Metropolitan Kirill Speaks at the Interreligioius Forum in Aachen
23.10.2003 · English, Архив 2003
METROPOLITAN KIRILL SPEAKS AT THE INTERRELIGIOIUS FORUM IN AACHEN
The Interreligious Forum ‘War and Peace. Religions and Cultures in Dialogue’ continues its work in Aachen, Germany. On 8 September 2003 Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, gave a report at the section ‘Catholics and Orthodox Facing the Challenge of Ecumenism.’ The text of the report is given below. Metropolitan Kirill answered numerous questions of the participants. That same day Metropolitan Kirill visited the stavropegic Intercession Parish of the Moscow Patriarchate in Dusseldorf. On Septrember 9 Archbishop Longin of Klin, representative of the Moscow Patriarchate in Germany, gave a report at the ‘The Legacy of the Martyrs for the 21st Century’ section, and Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, deputy chairman of the DECR MP gave his report at the ‘Religions in ‘Greater Europe’ section. Also taking part in the forum was Archimandrite Iosif (Pustoutov), rector of the parish of the Moscow Patriarchate in Aachen and Deacon Igor Vyzhanov, a staff member of the DECR MP Secretariat for InterChristian Relations.
Address of Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, at the Meeting of the Community of St. Egidio in Aachen
Section ‘Catholics and Orthodox Facing the Challenge of Ecumenism’ September 8, 2003
For the last ten years we have heard about the crisis of ecumenical movement more often than ever. The statement that the previous forms of Inter-Christian cooperation have died out and radical changes of inter-Christian relations and organizations are required has become almost normal. It has been already five years since the World Council of Churches initiated a so-called Forum of Christian Churches and Ecumenical Organizations as an open platform for the dialogue between the Churches and communities, which consider their membership possible, and those, to which such membership in unacceptable.
Some people are afraid of excessive bureaucratization in the modern ecumenism. They would like to see more ‘charismatic’ approach to the problem of cutting the Gordian knot of differences and divisions. The others, who have already resigned themselves to the tragedy of division and even convinced themselves that there was not any tragedy at all, insist on ‘broadening the horizons’, on the inclusion in the ecumenical process maximum number of communities of different trends irrespective of their dimensions and teaching. Still the others do not see any visible prospect in the ecumenical movement and urge to keep themselves aloof from ‘the international Christian policy’, concentrate on local problems, not to exceed the frames of the direct bilateral relations with the most friendly Churches. There is quite a number of the latter attitude among the Orthodox. Some groups emphatically advocate isolation as a panacea from the ‘cursed questions’, which, they say, only confuse the conscience of the faithful.
It looks as if the ecumenical movement is really in crisis, probably even in the dead end. In a certain sense this crisis was inevitable. As far back as on the eve of ecumenism, in the most romantic period of its history, the outstanding Russian theologian Archpriest Georgy Florovsky warned against easy ways, against dangers of ‘dogmatical minimalism’, and exposed the futility of hurried efforts aimed at reaching any result as soon as possible. He saw other serious danger in domination of humanitarian and peace-making subjects, the spirit of the League of Nations in the World Council of Churches at the expense of the Christian unity, return to the spirit and life of the early Ecumenical Church, which, in his opinion, continue her ceaseless being in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and in many respects in the Roman Orthodox Church. Today, paradoxical as it may seem, the ecumenical movement has become a hostage of politics aimed at underlining human values rather than particularly Christian ones. The movement itself is not to be blamed, as it consists of the Churches and Christian communities, which bring their concerns and priorities into it. I mean mainly the processes of modernization that took place in the Protestant world under relatively favorable post-war conditions. This ‘permanent reformation’ became more visible at inter-confessional meetings. Unfortunately, the ecumenical movement on the whole has not fulfilled its most important task in history, namely the rapprochement of Christians at the profound level of spiritual life, but rather has left them separated in their experience of faith. Fr. Georgy Frolovsky wrote in 1950s: ‘We have to seek not the satisfaction of our dreams and hopes, as glorious and inspiring as they may be or seem to be, but only the common revival of spiritual life in the existing communities’.
However, instead of spiritual revival and rapprochement we have faced new obstacles that make our common witness to Christ more and more difficult in the world, from which the Christian values are being ousted. In our opinion uncritical adoption of secular humanitarian ideology by many theologians and Churches in the West played a negative part in it. Secular humanism in many respects differs from the Christian Biblical anthropology that is far from the unequivocal support of freedom in every form. The problem was raised anew by the Russian religious philosophy still in the first half of the last century. S. Frank wrote: ‘If we reflect deeply and glance at the common European, including Russian, historical past, we shall see that the Russian revolution is the end and final result of the mighty rebellion of humanity, which began in the period of the Renaissance and covered to the whole period of the so-called ‘modern history’. In the beginning of the 21st century we can say that the Russian revolution appeared to be not the end, but only a stage of this process that speeded up after World War II and reached its culmination in the ruins of communism.
