In English:
Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia: Address in connection with the natural disaster in Southeast Asia
Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad: Address at the Conference ‘Christianity and Europe: the Social Thought of the Russian Orthodox Church’
Supervisory Committee and Academic Council of the Orthodox Theological Institute of Vienna are formed
News in brief (21.12.2004 – 15.01.2005)
En français:
L’archevêque de Salzburg a visité la cathédrale orthodoxe russe de Vienne
Le comité de surveillance et le conseil scientifique de l’Institut de théologie orthodoxe de Vienne ont été créés
La communauté russe de Biarritz a rejoint le Patriarcat de Moscou
Auf Deutsch:
Das Oberhaupt der Erzdiözese Salzburg der Römisch Katholischen Kirche besuchte die Kathedrale zum hl. Nikolaus in Wien
Großfürstin Elisaweta Feodorowna und die Martha-Maria-Schwesternschaft (III)
Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia: Address in connection with the natural disaster in Southeast Asia
The entire world sorrows over a tragedy that took place in Southeast Asia. Because of the natural disaster hundreds of thousands of people died, disappeared or were wounded. Among them were local residents, as well as tourists from dozens of countries, including Russia. The Russian Orthodox Church prays for the repose of all who suddenly passed away, expresses its condolences to all family members and loved ones of those who lost their relatives and friends, and sympathizes with those who lost their homes and livelihoods.
This tragedy is especially difficult to endure without a spiritual understanding of it: the sheer number of victims instills horror and causes an acute sense of helplessness. Modern man tends to put his hopes in civilization’s technical achievements, often forgetting about God and his own human weakness in the face of the onslaught of the elements.
However, we know that nothing can happen without the will of God, which is why nobody should fall into utter despair and lose hope of His merciful assistance. Also, all of us are called to active love for our neighbours. In order to restore the normal flow of life after the rampage of the elements, many years and large sums of money will be necessary. Today, local residents, above all children and the elderly, urgently require the basic necessities – medicine, drinking water, food, clothing, tents, and other household items. Many countries, including Russia, immediately responded to the disaster, sending the necessary things into the areas devastated by the catastrophe.
We ask our countrymen – Orthodox Christians and all people of good will – to take part in helping the victims of all seven countries struck by the tsunami: Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia and Maldives. Let us remember the words of Jesus Christ, which He will pronounce at the Last Judgment: “For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me… Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me” (Mt. 25: 35-36, 40).
May the All-gracious Lord through His mercy help those who suffered to overcome all difficulties and sorrows, and richly reward those who contribute for their sympathy with their suffering neighbours.
Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad: Address at the Conference ‘Christianity and Europe: the Social Thought of the Russian Orthodox Church’, Bari, Italy, 20 December 2004
My task is very difficult, as for in short period of time I must tell you about the Foundations of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church and do this in the light of the problem of Christianity in Europe today. I shall not narrate the contents of the Concept even briefly, as its text is available in several European languages. I am confident that the majority of those present here know at least a little about its main ideas. I would like to present to you the experience of applying the Foundations to the analysis of the concrete present-day problems which both the West and the East of Europe encounter.
Before doing this, I would like to say some words about the reasons of the appearance of this document and about the process of its development. Indeed, it was quite a new phenomenon not only in the practice of the Russian Orthodox Church, but of universal Orthodoxy. It most certainly does not mean that the Orthodox Church had no views on social and political life before the Social Concept. Yet, towards the end of the 20th century the combined amount of different views within Orthodox community on the same questions reached a critical diversity. Hence the necessity of summarizing the Orthodox experience in social life. A serious catalyst for our work was the situation in which the Russian Orthodox Church has found itself in the end of the 20th century.
After Communist ideology had been renounced, favourable conditions were created for millions of people to come to the Church after the decades of suppression of religion. In the late 1980s-early 1990s the Orthodox community in the countries of the then Soviet Union was experiencing a real growth. The number of believers and those who were interested in Orthodoxy was rapidly increasing. New parishes were opened. To illustrate this, I will give you some figures, which show the dynamics. There were 7.000 parishes in the Russian Orthodox Church in 1988. This number was doubled by 1994, while at present we have some 21.000 parishes. People who joined them expected answers to many basic questions from the Church. They wanted to know how to believe in God and how to implement their faith in everyday life. So, the necessity of making the position of the Church on social problems more concentrated and systematized was dictated by pastoral needs.
The social and cultural context of the early 1990s also urged the Church to elaborate a document on the main social problems. As is known, revolutionary changes took place in Russia in 1991 and in 1993. The Church was drawn into the stormy current of social events. In 1991, when the putsch happened, the Church decided not to commemorate the civil authorities during Divine services. This happened for the first time after several decades of her loyalty to the Soviet state. In 1993 the authorities of the Moscow Patriarchate organized a process of negotiations between the opposing branches of power. However, these actions of the Church should have been explained not only by the wavering mood in society, but also by her own views based on Christian teaching. The situation in society in those years reached its zenith. Citizens split up into groups, which held opposite views. Naturally, many people wanted to find their advocate in the Church and to secure her support. However, the choice between this or that social and political force for reasons of the immediate benefit could not be a reliable criterion for determining the position of the Church. We are deeply convinced that the Church, while refusing to take sides in the political struggle, must have her own criteria of evaluating social life based on the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition. Certainly, these criteria can coincide with the position of a certain party, but cannot be determined by the political interests of this party.
