to the spiritual dimension of church life, enlightenment and education of the people of God and Orthodox witness in the world today.

3. The Council approves the amendments to the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Provision for Church Awards and the Provision for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. The Council also approves the resolutions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church on establishing the dioceses of Aleksandrijsk, Bobrujsk, Beltsy, Berdyansk, Kremenchug, Nezhinsk, Novokakhovka, Severodonetsk, Uman, Ungen and Shepetovka and on changing the boundaries of the diocese of Tashkent.

4. The Council deems it necessary to hold on a regular basis pastoral seminars in dioceses with the aim to improve theological knowledge, to exchange pastoral experience, to create conditions for fraternal communication among the clergy and creation of an atmosphere of mutually respectful discussions contributing to the debates on issues concerning church life. The Council also deems it useful to organize diocesan courses for raising the level of theological knowledge among the clergy and monastics.

5. Cooperation between monasteries is necessary for mutual support and exchange of experience. To this end, it appears useful to hold regular conferences on diocesan level between abbots, fathers superior, mothers superior and spiritual guides of monasteries and convents.

6. In view of a serious gap existing in the financial situation of various monasteries and parishes due a social misbalance in society, the Council deems it useful to set up mechanisms of aid to be given by well-off monastic and parish communities to those who are less provided. It appears important in particular that diocesan aid councils should be set up to help poor churches and monasteries and that these councils should include not only secular benefactors but also abbots of large monasteries and rectors of large parishes. The Council also deems it desirable to create diocesan funds for supporting retired clergy, widows of clergy and orphans.

7. The Council supports the initiative of the clergy and laity to hold processions with the cross, which are visible manifestations of faith and devotion on the part of the people of God. At the same time, the Council points to the need to organize them within the framework of church discipline and with the blessing of the Supreme Authority so that they may not become demonstrations of marginal attitudes which are far from true Orthodoxy.

10. The Council deems it important that the theological thought should move forward in the Russian Orthodox Church with the help, in particular, of international theological conferences conducted by our Church. It is deemed beneficial to continue convening such conferences and to invite to them an increasing number of participants from Local Orthodox Churches.

11. The Council gives a positive appraisal of the reform carried out in the theological education system as a result of which the Church is enabled to train not only highly educated pastors but also teachers and specialists in church scholarship. The Council approves the Concept of Theological Education adopted by the Holy Synod and encourages the efforts to transform theological academies into theological research centers. It is necessary to speed up the work to harmonize the curricula of seminaries and theological academies with the Concept and the new church standard of theological education. The Council deems it beneficial to establish a church-wide book accumulator for collecting library resources for theological and Sunday schools. The Council deems it desirable that the Russian Orthodox Church institutions for higher theological education should be financed by the government on the analogy with some other religious communities.

12. Considering the section on education in the Basic Social Concept and the above-mentioned Concept of Religious Education, the Council deems it necessary to continue the church-wide reflection on the role of education in the life of the Church and society. Among the activities which contribute to this aim are the International Educational Christmas Readings.

13. It is necessary that dioceses should give priority attention to the establishment and support of the existing Sunday schools, Orthodox educational institutions offering secondary education, such as lyceums and gymnasiums, as well as pre-school educational institutions, such as nurseries and kindergartens. It is deemed necessary to pose the question of governmental financing for teaching national standard disciplines in Orthodox educational institutions as it will help to avoid any discrimination against students on the grounds of their choice of non-governmental educational institution.

14. The development of church life poses a serious problem of preparing adults for embracing the Holy Baptism and advancing the knowledge of those who have already been baptized. It is necessary to systematize the existing approaches and give effective recommendations to pastors for conducting catechetical work.

15. The Council approves the Russian Orthodox Church’s Concept of Missionary Work adopted by the Holy Synod. The mission of the Church today should be a vital task for the clergy; proactive and religiously educated lay people are also called to it. There must be various means for missionary work. The mission of the Church however should be always based on the firm commitment to the sacred doctrines of Orthodoxy and on the fullness of church Tradition. At the same time, the principal target of our mission remains to be those who belong to Orthodoxy by baptism and family or national tradition but need to be educated, inchurched and warmed up in their spiritual life.

16. The Council points a progress made in cooperation with the Armed Forces and law-enforcement in various countries – the achievement made through the selfless efforts of many pastors and lay people. At the same time, it deems necessary to put the pastoral service in the army and law-enforcement system on a regular basis and to seal it both in the legislation and governmental administrative practice.

17. Social service and charitable work are important areas of Orthodox witness and ministry in today’s society which stands in the need of active manifestations of love. It is deemed necessary to improve the coordination of church social work, especially through the collection and operative publication of information about the charitable and social initiatives of the Russian Orthodox Church dioceses.

18. Among the priorities of work with the youth the Council singles out the establishment of Orthodox youth centers, which, along with immediate care for young people, could be engaged in developing programs for mission and religious education and formation. It is deemed desirable to strengthen the coordination of efforts made by diocesan and church-wide structures engaged in work with the youth. The Council believes it important to develop youth pilgrimage as well Orthodox youth and children’s organizations, such as sporting, scouting and public centers. Organizations of this kind are called to maintain close ties with the Church so that their relations with the Supreme Authority may not be limited to asking a blessing for a particular initiative. The work of these organizations should be an effective instrument of initiating children and youth to the Church.

19. The Council gives a positive appraisal of the state of church publishing work, the appearance of thousands of new books which contribute to the religious education and edification of the people of God and development of the theological and religious-social thought, church scholarship and culture. It has become a norm for our Church to distribute electronic versions and various forms of audio-visual production which helps to develop and enrich the traditions of religious education.

20. The Council deems it necessary for publishers to obtain necessarily a blessing of a ruling bishop upon the publication of Orthodox books coming out in this diocese and to keep a centralized record of these editions on the church-wide level.

21. It is deemed important to begin working at drafting a modern Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church.

22. The Council believes it desirable to reestablish the Calendar Commission for dealing with questions involved in the publication of church calendars and for bringing them to uniformity.

23. Among important elements of consolidating church unity is creation of a unified information space for our Church. Numerous workers in this area of Orthodox witness and education are called to coordinate their efforts as much as possible, which is especially necessary in a situation where numerous information centers and initiatives are sometimes separated by great distances and state frontiers. A special support of the Church is required for developing Orthodox TV channels. The quality of their broadcasting should be raised and their outreach should be national, which is possible today thanks to new technologies. The Council recommends that all dioceses give financial aid to the regional church mass media and launch regularly updated websites reporting on every significant event in the church life of the region and on relations of the Church with the secular authorities and society. It should become a norm to be open to cooperation with secular mass media through which effective witness can be borne to the faith and information can be given to people about church life and Orthodox traditions.

24. The Council welcomes the training of qualified specialists for the church mass media in secular educational institutions, educational institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church and church information structures.

25. The Council, assessing the selfless ministry of the Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and All Ukraine, and the episcopate and clergy who serve today in a difficult situation of religious and political instability in Ukraine, states with gratitude to God the steady growth and development of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church uniting Orthodox people in Jesus Christ regardless of their political and ideological attitudes and views.

26. The Council thanks the faithful of our Church in Ukraine, who have kept the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and love, and approves the efforts made by the Supreme Authority of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in its search for canonical ways of restoring church peace and unity in Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

27. The Council says to our brothers and sisters in Ukraine, who are outside the church fold: the Mother Church is patiently expecting back all those who have left her salvific bosom. There is no sin that the Lord could not forgive; there is not fault the Church could not cover with her motherly love.

28. Aware of the importance of united Orthodox witness before today’s world, the Russian Orthodox Church states her resolution to work tirelessly for the development of fraternal relations with all the Local Orthodox Churches. The Bishops Council supports the efforts of His Holiness the Patriarch and the Holy Synod for consolidating pan-Orthodox unity. Especially important in this respect were the meetings His Holiness had with primates of Local Orthodox Churches during their visits to the Russian Orthodox Church.

29. The Council has to admit that the present level of pan-Orthodox cooperation does not correspond to the needs of time. A serious threat is seen in the diversion from the unshakable principles of inter-church relations as defined by sacred canons, since it inevitably leads to dangerous consequences for the unity of Orthodoxy. The Russian Orthodox Church reaffirms her readiness to resolve emerging problems patiently and in the spirit of Christian love and urges all to follow steadfastly the path of the canonical truth.

