In English:
Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria: The Orthodox Understanding of Primacy and Catholicity
Fourth Working Meeting between the Commissions of Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Outside of Russia

En français:
Le IX concile panrusse
Quatrième réunion des commissions du Patriarcat de Moscou et de l’Église russe hors frontières
Nouvelles en bref

Auf Deutsch:
Bischof Hilarion von Wien und Österreich: Die „Grundlagen der sozialen Konzeption“ und das „Kompendium der Soziallehre der Kirche“ über die politische Bedeutung der Kirche

  
Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria: The Orthodox Understanding of Primacy and Catholicity

Paper read at the meeting of the theological commission of the Swiss Bishops' Conference in Basel, 24 January 2005

In the Orthodox tradition the theme of primacy is closely connected with that of church authority, which, in its turn, is for the Orthodox theologian indivisible from the idea of ‘catholicity’ or ‘conciliarity.’

As is well known, for various historical reasons the Orthodox Church never had and to this very day does not have a unified administrative and governing structure. Among the primates of the Local Orthodox Churches the Patriarch of Constantinople is recognized as the ‘first among equals,’ who has borne the title ‘Ecumenical’ since Byzantine times. However, neither this title nor the pre-eminence of honour　accorded to him give the Patriarch of Constantinople any jurisdictional rights outside the boundaries of his own patriarchate.

The primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople took form gradually. Decisive events in its genesis were the elevation of Constantinople to the capital of the empire and the granting of the status of ‘New Rome’ in the fourth century, as well as the division of the Churches in the eleventh century. The Second Ecumenical Council (381) in its third canon decreed: ‘The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, since this city is the New Rome.’ The Fourth Ecumenical Council (451) indicated the following motivation for this decision: ‘The fathers properly gave preference to the see of the Ancient Rome since this was the imperial capital. For the same reasons the 150 holy bishops also granted equal privileges to the most holy see of the New Rome, rightly judging that the city that received the honour of being the city of the emperor and the senate and having equal privileges with the Ancient Rome should also be elevated in church matters, just as the former was, and that it might be second after it.’ Thus, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was viewed by the Eastern Fathers not as something conditioned by the succession of this bishop from Apostle Peter, but as based upon the political significance of Rome as the capital of the empire. In exactly the same way the privileges of the see of Constantinople were based not on its ancientness (the sees of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch were more ancient) or any ecclesiastical grounds, but exclusively on the political significance of Constantinople as the ‘city of the emperor and the senate.’

However, after the unity between the Western and Eastern Churches was disrupted in the eleventh century, the pre-eminence of honour among the Orthodox Churches went over, as it were, automatically to the Patriarch of Constantinople. This primacy was kept even after Constantinople ceased to be the ‘city of the emperor and the senate’ in the middle of the 15th century and the Byzantine Empire ceased to exist. During the reign of the Ottoman Empire the Patriarch of Constantinople enjoyed privileges as the ‘ethnarchos’ of the Greek nation and in fact headed the entire Orthodox population of this empire. However, his authority did not extend beyond the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire. The formation of nation states in the 19th and 20th centuries in territories that were formerly under the Turks led to the emergence of new autocephalous Churches outside the jurisdiction of Constantinople.

At present there are 15 Local Orthodox Churches, each of which is fully independent in questions of internal governance and is in no way subject to Constantinople. This structure of governance gives rise to an entire array of inconveniences, one of which is the absence of a supreme arbiter in cases when differences or conflict arise over ecclesiastical questions between two or more Local Churches. In the Orthodox tradition there is no mechanism to guarantee the resolution of such differences. Therefore in each concrete case questions are solved differently: sometimes inter-Orthodox consultations are convened, the decisions of which, however, have only a consultative character and are not binding for the Local Churches; in other cases two Churches in conflict seek solutions through bilateral negotiations or invite a mediator.

Another inconvenience caused by the absence of a single administrative system of governance in the Orthodox Church is the impossibility of resolving the question of the pastoral care of the so-called ‘diaspora.’ The essence of the problem can be explained thus: since the 1920s the Patriarchate of Constantinople has laid claims to the right of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over those countries which do not belong to the Orthodox tradition, while other Local Churches continue to have their diasporas in Europe, the USA and in other continents and do not intend to give them up. As a result in certain European cities, for example, there are several Orthodox bishops, each of whom takes care of the flock of his own Local Church. The question of pastoral care of the diaspora can be resolved only by a Pan-Orthodox Council. Preparations for such a Council were made rather intensively over the course of 30 years (beginning with the 1960s and continuing until the beginning of the 1990s), but at the current time they have been stopped due to differences between Churches over the status and agenda of this Council.