So, it was apparent that the Church needed to generalize her thousand-year experience and apply it to the present-day problems in order to give the believers a clear notion of the standard of Christian life in the present-day society and at the same time to outline the contents of Christian identity in the world full of different competing ideologies and interests. That is why the Bishops’ Council of 1996 resolved to set up a working group to systematize the teaching of the Church in the field of church-state relations and relations with secular society. This group consisted of 26 persons and included church hierarchs, clergymen and laymen. Also involved in the work of the group were experts in different fields of knowledge. The Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate became the centre for the development of the Concept. The group held 30 working sessions throughout three years, and several major conferences were held to prepare the final version. The Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church adopted the Foundations of the Social Concept in 2000.
What is new in the situation in which the Russian Orthodox Church and other traditional religious communities have found themselves at present? If we try to give a concentrated formulation of the present-day challenge, I would say that this is a search of the adequate forms of the life of the Church in multicultural society with its tendency to be divided along horizontal and vertical lines. Moreover, this is not just an objective tendency of the Christian world at present. This tendency has a serious basis in humanitarian ideology, which sees a criterion of the present-day life in almost any human wish and expression of human will. In its ultimate expression this idea leads us believe in the saying that ‘there are as many opinions as there are people’, which imply different directions in politics, culture, religion, etc. That is why political, cultural and religious diversity is a sign and a fact of modern society. Besides, the correlation between national, political and religious levels of personal consciousness is changing. For instance, one person considers himself to be Orthodox, Russian and a communist, while another person regards himself as Orthodox, Ossetinian and a democrat. One can find a lot of such combinations in all societies.
Many believers ask a serious question: which line should they take in a modern pluralistic society? There are people in the Russian Orthodox Church, as maybe in any other traditional communities, who believe that the Church should choose a strategy of isolationism. At first glance, they are moved by good intentions. They stand for maintaining the purity of the Apostolic faith and its implementation in the life of the believers and propose different modes of behaviour. One is the withdrawal to cloistered communities, which break off all connections with the world not for the sake of being a spiritual mainstay of the world, as is the case with true monasticism, but in order to create a world of their own in opposition to the society they abandoned. Other people believe that the way out is in building up a state, which would defend the interests of the faith by compulsory methods.
The Foundations of the Social Concept present another strategy of the behaviour of Orthodox believers in the contemporary world. We recall that in the first chapter of the Concept that the Lord sent Christians to the world with the mission to transform it. Certainly, it is very difficult to preserve the purity of the Apostolic faith in a world full of temptations and different non-Christian views. Therefore, knowing the weakness of fallen human nature, the Lord Jesus Christ prays to God the Father to bestow grace to protect the believers from evil. Here are the remarkable words of His prayer before Crucifixion: ‘I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one…As thou didst sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world (Jn 17:15,18). God gives the believers not only the supernatural power in the face of the hostile powers of the world. He, and after Him the Apostles, gave very simple and clear instructions concerning the way of life, which can protect Christians from the negative influence of the world. The concept of ministry in its different manifestations should become a system-creating idea of the Christian way of life. The Concept says the following: ‘Life in the Church, to which every one is called, is continuous ministry to God and people. All the people of God are called to it. The members of the body of Christ, participating in common service, also fulfil their particular functions. Each is given a special gift to serve all. ‘As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same, one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God’ (1 Pet 4:10) (Concept, I.3).
There is an expression ‘Liturgy after Liturgy’ in present-day Orthodox theology. According to this view, a believer must live the life of the ministry to God, the service to God. When a Christian leaves church after uniting with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, his behaviour should be such that the Lord will not abandon him and will be always in communion with him. Thus the social actions of a believer are a continuation of his communion in prayer with God. This ministry always presupposes love and humility. If a man performs his ministry in a correct way, he will never resort to imposing his view on other people, but will profess his rightness and persuade them by his inner strength. Hence an important assertion of the Concept: ‘Without setting herself the direct task to have all converted to Orthodoxy as a condition for cooperation, the Church hopes that joint charity will lead its workers and people around them to the knowledge of the Truth, help them to preserve or restore faithfulness to the God-given moral norms and inspire them to seek peace, harmony and wellbeing – the conditions in which the Church can best fulfil her salvific work’ (Concept, I.4).
While elaborating the Social Concept, the Church based herself on the idea that the basic forms of personal and social life follow from the apparent needs of human nature and the needs connected with the provision of functioning of human life together. Therefore the Concept speaks of question of ethics, state, law, politics, economic activities, social problems, family, modern technologies, mass media, environment, culture, education, science, international relations and globalization. I have no time to speak about all these themes and shall touch upon only some of them.
Inter-ethnic relations are a serious problem in a pluralistic society. The so called new right-wing parties and movements began to build up their power in Western Europe in the 1980s and 1990s. That was largely connected with an increasing number of migrants from the poor countries of Asia and Africa who became residents in Europe. A serious problem of the integration of new citizens in European society appeared. On the wave of dissatisfaction with people who were bringing with them an unwonted culture to Europe, the real possibility of coming of the new right-wing parties to power appeared in such big countries as Austria and France in the late 20th-early 21st century. The collapse of the Soviet system has brought about a number of strong nationalistic movements in Eastern Europe. The countries of the former USSR have not escaped this tendency either. Nationalistic groups have appeared in the Russian milieu as well. As a rule, these movements have such common features as xenophobia and aggressiveness towards alien cultures. However, one should not consider this outburst of crude nationalism as a primitive phenomenon. This is a serious indicator of the necessity to develop one’s own national culture and make it stronger. The integration of new cultures should not lead to an erosion of one’s own culture and the identity of the European nations.
