August 2018 Letter from Serbian Patriarch Irinej to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew

of the Serbian Orthodox Church Prot. No. 1163 Belgrade, August 13, 2018 To His All-Holiness Archbishop of Constantinople New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Kyrios Kyrios Bartholomew In Constantinople Subject: the position of the Serbian Orthodox Church regarding the methodology of overcoming of schisms in Ukraine and elsewhere. Your All-Holiness, During the annual meeting of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of our Church, which took place from April 29 to May 10 of the present year, discussed in the synod, among other matters, was the problem of schisms in the Orthodox East, namely, in Ukraine, in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and elsewhere, as well as the problem of the “sect” in Montenegro, which is led by a certain Miraš Dedeić, a former clergyman of Your Most Holy Church, who was defrocked by Your decision. From the brotherly discussion in the Synod, it became apparent that the heresy of ethnophyletism constitutes one of the principal malaises of contemporary Orthodoxy. In this connection, it is very important that the Holy and Great Synod that took place in Crete, among its other decrees, validated the ecumenical significance of the Council in Constantinople (1872), which branded the ethnophylite heresy as also a “snake venom” dissolving the body of the Church. Firstly, this took place in the Soviet Union through the creation of “reforms” and the “Living Church”, as well as through the attempt to replace the canonical Church having the holy patriarch Tikhon at its head, with the “Renovated Church” or the “Living Church,” which was the only legitimate one from the perspective of the Soviet authorities, but moreover was reformed, but rather had been deformed, according to the standards of liberal Protestantism. Within the territories of the Kievan Rus, Ukraine was established at the same time as one of the federated states of the Soviet Union, a “Ukrainian nation” was especially proclaimed, and the linguistic peculiarities of the Western regions of Russia at that time were combined into one whole and this linguistic amalgamation received the official status of a special Ukrainian language. Ukraine was not an exception: in the same manner also, Belarus was “elevated” to be a constituent part of the federation, again with a particular “national identity” and language. Indeed, also furthermore, the former “Russian Turkestan” was divided, according to national divisions, into Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and other “-stan’s.” The Ukrainian separatist mindset has, nevertheless, even deeper historical roots, paramount of which is the Unia of Brest-Litovsk at the end of the 16th century, which was spread by force during later years. In the soil of this separatist path, the flowers of evil blossomed under the form of Ukrainian Nazism (“banderovtsi”) and of the holocaust of the Jewish community (Babi Yar and other places of death). Alongside the separatist tendency, ecclesiastical ethnophylitism and the ecclesiastical separatist movement are at the same time emphasized, of which the “Church of the Self-Ordained” (αὐτοχειροτονούμενοι) constitutes the pathological apex, which was wholeheartedly supported by the Nazis of Ukraine. We certainly do not refer to all these things for proof of our historical knowledge or, much less, to insinuate imperfect historical knowledge among certain others, but for a reliable highlighting of the background for the spiritual origins both of the ecclesiastical schisms as well as the fratricidal conflicts in contemporary Ukraine. The very name of the state and nation, and then even of the Church, makes this evident. As matter of fact, “Ukraine” means frontier or border region, a part of a greater whole, namely, a part of the Kievan Rus, which before 1030, Prince Vladimir, equal-to-the-apostles, baptized. Other border regions were also entitled “Ukraines”. A similar thing also took place in the Southern Slavic lands. Communist Yugoslavia was organized in a manner consistent with the Soviet model and example: the state was converted into a federation, subdivided into a supposed “republic” (in 1974, it was indeed transformed into a confederation, i.e., it was broken up into coexisting states, and finally, in 1991, was divided, both externally and internally, into “separately existing” states and provinces). Concurrently, newly-minted nationalities (“Montenegrins,” “Macedonians” namely the nascent “Northern Macedonians,” “Muslims” who were renamed into “Bosnians”) and newly-created languages (Montenegrin, Macedonian, Bosnian) were proclaimed. The process of further development of “nations” and “languages” was interrupted because of the intervening death of the state. As formerly in the Soviet Union, this development was accompanied by the creation of new churches, to speak more accurately, of schisms, which served the Communist party and its ideology. Among other things, Tito’s regime thus declared the southern ecclesiastical provinces, which were assigned by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Tomos of 1922 to the Patriarchate of Serbia, to be a “Macedonian Orthodox Church.” It is unique in the history of the Church, that a communist party is also the founder [of a Church], as is also stated in the relevant decree, published in the meantime. A much worse and more serious case is tat of the so-called Church of Montenegro. While three canonically-ordained bishops of the Church of Serbia created the schism of Skopje, our Church up to the present time did not defrock either them or their successors, having the principle of economy, awaiting eagerly their repentance and not making their desirable reintegration difficult in the future. In contrast to them, worth no regard, in this connection a non-governmental organization in the form of a church, the self-labeled Montenegrin Church was founded by a defrocked clergyman of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and registered in a public police station. Accordingly, at no point of his confused life, did this shifty and tragic person serve as an Orthodox bishop. False clergymen make up his “clergy,” either defrocked clergy or ones he himself had “ordained,” and belonging to his “faithful” are political leaders and “sympathizers,” that for the most part are unbaptized, some even atheists, including some “Muslims,” in all likelihood [including] such Muslims, because also the “Church” is supported by them. The Eastern Roman Empire was a model state, and constituted the spiritual and vital land of many ancient Christian Churches and the protector of Christian morality and civilization, which those who found themselves outside of the boundaries of the Empire also adopted. This Orthodox Christian Empire endowed the Church and the world, with among other things, the New Rome, as well as the bishop of the New Rome, whose authority and influence in the Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire was equal to the authority and influence of the bishop of the Old Rome in the West and whose Church even today enjoys the position and the rank of the Church of the first throne among the local Orthodox Churches. Furthermore, from even after the fall of the Roman Empire (1453) until the assassination of the tsar and his family in Russia (1918), the “Byzantine commonwealth” preserved the idea of the Christian state and cultivated the tradition of “symphony” of Church and State. In other words, from the years of the holy emperor Constantine the Great until the years of the holy martyred tsar, Nicholas Romanoff, the state, state authority and the people serve ideally and inherently, though in practice as far as possible the Christian faith and Church. From that time onward, the newly-created secularized states and nations attempt with much effort to use the Church to serve their ideology and authority, as a rule non-Christian, but often being directly contrary to the Gospel. Therefore, the Church generally and the first throne, the Great Church of Christ, specifically finds herself, after the end of the “Constantinian age” in the history of the Church, in an altogether new position, in a fundamentally changed world and with a new, singular responsibility. To speak in an open manner and sincerely, it is not appropriate that she permit for herself the practice of those things that she did not even practice during the height of her fame and might, namely, during the “golden age” of Romiosini. However, it is likewise not appropriate for the other sister Churches to permit for themselves an ungrateful or, God forbid, unseemly and unprincipled attitude against the Church of the first throne, but also even a Mother Church for the newer among them. The present “golden rule” particularly applies to the subject of the conferment of autocephaly to any Church. The unhealthy ethnophylitism and the secular state-centric mindset of our days lays the foundations for their claims on the relationship of the Orthodox Church to baptized peoples and to the, so far as it is historically possible, Christianized societies; nevertheless, they achieve one thing only threatening the catholic and ecumenical character of the Church of God, in this way perhaps also her primal mission to all nations. The states, nations and “nations,” in which autocephaly is sought, but in practice state-sponsored “political schisms” take effect, which also openly excuse their pernicious activity for the invocation of the state and national agenda, are creations of the Communists, which today for the most part have atheists as leaders, such as the unbaptized and atheist head of Montenegro or the “all-comprehensive believer” such as the president of Ukraine, who is seen in the canonical Church, among the schismatics, and among the Uniates. They do not seek an autocephalous Church because, allegedly, they are its faithful members, but they use it as suitable, but rather unsuitably , for the purpose of strengthening their worldly and essentially atheistic ideology, power and vulgar interests. In the last analysis, it is a question of an abuse of the Church and of the