www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West From the Moscow Patriarchate

STATEMENT OF THE COMMUNICATION SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR EXTERNAL CHURCH RELATIONS OF THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE


The Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate has received letters from Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and Archbishop Kondrusiewicz, head of the Russian Catholics. These letters were sent in response to the materials directed to them by Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, DECR Chairman, in which a detailed account of the position of the Russian Orthodox Church on proselytism and relations between the Orthodox and the Catholics was given.

The received answers again confirm invariability of the course taken by the Catholic Church in relation to the Orthodox population of Russia and other CIS countries. The Catholic hierarchs insist on the right of their Church 'to preach the Gospel to all people'. From the experience of the last years we know that by this they mean missionary work aiming to convert into Catholicism as many people as possible, including those who belong to Orthodoxy both by Baptism and national and cultural tradition. This position is unacceptable for the Russian Orthodox Church.

In the documents sent to the Catholic side it was stated clearly how the Russian Orthodox Church understood proselytism. Catholic hierarchs' answer gives an impression that their interpretation of the examples of the Catholic proselytic activities shows a principal difference in the opinions of the two Churches concerning the same facts. All these facts not only complicate dialogue with the Vatican and its church structures in Russia and other countries of the Commonwealth, but also make it doomed to failure beforehand.

An even more serious damage to relations between the two Churches has been caused by the recent Vatican's decisions to establish new dioceses in historically Orthodox regions of Ukraine. No lesser concern is aroused by the plans of the leadership of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to move from Lvov to Kiev and establish their Patriarchate there.

Thus, actions of the Catholic Church inspite of various statements eloquently show her intention to spread her influence to the East. Such policy of the Roman Catholic Church can result in nothing but distrust and alienation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Brendan,

In other words, things are not improving between Rome and Moscow in the church relations field!

Personally, I too think it's a mistake for the Ukrainian Catholic church to set up a centre in Orthodox Kyiv.

I've also heard Ukrainian Catholic priests say the same thing, so I'm not trying to be controversial with my Ukie friends.

But what impresses me is that Moscow appears to be giving tacit recognition to a Ukrainian Catholic patriarchate per se.

Hey, if not the First Rome, I'll take acknowledgement from the Third Rome!!

(How are you today?)

Alex

Firstly, it's not Orthodox Kyiv it's Atheistic Kyiv, so if we are helping to lead people to Salvation, the Moscow Patriarchate should keep quiet.

Secondly, the term Third Rome is not valid. The daughter of the Byzantine Emperor who married Tsar ___ the _____ was a friend of Bessarion, and she converted to Catholicism before she married the Tsar in Moscow. Therefore, taking a very scientific, Russian point of view, she was a heretic, and so she did not pass on the right to the Byzantine Empire, nor the "Orthodox Faith". Sorry Moscow.

Daniil

[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: Daniil ]

Dear Daniil,

I think you are wasted in your chosen professional field of endeavour, Friend!

I think you have a brilliant career in public relations in the diplomatic corps.

In the very least you could become part of the Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical discussion groups.



Kyiv is Orthodox territory, my friend, and it isn't Kyiv's fault it was under soviet communism.

Is L'viv also atheistic? And therefore it is up for grabs by whomever? Do you have statistics for believers there?

Moscow as the Third Rome is not only based on some formal historical act, but was promoted by Russian monks much earlier than that. And the Pope of Rome, with whom we are in communion with, has no problem publicly calling Moscow that.

As a Ukrainian Catholic, perhaps you should listen to the Pope . . .

Alex

Dear Alex:

I could be wrong, but I have never heard the Pope call Moscow the third Rome.

Could you please enlighten us?


defreitas

Alex said: "Kyiv is Orthodox territory"

Well then L'viv is Catholic territory so you better get the Orthodox out of the city. Then all Jews should leave, and the Muslims out of the Krym because its now Orthodox Territory.

My take is this: Kyiv is the capital and the (historical) seat of Christianity for all Eastern Europe. If Kyiv is the capital, and the UGCC is a public entity within Ukraine, then we have every right to set up shop there. It is no different than the immaculate Conception Cathedral in Washington D.C. being there for all American Catholics, also our UC Shrine to the Holy Family. In the nation's capital for all faithful to come and worship. America isn't fully Catholic in fact a good portion of the Founding Fathers were Protestant therefore should places where seats of American government are be off limits to Catholics?

So what I am trying to say is, we should be in Kyiv the capital of Ukraine be it an Orthodox or Muslim or Buddhist or Jewish territory.

Daniil said: "Firstly, it's not Orthodox Kyiv it's Atheistic Kyiv, so if we are helping to lead people to Salvation, the Moscow Patriarchate should keep quite."

AmiHb!

Dear Defreitas,

The Pope in fact did call Moscow the Third Rome early in his Pontificate, there were newspaper articles about it, one of which I quoted in a speech I delivered at my parish church on the promotion for a Kyivan Patriarchate.

There must be records of it somewhere on-line and I'll look.

Alex

[QUOTE]

From the experience of the last years we know that by this they mean missionary work aiming to convert into Catholicism as many people as possible, including those who belong to Orthodoxy both by Baptism and national and cultural tradition.

Now that is really not tenable. I can see the Catholics not reaching out to preach to those practicing Orthodox but to those who are Orthodox by "cultural and national tradition"? Nationalism rears it's ugly head. It is for the ROC to evangelize these people and do it's job. It now has the freedom to do this. The unChurched are the UnChurched. I of course wish that that they find the Faith in Orthodoxy but if their personal path leads them to choose the Catholic Church, I cannot condemn them.

An even more serious damage to relations between the two Churches has been caused by the recent Vatican's decisions to establish new dioceses in historically Orthodox regions of Ukraine. No lesser concern is aroused by the plans of the leadership of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to move from Lvov to Kiev and establish their Patriarchate there.


I agree with Alex that it is a mistke for the UGCC to move to Kyiv as this is Orthodix territory and so few Greek Catholics are located there.

I am of the Ari Fleischer school of public relations (Hah!).

Lviv is just as "up for grabs" as Kyiv. If we are not doing our job, then having help from the Orthodox is fine. Also, before WW II, Lviv's population was divided as follows:
Polish 50%
Jewish 33%
Ukrainian 17%

Therefore, claiming that Lviv is anybody's territory would be an error. Only because of the Soviets is it now considered "Greek Catholic Territory"

In the late 1920s, when the imminent fall of Communism was still the prediction of everyone, the technical heir to the Russian Throne (Grand Duke Serge or Paul -- you monarchists can correct me) was in contact with Metropolitan Andrei about the Russian Greek Catholic Church. He had proposed that when the Communists were all taken care of, the Russian Greek Catholic Church would have a privileged status. How would that MP feel about that? The technical head of their church was promoting "proselytism". Give me a break. Wake up and smell the incense, Moscow. Your days of favouritism are over. Now you've got to work.

Daniil

Dear UC,

You are looking at this issue from a North American, liberal-democratic perspective that simply does not apply in Eastern Europe of yesterday, of today, nor for some time to come.

Kyiv is not New York or Toronto and we should get used to that fact.

We are not referring to the unchurched and those who have yet to become "churched." They figure nowhere in what we are talking about here.

Those who are churched in Kyiv are Orthodox in the majority. Kyiv, before the Revolution and the Bolshevik terror, was Orthodox and you can read about how the Greek Catholic Metropolitans of Kyiv were sensitive to this fact in Fr. Ireney Nazarko's book on their history.

And Greek Catholics aren't like other religions, your Buddhists and what not.

I hate to break this to you, but there has always been tension between Greek Catholics and Orthodox over there.

One reason for it is that the Greek CAtholics are perceived as a competing Church with the Orthodox - Orthodox in every way AND with the Pope etc.

We've gone into this before, but that is basically the root of the tension.

Jurisdiction is also a factor.

Catholics, such as yourself and Daniil and others, have said that territory isn't an issue.

Well, it is where Rome is concerned. When Spanish and Portuguese groups wanted to form a Western Rite Orthodox Church in union with Constantinople, Rome petitioned the EP and asked him NOT to receive them on the grounds that they "territorially" belonged to Rome as they were in Western countries traditionally part of the Roman Patriarchate.

So I really don't know why you guys are in "territorial denial."

I'm not talking about Moscow's claims over Kyiv - I'm simply talking about the fact that Kyiv and Greater Ukraine, as well as Volyn and other areas of Western Ukraine, were traditionally Orthodox and still are.

Ukrainian Catholics also have unchurched members in their territories.

But this is all complicated by the fact of RC missionary outreach in these lands, contradicting the seemingly ecumenical stance by the Latin Church toward the Orthodox.

I'm not saying the Ukrainian Catholic church shouldn't be in Kyiv - it already is.

I just don't see any reason why our Church centre needs to be there when it has always been, for the 400 years of our existence, in L'viv, a Ukrainian Catholic city.

What's wrong with L'viv? And why risk dissing our Orthodox brothers and sisters further? Rome's doing that just fine all by itself!

Alex

OK my understanding is this: The UOC_KP with Filaret and the UAOC with Meofodiy I think Are in good standing with the UGCC because the all understand the need of a true Ukrainian (or Kyivan) Church. The only people who I think would be mad is the imfamous Moscow Patriarchate Orthodox Christians in Ukraine. they should have no saw because they show allegiance to Moscow. They should have no say WHAT-SO-EVER in Ukrainian affairs be it religious or civil.

Moscow Patriarchate needs to stop whining, keep quiet, and get out of Ukraine and let our people worship in truely Ukrainian churches.

Alex, the seat of our Metropolitans was in Kyiv in 1596 and for many years after that. Lviv at that time was a bastion of Orthodoxy and only "gave in" in 1700. St. Sophia in Kyiv was the seat of the Greek Catholic Metropolitan. The Orthodox down the road at the St. Michael-Golden Domed Monastery.

The Greek Catholic Metropolitans were then exiled but still maintained the title "Metropolitan of Kyiv and Archimandrite of the Kyivan Caves Monastery".

I don't need to tell you all this, you know it.

Daniil

Dear UC,

Agreed, and again my whole point is about NOT offending our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

As you know, the "uncanonical" Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarch gave his blessing to those Ukie Orthodox who wanted to attend the Papal services during the visit last year.

There are other examples of close and sympathetic cooperation between our Greek Catholic and Orthodox people and Churches.

Even Moscow journals have tended recently to "lump" together the UGCC, UAOC, UOC-KP into one "Kyivan Church."

And that's fine by me.

L'viv is the historic seat of our Church with St George's Cathedral et al.

If our Church wants a presence in Kyiv, that's fine and even necessary to serve the Greek Catholics there.

But lets just try to be understanding and sensitive to one another as Ukrainians sharing the same basic spiritual tradition.

If we can do that, that means more than who has more churches, whose patriarch is more important et alia.

Agreed?

Alex

Alex,
I am just an idealist. I just think Moscow would be the only one who would whine and fuss. Thats all. Maybe if we wrok from Kyiv, unity could possibly work better with the other true Ukrainian churches?

"You are looking at this issue from a North American, liberal-democratic perspective "

I am not going to tell you my political party or that of my parents but i think the last part of your quote semi sums it up

"And Greek Catholics aren't like other religions, your Buddhists and what not."

I was using Buddhism as an example. I am not Buddhist so I don't know why you said "your." We do have a little laughing Buddha statue in our house my dad picked up in Japan when he was there in the Marines........

"And Greek Catholics aren't like other religions, your Buddhists and what not."

But Kyiv is sister cities with Chicago and a suburb of my hometown San Diego with Kolomeya.

Why don't we agree to disagree?

Dear Daniil,

You're obviously excited so I'll only say this.

"Territory" has absolutely nothing to do with ethnic demographics.

It has everything to do with the historical fact that L'viv has been our Church's headquarters by tradition and long-standing practice.

It is so today.

And what did Patriarch Lubomyr tell the Pope during the papal visit last year?

He said that "Greek Catholic Galicia greets you today, Holy Father!" (words during the Beatification Liturgy).

If that wasn't an explicit mention of territoriality, I don't know what is.

And Rome itself has placed limits on where and how our Church may preach the Gospel and spread out, has it not?

Was not this the reason for the criticism of Rome by a Greek Catholic bishop last year? That and the fact that Russian Byzantine Catholics cannot form eparchies within Russia over the territorial issue?

And how many Orthodox Christians are among the Samoyed tribe does Rome think?

Alex