“THE WAY TO REASONABLE SETTLEMENT OF STATUS OF ORTHODOX CHURCH IN MACEDONIA LIES THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS”. Full text of the interview by Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia to the Macedonian Utrinski Vesnik
August 24, 2002

“THE WAY TO REASONABLE SETTLEMENT OF STATUS OF ORTHODOX CHURCH IN MACEDONIA LIES THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS”
Full text of the interview by Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia to the Macedonian Utrinski Vesnik
August 24, 2002

– Your letter to Patriarch Paul of Serbia has excited the Macedonian public. Especially amazing was the quick reaction. But the Macedonian people still challenge the fact that the great Russian Orthodox Church has come out in defense of one bishop, Ioann, who is believed to be a schismatic by most of the Macedonians. All this may affect the attitude of the Macedonians to the Russian Orthodox Church We would like to emphasize that the Macedonians feel sympathy and respect for the Russian people and the Russian Orthodox Church.

– First of all I would like to assure you that the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian people reciprocate the feelings of our brothers in the Republic of Macedonia. The feelings of sympathy and solidarity became ever stronger when the people of your country were attacked by armed extremist formations, civilians died by the hands of terrorists, Orthodox churches and shrines were destroyed. Indeed, your people know not by hearsay what terrorism is. I wrote about it over a year ago, at the rise of the terrorist campaign, to the Macedonian President Mr. Trajkovski, wishing to express our support for the Macedonians.

At the same time, we have always grieved over the situation in which the Orthodox people in your country have found themselves after the Macedonian Orthodox Church made a one-sided declaration of the autocephaly. For 35 years now they have remained torn away ecclesiastically from the world family of Orthodox nations. And now His Holiness Patriarch Paul of Serbia informed us that one of the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church in Macedonia responded to the call to restore the liturgical and canonical communion with the Serbian Orthodox Church and thus with the Plenitude of Universal Orthodoxy. We replied to that letter that we, together with the Serbian Church, were delighted at what happened and looked forward to the time when other bishops in Macedonia would also enter in canonical communion, and the problem of the status of the Orthodox Church in your country would be settled in an appropriate way.

Then our common joy will be full. We will again pray together. And we cannot understand why some people, as you say, consider Metropolitan Ioann to be a schismatic. Schism is absence, not presence, of communion.

– In your letter you support His Eminence Ioann who separated the diocese of Veles and Povardar from the Macedonian Orthodox Church and united it liturgically with the Serbian Orthodox Church. This may provoke and stimulate similar processes in other dioceses as well. All this may affect the Macedonian Orthodox Church and Orthodox regions. What can you say about this?

– A copy of the letter that Metropolitan Ioann addressed to the clergy, monastics and laity of his dioceses to the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church was conveyed to us. The letter does not mention separation from the Macedonian Orthodox Church. It stressed that, in accordance with the proposal of His Holiness Patriarch Paul, no changes would be introduced to the established liturgical and administrative practice of the diocese of Veles, unless they should stem from canonical requirements. Therefore, in our view, the issue at hand is an event of spiritual significance, rather than any “partition of Macedonia”.

We agree with the words of Metropolitan Ioann: “Nobody can be humiliated nationally by establishing unity”. Patriarch Paul says the same in this message: “We do not speak from a position of national exclusiveness nor do we have any national or territorial claims”. Our Church, on her part, is firmly convinced that the way of restoring communion brings not evil but good to the Macedonian Orthodox Church. It is necessary to overcome self-isolation in which the Orthodox Macedonians have found themselves. Therefore, we ardently pray that the Lord may help the Macedonian hierarchs, pastors and flock to follow the good evangelical way of unity of all the Orthodox in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. To this we are called by St. Paul: “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that there be no divisions among you; but that ye perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10).

– Your Holiness, please clarify one more point in your letter. We have noticed that in your letter to Patriarch Paul you do not use the term “Macedonian people” but use the expression “fraternal Slavic people” or “these people”. Perhaps we in Macedonia are too sensitive and look for a meaning where it is absent. If so, please forgive us.

