|
|
Return to Home Page
The Russian Orthodox Church Calls for Honesty in Relations with
Non-Orthodox
After the dark years of politically-inspired ecumenical compromise under
the old Soviet regime, the Russian Orthodox Church inside Russia (MP),
now free and strengthened by entering into communion with the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), is calling for honest Orthodox
contact with Roman Catholicism.
According
to various news reports, on Monday 28 May, the Day of the Holy Spirit,
Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria called for a review of the way in
which the Orthodox Churches are represented on the mixed Orthodox-Roman
Catholic Commission. According to the multilingual, Oxford-educated Bishop
Hilarion, who is the official Russian Orthodox representative at several
European Organizations, current representation does not adequately reflect
the real disposition of forces and views in the Orthodox world. Bishop
Hilarion, briefly a Vicar-Bishop in Great Britain, before being rejected
by a small group of modernists who later went into schism from Russian
Orthodoxy, is thus reflecting the views that ROCOR has always held.
Bishop
Hilarion pointed out that the multi-million flock of the Russian Church
was represented on the Commission by two delegates, in the same way that
any other Orthodox Church, however small numerically, was represented
by two delegates. Given that the Russian Orthodox Church represents some
75% of the total Orthodox Church, this seemed strange, but then this is
what ROCOR has always said. Bishop Hilarion added that since the two representatives
of the Patriarchate of Constantinople are both Joint Chairman and Secretary
of the Commission, a certain imbalance had been created, especially when
the Orthodox Joint Chairman regularly insisted on his own opinion, which
might not be that of the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Bishop
Hilarion also repeated that the concept of taking decisions on theological
and ecclesiological questions at Commission meetings through a process
of voting was inadmissible. He said that it was not a question of majority
or minority opinion, but of ascertaining the truth and that even if only
one Orthodox Church spoke out against one or another formulation, then
that formulation would be unacceptable. There had to be a consensus and
voting in such a case would be inappropriate.
He
also called on Orthodox not to accept the forthcoming meeting of the Commission
in Ravenna, if Pope Benedict XVI and the Patriarch of Constantinople visited
it as if it were a meeting of the heads of two Churches, the Roman Catholic
and the Orthodox. He stated that in Universal Orthodoxy no bishop has
a role which parallels that of the Pope of Rome. He added that there was
no point in creating the illusion that such a bishop existed. For Orthodox,
the Patriarch of Constantinople is first in honour among those who preside
over the Local Orthodox Churches, not a sort of Eastern Pope.
Only
last week Bishop Hilarion called for the Austrian government to recognize
the Russian Orthodox Church and grant it legal status in Austria. Unfortunately,
during the decadent period of Communist captivity of the Russian Church,
the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Austria, as in Belgium, alone received
legal status, pushing aside and isolating all other Orthodox jurisdictions,
including ROCOR. Taking advantage of the captivity and therefore absence
of the Russian Church inside Russia in international relations at that
time, the impression had been given to unwitting foreign governments that
the Patriarchate of Constantinople had jurisdiction over all the Local
Orthodox Churches.
Today,
with the Russian Church at last free and renewed, it is the Patriarchate
of Constantinople which is seen to be a captive plaything - not of Soviet
Communism, but of both Turkish and Vatican politics.
Once
more we are seeing the long-held views of ROCOR now reflected by the whole
Russian Orthodox Church.
|
|
|
|