WPF Historic Publication

Orthodoxy in the new Europe: problems and prospects

Hilarion Alfeyev December 31, 2004

Original copyright © 2004 by World Public Forum Dialogue of Civilizations

Copyright © 2017 by Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute

The right of Hilarion Alfeyev to be identified as the author of this publication is hereby asserted.

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the original author(s) and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views and opinions of the Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute, its co-founders, or its staff members.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, please write to the publisher:

Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute gGmbH Französische Straße 23 10117 Berlin Germany +49 30 209677900 [email protected]

Orthodoxy in the new Europe: problems and prospects

Hilarion Alfeyev

Bishop of Vienna and Austria

Originally published 2004 in World Public Forum Dialogue of Civilizations Bulletin 1(2.2), 93-102.

2 Illarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria “Orthodoxy in the new Europe: problems and prospects”

In the understanding of many people, Europe is associated primarily with Catholic and Protestant traditions. Lately, they have been joined also by Islam that is being closely watched by the mass media that are trying to foretell the consequences of growth in number of its followers in Europe. Little is thought and said about Orthodoxy and its role in the formation of the European identity. In fact, the term “Orthodoxy” is associated in the minds of many rather with Judaism than with .

However, for many centuries, Orthodox Christianity has been an inalienable part of the European identity. This is confirmed by the number of Orthodox believers living in the Old World, as well as by the contribution that Orthodox Christianity has made to the development of the European culture and spirituality.

Statistics

In today’s world there are 15 autocephalous Local Orthodox Churches, the number of members of which, according to certain sources, is approximately 226,500,0001.

1 Here and furthermore, statistics have been taken from the book L’Ortodessia nella nuova Europa. Dinamiche storiche e prospettive. A cura di Andrea Pacini. Roma: Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli, 2003.

WORLD PUBLIC FORUM BULLETIN 1(2.2), 2004 “DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS”

3 Illarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria “Orthodoxy in the new Europe: problems and prospects”

Constantinople 7,000,000 Turkey, Thrace, Aegean Islands, part of diaspora Alexandria Patriarchate 350,000 Egypt and all Africa Antioch Patriarchate 1,500,000 Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, part of diaspora Jerusalem Patriarchate 156,000 Palestine, Israel, Jordan Russian Orthodox 160,000,000 Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Baltic (Moscow Patriarchate) States, Middle Asian countries, part of diaspora Serbian 8,000,000 Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Croatia Rumanian Orthodox Church 20,000,000 Rumania, part of diaspora Bulgarian Orthodox Church 8,000,000 Bulgaria 3,000,000 Georgia Cypriot Orthodox Church 500,000 Cyprus 10,000,000 Greece 1,000,000 Albanian Orthodox Church 700,000 Albania Czech Orthodox Church 74,000 Czech Republic and Slovakia Orthodox Church in America 1,000,000 USA

Out of the enumerated Churches, three (Alexandria, Jerusalem and America) are not situated in Europe. However, they account for only 6% of the overall number of Orthodox followers. The remaining 94% - 209,000,000 – live in Europe. The majority of the Orthodox believers live in 11 European countries: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro, Greece, Cyprus, Macedonia and Georgia. In many other European countries, in particular, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Albania, Orthodox believers constitute a significant minority.

WORLD PUBLIC FORUM BULLETIN 1(2.2), 2004 “DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS”

4 Illarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria “Orthodoxy in the new Europe: problems and prospects”

The greatest number of Orthodox believers lives in the territory of Eastern Europe. Two West European countries – Greece and Cyprus – are Orthodox. Incidentally, no less than 2 million Orthodox believers live in the West European countries that do not belong to the Orthodox tradition. The numbers of Orthodox believers in the largest West European countries are the following:

Germany 800,000 United Kingdom 350,000 France 250,000 Austria 150,000 Sweden 100,000 Switzerland 80,000 Spain 20,000 Belgium 40,000 Italy 250,000 Netherlands 10,000

Structure of the Orthodox Church

In the West, there is a widespread opinion that the structure of the Orthodox Church is a kind of eastern analogue of the . Correspondingly, the Patriarch of Constantinople is regarded as an analogue of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, or “the eastern pope.” As a matter of fact, the Orthodox Church never did have a single head: it always consisted of autocephalous Local Churches in liturgical and canonical relationship with one another, however, administratively they are independent of one another. The Constantinople Patriarchate is traditionally given first honor among the 15 autocephalous Local Churches. In practice, this

WORLD PUBLIC FORUM BULLETIN 1(2.2), 2004 “DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS”

5 Illarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria “Orthodoxy in the new Europe: problems and prospects”

means that when the heads of the Local Churches conduct joint Liturgy, the Constantinople Patriarch occupies the leading place. Up to 1054, the Bishop of Rome held the right of first honor in the Ecumenical Church, whereas the Bishop of “the Second Rome” (Constantinople) occupied second place in the diptych. After the Churches separated, the honor of occupying first place in the Orthodox world went to the Patriarch of Constantinople who since the Byzantine times was also given the honorary title “Ecumenical.” However, the given title means no administrative implications. The fact that certain western mass media hold that the Patriarch of Constantinople has acquired the title of “spiritual leader of the 300- million Orthodox population of the planet” is also unfounded. Unlike the Catholic population, the Orthodox population of the planet does not have a single spiritual leader: for the members of each Local Church, the spiritual leader is the head of the Church. For example, for the 160 million followers of the (based on the statistics of A. Pacini), the spiritual leader is His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

The absence of a single administrative center in the Orthodox Church is due to both historical and theological reasons. Historically, no single head of the Local Churches, either in the Byzantine or post-Byzantine times, wielded such rights as the Roman Catholic Pope had in the West. Theologically, the absence of a single leader is explained by the conciliarism principle that works on all levels of the Orthodox Church. In particular, this principle implies that each senior priest or hierarch supervises his eparchy not independently, but with the consent of the and the laymen. In accordance with his same principle, the head of a Local Church, who, as a rule, is also the chairman of the Synod of Higher Priests governs the Church not by himself but in collaboration with the Synod.

Incidentally, the absence of a single administrative center in the Orthodox Church also has its negative aspects. First, there is no possibility to appeal to a higher instance when there is a conflict between two Local Churches. Such an instance could probably be the Constantinople Patriarchate if other Local Churches

WORLD PUBLIC FORUM BULLETIN 1(2.2), 2004 “DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS”

6 Illarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria “Orthodoxy in the new Europe: problems and prospects”

agreed to entrust it such functions. However, the greatest number of intra-Orthodox conflicts is connected at the present moment precisely with the Constantinople Patriarchate, which therefore cannot play the role of the supreme judge.

Recently there has been a dispute between Constantinople and the Greek Orthodox Church on the question of the Greek “northern territories” which since 1928 have been under dual subordination: the given dispute resulted in the decision of the Constantinople Patriarchate to terminate eucharistic communion with the of Athens and All Greece Christodul. There is a growing confrontation between Constantinople and Jerusalem because the Jerusalem Patriarchate opened in the diaspora. There is still an unsettled dispute between Constantinople and Moscow that began when Constantinople established an autonomous church in Estonia, thereby leading to a four-month termination of eucharistic communion between the two Churches in 1977. There are also local conflicts between representatives of Constantinople and other Orthodox jurisdictions. For example, the eparchy of the Constantinople Patriarchate in Hungary, in spite of church canons, filed a lawsuit in a secular court in order to take over the Cathedral of the Assumption from the Hungarian eparchy of the Moscow Patriarchate. All these conflicts seriously damage the prestige and mission of Orthodoxy in Europe and the world.

The diaspora problem

Another problem arising due to the absence of a single administrative center of the Orthodox Church is that it is impossible to resolve disputes between Churches on the question of pastoral provision of the so-called “diasporas” – the Orthodox dispersal.

The essence of the problem lies in the following. Proceeding from 28th rule of the that grants the bishop of “new Rome” the right to provide bishops for the “barbaric lands,” the Constantinople Patriarchate vies for the right of

WORLD PUBLIC FORUM BULLETIN 1(2.2), 2004 “DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS”

7 Illarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria “Orthodoxy in the new Europe: problems and prospects”

ecclesiastical jurisdiction over those countries that do not belong to the Orthodox tradition. However, other Local Churches have their diasporas in Europe and beyond its borders that they do not intend to give away to the jurisdiction of Constantinople. For example, Russian dispersion includes hundreds of thousands of Orthodox believers, out of which the majority belong to the Moscow Patriarchate. Besides the Russian and Greek diasporas, there are also Serbian, Rumanian and Bulgarian diasporas each of which has higher priests and clergy of their Local Churches.

At the moment, tensions in mutual relationships between Orthodox Churches threaten to emerge due to the desire of the Constantinople Patriarchate to receive some kind of “special status” in the European Union. This idea was first articulated by the Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Constantinople Patriarchate, Metropolitan of Chalcedon, Meliton at the Inter-Orthodox Conference in Iraklion (Crete) in March 23. “The Ecumenical Patriarch, as the first among equal Orthodox hierarchs and the Holy and Sacred Synod gathered around him, has been given the first honor and certain coordinating, additional and juridical duties that extend over the entire ecumen where not a single other Orthodox Church has local jurisdiction, and consequently over the territory of the EU (my own italics – E.I.)… Proceeding from this, it is necessary for the European Constitution to recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s right as a juridical entity of international caliber, both in respect to the EU and to its member-states.” The representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches in Crete did not support the given proposal, as a result, the representative of the Constantinople Patriarchate was compelled to withdraw it.

However, in October 2003, that proposal, in somewhat modified form, was voiced at the VII Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the European People’s Party. The draft of the final document that was sent to the Moscow Patriarchate for preliminary response included the provisions about the need “for developing a special status for the Ecumenical Patriarchate as a juridical entity representing European and international interest.” In reply to that proposal, the

WORLD PUBLIC FORUM BULLETIN 1(2.2), 2004 “DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS”

8 Illarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria “Orthodoxy in the new Europe: problems and prospects”

Chairman of the External Relations Department of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Cyril of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, in a letter addressed to Metropolitan of Meliton of Chalcedon, underscored that the Russian Orthodox Church “thinks that it is necessary to keep in mind that besides the Constantinople Patriarchate, there are other Orthodox Churches that are represented in more than one of the EU member-states.” However, the letter of Metropolitan Cyril was ignored during the wording of the final document. Moreover, all discussions on the document were suspended. The only correction was tabled by the Polish Orthodox Church concerned the phrase “representing the Orthodox Church of the EU member-states” that was deleted.

What kind of “special status” of the Constantinople Patriarchate are we talking about? If we are talking about giving the Patriarchate the rights of a juridical entity that it does not have at present, then the Local Orthodox Churches will most probably support it. However, if the matter concerns giving the Constantinople Patriarchate a status that would differ it from other Local Orthodox Churches in the territory of the European Union, then one may expect a negative reaction of the Orthodox Churches. Hardly any Orthodox Church represented in the territory of the European Union will agree to have another Church representing its relationships with the European Union. It seems highly improbable that the Local Orthodox Churches will recognize the European Union as the canonical territory of the Constantinople Patriarchate “where no other Orthodox Church has local jurisdiction,” since it could mean that other Orthodox jurisdictions would be expelled from the European “diaspora.”

The question concerning the provision of clergymen, as we can see, remains unsolved, however, its solution brooks no delay. Moreover, this issued cannot be resolved by the political leader of any state or union of states, including the European Union: such a solution can be made only by the All-Orthodox Council. The Council has been preparing for it quite intensively for over 30 years (beginning with 1960 right up to the 1990s). However, these preparations have been suspended

WORLD PUBLIC FORUM BULLETIN 1(2.2), 2004 “DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS”

9 Illarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria “Orthodoxy in the new Europe: problems and prospects”

due to disputes between Churches. Nonetheless, one would like to hope that the All- Orthodox Council will be held after all and that the question concerning provision of clergymen will be resolved to the mutual agreement of the Orthodox Churches.

Ecclesiastical schisms

Besides the canonical (i.e., lawful) Orthodox Church, there are in the world quite a number of alternative structures that call themselves Orthodox. In the ecclesiastical language, these structures are called “schismatic” structures, for example the so-called “Old Stylists” in Greece or the “Filaretists” in Ukraine. The Ukrainian “autocephalists” are not that large in number. Special mention should be given to the ecclesiastical schism in Bulgaria and which has been continuing for already 80 years regarding the split among the believers of the Russian Orthodox Church in the dispersions.

The concept of “schism” does not exist in the present-day political lexicon, just like the concept of “canonicity” or “non-canonicity” cannot be applied to this or that Church. A secular state (and all of the European states are secular), in the majority of cases, does not differentiate between canonical and non-canonical Churches, giving both equal rights to exist and granting the Churches themselves the right to resolve their own internal problems.

But at the same time, in the modern history of Europe, there were cases when secular authorities directly supported schismatic trends. For example, the “Filaret” schism in Ukraine was backed by the president of the republic Leonid Kravchuk.

At the beginning of the 1990s, Bulgarian schismatic trends were also supported by the authorities of Bulgaria. In both cases, the fact that the secular authorities supported the schism had the most baneful consequences on the development of the religious situation. The situation in Ukraine continues to remain very intense. On the contrary, in Bulgaria, the schism was actually surmounted

WORLD PUBLIC FORUM BULLETIN 1(2.2), 2004 “DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS”

10 Illarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria “Orthodoxy in the new Europe: problems and prospects”

thanks, first of all, to the smoothly concerted efforts of the Local Orthodox Churches, the representatives of which at the 1998 Council in Sofia convinced the dissenters to repent and to return to the bosom of the canonical Church.

The the state’s direct interference in the internal problems of the Church can be useful and effective when the state acts as an independent mediator between the two sides of an inter-ecumenical conflict. For example, during the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the USA in October 2003, the Russian leader invited on behalf of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All of Russia, Alexy II the head of the Russian Orthtodox Church Abroad, Metropolitan to visit Russia to discuss the question of overcoming the schism that arose in 1920 due to political reasons. Similar invitations were also addressed to the leadership of the Orthodox Church Abroad, but they remained unanswered. But in this case, the invitation was received with gratitude. An official delegation of the Orthodox Church Abroad visited Moscow on November 18-19. The delegation had a meeting with the Most Holy Patriarch and other prominent hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate. In May, the head of the Orthodox Church Abroad, Metropolitan Lavr, is expected to visit Moscow for official discussion of reunification. Several years ago, this would seem to be unrealistic. One would like to hope that the discussion will lead to the total restoration of eucharistic communion between the two “branches” of the Russian Church.

Orthodoxy and the expansion of the European Union

At the moment, new opportunities are opening up before the Orthodox Church in connection with the expansion of the European Union. Up till now, in the European Union there was only one Orthodox state – Greece, which S. Huntington, in his popular book, “The Clash of civilizations” described as an “anomaly,” as an

WORLD PUBLIC FORUM BULLETIN 1(2.2), 2004 “DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS”

11 Illarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria “Orthodoxy in the new Europe: problems and prospects”

“Orthodox outsider among Western organizations.”2 With the enlargement of the EU, Orthodoxy no longer remains an outsider in it, since another three countries of the Orthodox tradition are to become members of the Union: Cyprus (which entered the EU on May 1, 2004), Romania and Bulgaria (which are to gain ascension to the EU in 2007). Besides that, the EU now includes countries with significant Orthodox diasporas such as Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia. All this strengthens the positions of Orthodoxy in the European Union and substantially expands the possibility of the presence of Orthodoxy in new Europe. After the above-mentioned countries, including Rumania and Bulgaria become members of the EU, the number of Orthodox communities in its territory will exceed by tens of thousands, and the number of believers – tens of millions. Several other Orthodox countries, such as Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Serbia, Albania and Russia may possibly (even though not in the nearest future) also join the European Union.

It seems important that now when the identity of new Europe is yet forming, when legislative documents that will determine the image of the European Union are being drawn up, Orthodox believers should actively participate in the dialogue with European political structures. It is important to avoid a monopoly of one single philosophical system that would dictate its terms and conditions to all the people living in the EU, including those belonging to traditional religious confessions.

Today there is a real threat that western liberal ideology will be declared in the unified Europe as the sole legitimate model of social structure. This ideology does not presuppose active participation of the church and religious associations in public and political life. That ideology views religion as a strictly private matter of separate individuals and that in no way should influence their behavior in society. However, such an understanding contradicts the missionary imperative of the majority of religions, including, understandably, Christianity. Christ created the Church not only for “secret consumption” but also for its members to be active

2 S. Huntington. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York, 1996, PP. 162-162.

WORLD PUBLIC FORUM BULLETIN 1(2.2), 2004 “DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS”

12 Illarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria “Orthodoxy in the new Europe: problems and prospects”

members of society protecting the traditional spiritual and moral values. That is why it is necessary to have a dialogue between religion and the secular world. And not the last role in that dialogue could be played by the Orthodox Church.

It is very important for the churches and religious associations to have the right to arrange their life in accordance with their traditions and charters, even if the latter are in contradiction with western liberal standards. The foisting of secular norms upon religious communities is impermissible. For example, if a religion does not recognize female clergy, no type of sanctions must be taken against it in order to change its traditional stand. If a church condemns “unisexual marriages” as sinful and contradicting the Holy Scripture, such a church must not be accused of lacking tolerance or fanning up enmity. If a church speaks out against abortions and euthanasia, it should not be subjected to obstruction as being backward and opposing progress. There are many other areas in which the stands of traditional churches (first of all, Orthodox and Catholic) will be different from western liberal standards, and in all these areas it is necessary to ensure the right of churches to preserve and advocate their traditional values.

In order not to be unsubstantiated, I would like to refer to a discussion that flared up in the Orthodox world after the Europarliament in January 2003 voted in favor of lifting the ban on women to visit Holy Mt. Athos – a semi-autonomous republic in the North of Greece where a woman’s foot had not stepped for a thousand years. The given ban, according to the resolution of the Europarliament, violates “the universally recognized equality of sexes,” as well as the laws concerning freedom of movement of all citizens of the EU throughout its territory. Commenting the stand of the Europarliament, the Greek Minister of Culture, E. Venizelos, compared the status of Mt. Athos with the status of the Vatican and remarked that the latter, being a member of the Council of Europe, was represented in it only by males. “The ban forbidding women to visit Mt. Athos and the administrative rules of the Catholic Church, as well as the rules of other churches

WORLD PUBLIC FORUM BULLETIN 1(2.2), 2004 “DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS”

13 Illarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria “Orthodoxy in the new Europe: problems and prospects”

are elements of tradition that the EU must accept with tolerance and a pluralistic attitude that are typical of European civilization,” Venizelos emphasized.

The Russian Orthodox Church has observed with great interest the development of the “European project” and via its Representation in Brussels, is actively participating in it. Being a supranational Church that is represented in the territory of the European Union by several eparchies, hundreds of dioceses and hundreds of thousands of believers, the Moscow Patriarchate recognizes the significance of the process of European integration, which in our opinion, should lead to the creation of a multi-polar Europe in which the rights of religious communities will be respected. Only in this case will Europe become a genuine home for churches and religious associations, including the Orthodox Church.

WORLD PUBLIC FORUM BULLETIN 1(2.2), 2004 “DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS”