Russian opponents of Pope Francis risk serious losses
Stanislav Stremidlovsky, December 7, 2022, 14:53 — REGNUM
Pope Francis
Ivan Shilov © IA REGNUM
Two months after the chairman of the department for external church relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Hilarion, hinted in an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera about an upcoming new meeting between Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' and Pope Francis, this information was confirmed by the pontiff himself. He did this on board the papal plane returning from Athens to Rome on Monday, December 6.
Answering a question from TASS correspondent Vera Shcherbakova, the pope said: “The meeting with Patriarch Kirill is just around the corner. I think that next week Hilarion will come to me to arrange a possible meeting, because the patriarch has to leave - I don’t know where he’s going... he’s going to Finland, but I’m not sure. I’m always ready, I’m also ready to go to Moscow: there are no protocols for dialogue with my brother.” A few hours later, explanations followed from the head of the DECR. “My meeting with Pope Francis is scheduled for the twentieth of December,” the Metropolitan said. “I propose to congratulate him on behalf of Patriarch Kirill on his 85th birthday, and also discuss with him a wide range of issues relating to bilateral relations between our Churches. Among these issues is a possible future meeting between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill. Neither the place nor the date of this meeting have been determined yet... Regarding the pope’s visit to Moscow, I can say that this issue was not discussed at the bilateral level. I hope that the meeting scheduled for December 20th will allow us to discuss all issues of mutual interest.” At the same time, Hilarion clarified that preparations for the visit of the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church to Finland have been suspended.
That is, it is better to cross out Helsinki from the places of the supposed meeting between Francis and Kirill. In our opinion, the second personal communication between the pope and the patriarch can most likely be expected on the sidelines of the VII Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, which will take place next September in Kazakhstan. Although if you remember the circumstances of the first meeting between Francis and Kirill, which took place in February 2016 in Havana, only a week passed from its announcement to its holding. Such a minimal gap was made, as can be judged, in the interests of the Russian side. While the Catholic world calmly accepted the news of the negotiations between the pope and the patriarch, the Russian-Ukrainian Orthodox community became worried. The same thing is happening now, which makes one wonder why this time the discussion of plans for a new meeting was extended over time. Perhaps in order to reveal in advance the arguments of opponents of dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. Moreover, they did not keep us waiting.
Pope Francis, Patriarch Kirill and Metropolitan Hilarion
(c) o. Igor Palkin. Press service of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
There have been statements from conservative Orthodox commentators that “Pope Francis’ words about a possible imminent visit to Moscow are certainly a provocation. Formally, as the heads of the dwarf state of the Vatican, the “pontiffs” were repeatedly invited to visit Russia. But we need to understand and keep in mind the religious component of this visit. The fact that for millions of Russian Orthodox Christians this will be perceived as a challenge, as an attempt at external invasion, Roman Catholic expansion.” It was also said that the pontiff “in recent years has regularly made “curtsies” to the left-liberal “masters” of this world.” And Patriarch Kirill was reproached that “in church Moscow they are now thinking hard about how to build a foreign church policy and not lag behind Patriarch Bartholomew in ecumenical contacts, but what may be much more important is that because of this pursuit behind the Phanar, in the Russian Orthodox Church itself, the disunity between believers and the clergy will continue to grow.” At the same time, it is indicated that “the spiritual authority of Patriarch Kirill was extremely low even before the pandemic - everyone knew him as a good church manager and diplomat, but not as a spiritual ascetic. However, at first, believers still had hope that, like Patriarch Alexy II, Patriarch Kirill would eventually win the love and complete trust of his flock,” but “this did not happen.”
Let's start with the fact that the accusations of Francis of “curtseying to the left-liberal “masters” of this world” are not an original invention of conservative Orthodox conservatives. In this case, they are using the developments of American right-wing Catholic circles, dissatisfied with the pope’s course. During the tenure of US President Donald Trump, such Catholics allied themselves with white evangelicals who supported the policies of the then occupant of the White House. In July 2022, the influential Italian Jesuit magazine La Civilta Cattolica wrote about this, drawing attention to the “amazing ecumenism” of some American evangelical fundamentalists and Catholics. After the election of US President Joe Biden, with whom the Vatican quickly found a common language, Francis began to be accused of playing on the side of the democratic administration and globalists, and critics of the pontiff, especially Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, turned out to be a favorite character of both conservative American Catholic resources and some Russian-speaking Orthodox Christians . They are also trying to fit the Russian Orthodox Church into this context, although this confrontational situation is not its internal agenda.
Pope Francis visiting the Capitol. USA
(cc)USCapitol
Attempts to attribute some kind of “competition” with Phanar in “ecumenical contacts” to Patriarch Kirill also look untenable. If the patriarchs “compete” anywhere, it is on the Orthodox field. The greatest irritation in Constantinople is the Amman format created with the participation of the Moscow Patriarchate, which unites a number of Orthodox Churches, and not the communication of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Holy See. The problem is different. After the breakthrough meeting in Havana, the Moscow Patriarchate did not dare to develop the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, fearing its internal conservatives. However, recently interstate contacts between the Vatican and Russia have intensified significantly. Against their background, the foreign policy activities of the Russian Orthodox Church look “frozen.” This could lead to the fact that the Moscow Patriarchate will be taken out of the brackets of Russian-Vatican relations. After which Pope Francis, as a statesman, will be invited to visit Moscow by the Russian leadership, dismissing church arguments about the “undesirability” of such a visit as insignificant and bearing signs of external influence.