Thus, in the Orthodox Church there is no world-wide, external mechanism to guarantee conciliarity, there is no external authority – neither one person nor in the form of a collegial organ – to guarantee the unity of the Church in ecclesiastical questions. This, however, does not mean that catholicity in the Orthodox Church exists only in theory. In practice catholicity at the inter-Orthodox level is expressed, firstly, by the fact that all Local Orthodox Churches are in full Eucharistic communion with each other. Secondly, Orthodox Churches are concerned to maintain the unity of doctrine, for which inter-Orthodox consultations are convened in case of need. Thirdly, the primates or official representatives of Churches meet with each other from time to time to discuss important questions, or exchange official letters. Thus, even in the absence of a Pan-Orthodox Council the Orthodox Church world-wide maintains its character of catholicity, in spite of the absence of clear mechanisms to guarantee this conciliarity.

Generally speaking, in the Orthodox tradition the idea of catholicity is much more organically connected with the idea of the local Church (here we use the term ‘local Church’ in order to avoid terminological confusion caused by the use of the term ‘Local Church,’ which, in its current usage, has a different meaning: cf. the explanation of this below) than with the idea of the Ecumenical Church as the totality of local Churches. Originally the Church of Christ was the community of Christ’s disciples in Jerusalem: this was the very one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church which possessed the fullness of catholicity and conciliarity. Already in the first century Christian communities began to appear outside of Jerusalem, and each local community was viewed not as part of the Ecumenical Church, but as the very ‘catholic’ Church in all its fullness. The guarantee of the catholicity of each local Church, i.e. the Church of each concrete region, was the presence in it of a single Eucharistic gathering headed by the bishop as the chosen head of God’s people.

It is precisely this kind of ecclesiology that is characteristic for the early Church Fathers, including St. Ignatius of Antioch. In his epistles Ignatius untiringly stresses the supreme role of the bishop as the head of the Eucharistic gathering, asserting that ‘one should view the bishop as the Lord Himself’ (Eph. 6). Everything in the Church should be done with the knowledge of the bishop: ‘Without the bishop nobody should do anything that concerns the Church. Only the Eucharist served by the bishop or by those whom he himself authorizes should be considered true… Without the bishop it is not permissible either to baptize or serve the meal of love; on the contrary, whatever he approves of is pleasing to God’ (Smyrn. 8). And further: ‘He who honours the bishop is honoured by God; he who does something without the knowledge of the bishop serves the devil’ (Smyrn. 9). Ignatius constantly underscores the necessity of the unity of presbyters and deacons with their bishop: ‘The bishop presides in God’s place, the presbyters occupy the place of the council of Apostles, and the deacons are entrusted with the service of Jesus Christ’ (Magn. 6); ‘The presbytery is in harmony with the bishop like the strings of a zither’ (Eph. 4). God’s people, according to Ignatius, should ‘honour the deacons as a commandment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, Son of God the Father, and the presbyters as God’s gathering, as the choir of Apostles’ (Tral. 3). This ecclesiology brings Ignatius to the following classical formula: ‘Wherever the bishop shall be, there let also the people be, just as wherever Christ is, there is the catholic Church’ (Smyrn. 8).

The supreme role of the bishop, according to the teaching of the early Fathers, is due to the fact that he occupies the place of Christ in the Eucharistic gathering. It is this understanding that explains the fact that the so-called monarchic episcopate – one bishop in each Eucharistic community or Church – became generally accepted in the ancient Church. Being the single leader of the Church of a given locality, the bishop nevertheless governs the Church not single-handedly, but in conjunction with the presbyters and deacons. The bishop does not possess ecclesiastical power or authority by himself, due to his ordination to the episcopate: he is a member of the local church community which entrusted him with this service. Outside the church community the bishop’s ministry loses its meaning and efficacy.