As is well known, a very close correlation between Orthodoxy and the Russian nation has been developed during many years of their existence. Orthodoxy was recognized as the highest national ideal of the Russian people. Therefore the Church has supported and preserved Russian culture and still defends that what is Christian in it. This kind of connection between national and religious ideals also exist in the European countries, such as France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Poland and some others. It should be emphasized that we do not talk here about the ethnic understanding of the national culture, which we take as a sum total of historical traditions, way of life and creative work characteristic of a certain geographic area within the state borders.
How should Christianity regard the problem of preserving national particular features? The Concept says that the Church supports and preserved culture as a model of concrete embodiment of Christian ideal: ‘The universal nature of the Church, however, does not mean that Christians should have no right to national identity and national self-expression' (Concept, II.2). The Church cannot support the anti-Christian features or manifestations in the nation. Unfortunately, in the countries, where the Russian Orthodox Church cares for her believers, the nationalistic groups, which propagate xenophobia, use symbols and pseudo-Orthodox rhetoric in order to attract more supporters. In addition, there were many attempts to involve the Russian Orthodox Church in such doubtful projects.
In the situation in which different national cultures in Europe intertwine with one another and come into collision, it is important to advocate a correct understanding of the phenomenon of the nation, to recognize its value and to support its development. A new quasi-national identity – the European identity – is being shaped in the European Union. We see that the question of its ideological foundations provokes heated arguments. For instance, the majority of Christian Churches in Europe protested against an attempt to mention in the first draft of the preamble of the Constitution of the European Union only the worldview trends of the Epoch of Enlightenment as a common European spiritual property. The Churches and several national governments spoke in favour of mentioning Christianity as a European heritage, which has played a leading role in the shaping of European civilization. I believe that this would have emphasized the civilizational, rather than religious self-determination of Europe and would not have disagreed with the principle of the freedom of conscience. Unfortunately, this voice has not been heard. However, I can note with satisfaction that in this case the position of the Russian Orthodox Church, which took an active part in the discussion of the European Constitution, coincided with the position of the overwhelming majority of the traditional Christian Churches of Europe. We defended our common views as a united front.
The relations between the Church and the state remain a serious problem. Even in the countries of West Europe with their established tradition of church-state relations, serious changes in the situation of religious communities are taking place. They want to find new ways of life and activity in society. In such countries, as Sweden and Norway, the national Churches have shed of the status of state church only recently. The matter is being widely discussed in Great Britain. Yet that does not mean that religious communities renounce their influence on public life in these countries, but rather shows their active search for more effective means of influence on society with the present situation taken into account. The situation of search and transition is particularly characteristic of the post-Soviet countries, in which the old system of church-state relations based on the state policy of atheism was completely dismantled.
However, the search for new forms of the presence of religion in the public sphere is seriously opposed not by an old enemy – state atheism – but by a militant humanistic liberalism often supported by the state and international structures. Regrettably, human rights interpreted humanistically are becoming its major ‘commandments’. We have clearly indicated in the Concept that the Russian Orthodox Church does not oppose human rights, but considers them an important political and cultural achievement as they are based ‘on the Biblical teaching on man as the image and likeness of God, as an ontologically free creature’ (Concept, IV.6). Yet, it is impossible to deny – I continue quoting – that ‘in the contemporary systematic understanding of civil human rights, man is treated not as the image of God, but as self-sufficient and self-sufficing subject’ (Concept, IV.7).
From where does humanistic liberalism draw its persistent strength? All people understand the simple truth that society cannot live without common values and at least a minimum of symbols that unite. The religious, cultural and national diversification of society poses serious difficulties for using, for instance, religious ethics in creating nationwide ideas. The adherents of the humanistic liberalism assert that it expresses the most universal things and unites people. This ideology is placed above all religious and other differences. From the point of view of pure speculations of mind this idea as such looks fine, but it can bring about a situation unacceptable to Christians if Christian teaching comes into collision with the values, which were declared highest. Examples of this collision can be found in the present-day Europe. I shall give you two of them. The first is the resolution of the European Parliament of 2003 concerning the admittance of women to the Holy Mount Athos. The second is known from the recent political chronicle of the European Union, which refused Mr. Buttillione the post of commissioner of the European Commission because he publicly called homosexualism a sin. So, humanistic liberalism is turning into a kind of quasi-religion. If you do not agree with its provisions, you may be publicly obstructed or even punished. This particular claim of the humanistic liberalism is unacceptable to the Church.
However, the Russian Orthodox Church does not call for the turning of Christian Churches into state churches again. Our task is not to impose our Christian project to replace the single universalistic project of humanistic liberalism with the help of the machinery of government. The Russian Church emphasizes that the state should not claim absolute value as it has a transitory character. It is said in the Concept that in case of absolutization of a certain ideology a situation of idolatry emerges. Christians can find themselves in such situations, when the existing norms force them to give preference to the system of values, which contradicts their doctrine. In case the state demands that Christians should respect the values or make actions, which run contrary to the Christian commandments, the Church has the right to call for civil disobedience. The Russian Church has said nothing new in this provision of the Concept, but expressed in modern terms the essence of the feat of numerous martyrs, who did not call for uprising, but endured suffering for their convictions to the point of death.
At the same time our Church declared in the Concept that the principle of the secular state is an important element of the contemporary political system, as it allows the preservation of the autonomy of the state and of religious organizations. Even so, the Concept insists on its functional understanding: ‘The principle of the secular state cannot be understood as implying that religion should be radically forced out of all the spheres of the people's life, that religious associations should be debarred from decision-making on socially significant problems and deprived of the right to evaluate the actions of the authorities. This principles presupposes only a certain division of domains between church and state and their non-interference into each other's affairs’ (Concept, III.3). The Church has known this kind of division from the time of Byzantium as a principle of symphony. Today, however, the state should build a symphony not only with the Orthodox Church, but also with other traditional religions as well in proportion to their representation and importance in society. The Church proposes to build a system of cooperation, which would demand mutual support in the realization of concrete projects in the following areas:
‘a) peacemaking on international, inter-ethnic and civic levels and promoting mutual understanding and co-operation among people, nations and states;
b) concern for the preservation of morality in society;
c) spiritual, cultural, moral and patriotic education and formation;
d) charity and the development of joint social programs;
e) preservation, restoration and development of the historical and cultural heritage, including concern for the preservation of historical and cultural monuments;
f) dialogue with governmental bodies of all branches and levels on issues important for the Church and society, including the development of appropriate laws, by-laws, instructions and decisions;
g) care of the military and law-enforcement workers and their spiritual and moral education;
h) efforts to prevent crime and care of prisoners;
i) science and research;
j) healthcare;
k) culture and arts;
l) work of ecclesiastical and secular mass media;
m) preservation of the environment;
n) economic activity for the benefit of the Church, state and society;
o) support for the institution of family, for motherhood and childhood;
p) opposition to the work of pseudo-religious structures presenting a threat to the individual and society. (Concept, III. 8)
It was important to the Church in the past to have close institutional relations with the state in order to exert influence on society, but as the state became more bureaucratic and its apparatus became more specialized in the function of management, it is important to build a more direct and transparent mechanism of cooperation with society in order to be able to convey the views of the Church to society. This concern has much to do with a tendency of imposing humanistic liberalism as an universal norm. The Church insists on the establishing of such a system of decision-making, which would take into account different alternative worldview tendencies depending on their authority in society. The Concept says the following about the actions of the Church along these lines: ‘While respecting the worldview of non-religious people and their right to influence social processes, the Church cannot favour a world order that puts in the centre of everything the human personality darkened by sin. This is why, invariably open to co-operation with people of non-religious convictions, the Church seeks to assert Christian values in the process of decision-making on the most important public issues both on national and international levels. (Concept, XVI.4).
The Church has something to say about the life of a modern man and society, for instance, about the family, education, culture, the development of biotechnology and the protection of the environment. The Church can reveal the positive contents of the values she professes and raise her prophetic voice against such dangerous phenomena as abortions, drug addiction, alcoholism, cloning, and the propagation of homosexualism and sexual promiscuity. When the Church defends her position, she often hears accusations of a new obscurantism, which impedes the development of science and free development of human personality and society. It is not a matter of defending truth private to the Church, but first and foremost it is her witness to the genuine harm, which the non-fulfillment of God’s commandments may bring about. It may be that the consequences of abortions, propagation of violence and moral promiscuity will not show at once, but with time they will grow into serious problems, which might destroy the human person and society. When the Church speaks against cloning we often hear that she goes against progress and the new methods of real help to the terminally ill patients. Some people try to prove to us that stem cells can be taken only from human embryos. But Russian scientists from the clinic of neurology at the Blokhin Oncological Centre in Moscow with Professor Andrei Brukhovetsky at the head have recently made a number of successful experiments on implanting the stem cells taken from nasopharyngeal mucous membrane into the injured spinal cord of a person. This is a real sensation and a hope that humanity will not descend into a new cannibalism in future.
The difficulty of the mission of the Church today is in that a modern man perceives rather sensitively even reasonable arguments if they are presented in a peremptory tone. Therefore representatives of the Church cannot speak in a moralizing didactic tone in public discussions. The Church should show the correctness of her assertions by her own life. That is why the Orthodox Church does not accept a restoration of any system, which requires the state to preserve Orthodoxy through compulsory measures. That is why the Church refuses a political method of defending her position. We have deliberately put into the Concept a norm of equal distancing of the Church from all political movements and her non-participation in political struggle, as that separates the believers and can not be a method of church actions compatible with her nature. The Church reserves the right to speak against those parties, which call their followers to actions that contradict Christian teaching. At the same time the Church calls believers to actively participate in political life of the country and to organize parties and movements acting on the basis of Orthodox ethics. A political party can be an instrument of making public positions based on Christian teaching. Even so, we believe that this is the business of laymen, rather then clergyman. Besides, such a party can reflect opinions of the representatives of other religion, because opinions of the traditional religious communities of many social problems coincide, as we know from our experience of interreligious dialogue.
The mass media today are an important instrument for informing society about the position of the Church. The Concept speaks about the necessity to establish and develop mass media of her own and about close cooperation with secular mass media. We understand that the main condition for increasing the presence of the Church in mass media is the development of a simple and comprehensible language in which the representatives of the Church could tell about their vision of topical problems to as wide an audience as possible, the majority of whom do not have even an elementary knowledge of theology.
In conclusion I would like to draw your attention to the following. The Concept was perceived up and written not as a message addressed to the believers of the Russian Orthodox Church exclusively. The task was to highlight out the major problems of the contemporary world, be they personal or public, and to give a Christian answer to them based on the thousand-year tradition of the Christian Church. The Social Concept is a focused expression of the experience of the Russian Orthodox Church in human society. This experience can be easily compared with a similar experience of Christians from other churches and that of representatives of the non-Christian religions. This experience gives a wide opportunity for dialogue between Russian Orthodoxy and other traditions. I shall be very interested to know the opinion of the renowned representatives of religious, political, scholarly and public circles of Italy about the Foundations of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Supervisory Committee and Academic Council of the Orthodox Theological Institute of Vienna are formed
The Supervisory Committee of the Vienna Theological Institute was formed at an inter-Orthodox meeting in Vienna on 21 December 2004. Representatives of state-registered Local Orthodox Churches became members of the committee: Metropolitan Michael of Austria (Patriarchate of Constantinople), Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria (Moscow Patriarchate), Bishop Constantine of Central Europe (Serbian Patriarchate), Archpriest Nicolae Dura (Romanian Patriarchate), and Archpriest Ivan Petkin (Bulgarian Patriarchate).
Additionally, the institute’s Academic Council, comprising professors of various theological subjects, was created. Priest Alexander Lapin (Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia) was chosen as its secretary.
It is foreseen that classes will be held at the institute one extended weekend per month. Each weekend will be dedicated to a certain theological discipline, after which students should work independently on their selected topics. Leading scholars and professors from different countries will be invited to teach, with German and English as the languages of instruction. Both men and women can study at the institute.
For additional information please write in English, German or Russian to Fr Alexander Lapin at: alexander.lapin@mail.com.
News in brief (21.12.2004 – 15.01.2005)
President of the Republic of Serbia Boris Tadic sends greetings to the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church
The President of Serbia, Boris Tadic, sent a letter of thanksgiving to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia for his hospitality and concern during the former’s visit to Russia in November 2004. Special mention was made of His Holiness’ understanding of the needs of the Serbian people and for his support for the Serbian people expressed at the charity event “Together with Serbia!”, which took place on 15 November 2004 in the Hall of Church Councils of the Christ the Saviour Cathedral. In his letter President Tadic named the defense of the holy places of Kosovo and Metochia “one of the most important common goals of two brotherly nations”.
His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia congratulates Mahmud Abbas on his election as Head of the Palestinian National Administration
On 12 January 2005 the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church sent a congratulatory letter to the newly-elected Head of the Palestinian National Administration Mahmud Abbas. His Holiness expressed his wishes that the efforts of the new Palestinian leader “open up wider perspectives for the peace process in the Middle East, for close contacts between nations and their cooperation for the common good”.
His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia heads festal Nativity services at the Christ the Saviour Cathedral
On 7 January 2005 His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia served the festal Nativity compline, matins and Divine Liturgy in the Christ the Saviour Cathedral. Concelebrating with the Patriarch were Archbishop Arseny of Istra and Bishop Alexander of Dmitrov. More than 3000 people, including senior government officials and foreign guests, attended the services, which were broadcast live on national television and through the internet. Before the beginning of the Liturgy, His Holiness expressed his hopes for peace, harmony and success for Russia and all humankind in 2005.
Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church visits the President of the Russian Federation
A meeting between the Russian President Vladimir Putin and His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia took place in the Kremlin on 6 January 2005 – Christmas Eve according to the Julian calendar. They exchanged both New Year’s and Christmas greetings, with the Head of State congratulating all Orthodox Christians of the country. The Patriarch also mentioned the opening of a special bank account to help the tsunami victims of Southeast Asia.
Over the period of 6 months more than four million Orthodox faithful have venerated the relics of martyrs Grand Duchess Elizabeth and nun Barbara
The holy relics of martyrs Grand Duchess Elizabeth and nun Barbara, brought to Russia in 2004 through the blessings of the first hierarchs of both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, have been displayed for veneration in more than 50 cities of Russia, Belarus and the Baltic States. More than four million faithful have venerated them during the past 6 months of their location on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. The reliquary containing them was made out of boards of the coffin in which their remains were brought from China to the Holy Land in the 1920s. On the last stage of their journey the relics will be brought to the faithful of the Central Asian States.
L’archevêque de Salzburg a visité la cathédrale orthodoxe russe de Vienne
Le 7 janvier 2005, pour la fête de la Nativité du Christ selon le calendrier julien, Mgr Alois Kothgasser, OSB, l’archevêque de Salzburg a visité la cathédrale orthodoxe russe de Vienne, où il a été reçu par l’évêque Hilarion de Vienne et d’Autriche, représentant de l’Église orthodoxe russe près les Institutions européennes. L’archevêque Gothgasser a assisté à la divine liturgie, célébrée par l’évêque Hilarion et les clercs de la cathédrale. Au nombre de ses hôtes ce jour-là la paroisse russe comptait également Dom Gregor Henckel-Donnersmarck, l’abbé de Heiligenkreuz.
A la fin de la liturgie l’évêque Hilarion a salué les invités du diocèse orthodoxe et les a remerciés pour le soutien qu’ils accordent à l’Église orthodoxe en Autriche. L’archevêque de Salzburg s’est chargé du financement des études et du séjour d’un jeune prêtre du diocèse orthodoxe russe d’Autriche, tandis que l’abbaye de Heiligenkreuz reçoit deux séminaristes d’Ivanovo (Russie). L’évêque Hilarion a insisté sur le besoin urgent de collaboration entre chrétiens pour la proclamation de l’évangile dans le monde contemporain: «Nous vivons à une époque où le témoignage commun sur le Christ est indispensable. C’est maintenant que nous devons unir nos efforts pour défendre le christianisme, car dans vingt, trente ou quarante ans ce pourra être trop tard».