30. In connection with the situation that has arisen after the former Bishop Basil of Sergievo was admitted to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Bishops Council approves the position taken on this problem by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church as imbued with a spirit of concern for church peace and faithfulness to sacred canons. The Council points out that it is inadmissible for bishops and clergy of one Local Church to move to another without an appropriate letter of release and insists that the principles of Orthodox canonical tradition should be strictly observed and their arbitrary interpretation should be condemned.

31. The Council makes another appeal to realize fully the agreements that had been reached earlier on the Estonian church problem and resolutely rejects the attempts of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to create an appearance of pan-Orthodox recognition of its church structure in Estonia as an autonomous Local Church without taking into account the opinions and interests of an overwhelming majority of Orthodox faithful in Estonia. In connection with the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s opinion that representatives of the church organization that has been denied general recognition as an autonomous or autocephalous Local Church can participate in inter-Orthodox events, the Council deems it necessary to insist that every meeting in which the Orthodox Plenitude is represented should be attended by representatives of autonomous and self-governed Churches belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate, including Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Japanese Orthodox Church, Orthodox Church of Moldova, Russian Church Abroad, Latvian Orthodox Church, Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, and Chinese Orthodox Church. These meetings should also be attended by the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America.

32. The Council is deeply concerned for the actions of the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church, which has established new dioceses of the so-called Metropolia of Bessarabia in the Republic of Moldova and in the adjoining Ukrainian territories. It shares the concern of the Orthodox faithful in Moldova and Ukraine and that of the state leadership caused by this new threat to church unity and public accord. The Council supports the efforts of the Holy Synod for settling this situation through dialogue and in strict observance of the Church’s sacred canons. Since unilateral actions, such as those committed by the above-mentioned decisions of the Supreme Authority of the Romanian Patriarchate, undermine the traditional foundations of relations between Orthodox Churches and present a threat to Orthodox unity as a whole, it is deemed useful to keep the Plenitude of Orthodoxy informed about this problem so that the stand of the Russian Orthodox Church may be explained.

33. The Council declares unshakable the canonical boundaries of the Chinese Autonomous Orthodox Church and approves the position formulated on this issue in the respective statement of the Russian Orthodox Church Holy Synod of April 15, 2008.

34. The Council welcomes the progress made in relations with Old-Belief communities, especially the developing cooperation in asserting the values of Orthodox spiritual tradition in the life of society. The work of the Commission for the Affairs of Old-Belief Parishes and Cooperation with the Old Believers, which was established by the decision of the 2004 Bishops Council, is considered to be beneficial.

35. The Russian Orthodox Church has participated in bilateral and multilateral inter-Christian and interreligious dialogue for the sake of bearing witness to the truth of Holy Orthodoxy and out of concern for the assertion of traditional moral values in the world and establishing good and just relations between nations. The similarity of ethical views held by most of the faithful of traditional religions makes it possible for us to oppose together the threats of moral relativism and aggressive secularism and the attempts to oust religion to the margins of societal life.

36. In the process of dialogue, our Church does not accept attempts to merge faiths and to hold common prayer actions, which artificially combine confessional or religious traditions. However, for Orthodox Christians it has always been permissible to venerate common Christian shrines found outside Orthodox churches. In the practice of the Orthodox Church, it is not forbidden to have respectful presence of non-Orthodox people and unbelievers in an Orthodox church during divine services. It was the possibility for the envoys of Grand Prince Vladimir to visit the Church of St. Sophia that opened up to Russia the way to embracing Orthodoxy.

37. The Council states that the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church to such issues as role of traditional Christian values in society, protection of family and assertion of morality in private and public life agrees with that of our Church. At the same time, the Council deems it necessary to overcome difficulties existing in relations with the Catholic Church. Among them is the encroachment on the rights of the faithful belonging to the canonical Orthodox Church in western Ukraine where a majority of the powers that be are Greek Catholics and the numerous attempts to increase artificially the Uniate presence in many regions. The Orthodox people are concerned over the transfer of the see of the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to the Ukrainian capital city of Kiev – the move that represents an ungrounded claim to a national status, which has never been enjoyed by the Unia in Ukraine. Another problem is the missionary activity of some Catholic priests and monastics among those who belong to Orthodoxy by baptism and national and family tradition.

38. The contacts with the Protestant world give a great deal of examples of good cooperation. At the same time, the future of relations with many Protestant communities depends on their faithfulness to the norms of evangelical and apostolic morality that have been preserved by Christians for centuries.