Patriarch and Pope
The centralization of church power in Byzantium led to the emergence of Patriarchs - bishops of capitals or regions historically significant for Christianity (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria), who had rights that went beyond the “first among equals”. For example, the patriarchs could personally subjugate individual churches or monasteries in dioceses other than their own. Often, with the support of the Emperor, they intervened in the affairs of other dioceses and even carried out trials against bishops. But such a practice, although widespread and rooted for centuries, was not deeply reflected in Orthodox church legislation and, since the disappearance of the Orthodox empires, has ceased to be significant and decisive. From this point of view, the Pope is perceived as no more than the Roman Patriarch. Today, the Patriarch of one Local Church, for example, Constantinople, is in no way superior to the Patriarch of another Church, say, Georgian. The highest authority in each of the Orthodox Churches in all matters belongs and can belong only to the Council of Bishops. During the inter-council period, Churches are most often governed by Synods - small councils of the most authoritative (and in the Russian tradition, the most titled) bishops. The Patriarch carries out operational management of the Church on current issues, but does not interfere in the internal life of the dioceses. At the same time, the Orthodox tradition does not recognize either the Council, or the Synod, or even less the Patriarch, as infallible or infallible. The patriarchate is essentially an administrative position with some special powers. But the life of Orthodox local churches, Orthodox church legislation and history tell us that the patriarchate is not an obligatory attribute of the Church, and certainly not a guarantor of the integrity of the Church, its preservation or its prosperity. For example, the Hellenic (Greek) Church is governed by a Synod chaired by an archbishop. From the time of Peter I until 1918, the Russian Church was also governed by a Synod, consisting not only of bishops, but also of a secular official, a representative of the emperor, endowed with enormous power. It can be said unequivocally that any Local Church has the right to self-determinate in choosing the form and means of self-government. The main thing is unity with other Local Churches. The patriarch is first among equals, and at the same time his department can change its place. Let us remember the Russian Church. The leading department was Kiev, Vladimir, Moscow, then actually St. Petersburg, now Moscow again, and this looks completely natural. The virtues of the ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch are now mainly in the memory of their former great history. New local Churches and new Patriarchates are emerging, and we look at this as a sometimes tragic, painful, but nevertheless understandable path of church-historical development.The Patriarch is the chief bishop (bishop), the primate of the Local Orthodox Church. First among equal bishops, the Patriarch has primacy of honor among and is accountable to the Local and Bishops' Councils.
The patriarch belongs to the third degree of the sacred hierarchy - the episcopate. The rank of Patriarch is for life. Exercising his canonical authority, the Patriarch: a) bears responsibility for the implementation of the decisions of the Councils and the Holy Synod; b) submits reports to the Councils on the state of the Church during the inter-Council period; c) maintains the unity of the Church; d) convenes meetings of the Supreme Church Council and presides over them; e) submit candidates for members of the Inter-Council Presence for approval by the Holy Synod; f) exercises supervisory supervision over all synodal institutions; g) addresses the entire Church with pastoral messages; h) signs church-wide documents after appropriate approval by the Holy Synod; i) exercises executive and administrative powers for the management of the Moscow Patriarchate; j) communicates with the Primates of the Orthodox Churches in pursuance of the resolutions of the Councils or the Holy Synod, as well as on one’s own behalf; k) represents the Orthodox Church in relations with the highest bodies of state power and administration; l) has a duty of petition and sorrow before public authorities, both in the canonical territory and outside it; m) approves the statutes of Self-Governing Churches, Exarchates, Metropolitan Districts and Dioceses; o) approves the journals of the Synods of the Exarchates and Metropolitan Districts; n) receives appeals from diocesan bishops of Self-Governing Churches; p) approves decisions of the highest church court in cases provided for by the Regulations on the Church Court; c) issues decrees on the election and appointment of diocesan bishops, heads of synodal institutions, vicar bishops, rectors of theological educational institutions, as well as other officials appointed by the Holy Synod, with the exception of rectors of theological educational institutions, as well as abbots (abbesses) and governors of diocesan monasteries submission; r) has care for the timely replacement of episcopal departments; s) entrusts bishops with the temporary management of dioceses in the event of a long-term illness, death or being under ecclesiastical court of diocesan bishops; t) monitors the fulfillment by bishops of their archpastoral duty to care for the dioceses; x) has the right to visit, in necessary cases, all dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church (Rule 34 of the Holy Apostles, Rule 9 of the Council of Antioch, Rule 52 (63) of the Council of Carthage); c) approves the annual reports of diocesan bishops; h) gives fraternal advice to bishops both regarding their personal lives and regarding the performance of their archpastoral duty; in case of inattention to his advice, invites the Holy Synod to make an appropriate decision; w) accepts for consideration cases related to misunderstandings between bishops who voluntarily turn to his mediation without formal legal proceedings; the decisions of the Patriarch in such cases are binding on both parties; y) accepts complaints against bishops and gives them due process; z) allows bishops leave for a period of more than 14 days; e) awards bishops with established titles and highest church honors; j) rewards clergy and laity with church awards; i) on the recommendation of the Educational Committee, approves the creation of new departments in religious educational institutions; z1) approves the awarding of academic degrees and titles; z2) has care for the timely production and consecration of the holy world for general church needs.
Metropolitan Hilarion: The Patriarch and the Pope will discuss how Christians can survive
After an audience with Pope Francis in the Vatican, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, gave an exclusive interview to RIA Novosti, in which he revealed details of the preparations for the second meeting in history between the Pontiff and His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'.
– After the conversation with Pope Francis, you expressed hope that the second meeting of the Pontiff with Patriarch Kirill will take place in 2022 and will be prepared in the coming months. Can we expect it to take place already in the first half of 2022, before Lent or after Easter, in spring or summer?
– I believe that it will be more convenient to hold the meeting after Easter, but the exact time has yet to be agreed upon.
– Are there plans to coincide the second meeting with any events, holidays, anniversaries?
– Not planned yet.
– Pope Francis recently announced that he is ready to come to Moscow. But at your meeting with the Pontiff this option for the place of his meeting with Patriarch Kirill was not discussed - could you explain why? The Russian Orthodox Church is not considering the option of a meeting between the Patriarch and the Pope in Moscow?
– We are now discussing the possibility of a meeting not in Russia or Italy, but in a third country.
– Is Patriarch Kirill’s visit to the Vatican for a second meeting with Pope Francis ruled out or not?
– Such a visit is not planned.
– What venues are being considered for the meeting? Where, in your opinion, is the second meeting of the Pope and the Patriarch most preferable and likely?
“We have discussed specific sites, but until one of them is agreed upon with all interested parties, we will not name it.
– Could the meeting take place again, for example, in Havana?
- Don't think.
– Patriarch Kirill expressed his readiness to attend the forum of heads of world religions in Kazakhstan in 2022, and in May 2022 it is planned to hold an interfaith meeting under the auspices of the UN in Russia. Can the spiritual leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church meet at one of these venues?
– This location was not discussed.
– What are the goals of the second meeting of Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis? And what topics and issues would the parties like to discuss at it?
– The main question is: how can Christians survive in a world that is becoming increasingly aggressive towards them in a number of regions. Not only in the Middle East, where in recent years in some countries there has been a massive displacement of Christians from their places of residence, and not only in a number of African countries, where Christians are subject to persecution and persecution. But also in Europe, where cases of attacks on churches and desecration of shrines have become more frequent. I mentioned some such cases in my speech at the Free University of Bari.
– Will the parties touch upon the topics of peacemaking, reducing political tension between the West and Russia, upholding traditional Christian values in Europe and the world, global trends in moving away from traditional ideas about two sexes and marriage, new biotechnologies, the introduction of artificial intelligence, pandemics, QR codes and fears establishing total control over citizens, migration flows and crises, environmental problems, the future of Christianity and humanity as a whole? What are the most pressing issues?
– All of these issues – or some of them – will be touched upon. The content of the meeting remains to be worked out, and we have already begun to discuss it with Cardinal Koch.
– Is it possible to discuss theological topics to resolve doctrinal contradictions between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church?
– There are no plans to discuss theological and doctrinal topics.
– What hopes does the Russian Orthodox Church have regarding Pope Francis’s attitude to the Ukrainian issue? Is the Pontiff's visit to Ukraine ruled out in light of preparations for his second meeting in history with the Patriarch of Moscow? Is it expected that Pope Francis will make a statement in support of the position of the Russian Church on the issue of the schism in Ukraine, as well as the crisis in the Orthodox world as a result of the actions of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople?
– We should not drag the Roman Pontiff into solving inter-Orthodox problems and will not do so. The situation in Ukraine cannot but cause our common concern, but whether it will be discussed at the meeting between the Pope and the Patriarch is yet to be determined.
– Is the support of the Russian Church expected in discussions about other problematic areas of Christianity – Montenegro, Macedonia?
“I don’t think these topics will be discussed, although the two church leaders may wish to discuss any topics.” Cardinal Koch and I will prepare a list of questions, and how the conversation will proceed depends on the interlocutors themselves.
– Have all the points of the joint Havana declaration of 2016 been fulfilled, what has it achieved and what remains to be done?
– No, they are far from all completed. This declaration gave us tasks for many years to come. And regardless of the success of the next meeting, this first meeting in itself was a landmark event in the history of bilateral relations.
– Should we wait for a new declaration after the second meeting, about what mainly?
– This remains to be discussed.
– Is it possible for leaders of other religions to participate in the second meeting of Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis?
– It is planned that the meeting itself will be bilateral in nature.
– How do you overall assess the effectiveness of your meeting with Pope Francis? Which issues raised in the conversation do you consider the most important and relevant and why?
– The conversation was informative, lasted one hour and took place in a very good atmosphere. I was able to discuss with the Pontiff all the main issues on the bilateral agenda. I assess the meeting as very productive.
Interviewed by Olga Lipich.
“Meeting of the Millennium” and the threat of a new “Diomidism”
The Havana meeting of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' with Pope Francis from the very moment of its announcement until the present day has been the subject of a fierce information war. Various forces are participating in this war - Catholics, Uniates, domestic philo-Catholics, politicians of different colors and trends, journalists with little church and not very literate in church matters, and, finally, critics of the meeting between the Patriarch and the Pope, who are usually called “zealots.” purity of Orthodoxy."
However, we are interested, first of all, in two groups of fighters who are capable of negatively influencing the church and political situation in Russia - philocatholists and zealots. The first welcomed the news of the “meeting of the millennium” with delight, declaring that this was the beginning of the unification of Christians on the platform of struggle for common moral values, during which, they say, “other differences” (as they call the dogmatic distortion of the Christian faith by Catholics) will be removed by themselves . The latter initially received the meeting with hostility, declaring it in advance a “betrayal of Orthodoxy,” “an unspoken union,” and “a defeat of the Russian Orthodox Church.”
Let’s try to understand in more detail the position of the participants in the information war and formulate a sober view of this historical event, no matter how you look at it.
Participants in the war offer their interpretation of not only the joint statement signed following the meeting, but even the meeting itself. The first insist that the meeting has been prepared for 20 years, and finally the situation has matured and a breakthrough has occurred. The second, remembering the spiritual mentor of Patriarch Kirill, Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov), are trying to prove that an official meeting with the Pope is almost a long-standing dream of His Holiness the Patriarch.
Meanwhile, the key to understanding the meaning of the meeting between His Holiness Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis was given, in my opinion, by Patriarch Kirill himself, who said remarkable words at the very beginning of the meeting: “The meeting is taking place at the right time and in the right place.”
What is the correctness and timeliness of this meeting? How should we understand these words of the Patriarch?
When the meeting was announced, the emphasis was placed on the fact that its main goal was to stop the killing and persecution of Christians in the Middle East. The tragedy of Middle Eastern Christians, of course, resonates with pain in the hearts of all people of good will, not only Christians. But this problem could have been solved by some kind of joint statement at the level of second and third parties of the Russian Church and the Vatican, especially since the call of two religious leaders in itself is unlikely to stop the genocide of Middle Eastern Christians. And the document signed at the end of the meeting indicates that this issue was not the main one on the agenda, although it received a lot of attention in the text. Therefore, Patriarch Kirill, speaking about the timeliness of the meeting with the Pope, had something else in mind. I believe the relevance of the meeting can be explained by two reasons.
Firstly, the fact that today the world is balancing on the brink of a big war. The threat of a ground operation in Syria, voiced by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, means an almost inevitable military clash with Russia, which could escalate into a global conflict, or even a world war. After all, Turkey is a member of NATO, and, according to the NATO charter, any aggression against one of the members of the bloc (if desired, a military clash can easily be interpreted as aggression) is considered an aggression against the entire North Atlantic Alliance. In other words, in fact, Turkey and the forces behind it are actively provoking a world war - and this is a very serious threat. His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, in his concluding remarks after the meeting, directly speaks of the need to “work together <with the Pope> so that there is no war.” We need to understand that today the Vatican is the only force in the West that 1) can influence the situation, 2) is an independent (independent of the United States) political player, 3) is not interested in a world war.
In addition, Russia is actively seeking to prevent Europe from being subjugated to the United States. This is, in fact, the nerve of Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy, since here lies the main threat to Russia. After all, if the West consolidates and unites against Russia, then, despite all our strategic partnership with China, India and other third world countries, Russia will not be able to resist such a confrontation. Both Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and His Holiness Patriarch Kirill understand this very well. And here we find common ground with the Vatican, which is why the meeting took place at the “right time.”
Secondly, the meeting took place on the eve of the Pan-Orthodox Conference, the unspoken goal of which is to confirm (and maybe even formalize) the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in Orthodoxy. But the paradox is that Patriarch Bartholomew, despite the fact that he heads the Patriarchate of Constantinople, with which the Russian Orthodox Church is in Eucharistic communion, is actually a puppet of the United States. On the sidelines, our church officials call him nothing more than “our overseas partner.” In other words, Patriarch Bartholomew is not an independent force, which is the Pope. On the eve of the Pan-Orthodox Conference, Patriarch Kirill demonstrates who is the real head of the Orthodox world today. It is noteworthy that all the media, including Catholic ones, call the meeting of the Pope with His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow nothing less than “the meeting of the millennium”, “an attempt to overcome the division of the Churches.” It turns out that the meetings that the Pope had with the Patriarch of Constantinople since 1965 (and there were not only meetings, but also joint prayers and services) are considered nothing. And this is undoubtedly a foreign policy victory for the Russian Orthodox Church.
The Patriarch also spoke about the “correct place” of the meeting. The location was truly chosen perfectly. And this is an undoubted merit not only of our church foreign policy department, but, most likely, personally of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill. Firstly, the meeting took place at the airport, which, by definition, is neutral territory, which emphasized the seemingly random nature of the meeting. In addition, the airport hall was apparently chosen so that there would not be even a shadow of doubt about any joint worship. And this is exactly what our Patriarch was suspected of by “zealots beyond reason.” Some, however, have already seen a catch in the meeting at the airport - they say they met in the entrance courtyard, in a place unworthy of such a meeting. Secondly, the meeting took place in a historically Catholic country, but one of the most pro-Russian in terms of the mood of the population. By choosing the meeting place, the Primate of the Russian Church seems to show that Latin America, which is one of the largest areas of the Catholic Church, is also considered as a zone of presence of the Russian Orthodox Church, for the Russian state is becoming increasingly interested here.
In other words, the meeting between His Holiness Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis was of an ecclesiastical and political nature and was caused by political expediency.
Judging by the way the meeting itself took place, I got the strong impression that, despite the neutral location of the meeting, the receiving party was the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. This was emphasized by the surroundings and regulations of the meeting. According to Orthodox custom, the two religious leaders greeted each other with three kisses. In the hall where the meeting took place, a Russian crucifix from the 19th century was installed. During the ceremony of signing the joint statement, behind the backs of the two leaders was the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God, which is associated in Russian consciousness with the expulsion of Catholic Poles from Moscow. Following the meeting, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill was the first to speak. Yes, and our Patriarch looked very advantageous against the background of the pope: both externally and in the content of his speech. The power was felt in his words, and the Pope reduced his speech only to words of gratitude to the organizers of the meeting. The impression was that he was either very tired and did not calculate his strength, or was upset by the results of the negotiations.
In fact, Patriarch Kirill in his speech, when he spoke about the mission of the two Churches, spoke as the head of the Universal Orthodox Church. Now no one in the world can have even a shadow of doubt about who heads World Orthodoxy. In fact, in Havana we observed the triumph of the Third Rome!
Of course, a Jesuit on the Roman throne would not be a Jesuit if he had not added tar to this celebration. In the Pope's speeches we heard some expressions that are intended to sow doubt among observers. In particular, the Pontiff stated that the meeting was being prepared in secret (well, as if at the order of our “zealots”, who will have something to gossip about), that we have the same faith, that the initiator of the meeting was supposedly Moscow, and not the Vatican. But all these attacks look “like a good mine in a bad game.”
As expected, the Joint Statement adopted following the meeting also became the subject of the information war. Two moderately critical assessments of the document were published by Russian People's Line: priest Georgy Maksimov and deacon Vladimir Vasilik. It is difficult to disagree with many of their assessments. However, in my opinion, both Father Georgy and Father Vladimir did not place their emphasis quite correctly. After all, the Joint Statement signed in Havana is not a doctrinal document, but a church-political one, so attempts to interpret it in theological categories are not entirely appropriate. We must agree that the Havana Declaration, like any political document, is deliberately of a compromise nature. And it could not be otherwise in the current conditions. Priest Sergiy Karamyshev rightly draws attention to this in his article.
And I certainly cannot agree with the conclusion of Father Vladimir Vasilik: “In this case, I consider this meeting as our defeat.” A detailed analysis of the statement is not my task. But some provisions of the Joint Statement cannot be ignored.
In fact, on the issue of protecting moral ideals, the Pope signed the declaration of the Russian Orthodox Church, which for several years has been loudly defending traditional values in the international space: protecting the family from juvenile justice, protecting the traditional understanding of the family as a union of a man and a woman, rejection of abortion, euthanasia , biomedical reproductive technologies. Let us note that the Pope actually spoke out against the “holy of holies” of modern Western ideology - the equality of rights between the traditional and homosexual families, for which he will still have to answer to the “progressive public”.
It is very important that the Pope recognized that union “is not the way to restore unity.” This is a serious blow to the Uniates, who, on the eve of the meeting, expected that the Pope plans to achieve condemnation of “Russian aggression against independent Ukraine.” Of course, the document says that since the union arose, then let it exist, since it reflects the real sentiments in some part of the Christian world. In a word, the Uniates were told that you can exist in your ghetto, but even the Vatican is not going to recognize you as a normal phenomenon. The union is defined in the joint statement as a “suitcase without a handle,” which is inconvenient to carry, but the Vatican would also be sorry to throw away.
In general, regarding the situation in Ukraine, the position of the Russian Orthodox Church has been accepted on all issues. Overcoming the schism among the Orthodox in Ukraine can only happen “on the basis of existing canonical norms.” This means that the Kyiv authorities, “Patriarch” Filaret, and Ukrainian autocephalists in the UOC-MP must forget their dream of “overcoming the schism in Ukrainian Orthodoxy by declaring autocephaly.” What a sadness for Patriarch Bartholomew, who for a long time and not without benefit for himself hunted in this field! The situation in Ukraine is assessed in the document as a “deep economic and humanitarian crisis”, moreover, having internal causes, and not at all the result of “Russian aggression” - there is something to upset the Uniates about.
“Any forms of proselytism” are condemned—and this is what the Russian Orthodox Church has long sought from the Vatican.
The situation in the Middle East, to which a lot of space is devoted in the statement, is described from the position of Russia.
Finally, the document condemns the “enforced system of international relations,” and this is a system imposed by the Americans, within which “growing inequality in the distribution of earthly goods increases the sense of injustice.” The “unbridled consumption characteristic of some of the most developed countries” is also condemned, i.e. Western countries. The current Pontiff, as a Latin American, is known to be trying to play the “leftist” card. Therefore, the words from the statement: “Our gaze is addressed to people in difficult situations, living in conditions of extreme need and poverty at a time when the material wealth of mankind is growing,” should be considered as a reminder that Russia is also a country of historically left-wing sentiments, therefore We will not yield the palm to the Vatican here.
Of course, the joint statement carefully avoids issues related to our dogmatic and canonical differences, and if desired, this can be interpreted as a concession to the Vatican (which is already being done). But, in my opinion, we should read the statement as a church-political declaration that does not entail the need to change the attitude towards Catholics, as a part of the Christian world that has broken away from Ecumenical Orthodoxy. One can understand the concern that arises among Orthodox Christians about the streamlined and compromising formulations of the joint statement, which was pointed out by Father Georgy Maksimov and Father Vladimir Vasilik. But this concern is directed rather to the future. Now, if, on the basis of the “Havana Statement,” attempts are made to sign documents that distort the teaching of the Church, recognize the dogmatic and canonical deviations of Catholics as insignificant, and introduce the practice of special relations with Catholics as a “sister church,” then this must be fought . But today there is no reason to make a fuss yet.
I believe that such attempts on the part of our home-grown philo-Catholics, who, to be honest, were and are in our Church, will follow. In recent years, philo-Catholics have become quiet. Now, one might expect, they will become more active and will focus on the joint struggle for conservative values in Europe, which, in their interpretation, can unite the Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church, and introduce into the public consciousness the idea that the falling away of Catholics from the fullness of the Church is something unimportant , easily overcome. Surely, the fundamental fact will be carefully obscured that Catholics, due to distortions of the doctrine, actually fell away from the Christian Church, and that by definition there cannot be any “sister churches”.
However, I think that, despite the activation of all kinds of philo-Catholics in connection with the meeting in Havana, they still do not have serious support within our Church. The idea of the unity of Orthodox and Catholics in the struggle for common moral values is actively propagated by rather not very literate and little church journalists who covered the “meeting of the millennium.” But the threat from them cannot pose a serious danger to the Church. All the faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church understand perfectly well that we need, of course, to support those Catholics in Europe who are fighting for traditional values, but this is not the basis for overcoming the “Great Schism,” the causes of which have deep dogmatic foundations.
But the threat of a “new Diomidism”, attempts to organize a schism on the right, is much more dangerous and real for the Church. All sorts of “zealots beyond reason” began to throw a hysteria about the “betrayal of Orthodoxy” even after the meeting in Chambesy, which seemed to be supposed to alleviate concerns about the agenda of the Pan-Orthodox Council. But it was not there. Still, Father Alexander Shumsky is right, who clearly defined that at the heart of everything is the issue of trust in the Patriarch and the Hierarchy. If there is no trust, nothing will help.
During this time, the editors of the Russian People's Line received a large number of all kinds of appeals and accusatory comments from people speaking out in defense of the purity of Orthodoxy. On the one hand, this is encouraging, because the anxiety and concern of the believing people is obvious, which testifies to the conciliar character of our Church. On the other hand, the gullibility and mythologization of the consciousness of many people and the inexorable craving for conspiracy theories are striking. In particular, some blame the Hierarchy for keeping the text of the declaration secret and not putting it out for public discussion. But this is not the Constitution of the country, this is a Joint Statement, the text of which, very likely, was changed during the meeting itself. Where have you seen that a document signed after negotiations was previously discussed by the public?!
Or here's another one. Some note that the meeting of the Patriarch with the Pope took place immediately after the visit to Russia of our influential figure from the “world behind the scenes” Henry Kissinger. It seems that people are either in touch with secret structures, or are receiving information from Sir Henry himself. It was known to the ancients: after that does not mean because of that.
The assessment of the meeting of the Patriarch with the Pope as a “tacit union” is being spread on “zealous resources”, since, they say, we, “by signing an agreement with the Pope, indirectly recognized his primacy over all Christians.” Even serious analysts were gripped by a kind of insanity. Thus, several regular and authoritative authors of RNL asked to draw my attention to the following quote from one “zealous” document: “The declaration that is going to be signed in Havana, whatever its content, will contain the signatures of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church MP and the Pope of Rome, official whose title reads as follows: “Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Pontifex Maximus, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the Servants of God.” The signature of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church MP will mean that he officially recognized the title, and therefore the status of the Pope as the “Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church” and thus his subordinate position as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church MP.” As another of our regular authors wittily remarked on this: “The full official title of the Patriarch of Alexandria is His Beatitude, Most Divine and Holy Father and Chief Shepherd, Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all Egypt and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd Shepherds, Hierarch of Hierarchs, Thirteenth Apostle and Judge of the Universe. It turns out, according to this stupid logic, that when the Patriarch of Moscow signs some documents with the Patriarch of Alexandria, he recognizes that he is the Judge of the Universe.” Moreover, under the document signed by Patriarch Kirill in Havana, the title of the Pope appears: “Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis of the Catholic Church.”
The quote I cited was taken from the “Address to the Orthodox people of Russia, near and far abroad” from a certain anonymous “Orthodox Front”. In this appeal, which, I repeat, was suggested to me by two very serious regular authors of RNL, as an important document with which they agree, the situation in the Church is described in completely apocalyptic tones. For example, “the consequences of the ecumenical activities of a number of hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church in recent decades have led to a tragedy,” “which promises to end in a spiritual catastrophe in the form of the so-called Pan-Orthodox Council.” And the meeting of “the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church MP with the Roman Pontiff, in essence, means the official recognition of the Roman Catholic Church as a “sister church,” and therefore recognition of the grace of all its sacraments and directions of pseudo-spiritual life.” “There is an open betrayal of the Orthodox Faith, unprecedented for Russia, on the part of part of the ruling hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate. The point of no return has been passed. A mystical catastrophe is unfolding before our eyes, which will lead to irreparable consequences in the world, and they will definitely affect each of us.” And in conclusion, it is reported that “the convocation of the Orthodox People’s Council (Local) is being prepared.” Thus, some anonymous “Orthodox front-line soldiers” are calling for preparations for a schismatic council, and this appeal, unfortunately, was published by some Orthodox websites.
In a word, after the meeting of the Patriarch with the Pope, the threat of schism loomed, just as it loomed before the Russian Orthodox Church after the speech of the former Bishop of Chukotka Diomede (Dzyuban). One cannot underestimate this hysterical reaction of “zealots beyond reason”, who can seduce some part of the Orthodox people. We may be facing a “new Diomidovism.” So far, however, they do not have a leader. But the threat is real, passions are running high.
At the same time, as is known, the meeting with the Pope was announced after the Council of Bishops, at which Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), a fighter against ecumenism and denouncer of Catholicism, was glorified as a Saint, that is, a teacher of the Church. Some, however, saw a kind of split in this, they say, “the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.” I think, on the contrary, this is just a clear signal from the Hierarchy, which testifies to the unity of thought and will and gives the key to understanding that the Russian Orthodox Church will not retreat in its confession of the truth and will speak with the Vatican from a position of confidence and strength.
What fuels the schismatic sentiments that from time to time make their way to the surface of church life? The question is not easy. The reasons should probably be sought in the public consciousness. One of them lies on the surface, as priest Alexander Shumsky wrote in his article - distrust of the authorities. We see the manifestation of this disease both in relation to church power and in relation to secular power. For some reason, some of our active brothers in faith are convinced that the Patriarch and bishops are ready to betray Orthodoxy, and they, zealots, must be on alert to prevent betrayal. And some of our patriotically minded fellow citizens think about the same thing about our President. Pathological distrust of power is a serious disease of public (including church) consciousness. And this disease must be treated through the common efforts of all sober-minded people.
Postscript: In conclusion, I would like to give an assessment of the meeting of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill with Pope Francis of such an authoritative and very interested person as the leader of the Uniates of Ukraine, Archbishop Svyatoslav (Shevchuk). Judge for yourself how much more thorough and accurate his judgments are than those of our zealots. On the eve of the meeting, he stated his expectations that Pope Francis would force Patriarch Kirill to admit responsibility for the liquidation of the union in 1946, for the current “aggression against Ukraine,” and so on. In short, everyone was waiting for good news for the Uniates from Havana.
And after the meeting, in an interview with the official website of the UGCC, he was already sad: “From our many years of experience, we can say: when the Vatican and Moscow organize meetings or sign some kind of joint texts, then we have nothing to expect from this anything good.”
Shevchuk, unlike our “zealots,” noted that for Patriarch Kirill the meeting was purely political in nature, and he stopped the Vatican’s attempts to transfer it into the sphere of “theological dialogue” and “prayerful communication.” Here is a quote from Shevchuk: “What immediately catches your eye, especially in their comments at the end of the meeting, is that they were in completely different dimensions and set themselves different tasks. The Holy Father Francis experienced this meeting primarily as a spiritual event. He began his word with the fact that we, Catholics and Orthodox, share the same Baptism. While dating, he sought the Holy Spirit and received His support. He emphasized that the unity of the Churches is achieved when we walk together on a common path, and he wanted this meeting to be the beginning of it. The Patriarch of Moscow immediately made it clear that we were not talking about the Spirit, theology, or truly religious things. Pure politics. No joint prayer, emphatically official phrases about the “fate of the world,” and the airport as a neutral, that is, non-church, environment. It seemed like they were in two parallel worlds.”
For the head of the Uniates, “the points relating to Ukraine in general and the UGCC in particular raised more questions than answers.” This, in his opinion, is due to the fact that the DECR outplayed the Vatican. “It was officially reported that this document is the fruit of the work of Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) on the Orthodox side and Cardinal Kurt Koch and the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity on the Catholic side.” And Cardinal Koch, according to Shevchuk, is incompetent in drawing up “a document that should not be theological, but, in fact, socio-political.” (!) Our “zealots” are dissatisfied with the fact that the “Havana Statement” was adopted without widespread discussion and was drawn up in secret. Paradoxically, the leader of the Uniates also grieves about the same thing: “By the way, I <...> am an official member of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity and was appointed by Pope Benedict. However, no one asked me to express my opinion, and, in fact, as was the case before, they talked about us - without us, without giving us a voice.”
And, finally, the Uniate assessment of the Joint Statement signed in Havana: “Undoubtedly, this text caused deep disappointment among many believers of our church and simply concerned citizens of Ukraine. Today, many contacted me about this and said that they felt betrayed by the Vatican, disappointed by the half-hearted truth in this document and even indirect support from the Apostolic Capital of Russian aggression against Ukraine.”
Meeting of the Patriarch and the Pope: comments from the Old Believers
On February 12, 2016, a meeting between Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' and Pope Francis took place in the building of the José Martí International Airport in the capital of Cuba, Havana. A meeting of this level was the first in the entire modern history of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. This event caused a great resonance among the New Believers. A number of clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate spoke extremely harshly about this meeting, accusing its participants of heresy, while others, on the contrary, approved the development of dialogue between churches and the conservative-traditionalist orientation of the declaration signed by the parties. Opinions were also expressed that there was nothing supernatural in this event. The Pope and Eastern patriarchs, such as Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, meet regularly.
Oddly enough, this event is also actively discussed in the Old Believer consensus, which seems to be far from the church-political processes of dialogue between Eastern and Western Christianity. Today we are publishing opinions about this meeting of authoritative Old Believer clergy and experts.
Metropolitan Cornelius, Moscow and All Rus' (RPSC) (from answers to questions from readers on February 16, 2016)
To be honest, I don’t have a TV and I personally don’t use the Internet, but major world events still become known in one way or another. I think the Lord gives information about what is needed and what is not needed, maybe not. The meeting between Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis has nothing to do with us, with our Old Believer Church. Nobody asked our blessing for it.
How do I feel about this meeting?
The head of the information and publishing department of the Moscow Metropolis, Alexander Vasilyevich Antonov, noted that, perhaps, it was even good that they talked about Syria during the meeting. They said that it was time to end the war in Syria. It will be very good if the war stops, because it is scary when there is fighting, many people are killed, and for many refugees the war has become a real tragedy.
At this meeting, the inadmissibility of same-sex marriage was discussed, and this is also good, and we, the Old Believers, for our part also say that this is unacceptable. However, it is sad that shortly before this meeting, a parade of sodomites was held in Cuba, as they say, to please the Americans. I don’t know if this is an accident, a coincidence or a deliberate provocation. Of course, a very unpleasant introduction to such meetings, one might say. Alexander Vasilyevich says that the participants in the meeting of heads of faiths also condemned all this disgrace. As for the far-reaching results of the meeting between Patriarch Kirill and the Pope, we will wait and see. What will happen next, maybe, what secrets there may be, while today we are away from this topic.
Dean of the West Siberian Deanery (Siberian Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church) Archpriest Andrey Marchenko
The meeting of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church MP Kirill with Pope Francis is an event more likely from the sphere of Russian foreign policy, rather than from the religious sphere. It seems to me groundless to assume the unification of these faiths, since neither the Roman Throne will ever give up the idea of its primacy in favor of equality, nor the Russian Orthodox Church MP will agree to become just another Uniate Patriarchate under the omophorion of “Servants of the Servants of God,” especially taking into account the reverence with which The Russian Orthodox Church MP refers to the issue of its own primacy in the Christian world. Neither side will ever overstep its ambitions, at least in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I think there is no reason to expect any further practical steps towards the unification of these faiths. Even the step taken was not easy for Patriarch Kirill, which is evident from the fact that preparations for the Cuban meeting, according to Patriarch Kirill himself, were carried out in absolute secrecy and only five people knew about it. That is, Patriarch Kirill did not consider it possible for himself in this case to count on the loyalty of his own flock and clergy.
In such conditions, is it possible to talk about some kind of future connection? Although it should be admitted that modern New Believers are resigned, and some “with a feeling of deep satisfaction,” are ready to swallow anything. The subject of public discussion was the meeting between the patriarch and the pope, although there is nothing remarkable in the meeting itself, except that it is the first in the history of the New Believer Church. Patriarch Kirill constantly meets with Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists as part of various events. There is nothing unusual or reprehensible in this if the issues being discussed are of public importance and go beyond the interests of one confession. At the meeting between the pope and the patriarch, issues of a global scale were discussed: opposition to terrorism, persecution of Christians in the Middle East, etc.
And everything would have been fine if not for the very spirit of the joint Statement signed at the end of the meeting, in which all disagreements between Orthodox and Catholics are declared “a consequence of human weakness and sinfulness.” That is, according to the views of the compilers of this Statement and Patriarch Kirill, who signed it, the Eastern Church had no real reasons (theological and canonical) for breaking off relations with the Western Church... But, as I already said, modern New Believers are ready, apparently, without chewing swallow anything.
How should Old Believers react to this? No way. This meeting has nothing directly to do with Old Belief. And any increased attention to such events can only indicate a strange psychological dependence on external ones. Meanwhile, St. ap. Paul instructs us: “Why should I judge those who are outside? Are you not judging the internal ones? But God judges those who are outside” (1 Cor. 5:12,13). Old Believers must be completely self-sufficient, since they consider themselves the Church of Christ. The maximum that can change in the case of the union of New Believers and Catholics, which still seems illusory, is the order of renunciation of heresy. It will simply be supplemented accordingly...
Rector of the Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in Rostov-on-Don , Fr. Ioann Sevastyanov
Regarding the meeting of Patriarch Kirill with the Pope as a political event, nothing definite can be said. Because the real essence of these events always remains behind the scenes. Only a narrow circle of people knows the true causes and consequences. And they inform society to the extent that they consider it useful for themselves.
But what is really surprising is the reaction of the Old Believer community to this incident. How excited everyone was! How many concerns, warnings, “irrefutable facts”, “canonical assessments” and “authoritative opinions” have been expressed regarding a confession that seems to be foreign to us! I find this fact more surprising than the meeting itself. It turns out that many Old Believers have not yet completely cut the umbilical cord connecting them to the Russian Orthodox Church? How many people are still tormented by phantom pain over a once lost part of their life?
In this sense, the meeting was very important for the Old Believers. As an indicator, as a litmus test of the real relationship between the Old Believers and the Russian Orthodox Church MP.
Associate Professor of the Higher School of Economics, employee of the Academy of Sciences, head teacher of the theological school of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church in 2007 - 2014 Alexey Muravyov .
In my opinion, this event has nothing to do with the life of Old Believers, or even those Christians who do not belong to the Russian Orthodox Church MP. This event has little relation even to the internal life of the Moscow Patriarchate, because now the whole situation with religion in the world has changed very much. If in the 1990s the public reacted very violently to, say, the patriarch’s prayer in a Catholic church or to a visit to a synagogue, now no one is interested in this anymore. This is a political event, moreover, with an unknown subtext - economic, political, we know nothing about it. The society was shown through the media a certain “signal of love and kindness”, which our political leadership seems to be sending to the whole world. That's how I understand it.
It’s funny that people started making analogies: the Byzantine emperors in the last years of their reign, fearing to find justice for the Turks, sold their faith to Catholics, to the Pope... but now there is nothing like that. After all, in fact, the Pope is ready to abandon not only the filioque, but also almost some of the fundamental foundations of Catholicism in the traditional sense. There has been some kind of total substitution of many religious concepts. And the New Believer patriarch is not a symbol of the inviolability of Orthodoxy.
Today the Catholic Church is in a completely different situation, that is, it has the most liberal program, the Catholic Church is ready to make some kind of peace, relatively speaking, with the Russian Orthodox Church on private issues. Both churches have a very broad reform program, which largely coincides, but no one will unite - this is simply not beneficial to anyone. Therefore, it seems to me that this event, which is not worth such attention, does not mean anything at all.
The New Believer Patriarch meets with the Pope, and not for the first time. Because Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople regularly meets and prays with the Pope, has the Greek Church united with the Roman Church? No, it didn't unite. In today's world, congregational prayer means nothing. As for the quality of faith and the problems of theological dialogue, no one calls us, Old Believers, experts on the purity of the Nikonian faith. Now no one has such a request. Therefore, frankly, it is surprising that any of the Old Believers are interested in this at all.
From the editor: in continuation of the topic, read the impressions of a Catholic priest about serving in Russia: “Fr. Dariusz Pelyak: “There is one classic example of the influence of Orthodoxy on the Catholic environment in Russia . ”
About the possibility of Havana-2
Photo: From the author’s personal archive
On October 6 of this year, DECR Chairman Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk announced sensational news that shocked many children of the Russian Orthodox Church. It turns out that in an atmosphere of secrecy, a meeting is being prepared between His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' with Pope Francis I, whom, we note, even many faithful Catholics, because of his actions, prefer to call simply Bergoglio. The place and time of the meeting have not been disclosed and may not yet be determined. Since His Holiness Patriarch Kirill has not yet expressed his final decision, nothing prevents us, of course, within the framework of loyalty and correctness, from discussing the idea of this meeting. Moreover, it has been publicly announced that a meeting with the Pope with a fairly high probability may concern issues of faith, and faith, as written in the Message of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848, is the property not only of patriarchs and metropolitans, but of the entire people of God.
In our humble opinion, the meeting of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill with the Jesuit Bergoglio is extremely undesirable for a number of reasons.
1. There is no worthy person to meet with His Holiness the Patriarch. The Catholic world has never renounced its heresies, through which it excommunicated itself from the Universal Church. “You will never be in the Church as long as you teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son,” says St. Gregory Palamas, whose memory we solemnly celebrate every second Sunday of Great Lent, in his essay “Against the Latins.” In addition, Bergoglio’s sly statements in support of homosexuality and homosexuals are all too well known. His Holiness Patriarch Kirill and the Russian Orthodox Church were already damaged enough by some ambiguous clauses of the Havana Agreement. And the introduction of the idol of the goddess Pachamama into the Vatican, and corresponding statements in support of paganism and neo-paganism, place the Jesuit Bergoglio and people of like minds with him outside of Christianity as such. A meeting with such a person would be unworthy of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' both as the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church and as a person.
2. There is no decent agenda for the meeting. The Syrian issue and the problems of Christophobia were already discussed at the Havana meeting, and simply repeating them does not make sense, since it would indicate helplessness in solving them. The only possible agenda is the Ukrainian issue. But if it is placed on the plane of the predatory actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, then the Russian Orthodox Church will find itself in a humiliating and false position: as an arbiter of Orthodox disputes... the heterodox Pope of Rome, with whom we have no canonical communion, is called upon. As the Apostle Paul says in his Epistle to the Corinthians: “How dare any of you go to court, and even before unbelievers?” (1 Cor. 6:1). Bergoglio, by his worship of the goddess Pachamama, placed himself on the same level as the pagan authorities of Rome, if not lower. Discussions are still raging among canonists over whether the Pope in the 1st millennium had the right of appeal to him by the Universal Church. In our opinion, he possessed it only within the framework of Western patriarchy. However, this dispute lost all meaning after 1054, after the fall of the Roman Patriarchate from the Universal Church. Due to his heresy, the Pope does not have any powers in the Universal Church. If we resort to his help, we will admit our inability to resolve our internal Orthodox issues ourselves and confirm the opinion of our ill-wishers, who believe that the essence of the Ukrainian issue is the race of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow for the right to become special, close to the emperor, sorry - to the Pope.
3. Discussion of the issue of coexistence of Orthodox and Catholics in Ukraine is also meaningless. This issue was already raised at the Havana meeting. It solemnly proclaimed: “Orthodox and Catholics are united not only by the common Tradition of the Church of the first millennium, but also by the mission of preaching the Gospel of Christ in the modern world. This mission... excludes any form of proselytism. We are not rivals, but brothers." And what? “And Vaska listens and eats.” Catholic proselytism continues to this day, to the point that on May 10, 2022, Pope Francis elevated the Kiev church to the rank of cathedral church of the Kiev-Zhytomyr diocese of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). In other words, Orthodox Kyiv, the Mother of Russian cities, became a Catholic metropolis, which did not happen even at the height of the Union in the 17th century. Thus, the Vatican showed what kind of brothers we really are - in the spirit of the famous words of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”: “Brother said to brother: “This is mine and that is mine.” The Pope signed that he is the master of his word: he wants - he gives, he wants - he takes back, and, simply put, the word given to “schismatics” means nothing to him (and that is exactly what we are for them from the point of view of the classical Catholic ecclesiology, which no one in the Vatican even thought of abandoning). Not to mention how such meetings in the current context are perceived by millions of Orthodox Christians belonging to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, who suffered from the aggressive actions of Catholics and Uniates.
4. The first trip of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill to Havana, unfortunately, caused unrest, schisms and a certain outflow of believers from the Russian Orthodox Church. I say this with sorrow, because among those who left were my friends, and at one time I made certain efforts to prevent them from going into schism, which, unfortunately, were not very effective. There are serious concerns that such destructive processes can only increase due to the repetition of the reasons that provoke them. Unfortunately, from year to year there is a drop in the number of believers coming to churches. If before 2009 the number of Orthodox Christians who came to Easter services amounted to about 10% of the population of the Russian Federation, then in 2022 it reached 2-3%, and in 2022 – 1%. Havana 2 could lead to an even greater fall.
5. Historical experience shows that meetings of senior leaders, secular or spiritual, with the popes and the conclusion of agreements with them have always been followed by troubles for Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church. You don’t have to look far for examples: in 1847, Emperor Nicholas I, after meeting with Pope Pius IX, concluded a concordat with the Vatican. Six years later, the sad Crimean War broke out for us, in the instigation of which Pope Pius and his minions took an active part. In 1978, Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad met with Pope John Paul I and died untimely at the reception. In 1988 M.S. Gorbachev meets with Pope John Paul II. The Russian Orthodox Church loses about 3,000 parishes in Ukraine, seized by the Uniates with the help of the republican authorities, and in 1991 the Soviet Union collapses, to which the Vatican had a hand. And after the Havana meeting in 2022, the Tomos of the Shameful Memory of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople is issued and the schismatic structure of the OCU is created, which leads to a schism in world Orthodoxy, and then we are hit by the COVID-19 epidemic, as a result of which in 2020 many believers were forced to celebrate Easter in front of the closed doors of churches. I leave it to the readers to decide for themselves – post hoc, aut propter hoc (whether after this or because of this).
All this shows that the meeting of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill with Pope Francis is highly undesirable. I emphasize that I am writing this out of filial duty towards His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, with every possible concern for his honor and good, and even more so for the good and honor of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Protodeacon Vladimir Vasilik, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Candidate of Philological Sciences, Candidate of Theology, Professor, Member of the Synodal Liturgical Commission