Faith. Can it be that the condescension of the Church is permitted for such an abuse? For she who is intended to transfigure and save the fallen world, is it permitted for her to conform to and please it? We address these questions especially to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to our Mother Church, which is called, in the capacity of first throne of the Church, so that, cathartically and sacrificially, she might serve for the unity of the Church. Under no circumstances, influences or pressures whatsoever is it permitted for her to proceed to any hasty action capable of affecting harm to pan-orthodox unity, but especially also of protracting the life of schisms, which, otherwise, it is desired that she might remedy and overcome. This general principle quite especially applies concerning the now tragic schisms, namely, concerning such ones in Ukraine. A one-sided act of exonerating and restoring schismatics to the rank of bishops, but quite especially of the archschismatic, of Filaret Denysenko the “patriarch” of Kiev, and of restoration of liturgical and canonical communion with the schismatic communities, without their repentance and return to unity with the Russian Orthodox Church from which they broke away, against the will of the Patriarchate of Moscow and without coordinating with it, would be, according to our belief, very unsafe or even catastrophic, but even potentially fatal for the unity of holy Orthodoxy. Such an act would signify at the same time an unbrotherly attitude towards the martyred Church in the Russian lands, when this by no means is expected from the martyred Great Church of Christ. The intervention of Your predecessor (who came to a blessed end), the ecumenical patriarch Gregory VII, in the affairs of the Russian Church approximately a century ago, as well as his attitude towards the holy patriarch Tikhon, the confessor of the faith, on the one hand, and towards the schism of the “renovationists” on the other, should not be used as an example for emulation. Nor may the fact be overlooked that the Holy and Great Council in Crete confirmed in its ecclesiological encyclical the existence of fourteen autocephalous Orthodox Churches in their present canonical boundaries. The question arises: how is the change of this number of autocephalous churches possible, absent a new Council? Next, by the statement in question of the Council in Crete, it is affirmed implicitly that the autonomous Church of Ukraine is found under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow and that it wholly belongs to it organically. In this case it is unfathomable that the Russian Orthodox Church does not have jurisdiction for the canonical establishment of the Church in Ukraine, but that the “Mother Church,” namely, the Church of Constantinople, does have jurisdiction. Being viewed under the prism of history, the Church of Constantinople is equally Mother Church of both Kiev and Moscow, and of Peć (with Belgrade and Karlovci) and Tyrnavos (Sardica, Sredets, Sofia), and others… If then she has the right of intervening in one autocephalous Church, then, as a consequence, she possesses the right of intervention in every single autocephalous Church. In the meantime, the honor and dignity of ecclesiastical motherhood does not provide the Mother Church with the right of setting no value on or, all the moreso, of questioning autocephalies and jurisdictions that were historically formed. In the same manner, established jurisdictional status does not give the Churches the right to belittle and disdain the Mother Church or to pretend that they forgot that a Church is the one who spiritually gave birth to them, or to “order” a Mother for themselves (like the schism of the Skopjans). An eloquent example of these things being the case is precisely our Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church. Our Mother Church is the Church of Constantinople. Previously it came under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Ochrid, but today, as a consequence of many historical events and of the Tomos provided in Constantinople in 1922, the Archbishop of Ochrid comes under the jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox Church. In the case of these things, the following results: concerning the future status of the Archbishop of Ochrid, it is not possible for the Ecumenical Throne to decide de jure, absent the Church of Serbia, for the simplest reason that the Archbishop of Ochrid is found under the canonical jurisdiction of the Church of Serbia, as it is also recorded in the Tomos of 1922. Since then, all the Orthodox Churches without exception recognize this jurisdiction. The same thing applies also for Ukraine, but to speak more accurately, for Kievan Rus, a Church that without a doubt and undeniably is subject to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow, and which has the status of an autonomous Church. Your Most Holy Church, All-Holiness, puts forward from time to time the claim that the Metropolis of Kiev belongs in reality to her and that it has belonged to her continually. Nevertheless, we wonder with all brotherly love and honor: how the fact can be explained that Moscow for so long a time, for three centuries and more, exercised and now exercises jurisdiction over Kiev without any protest whatsoever, from the Great Church of Christ being involved? In addition, the available historical sources do not confirm the allegation concerning the lack of the de facto jurisdiction of Moscow for Kiev. Besides, in the sacred canonical tradition and practice of the Church, the criterion of antiquity existed, of “ancient customs” of relations which had been accepted by all, as You, because of being a distinguished canonist, know better than our own mediocrity. Within this context we are obliged to point out, that, after decades of theological labor, the process for acquiring and declaring new autocephalies was also agreed in a pan-orthodox manner. The relevant definitive official text was published in the pages of the periodical Synodika publshed by the Chambésy Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The manner of signing the Tomos for autocephaly was the only point not agreed upon (with the addition, “it is decided/it is decided together” [ἀποφαίνεται/συναποφαίνεται] or without it). The whole process is thus clear: the Church having jurisdiction takes the initiative of granting autocephaly to any of its own eparchies, the initiative is forwarded to the first throne Church, from whom it is communicated to all the local Churches, consultations follow and, in terms of results, either we have general agreement concerning a new autocephalous Church or a new autocephalous Church does not exist. This is the generally acceptable and accepted position of the local Orthodox Churches and not the stance of one of the hierarchs of Your Most Holy Church, that the Ecumenical Throne alone, absent the rest, without equals (sine paribus), grants or removes autocephaly, acting indeed in this way for 1,350 consecutive years (!). All-Holiness, in no way does the desire and intent to offend or aggrieve You at all come into our mind, not even indeed briefly, however, we are obligated to remind You both of Your promise, which was given in Chambésy Geneva in the presence of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches in the presence, consequently, also of our own mediocrity that you would not intervene into the affairs of the Church of Ukraine. Finally, some other questions are also raised, and indeed key questions. How is the recognition of archpriesthood possible at all for a priest who was defrocked by Your Most Holy Church, but then “who has been ordained” as a bishop by schismatic bishops who are deprived of grace, likewise in the meantime who were defrocked by their own Churches? Here, as you can recognize, we have in mind Dedeić, “primate” of the rival assembly or “sect,” which deprived of divine grace, calls herself Church of Montenegro and, like her elder “sister” in Skopje, believes and trumpets, that, after the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian schismatics, she will also herself receive recognition and autocephaly. Still incomparably worse is the case of Filaret Denysenko, the self-proclaimed patriarch of Kiev, who is not only defrocked, but also excommunicated and, in addition, anathematized. Not one Church, beginning with Your Most Holy Church, has questioned these facts nor is it possible to do this. But in order that the disorder and chaos might be magnified still more, alone in the world, Filaret recognizes Dedeić as “metropolitan of Montenegro,” concelebrates with him, visited him, and recently, on July 28, during the celebrations organized by Filaret for the 1030th anniversary of the baptism of the Kievan Rus, the legate of Dedeić, “archimandrite” Boris Bojović, likewise a false clergyman, “concelebrated” in Kiev. According to the popular saying, “The sack found its patch” (Serbian), “The pot found its lid” (Greek and Serbian), “Philip found Nathanael” (in the midst of theologians). Taking into consideration all the things mentioned above, the conclusion is unavoidable that Denysenko and Dedeić indispensably wished to be restored as a “package,” both together, which from a nomocanonical point of view would be a grotesque absurdity. For which reason, we have been persuaded, that you personally and the Holy and Sacred Synod around you wish to remain on the ramparts of orthodox ecclesiology and age-old canonical order. We wrote all these things to You, All-Holiness, in optima fide, in the name of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church and in our own name personally, because we are concerned most deeply for the unity of the Orthodox Catholic Church after the statements of one of the hierarchs of Your Most Holy Church, that the delivery of Your Tomos concerning autocephaly to the schismatic “Churches” in Ukraine is immenent, totally contrary to the will indeed of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, in the name of past ecclesiastical maternity as an innovational canonical adaptation. At the same time, it is reported that a similar delivery is planned also for the schismatic “Macedonian Orthodox Church,” which uncanonically and illegally appropriated the eparchies of the ancient Archdiocese of Ochrid, which were integrated, after her dissolution, into the body of Your Most Holy Church, and were given to our Church by the Tomos of 1922. If, God forbid, such a thing were to take place, this would be a realization of the wise Greek proverb according to which, “when one evil occurs a myriad follows,” as well as an affirmation of the enduring timelessness of our Savior’s teaching, that it is when the unclean spirit has been expelled “he brings with him seven other spirits, more evil than himself,” together with them he enters again into the man and “dwells there” if he might find his former “house” “empty, swept and put in order” (Matt. 12, 43-45; cf. Luke 11, 24-26). Certainly, none of us wishes the consequences set forth, since “the last state of that man becomes worse than the first” (Matt. 12, 45; cf. Luke 11, 26). Namely, we renounce the dreadful prospect that after one evil or perhaps one unclean spirit, the evil and the spirit of already existing schisms, other evils and other evil demons follow, namely, a new schism, deeper and harder to cure, or even schisms. For which reason, again and again we persist in asking and entreat earnestly Your holiness and love: before you even cut once, measure three times! Venerating the Cross and crucifixion of Your Most Holy first throne Church, with all our souls let us beseech our Crucified Resurrected Lord, of the Head and Bride of the Church, of the Author and Accomplisher of our faith, of the Overseer of our souls, of the First and of the Last, of the Beginning and of the End of all things, of the Alpha and the Omega, to grant strength to our Mother Church in not succumbing to pressures and [to grant] wisdom from above in keeping her strong and forever faithful to herself, to her mission and service. The aim of this world’s and this age’s powers that are borne by the Antichrist is the annihilation of the being and the work of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ, while the aim of us all, who shepherd the Church and unworthily concelebrate with her only Archpriest and Chief Shepherd, Christ our Lord, is service to her theanthropic and pneumatological mission, and the safe-keeping of her unity, which has been entrusted to and appointed for us. The Orthodox Church is today the only institution, which saves from death and guards on all sides also the unity of all the Orthodox peoples, which was sealed by the blood of the martyrs and new martyrs. Being crucified with Christ, she rises each time and at the same time causes the world to rise together. She is the hope and the future of humankind. In the love of Christ embracing Your All-Holiness in a brotherly manner, we remain Your brother and concelebrant in Christ Irinej of Peć, Belgrade and Karlovci

St. Nicholas of Japan on Buddhism

St. Nicholas of Japan on Buddhism Deacon Giorgi Maximov Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Archbishop Nicholas (Kasatkin; 1836-1912), an outstanding missionary to Japan where he labored for over fifty years, was the founder of the Japanese Orthodox Church. Of the tens of thousands of Japanese converted to Orthodoxy thanks to his labors, a significant portion were former Buddhists, and amongst his assistants were former Buddhist monks (Bhikkhu), for example, Paul Savabe. The saint studied Buddhism during the first eight years of his time in Japan, when, in his words, he “strove with all diligence to study Japanese history, religion, and the spirit of the Japanese people.”[1] St. Nicholas offered an integral study of Buddhism in his work, “Japan from the point of view of Christian mission,” published in 1869. This was the first description of Japanese Buddhism accessible to the Russian language reader. It was clear from this work that the author studied Buddhism quite seriously, but for understandable reasons, limited his sources to those in the Japanese language. If Archbishop Nilus, who acquainted himself with Buddhism using sources in the Buryat language, saw in it nothing more than just one more of the many forms of paganism, St. Nicholas gives this teaching a much higher evaluation. He determines Buddhism as “the best of the pagan religions—a herculean pillar of human effort compiled for itself a religion, guided by those obscure remains of God-revealed truths that had been preserved by the races after the Babylonian dispersion.[2] Although he thoroughly studied it, St. Nicholas did not have an interest in Buddhism in and of itself and looked at it exclusively from the practical, missionary point of view. This view allowed him to notice what other scholars and polemicists paid no attention to in Buddhism. This included missionary methods of Buddhism. The saint notes the “flexibility of Buddhism and its ability to adapt to the customs of the country in which it appears.”[3] As an illustration the author points to how, according to Buddhist belief, Buddha and the Bodhisattvas made an oath to “be born in various ignorant countries in order to bring them to salvation.”[4] This allowed Buddhists to pronounce Amaterasu and other Japanese gods to be incarnations of Buddha and the Bodhisattvas, taken on by them in order to “prepare them to receive the true teachings of Buddhism… Thus, Buddhism called Japanese gods by their names, accepted them under these names and into their temples, and took root and flourished in Japan.[5] Describing the teachings of Buddhism, St. Nicholas concludes a natural cause for each of its characteristic elements—historical, cultural, and psychological circumstances. For example, explaining the successful spread of Buddhism in its early stages, the saint writes, “Having arisen on Indian soil as an antidote to the Brahmin caste system and the oppression of the lower classes by the higher, Buddhism was in this respect a preaching of spiritual equality and love in the pagan world; on the other hand, because it is the preaching of a man who was the heir to the throne but became instead a beggar, it is the preaching against the vanity of this world, of non-acquisitiveness and poverty.[6] Pointing to the absence in Buddhism of a teaching of God the Creator, the saint explains this by the fact that in the Indian milieu of the time there was no precedent for obtaining the knowledge of this truth; and, “having arisen on the soil of Brahmin pantheism, Buddhism turned out to be powerless to renounce it.” In speaking of why Buddha himself cannot be equated with God, he writes, “True, Buddha appears with traits that are characteristic of God, but along with others like him there are an infinite multitude of buddhas, and each one has reached this blessed state through his own merits; each person, in turn, is faced with a great number of degrees of incarnation into a buddha. This ladder leading from man to the heights leads to a state of Buddha; but why not also extend it downward? Thus… the entire animal world is also equated with Buddha; moreover, the ladder goes even further downward: there are various of degrees of hell invented, which are inhabited by living beings, and they are also in contact with Buddha… Thus, the image of heavenly, earthly, and nether worlds is a huge laboratory in which the countless races of existence swarm, are born, re-born, and in the final analysis become buddhas.[7] St. Nicholas explains the teaching of transmigration of souls as “a misunderstanding of nature and its relationship to man, and an unconscious compassion for lower beings.”[8] The practice of meditation aimed at altering consciousness the saint explains as the eastern man’s yearning for peace and inactivity: “Thoughts can also cause distress or trouble a person—therefore it is better if they as if stop and freeze in their flow; if, in a word, a person immerses himself in insensibility, unconsciousness, then he immerses himself in nothingness, but in fact an integral human existence has immersed itself. Such an unconscious peaceful state is called contemplation; to it is ascribed lofty qualities of directly leading everything and the power to control everything, inasmuch as in this state a person, having renounced himself, merges into unity with everything and can become the possessor of that with which he has merged. This state is promoted as the aim of everyone and everything; the buddhas are therefore buddhas because they have attained the possibility to at all times immerse themselves in this state, and that is considered their most exalted blessedness.”[9] The saint also writes that “Buddhism created for its followers rules of morality, which amaze at times by their purity and austerity, at times by their monstrosity; it created also monstrous and most unbelievable legends and wonders.”[10] The hierarch describes the more important schools of Japanese Buddhism. The first of them he determines as the school of Zen, which, “as a sect that came from China, it likes to boast of its correctness and purity.” He defines Zen teachings as “the preaching of self-mortification for the sake of attaining the capability of contemplation,” and he emphasizes that “here a person takes it upon himself—only through Buddha’s example and not through his co-operation—to attain the highest blessedness”, and he must exercise himself in meditation and observe “the most austere prescriptions concerning food and outward behavior.”[11] St. Nicholas truthfully observed Zen’s characteristic inclination toward yogic practices; however, he did not reflect upon such a characteristic particularity of the teaching on the transmittal of a state of “awakening” directly from the teacher to the disciple, “using neither oral nor written instruction.”[12] In his criticism of Zen, St. Nicholas notes that the methodology it supposes cannot be fully carried out and is not applicable to ordinary people. It was known to him that only in a few Buddhist monasteries during the course of a few days out of the year is the zazen practice carried out to it full extent, and the monks often simply fall asleep during the process of meditation. The second school of Japanese Buddhism that St. Nicholas notes is montosu. He defines it as completely opposite to Zen. It “casts off all Buddhist asceticism and takes hold only of the idea of Buddha’s love for the world. There is no trace of self-mortification here: the bonza marry and eat meat… all human ascetic labors are considered insignificant… A person may be a terrible evil-doer, but if he says only once, ‘I bow down before Buddha Amida’, he is saved. The teaching of the loving Buddha, of his readiness to save a person at the first call, of the inadequacy of a person’s own powers to be saved involuntarily amazes one. When you hear such preaching in a temple you can forget where you are and think you are hearing a Christian sermon. You think, perhaps this teaching is borrowed from Christianity? But with this lofty teaching on the love of Buddha for the world, Buddha himself does not change in the least—he remains the same mythically scandalous and improbable personality.” Criticizing this school, St. Nicholas writes that it has brought Japan much more harm than other sects.”[13] “It never occurred to anyone how terrible such a phrase from the lips of a bonza could be: “No matter how much you sin, just say, ‘namu Amida Butzu’ and all is forgiven.” In the sixteenth century, the bonza of montosiu motivated entire armies… and produced terrible battles, terrible pillaging and razing.”[14] The third school of Japanese Buddhism is hokkesiu[15], which St. Nicholas defines as “tribute of praise and amazement to one man of prayer,” by which is meant the “Lotus sutra”. He writes that its main idea is that “all people will become buddhas; and this teaching is so important that one only needs to call on the name of the man of prayer in whom it is instructed, and he is saved.” The named motives truly characteristic to the “Lotus sutra”, for example those written in the eighteenth chapter, are that if someone heads for the monastery wishing to hear it, “and will at least momentarily listen, then after that he will be reborn among the gods.”[16] As for its concept of “total salvation”, at the end of the sixth chapter of the sutra it says that “everyone will become a Buddha;” however, judging by the context, they are talking about those who follow the teaching laid out in the “Lotus sutra”, which Buddha uses to draw to his teaching (and, correspondingly, to salvation) those people who were not otherwise interested in it. In his critique of hokkesiu, the saint writes that, “the prayer book is filled with descriptions of absurd miracles like the following: While Buddha was giving this teaching, two other buddhas flew in from heaven… they sat next to each other, and the living Buddha preached. When he had finished, the disciples were naturally astounded… To confirm the truth, three Buddhas stretched out their tongues, which turned out to be so long that they pierced through ten thousand spheres of the world; they sat before the disciples in that position for ten thousand years; then they pulled their tongues back into their mouths and grunted altogether at once, from which all the worlds shook… How could listeners have any doubt after hearing this, or not worship the book with a teaching testified to by such miracles?”[17] That episode is in the twenty-first chapter of the “Lotus sutras”[18] and is retold by St. Nicholas almost word for word. After him, Kozhevnikov cited this story as an example of another strange miracle in the Buddhist texts. In another place, St. Nicholas writes that, “in Buddhism, we are at times amazed at the thick prayer books filled with nothing other than praise for the titles of these very prayer books”.[19] It is true—most of the verses of the “Lotus Sutras” contain praise directed at the book itself. St. Nicholas explained the very formation of various sects in Japanese Buddhism by the fact that Buddhism is not entirely suited to the Japanese spirit, and therefore the Japanese strove to create versions of it that would fit them better. Describing the interrelationship of the various schools of Japanese Buddhism, St. Nicholas writes that “each of these sects relies upon a foundation that is unshakable for the Buddhist: each has it own symbolic books in the canon of sacred Buddhist literature. This literature is so vast and multiform that it contains books directly contradicting each other. This more than anything else reveals that the origin of Buddhist literature comes from many different authors, often opponents of each other; however, each author strove to lend weight to his own work, and therefore took pains to ascribe it to Buddha… Thus, based upon one and the same teaching of Buddha the most contradictory sects come about, and no one dares criticize any sect for this, because each can point to its own irrefutable argument in the sacred book.”[20] Besides the appellation to the texts, the founders and followers of various schools, as the holy hierarch states, actively cite various visions and miracles, about which he notes: “It is impossible to recount all the contrived miracles, dreams, songs, and gods. All the sects step all over each other to show off their miracles, one more strange than the next, one more fantastical than the other. Their brashness reaches such extremes that they point to miracles, where anyone can see with his own eyes that there is no miracle… The bonza have become so used to fantasies and deceptions that they spread them around even where there is no need for them. I read one “life” of the Buddha in which the author piously claims that Buddha’s mother’s dowry contained, by the way, seven full cartloads of “Dutch rarities”, and when she conceived the Buddha another of the king’s wives desired out of jealousy to kill the child in her, and so turned to one of the Christians, who, as everyone knows, are all sorcerers, for help in casting a spell against her rival.[21] Here ends the brief review of Japanese Buddhism in the article, “Japan from the point of view of Christian mission.” In another article, “Japan and Russia,” St. Nicholas writes that “Buddhism is the deepest of all pagan religions,” and the Japanese “have Buddhism, with its teaching of equality and brotherhood for all people, to thank for their rejection of slavery and absence of it in their country.”[22] To be continued: Observations on Buddhist missionary work. All sources are in Russian unless otherwise indicated. Deacon Giorgi Maximov

The presentation of the first volumes of the Collected Works of the Equal to the Apostles Nicholas of Japan took place at the Department for External Church Relations

The presentation of the first volumes of the Collected Works of the Equal to the Apostles Nicholas of Japan took place at the Department for External Church Relations В Отделе внешних церковных связей состоялась презентация первых томов Собрания трудов равноапостольного Николая Японского print version October 17, 2018 10:06 On October 16, 2018, the presentation of the first two volumes of the ten-volume collection of works of the equal to the apostles Nicholas of Japan was held at the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. The event was headed by the chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, the chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Collected Works of Equal to the Apostles Nicholas of Japan, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk . This research project on publishing the full written heritage of St. Nicholas (Kasatkin) is carried out by the Nikolo-Ugreshskoy Theological Seminary in collaboration with the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate and a number of Oriental scientific and public organizations in Russia. Representatives of domestic and foreign science and culture, local historians, clergy, translators, and public figures are involved in research. The meeting was attended by the head of the Deserving Me Foundation, I.F. Aristov, President of PJSC Rosbank G.V. Zabolotsky, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the RSUH, A.N. Meshcheryakov, teacher of the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Theological Seminary, Priest Alexy Sorokin, teacher of the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Theological Seminary, Priest Andrei Kolganov. The meeting was also attended by members of the editorial board: rector of the Nikolo-Ugresh seminary, hegumen Ioann (Rubin), master of theology, Priest Nikolai Shcheglov (Nikolo-Ugreshskaya Theological Seminary), hieromonk Nikolai (Ono), DECR employee D.I. Petrovsky, Ph.D. in History, scientific editor T.G. Sila Novitskaya, executive editor I.V. Kuzmina, doctor of historical sciences I.Yu. Smirnova (Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences), Ph.D. Hesmy, specialist in educational and methodological work of the Scientific and Creative Center "Musical Cultures of the World" of the Moscow State Conservatory. P.I. Tchaikovsky N.F. Klobukova. The rector of the Nikolo-Ugresh Orthodox Theological Seminary, Hegumen Ioann (Rubin), welcomed Metropolitan Hilarion and all those gathered. Then the DECR chairman addressed the audience with an opening speech: “Today we present to your attention the first two volumes of the 10-volume complete collection of works of Nicholas the Equal to the Apostles. The publication is carried out by the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Theological Seminary with the support of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. In the framework of the ongoing work on the preparation of this meeting, we are trying to gather together and present to the wide reader all the presently written legacy of St. Nicholas. In 2020, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the glorification in the face of equal to the apostles of the archbishop of Tokyo Nikolai (Kasatkin). I believe that our modest efforts will contribute to the dissemination of knowledge about the faithful son of the Russian Orthodox Church, the apostle of the Land of the Rising Sun, an outstanding archpastor, orientalist, diplomat, ethnographer, linguist and translator. The publication of the works of the saint, I hope, will become a worthy monument to his denonoschny works in the field of the Lord, a unique source of knowledge about this historical figure, church and social structure of Russia and Japan of the late XIX - early