www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Ecumenism between Rome and Moscow

Interesting story on relations between Rome and Moscow during the events of 2003 and 2004.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344110?eng=y

More than a little misleading, too.

Stuart,

Really? How so?

See my response at First Thoughts [firstthings.com] , though it has not appeared just yet.

Stuart,

In reading George Weigel's blog, it seems to come down to this:


Is that what you're getting at; the fear that there is a cooperation between the Russian government at Patriarch Kirill for Russia to regain influence in Ukraine?

Do many feel that way?

The past tends to be prologue.

Count me among those who regard with dread the reassertion of Russian religious and political dominance in the region. Their involvement in Lithuania and Ukraine had (to say the least) quite a few negative effects.

In reading Goldman's blog, he seems to indicate that it is possible that the alliance between Rome and the Russian Patriarch has more to it than meets the eye.

It could be that the secret ulterior motive is that Paptriarch Kirill may become the way that Russia extends its influence over Western Europe under the auspices of the "re-evangelization" of Europe.
That the Russian government is using this alliance as a convenient way to further Russia's own political ends.

I suppose I can see this, considering that the Russian political leadership is the same people who ruled back during the former Soviet Union.

So, Stuart, is that what you mean when you say it is misleading?

So far, the only evidence of such a coooperation between the Russian Church and Russian government is the fact that only Patriarch Kirill was invited to the President of Ukraine's inauguration.

Is there that much suspicion about Patriarch Kirill and how would the elevation of Cardinal Husar to Patriarch have contributed to this?
I don't see it.

Alain Besançon's opinion about the alliance of Moscow and Rome in evangelizing Europe is even more bitter - he thinks that it's a classic game of divide et impera aimed at increasing tensions in Europe.

I don't know about "many issues" but here's to identifying some common ground.

Stuart. If you don't mind me asking, what do you think the reaction of the Vatican would be if, hypothetically, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarch, with the bishops' agreement, declares on its own (say this year) a Patriarchate in Kyiv, as Father Taft suggested. Admittedly, the most opportune time may have been some summers ago with a different political and religious situation.

Yet, since this is the goal for many Ukrainian Catholics, I think one should imagine what the immediate consequences would be. Moscow's response would be obvious. But it would put the Vatican in the situation of answering Yes or No if done publicly. Enough clergy and laity went to unnamed graves in Kazakhstan and elsewhere by way of justification. I wonder if the Vatican would reprimand the Ukrainian Church and/or its hierarchy were it to do this, and what would be the fallout. I really do. (And I really wish I knew where all the UGCC's bishops stand.)

Absolutely. Here is an interesting pov from one Ukrainian expert on the Moscow Patriarch preaching vociferously on the "Russian World" in Ukraine, and what it means.

Viktor Yelenkskyj writes:

"Now – despite/regardless of the ritual assurance to the respect to the Ukrainian choice – aims/purposes of the Moscow Patriarchate concerning Ukraine are strict, and, as a matter of fact, uncompromising.

Above all, this concerns ideological constructions: Orthodoxy in Ukraine should not enter the framework of the Russian World and try to comprehend itself in other contexts. Similar attempts of Orthodox theologians in uniting with the Moscow Patriarchate came across not only destructive criticism, but also downright badgering.

To rigidly squeeze Orthodoxy in Ukraine so that it fits in the historiosophic schemes constructed outside of Ukraine means to deny the creation of a unique religious culture. We [Russia]know better than you what the fundamental spiritual and religious-cultural foundation of your existence should be, is what Orthodox Ukrainians hear. We better understand the content of your historical memory, your spiritual bonds that unite you with other cultures and spiritual traditions and what your ideas are. Some unique memories, bonds, and ideals you cannot have. Discard particularism and move toward universalism. But universalism, which is often mentioned by the Moscow Patriarchate, is very specific.

The characteristics in this sense are the accusations addressed to nationalism. When this year Patriarch Kirill in Odesa described nationalism as an attempt to secure the welfare of one’s people on the cost of the suffering of others, he, it must be understood, spoke about Ukrainian, American, and Georgian nationalism, but never about Russian nationalism. At least, when in March 2008 President Putin directly announced that he is a “Russian nationalist” and that his successor Medvedev is also a Russian nationalist, there were no protests as far as one can remember."

full article:
http://www.risu.org.ua/en/index/expert_thought/authors_columns/vyelenskyi_column/36905/

Plus, the fact that Patriarch Kirill asked for a one-on-one meeting with the President of Ukraine Yanukovych, WITHOUT, taking with him the Metropolitan of the ostensibly autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) seems to show clearly that Moscow wishes to call the shots in Ukraine and won't even let its local head, Metropolitan Sabodan, be informed of what is to be discussed or to have a say in the matter. Some autonomous Church.