Moscow Patriarchate

The present article addresses the history of the preparations of the Pan-Orthodox Council since 1923, when the Pan-Orthodox Conference was held in Istanbul, until January 2016, when the Synaxis of the Primates was held in Chambésy, Switzerland. This article describes distinctive features and main events of the pre-conciliar process at its different stages as well as retraces the formation of the Council’s agenda and the evolution of its preparatory procedure. The article demonstrates that relations between the local churches, especially those of the Ecumenical and Moscow Patriarchates, have affected the character and intensity of the pre-conciliar process. The author concludes that the preparatory methodology developed in the second half of the 20th century became inefficient in the early 21st century. The reconsideration of the accepted procedure made it possible for the churches to agree upon convening the Council in 2016. Yet we can presume that another Council will be necessary to consider a few items removed from the agenda of the upcoming Council.

Данный текст является переработкой статьи: Холмогоров, Е.С., Солдатов А.В. Каноническое пространство: принципы, идеологи, конфликты // Отечественные записки. 2002. №6 (7) [http://www.strana-oz.ru/2002/6/kanonicheskoe-prostranstvo-principy-ideologi-konflikty ]. Я оставил только свой текст и скорректировал итоговые выводы в соответствии с взглядыми, которые считаю истинными сегодня. В скорректированном виде работа, с актуальными на тот момент дополнениями, была опубликована в 2007 году на сайте «РП-монитор» под названием «Геополитика канонического пространства» Одна из многочисленных сетевых републикаций: [http:// katehon.ru/html/top/eccleo/geopol_kanonich_prostr.htm ]. Я не счел необходимым вносить в статью какие-либо изменения в соответствии с канонической ситуацией 2018 года, так как, во-первых, современное состояние проблемы достаточно раскрыто в других моих статьях (список которых прилагается в конце), а тот факт, что точка в этом тексте была поставлена 11 лет назад лишь придает ему ещё большую актуальность. Обозначенный тогда конфликт сегодня вышел на поверхность. Убежден, что движение нашей канонической идеологии в направлении Церкви-Традиции, намеченное в этой статье, является наиболее адекватным ответом на вызовы современности.

‘A Tale of Two Speeches: Secularism and Primacy in Contemporary Roman Catholicism and Russian Orthodoxy’ ed. John Chryssavgis, Primacy in the Church: The Office of Primate and the Authority of the Councils, Volume 2: Contemporary and Contextual Perspectives (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2016), pp.807-837.

The article discusses ecclesiological issues that were included in the agenda of Pan-Orthodox Council but found no solution in the pre-conciliar debates: the Orthodox Diaspora; proclamation of autocephaly; the role of the Diptychs. The author then examines the issue of primacy in the Universal Church. All these questions can becombined and connected with the issue of the supreme or sovereign power in the Orthodox Church: its localization and mechanics for the implementation. The author examines content and essence of each issue, main approaches to their solution and attempts to reconcile them within the framework of the pre-conciliar discussions. The analysis reveals two ecclesiological models of the Orthodox Church structure and two approaches to understanding the sovereign power. These two models can be described by formulas: “first without equal” and “equal without the first”. The first model confers supreme power on Ecumenical Patriarch who is the “first in honor.” The second one insists on the fundamental equality of the autocephalous local churches and regards them as ecclesial sovereigns. The incompatibility of these models is the main cause of failure of all attempts to solve controversial issues within the pre-conciliar process.

The issue of the autocephaly of Ukrainian Orthodoxy has once again demonstrated that the concept of atheism and the fight against religion propagated by the communists did not bring the expected results. On the contrary, religion has become a factor that connects societies in the republics of the former USSR with the former metropolis, especially for Slavic and Orthodox populations. It should not come as a surprise, therefore, that the problem of the autocephaly of Ukrainian Orthodoxy has been exploited in the current Russian-Ukrainian dispute, described as a post-imperial hybrid war. The aim of this article is to show how both sides of the conflict are using the issue of the autocephaly of Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) have submitted a request to the Ecumenical Patriarch (i.e. the pa-triarch of Constantinople, the supreme head of all Orthodox Churches) to grant autocephaly to Ukrainian Orthodoxy. On 19 April the Ukrainian parliament, at the request of President Petro Poroshenko, expressed its support for this measure. The President himself expressed his support on 22 April. There are numerous indications that a positive decision regarding this issue has already been made, and a relevant thomos (patriarch's decree) will be announced any time this year Proclamation of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Particular Orthodox Church (Ukrayinska Pomisna Avtokefalna Pravoslavna Tserkva, UAPOC) will likely trigger a new wave of confessional conflicts across Ukraine, including a likely schism in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which recognizes the primacy of the patriarch of Moscow (UOC). It is beyond any doubt that a certain portion of believers and clergy, which today is difficult to estimate, will remain loyal to Moscow and that the Moscow Patriarchate will make every effort to support Ukrainian structures of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). The government of Ukraine, for its part, will try to prevent the development of these structures. From the political point of view, both the expected granting of autocephaly to Ukrainian Ortho-doxy and the likely conflicts resulting from this are favourable to President Poroshenko because they increase both his and his party's chances of re-election in the elections planned for 2019. On the one hand, he will gain new trust from patriotically minded voters, on the other hand, opponents of autocephaly will coalesce around pro-Russian parties. This in turn may help promote a pro-Russian politician to compete with Poroshenko in the second round of presidential voting as a weak counter-candidate whom the current president would defeat relatively easily.

THE ISSUE OF LEGAL BOUNDARIES OF THE MOSCOW PATRIARCH

ACCORDING TO THE ACTS OF THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 1593,

THE MISSIVE OF THE PATRIARCH DIONYSIUS IV IN 1686

AND THE 17TH CANON OF THE FORTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

Archimandrite Feognost (Pushkov)

The article covers the topical question for the modern Orthodox society that is the issue of the legal boundaries of the Moscow Patriarchy. The question became especially acute being motivated by Ukraine temporality in achieving autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. There is a tense dispute between Constantinople and Moscow – did Moscow get a right of jurisdiction over the Kyivan Metropolitanate that had initially been under the jurisdiction of Constantinople? The apologist for Moscow jurisdiction was priest Mikhail Zheltov, the Candidate of Theology. Nevertheless his fundamental and seemingly profound essay “Historical canonical bases for the unity of the Russian Church” was fairly disgraced by both secular scholars and specialists in ecclesiastic law, especially by canonist of Constantinople Patriarchy. However, pointing out weak points in Zheltov’s essay the critics also criticized the negation of canonicity of Moscow Patriarchy jurisdiction over the Kyivan Metropolitanate. Moreover, this article will prove demonstratively that disputable findings of father Mikhail do not mean that canonist of Constantinople have perfect arguments. The settlement of the question in scientific-canonical form has significant importance in overcoming the crisis between Constantinople and Moscow as well as in Ukrainian Orthodoxy divided into warring fractions like Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kiev Patriarchy, and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

Keywords: autocephaly of Ukrainian Church, the Council of Constantinople in 1593, the Missive of the Patriarch Dionysius IV in 1686, legal boundaries of the Moscow Patriarch.


Вопрос о границах юрисдикции Московского Патриарха согласно актам Константинопольского собора Восточных Патриархов 1593 г., грамоты Константинопольского Патриарха Дионисия IV 1686 г. и на основании 17-го канона IV Вселенского Собора // Studia Humanitatis, 4, 2018.

The article is devoted to the journalistic activities of the world-famous confessor, archpastor and surgeon St. Luke (Voino-Yasenetsky) in the «Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate» in the 1940–1950s. Having endured many years of exile and oppression for his church activities, St. Luke nevertheless speaks out in these articles about Soviet power extremely positively. The author asks about the reasons for this, about the true political views of the saint and the role of his publications. The publications are studied in comparison with the biography of the saint and the general historical context in the light of the problem of the double identity of believers in the citizens of the Soviet Union. As for the political views of the saint, three main versions that exist in literature are considered: monarchism, adherence to constitutional democracy or socialism. The conclusion is drawn: most likely, St. Luke preferred a constitutional-democratic system, but the political system of any state was fundamentally secondary for the saint in relation to religious faith and the ability for the Church to carry out activities to save human souls. Some pro-Soviet extremes in the articles of the saint can be explained by the specifics of the historical moment — the temporary "turn" of the Soviet regime towards the Church in the 1940s, as well as by the state recognition of the saint's personal merits; in addition, St. Luke could be guided by diplomatic principles and pastoral considerations for the sake of resolving or smoothing out internal ideological contradictions among Soviet citizens associated with a dual Orthodox-Soviet identity.

Edward B. Bunn SJ, Intercultural Center, #270
37th and O St., NW, Washington
23 February 2017, 12:30-13:45

The Christian communities of modern Iraq have been obliged to adapt to a wide variety of changing religious, political, social and economic circumstances. From the foundation of the state of Iraq in the aftermath of the First World War through to the overthrow of Saddam Husain the Christians have attempted to deal with often highly challenging circumstances. Nevertheless, for the most part Christians have strongly grounded themselves in Iraqi society and have been net contributors. This talk will consider how Christian-Muslim relations have altered over the last one hundred years and reflect on how Christian and Muslim engagements may develop in light of the rise of Da'esh/ISIL and the ethnic cleansing of Iraq's Christian population.

A so-called 'Autocephalous Church' cannot stop the commemoration of another Church for reasons of secondary importance, particularly the commemoration of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Such a state-of-affairs constitutes 'ecclesiological heresy'.

“Fener Moskova İlişkileri ve Ortodoks Kilisesi’nin Krizi”, Yörünge, 13 (Ekim 2018).
web: <http://www.yorungedergi.com/2018/10/fener-moskova-iliskileri-ve-ortodoks-kilisesinin-krizi/>

Demirperde ülkelerinin 1990'ların başında yıkılması ve eski Sovyet Cumhuriyetlerinin dağılması sürecinde Fener Patrikhanesi'nin, Moskova aleyhine tekrar atağa geçtiğini görmekteyiz. Bu süreçte Moskova Patrikliği'ni en fazla kızdıran hadise, Fener'in 1996 yılında Estonya Kilisesi'ni kendisine bağlamasıdır. Buna karşılık olarak Moskova, Fener'le beraber icra ettikleri ayinleri geçici süreyle durdurma kararı almıştır. Şimdilerde bu olay " Ukrayna'nın provası " olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Eylül ayının ortasında dünya basınına yansıyan haberler, Ortodoks Hristiyanlığındaki iç krizin çok ciddi boyutlarda olduğuna işaret ediyor. Ortodoksluğun iki büyük kilisesinden biri olan Moskova Rus Patrikhanesi, tarihi rakibi İstanbul Fener Rum Patrikhanesi'nin temsil edileceği toplantılara katılmayacağını, Fener'i hiçbir şekilde muhatap almayacağını, ortak ayinlerin durdurulacağını ve bundan sonra dualarda, Fener Patriği Bartholomeos'un isminin anılmayacağını açıkladı. Bu kararların gerekçesi Fener'in, Ukrayna'daki Kiev Patrikhanesi'nin otonom statüsünü (otosefal patriklik statüsü) Moskova'nın itirazına rağmen resmen tanıma yönünde somut adımlar atmasıydı. Kiev Kilisesi'nden gelen bağımsızlık başvurusu üzerine Fener Patrikhanesi, ABD ve Kanada'dan metropolit ünvanlı iki temsilcisini Kiev'e göndermişti. Bu ruhanilerin bağımsızlık çalışmalarını başlatacakları ve elde ettikleri sonuçları 9-11 Ekim'de İstanbul'da toplanması beklenen Sinod'a (Büyük Ruhaniler Konseyi) sunacakları belirtildi. Moskova Patrikhanesi ise sadece, kendisine bağlı faaliyet yürüten Ukrayna Ortodoks Kilisesi'ni tanıyor ve diğer Ukrayna Kiliselerinin gayrimeşruluğunu savunuyor. Fener'in bu tanıma girişiminin Moskova Patrikhanesi'nin 'kanonik', yani sınırları kilise kanunlarıyla belirlenmiş topraklarına bir müdahale anlamına geleceğini söylüyor.

Отказ Русской Православной Церкви от участия в Святом и Великом Соборе свидетельствует не только о напряженных отношениях между Константинопольским и Московским патриархатами, но и о кризисе в системе управления внутри Русской Православной Церкви.

The issue of the autocephaly of Ukrainian Orthodoxy has once again demonstrated that the concept of atheism and the fight against religion propagated by the communists did not bring the expected results. On the contrary, religion has become a factor that connects societies in the republics of the former USSR with the former metropolis, especially for Slavic and Orthodox populations. It should not come as a surprise, therefore, that the problem of the autocephaly of Ukrainian Orthodoxy has been exploited in the current Russian-Ukrainian dispute, described as a post-imperial hybrid war. The aim of this article is to show how both sides of the conflict are using the issue of the autocephaly of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Streszczenie: Kwestia autokefalii ukraińskiego prawosławia po raz kolejny pokazała, że propagowana przez komunistów koncepcja ateizmu i walki z religią nie przyniosła w perspektywie takich rezultatów, jakich oczekiwano. Odwrotnie-religia stała się czynnikiem integrującym społeczeństwa republik byłego ZSRR z dawną metropolią, a uwaga ta dotyczy zwłaszcza ludności sło-wiańskiej i prawosławnej. Nie powinno zatem dziwić, że problem autokefalii ukraińskiego prawosławia został wykorzystany w aktualnym sporze rosyjsko-ukraińskim, określanym jako postimperialna wojna hybrydowa. Celem ni-niejszego artykułu jest ukazanie, jak obie strony konfliktu wykorzystują temat autokefalii ukraińskiego prawosławia.

The XVI century in Russia opened with the fight between the followers of Nil Sorskij (in favor of monastic poverty) and the followers of Josif Volokolamskij (defender of rich and charitable monasteries). Important chapters were also the "Great readings" by metropolitan Makarij, the "council of 100 chapters" and the institution of Moscow patriarchate (1589).

İnternet Röportajı: “Ortodoks Aleminde Politik Çekişmeler”,
Anadolu Ajansı’na mülakat, röp.: Elif Selin Çalık Muhasiloviç, 18 Eylül 2018, <https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/analiz-haber/prof-dr-buyukkara-ortodoks-aleminde-politik-cekismeler/1257700#>.

İstanbul Şehir Üniversitesi İslami İlimler Fakültesi Dekanı Prof. Dr. Mehmet Ali Büyükkara, Fener Rum Patrikhanesi’nin Ukrayna kiliselerinin bağımsızlığı yönünde Kiev'e temsilci göndermesi sonrasında Rus
Ortodoks Kilisesi ile kopma noktasına gelen ilişkilerinde Anadolu Ajansının sorularını yanıtladı.
Büyükkara, tarihte iki kilise arasında benzer ihtilafların yaşandığını ve bu son çekişmenin Turuncu Devrimi'nin son halkası olduğunu söyledi.

Анализ официальных заявлений и текущей политики Московского патриархата выявил рассогласованность и противоречивость его позиций относительно охоты. Активизация природоохранной деятельности Русской православной церкви может привес­ти к закреплению негативных тенденций.
An analysis of official statements and the current policy of the Moscow Patriarchate re­ vealed mismatch and inconsistency of its positions concerning hunting. Enhancing environmental activity of the Russian Orthodox Church can consolidate negative trends.