As far as Christianity is concerned, many liberal values connected with personal rights and freedoms have become coated with doubtful theological argumentation, which has different evaluation and is considered doubtful by many people. At present these values are perceived as equal to those of the Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition or even higher. Moreover, clear and unequivocal witness of the Word of God in case it differs from the secular liberal values is ignored or its true sense is distorted. For instance, the protection of personal rights, which is in compliance with the Church tradition (especially under tyranny, persecution for faith, wars and poverty), was radicalized to the detriment of the norms of the Apostolic Tradition, and in female ordination, recognition of homosexuals, and so on. Secular legal principle of religious tolerance was extrapolated on dogmatics and brought about syncretism, which is often hidden beyond the facade of inculturation.
Process of humanitarian modernization goes on extremely quickly with modern possibilities, so the situation in some Churches is changing radically, even during the lifetime of one generation. Sometimes those, who are over fifty, say: ‘It is not the Church, which I remember as a child’. Theologians and church leaders, who inspire such development, often explain it with the necessity of renovation of Christianity for the sake of its more effective influence on the life of today’s man and society. I think this thesis does not stand any critics, because no one can prove that there is positive dependence between liberalization of the theological thought and church life on the one hand, and efficiency of the Christian homily on the other hand. On the contrary, the situation in the West shows at least that humanistic modernization is incapable of making Christian communities more effective in their witness and ministry to the modern world. No wonder, that the Churches that confess intransient values of the Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition seek to resist an impulse of many people to subject the ‘old truths’ to total reform and revision. But this resistance consists neither in raising outside barriers, nor in refusing to communicate with ‘brothers, separation with whom tortures us’ (St. Gregory the Theologian). First of all, it is expressed in defending the Gospel of Christ as undamaged, which was given to the Church by the Apostles in all its power and unceasing novelty: ‘But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed’. (Gal 1,8) It is evident that the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches as the Churches of the Tradition, which are the closest in their history, teaching and church order, and many Protestant communities that try to keep the norms of the Apostolic Tradition in their life should work together to assert the Word of Christ in the world in order to save many. Probably we should seek the ways of more adequate representation of ‘catholic’ tradition in the frames of global inter-Christian forum, which is the World Council of Churches or the one, which may replace it.
Many people fear that the inter-Christian dialogue is loosing its dynamics and meaning and that it is maintained for the sake of a certain political correctness. We have talked about many dogmatic truths for fifty years, but have not reached complete understanding, and many people say that the dialogue has no future. I am deeply convinced that this is not the case. If we are unable to make a breakthrough in our dogmatic discussions, we must fill the dialogue with new contents. However, we can make a breakthrough in the field of maintaining Christian values in the life of society at present. Together we must bear witness to Christian values to people in the modern world, which is rapidly loosing these values. If not we, than who? If not today, then when?
Let us bring the inter-Christian movement from the impasse, if it is there. Let us find subjects, which would inspire people, really unite us and help us grow in mutual respect and fraternal love. Unfortunately, this good intention will remain only a wish, if we fail to overcome the temptations of missionary competition. We should note that such documents as ‘The Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to Other Confessions’ and ‘Dominus Jesus’ have appeared partly because of the wrong understanding of the essence of the Church by our partners in inter-Christian dialogue. The confession of St. Cyprian of Carthage Salus extra ecclesiam non est conveys the old understanding of the mission of the Church, which has always been the only salutary ark of God’s grace. However, such self-conscience that exists both in the Orthodox Church and in the Catholic Church should not be used for crossing all the positive results reached in the course of the dialogue between Christian East and West during and after Vatican Council II and in the period of activities of the World Council of Churches. Modern world with its severe global competition and aggressive protection of particular economic interests pose a difficult dilemma before the Churches: to follow the same logic of ‘fighting for the market’ or to listen to the voice of the Holy Apostle of Gentiles Paul: ‘I have fully preached the gospel of Christ, thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation’ (Rom 15, 20).
The spirit of competition, which sometimes grows into open hostility can once and for all destroy the fraternal love and trust built during the decades of hard work. Ideology of the ‘free market of religions’ cause inevitable clash between Churches and communities, because the market is always accompanied by tough competition and there is no place in it for sacrificial love, unselfish mutual help, renunciation of earthly benefits. If we permit the outside world to make us behave according to the logic of competitive companies ready to do everything in order to ‘win the client’, the hope for common witness of Christ will be buried forever. It is time to realize that today as never before we need mutual support and full understanding of our historical responsibility for the destiny of the Christian world, which is subjected to the strongest blows on the part of the ideology of the deification of man, which can cripple millions and millions of people.
Christianity faces new challenges in the beginning of the 21st century. We will be able to meet them with dignity only if we remain faithful to the Gospel and the pleroma of Tradition, and do not yield to the cunning spirit of our times, but give the world an example of fullness of life in God and fraternal love: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations …teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you’ (Mt 28.19-20). Fulfilling the commandments of Christ, we should prefer loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition and the plenitude of faith to hurried reforms that cast doubt on such loyalty; the obedience to God’s will to the chase of the spirit of time; cooperation to competition; fraternal love to the hostility of ‘this world’. Only this way can lead Christians to the restoration of unity. I hope that we shall return to this way and that the words of Father Georgy Florovsky will come true: ‘The will for unity should see the light and be tempered in the penitential trial and the feat of faith’.
See also: