| Patriarch of Romania Speaks on the Importance of Church-State Cooperation in the European Context Source: Basilica.ro Photo: Basilica.ro Opening address by His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel of Romania at the International Conference on the relations between the State and religious denominations in the European Union , at the Palace of the Patriarchate, Friday, June 7, 2019. Importance of Church-State cooperation in the European context According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon of 2007, ‘ The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States ’ (article 7, paragraph 1 TFEU). Thus, ‘ recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations ’ (article 17, paragraph 3 TFEU). Therefore, in the European Union there is no ‘European model’ for the relationship between religious communities and the political authority, but the legislative systems in force in the EU Member States oscillate from a radical separation to an almost complete identification between a particular religious community and a State. At the same time, the European Union aims to engage in dialogue with religious denominations so that they may express their specific contribution to the European construction. Today there are four Member States with a majority Orthodox population in the European Union (Greece, Cyprus, Romania, and Bulgaria), where Autocephalous Churches are organized and operate, while in other Member States there are important Orthodox communities organized ethnically as autocephalous (Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia) or autonomous (Finland and Estonia). Also, in some Member States there are consistent Orthodox communities organized ethnically as diaspora (Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, and Austria). Romania, with a population of 16,307,000 Orthodox believers, is the largest country of the European Union with a majority Orthodox population. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Western Europe, Orthodoxy in JOHN A. MCGUCKIN Orthodoxy in Western Europe remains a small, but significant, church minority and presence. Though there were earlier Orthodox visitors, the establishment of a permanent and noticeable Orthodox presence in Western Europe (chiefly France, Britain, and Germany) really came about as a result of two specific waves of Orthodox immigration in the early and the late 20th century. In both cases the Orthodox presence was in the form of “diaspora” communities. The diaspora consists of the Orthodox faithful of the patriarchal, autocephalous, or autonomous Orthodox Churches (often referred to as “the jurisdictions”) who have moved elsewhere in the world and are, in their new countries, looked after by bishops appointed by the home synods of their originating churches. Only in America has there been any move to establish an indigenous Orthodox Church out of a diaspora community (the Orthodox Church of America). Throughout Western Europe the Orthodox institutional presence entirely relates back to missionary communities of the older churches. All Greeks (including Cypriots) living in the diaspora (a large number indeed) now fall under the jurisdictional care of the patriarchate of Constantinople, which has exarchates and missions in most western countries, given that the modern Greeks (like their ancient forebears) traveled far and wide. The Russian Orthodox also had a large diaspora population, especially after the great political upheavals caused by the Russian Revolution. Its diaspora institutions have also been profoundly complicated by those political troubles. The other larger churches that had a considerable number of faithful living abroad either set up pastoral missions for them, or knew that they could be pastorally cared for by the existing Greek and Russian ecclesiastical provisions. In more recent times, following on the collapse of totalitarian communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and also on the lifting of border restrictions within the parameters of the European Union, there has been considerable mobility in Western Europe among younger Romanians and naturally an extension of the pastoral provision for Romanian Orthodox in Europe and America has followed. It has been organized by the Patriarchal Synod of Romania, with specific reference to the pastoral needs of the Romanians in the diaspora, with an archbishop in Western and Central Europe, respectively, and also one in America. All of them are members of the Patriarchal Synod. |
| Thomas E. FitzGerald 9. AN ERA OF TRANSITIONS The year 1970 marked the beginning of two major controversies that profoundly affected the development of the Orthodox Church in the United States and marked a transition to a new stage of growth. The Russian Orthodox Metropolia was granted autocephalous status by the Patriarchate of Moscow in 1970. This meant that the Metropolia, from then on, known as the Orthodox Church in America, had been given recognition to be a fully independent, self-governing local church. This dramatic decision, however, was not recognized by all. During the same period, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese became embroiled in discussions over greater use of vernacular languages in worship. While both issues created much discord lasting well over a decade, they were expressions of deeper concerns over the permanent witness and mission of Orthodox Christianity in the United States. THE AUTOCEPHALY QUESTION The position and status of the Russian Orthodox Metropolia were dramatically altered by the political and ecclesiastical developments in the Soviet Union, especially after the death of Patriarch Tikhon in 1925. The October revolution of 1917 not only affected the relationship between church and state in the Soviet Union but also dealt a profound blow to the Russian Orthodox communities in the United States and Western Europe. The loss of financial support, combined with crisis in leadership and schisms, shook the Russian Orthodox Church in America throughout the 1920s. Under the leadership of Metropolitan Platon (Rozdestvensky), the Metropolia in 1924 declared itself to be «temporally autonomous» from its mother church, the Patriarchate of Moscow. This action was taken chiefly because many in America felt that communication with the official church in the Soviet Union was unreliable. Moreover, by 1933, the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Metropolia were refusing to give any pledge of loyalty to the government in the Soviet Union. 272 When attempts to reconcile the Metropolia to its mother church failed, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Moscow, led by the acting locum tenens of the Patriarchate, Metropolitan Sergius, declared on January 5, 1935, that the Metropolia was schismatic. Despite this bold action, the majority of the clergy and laity of the Metropolia " s approximately 250 parishes remained faithful to the leadership of Metropolitan Platon. 273 |
| “We have more than once stated earlier, and we emphasize now, that the Georgian Church considers violence and discrimination to be unacceptable, since the Christian religion is a religion of love and its teaching is founded upon love and mutual respect.” Further on, the significance of this bill for Georgia’s development was noted, and it was specified: “The introduction into this bill of terms that are not contained in the Constitution, such as “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” provokes the indignation of the people, since the individual rights of our fellow citizens even without it are equally protected in Georgia by existing legislation.” The Primate of Georgia pointed to the public outrage over the aforementioned bill and, basing his words on Holy Scripture, elucidated: “Based on the Commandments of the Lord, the society of the faithful rightly considers non-traditional sexual relations to be a mortal sin, and the Antidiscrimination Bill in its submitted form to be propaganda and legalization of this sin.” The Catholicos-Patriarch warned: “This bill casts doubt on the basic moral principles recognized by all religions, which in turn is fraught with the danger of the beginnings of discrimination against broad classes of society.” Describing the European Union, His Holiness and Beatitude Ilia II noted: “The European Union is a diverse space uniting different nations and religions; according to their Declaration, the European Union recognizes the culture and traditions of the various peoples, and with respect to Georgia is also prepared to take our values into account and to respect them.” And therefore, “The demands of this bill are at variance with these principles.” At the end of his statement the Head of the Church of Georgia respectfully addressed the Parliament of Georgia with a request and called upon it “to defer passing the bill in its submitted form, and to ensure the involvement of the Church and the general public in its consideration in order to attain mutual agreement, so that hasty actions would not negatively influence our country’s aspirations towards Europe.” |
| The question many people ask: How come hundreds of West Europeans came to fight for the self-proclaimed republics in Eastern Ukraine? In fact, the defense of Donbass became the first major volunteer war in Europe since the Spanish Civil War. Then the internationalist brigades (briogadistas) composed of the British, French and Polish leftists, coupled with military professionals from the Soviet Union, fought against the onslaught of the Nazi-supported Franco regime on the legitimate leftist government in Madrid. This time, however, the volunteers face the main problems at home: unlike the communists of the 1930s, they are often blacklisted or even arrested upon their return to the ‘zone of prosperity, democracy and rule of law’ in Spain or Germany. The usual explanation of the mainstream media: these people were just looking for danger. But is this argument valid? There were plenty of opportunities to tickle one's nerves for Europeans after the collapse of the Soviet Union: ethnic wars in Yugoslavia, the Caucuses and even the Middle East were for everyone to visit. So, why did the German or Spanish volunteers choose Donbass? Because it is the first ideological war, in which one can fight against the evil, which is untouchable in Western Europe: aggressive expansionism of the US, NATO and the EU. This can be made clear by an interview with Margarita Seidler – the only Western woman volunteer from Igor Strelkov's battalion. In Russia, Margarita Seidler has become known since the summer, when the Russian television aired her first interviews. This young German woman, a native of Lutherstadt-Wittenberg (a prosperous German city, the birth place of Martin Luther) was in the battalion of Igor Strelkov, the former defense minister of the Donetsk People's Republic. Together with her commanders, she defended the town of Slavyansk and took part in Strelkov's famous breakthrough from the encircled Slavyansk to Donetsk. At the time, in summer 2014, people all over the world saw her face on television screens: a tired frail woman in military fatigues, she told in a quiet voice (with only a slight German accent) about the suffering of the civilian population in Slavyansk and about the horrible scenes she was a witness to during the Maidan revolution in Kiev. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Florence, Council of (1438–1439) DIMITRI CONOMOS After roughly three-and-a-half centuries of schism, the churches of the East and West met in the Council of Florence between 1438 and 1439 to discuss unity. Meeting first at Ferrara, a transfer to Florence was soon effected because of plague and because the city fathers there were willing to defray the costs. On the Latin side there was a genuine desire to end the schism, but they also desired to extend the jurisdiction of the papacy over all Christendom. The Greeks also had the genuine Christian desire for church union, but also what made them accept the West as a venue was the fact that Constantinople, with a population of less than 50,000 inhabitants, was then in terminal decline. The Turks had conquered most of its ancient empire; surrounding it on all sides, they were now only awaiting the opportunity to deliver the coup de grace. The Byzantine Empire was in most urgent need of help to be able to defend itself. Hope for that lay only in the West. The one institution there that might channel effective aid was the papacy, which had launched and directed so many Crusades of European Christianity. The Byzantine emperor believed that the pope was able to speak for all Latins and raise immediate military help against the Ottomans. The best way of winning papal support would be the union of the churches. So the Greeks came to Florence in 1439 to discuss unity with the Latins. Indeed, it was not only the Greek Church that came but also the Oriental Church, for the Council of Florence was, to all appearances, the most ecumenical of councils. Emperor John VIII Palaeologos attended, as did Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople, accompanied by twenty Greek metropolitans, as well as bishops from Russia, Georgia, and Moldo-Wallachia. Moreover, five of the Greeks were procurators of the oriental patriarchates, nominated as delegates by those patriarchates themselves. Delegates from Ethiopia were sent by Emperor Zara Yacqob at the pope’s request. |
| Thomas E. FitzGerald 6. THE CHALLENGE OF THE OLD WORLD The period from about 1945 to about 1965 was one of slow but gradual transition for the Orthodox Church in the United States. Yet, it was a transition marked by two major characteristics, which appear to be in opposition. First, the political changes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union occurring during and after World War II not only affected the condition of the Orthodox Church in that part of the world but also had a profound impact upon a number of the Orthodox jurisdictions in this country. Differences in the evaluation of the political and ecclesiastical situations in the old country frequently led to further divisions among the Orthodox in this country. The second characteristic of this period of transition was the gradual development of the Orthodox Church from one comprising chiefly immigrants to one comprising persons born in this country and nurtured by its educational system. Although this process had been actually taking place from at least the 1920s, it appears to have become more pronounced in the postwar period. While migration of Orthodox from the Balkans, Russia, and the Middle East by no means ceased, the quotas imposed by the government in the 1920s assured that the numbers of the earlier period would never be repeated. The changing character of church membership in the postwar period, in turn, provided greater stability for the development of parishes and diocesan institutions for the larger Orthodox jurisdictions, especially the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, the Russian Orthodox Metropolia, and the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese. While cultural differences and Old World rivalries did not cease to affect the members of the various jurisdictions, there was evidence of a greater interest in forms of Orthodox cooperation that would bring together the clergy and laity of the various jurisdictions, especially at the local level. There were also some important indications that Orthodox theologians were in a better position to express their distinctive teachings within ecumenical forums. THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX DIOCESES |
| " We Shouldn " t Integrate with Europe as Guided and Weak Partners " - Patriarch Kirill/Православие.Ru " We Shouldn " t Integrate with Europe as Guided and Weak Partners " - Patriarch Kirill Moscow, July 19, 2010, Interfax Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia believes that dialogue of Russia and Ukraine with the European Union should be held from positions of equal rights. " We (Russia and Ukraine - IF) preserve unity as nation. We're joining the family of other European nations not as guided nation hanging upon words of the other, stronger partner, but as equal partners, bearers of our own historic and cultural code, " Patriarch Kirill said in his interview to Ukrainian TV-channels on the eve of his visit to Ukraine. According to him, " The top brains in Europe and other countries understand pretty well " how important is to preserve national spiritual and cultural identity. " It's a great challenge in conditions of globalization. We should preserve diversity and the beauty of God's world, and at the same time develop good international cooperation and peaceful relations among nations, " Patriarch Kirill believes. According to him, if Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians refuse their " basic values, " probable destruction of " national matrix " will become " a great catastrophe of civilization - just as if other nations lose their identity. " " The world will be unified and horrific, the world will be easily manipulated. Why? Because this spiritual culture traditional for the majority of people is the main criteria for telling good from evil, " the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church believes. Interfax - Religion 20 июля 2010 г. ... Предыдущий Следующий Смотри также Fr. Artemy Vladimirov “Friends, beautiful is our unity” Interview by Nun Cornelia (Rees) Fr. Artemy Vladimirov “Friends, beautiful is our unity” Interview by Nun Cornelia (Rees) For example, when people ask me, “What do you have to say about the ideological leanings and impaired world-view of this or that ecclesiastical individual?” I always answer, “We receive those who are infirm in the faith without arguments about opinions. |
| EU Ought to Push for Uniform Recognition of Gay Marriage/Православие.Ru EU Ought to Push for Uniform Recognition of Gay Marriage Frans Timmermans, Dutch diplomat and vice president of the European Union’s executive-branch “European Commission,” is calling for the legalization of homosexual marriages throughout all of Europe. According to the Telegraph , he has joined his voice to those of campaigners seeking to consecrate same-sex marriages under the EU’s freedom of movement rules, stating that it is a “disgrace” that any European country should not recognize the untraditional union formed elsewhere in the EU. Freedom of movement, a core principle of the EU argue campaigners in Brussels, is undermined if homosexual couples cannot relocate and expect the recognition of their marriage. Under such a situation a same-sex couple married in Britain could maintain shared legal rights on property, pensions, and access to children if they moved to Italy, for example, where such unions are as of yet not recognized. Same-sex marriages are currently recognized in 8 of the 28 EU states: Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK, and Finland will follow suit beginning in 2017. Moreover, civil partnerships which grant legal recognition of homosexual marriages are recognized in all states except Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Italy, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. At last week’s Equality Gala in Brussels Timmermans lamented the legal problems faced by mobile gay couples, calling them “idiotic.” He proposed that all member states of the EU ought to at least have the “decency” to respect the decisions of other countries. Ironically, this does not include the decency to respect the decisions of countries such as Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria to constitutionally define marriage in its traditional sense as being between one man and one woman. 6 июля 2015 г. Предыдущий Следующий Смотри также Belorussian Orthodox Priest Makes Stand for Christian Tradition at Presbyterian Council, U.S.A. |
| Tweet Russian Church Official Believes Orthodox Lifestyle is the Main Response to Pseudo-Islamic Extremism Source: Interfax-Religion Lyublyana, September 18, 2015 Christian countries can oppose pseudo-Islamic extremism only based on traditional religious values, head of the Synodal Department for Church and Society Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin believes. " Secularism will never cope with the challenge of religious fanaticism and extremism coming to Europe today. Secularism will always lose to religious or pseudo-religious extremism. Even if secularism successfully beats off religious and public radicalism with the help of power and money for some time, it won't last long, only for 20-30 years, " the priest said at the conference Cults, Neopaganism, Secularism: Danger of Christian Ethos' Decay in Slovenia. According to the Russian Church official, lack of principles will always lose to the idea, lack of faith to faith. To illustrate his words he pointed to the history of the Soviet Union as the country had a " tough economy, the strongest authorities, and violent repressions, but all these things faded away because it did not have faith. " Father Vsevolod believes that secularism will always lose to religious and public forces. In order not to empower the darkest fanatics, we have to remember that Orthodoxy as well as Islam shows the way to an " integral lifestyle " that includes economy, social order, culture, education, and " everything society lives by. " According to him it is necessary to suggest such a vision of society, Orthodox lifestyle, and social order to " at least, Orthodox countries, as the only working alternative for us to secularism and pseudo-Islamic extremism. " Interfax-Religion 18 сентября 2015 г. Подпишитесь на рассылку Православие.Ru Рассылка выходит два раза в неделю: Предыдущий Следующий Смотри также “To remain Christians. If we can manage…” Igumen Daniel (Irbits) on the new “migration of peoples” " To remain Christians. If we can manage… " Igumen Daniel (Irbits) on the new “migration of peoples” Peter Davydov The arrival of thousands of refugees, migrants and settlers from Africa and Asia to “the Old World” is already being interpreted by many Europeans as a catastrophe, a curse, and a real challenge not only to the culture, economy, and the Christian faith of the continent (which is still alive, though is becoming very weak), but, therefore, to the very existence of the continent and its native inhabitants. |
|
|