– I did not expect somebody would see any vagueness here. Indeed, the letter speaks of “the people of Macedonia”, “believers in the Republic of Macedonia who belong to a fraternal Slavic people”. Of course, heightened sensitivity to national questions is a consequence of the Balkan’s long and tragic history. Considering this circumstance, I would like to add that we welcomed the position of the Serbian Orthodox Church expressed in the message of His Holiness Patriarch Paul, which states in particular, “We respect the national self-determination and identity of the Macedonian people”.

I fully agree with these words of His Holiness. I would also like to remind you that our letter to Patriarch Paul has as its subject not the national problem but the question of church order which from old times has been based on the territorial, not ethnic principle. The Church does not divide people on national grounds. As the apostle says, in it “there is neither Greek, nor Jew, circumcision or uncircumscision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all” (Col. 3:11). The unity of faith comes first; therefore the Church by her nature is universal. And at the same time, the Orthodox Church has always sought not to suppress national identity, but on the contrary to promote its full manifestation.

– The Macedonian Orthodox Church does not perceive her status as schismatic with regard to the Serbian Orthodox Church. For the MOC, autocephaly means the renewal of the autocephalous Archdiocese of Ochrid in the person of St. Clement’s Macedonian Orthodox Church. This autocephalous status was uncanonically destroyed by an alien power in 1767. The faithful and laity in Macedonia do not feel the autocephaly of the MOC violates any canons or the holy principles of faith and love of God. The Macedonians also believe that the ethical principles and the state standards of Orthodox church organization are not violated either. What is your attitude to this wish and feeling of the Orthodox believers in Macedonia?

All the Orthodox cherish the heritage of Sts. Clement and Naum of Ochrid, faithful disciples of Sts Cyril and Methodius Equal-to-the-Apostles. We deeply honor the historical role the Archdiocese of Ochrid played in the enlightenment of the Slavs with the salvific faith of Christ. In the Troparion devoted to Sts Cyril and Methodius we ask our first teachers: “Pray to the Lord of all to assert all the Slavonic nations in Orthodoxy and unanimity”.

Unity is power. It is my conviction that in face of the terrorist attack, to achieve God-pleasing unity among fraternal Slavic nations is a much more important task than to argue endlessly about bygones. Will it help our talk if we go into an evaluation of those contradictions between Turkish Porta, Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Archdiocese of Ochrid which led to the events of 1767. A historical discussion on this theme will take us too far. For instance, it may turn out that the borders of the Church of Ochrid were different at that time. Skopje, in particular, was not within them. And it is not the only reason why the one-sided decision taken in Ochrid two hundred years later was not recognized by the world Orthodox community.

The future status of the Orthodox Church in Macedonia, in our view, should become subject to negotiations, and the decision should be based on the norms of canon law. And we expect, as I wrote to His Holiness Patriarch Paul, that this decision will be adequate, reasonable and based on love. But to this end it is necessary first of all to restore the canonical communion of the Orthodox in the Republic of Macedonia with the Universal Plenitude of the Orthodox Church. And if, as you said, the Macedonian Church does not believe she is in a schism with the Serbian Church, we find it difficult to understand why some Macedonian mass media condemned so strongly the action of Metropolitan Ioann who said that he was now “in liturgical and canonical unity with the Serbian Orthodox Church and with the entire Orthodox oikoumene”. In response to it, the Bishops’ Council, as newspapers reported, discharged him from the see and even considers defrocking him.

– Do you think that the only way for the MOC to receive autocephaly may be that one on which the Serbian Orthodox Church insists? We are asked whether Orthodoxy may become hostage to some old dogmas in the world we live in now?

– For two thousand years now the Church has been engaged in bringing to the world the good news, the gospel of Christ based on love. This message will never become obsolete. And sacred canons are rules which safeguard love; their logic is aimed at supporting the Church in the divine harmony of unity and order.