39. The Council believes it beneficial for peace and accord in society to maintain cooperation with communities belonging to traditional non-Christian religions. At the same time, the leaders of these communities are urged to respect the rights and freedoms of Orthodox Christians and their desire to build up their private and public life in accordance with their own faith.

40. The Council thanks His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia for holding numerous meetings with leaders of various states, parliament speakers, government officials and diplomats. During these meetings, His Holiness has advocated the interests of the Russian Orthodox faithful and showed concern for the welfare of people and desire to overcome various conflicts and establish peaceful and just international relations.

41. The Council is gratified by the dialogue the Russian Orthodox Church has conducted with the Russian state authorities and by the church-state cooperation in such areas as preservation of the cultural heritage, concern for peace and accord in society, care for compatriots abroad, development of science and culture, opposition to socially dangerous vices, assertion of public morality, and in many other areas.

42. In these areas there is mutually beneficial cooperation with the governmental bodies in Belarus and Moldova – the countries where most of the population belong to our Church. The nature of church-state relations in these countries is satisfactory and gives hope for further development of the positive experience.

43. There are good and constructive relations between the Church and the state authorities in Azerbaijan, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan and in many countries where there is a church diaspora of the Moscow Patriarchate. The authorities in these countries have paid due attention to the needs of the faithful of our Church and maintained dialogue and cooperation with her.

44. There are not so unambiguous church-state relations in Ukraine where the situation is complicated by the existence of church schisms. The Council understands the concern of the Ukrainian leaders over the fact of divisions existing in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. But unfortunately, there are still cases of interference in the internal church affairs on the part of some political leaders who stand for a mechanical unification of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church with schismatic groups for the purpose of tearing her away from unity with the Russian Orthodox Church. The Council calls upon the Ukrainian authorities to respect the internal regulations of the Church and to restrain from using secular political methods in the purely church task of overcoming the division. The same should be stated about the very delicate sphere of inter-Orthodox relations. The Council also asks the Ukrainian State to recognize the Church’s right of legal identity and help implement the court rulings that churches and other property taken away from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church be returned to her.

45. The Council is gratified by the positive changes that have taken place in church-state relations in Estonia and hopes that a fair solution of the problem of property rights to the church property used by the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate will be reached.

46. It is deemed necessary to continue dialogue with the authorities of the Peoples Republic of China for normalizing the situation of the Orthodox faithful in that country and granting a legal status to the Chinese Orthodox Church, a daughter of the Russian Orthodox Church.

47. The Council deems it important that the partnership between the Church, state and society be developed in the social sphere. This partnership presupposes not only a guaranteed participation of the Church in the work of state-run social institutions but also broad support including from public funds for those charitable and social institutions of the Church which have proved to be no less effective and sustainable than state-run social institutions. The idea of such support meets with a broad public recognition and corresponds to the practice of most of the states in Europe and the world.

48. The Council considers it necessary to ensure the rights of students in public schools to acquire knowledge on the basic culture of the religion to which children and their parents belong. This knowledge should be taught on a voluntary basis. It is inadmissible to establish in school a monopoly of materialistic convictions and a skeptic view of religions that ignores the question of the truth thus making itself unacceptable for believers. Considering the experience of most European countries, including Latvia and Lithuania, as well as the practice of teaching the Basic Orthodox Culture in many regions in Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine, the system of teaching the knowledge of a religious culture of students and parents choice can and must be established in all the countries of the CIS and the Baltics. The Council deems it very important that authorized church representatives should participate in the development of national educational standards. It is also necessary to ensure the right of religious communities to establish educational institutions of their own on various levels.

49. In our countries there are various forms of cooperation between church structures and governmental bodies in the field of education. It is important that, considering the type of educational work, various mechanisms of their relations with the canonical institutions of the Church be established. The Council welcomes the practice of church-state cooperation in training teachers of Orthodox Culture and Ethics, especially in institutions for advanced training of teachers.

50. The Council draws the attention of governmental bodies to the need to return the church property on fair terms and as soon as possible. This property includes first of all churches and shrines as well as facilities and lands which are required for reviving the charitable, social, educational, scientific and cultural work of the Russian Orthodox Church. Welcoming the elaboration of a Russian Federation law regulating the transfer of religious property to religious organizations, the Council calls for its early adoption in the version negotiated with the leaders of major religious communities and for developing similar legal acts in the countries where the recovery of church property has not yet been put on a solid legal basis.

51. The Council deems it extremely urgent to establish church-state and church-society cooperation in the task of moral education of the younger generation through school, culture and mass media. To this end, it is necessary to review many educational curricula, to launch new publishing initiatives and television and radio programs and to create films, books and musical works. To be a person of high moral standards means to live in a worthy way. To indulge in vice and spiritual emptiness means to lose oneself and to ruin ones life. These truths must be heard by the new generations of our citizens. The deceptive worship of sin, violence, profit and empty entertainment must be removed. To do this, society has to have a mechanism for making influence on the policy of leading mass media, especially those intended for children and youth.

52. The Council points to the danger presented by political radicalism, especially in cases where it divides peoples and leads to encroachment upon their rights to their own language, culture and national identity.

53. While recognizing the need to reveal the historical truth about victims of the godless power, the Council considers it inadmissible to politicize history for inciting strife between peoples. Our Church cherishes the prayerful memory of those who starved to death in the 1920s and 1930s and the innocent victims of the dispossession of the kulaks, collectivization and deportation. At the same time, the Council rejects attempts made by some politicians to cash in on the suffering experienced by many peoples.

54. Responding to the concern of some believers, the Council believes that to preserve human freedom people should be aware of the situations in which they are subjected to identification and of the kind of data about them which is collected, stored and used by the state. It is inadmissible to use such means and ways of electronic registration of people’s moves and actions which allow of encroaching upon their private life and making it possible to carry out total control over them.

55. The Council notes that the conscription of clergy runs contrary to the canonical norms of the Church and therefore comes into contradiction with the principle of respect that the state should show for the internal regulations of religious associations. At the same time, it is deemed possible for Orthodox pastors to fulfill their civic military duty through service as army chaplains.

56. Some provisions of the legislation on non-commercial organizations providing for governmental regulation of their internal life come into conflict with the principle of separation between Church and State.

57. It is also necessary to study a possibility for making such amendments to the statutes of monasteries and parishes as to enable the Church to preserve all the necessary characteristics of canonical norms in the situation of a changing national legislation.

58. The Council states the need to develop relations between the Church and public, scientific, cultural and other associations. Cooperation with them has as its aim the concern for civil peace, people’s material and spiritual welfare, preservation and development of opportunities for the Holy Church to bear witness to the Truth of Christ in word and deed. At the same time, cooperation with political parties, as was repeatedly stated in documents of the previous Bishops Council, should not have the nature of political support.

59. The participation of Orthodox lay people and their associations in governance, political work and other areas of people’s life is seen as one of the means for Holy Orthodoxy to make a positive impact on social processes. At the same time, lay organizations expressing private political opinions, in accordance with the decisions of the previous Bishops Councils, should not identify their voice with that of the entire Church. Leaders of these organizations, according to the ROC Basic Social Concept, are called to consult the church Supreme Authority and to coordinate their actions in realizing the Church’s position on social problems.

60. Dialogue of the Russian Orthodox Church with inter-state organizations is an important area of Orthodox witness in the modern world. In this dialogue, representatives of our Church bear witness to Christian moral values, set forth the Orthodox view of modern social processes, fulfill the duty of peacemakers, call for building a free and just system of international relations, concern themselves with preserving for the faithful the freedom to live and act in accordance with their own convictions. A considerable contribution to the Orthodox witness before the inter-state organizations was made by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia when he addressed a session of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly on October 2, 2007.

61. The family should become a special subject of common concern on the part of the Church, state and society. It is in the family that the spiritual and moral qualities of new generation are formed best of all. And the preaching of the ideal of Christian family as a minor Church based on peoples love of God and each other should occupy today an important place in the Orthodox edification and mission. Our social action should oppose the erosion of the idea of family as a faithful union of man and woman which offer proper conditions for raising children. Family values need to be safeguarded against the propaganda of such destructive things as irresponsible cohabitation, lechery, sexual licentiousness, sexual perversion. In her dialogue with state and secular society, the Russian Orthodox Church will advocate the need for not only material but also spiritual and moral support of the family, including its religious foundations. We all, the people of the Church and state and public leaders, should understand that without the solid family a true revival of our nations and their dignified future are unthinkable.

Moscow, 27 June 2008

---

Intervention de l’évêque Hilarion à la Conférence de Lambeth

Le 22 juillet 2008, Mgr Hilarion (Alfeyev), évêque orthodoxe en Autriche et représentant de l’Eglise orthodoxe russe près les institutions européennes à Bruxelles, est intervenu dans le cadre de la Conférence de Lambeth, grand rassemblement de la Communion anglicane, lors de la journée consacrée à la "Mission commune en Europe". Mgr Hilarion a présenté la vie actuelle de l’Eglise orthodoxe russe, sa mission et son renouveau depuis les années de persécutions.

"L’Eglise orthodoxe russe fait partie de ces Eglises européennes qui ne connaît pas pour l’instant de diminution du nombre de fidèles ni de manque de vocations sacerdotales, a noté l’évêque Hilarion. Au contraire, dans notre Eglise, le nombre de ceux qui souhaitent devenir prêtres dépasse le nombre de postes disponibles". Mgr Hilarion a parlé également de la renaissance de la vie monastique sur l’espace de l’ex-Union soviétique, ainsi que de la reconstruction de nombreuses églises et de l’ouverture des dizaines de séminaires.

L’évêque Hilarion a souligné cependant la crise démographique qui atteint aujourd’hui la plupart des pays européens et notamment la Russie. Il a insisté également sur le danger que représente aujourd’hui la sécularisation de la société. "Dans cette situation, les responsables des communautés chrétiennes doivent se poser la question suivante: est-ce que nous défendons suffisamment la vision biblique de la famille en tant qu’union indissoluble entre un homme et une femme..?"

---

Un concert requiem pour la famille impériale russe à la cathédrale Christ-Sauveur de Moscou

Le 16 juillet 2008, veille du 90e anniversaire de l’exécution du dernier empereur russe Nicolas II et de sa famille, un concert à leur mémoire a été donné à la cathédrale Christ-Sauveur de Moscou. Il s’agissait d’un Requiem orthodoxe, une oeuvre de Mgr Hilarion (Alfeyev), évêque orthodoxe en Autriche et représentant de l’Eglise orthodoxe russe près les institutions européennes à Bruxelles. Mgr Hilarion est par ailleurs l’auteur dune Passion selon Saint Mathieu et d’un Oratorio de Noël.

Plus de 2000 personnes ont assisté au concert en l’honneur de la famille impériale russe. Le concert comprenait, en plus de la partie musicale, la projection des archives vidéos où l’on voit Nicolas II et sa famille. De même, des extraits des Ecritures Saintes et des textes sur la persécution contre l’Eglise ont été lus par Mgr Hilarion.

Après le concert, une réception a réuni ceux qui ont contribué à son organisation. Des distinctions patriarcales ont été remises à deux Américains: Daniel Schmidt, vice-président de la fondation Bradley, et à Robert Moynihan, directeur du magazine "Inside the Vatican".

---

Mgr Hilarion: «L’Esprit Saint dira à l’Église à quel moment introduire l’utilisation des langues modernes»

Mgr Hilarion (Alfeyev), évêque de Vienne et d’Autriche considère qu’il est nécessaire de continuer le travail sur la correction et la traduction des offices, commencé pendant la période du concile de l’Eglise orthodoxe russe de 1917-1918. Dans une interview donnée à l’agence russe Blagovest-Info, il a souligné qu’une telle entreprise demanderait un travail de plusieurs années d’un groupe des personnes compétentes et devrait avoir un caractère collégial. Ce travail devrait également manifester «la prudence et la sagesse de la part de l’Église».

Lors de la conférence internationale théologique en novembre 2007, Mgr Hilarion avait déjà appelé à continuer la discussion sur la langue utilisée dans les offices. Dans l’entretien donné à  Blagovest info, il a remarqué que l’on doit résoudre «le problème de la difficulté de compréhension des textes de l’Eglise avec une discussion calme et conciliaire. Certes, quelqu’un, qui participe chaque dimanche à la liturgie, commence, tôt ou tard, à comprendre les textes de l’office divin. Mais il y a des textes, qui sont lus ou chantés dans l’Église une fois par an, par exemple, les canons de la Pentecôte. Ils sont tellement complexes que faire quelque chose pour que les gens puissent comprendre non 10 %, mais 15 % – d’après moi n’est pas un péché, mais avec cela peut contribuer au plus grand bien des fidèles».

Mgr Hilarion a souligné «qu’il ne faut pas apporter sans autorisation des changements dans les offices, ni à l’échelle d’un diocèse, ou dune paroisse ». Il faut travailler sur «l’allégement» des textes slaves et leurs traductions «prudemment pour ne pas troubler la paix de l’Église ainsi que les fidèles». L’évêque a rappelé la lourde leçon historique liée aux réformes de l’Eglise du patriarche Nikon au XVIIe siècle: «En effet, tout a commencé avec des choses à première vue secondaires: écrire le nom Jésus avec un "i" ou avec deux etc., mais cela a fini par un schisme qui existe jusqu’à maintenant».
«L’unité de l’Église est plus importante que n’importe quelle réforme d’amélioration ou d’innovation. Mais l’Esprit Saint dira à l’Église et à l’intelligence conciliaire, quel est le moment opportun, si cela est nécessaire, d’introduire l’utilisation des langues modernes», - a dit l’évêque Hilarion.

Utiliser la langue moderne dans l’office divin est une question liée parfois à «la situation locale» dans un contexte missionnaire. L’évêque a raconté son expérience des services en Autriche. Pendant la liturgie l’Evangile est lu en slavon et en allemand, mais pendant la communion du clergé, l’Apôtre et l’Evangile sont lus encore une fois, en russe ou parfois en géorgien, si dans le temple il y a un grand nombre de Géorgiens. «La situation pastorale souffle parfois elle-même des solutions», a remarqué Mgr Hilarion.

En répondant à la question sur le mécanisme « du travail conciliaire», lié à la langue liturgique, il a remarqué qu’un tel travail «n’est pas encore entrepris», exprimant cependant son espoir que «l’intelligence conciliaire» ne renoncera pas à cette question. «Je me rappelle que Sa Sainteté le patriarche russe, s’adressant à la Faculté de théologie orthodoxe à Tbilisi qui lui a remis le titre de docteur honoris causa avait parlé de l’amélioration de la traduction slave comme d’un travail, commencé pendant le concile de 1917-1918, qui continuera. J’espère qu’il va continuer», a conclu Mgr Hilarion.

---

Bischof Hilarion Alfeyev: Das Universum (II)

Keinesfalls darf man die auffallende Ähnlichkeit der Kosmogonie der Bibel mit anderen alten Kosmogonien, zum Beispiel mit der mesopotami­schen und der altgriechischen, ausser Acht lassen. „Aus dem Chaos wurden die Dunkelheit und die finstere Nacht geboren“, schreibt Hesiod in der „Theogonie“. Das Wort „Chaos“ kommt von einem Verb, welches „das Öffnen des Mundes im Ausdruck des Erstaunens“ bezeichnet, und ent­spricht, wie es besser nicht geht, der biblischen „staunenerregenden Leere“ der Urmaterie.

Platon nennt das Chaos, im Unterschied zum „ewig seienden“ Gott, „den Gott, dem es bevorstand zu sein“. Er sagt von der Vernünftigkeit und Beseeltheit des Kosmos: „Gott, der wollte, dass alles gut und nach Möglichkeit nichts übel sei, trug Sorge für alle sichtbaren Dinge, die nicht in Ruhe, sondern in einer ungeordneten, unharmonischen Bewegung wa­ren: Er brachte sie von der Unordnung zur Ordnung ... Er ordnete den Geist in die Seele, die Seele in den Körper. Und auf diese Weise schuf Er das Universum, in der Absicht, die herrlichste und ihrer Natur nach beste Schöpfung zu gründen ... Unser Kosmos ist ein lebendiges Wesen, ausge­stattet mit Seele und Geist, und er wurde wirklich mit Hilfe der Göttlichen Vorsehung geboren“. Der Kosmos ist nach Platon die Ikone Gottes: Er „bil­det das Urbild ab und erscheint selbst als Ebenbild des wahren Bildes“.

Am zweiten Tag erschafft Gott das „Feste“, den Raum, der Haltbarkeit besitzt, Stabilität und Festigkeit. Am dritten Tag erschafft Er das trockene Land und das Meer und scheidet das eine vom anderen. Am vierten Tag erschafft Gott die Sonne, den Mond und die übrigen Himmelslichter: Von diesem Moment an arbeitete der Mechanismus des Vierundzwanzig-Stun­den-Tages, der rhythmische Wechsel von Tag und Nacht. Am fünften Tag bringen die Elemente des Meeres durch den Willen Gottes die Fische und die Kriechtiere hervor, die Lüfte aber die Vögel. Schliesslich erscheinen am sechsten Tag die Tiere und der Mensch.

Die Ausleger vermerken den Geozentrismus der biblischen Erzählung. Während der Autor des Buches Genesis am ersten und zweiten Tag von der Erschaffung des Universums spricht, beginnt er sich am dritten Tag der Erde zuzuwenden und dem, was auf ihr vorgeht. Darin liegt eine tiefe Symbolik. „Das ist kein Rest einer primitiven Kosmologie ... die nicht un­serem nachkopernikanischen Universum entspräche. Der Geozentrismus ist hier nicht physikalisch, sondern geistlich zu verstehen: Die Erde ist geist­lich im Zentrum, weil sie der Leib des Menschen ist, weil der Mensch das zentrale Wesen ist, das Wesen, das in sich das Sinnliche und das Übersinn­liche vereint ... und deshalb in grösserer Fülle als die Engel am Gesamt­gefüge von Erde und Himmel teilhat. Im Zentrum des Universums schlägt das Herz des Menschen“ (Vladimir Losskij).

Das biblische Bild der Erschaffung der Welt zeigt uns Gott in Seiner ganzen schöpferischen Vollmacht. Nachdem Gott die geistige Welt erschaf­fen hatte und sie mit Engeln bevölkerte, erschuf Er den materiellen Kos­mos als Ikone, die Seine alles Denken übersteigende Schönheit widerspie­gelt. Im Zentrum des Universums siedelte Gott den Menschen an. Alles Lebendige ist nach dem ewigen Plan des Schöpfers dazu berufen, Ihn zu preisen: „Lobet den Herrn vom Himmel her, lobt Ihn in den Höhen. Lobt Ihn, alle Engel, lobt Ihn, all Seine Kräfte. Lobt Ihn, Sonne und Mond, lobt Ihn, alle Sterne und ihr Licht. Lobt Ihn, Himmel der Himmel, und das Wasser über den Himmeln. Ja, rühmt den Namen des Herrn, denn Er sprach, und es entstand. Er gebot, und es geschah ... Lobt den Herrn von der Erde her, ihr Ungeheuer und alle Tiefen: Feuer und Hagel, Schnee und Eis, tosender Sturm, der Sein Wort ausführt, ihr Berge und alle Hügel, ihr fruchttragenden Bäume und alle Zedern, ihr Tiere und alles Vieh, Kriech­tiere und gefiederte Vögel, ihr Könige der Erde und alle Völker ... Lobt Ihn auf der Feste, ihr Seine Kräfte ... Alles, was atmet, lobe den Herrn“ (Ps 148,1–150,6 Septuaguinta; [148,1–150,5]).

Das von Gott erschaffene Universum ist ein Buch, das dem, der zu lesen vermag, die Grösse des Schöpfers offenbart. Wenn diejenigen, die nicht glauben, die materielle Welt anschauen, dann sehen sie darin nicht den Widerschein der höheren, nichtmateriellen Schönheit: Für sie gibt es in der Welt nichts Wunderbares, alles ist natürlich und gewöhnlich. Das Buch des Göttlichen Wunders ist mit den Augen des Glaubens zu lesen. Zu Vater Antonius, dem ägyptischen Eremiten des 4. Jahrhunderts, kam ein be­rühmter Philosoph und fragte: „Vater, wie kannst du hier leben, bar jeden Trostes durch die Lektüre eines Buches?“ Antonius wies mit der Hand auf den Himmel, die Wüste und die Berge und antwortete: „Mein Buch, Philo­soph, ist die Natur der geschaffenen Dinge, und wenn ich will, dann kann ich darin die Taten Gottes lesen“.

Aus dem Buch Geheimnis des Glaubens. Einführung in die orthodoxe dogmatische Theologie. Fortsetzung folgt.