In English:
The Holy Synod supported position of the Moscow Patriarchate’s delegation at Ravenna meeting of the Orthodox-Catholic Mixed Commission
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev on the Russian Orthodox Church
En français:
La délégation de l'Eglise orthodoxe russe a quitté la séance de la Commission mixte internationale pour le dialogue théologique
Patriarche Alexis de Moscou et de toute la Russie: Discours au cimetière russe de Sainte Geneviève des Bois
Auf Deutsch:
Bischof Hilarion Alfeyev: Die Terminologie der Dreifaltigkeit
The Holy Synod supported position of the Moscow Patriarchate’s delegation at Ravenna meeting of the Orthodox-Catholic Mixed Commission
On 9 October the delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate left the meeting of the Mixed Commission for Orthodox-Catholic Theologian Dialogue, which opened in Ravenna, Italy.
Following their arrival in Ravenna the delegation learned that representatives of the so-called Estonian Apostolic Church, formed in 1996 by the Constantinople Patriarchate on the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, had been entered on the list of delegates.
Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria, head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s delegation at the meeting, met with the Orthodox co-moderator of the Mixed Commission Metropolitan John (Zizioulas; Patriarchate of Constantinople) in order to discuss the situation. However, no solution was found.
Before leaving the meeting, Bishop Hilarion addressed members of the Mixed Commission. In his address he emphasized that the delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate is unable to continue its participation in the meeting because it does not recognize "the Estonian Apostolic Church", which was invited by the Patriarchate of Constantinople without consent of other churches. He, however, noted, that the delegation will be prepared to resume its participation once the Patriarchate of Constantinople changes its position.
Bishop Hilarion also underlined that the Moscow Patriarchate attaches great importance to the dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, and expressed his regret at the fact that the unilateral action of the Patriarchate of Constantinople made it impossible for the Moscow Patriarchate’s delegation to participate in the meeting.
On 12 October the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate discussed the situation. The Synod approved the position of the Moscow Patriarchate’s delegation and noted that the delegates acted in accordance with the provision of the Bishops’ Council of 2000, which prohibited the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate to take part in official meetings where the representatives of the so-called Estonian Apostolic Church are present.
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev on the Russian Orthodox Church
ABC Radio, Religion Report, 2 October 2007 (transcript)
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev is the Russian Orthodox Bishop of Vienna and All Austria, and also the Moscow Patriarchate's envoy to the European Union. He has just been in Australia as a guest of the Orientale Lumen (Light From the East) conference at the Australian Catholic University in Melbourne, where he also had a new musical work - his St Matthew Passion - performed in St Patrick's Cathedral. He speaks about ecumenical dialogue with Rome, the rifts between the various Orthodox churches, and why this is a good moment for the Orthodox.
Stephen Crittenden: Welcome to the program. He's young, he's got the steely gaze of a serious poker player, and he's the Russian Orthodox point-man in Europe. Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev is Bishop of Vienna and All Austria, and the Moscow Patriarchate's Envoy to the European Union. He's also involved in high level ecumenical exchanges with Rome, and he believes that the Catholics and the Orthodox ought to forge a united front against secularism and liberalism in Europe.
He was in Australia recently to attend the wonderful Triennial Orientale Lumen conference at the Australian Catholic University in Melbourne. Orientale Lumen means 'Light from the East'. It's a strange and interesting world, this world of Eastern Christianity: rivalry over different canonical territory between Rome and the Orthodox; rivalry for influence between the Orthodox Patriarchs of Moscow, and Constantinople; tensions between the various national Churches over precedence, tensions between national mother Churches and their far-flung diaspora Churches. Here in Australia, Archbishop Stylianos keeps the Greeks in almost total lock-down, while the Macedonian Orthodox Church has been tearing itself apart for years over property disputes. Its bishop, Petar, has been trying to get his hands on the property of the Church's local parishes for a decade, and both sides have spent millions in and out of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
But the Orthodox do have something really marvellous to offer. For example, Bishop Hilarion says icons are more popular than ever with the wider public, so much so that they're appearing these days even in protestant churches.