In accordance with the canons, the way of obtaining autocephaly can be only such as not to breach fraternal communion among Christians. Otherwise Orthodoxy will become hostage to changing political interests, which are often contradictory. Since the time when the apostles began preaching Crucified and Risen Christ to the world, many empires and political systems have sunk into oblivion, while the Church keeps the apostolic tradition and remains unshakable. All the difference in the Church should be settled through dialogue and in the spirit of fraternal love. In our view, the dialogue with the Serbian Orthodox Church has already brought good results fixed, in particular, in our Nis Agreement, which provides for full administrative and pastoral independence of the Church in the republic of Macedonia.

– We hope that you know that for the Macedonian people the question of the Church is an important aspect of the national question today. Recently, as you know, the Macedonian people faced a threat of losing their state. Unfortunately, we also face a threat to our national self-determination. To our misfortune, now there is the question of the Church. Doesn’t it seem to you that we, as descendents of the Slavs’ oldest Church, have the right to more understanding?

– Giving the Church her due for the role she has played in the formation of national self-awareness and culture, it should not be forgotten that the primary task of the Church in the world is to educate human beings for the Kingdom of God. The Church should not be seen as an instrument for achieving political goals. It is my profound conviction that for Macedonia the Church’s coming out of isolation and entering into communion with other Orthodox Churches will be consistent with the dignity of the Macedonian people and conducive to the strengthening of the authority of the state in the world community.

– After the collapse of socialism the Russian Orthodox Church has experienced regeneration. New churches have been built and old and ruined churches have been restored. How many churches were destroyed under the Soviet power and how many churches have been renewed in the recent time?

– Before World War I and the revolutionary events that followed it, the Russian Orthodox Church nourished over 115 million Orthodox people who lived in 67 dioceses ruled by 130 bishops. The number of parish churches exceeded 48 thousand. Over 50 thousand priests and deacons served in them. In the territory of the Russian Empire there were over one thousand monasteries with over 95 thousand monastics.

The persecution that fell upon the Church after the Bolshevik takeover exceeded all other persecutions in history in their cruelty, consistency and perfidy. There were full regions with no churches left. According to the NKVD data, by 1941 a little more than 3 thousand acting Orthodox Churches survived. Church buildings were destroyed or converted into cinema houses, clubs, warehouses and the like. Within St. Daniel’s monastery, there was a prison for juvenile offenders. The old Solovki Monastery was turned by the Soviet power into a concentration camp that became a place of repose for dozens of our compatriots including bishops, priests and monks.

During the war, the situation of the Church changed, and parishes began opening throughout the country. However, in the years of the so-called Khruschev’s Thaw, the Church was again subjected to persecution, for within a few years about 7 thousand parishes, which reopened during and after the year, were closed.

The Russian Orthodox Church celebrated the Millennium of the Baptism of Russia in 1988, having a little over 7 thousand parishes. At present the Moscow Patriarchate includes over 130 dioceses, over 500 monasteries and almost 25 thousand parishes. Most of the opening churches need to be restored after several decades of “undesignated” use, but this process of reviving church life continues developing successfully in spite of all the difficulties. Among the visible signs of this is the reconstruction of the Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, which was built on people’s donations to mark the victory in the 1812 Patriotic War, but was destroyed by Bolsheviks in 1931. Just as the construction, the reconstruction of this church was made on voluntary donations.

– Some Moscow newspapers write that the number of believers has not increased as much as it seems to have. According to them, some people regard faith as a fashion that will pass. You know best of all how many people actually pray in churches. What can you say about it?

I cannot say that people who fill Orthodox churches today simply follow a fashion. The return of millions of our compatriots to the faith of their forefathers is a natural process resulting, to my mind, from the historical memory of the people, their desire to live according to God’s commandments, and this desire was not eradicated even in the years of persecution.

Besides, no fashion can hold out in the people’s awareness for so long a time as over a decade. True, in the early 90s, we witnessed an upsurge of the superficial interests in religion. It was then that TV healers, foreign preachers and all kinds of sects were very popular. This wave passed to be followed by the real and profound inchurching of hundreds of thousands of people who do not only fill churches, but work actively for church revival. Thanks to these people the composition of congregations has changed in recent years, old women no longer making up majority in city churches, as was the case when religion was “in fashion”.

