Cardinal Kasper Visits Moscow. But for the Vatican It Is Forever Winter in Russia
Rome and patriarch Alexis II start talking again. But reasons for the two clashing remain unchanged. Vladimir Zelinskij tells us why this is so from the Orthodox Church´s point of view
by Sandro Magister
ROMA -ÊOn Thursday, Jan. 22, Vatican spokesman, Joaquín Navarro-Valls, announced that Cardinal Walter Kasper will visit Moscow next Feb. 16.
Cardinal Kasper is president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting of Christian Unity. He will leave Rome on invitation from the Catholic Bishops Conference of Russia Yet he is also - said Navarro - inspired "by feelings of esteem for the Russian Orthodox Church". During his five-day visit the cardinal "will have an audience with His Holiness, Alexis II, patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, and he will meet with the Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, Kirill, (president of the Moscow patriarchate´s Department of Foreign Ecclesiastical Relations) to speak about ecumenical dialog between the two Churches."
For now this is the latest news from the Holy See, signaling that public discussions between the patriarchate of Moscow and the papacy of Rome are due to be taking up again. The last high ranking Vatican official to visit Russia was Msgr. Celestino Migliore (Oct. 2002), who is now the Vatican´s observer to the United Nations. In February of that same year, Cardinal Kasper also planned on visiting Moscow, but his trip was cancelled.
The last clash between Rome and Moscow occurred over the Ukraine. The Orthodox patriarch of Moscow was infuriated at the idea of the Ukrainian Greek rite Catholic Church setting up a "rival" patriarch in Kiev.
If now Alexis II accepts receiving Kasper it is also because the Vatican has given its assurance on the sensitive issue.
But why does the Moscow patriarchate seem so uncompromising, and while, on the other hand, Rome appears to be so aggressive? What follows is an analysis of the Russian Orthodox Church, in terms of its relations with Rome and the West. The analysis is by a competent observer and member of the Orthodox Church, appearing in the Jan. 2004 issue of "Mondo e Missione" ("World and Mission", monthly magazine of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions, of Milan).
Today´s Russian Orthodox Church. Fundamentalists, Ecumenicalists and Traditionalistsby Vladimir ZelinskijThe current relationship between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, particularly between Moscow and Rome, is one of the most complicated chapters in the history of ecumenicalism. [...] Why isn´t the Catholic Church able to have real dialog with the Orthodox Church, despite feeling very close to the Orthodoxy in terms of its dogmatic and moral character?
Referring to a history of people, culture and faith lived out differently cannot explain everything. [...] In order to find an answer it is especially necessary to break the question down into its most essential elements. We must ask ourselves therefore: who are the Orthodox when seen through an ecumenical lens; what reasons are there for distancing themselves from or drawing near to other Christian denominations; and finally what are our hopes for unity based on?
The West often views Orthodox Christians as a tight and homogeneous mass of believers, speaking with one single voice, with that of its highest representatives. Yet things are only so only for those who are not familiar with the Orthodox Church. [...] If we take all those baptized into the Orthodox Church, we can divide them up into three groups: fundamentalists, ecumenicalists and traditionalists.
THE FUNDAMENTALISTS AND THEIR THREE VERSIONS
Fundamentalism comes in two versions: ecclesial-theological and political. The former is widespread among monastic circles and holds that, in the hard-lined spirit of St. Cyprian of Carthage (III century), that all communities which, due to their own errors, have cut themselves off from the sole Church of Christ (i.e. the "Orthodox" community). They have lost everything, having no real sacraments, nor grace or salvation. Ecumenicalism, therefore, is a misleading and dangerous heresy for fundamentalists. And with it comes all the ancient heresies, like Arianism, or disbelief in the sole, holy, true and visible Church. What kind of dialog can there be for those who have chosen their own downfall? Whoever wants to be saved must first request to be baptized into the Orthodox Church and then live according to her rules.
For political fundamentalism there is no such dialog, not even in terms of possible repentance The first part of its program is anti-westernism, marked by strong anti-Semitic tendencies. In terms of religion this position is seen in the hostility shown toward all non-Orthodox Christians and all Orthodox guilty of ecumenicalism or at least suspected of being guilty, including patriarch Alexis II. This type of extremism is born often out of a reaction against the dark evils, real or invented, emanating from the West.
In Orthodox circles this is a recent phenomenon, linked above all to the traumatic changes in ways of life in former communist countries. Orthodox fundamentalism is more of a far right political movement, fostered mostly by ex-members of the communist party who have resurfaced as full blown nationalists. The movement is also supported by fanatics waving "Orthodoxy or Death" banners. Yet their faith is a very special type of Orthodoxy, placing "monster-saints" like Ivan the Terrible and Rasputin, on high pedestals, singing the praises of absolute monarchy and seeking the total prohibition of activities of all other religions in the land of Orthodoxy. It refuses to have any relations with other Christian denominations. The mere thought of it is considered treason. Some bishops are also partisans of the faction. However, fortunately none of them is a member of the Russian Church´s Holy Synod.
There is also a third type of fundamentalism, that is, that of converts to Orthodoxy from other denominations. This group, probably the smallest, particularly involves Orthodox faithful from the West who deeply live and painfully feel the break with the past. For Catholics, it is almost a revival of the radicalism of the first Protestants who split from Rome. Ecumenicalism for these fundamentalists is none other than a dangerous mingling with "papism". They believe that Orthodox from eastern countries participating in the ecumenical movement are naïve and unscrupulous.
THE ECUMENICALISTS
Inside the Russian Orthodox Church, the ecumenical-oriented group is by far the smallest, as it is not always easy to shown sympathy for other Christian communities. This constituent does not have any political influence, but has a strong cultural presence. It attracts people searching for a cure-all for Orthodoxy´s "diseases", found in unity with the Catholic Church. These "diseases" are namely fundamentalism, conservatism and closed-mindedness to contemporary society.
Ecumenicalists (let´s call them this, even if this word in not considered a positive term in Russia) have often an idealized image of the western Church. They expect to find moral and spiritual relief by "airing out their homes", which for them have become stale and musty. The seek help in overcoming the autocracy of bishops who, in Russia and beyond, still identify only with pre-Tridentine practices. They expect to find a stimulus for embarking on new ways and new methods of proclaiming the Gospel - or simply to find a little help in leading out their ecclesial lives in more a human and peaceful setting.
For now the ecumenical movement doesn´t have any influence or institutional role within the Russian Church. On the contrary, for fear of persecution, it leads a semi-clandestine existence. Therefore, I believe that "underground ecumenicalists", including the clergy, are more numerous that than what our eyes can see. There is no doubt that the current tensions felt between the Vatican and Moscow place them in an even more vulnerable position. The "ecumenical fraction" of the Orthodox Church, in a certain sense, has already obtained unity with the western Church - in the mystical and human sense, even if not in the canonical and eucharistic sense of the word. And this "half" unity makes them suffer so in obeying the historical Church separated from the fullness of the sole and universal Church of Christ, which as ecumenicalists perceive it, is due to a misunderstanding.
THE TRADITIONALISTS
Yet the most numerous and influential constituent, though rather silent, of any Orthodox Church is what may be called "traditionalist". When using this term we mustn´t mean any criticism or form of disdain for Orthodoxy. Rather, it is a synonym for fidelity. That is to say, traditionalists whole heartedly believe all that the Church proclaims and teaches, are rooted in her dogmatic and patristic heritage. They nourish not only the spiritual, but deep-rooted love that is inherited by the faith and guarded by the Church, including the lives of the saints, the musicality of hymns, the solemnity of celebrations, the language of prayer, the semi-darkness of the churches and their icons.
Traditional orthodoxy is faith incarnate. It can never separate the ascetic spirit from the living "flesh"; from its physical, historical, national and sometimes even ethnic body. There can be no ecumenical dialog with the Orthodox, if one does not bear in mind this attachment of faith to its local concrete realties. This includes its land, people and homeland. If this psychological baggage is respected, then Orthodox traditionalism will open itself up to dialog. Otherwise even this constituent of Orthodoxy could become anti-western, closed and self-sufficient to the point of verging on fundamentalism. One has to grasp the deep sentiments of this group. If for most Catholics keeping up with the times is considered a religious effort as well, for most Orthodox being Christian means "being faithful to the faith of the fathers of the Church", even at the price of being culturally and psychologically cut off from the world.
Although it is only recently that there are differences in mentality between eastern and western Christians, if the latter intends on taking the obligation of unity seriously, they must make it a priority of turning to traditionalists. It the largest and most representative group; but for the time being traditionalists don´t participate at all in ecumenical initiatives, essentially shunning them.
ONE QUESTION, THREE ANSWERS
After having presented the situation we must ask ourselves: what point is ecumenicalism at today?
There are possibly three answers. The first is that everything is going quite well and will keep getting better, since we live in an age in which we are searching for the treasure of a common faith, becoming imperative for today´s Christians. Despite certain political obstacles, Christians of the great traditional Churches are aware that unity between them is not only just, but also near and imminent. In this context references are often made to the exchange of and receiving visits as well as good comments (yet which can be of considerably different importance for the East than they are for the West).
The second answer is that quite frankly everything is going quite bad. The current crisis between Moscow and the Vatican, or rather, between Russia and the West, is indeed testimony to the fundamental differences between the two incompatible situations (as Oswald Spengler sees it). The so-called "ecumenicalism" of Eastern European Churches in past decades is none other than a form of diplomacy: a choice imposed by communism and its politics. Today the instigator of this strategy, the Soviet government, no longer exists. And thus the phony talk about unity has faded away, and the big bear of Russian nationalism has come out of its cave with its paws lifted high against those hands raised in favor of dialog. As a former Austrian minister once said (and like many others think so without saying it): Europe ends where Orthodoxy begins (confusing the minor fundamentalist tendency with the more popular traditionalist one). The term "Europe", in this sense, is used to refer to the land of human rights, freedom of thought, tolerance, and dialog between cultures. By "Orthodoxy" what is meant is a totally different culture, one which is mystical, ritualistic, irrational and, at any rate, foreign to the aforementioned values.
The third answer is that the Russian Church -like the other Orthodox Churches in former communist countries - is seeking true and meaningful dialog with other Christian faiths. But just after being freed from the yoke of atheistic totalitarianism it has been immediately besieged by eastern and western religious communities. This is especially so in terms of the Catholic Church, which after Vatican Council II proclaimed itself a sister Church. All this new religious presence has invaded the canonical land of the Russian Church, making efforts to spread its heritage of history and faith as if in missionary territory. Worse still, some believe the Catholic Church sees Russia as a market to sell its very own "product" by taking advantage of its material weaknesses and lack of Orthodox clergy and personnel "to steel sheep from other people´s flocks" (one only has to think of the infinite number of priests and bishops martyred during 70 years of communism)
Stop your missionary activities, close down the multi-religious market, go back home peacefully and our dialog will have its rebirth. In this way we will bear our common Christian witness in front of the secularized world.
__________
The patriarch´s roleIn general the role of the Orthodox patriarch is not well understood in the West. He is often seen as another pope. Yet according to Orthodox ecclesiology, the Church´s patriarch is only its top bishop. It is almost sacrilegious to call him the Church´s chief or head, since only Jesus Christ can be the head of the Church.
As a symbolic figure of the Church the patriarch has an enormous responsibility, but is imbalanced by his prerogatives. He is not the only protector of the Orthodox faith, since the faith in entrusted to the whole Church, both to its pastors and laity. According to the very same faith, however, it is only the patriarch who can intercede for the Church´s flock of faithful and is the chief administrator of the Church in terms of its institutional aspects.
His responsibility is threefold: before God, the Church itself (represented by the synod, the ranks of bishops, and all the faithful whom the faith must safeguard and protect through its dogmatic purity) and before fellow brothers and sisters in the faith and other patriarchs of local Churches with whom he is in communion.
The weight of such responsibility sometimes poses a problem for his personal freedom, which is quite different than that of the Roman Catholic pontiff. The Catholic pope has real freedom in decision making. Many innovations and changes, though not completely approved of by the Roman curia, are the fruit of the pope´s intuition and charisma. Yet if the Orthodox patriarch were to dare reform tradition, he would be simply ousted by the Synod or even directly by the Orthodox faithful themselves.
We must forever bear in mind this possibility, when referring to gestures (made or not made) or to meetings (which have not occurred) between the pope and Moscow´s patriarch. Even if we are reminded much more often and much more solemnly so in the liturgy that the patriarch not the pope of the Roman Catholic faith, indeed he does not have a great opportunity to express his personality in the Church of which he is its highest representative
The patriarch alone cannot touch any part of the faith´s sacred inheritance, handed down by the fathers of the Church. Not event local Church councils can do this, despite having the highest power. Only an Ecumenical Council can: in terms of doctrinal matters it has the highest authority, that is, the power of the Holy Spirit (according to Acts 15: 28). The Ecumenical Council has the right to change or "update" such sacred teachings and traditions, yet only under a spirit of fidelity to past councils. One small particularity, however: the seventh and last Ecumenical Council of then undivided Church of God was called ages ago in the year 787 in order to defeat and condemn the iconoclasts. (v.z.)
__________
The Pontifical Institute for Foreign Mission´s monthly magazine, published in Milan, in which Vladimir Zelinskij´s article appeared:
> "Mondo e Missione"__________
The official web site of the Patriarchate of Moscow (in English):
> Russian Orthodox Church__________
The last battlefield between Rome and Moscow:
> The Ukraine. War Between two Patriarchies (17.12.2003)
The height of the conflict in 2002 between cardinal Walter Kasper and patriarch Alexis II:
> Kasper umilia Alessio II. Non c´è pace tra la prima e la terza Roma (27.3.2002)
__________
English translation by Michael A. Severance.
Go to the home page of
> www.chiesa.espressonline.it/english, to access the latest articles and links to other resources.
Sandro Magister´s e-mail address is
s.magister@espressoedit.it
__________
26.1.2004
