20 June 2016 | by Tom Heneghan| The Tablet
Moscow's attachment to a sense of imperial grandeur at odds with Bartholomew's vision of universal Orthodox church
If Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
had had his way, the Eastern Orthodox churches would be holding their
Holy and Great Council this week in the former church of Hagia Irene in
Istanbul where an ecumenical council in 381 approved the Nicene Creed.
But the Russian Orthodox Church
refused to go because of tensions between Turkey and Russia over the war
in Syria, so he switched the meeting to a modern Orthodox Academy in
the tiny fishing port of Kolymvari in western Crete.
Faced with the famously slow pace of
Orthodox negotiations, the spiritual head of the world’s 250-300 million
Orthodox also wanted to get this Council to take some decisions by
majority vote.
The Russians, who represent up to
two-thirds of the world’s Orthodox, insisted on consensus voting,
however. That would respect all members’ opinions, they argued — but
also give them an effective veto over decisions at the summit. Again,
Bartholomew gave in to save his plan to hold the first Pan-Orthodox
Council in over 1,200 years.
Last week the Russians announced they
would not attend the Council, which got down to its formal
deliberations on Monday. The Ecumenical Patriarch is holding the meeting
anyway, but it is unclear how successful it can be if four of
Orthodoxy’s 14 autocephalous churches are absent.
Council officials are reluctant to
speculate about Moscow’s motives, but their frustration at the pressure
it exerted during preparations for the Council was clear. “The Russians
regularly asked for modifications of the texts and said that if they
were not made, they would not sign,” Council spokesman Fr John
Chryssavgis told The Tablet.
”Now they say many of their own ideas
were not accepted,” said the spokesman, who attended preparatory
rounds. “I wonder if the representatives of the Church of Russia
attended the same meetings.”
Since Moscow’s refusal, several
Western experts in the politics of the Orthodox world have shed light on
the approach of the Russian Church that has become a major player on
the world religion scene since the fall of communism and a close ally of
Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“Moscow is still attached to a sense
of imperial grandeur and is not backing the universal mission advocated
by Bartholomew,” Andrea Riccardi, founder of the Sant’Egidio movement,
told the Turin daily La Stampa.
“The decision (to stay away)
expresses and illustrates the fragmentation of the Orthodox Churches,
which are confined within their national borders,” the Italian historian
said. “On the contrary, the great dream of the Ecumenical Patriarch of
Constantinople has always been to steer Orthodoxy away from
traditionalism and nationalism.”
Riccardi thinks the Moscow
Patriarchate did not plan to sabotage the Council but also did not
strive to make it a success. “If they had really wanted to make the
Council flop, they would have had the opportunity to do this in the
preparatory phase,” he said.
“Bartholomew wants to relaunch the
Orthodox mission in the world, taking stock of the world’s problems and
portraying the image of a united Church. The Russian vision, however, is
restricted within its imperial confines, the confines of their great
country. “
Riccardi said the absentee churches
“risk turning into nationalist and traditionalist minorities in
countries facing a demographic crisis, where Protestant Christian groups
are on the rise. Orthodoxy is currently facing a deep crisis.”
In Paris, Orthodox intellectual
Jean-François Colosimo said rivalry between the two patriarchates could
be traced all the way back to the 15th century when Moscow began seeing
itself as the “Third Rome” after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks
in 1453.
Although Moscow cannot challenge the
Ecumenical Patriarch’s traditional status as the first among equals
within Orthodoxy, it can exert pressure because of its far larger size,
the historian and publisher told the daily La Croix, the French daily newspaper.
“But it’s a giant with feet of clay —
half the Russian Orthodox are in Ukraine, where war has been raging for
more than two years and threatens to blow up the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church.” he said.
There are three competing Orthodox
churches in Ukraine, only one of which is under Moscow’s authority. The
parliament in Kiev last week urged Bartholomew to help them unite into
one national church, which would break away from the Russian church and
considerably thin its ranks.
“Paradoxically, the absence of
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow at the Council is a consequence of his
meeting with Pope Francis,” Colosimo said, referring to the two church
leaders’ short meeting in Havana in February.
“This event, which was long delayed
to avoid annoying the ultra-nationalist right wing of his church and
risk a schism, finally crystallised a campaign against Kirill within his
own synod.”
The Russian church has thus ended up
“as the champion of an intransigent and minority Orthodoxy … more
marginalised than strengthened,” he said.
Thomas Bremer, a historian of
Orthodoxy at Münster University in Germany, noted the Moscow
Patriarchate often worked closely with the Kremlin, but that did not
mean its decision was influenced by President Putin.
“Moscow’s church is the biggest (in Orthodoxy) and an important power player in all relations between churches,” he told German Radio.
“It takes positions on political
questions too, including military issues like the Syrian war,” he said.
“I would not say it is Putin’s tool, rather it has its own positions
that often overlap with those of the Russian government — and, by the
way, with most people in Russia.”