Within the local Church the primacy of the bishop is unconditional and uncontested. For the Orthodox tradition, founded both on the theological legacy of the Fathers of the ancient Church (such as St. Cyprian of Carthage), as well as on later polemical writings of Byzantine theologians, each bishop, and not only the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of Apostle Peter. Barlaam of Calabria, an important Byzantine theologian of the 14th century (who, incidentally, ended his life in the Catholic Church), writes: ‘Each Orthodox bishop is the vicar of Christ and the successor of the apostles, so that if all bishops of the world were to apostasize from the true faith and only one were to remain the keeper of the correct dogmas… the faith of the divine Peter would be saved in him.’ He further writes: ‘The bishops ordained by Peter are the successors not only of Peter, but also of the other Apostles; to the same degree bishops ordained by others are the successors of Peter.’

The promise given to Peter, according to this viewpoint, extends not only to the Roman Church, but also to all local Churches headed bishops: ‘you have made Peter into the teacher of only Rome’, an anonymous author of a Byzantine anti-Latin treatise writes, ‘while the divine Fathers interpret the promise given to him by the Saviour as having a catholic meaning and concerning all believers past and present. You attempt to give it a false and narrow interpretation, applying it only to Rome. It then becomes impossible to understand how not only the Roman Church, but all Churches have a Saviour and how their foundations rest on the Stone, i.e. on the confession of Peter, according to the promise.’

How does the catholicity of a local Church relate to the catholicity of the Church throughout the world? Protopresbyter John Meyendorff defines this relationship in the following manner: ‘The idea of the local Church headed by the bishop, who is usually chosen by the entire Church but is invested with the charismatic and apostolic functions as the successor of Peter, is the doctrinal foundation of catholicity as it entered the Church from the third century. For the Eucharistic ecclesiology assumes that each local Church, although possessing the fullness of catholicity, is always in unity and concord with all the other Churches, which also have part in this catholicity. The bishops not only bear moral responsibility for this community: they participate in the one episcopal ministry… Each bishop fulfils his service together with other bishops, since it is equivalent with that of the others and since the Church is one.’ As St. Cyprian of Carthage writes: ‘The episcopate is one, and each of the bishops fully participates in it.’

Everything mentioned above about the ‘local Church’ relates to the ecclesiastical unit which is nowadays called a ‘diocese,’ i.e. a Church of one region (country, territory) headed by one bishop. In modern Orthodox parlance the idea of the ‘Local Church’ has come to signify larger church entities – groups of dioceses united into Patriarchates, metropolites or archdioceses. At this level the principle of primacy gives way to collegial forms of government. In practice this means that the primate of a Local Church is the ‘first among equals’ among the bishops of his Church: he does not interfere in the internal affairs of the dioceses and does not have direct jurisdiction over them, although he is granted some coordinating functions in questions that exceed the competence of the individual diocesan bishops.

Although the rights and duties of the primate vary in different Local Churches, there is not a single Local Church that accords him supreme authority, for it is the council that has always been the final authority. For example, in the Russian Orthodox Church dogmatic authority is granted to the Local Council, in which not only bishops, but also clergy, monastics and laity participate, while the highest form of hierarchical government is the Bishops’ Council. As for the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, he governs the Church in cooperation with the Holy Synod during periods between councils, and his name is commemorated in all dioceses before the name of the ruling bishop. In the Orthodox Church of Greece there is no Local Council that includes the participation of laity: the final authority rests with the Bishops’ Synod, chaired by the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece. At church services, however, only the Synod, and not the Archbishop, is commemorated.

The unification of local Churches into larger ecclesiastical units goes back to the 3rd and 4th centuries and is reflected in the canon law of the Orthodox Church. The 34th Apostolic canon states: ‘The bishops of all peoples should know the first among them and recognize him as the head, and do nothing that exceeds their authority without his consideration. Each should carry out only that which relates to his own diocese and to areas belonging to it. But the first among them should also do nothing without the consideration of all.’ The fourth canon of the First Ecumenical Council (325) prescribes that the ordination of bishops be carried out by all, or at least three, bishops of the given area, while the confirmation and approval of these ordinations are subject to the metropolitan.

Thus, already in the fourth century we can make out a system in which each bishop possesses the fullness of hierarchical authority inside his own ecclesiastical territory (diocese). However, they should consult with other bishops through the first among them – the metropolitan – in all matters that exceed their competence. The metropolitan, who is ordained by a number of bishops (normally, by all bishops of the region), is equal to other bishops in that he governs his diocese, where (and only where) he possesses the fullness of episcopal authority. At the same time he exercises certain authority over the other bishops of the metropoly in all matters that exceed the ecclesiastical authority of the latter. The metropolitan may not interfere in the internal affairs of the dioceses, but guarantees unity between them and resolves disputes. He does all this, however, not single-handedly, but in conjunction with the other bishops. This is exactly how the principle of conciliarity is realized in practice within the framework of a metropoly.

In the age of the First Ecumenical Council there existed several church territories that enjoyed the rights of metropolies. For example, the 6th canon of this council mentions the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch as having, along with the Bishop of Rome, authority over the bishops of their regions, while the 7th canon grants the same power to the bishop of Jerusalem. (During this period there existed other metropolies as well, e.g. those of Ephesus, Caesarea in Cappadocia, Heraklia, Milan, and Carthage, but later on their significance would weaken). After Constantinople was declared capital of the Eastern Empire, the bishop of Constantinople received the dignity of metropolitan, and was granted second place after the Bishop of Rome, as we already mentioned. It was later that he was accorded the title of ‘Patriarch.’ At the end of the first millennium the idea of the ‘pentarchy’ was developed in Byzantine theology, according to which the Ecumenical Church is headed by five Patriarchs – those of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. It is these Churches, as well as those which arose later on, that are called ‘Local’ or autocephalous in the Orthodox tradition.

It is known that serious differences between the East and the West in the understanding of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome arose already in the age of the Ecumenical Councils. In the West, the tendency that gradually led to the recognition of the Bishop of Rome as the pontifex maximus of the Ecumenical Church possessing the right to ratify the decisions of its councils, gained in strength. In the East the pope of Rome was seen as the primate of the Local Roman Church and the primus inter pares, reflecting the view that the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils did not require his confirmation. Many scholarly works have been published on this subject, and we do not need to elaborate on this issue. Nevertheless, it would be appropriate to at least give a general outline of the framework in which the primacy of the Bishop of Rome might be acknowledged by the Orthodox Churches should the Christians of the East and West unite into one Church.

First of all, the recognition of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome must be preceded by the restoration of the unity of faith, the unity of the dogmatic tradition of the ancient undivided Church. ‘We should not contradict the Latins,’ wrote St. Simeon of Thessalonica in the 15th century, ‘when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. But only let them show that he is true to the faith of Peter and his successors; then let him have all the privileges of Peter, let him be first, the head of all and the supreme hierarch… Only let him be faithful to the Orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agathon, Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we too shall call him apostolic father and the first among hierarchs; then we will be under his authority not only as under Peter, but the very Saviour Himself’ (PG 145, 120 AC). The path to restoring the unity of faith thus lies in bilateral dialogue between theologians of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Orthodox are of the opinion that in this dialogue the Catholics must prove that their faith is identical to that of the ancient undivided Church.

The question of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the bishops of the Orthodox Churches in the case of the restoration of unity should also be decided within the framework of an Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. It would be irresponsible now to attempt to anticipate the results of this dialogue. The words of Simeon of Thessalonica quoted above even witness to, as it were, the readiness of the Orthodox to place themselves under the authority of the Bishop of Rome should the unity of faith be restored. However, it seems more plausible that the Orthodox Patriarchs will agree to accept only the ‘primacy of honour,’ and not the primacy of jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. It seems that the Orthodox would not object to the Bishop of Rome enjoying the privileges of the ‘first among equals’ just as he did in ancient times and, perhaps, even fulfilling certain coordinating functions within the Ecumenical Church. However, they would hardly recognize the pope as the one head of world Christianity, which would contradict the centuries-long theological tradition of the Eastern Church.

The dogma of the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra in doctrinal questions is unacceptable for the Orthodox consciousness. This dogma of the First Vatican Council, in the opinion of the Orthodox, places the pope over the Church, for it states that the resolutions of the pope are not subject to changes ‘due to the power inherent in them and independent of the acceptance by the Church.’ In the Orthodox Church no bishop, including the primates of the Local Churches, possesses infallibility ‘independent of the acceptance of the Church’: it is precisely the acceptance by the Church that serves as the guarantor of truth and the main instrument of catholicity.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the question of primacy within the Ecumenical Church has not been solved even within world Orthodoxy, a fact which makes the discussion of this subject between the Orthodox and Catholics significantly more difficult. All the Orthodox agree that in the Orthodox Church there is no single head on a world-wide scale, no single supreme high priest. However, the Orthodox disagree in their understanding of the primacy and the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople. It is evident that a serious and responsible discussion of the theme of primacy at an inter-Orthodox level must precede theological dialogue over this topic between Orthodox and Catholics. Otherwise the Orthodox will not be able to express a unified point of view, which would inevitably bring the dialogue to a dead-end.

Summarizing that which was said about the relationship between primacy and catholicity in the Orthodox Church, it seems possible to assert that the principle of primacy in the Orthodox tradition is expressed most fully at the level of the single diocese, in which supreme authority rests with the bishop, who governs the diocese in conjunction with the clergy and laity. The principle of catholicity, on the contrary, is expressed most fully at the level of the Local Church, governed by a council of bishops headed by the primate chosen by this council. At the pan-Orthodox level the principle of primacy has not yet been wholly clarified, while the principle of catholicity exists without any stable mechanisms of its practical realization. Given such a decentralized structure of governance, some Catholics might see as a miracle the fact that the Orthodox Church continues to maintain the ‘unity of the spirit in the bond of peace’ (Eph. 4:3), and has not broken up into numerous independent ecclesiastical units having no communion with each other.

In the Roman Catholic Church, on the contrary, the principle of primacy finds its fullest expression in the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, whose jurisdiction extends to all subsections of this Church without exception: the canonical authority of all other bishops is derived from the authority of the pope as the successor of Peter. If the council is the highest organ of authority in the Orthodox tradition, to which all bishops without exception are subject, and infallibility is ascribed to the entire fullness of the Church, in the Catholic tradition the pope stands above the council, and it is he – independent of councils and even, as it were, independent of the Church itself – who possesses infallibility. For many Orthodox it may seem paradoxical and inexplicable that bishops’ councils continue to be convened in the Catholic Church in spite of the complete centralization of power and its concentration in the hands of one person.

The extent of the compatibility of the two ecclesiological models outlined above can be revealed only by a full-fledged dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches on the question of the primacy. However, such a dialogue requires careful preparation, demanding serious theological efforts from both the Catholic and Orthodox sides. It is to be hoped that such efforts will be undertaken and that the dialogue will take place.

Translated from Russian by William Bush

Fourth Working Meeting between the Commissions of Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Outside of Russia

The Fourth Working Meeting between the Moscow Patriarchate Commission on Dialogue with the Russian Church Outside of Russia and the ROCOR Commission on Discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate took place in the environs of Paris on 2-4 March 2005. The sessions, which were accompanied by common prayers, were held in the atmosphere of brotherly love. The discussions were frank and open, and the participants were sincere in their aspiration to overcome divisions.

Taking part in the meeting on behalf of the Moscow Patriarchate were Chairman of the Commission Archbishop Innokenty of Korsun, Archbishop Yevgeny of Vereya, Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov) and secretary of the Commission Archpriest Nikolai Balashov. Taking part in the meeting on behalf of the Russian Church Outside of Russia were Chairman of the Commission Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, Bishop Ambrose of Vevey, Archimandrite Luke (Murjanka), Archpriest Nicholas Artemov and secretary of the Commission Archpriest Alexander Lebedev.

The participants continued their work on the documents, which show common vision of the tragic destiny of the Russian Church in the 20th century, Church-State relations, canonical status of the Russian Church Outside of Russia as a self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church and canonical conditions for the restoration of full communion.

In the beginning of their common work the members of the Commissions decided that the documents, which they compile and which are approved by the authorities of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Outside of Russia would be published when the process of talks is completed. However, proceeding from pastoral expediency, it was considered useful to publish the agreed materials earlier. The members of the Commissions believe that the documents elaborated at the present session could be published after the approval by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Outside of Russia. Also published could be the earlier prepared documents of the Commissions, which have already been approved by the authorities of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Outside of Russia.

Discussed at the meeting were also other questions of the process of the restoration of the unity.

The next meeting of the Commissions is scheduled for the summer of 2005.

DECR Communication Service (http://www.mospat.ru)
  
   
Le IX concile panrusse

Le IX concile panrusse s’est réuni à Moscou le 9 et le 10 mars 2005. Étant une initiative de l’Église orthodoxe russe, ce concile n’est cependant pas une assemblée purement ecclésiale, mais un forum qui réunit des représentants de toutes les religions de Russie, des autorités civiles, des universitaires, des diplomates et des artistes. Le concile a été présidé par le patriarche Alexis de Moscou et de toute la Russie et était intitulé «L’unité des peuples, la consolidation des hommes comme gages de la victoire contre le fascisme et le terrorisme».