XX centuries. The publication is also timed to the significant date celebrated in 2020 in the history of the brainchild of St. Nicholas - the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Russian spiritual mission in Japan. The Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill gives personal attention to this publication. The project was presented in detail to His Holiness during a visit to the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Theological Seminary in May of this year. The welcome speech of His Holiness the Patriarch opens the first volume of our publication. I note that the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church over the years has been concerned about the preservation of the written heritage of the enlightener of Japan. It was precisely his diligence, when he was rector of the Leningrad Theological Academy , that they acquired from a private owner letters from St. Nicholas of Japan, addressed to priest Sergius Suzuki. These materials, supplemented by a scientific and reference apparatus, will be included in subsequent volumes of our publication. The publication is carried out in cooperation with the Autonomous Orthodox Church of Japan , whose representatives take part in the work, provide materials preserved in Japan. So far we have not been able to ensure the realization of our intentions to publish the entire volume of collected works in Russian and Japanese. But the greeting word of the Metropolitan of Tokyo Daniel, the content of the volumes, the titles and annotations of each section are also given in Japanese. Knowing the love of Orthodox Japanese for their Russian apostle and the attention of Japanese academic circles to his contribution to the development of Russian-Japanese relations, I believe that over time his works will be available to the Japanese reader in full in Japanese. Thanks to Saint Nicholas, Orthodoxy organically entered the cultural landscape of Japan, akin to the culture of the Japanese people. Now the Japanese Church, being an integral part of world Orthodoxy, carefully preserves and develops its traditions, rooted in the ancient national culture, contributes to the strengthening of the bonds of friendship between the peoples of Russia and Japan. With spiritual trepidation we began this work, and throughout the work we felt the prayer support of the saint. The appeal to the works of Nicholas the Equal to the Apostles presents to the readers the possibility of touching the richest inner world of a saint person. From the pages of the books that you see now in front of you, a person speaks to us, deeply rooted in the Truth of Christ, fully living the life of the Church. His word was filled with true love without arrogance, self-denial without external pathos. The resurrected Lord was his unchanging hope. Today we present the first two volumes of the collection. They keep an official correspondence, which was led by a young hieromonk - rector of the embassy church in Hakodate, then head of the Russian spiritual mission in Japan, Bishop of Revel, and finally - the Archbishop of Tokyo and all of Japan. Many documents are first introduced into scientific circulation, so the publication will be the most valuable source of information for future researchers of the heritage of Nicholas of Japan. Volumes are equipped with a scientific apparatus, the books contain geographical and biographical indexes, maps of missionary trips of Equal-to-the-Apostles Nicholas are given. The publication of the collection of works of St. Nicholas is of great importance for the scientific, cultural, and most importantly - the church life of Russia and Japan. The publication is carried out with the support of leading Russian scientific and educational oriental institutions, theological schools, the Russian State Historical Archive. I want to thank the members of the Board of Trustees. Thanks to your support, this grandiose project has become possible. I would like to hope for support in the future, since we are still only at the beginning of the path, there will be significant works of considerable volume and scientific significance that will require proper competence and resources, both human and material. I would especially note the work of scientific editors and consultants, carried out under the guidance of the Executive Secretary of the Scientific and Editorial Board Abbot Ioann (Rubin) and the Executive Editor Irina Vladimirovna Kuzmina. I thank all of you for the work you have endured, and I call upon the blessing of God for your continued efforts. Thank you for your attention". Hegumen Ioan (Rubin), rector of the Nikolo-Ugresh Theological Seminary, thanked Metropolitan Hilarion for his speech and donated the first two volumes of the meeting, as well as the icon of St. Nicholas of Japan. Metropolitan Hilarion presented the president of PJSC Rosbank G.V. Zabolotsky and the head of the Worthy Eating Foundation, I.F. Aristov icons of St. Nicholas the Japanese Equal to the Apostles.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church recognized that it was impossible to continue in eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople

At a meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, held on October 15, 2018 in Minsk, the Statement of the Holy Synod was adopted in connection with the encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. The members of the Holy Synod declared it impossible to continue their stay in the Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Statement, in particular, says: “Accepting the communion of dissenters and persons anathematized in another Local Church with all the“ bishops ”and“ clergymen ”ordained by them, an assault on other people's canonical inheritances, an attempt to renounce their own historical decisions and commitments, takes the Patriarchate of Constantinople beyond the canonical field and, to our great sorrow, makes it impossible for us to continue Eucharistic communion with its hierarchs, clergy and laity ”. “From now on, until the Patriarchate of Constantinople refuses to make anti-canonical decisions for all clergymen of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is impossible to serve the clergy of the Constantinople Church, and for the laity to participate in the sacraments performed in its churches,” the document states. The Holy Synod also urged the Primates and Sacred Synods of the Local Orthodox Churches to properly evaluate the aforementioned anticanonical acts of the Constantinople Patriarchate and jointly search for ways out of the gravest crisis that is tearing apart the body of the United Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the canonical territory of the Russian Church

With deepest pain, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church accepted the message of the Patriarchate of Constantinople published on October 11, 2018 about the adopted decisions of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople: about confirming the intention to “grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church”; the opening of the “Stavrophigy” of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Kiev; about the “restoration in the hierarchal or priestly office” of the leaders of the Ukrainian schism and their followers and the “return of their believers to church communion”; on the “cancellation of the action” of the conciliar diploma of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1686, concerning the transfer of the Kiev Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate. These lawless decisions were made by the Synod of the Church of Constantinople unilaterally, ignoring the calls of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the entirety of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as the fraternal Local Orthodox Churches, their Primates and bishops for pan-Orthodox discussion of the issue. Entering into communion with those who have shunned into schism, and even more so who have been excommunicated from the Church, is tantamount to dodging to schism and is severely condemned by the canons of the Holy Church: “If ... any of the bishops, presbyters, deacons or someone in the clergy will communicate with those who are excommunicated, then and himself outside the communion of the church as producing confusion in the church rank ”(Rule 2 of the Council of Antioch; Apostolic Rules 10, 11). The decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to “restore” the canonical status and the adoption of the former Metropolitan Philaret Denisenko, excommunicated, into communion ignores a number of consecutive decisions of the Bishops' Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church, the legitimacy of which is beyond doubt. By the decision of the Bishops 'Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Kharkov dated May 27, 1992, Metropolitan Philaret (Denisenko), for not fulfilling the oaths made by him before the cross and the Gospel at the previous Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, was dismissed from the Kiev cathedra and was banned from the clergy. The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, by its definition of June 11, 1992, confirmed the decision of the Kharkov Council and disgraced Filaret Denisenko from his rank, depriving all degrees of priesthood on the following charges: “Cruel and arrogant attitude to the subordinate clergy, dictate and blackmail (Tit. 1. 7- 8; Apostolic Rule 27); bringing temptation into the environment of believers with their behavior and personal life (Matthew 18: 7; I Ecumenical Council rule 3, VI Ecumenical Council rule 5); oath crime (Apostolic Rule 25); public slander and blasphemy against the Bishops' Council (II Ecumenical Council Rule 6); performing religious rites, including ordinations, in the state of prohibition (Apostolic Rule 28); the division of the Church (Two-Council Council, rule 15). ” All ordinations performed by Filaret in the forbidden state since May 27, 1992, and the bans imposed by him were declared invalid. Despite repeated calls for repentance, after the deprivation of his hierarchal rank, Filaret Denisenko continued his schismatic activity, including within the limits of other Local Churches. By the definition of the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997, he was anathematized. These decisions were recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches, including the Church of Constantinople. In particular, His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople on August 26, 1992, in response to the letter of His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II , wrote about the overthrow of the Metropolitan of Kiev Filaret, “Our Holy Great Christ, recognizing the fullness of the exclusive Russian Orthodox Church’s competence on this issue, takes synodally decided on the above. " The letter of His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II dated April 7, 1997 about the anathematization of Philaret Denisenko stated: “Having received notification of the said decision, we informed him about the hierarchy of our Ecumenical Throne and asked her not to have any church communication with these persons in the future.” Now, after more than two decades, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, for political reasons, has changed its position. In its decision to justify the leaders of the schism and "legitimize" their hierarchy, the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople refers to the non-existent "canonical privileges of the Patriarch of Constantinople to accept the appeals of bishops and clerics from all autocephalous Churches." These claims, in the form in which they are now being carried out by the Patriarch of Constantinople, have never had support for the fullness of the Orthodox Church: they have no grounds in sacred canons and directly contradict, in particular, the 15th rule of the Council of Antioch: of all the bishops of that region, and they all agree to pronounce a single sentence to him - such is not sued by other bishops, but agree with the decision of the bishops of the region to be firm ”- they are also refuted by the practice of the decisions of the Holy Yelenskyi and Local Councils and authoritative interpretations of Byzantine canonists and modern times. So, John Zonara writes: “The Constantinople [Patriarch] is recognized as a judge not at all over all metropolitans, but only at his subordinates. For neither the metropolitans of Syria, nor the Palestinian, Phoenician, or Egyptian are not brought against his will to his court, but the Syrian are subject to the judgment of the Patriarch of Antioch, the Palestinian are from Jerusalem, and the Egyptian are judged by the Alexandria by whom they are ordained and subordinated. ” The 116th (118th) rule of the Carthaginian Council says about the impossibility of accepting a convicted person in another Local Church: "Who, being excommunicated from church communion ... sneaks into overseas countries, in order to be accepted into communion, he will undergo eruption from the clergy." The same is said in the canonical message of the Council to Pope Kelestin: "Those who are separated from communication in their diocese, may not be perceived to be in communication with your holy thing ... Whatever the case, they must be finished in their places." Rev. Nicodemus Svyatrets in his “Pidalion”, which is an authoritative source of canonical law of the Church of Constantinople, interprets the 9th rule of the IV Ecumenical Council, rejecting the false opinion on the right of Constantinople to consider appeals from other Churches: “The Constantinople priest does not have the right to act dioceses and areas of other Patriarchs, and this rule did not give him the right to take appeals in any case in the Ecumenical Church ... "Listing a number of arguments in favor of this interpretation, ss layas to practice decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, the Reverend Nicodemus concludes: "At the moment ... Constantinople Primate is the first, the only and the last judge over the subordinate Metropolitans - but not on those who are subject to the rest of the Patriarchs. For, as we said, the last and universal judge of all the Patriarchs is the Ecumenical Council and no one else. ” From the foregoing it follows that the Synod of the Church of Constantinople does not have canonical rights for the annulment of judicial decisions rendered by the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. Assigning to oneself the authority to cancel judicial and other decisions of other Local Orthodox Churches is only one of the manifestations of the new false doctrine, now proclaimed by the Church of Constantinople and attributing to the Patriarch of Constantinople the right of the “first without equal” (primus sine paribus) with universal jurisdiction. “Such a vision of its rights and powers by the Constantinople Patriarchate enters an irresistible contradiction with the centuries-old canonical tradition upon which the existence of the Russian Orthodox Church and other Local Churches is based,” the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church of 2008 in the definition of “On Church Unity” warned. In the same definition, the Council called on the Church of Constantinople “to continue, pending the general Orthodox consideration of the listed innovations, to exercise caution and refrain from steps that could explode Orthodox unity. This particularly applies to attempts to revise the canonical limits of the Local Orthodox Churches. ” The Act of 1686, confirming the stay of the Kiev Metropolis within the Moscow Patriarchate and signed by the Most Holy Patriarch of Constantinople, Dionysius IV, and the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople, is not subject to revision. The decision to “revoke” is canonically insignificant. Otherwise, it would be possible to annul any document defining the canonical territory and the status of the Local Church, regardless of its antiquity, authority and general church recognition. In the Synodal Charter of 1686 and other documents accompanying it, nothing is said about the temporary nature of the transfer of the Kiev Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate, or that this act can be canceled. The attempt of the hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in political and self-seeking forms to reconsider this resolution more than three hundred years after it was issued contradicts the spirit of the sacred canons of the Orthodox Church, which do not allow the revision of established church borders and not disputed for a long time. Thus, Rule 129 (133) of the Carthaginian Council states: “If someone ... turned what place to catholic unity and had it in his jurisdiction for three years, and no one demanded from him, then after him it would not be recoverable, if, moreover, in these three years there was a bishop who was to collect, and was silent. ” And 17th rule IV of the Ecumenical Council establishes a thirty-year statute of limitations for the possible conciliar consideration of disputes regarding the ownership of even individual parishes: "The parishes in each diocese ... must invariably remain under the authority of the bishops who head them - and, undoubtedly, they have their management and management. ” And how is it possible to cancel the decision that has been in effect for three centuries? This would mean an attempt to read "as if not the former" the entire subsequent history of the development of church life. The Patriarchate of Constantinople does not seem to notice that the Kiev Metropolitan of 1686, which is now announced to return to its membership, had limits that differed significantly from the modern borders of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and covered only a smaller part of the latter. The Kiev metropolis of our day as such includes the city of Kiev and several districts adjacent to it. The largest part of the dioceses of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, especially in the east and south of the country, was founded and developed as part of the autocephalous Russian Church, being the fruit of its centuries-old missionary and pastoral activities. The current act of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is an attempt to steal something that never belonged to it. The act of 1686 put a limit to the two-hundred year period of forced division in the centuries-old history of the Russian Church, which, despite changing political circumstances, invariably recognized itself as a single entity. After the reunification of the Russian Church in 1686 for more than three centuries, no one doubted that the Orthodox of Ukraine were the flock of the Russian Church, and not the Patriarchate of Constantinople. And today, despite the pressure of external anti-Church forces, this multi-million flock values ​​the unity of the Church of All Russia and remains faithful to it. The attempt of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to decide the fate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church without its consent is an anticanonical encroachment on other people's church destinations. Ecclesiastical rule reads: “Yes, it is observed in other areas and everywhere in dioceses, so that none of the most blessed most bishops do not extend their power to someone else’s diocese ... yes, the rules of fathers do not violate, and the arrogance of worldly power does not sneak in under the form of sacred rite, and not lose gradually and imperceptibly the freedom that our Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men, granted to us with His Blood ”(III Ecumenical Council, rule 8). The decision of the Constantinople Patriarchate to establish, by agreement with the secular authorities, its “Stavropegia” in Kiev without the knowledge and consent of the canonical priesthood authority of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church falls under the condemnation of this rule. Hypocritically justifying the desire to restore the unity of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, the Constantinople Patriarchate with its reckless and politically motivated decisions introduces even greater division and aggravates the suffering of the canonical Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Accepting into communion the dissenters and the person anathematized in another Local Church with all