Well Bishop Hilarion, welcome to the program. Can we begin in Russia where the Russian Orthodox Church has been rebuilding in a quite extraordinary way since the fall of communism. You've got some very interesting statistics.
Hilarion Alfeyev: The Russian Orthodox Church is passing through a period of spiritual renewal. For example, in 1988, when we celebrated the millennium of the baptism of Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church had about 6,000 parishes and parish priests; now there are about 27,000. At that time there were 18 monasteries, now there are more than 700. There were three theological schools, and now there is about a hundred.
Stephen Crittenden: And what about vocations to religious life? How interested in religion are young people in Russia?
Hilarion Alfeyev: There are many young people who enter theological seminaries and monasteries. The majority of our monasteries have a very young population, so very often you'll have a monastery with 10, or 15, or 20 or 50, or 100 monks, and most of them would be quite young. Also we have lots of vocations. Our theological seminaries and academies are full. We have theological institutes with several thousand students, like for example St Tikhon's Theological Institute in Moscow, which has about 6,000 students. Most of them are those who will serve the Church, many of them will become priests.
Stephen Crittenden: Nonetheless, you point to an interesting anomaly: you say that about 70% of Russians belong to the Orthodox Church, but only about 60% say they believe in God. Now what's behind that, do you think?
Hilarion Alfeyev: This indicates of course that for some people, belonging to the Orthodox Church is their cultural self-identification rather than indication of their serious attitude to religion and of their belief in God. They probably regard the Orthodox Church as the Church of their forefathers, so if you ask them how they would identify themselves, they would say ‘we are Russian Orthodox’, which doesn't mean that their religious convictions are very strong.
Stephen Crittenden: One interesting development for Russian Orthodoxy this year, Bishop Hilarion, has been that the Moscow Patriarchate has resolved its differences with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, the diaspora Church, which was very critical of the Moscow Patriarchate for collaborating, it said, with the communist government. The Russian Church Outside Russia is also much more conservative on ecumenical issues. How is this relationship these days, between these two groups?
Hilarion Alfeyev: This separation lasted for almost 90 years, and it is a miracle that the major difficulties and disagreements have now been resolved. On 17th of May this year, the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church have reunited, and we can say that now there is no longer a schism. In Australia, for example, it is really a very important event for the Russian diaspora, as also in America, in South America, in Europe, where this division was very profound. It was not only the question of various groups of believers coexisting in one place. Sometimes even a family would have been divided along these lines, like for example parents would go to a church of one jurisdiction, and children would go to a church of another jurisdiction, and there would have been a conflict between these different groups. Now fortunately this is over, and we regard this as a miracle of God.
Stephen Crittenden: And how is Moscow getting on with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople these days? I gather there are some ongoing areas of dispute over territories like Estonia, where there may be old resentments towards Russia, and a desire to establish a national Church independent of Moscow.
Hilarion Alfeyev: We believe that there should be some kind of inter-Orthodox solidarity and that one Orthodox Church should not establish parishes on the territory where there is already another Orthodox Church. The difficulty of course is that in the Orthodox Church, we do not have a unified administration, so if there is a dispute between two local Orthodox Churches, there is no one who could actually act as a mediator.
Stephen Crittenden: And would you describe relations between the various Orthodox Churches at the moment as comparatively harmonious, or not?
Hilarion Alfeyev: They are comparatively harmonious, but indeed there are some differences, notably between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other local Orthodox Churches with regard to the pastoral care for the so-called diaspora. Several local Orthodox Churches have diasporas outside of their canonical borders, like, for example, there is a very significant Russian diaspora in Europe and in the Americas, in Australia, and it’s the Russian Orthodox Church which takes pastoral care of this flock. The Patriarchate of Constantinople wants everyone to believe that they should be in charge of all the diaspora, but I think the Moscow Patriarchates as well as the Patriarchate of Romania, or Serbia, they would disagree because they have their own diasporas.
Stephen Crittenden: What about relations with Rome? Since Pope Benedict was elected, we sometimes get hints that there is a lot of activity going on behind the scenes, is that true?
Hilarion Alfeyev: There is some kind of amelioration of the general climate in the relations between the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church, which started with the new pontificate. It's noticeable at different levels, at the level of theological exchange, of cultural exchange, even the exchange of letters.
Stephen Crittenden: And would you say that relations between Rome and Moscow are as good as they've ever been?
Hilarion Alfeyev: There is always space for improvement, but I think we are coming closer to one another. We are coming closer to the realisation of the fact that we are no longer competing structures, but that we are in fact allies, and I think this is a very important and very positive development.
Stephen Crittenden: Indeed, under Pope John Paul, Moscow was very upset when he established a Catholic diocese in Moscow. But on the other hand you yourself are the Russian Orthodox Bishop of Vienna, right in the heart of what we might describe as Rome's canonical territory. Perhaps the very idea of separate canonical territory for the separate Churches no longer makes sense; is that what you're suggesting?
Hilarion Alfeyev: It does make sense, but I think what we need is a kind of code of conduct of a minority on the territory which belongs to a majority. If there is for example a predominantly Orthodox country and there is a Catholic minority, there should be some kind of mechanism of consultations between the Catholics and the Orthodox. The same should be applied to an Orthodox Church existing on a Catholic territory. It's a delicate matter, there are no easy solutions. But I believe this code of conduct, this mechanism of mutual consultations, is absolutely necessary in order to avoid misunderstandings, and also mutual accusations in proselytism.
Choir singing.
Stephen Crittenden: My guest is the Russian Orthodox Bishop of Vienna, Hilarion Alfeyev, who's also a composer. The music you're listening to is from his brand-new St Matthew Passion, which received its Australian premiere in St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne a few days ago at the Orientale Lumen conference. We went along and recorded one of the rehearsals.
Well Bishop Hilarion, is this a good time to be Orthodox? You know, there seems to be a lot of interest on the part of Western Christianity in Eastern spirituality, in theology, icons for example are more popular than ever.
Hilarion Alfeyev: I believe that every time is good for being an Orthodox as every time is good for Christians, and indeed we must profit from this time. The Orthodox Church doesn't have a particular missionary strategy or a strategy of proselytism in non-Orthodox countries. But what is happening is that some features of Orthodox spirituality become ever more popular, such as notably the icons. Indeed you will see Orthodox icons in Catholic churches, in Anglican churches, almost everywhere nowadays. The reason for this being that these icons are beautiful by themselves, they are attractive, and also that they remind us of some very essential features of Christian faith.
Stephen Crittenden: A question briefly about the EU, because you've got a special role in relation to the EU. We know that the EU has had a fairly anti-Christian policy in the past. It's tended to push religion into a private sphere and to be very uncomfortable about the Churches having a big public or political role. But you say that's recently begun to change. Why?
Hilarion Alfeyev: It's beginning to change rather slowly. The reasons for this change are not altogether positive. I believe that the attitude of some European politicians to religion began to change after 9/11, because more and more politicians began to realise that something has to be done with religion, it cannot not be just simply ignored, and they cannot just say that it's a private thing, because it acts in the public sphere. There is a lot of confusion in this regard, but at least some politicians begin to realise that there should be some kind of dialogue, that without this dialogue they will not be able to solve the existing problems.
Stephen Crittenden: But would you agree that their real reason for wanting to have that dialogue with the Church is to keep religion under control?
Hilarion Alfeyev: This would be perhaps one reason, but the other reason is that the Churches and religious communities themselves insist that there should be this dialogue in order to harmonise the value systems which exist in modern world, and in order for the believers to be able to live according to their value systems in the secular world.
Stephen Crittenden: A final question. After the Second World War, Pope John XXIII recognised that the world had changed forever, and he called the Second Vatican Council to open up a few windows in the Church. Now it might be argued that the fall of Communism offered a similar opportunity to the Orthodox Churches, an opportunity to do a bit of spring cleaning, by calling an Ecumenical Council of your own. Why hasn't such an opportunity ever been taken up?