Dans sa réponse l’archevêque de Salzburg a exprimé sa reconnaissance pour la possibilité de prendre part à la célébration orthodoxe de la fête de Noël. «L’Église orthodoxe, dit-il, possède une théologie, une liturgie et une spiritualité d’une profondeur extraordinaire. En Autriche et en Europe nous avons besoin du témoignage orthodoxe… Nous devons trouver des moyens de collaboration et du service commun du peuple de Dieu. Je prie tous les jours pour l’unité des chrétiens et espère sincèrement que nos Églises ne feront que se rapprocher. Je suis d’accord que c’est maintenant qu’il faut aspirer au rapprochement, avant que ce ne soit trop tard».
L’église orthodoxe russe Saint-Nicolas a été construite en 1899. Depuis 1946 elle est le siège d’un évêque russe. L’année dernière, également pour la fête de la Nativité du Seigneur, elle avait été visitée par le cardinal Christophe Schönborn, l’archevêque de Vienne.
Le comité de surveillance et le conseil scientifique de l’Institut de théologie orthodoxe de Vienne ont été créés
Le comité de surveillance de l’Institut de théologie orthodoxe de Vienne a été créé lors de la rencontre inter-orthodoxe qui s’est tenue à Vienne le 21 décembre 2004. Les membres du comité sont les représentants officiels des Églises orthodoxes en Autriche: le métropolite Michel d’Autriche (Patriarcat de Constantinople), l’évêque Hilarion de Vienne et d’Autriche (Patriarcat de Moscou), l’évêque Constantin (Patriarcat de Serbie), archiprêtre Nicolas Dura (Patriarcat de Roumanie), archiprêtre Ivan Petkin (Patriarcat de Bulgarie). Le conseil scientifique de l’Institut a été également institué. Le prêtre Alexandre Lapin (Église orthodoxe des territoires tchèques et de Slovaquie) en a été élu le secrétaire.
Il est prévu que les cours à l’Institut durent trois jours par mois, du vendredi soir au dimanche soir. Chaque week-end d’études sera consacré à une discipline théologique particulière; le reste du temps les étudiants seront invités à travailler le sujet proposé individuellement. Les cours seront dispensés par les professeurs et enseignants des divers pays qui seront invités par l’Institut. L’enseignement se fera en allemand et anglais.
Pour plus de renseignements contacter le prêtre Alexandre Lapin en russe, allemand ou anglais: alexander.lapin@mail.com.
La communauté russe de Biarritz a rejoint le Patriarcat de Moscou
Selon le site Internet du Mouvement pour l’Orthodoxie locale de tradition russe en Europe occidentale (OLTR, http://oltr.france-orthodoxe.net), l’assemblée générale extraordinaire de la paroisse de la Protection de la Mère de Dieu et de saint Alexandre Nevski de Biarritz, réunie le 26 décembre, a décidé de rejoindre l’Église orthodoxe russe.
L’église russe de Biarritz fut construite à l’initiative de l’empereur Alexandre III dans la dernière décennie du XIXe siècle. Elle était destinée aux nombreux Russes qui venaient passer leurs vacances d’été à Biarritz. Tchekhov, Blok, Nabokov, Ayvazovski figurent parmi les fidèles fréquentant cette église, construite dans le style néo-byzantin, typique de l’époque. Le grand-prince Michel Alexandrovitch a été le premier starosta de la paroisse.
En 1931, à l’instar des autres paroisses relevant du métropolite Euloge, l’église de Biarritz a rompu la communion avec le Patriarcat de Moscou et s’est placée ensuite sous la juridiction du Patriarcat de Constantinople. Le métropolite Euloge lui-même considérait ce changement de juridiction provisoire, en attendant le rétablissement de la liberté de l’Église orthodoxe russe et le changement de la conjoncture politique. C’est ainsi que s’est formé l’Archevêché des églises orthodoxes russes de France et d’Europe occidentale, aujourd’hui présidée par l’archevêque Gabriel de Comanes.
Le 1er avril 2003 le patriarche Alexis de Moscou et de toute la Russie a adressé à l’Archevêché des églises orthodoxes russes de France et d’Europe occidentale une lettre ouverte dans laquelle il invitait les pasteurs et les fidèles à réfléchir sur la manière dont les trois juridictions orthodoxes de tradition russe (Patriarcat de Moscou, l’Archevêché et l’Église russe hors frontières) peuvent retrouver l’unité. Le modèle proposé était la création d’une métropole autonome. La lettre du patriarche est demeurée sans réponse explicite et officielle de l’Archevêché, tandis que le processus de rapprochement entre l’Église russe hors frontières et le Patriarcat de Moscou est à son apogée.
La paroisse russe de Biarritz, relevant de l’Archevêché, présidée par le prêtre Georges Montjoch, a réagi positivement à la lettre patriarcale du 1er avril 2003. Le désaccord avec la position des autorités diocésaines sur la question a poussé l’assemblée paroissiale à prendre une décision propre et à rejoindre le Patriarcat de Moscou, en attendant d’être suivie par l’ensemble de l’Archevêché.
Das Oberhaupt der Erzdiözese Salzburg der Römisch Katholischen Kirche besuchte die Kathedrale zum hl. Nikolaus in Wien
Am 7. Jänner 2005, zum Fest Christi Geburt, besuchte der Erzbischof von Salzburg Dr. Alois Kothgasser, OSB, die Kathedrale zum hl. Nikolaus in Wien. Der hohe Gast wurde beim Eingang in die Kathedrale vom Wiener russisch-orthodoxen Bischof Hilarion begrüßt. Vor Beginn des Gottesdienstes besichtigte Erzbischof Kothgasser in Begleitung Bischof Hilarions die Kathedrale von außen und machte sich ein Bild von den Restaurationsarbeiten.
Danach ging der Erzbischof in die Kathedrale, wo er bei der Göttlichen Liturgie anwesend war, die Bischof Hilarion mit den Klerikern der Kathedrale zum hl. Nikolaus Erzpriester Chrysostomos Pijnenburg, Priester Radoslav Ristič, Erzdiakon Viktor Schilowsky und den Mönchsdiakonen German (Evseev) und Nikolaj (Pochilko) feierte. Beim Gottesdienst beteten auch der Vorsteher des Stiftes Heiligenkreuz Abt Prälat Dkfm. Mag. Gregor Henckel-Donnersmarck, OCist, und Univ.-Prof. DDr. Peter Leander Hofrichter, Professor der Universität Salzburg.
Nach der Liturgie wandte sich Bischof Hilarion mit einem Grußwort an die hohen Gäste, und dankte ihnen für die Unterstützung, die sie der Orthodoxen Kirche in Österreich zuteil werden lassen, und unterstrich, dass die Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Katholischen und der Orthodoxen Kirche in Europa für die Festigung der christlichen Werte im Angesicht des Säkularismus und des Atheismus unumgänglich ist: „Wir leben in einer Epoche, in der ein gemeinsames Zeugnis Christi besonders wichtig ist. Gerade jetzt müssen wir gemeinsam das Christentum verteidigen, das von allen Seiten von der säkularen Welt bedroht wird: in zwanzig, dreißig oder vierzig Jahren ist es vielleicht schon zu spät“.
In seiner Antwortrede dankte Erzbischof Kothgasser Bischof Hilarion für die Möglichkeit der Teilnahme am Fest Christi Geburt in der russisch-orthodoxen Kathedrale zum hl. Nikolaus in Wien. „Die Orthodoxe Kirche hat eine sehr tiefe Theologie, Liturgik und Spiritualität“, – unterstrich Erzbischof Kothgasser, „– wir in Österreich und in ganz Europa brauchen das orthodoxe Zeugnis von Gott, der Gottesmutter und der Erlösung; und wir müssen Wege der Zusammenarbeit und des gemeinsamen Dienstes am Volk Gottes finden. Ich bete jeden Tag für die Einheit der Christen und hoffe aufrichtig, dass unsere Kirchen einander immer näher kommen. Ich bin damit einverstanden, dass wir gerade jetzt versuchen sollten uns näher zu kommen bevor es nicht schon zu spät ist“.
Zur Erinnerung an den Besuch schenkte Bischof Hilarion Erzbischof Alois Kothgasser und dem Abt Gregor Henckel-Donnersmarck Ikonen des Erlösers und der Gottesmutter.
Nach dem Gottesdienst fand im Refektorium der Kathedrale ein Mittagsessen statt, bei dem das Oberhaupt der Römisch Katholischen Erzdiözese Salzburg und der Abt des Stiftes Heiligenkreuz die Möglichkeit zu einem Gespräch mit dem Klerus und der Gemeinde der Wiener und Österreichischen Diözese des Moskauer Patriarchats hatten.
Die Erzdiözese Salzburg ist die älteste Kirchenprovinz in Österreich. Zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt umfasst die Erzdiözese 208 Gemeinden in denen 370 Priester und 32 Diakone ihren Dienst versehen.
Großfürstin Elisaweta Feodorowna und die Martha-Maria-Schwesternschaft (III)
Nikolaus Thon
Martyrium und Neuanfang der Martha-Maria-Schwesternschaft
Die Arbeit der Martha-Maria-Schwestern beeindruckte viele Menschen, die ansonsten der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche eher reserviert gegenüberstanden, ob es sich nun um kritische Russen oder ausländische Besucher Moskaus handelte. Dennoch fiel der Konvent und seine Priorin der Religionsfeindlichkeit des Bolschewismus zum Opfer. Elisaweta Feodorowna lehnte 1917 alle Angebote ihrer deutschen Verwandten, sie ins sichere Ausland zu holen, ab. Kategorisch erklärte sie: »Ich habe niemandem etwas Böses getan. Gottes Wille geschehe.« In der Osterwoche 1918 wurde sie verhaftet und – zusammen mit zwei Schwestern und zahlreichen Mitgliedern der Kaiserlichen Familie – in ein kleines Uralstädtchen bei Ekaterinenburg gebracht. In der Nacht des 18. Juli 1918 wurden die Inhaftierten dort auf brutale Weise ermordet: Man warf sie lebendig in den Schacht einer alten Mine, wo sie unter Qualen zu Tode kamen. Ein Bauer – so wird berichtet — habe noch lange die ersterbenden Hymnen der Schwestern vernommen. Die später hier operierenden Soldaten der »Weißen Armee« bargen die Toten und brachten die Särge nach China. Von dort wurde der Leichnam Elisaweta Feodorownas nach Palästina überführt. Dort wurde die Großfürstin in der Kirche der Hlg. Maria Magdalena am Ölberg beigesetzt, dem Gotteshaus, das in ihrem Leben eine so große Rolle gespielt hatte.
1981 kanonisierte die Russische Orthodoxe Kirche im Ausland im Zusammenhang mit anderen Märtyrern der kommunistischen Ära Elisaweta Feodorowna, im Jahr 1992 wurde die Großfürstin und Gründerin der Martha-Maria-Schwesternschaft auch in ihrer Heimatkirche in Russland in die Schar der Heiligen der orthodoxen Kirche eingereiht. Die Erinnerung an die Großfürstin ist nicht nur in Russland lebendig: 1998 wurde in der Westminster Abtei in London im Kreis der Märtyrer des 20. Jahrhunderts auch eine Skulptur von Elisaweta Feodorowna enthüllt.
Die Schwestern in Moskau konnten nach 1918 noch einige Jahre – zuletzt unter der Leitung der Fürstin Golicyn – im Krankenhaus weiterarbeiten. 1928 musste jedoch die Arbeit des einst blühenden Konvents eingestellt werden. Nach dem Ende des kommunistischen Regimes freilich erwachte der Konvent zu neuem Leben. Durch Entscheid der Moskauer Stadtregierung und mit tatkräftiger Unterstützung von Bürgermeister I. M. Luschkow wurden 1992 die erhaltenen Gebäude des Stiftes an der Odrynka der neu zu gründenden Martha-Maria-Schwesternschaft übergeben. Die Auseinandersetzungen um Grundstück und Gebäude in zentraler Lage der Stadt zogen sich hin. Aber im Mai 1994 konnten die ersten Schwestern mit ihrer Leiterin Marija Iwanowna Krjutschkowa, einer ehemaligen Journalistin, die als Nonne heute den Namen Elisaweta trägt, wieder in das Kloster einziehen. Ihrer Energie vor allem ist es zu verdanken, dass das Gedenken an das segensreiche Wirken der russischen Großfürstin Elisaweta Feo-dorowna der Vergessenheit entrissen und ihre Idee zu neuem Leben auferstehen konnte.
1995 erteilte Patriarch Aleksij II. seinen Segen für die offizielle Wiedereröffnung des Stiftes. Zur gleichen Zeit wurde auch das Waisenhaus für zehn Mädchen neu eröffnet. Genauso wie vor der Revolution beschäftigen sich auch heute die Martha-Maria-Schwestern mit sozialer Tätigkeit, die jetzt professionell gestaltet wird.
Die Schwesternschaft besitzt ein Ausbildungszentrum für Medizin und Pharmazeutik, das auf der Basis entsprechender staatlicher medizinischer Schulen arbeitet. Die Aufgabe des Zentrums ist es, den Auszubildenden auch geistige Qualitäten und Fähigkeiten zu vermitteln, die es erlauben, ihnen die hohe Würde einer barmherzigen Schwester zu verleihen. Aus diesem Grund werden in dieser Schule außer medizinischen Grundfächern auch spezielle Kurse über die geistlichen Grundlagen der Barmherzigkeit sowie theologische Themen angeboten. Die Studentinnen erhalten auch Unterricht im Kirchengesang.
Bei der Auswahl der Kandidatinnen bemühen sich die Schwestern, in erster Linie solchen orthodoxen Frauen zur Ausbildung zu verhelfen, die über keine eigenen Mittel verfügen. Die Studentinnen werden vom Stift voll versorgt, sie erhalten also Unterkunft, Verpflegung und einen Fahrausweis für öffentliche Verkehrsmittel. Zur Zeit werden im Zentrum 45 junge Frauen aus verschiedenen Bistümern der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche ausgebildet.
Diese Ausbildungstätigkeit der Schwesternschaft wird jetzt auf ganz Russland ausgeweitet. Das Stift arbeitet bei der Vorbereitung und Ausbildung von Schwestern mit den Schwesternschaften in Sankt Petersburg, Wladikaw-kas, Joschkar-Ola, Pjatigorsk, Tscheboksary, Rostow am Don, Nabereshnyje Tschelny, Schachty und Iwanowo zusammen. Auf entsprechende Bitten hin bildet das Stift auch Schwestern aus Riga/Lettland aus. Zusätzlich zur Zusammenarbeit mit anderen Schwesternschaften eröffnete das Martha-Maria-Stift eine Zweigstelle in Orel; die Eröffnung von Zweigstellen in Twer und Ekaterinenburg ist geplant.
Die Martha-Maria-Schwesternschaft verfügt in Moskau über einen eigenen Pflegedienst, in dem heute 100 Schwestern tätig sind. Sie arbeiten in Krankenhäusern und Altenheimen, sie machen Hausbesuche und begleiten Sterbende. In ihren Gebeten halten sie die Erinnerung wach an die Gründerin des Konvents, die heilige ehrwürdige Fürstin Elisaweta Fjodorowna. Die Vorsteherin der Schwesternschaft, Marija Iwanowna Krjutschkowa, sagt: »Elisaweta Fjodorowna, eine geborene Prinzessin von Hessen und Enkelin der englischen Königin Victoria, die Russland von ganzem Herzen geliebt hat und den Märtyrertod durch die Hand der Revolutionäre gefunden hat, wartet auf unsere Buße«.
Aus dem Buch: Hinhören und hinsehen. Beziehungen zwischen der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland. Leipzig–Moskau, 2003.