the “bishops” and “clerics” ordained by them, an encroachment on other people's canonical destinies, an attempt to renounce their own historical decisions and commitments — all this leads the Constantinople Patriarchate beyond the canonical field and, to our great sorrow, makes it impossible for us to continue Eucharistic communion with its hierarchs, clergy and laity. From now on, and until the Patriarchate of Constantinople refuses to make anti-canonical decisions for all clergymen of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is impossible to serve the clergy of the Church of Constantinople, and for the laity to participate in the sacraments performed in its churches. The transition of bishops or clergy from the canonical Church to schismatics or entering into Eucharistic communion with the latter is a canonical crime and entails appropriate interdictions. With regret we remember the prediction of our Lord Jesus Christ about the times of deception and the particular suffering of Christians: And because of the increase in iniquity, love will cool in many people (Matt. 24:12). In the conditions of such a profound undermining of the foundations of inter-Orthodox relations and complete disregard for the thousand-year norms of church-canon law, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church considers it its duty to defend the fundamental principles of Orthodoxy, to defend the Holy Tradition of the Church, replaced by new and alien teachings about the universal power of the Primate. We call the Primates and Sacred Synods of the Local Orthodox Churches to properly evaluate the aforementioned anticanonical acts of the Constantinople Patriarchate and jointly search for ways out of the hardest crisis that is tearing apart the body of the United Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We express our full support to the Most Blessed Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine Onufry and the entire fullness of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in a particularly difficult time for her. We pray for the strengthening of her faithful children in the courageous standing for the truth and unity of the canonical Church in Ukraine. We ask archpastors, clergy, monastics and laity of the whole Russian Orthodox Church to strengthen the prayers for their brothers of the same faith in Ukraine. The prayer cover of the Most Holy Queen of Heaven, the venerable fathers of Kiev-Pechersk, Rev. Job of Pochaev, the new martyrs, confessors and all the saints of the Russian Church be above all of us. Patriarchy.ru Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the canonical territory of the Russian Church

Patriarch Kirill Meets with a Delegation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland pravmir

September 5, 2018, His Holiness Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, met with Archbishop Tapio Luoma of Turku and All Finland and a delegation of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland at the St. Petersburg diocesan administration in the St. Alexander Nevsky Laura of the Holy Trinity. Welcoming the guests, Patriarch Kirill congratulated Archbishop Tapio Luoma on his election as head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. ‘We consider your Church and the people who belong to your Church to be our friends’, His Holiness said, ‘Today we mark the 40th anniversary of the demise of His Eminence Nikodim, remembering, among other things, his contribution and that of Archbishop Martti Simojoki to the establishment of special relations between our Churches. ‘I personally participated in the very first steps undertaken by our Church for mutual rapprochement. I have already recalled on several occasions how Easter was celebrated at the St. Nicholas’s Cathedral in 1966 according to the statute precisely because Metropolitan Nikodim invited Archbishop Martti Simojoki to take part in the procession with the cross. Each year the authorities tried to frustrate the procession by provoking violent clashes; many Orthodox people simply suffered, and now, we managed for the first time to celebrate Pascha peacefully because walking around St. Nicholas’s together with Metropolitan Nikodim was Martti Simojoki. Of course, we remember those remarkable pages in our bilateral relations with gratitude. ‘Today it is not so easy in our relations, not through the fault of the Russian Orthodox Church and, perhaps, not through the fault of the Finnish Lutheran Church. But what is happening in Western Protestantism creates new obstacles for our relations. Nevertheless, we continue to regard you as our privileged partners among all the Protestant churches in the world. I do not know whether it will keep you from steps that make our dialogue difficult, but I wanted to say that. ‘In September 2014, I met in Moscow with your predecessor Archbishop Kari Maakinen. At that time, I utterly clearly set forth our position but I cannot say that I was understood by my interlocutor. We are well aware what happened later, as Archbishop Maakinen made certain public statements in support for some innovations in the Finnish legislation. We were upset, of course, but there is information that by no means a majority of your faithful support these innovations. ‘The Finnish people are a conservative people, in a good sense. One can see it when one travels through your farmsteads. It is like an oasis in Western Europe, as people cherish family values, their way of life and special way of doing agricultural work. And, I believe it is very important that the foundations of your national life should be protected. ‘To clarify to the full our and your views of the problems which arose, we continued our contacts also in the format of bilateral conferences on Christian anthropology and marriage. It was an important moment when the assembly of bishops of your Church adopted in August 2015 a report on amendments to the Law of the Finnish Republic on marriage. According to this document, despite the amendments made to the state legislation, your Church will continue administer only the marriages that conform to the traditional biblical understanding. I congratulate you on this decision and thank you for this step as it opens a way towards the establishment of full-fledged contacts and development of relations between our two Churches. ‘Our consultations have resulted in the setting up of a working group for bilateral dialogue; and it met in May 2018. Thank you for your meeting with its participants. I hope that with your support and my beneficial attitude we will continue theological discussions. ‘In 2020 we are to mark the 50th anniversary of our dialogue. The working group has proposed to renew this dialogue and put the theme of a theology of peace on its agenda. It not an easy topic; it used to be extremely ideologized in the past. During the cold war everybody spoke about peace but no one really wanted it. I remember an inner discomfort I experiences when I had to discuss this topic under the Soviet Union. I wanted to speak about the anthropological foundations of human differences, about the commitment to biblical principles of peace but it could not be always formulated as it should be’. According to His Holiness, ‘today the theology of peace is not free either from ideological and political influences. This theme requires courage and ability to pronounce prophetic words, for today many speak of peace but there is no peace on earth. ‘I think we should limit ourselves to the issues of theology. In particular, it is important for us that there should be an exchange of experience in the sphere of diakonia. Social service in our Church is actively developing now. On my initiative, the Bishops’ Council made a very important decision that in all the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church, which have minimal financial means, the staff should also include social and youth workers, missionaries and teachers. I cannot say that we have managed to implement this decision but in most of the Russian Church parishes this system is already working’. The Primate also said that an exchange of information about changes that have taken place in recent times in the life of Christians in Russia and Finland is helpful. He noted with regret that the Western media often present the church-state relations in Russia in a distorted way. ‘I would like to say that Patriarch Kirill is as free today as nobody was in the history of the Russian Church. I do not know whether Primates of other Orthodox Church are as free. The Russian Church is completely free from any political influence in the country; it maintains an equal dialogue with the authorities and this for the first time in all her history. We never negotiate our actions with the authority, be they internal or external actions of the Church. We ourselves, in a conciliar way, define our life at the Synod sessions. Very often in a benevolent dialogue with the President, I tell him what the Church is doing and by God’s grace he always takes this news very positively. I believe, it is very right and I hope that this autonomy of the Church will continue. ‘Our initiatives concerning our work abroad also stem from our church awareness; nobody asks us for anything. But when we see, for instance, what is happening in Syria, we realize that we should help Christians and not only Christians, in their suffering. That is why we take an active part in giving aid to the Syrian people, to the Orthodox Church of Antioch. We involve in this work not only Orthodox people and for this reason the subject of common humanitarian missions in the modern world is of interest for us as well. In this response, the head of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland thanked His Holiness for the hospitality accorded at the events marking the 40th anniversary of the demise of Metropolitan Nikodim. The hierarch noted the readiness of the Russian Church for an open discussion of the existing problems. ‘Respect and confidence can be only based on openness and honesty. We appreciate such relations and for this reason would like to look to the future with hope together with the Russian Orthodox Church’, Archbishop Tapio Luoma concluded.

Bishop Irinej of Backa ‘On Inaccuracies of Ecclesial and Journalistic Statements on Ukraine’ mp

Bishop Irinej (Bulovic) of Backa, a hierarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, believes that the unilateral granting of autocephaly to Ukraine by the Patriarchate of Constantinople will destroy the unity of the Orthodox world. Each day you realise that in the discourse about the Ukrainian church problem, churchmen, educated hierarchs and theologians, on one hand, and usually journalists, both ‘secular’ and ‘ours’, on the other, speak and write that the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is going, or according to others, not going to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church. However, this way of expressing it is inaccurate both ecclesiologically and canonically and is thus misleading regardless of how benevolent are the motives guiding an overwhelming majority of those who use these expressions. Naturally, I do not argue that such a formulation speaks of a poor theological training of some pastors and theologians of the Church or the intention of non-theologians to distort the realities. In this case, I have an impression that this inept terminology is rather due to carelessness and negligence. I will explain. In Ukraine, there is a canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which, as an autonomous Local Church, is subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate, is recognized by all the Orthodox Churches without exception and is in the Eucharistic communion with them. This Church does not wish or ask anybody for autocephaly, not even the Moscow Patriarchate, with which it is affiliated and which in this case would be called to begin the whole procedure by making an appropriate proposal, nor the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which, as the first-throne Church would be called as coordinator to put this matter to pan-Orthodox discussion and a final decision, either positive or rejected for a time being or for an indefinite term. Existing in this county in parallel with this canonical Ukrainian Church are three schismatic associations and, on top of this, an aggressive Uniate community. And these negotiations about autocephaly are held precisely with these schismatic ‘Churches’ and at the same time with Ukrainian state authorities without involving the canonical Church and contrary to her wish. Needless to say, the Uniates most impudently interfere in this matter on the side of the schismatics. Therefore, the case in question is not the project for granting autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church, as we continually hear and write, but rather a program of granting autocephaly to the Ukrainian schismatic associations. Constantinople’s actions are explained and reasoned by a desire to remove schisms and restore the church unity of the Ukrainian people on the basis of the recently formulated teaching that, as the Ecumenical throne and historically the mother of all the Slavic Churches, the Church of Constantinople has a right to make decisions in her own right and on her own initiative ignoring the existing boundaries of autocephalous Local Churches and their position or resistance. Nevertheless, this teaching does not hold water because, according to the actual order of the Church, what stand above the episcopate and plenitude of an autocephalous Church is the institution of council alone, that is, the authority of a council of all or a majority of autocephalous Churches (Ecumenical Council) or a council of most of the churches in a large region (Great Council – Μείζων σύνοδος). The first bishop of our East is not absolutely the first, as is the case in the jurisdiction of old Rome, but the first in Council. According to universally known Apostolic Canon 34, a Council without the first one is not valid, nor can the first one exist without a Council. It follows that the Ecumenical Patriarch has no right to discuss and the more so to decide on the status of the Ukrainian Church and, accordingly, any other Church, doing it on his own, outside a Council, autocratically. There is another problem to be added here. How would it be possible to restore lawfully deposed bishops and clergy and their leader Denisenko the false patriarch of Kiev, who is not only deposed, but also even excommunicated and anathematized? Can any Church, including the first one in rank and gory, violate and invalidate the church actions and resolutions of another sister Church? Moreover, does any Church have a right to recognize or not recognize canonical actions of another Church depending on the circumstances and occasions and on the grounds of questionable criteria? On the contrary, the consecrations, transfers of clergy, glorification of saints, etc. on one hand, and defrocking, depositions, suspensions from celebration and other penances, on the other, are automatically recognized and become valid in all the Churches without exception. If this principle of internal cohesion and mutual penetration of Churches is removed, the whole structure and function system of the church organism is immediately violated. The right observance of the above-mentioned principle first of all excludes any dialogue with schismatics ‘as equals’ on one hand while on the other it leads them to return with repentance to unity with the Church and to canonical order. Then they can and have the right to make their demands and also to appeal for autocephaly first to their own Church and then, through her, to the whole Church. This method has been until recently strictly observed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, with regard to both the schisms in Ukraine and the schism in Skopje. Under the present All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch there was a time when Phanar refused to receive the schismatics from Skopje for a discussion on their problem without a preliminary consent of the Serbian Patriarchate. At that time it was unthinkable that they could appeal directly to the Ecumenical Patriarch bypassing the Church from which they had fallen away and that their questions could be included in the agenda of the Holy Synod of Constantinople. For all that, the Serbian Church has recently learnt about such facts only from the mass media. There is an apparent analogy with the Ukrainian problem. Let us ask a question: What is the meaning of the term ‘autocephalous Church’? However, the worst and the saddest thing is that the declared goal of the operation called Ukraine – the abolishment of the schisms and the unification of the Orthodox Christians in Ukraine – is doomed to failure. Schisms cannot be overcome through half-measures based on a formal and affected appeal of the schismatics who are actively supported by the secular authorities and obscure external political centers that usually act secretly. At most, the outcome will include a decrease in the number of schismatic groups; instead of three entities existing at present, there will possibly or probably be a new ‘confederation’ poorly connected, recognized by some and not recognized by other Churches, whereas the canonical majority Church will remain where she is now: under the protection and aegis of the Moscow Patriarchate. And this same Mr. Denisenko, once Metropolitan Philaret and once one of the most probable candidates to the Patriarchal Throne of Moscow and today the self-proclaimed ‘Patriarch of Kiev (will he reserve this title?) confirms the truth of my words stating that in the future the Russian-speaking people will belong to Moscow, as they are today, while the Ukrainian-speaking ones will belong to him (whom else?). This man, worthy of respect for his age but otherwise a miserable and pitiable person, forgot to mention only one detail: almost all the people in Ukraine are Russian-speaking, while there are quite a few of those who also speak Ukrainian. I assume that the old age in case of Mr. Denisenko and the approaching elections in case of Mr. Poroshenko are the driving forces which explain the haste and impatience of the both. But at the same time, I cannot understand why Constantinople is in a hurry? What will Orthodoxy benefit from all this? Is it worthy of putting at risk its unity for the sake such a perspective? I very much doubt it. The schism will remain anyway, either in the form of three entities or in the form of one. Therefore, the Great Church of Christ is working in vain. And I very much hope that she sees the rattling sword of schism not only in Ukraine but also through the whole Orthodox world. Heaven forbid! I know that in the past many schisms and not only schisms but also heretical movements were overcome, and their supporters reunited with the Church after repentance and renunciation of their delusions. But as far as I know, in the two-millennia-long history of the Church there are no precedents of schismatics entering the Body of the Church and ascending automatically the highest historical way of life of any Church and joining the assembly of the most glorious and prominent Churches without an interim period of maturity, asceticism, restoration of church morals and way of thinking – all this only thanks to the ‘grace and generosity’ of the first-throne Church. It should be noted that some historical Churches renowned for their spiritual level, witness and contribution, which have never fallen into the abyss of heresy and schism, have not yet received autocephaly and most probably will never receive it. In spite of this, they do not protest or complain or whimper. Therefore, the conclusion offers itself as an oxymoron: it means that as a schismatic community you sooner or later will be acquitted, restored and, moreover, elevated to the status of autocephalous Church. A schism will thus cease to be a cardinal sin and a crime not washed out even by blood but will turn into a mere light mistake easy to heal and, ultimately – O strange miracle! – To be rewarded. Whether we want it or not, but the barrier for a multitude of new schisms is thus removed and the Orthodox Church is running the risk of becoming a vineyard without a fence while causing an irretrievable damage, temptation to conscience and loss of credibility of our Church among both non-Orthodox Christians and non-Christians and non-religious people. I write all this with a great grief and spiritual pain while revering and loving the Great Martyr Church of Christ with all my heart; I speak the truth in Christ. I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit. I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart (Rom. 9:1-2, cf. 2 Cor. 11:31, Gal. 1:20, 1 Tim. 2:7), as a consequence of the recent situation, tension and differences over the healing of wounds inflicted by schisms. At present, schisms, instead of being removed from our milieu, have strangely provoked additional spiritual and mental schisms among the defenders of unity themselves, in the wellbeing and harmonious march of the holy Churches of God. It is for the sake of the assertion of these values that my concern for all the churches (2 Cor. 11:28) fills my heart of a humble Orthodox bishop, so that I as ‘less than the least of all the Lord’s people (Eph. 3:8, cf. 1 Cor. 15:9) cannot be silent in order to avoid possible mean and worthless accusations of infidelity, betrayal, defection, etc. On the contrary, love of the Church of St. Andrew and every Orthodox Church makes me speak up and not to be silent, to say the truth conscientiously and openly. From my heart I wish that the Builder and Bridegroom of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ by the grace of the All-Holy Spirit and by the grace of God and the Father, through the intercession of our holy and God-bearing fathers – John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian, Photius the Great and all those who have glorified the throne of New Rome, together with holy Metropolitans of Kiev and Patriarchs of Moscow and all the saints, may have mercy and enlighten and save all of us! I have written and saved my soul.