Hilarion Alfeyev: In fact there was a process of preparation to a Pan-Orthodox Council. This process started I believe in the beginning of the 1960s and lasted right until the beginning of the 1990s, and then it was somewhat put on hold. The reason for this is that there are disagreements among the local Orthodox Churches on various issues, and perhaps nobody wants to risk the Orthodox unity, and to raise all these issues at a Council. It's always possible for the Orthodox to have this Council, but there are many internal difficulties which perhaps prevent the Orthodox from having such a Council. One of the difficulties is that we don't have a clearly established mechanism of convening such councils. In the Byzantine time it was the emperor who was in charge in fact of the Orthodox unity. Now there is no emperor, we have the Ecumenical Patriarch who is primus inter pares, ‘first among equals’, but again there is a certain type of dispute among the Orthodox with regard to the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. So there are questions which have to be solved before the Council takes place.
Stephen Crittenden: I can't let you go without asking you about your concert, the piece of music that you've written, the ‘St Matthew Passion’ which is being performed in St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne.
Hilarion Alfeyev: I hope that the listeners are able to grasp the meaning of what I wanted to say through my music. Through this music I wanted to show what is our Orthodox understanding of the passion of Christ. The story of the passion is an eternal story which cannot be privatised by any Christian concession, but there are certain features of the Orthodox understanding of the passion which make it different from, for example, the understanding of the passion in the Catholic tradition.
If you look at an Orthodox icon of the crucifixion, you will immediately grasp the difference between Catholic tradition of representing the suffering Christ, and the Orthodox tradition of presenting the dead Christ, the suffering somewhat left aside. In the Orthodox understanding the contemplation of the sufferings of Christ are always intermingled with the memory of the resurrection of Christ.
Stephen Crittenden: And will listeners at your concert hear that in your music as well?
Hilarion Alfeyev: I hope they will hear it in the music because this is how the music was composed. It reflected my personal understanding of the Passion story and the feelings which we, the Orthodox people, have when we contemplate Jesus crucified and risen from the dead.
Stephen Crittenden: Thank you very much for being on the program.
Hilarion Alfeyev: Thank you.
La délégation de l'Eglise orthodoxe russe a quitté la séance de la Commission mixte internationale pour le dialogue théologique
La Commission internationale mixte pour le dialogue théologique orthodoxe-catholique s'est réunie en assemblée plénière le lundi 8 octobre 2007 à Ravenne (Italie). Elle devra examiner le document préparé depuis plusieurs années et consacré aux "Conséquences ecclésiologiques et canoniques de la nature sacramentelle de l'Eglise". Cette dixième assemblée plénière de la Commission se poursuivra jusqu'au 15 octobre.
L'Eglise orthodoxe russe est représentée à cette Commission qui compte 60 membres catholiques et orthodoxes par Mgr Hilarion (Alfeyev), évêque de Vienne et d’ Autriche, représentant du patriarcat de Moscou auprès des institutions européennes à Bruxelles, ainsi que par le prêtre Igor Vyzhanov, secrétaire aux relations avec les autres chrétiens du département des relations extérieures.
Le 9 octobre 2007, la délégation de l'Eglise orthodoxe russe a quitté la séance de la Commission à cause de la présence au sein des délégués orthodoxes de représentants de "l'Eglise apostolique estonienne", une structure autonome créée par le patriarcat de Constantinople en 1996 sans concertation avec les autres Eglises orthodoxes locales. La décision d'inviter des représentants de cette Eglise dans la Commission a été prise unilatéralement par le métropolite Jean (Zizioulas), co-président de la Commision (Patriarchat de Constantinople).
L'évêque Hilarion a déclaré que le patriarcat de Moscou accorde toujours une grande importance au dialogue théologique avec l'Eglise catholique. Il a cependant souligné que la participation de représentants de "l'Eglise apostolique estonienne" aux séances officielles de la Commission, décidée de façon unilatérale par le patriarcat de Constantinople, ne pouvait être acceptable. "Ni à Baltimore en 2000, ni à Belgrade en 2006 il n'y a eu de délégués de la part de cette structure ecclésiale. Je ne comprends pas d'où vient cette décision du patriarcat de Constantinople de les inclure au nombre des membres orthodoxes de cette rencontre", a affirmé Mgr Hilarion.
Les pourparlers entre l'évêque Hilarion et le métropolite Jean (Zizioulas) n'ont pas abouti à un consensus. De son côté, Mgr Hilarion a affirmé que la délégation du patriarcat de Moscou est prête à participer au travail de la Commission internationale mixte catholique-orthodoxe pour le dialogue théologique si le patriarcat de Constantinople acceptait de revoir sa position.
Patriarche Alexis de Moscou et de toute la Russie: Discours au cimetière russe de Sainte Geneviève des Bois
4 octobre 2007
Mes chers pères, frères et soeurs,
Je suis de tout coeur reconnaissant à l'archevêque Gabriel pour l'accueil qui m'est réservé dans cette église bâtie par les émigrés russes. De nombreux prêtres et prélats décédés au loin de leur pays sont inhumés dans la crypte de cette église. Il convient de mentionner tout particulièrement le métropolite Euloge qui, peu avant son rappel à Dieu, a rétabli l'union canonique avec l'Eglise Mère.
Hier et aujourd'hui, Votre Excellence, nous avons prié ensemble, nous avons conversé. Le contact personnel permet toujours d'espérer un progrès dans les relations et nous croyons qu'en définitive le destin de l'entité ecclésiale fondée essentiellement par le métropolite Euloge sera celui auquel aspirait le défunt hiérarche.
L'expérience, récente en particulier du rétablissement de l'union canonique avec l'Eglise Hors-Frontières, permet d'espérer que les problèmes restés en suspens trouveront également un règlement en Europe Occidentale. Nous prions pour les hiérarches inhumés dans cette crypte, cette prière nous aidera à continuer à surmonter toutes les aspérités, toutes les divisions ayant frappé l'Eglise Orthodoxe Russe en ce tragique XXe siècle.
Je suis persuadé que ces contacts personnels contribueront pour beaucoup à renforcer l'unité orthodoxe sur le sol français.
En effet, c'est l'absence de communication qui engendre souvent les difficultés. C'est sur des bases strictement canoniques que doivent se fonder nos relations.
Je crois pouvoir dire que nous n'élevons pas d'objections lorsque nos prêtres nous quittent pour aller sous votre juridiction. Mais les choses doivent se faire dans le respect de la règle canonique. Comme vous l'avez si bien dit j'ai, depuis le début de ma mission, immuablement préconisé l'unité des églises orthodoxes car c'est en l'unité que réside la force de l'Orthodoxie.
Vous venez de dire que des représentants de la première, de la seconde vagues de l'émigration, que ceux arrivés récemment sont membres de l'Archevêché. Mais le diocèse de Chersonèse n'est-il pas constitué par exactement les mêmes fidèles?
Les orthodoxes se doivent de maintenir leur unité faces aux hétérodoxes, face à la société séculière!
Que le Seigneur, notre Sauveur, qui nous appelle à l'unité vienne en cela à votre secours!
Bischof Hilarion Alfeyev: Die Terminologie der Dreifaltigkeit
Seit den ersten Tagen der Existenz der Kirche haben die Christen an den Vater, den Sohn und den Heiligen Geist geglaubt und gründeten sich dabei auf die Zeugnisse der Schrift. Es waren indessen einige Jahrhunderte nötig, um die Lehre von der Dreifaltigkeit in präzise theologische Formulierungen zu kleiden. Es war notwendig, eine entsprechende Terminologie auszuarbeiten, zum einen um aufkommende Häresien zu widerlegen, zum zweiten um von der Dreifaltigkeit zu Menschen sprechen zu können, die in den Traditionen der antiken Philosophie erzogen waren.
Im 3. Jahrhundert wurde die Kirche mit der Häresie des Sabellius konfrontiert, der lehrte, dass Gott ein Wesen hat, aber drei Personen ist, und zwar so, als wären es drei Erscheinungen ein und derselben Natur, als wären es drei „Masken“, unter denen Gott sich den Menschen zeigt (der griechische Terminus „Person“ – prosopon bedeutet weniger „Personalität“ als vielmehr „Larve“, Maske eines Schauspielers). Ein und dieselbe unteilbare Monade, meinte Sabellius, wirkte in den verschiedenen Zeiten gleichsam in drei verschiedenen Modi: Im Alten Testament offenbarte sich Gott als der Vater, im Neuen Testament als der Sohn und in der Kirche, nach Pfingsten, als Heiliger Geist. Gott ist nach Sabellius „Sohn-Vater“: Ausserhalb der Beziehung zur Welt ist Er eine schweigende Monade, in Beziehung zur Welt aber ist Er Wort-Logos. Die Lehre des Sabellius war der äusserste Ausdruck eines Monarchianismus, dem die Vorstellung von Gott als einer ungeteilten Monade zugrundelag.
Der alexandrinische Geistliche Arius lehrte zu Beginn des 4. Jahrhunderts, dass der Vater der einzige wahre Gott sei, der Sohn jedoch Sein Geschöpf darstelle. Der Sohn wurde „aus dem Nichts“ geschaffen, doch Er hat den Vorrang vor den anderen Geschöpfen, da Er vor aller Zeit und Ewigkeit geboren wurde. Der Arianismus ist eine Form des Subordinationismus, das heisst der Lehre von der Unterwerfung des Sohnes unter den Vater, des Geistes aber unter den Sohn. Der Arianismus breitete sich rasch aus und rief stürmische Auseinandersetzungen im gesamten christlichen Osten hervor. Anlässlich der Lehre des Arius wurde im Jahre 325 in der Stadt Nizäa das I. Ökumenische Konzil zusammengerufen, das die rechtgläubige Lehre von der Heiligen Dreifaltigkeit formulieren sollte.
Das Nizänische Konzil sprach vom Sohn als „eines Wesens“ [edinosuščnyj] (homoousios) mit dem Vater, das heisst, Der eine Wesenheit [suščnost’] mit dem Vater hat. Die Väter gebrauchten auch einen anderen Terminus – „Hypostase“ (hypostasis – „Dasein/Existenz“) –, den man ursprünglich als Synonym von „Wesenheit“ – „Ousia“ aufgefasst hatte. Schrittweise allerdings, schon in der Zeit nach dem Nizänischen Konzil, erhielt das Wort „Hypostase“ die Bedeutung von personaler Existenzweise, d.h. eines personalen und konkreten Seins, und man begann unter „Ousia“ eine gewisse ontologische Gemeinsamkeit zu verstehen. Die entscheidende Rolle in der abschliessenden Ausarbeitung einer präzisen Terminologie der Dreifaltigkeit spielten „die grossen Kappadokier“ – Basilius der Grosse, Gregor der Theologe und Gregor von Nyssa. Sie formulierten die Lehre vom Heiligen Geist als eines Wesens und gleich mit dem Vater und dem Sohn.
Auf diese Art und Weise wird die rechtgläubige Lehre von der Göttlichen Dreifaltigkeit in folgenden Termini ausgedrückt: Gott ist einer dem Wesen nach, doch einer in drei Hypostasen. Wenn die Formel „eine Natur – drei Personen“ die Möglichkeit offenliess, von den Emanationen und Rollen ein und desselben Wesens zu sprechen, dann verweist die Formel „eine Wesenheit – drei Hypostasen“ auf die ontologische Einheit der Gottheit und unterstreicht zugleich die Selbständigkeit jeder Hypostase. Vater, Sohn und Heiliger Geist sind drei vollwertige Personen im Sinne von Personalitäten, von Denen jede nicht nur die Fülle des Seins besitzt, sondern auch ganz Gott ist. Eine Hypostase ist nicht ein Drittel der gesamten Wesenheit, sondern vereint in sich die ganze Fülle der Göttlichen Wesenheit. Der Vater ist Gott, nicht ein Drittel Gott, auch der Sohn ist Gott, und der Heilige Geist ist ebenfalls Gott. Alle Drei zusammen aber sind nicht drei Götter, sondern ein Gott. Wir bekennen „den Vater und den Sohn und den Heiligen Geist – die wesenseine und ungeteilte Dreifaltigkeit“ (aus der Liturgie des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomos). Das heisst, die drei Hypostasen teilen nicht eine Wesenheit in drei Wesenheiten, noch verschmilzt oder vermischt die eine Wesenheit die drei Hypostasen zu einer.
Aus dem Buch Geheimnis des Glaubens. Einführung in die orthodoxe dogmatische Theologie.
Fortsetzung folgt.