www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Russian Reaction to Papal Ukrain Trip

RUSSIANS IMPRESSED WITH POPE DURING HIS UKRAINE TRIP
Wide Support Seen for a Papal Visit to Moscow

MOSCOW, (Zenit.org).- Russians seem to be favorable to a papal visit after seeing extensive media coverage of John Paul II�s trip to Ukraine.

President Vladimir Putin has already said he is open to a papal visit, though he is cautious so as not to offend the Orthodox Church, according to the Italian newspaper Avvenire.

Last month, for the first time, a papal visit captured the attention of Russian television and newspapers. Live coverage -- and positive media commentaries -- tracked John Paul II�s visits to Kiev and Lviv in Ukraine.

"What was most impressive was the Pope�s extraordinary humility and openness," said Maksim Shevchenko, director of Nezavismaja Gazeta. The newspaper published an interview with Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, archbishop of Lviv for Eastern-rite Catholics, in order to make known the point of view of Greek-Catholics. In the past, Greek-Catholics have been demonized by the Russian press.

According to a survey published last week by Interfax Russian agency, 63% of Russians said they want to see John Paul II. Only 17% are opposed to the visit. The poll�s margin of error was not reported.

For years the Communist press portrayed the Pontiff as an authoritarian and despotic head of a foreign hostile power. Instead, Russians saw a frail elderly man, who appeared modest and respectful.

"A nonpolitical leader, a man sincerely dedicated to the cause of unity among Christians, a real surprise for Russia," is how Aleksander Kyrlezev described the Holy Father. Kyrlezev is a member of the Theological Synodal Commission, which dissents from the Moscow Patriarchate�s official line.

Many newspapers underlined the contrast between this trip and Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II�s visit to Belarus. The Kommersant newspaper published a picture of John Paul II in Kiev, along with a photo of the patriarch in Minsk, embracing authoritarian President Aleksander Lukashenko and voicing opposition to a papal visit to Moscow.

"And yet, there has been a significant opening," Moscow Catholic Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz told the newspaper Avvenire. "For the first time, Patriarch Alexy has not placed the invitation of the Orthodox Church as a condition for the Pope�s trip to Moscow, but simply its agreement. This is what happened in Greece."

Dear Ignatius,

Yes, a recent news story said that the MP is engaged in talks with Rome (perhaps on the Filioque ).

It is clear that when it comes to the Pope, the MP does not speak for all Russians.

This story shows that the Russians, despite years under the Soviet Yoke, can actually think for themselves.

I've always suspected that . . .

Alex

As I have written elsewhere, this is not a particularly positive piece of journalism from the Orthodox point of view.

Of course, the Pope can visit Russia if he likes. In my opinion, the best response from the MP would be to follow what the Church of Greece did when the Pope visited Athens recently. That would be the most politically astute thing to do, as it appears that a papal visit to Moscow at some point is a virtual inevitability.

Having said that, I think that the tactics underlying this kind of article are thoroughly regrettable. The tactic is clearly comprised of (1) pitting the laity (and some dissident groups) of the Russian Orthodox Church against the hierarchy, thereby hoping to discredit the existing hierarchy; (2) presenting the Roman Catholic perspective masked in the person of John Paul II (who as a person is thoroughly unobjectionable to most); thereby hoping to (3) pressure the Orthodox Church to mollify its stance in the ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, achieving the desired unity. This an understandable tactic, and a very well deployed one, but in my opinion a regrettable development.

Brendan

Brendan,

I have several questions for you.

First, why do you think that Alexei should only not object to JP II visit rather than welcome and embrace him as a Christian leader?

I don't understand your reference to "tactics". Several Russian, secular new sources made observations about how the Ruusian people feel. On the one hand you say the Pope is free to go to Russia if the secular authorities allow it. On the other hand, it is wrong to report how the Russian (not Russian Orthodox) population feels about this claiming it divides the laity from their hierarchy.

To sum up. Alexei supports the Russian government. The Russian government claims it is a democarcy based on popular will and with a free press. The press reports on public opinion on a matter you say is up to the government, not the Church.

Whre is the conspriracy?

Dear Friends,

Apart from the issues of "conspiracy" and the like, a problem raised by Brendan, and which I agree with, is that the Moscow Patriarch, like him or not, shot himself in the "ryassa" during the papal visit, at least insofar as the West is concerned.

But I understand that a spokesman for the MP has declared (yesterday?) that all is now well between the MP and Rome and that they are talking to each other. The MP is actually more dissed at the EP than at JP(II).

Brendan's comments should, I think be taken in context and in the knowledge that that particular committed Orthodox Christian friend of ours suffered last week's events involving the MP.

Hopefully, he is having a better week this week

Alex

/* Disclaimer: What I know about the current state of Russian Orthodoxy has been learned from reading the postings in Byzcath.org. My conclusions may be off in far wastelands of northern Canada (Alex )... */

I may be wrong, but from what I've picked up, ISTM Patriarch Alexei II is managing to do this without help.

ISTM, moreover, that a lot of Orthodox objections to the Papacy (especially the really loud, obnoxious objections) boil down to, "Our patriarch isn't the Pope, so to blazes with the Papacy."

Why do I get the feeling that Patriarch Alexei II would exercise a Papal-style authority if he could, and that it would be much less benign than that exercised by Pope John Paul II?

Serge, I'd really like to see your input on this thread...

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I hope that JP2 does go to Russia. Despite some protests in Greece and Ukraine, it seems that most people viewed his visits positively. Is that fair to say?



[This message has been edited by missus_p (edited 07-05-2001).]

Olga --

"First, why do you think that Alexei should only not object to JP II visit rather than welcome and embrace him as a Christian leader?"

I think that's his prerogative. If he simply continues to stonewall, however, the Vatican will win in the public relations arena -- someone in the MP has to wake up to that reality and adjust the positioning accordingly.

"I don't understand your reference to "tactics"."

Tactics means that thers is more than one way to skin the cat. One pretty effective way, under contemporary conditions, is to try to mold public opinion, using the means of media available. That's not unfair -- but it is happening, and people should simply be aware of it.

"Several Russian, secular new sources made observations about how the Ruusian people feel."

Correct, and this is one of the impacts of the trip to Ukraine. Public opinion is capable of being molded, and the person of John Paul II, a very sympathetic person to most, is very, very capable of molding public opinion, if he is provided the proper access to the media and the proper platform to do so. The visit to neighboring Ukraine was one such opportunity and the Vatican availed itself of it. That's not wrong, or ill-willed, but it is one aspect of what happened there.

"On the other hand, it is wrong to report how the Russian (not Russian Orthodox) population feels about this claiming it divides the laity from their hierarchy."

The point is that the tone of the article is quite revealing. On the one hand, everyone is well aware of how frustrated the Vatican is with the MP, despite the irenic nature of many statements coming from Rome in this regard (which are simply smart, good diplomacy and PR). Against that background, it is easy to detect the glee in the zenit article at the recent press reports, and the hope that this public opinion (which was surely impacted by the Pope's trip to Ukraine, and thereby to a degree molded by the Vatican) can undermine the MP's opposition to a Papal trip to Moscow at this time. It is simply a different way of skinning the cat. If you can't get the hierarchs to agree by speaking with them, try to speak to "the people" (even if indirectly via Ukraine) and hope that this undermines the hierarchs' willingness to continue to stonewall the Vatican's desired trip. Not a conspiracy at all -- just a tactic, and a well-deployed one.

Brendan

Brendan,

I am still confused as to where you are coming from. At first you offer your opinion ("In my opinion, the best response from the MP would be to follow...") and then you fall back as to the MP's perogatives. I guess my question is, why IN YOUR OPINION, should the MP not welcome a visit by the pope?

Your comments about the media seem to be the best defense of an active papacy I have heard. Unlike long ago, when a bishop could be the sole voice of the Church in his area, modern media makes that impossible. The idea that The Pope might be a "court of appeals" as some ecumenists suggest is outdated. When a bishop speaks, his voice can be transitted around the world in a second, without any effort or intention on his part. In 1550, the Pope could have visited Lviv and no one in Moscow know a word abotu it. Nowdays, without leaving Rome, millions of Russians can read about the Pope.

I think were have here a major defect in Orthodoxy.

Olga

Brendan,

Does MP Alexei II need the Pope's permission to visit Russian Orthodox faithful in the Western world?

"which are simply smart, good diplomacy and PR"

Wow. When I was growing up we called it Christian love and charity. My how times change.

The MP still has the support of the majority of his flock and even that of the secular Russians who admire him as a Russian nationalist.

Whether that fact is for good or ill depends on one's personal beliefs, but it is a fact.

Just like the majority of Christians everywhere, the majority of Russian Orthodox are more concerned with life at the parish level than with what is happening miles and cultures away...and that is a blessing.
b.

[This message has been edited by bciulllp4userscommunity (edited 07-06-2001).]

"I guess my question is, why IN YOUR OPINION, should the MP not welcome a visit by the pope?"

IN MY OPINION, it is the Patriarch's prerogative to welcome or tolerate or simply turn his back. My recommendation would be to receive the Pope, in the way that the Greek Church did.

"Nowdays, without leaving Rome, millions of Russians can read about the Pope."

Exactly, and this is a major asset of the Vatican that is presently being deployed. If it is deployed succesfully, ultimately you are right -- despite all of the talk about collegiality coming in Catholicism, and against the best ideas in this regard coming from the Eastern Churches, the media culture will create an inexorable path to a centralized focus in the Church. Perhaps it is so inevitable, that Orthodoxy should simply give up now, realizing that this result is almost a foregone conclusion. But, in any case, Orthodoxy should at least realize what is happening at this point in time.

The next step beyond this one, probably a hundred years or more from now, is the gradual merging of liturgical usages. With enhanced communications, the opening of borders, and the development of a truly global culture, this will, of necessity, have an impact on liturgical use. In a few hundred years there will be far fewer cultural differences to justify particular rites -- and certainly not the ones that exist today. But perhaps that is inevitable as well.

"Does MP Alexei II need the Pope's permission to visit Russian Orthodox faithful in the Western world?"

Where did I say that the Pope needed the MP's permission to visit Moscow? The point is not that the Pope needs permission -- the point is that the Vatican wants to be welcomed. It's the difference between going against the MP's wishes (as was done in Ukraine), and going with the blessing of the MP. The Vatican *wants* the latter -- it does not *need* it.

Brendan

"IN MY OPINION, it is the Patriarch's prerogative to welcome or tolerate or simply turn his back. My recommendation would be to receive the Pope, in the way that the Greek Church did."

Alright. Can I ask, what is the reason you do not recommend the MP welcome the pope?


"Exactly, and this [without leaving Rome, millions of Russians can read about the Pope] is a major asset of the Vatican that is presently being deployed."

I think this is the difficulty I am having with your statements. Transnational commnications is simply a fact of the modern world. Is is not a particular Vatican assest it signularly deploys.


"despite all of the talk about collegiality coming in Catholicism, and against the best ideas in this regard coming from the Eastern Churches, the media culture will create an inexorable path to a centralized focus in the Church. Perhaps it is so inevitable, that Orthodoxy should simply give up now, realizing that this result is almost a foregone conclusion."

It might be a good idea. I do think their is some truth to your prediction of the future. I think you major mistake though is misapplying the term "collegiality". The modern world makes the Pope essential to collegiality. A cacophony of bishops is not collegiality, but episcopy without collegicality. Collegiality requires the body of bishops to speak as a college. This is more difficult nowdays where a statement by a bishop in Yomamastan can be transmited across the world in a moment.

I think the collegiality in the Catholic Church is underappreciated. It is an American trait (not a Catholic nor Orthodox) to value transparency and formal, public procedures in decision making. Some merit exists in this, but that is a different matter than collegiality.

Take for example the Pope's Letter ont eh Gospel of Life. The College of Cardinals propsed the idea of the Pope writing a letter on this topic. The Pope accepted teh request, but then wrote a letter to each of the world's Catholic bishop's asking for their ideas, thoughts and experiences. After this, the Letter was drafted. Protestant and Orthodox authorities were also consulted with.

I know the cynics will sneer, refusing to beleive that Christian bishops would actually behave collegially, but for me, I accept it.

Olga

"Can I ask, what is the reason you do not recommend the MP welcome the pope?"

In my personal opinion, I think a "soft welcome" along the lines of what Archbishop Christodoulos did in Greece would be appropriate. A more embracing welcome would not be accepted by the more conservative elements within the Russian Church, and would also effectively scuttle the tentative, quiet beginnings of rapprochement with ROCOR that have been taking place.

"Transnational commnications is simply a fact of the modern world. Is is not a particular Vatican assest it signularly deploys."

Of course not, but the Vatican has resources (financial, demographical, organizational, educational) that far outstip the collective assets of Orthodoxy in these areas. One can say that all can deploy the media, but some, due to their resources and skill, can more effectively do so -- and that is certainly the case with the Vatican.

"It might be a good idea." Of course, that would mean the death of Orthodoxy. Perhaps, if the second part of my prediction comes to pass, that will happen anyway as we all merge into a global rite (which will be largely based on the Western, as that is the culture that is presently forming the basis for the emerging global culture).

"The modern world makes the Pope essential to collegiality"

I really don't disagree with that. I think there is a value to having a single spokesperson. The key issue is the content of what is being spoken, however, and its source. I am considerably less sanguine than you are about the present state of collegiality in the Catholic Church. It may the case that the episcopate is consulted for some matters -- but for others, it's clearly not the case. One need only point to the recent spectacle of Cardinal Cassidy openly critiquing Dominus Iesus -- an indication that this document does not seem to have been arrived at in a collegial manner at all. Or the howling from many Eastern Catholic bishops when the new Eastern Code was promulgated. So much for collegiality.

At the present time, it seems that much collegiality is aspirational. The Vatican appears to use it at some points, while at others it seems to act as central regulator. At the end of the day, and CDF's documents back this up, it is up to the Vatican to decide, in a particular case, how collegial or un-collegial to act -- and that decision is not collegially arrived at, and is not subject to collegial criticism. As long as that's the case, it's not really collegiality.

Brendan