Le concile a réuni cette année plus de 2000 participants dont un grand nombre venant de l’étranger. La première assemblée plénière s’est tenue à la cathédrale du Christ Sauveur. Elle a été ouverte par le vice-président du concile et le président de l’Union des écrivains de Russie, V. N. Ganitchev. Cette première session a compté les exposés du ministre des affaires étrangères de Russie S. Lavrov, du métropolite Cyrille de Smolensk et de Kaliningrad, vice-président du concile, du primat de l’Église vieille-croyante russe le métropolite Adrien, du président de la Direction spirituelle centrale des musulmans de Russie, T. Tadjudin, du vice-président du Synode de l’Église russe hors-frontières le métropolite Marc de Berlin et d’Allemagne, du grand rabbin de Russie A. S. Chaievitch, du secrétaire général du Parti communiste G. A. Ziouganov et d’autres personnalités du monde religieux, politique et intellectuel.

Le deuxième jour les participants du concile se sont répartis en plusieurs sections: «Les fondements spirituels et éthiques de la victoire sur le fascisme, le terrorisme, le racisme et le séparatisme», «La vérité historique de la victoire de 1945», «La jeunesse et l’héritage de la victoire de 1945», «L’Église, l’armée et le peuple», «Les menaces actuelles du monde et de la sécurité». Cette dernière section a été présidée par le métropolite Cyrille de Smolensk qui a insisté dans son discours sur la nécessité pour la société russe de dépasser les divisions idéologiques internes.

Le travail de la section «Les fondements spirituels et éthiques de la victoire sur le fascisme, le terrorisme, le racisme et le séparatisme» a été dirigé par l’évêque Théophane de Stavropol et de Vladikavkaz qui a abordé tout particulièrement le problème du terrorisme dans le Caucase du Nord.

La réunion de la section «La jeunesse et l’héritage de la victoire de 1945» s’est tenue à l’Université des Sciences humaines de Moscou. Elle comptait plus de 500 participants venus de 37 villes de Russie, en particulier, des étudiants des plus importantes universités russes et des vétérans de la guerre de 1941-1945.

Le travail de la section «L’Église, l’armée et le peuple» s’est déroulé à l’Académie de l’administration centrale des forces armées de la Fédération de Russie, tandis que celui de la section «La vérité historique de la victoire de 1945», au siège de l’Union des écrivains de Russie.

A l’assemblée plénière de clôture qui s’est tenue au monastère Danilov de Moscou les participants du concile ont adopté un message dans lequel ils ont appelé à garder un souvenir vivant de la victoire sur le fascisme et du rôle primordial qui y avait été joué par l’armée soviétique. «L’expérience de cette guerre a montré que la victoire n’a été atteinte que grâce à une union sas précédent entre le pouvoir civil, l’armée, le peuple, les hommes de toutes les nationalités, de toutes les religions, par l’union des armes spirituelles et matérielles». Le concile a reconnu que les temps que vit actuellement la Russie sont difficiles et a appelé tous les citoyens russes à «renouveler en leur âme la foi, l’idéal éthique, le désir de vivre non pour l’argent, le plaisir et le divertissement, mais pour le bien des prochains et du pays».
  
  
Quatrième réunion des commissions du Patriarcat de Moscou et de l’Église russe hors frontières

La quatrième assemblée des commissions du Patriarcat de Moscou et de l’Église russe hors frontières a eu lieu du 2 au 4 mars 2005 dans les environs de Paris. La réunion était accompagnée de la prière commune et a poursuivi le travail sur les documents qui présentent la vision commune des évènements du XX siècle, douloureux pour les deux Églises, le statut canonique de l’Église russe hors frontières en tant que partie autonome de l’Église orthodoxe russe et les conditions pour le rétablissement de la communion eucharistique.

Le Patriarcat de Moscou y a été représenté par l’archevêque Innocent de Chersonèse, ordinaire des paroisses russes de France et président de la commission de l’Église orthodoxe russe pour le dialogue avec l’Église russe hors frontières, par l’archevêque Eugène de Vereia, recteur de l’Académie de théologie de Moscou, le prêtre Vladislav Tsypin, l’archimandrite Tikhon (Chevkounov) et le prêtre Nicolas Balachov. La délégation de l’Église russe hors frontières comptait l’archevêque Marc de Berlin et d’Allemagne, l’évêque Ambroise de Veveia, l’archimandrite Luc (Mourianka), le prêtre Alexandre Lebedev et le prêtre Nicolas Artemov.
  
  
Nouvelles en bref

Le recteur de l’Académie de théologie de Moscou a visité l’Institut Saint-Serge de Paris
Le 1er mars 2005 l’archevêque Eugène de Vereia, recteur de l’Académie de théologie de Moscou et président de la Commission synodale pour la formation ecclésiastique, a visité l’Institut de théologie orthodoxe Saint-Serge de Paris. L’archevêque Eugène s’est rendu à Paris pour participer à la quatrième rencontre entre les délégations du Patriarcat de Moscou et l’Église russe hors frontières. Le recteur de l’Académie de Moscou s’est entretenu avec la direction de l’Institut Saint-Serge sur les perspectives de la collaboration dans le domaine de l’étude de l’héritage religieux et philosophique de l’émigration russe. Il a été relevé que ces dernières années les contacts entre l’Académie et l’Institut se sont multupliés et les visites mutuelles des enseignants des deux écoles sont devenues plus fréquentes.

L’accord entre le Patriarcat de Moscou et l’Église russe hors frontières au sujet de la construction d’un monastère et d’un centre de réhabilitation à Beslan
Le 10 mars 2005 l’évêque Théophane de Stavropol et l’archevêque Marc de Berlin et d’Allemagne ont signé un accord sur le projet commun de la construction d’un monastère féminin à Beslan, en Ossétie du Nord. Un centre thérapeutique sera créé auprès du monastère par la suite.

Réunion consacrée aux perspectives du dialogue théologique entre les Églises orthodoxes et pré-chalcédoniennes
La réunion entre les représentants des Églises orthodoxes et pré-chalcédoniennes, consacrée aux perspectives du dialogue théologique, a eu lieu à Chambésy du 10 au 13 mars 2005. La rencontre a été présidée par le métropolite Emmanuel de France (Patriarcat de Constantinople). Elle comprenait les délégués des Patriarcats d’Alexandrie, d’Antioche, de Roumanie, des Églises de Chypre, de Grèce, de Pologne. Le Patriarcat de Moscou y a été représenté par l’archiprêtre V. Asmus et S. Hovorun. Les représentants des Églises ont examiné le programme du travail de la Commission théologique mixte à la lumière de la critique qui lui avait été adressée par plusieurs Églises orthodoxes (dont le Patriarcat de Moscou) au sujet des Déclaration théologiques communes, élaborées en 1989 et 1990. La nécessité a été relevée de poursuivre l’étude de certaines questions litigieuses et des formulations imprécises des déclarations communes. Les problèmes d’ordre liturgique et pastoral doivent également être examinés davantage dans le cadre de deux sous-commissions créées à cet effet.

L’évêque Hilarion de Vienne et d’Autriche a rencontré des hommes politiques hongrois pour délibérer de la question du développement des liens culturels et spirituels entre la Hongrie et la Russie
Le 11 mars 2005 l’évêque Hilarion de Vienne et d’Autriche, chargé provisoirement de l’administration du diocèse orthodoxe de Hongrie, a rencontré le secrétaire d’État de Hongrie, M. Nagy, pour parler de la possibilité de la réouverture de la mission de Tokaj qui aurait pu redevenir le centre d’échanges culturelles et spirituelles entre la Hongrie et la Russie. Cette mission avait été créée au XVIII siècle par Pierre le Grand et a existé jusqu’à la fin du XIX siècle. Conçue avant tout comme une représentation commerciale, elle abritait la première église orthodoxe russe en Hongrie, où de 1745 à 1753 G. Skovoroda, un illustre philosophe et poète ukrainien, a été chantre. L’évêque Hilarion a rencontré également le maire de la ville de Tokaj pour parler de ce même projet.
  
  
Bischof Hilarion von Wien und Österreich: Die „Grundlagen der sozialen Konzeption“ und das „Kompendium der Soziallehre der Kirche“ über die politische Bedeutung der Kirche

In diesem kurzen Artikel nehme ich Bezug auf das Dokument „Grundlagen der sozialen Konzeption der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche“, das im Jahr 2000 vom Moskauer Bischofskonzil verabschiedet wurde. Weder die politische noch die ökumenische Bedeutung dieses Dokuments sind bisher angemessen gewürdigt worden. Beide Aspekte sind grundgelegt in dem Einleitungskapitel, das die soziale Wirklichkeit im Licht der Kirche deutet: „Die Kirche ist die Versammlung der an Christus Glaubenden, in die einzutreten jeder von Ihm Selbst gerufen ist. In ihr soll ‚alles Himmlische und Irdische’ in Christus vereinigt werden, denn Er ist das Haupt ‚der Kirche, die Sein Leib ist, die Fülle dessen, der alles in allem erfüllt’ (Eph 1,22-23). In der Kirche vollzieht sich die Vergöttlichung der Schöpfung durch das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes, in ihr wird der ursprüngliche Ratschluss Gottes über die Welt und den Menschen verwirklicht“ (I.1) – so die ersten Sätze des Moskauer Dokuments.

In dieser Berufung und Sendung liegt bereits die politische Bedeutung der Kirche, nicht erst in einzelnen politischen Handlungen. Die Unterscheidung der Kirche vom Staat und ihre Freiheit gegenüber den politischen Instanzen ist daher Bedingung für die Erfüllung ihres Auftrags. In westlichen Medien ist oftmals die Rede davon, dass die Russische Orthodoxe Kirche bestrebt sei, die Rolle einer Staatskirche einzunehmen und so die byzantinische Tradition der Einheit von Kirche und Staat weiterzuführen. Zahlreiche Erklärungen des Patriarchen Aleksij II., der Heiligen Synode und führender Würdenträger der Kirche sowie das Dokument „Grundlagen der sozialen Konzeption“ zeugen davon, dass dieser Verdacht unbegründet ist.

Das Moskauer Konzilsdokument formuliert klar: „Die Kirche wahrt die Loyalität gegenüber dem Staat, doch höher als die Forderung der Loyalität steht das Göttliche Gebot, das Werk der Errettung der Menschen unter jeglichen Bedingungen und Umständen zu vollenden“. Und weiter: „Wenn die Staatsmacht die orthodoxen Gläubigen zur Abkehr von Christus und seiner Kirche sowie zu sündigen und schändlichen Taten zwingt, ist die Kirche verpflichtet, dem Staat den Gehorsam zu verweigern“ (III.5).

Gerade der Punkt des zivilen Ungehorsams gehört unabdingbar zum Selbstbewusstsein der Orthodoxen Kirche. Die „Grundlagen der sozialen Konzeption“ sind jedoch meines Wissens weltweit das erste Dokument in der Geschichte der Orthodoxie, das eine offizielle Erklärung über den zivilen Ungehorsam abgibt. Es verdiente in dieser Hinsicht geradezu den Titel Rerum novarum! Einige kritische Stimmen aus politischen Kreisen über die Aussagen zum zivilen Ungehorsam bestätigen die Verwunderung über die innere Unabhängigkeit der Kirche.

Die Russische Orthodoxe Kirche ist in den ekklesiologischen Fundamenten der Soziallehre weitgehend einig mit der Katholischen Kirche. Das zeigt das „Kompendium der Soziallehre der Kirche“, das im vergangenen Jahr vom Päpstlichen Rat Justitia et Pax veröffentlicht wurde. Auch hier wird entschieden betont: „Die politische Gemeinschaft und die Kirche sind selbständig und voneinander unabhängig“ (Nr. 50). Auch hier wird das Recht zum zivilen Ungehorsam proklamiert, wenn die zivile Autorität in Widerspruch zur moralischen Ordnung, zu den Menschenrechten und zum Evangelium tritt (Nr. 399). Allerdings steht im Kompendium die menschliche Person als „Fundament und Ziel des politischen Lebens“ (Nr. 384) im Zentrum. Der „integrale und solidarische Humanismus“ (Einleitung) des Kompendiums ist nicht immer vermittelt mit den ekklesiologischen Aussagen. Die Kirche bleibt eher Mater et Magistra, Lehrerin der sozialen Ordnung, nicht Ort ihrer sakramentalen Verwirklichung. An dieser Stelle könnte das weitere ökumenische Gespräch ansetzen.