In other words, we witness the spiritual revival of the people. In my view, this shows that the changes taking place in Russia’s spiritual life are irreversible.

– Judging by TV and press reports, the relations of the Church with the authorities have become much better. How do you assess today’s relations not only with the Kremlin but also with other power levels?

– In the first place, it should be noted that the government pays increasing attention to the role of the Church in the revival of Russia. The Church no longer finds herself on the margins of public attention. Her voice is heard not only in making decisions on the moral welfare of the people. This applies to various levels and branches of power. It is possible to speak about free and fruitful cooperation with the Orthodox Church in various areas, such as peacemaking, mercy and charity, education, concern for the family, preservation of the historical and cultural heritage of the country. This cannot but please us, for it is possible to overcome the “time of trouble” and to establish civic peace only if the people return to their inherent spiritual identity.

– The Russian Orthodox Church demands that her lands be returned. Church representatives maintain that this is necessary for conducting large-scale charity work, especially, for giving help to orphans and homeless children. What are the chances that part of the church lands will be returned?

– The Russian Orthodox Church does not demand that the lands that used to belong to her should be returned. We understand that the withdrawal of the Church’s pre-Revolutionary property from the state’s ownership and its transfer to the Church may do a serious damage to the still unstable economy of the country. But the recovery of at least a small part of the property that the Church possessed before the Revolution would help to improve our social service, to finance various educational programs, to support the Orthodox mass media, etc.

In our view, there is a possibility for taking a compromise decision on this matter. In particular, it is possible to secure legally the property that has been already given to the Church and has been used by her, namely, church buildings, monastery lands, etc.

– Recently you have said that the number of priests in the army should be increased. Considering the multi-ethnic nature of Russia, what about other confessions?

– The right of a serviceman to live in accordance with his religious convictions should not be obstructed. This is why we welcome the presence in the army of not only Orthodox priests but also representatives of other religions traditional for Russia. However, the army cannot be a “missionary field” for organizations carrying out proselytic work. Bluntly speaking, priests, rabbis, mullahs should come precisely to their own flock, not to “objects of mission” which some understand as the whole personnel of a particular unit. Therefore, decisions concerning the presence of clergy in the army should be well balanced and careful.

– Not long ago there was a talk in Moscow about a possibility to establish an Orthodox TV channel. How relevant is this idea at the moment?

– Television is one of the most popular and influential mass media, and in my view the Russian Orthodox Church, to which most of the Russian population claim to belong, has the right to open her own TV channel. However, tens of millions of dollars are needed annually for this channel to work properly. Unfortunately, the Church has no such money today. One has to admit that the creation of a full-fledged Orthodox television is a task of more or less distant future.

– One can hear remarks that Orthodoxy is very conservative and that it should be in some sense brought in correspondence with the time in which we live. Is it so?

– Orthodoxy unites eternal and intransient values with rules and traditions characteristic of every particular time. There are very many unchangeable things in the Church. Indeed, because God Himself is unchangeable. Therefore, the introduction of any changes in the God-revealed church doctrine is out of question. But such attributes of church life as some rites, church art, forms of preaching and the like undergo certain changes with time.

At the same time however, it should be remembered that nothing can be imposed on the church awareness. Attempts to introduce a particular reform “from above” lead, as a rule, to sad consequences – conflicts, misunderstandings, and divisions among people.

As far as brining the Church in accord with the time is concerned, tens and hundreds of thousands of people who come to church today to become followers of God’s commandments do not see any inconsistency of the Orthodox Church’s doctrine and practice with the time. The focus of church life has remained unchangeable for two thousand years. The Church is a way to God and a way to each other in the believing community. For the Christian, Orthodoxy is always modern. Only those speak about “inconsistency” who are far from the life of the Church.

– How do you assess the increasingly aggressive onslaught of various sects?

The invasion of destructive sects in Russia is aimed to divide people and to exploit human religiosity. Such activity cannot but disturbs. There are two reasons for its relative success. Firstly, it is a vacuum that has developed in the worldview of millions of my compatriots after the decades of state atheism. The second reason, to my mind, is the high sensitivity of the Russians to spiritual life, their reluctance to confine their life to earthly concerns alone. This sensitivity combined with the lack of true knowledge of religion and with the aggressive tactics of sectarian preaching has often brought people to sects.

What can help overcome this problem is religious education in secular school. It is no secret that many people’s knowledge of religion is formed casually today. They draw it from TV shows, not of a high quality at that, from publications in the press, etc. The competent and highly qualified teaching of basic religious culture in school can fill the existing gaps and make our compatriots less susceptible to the preaching of pseudo-religious organizations. This process, by the way, is already going. People have come to understand better who speaks the truth and who lies, who is a sincere preacher and who wishes to gain cheap popularity and material profit.

– Orthodoxy in Ukraine is burdened with internal controversies. Part of it has remained faithful to the Moscow Patriarchate, while the other part wishes autocephaly. Is there a way to unite the Orthodox in Ukraine?

– True, a complicated ecclesiastical situation has developed in Ukraine, where, along with the canonical Church recognized by the world Orthodoxy and uniting most of the believers, there are schismatic entities. This is a tragedy of the Ukrainian people, and we feel keenly for it. Nevertheless, we see the only way out of this situation in following observing the canonical tradition of the Church. Already many of those who were in schism have repented and returned. The Church prays for the return of the rest and awaits them in the spirit of evangelical love. Because they are our brothers. I would like to make a special mention of the support given to canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine by other Local Orthodox Churches. Only in this way, through joint efforts of all Local Churches, it is possible to oppose disorders emerging within the church fold.

– What do you think of the desire of some priests in Montenegro who want to establish an independent Church separate from the Serbian Orthodox Church?

– The Russian Orthodox Church has always stood for the respect of canonical norms both in relations among Churches and in internal church life. Therefore, we cannot approve of the actions of the small groups you mentioned, because the ignore canons. As far as we know, most of the faithful in Montenegro do not support them either.

– The Russian Orthodox Church supported the Serbs during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. There were predictions that the conflict would spread throughout the region, which what actually happened. Albanian terrorists have destroyed churches and monasteries in Kosovo and Metochia. Can Russia exert diplomatic influence on the West so that it may protect shrines in Kosovo and Metochia?

– Our Church has repeatedly appealed to those responsible for peace and order in Kosovo to protect Orthodox churches, monasteries and cemeteries in this much-suffering region. The destruction and desecration of Orthodox shrines is not only a blasphemy and vandalism but also a crime before the human history itself, for most of the churches in Kosovo are recognized as monuments of world significance. The Russian Orthodox Church maintains close contacts with the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Russian Foreign Office and international organizations concerning this problem. I can assure you that the foreign policy department of our country is taking diplomatic steps to prevent acts of vandalism.

– The relations of your Church with the Vatican are again in a stage of coldness. Have you preserved diplomatic contacts or all the negotiations are frozen now?

– The reason for the present coolness in the relations is the decision of the Vatican to establish four dioceses in Russia, united in a “church province” headed by the “Metropolitan in Moscow”. This very unfriendly step has virtually brought all the results of recent contacts with the Vatican to naught. Regrettably, Rome demonstrates hypocrisy, calling us to dialogue and calling us a “sister Church, on one hand, and taking, without any dialogue, essential decisions affecting our interests, on the other. Thus, we were notified about the establishment of dioceses in Russia as an accomplished fact a few days before the decision was adopted. Recently Catholic dioceses have been established in Ukraine, in its southern and eastern areas populated almost exclusively by the Orthodox – the fact we leant about from the press. The Catholics have carried out missionary activities throughout the space of the Commonwealth of the Independent States in secret from the Orthodox and under the guise of charity. In western Ukraine, communities of the canonical Orthodox Church are persecuted and humiliated under the pressure from the Greek Catholics.

Recently our Church has again set forth for the Vatican her detailed view of various aspects of the bilateral relations. The time has come to clarify our positions calmly. And if the dialogue resumes, it should lead not to an exchange of ceremonial smiles with the remaining problems in the background, but their real solution for the benefit of both Churches and Christianity in Europe.

See also:

His Holiness Alexy II, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia