Father Lazarus Abboud
The dismissal of Metropolitan Hilarion from the post of head of the Department of External Church Relations of the Russian Church was announced, and his removal from permanent membership in the Holy Synod, in the session of the Russian Synod held today.
The position of Patriarch Kirill, Patriarch of Russia, was in support of the military war on Ukraine and a blessing upon it, and this ecclesiastical support for the Kremlin in its war comes because of the growth of the fundamentalist religious ecclesiastical nationalist tendency called (the Russian World). The Patriarch’s addresses repeatedly emphasized the ideology of the Russian World, developed it and supported it. This teaching (see the theory of Russkiy Mir, the doctrine of the Russian land) holds that there is a Russian space or culture spanning the continents “Holy Russia”, comprising Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, to which are added the Russians scattered throughout the world and the Russian-speaking peoples(1). It likewise holds that the Russian World has one common political center, Moscow, and a common spiritual center, a common language (Russian), and a common Church: the Patriarchate of Moscow (the Third Rome) and the Patriarch of Moscow (the Pope of the New Rome), working in harmony with the Russian tsar (whom the Russian Church regards as the tsar of the Lord(2)), toward the rule of the Russian World and the regarding of all who are outside this world as enemies. What is striking is that the confusion the Russian Church currently suffers because of the war on Ukraine and because of new ideologies woven within it by intellectual currents, was suffered by the Byzantine world, the Greek world and the Western world in earlier periods.
Amid the Russian Patriarch’s opinion of his full support for the war, Metropolitan Hilarion tried to distinguish himself by his own opinion, and held veiled positions, even if they did not openly condemn the war, but at least by his unwillingness toward it morally. He tried to soften the Church’s direction of severing communion with the Greek churches that approved the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarch to accept the Ukrainian schismatics ” I believe the churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Cyprus and Greece should not be considered enemies”. He also spoke of temporary difficulties in the Orthodox Church that will certainly be overcome, of finding a comprehensive solution for Orthodoxy, and of restoring communion between the churches, and the Metropolitan showed unprecedented tolerance toward the delegations of all the churches in Balamand . The Archbishop of Cyprus says: I asked Metropolitan Hilarion to convey to Patriarch Kirill that he must retract his errors and begin to commemorate us in the Liturgy, and that we commemorate him, and that we send him letters and he answer us”. Then he says “Kirill has driven them away, because he is a very selfish, solitary person, and the metropolitans fear dialogue with him. I clashed with him many times because he was wrong” (3)
The University of Geneva asked Metropolitan Hilarion to condemn Russia’s war or be dismissed from being a lecturer there; he announced his inability, so the University of Geneva suspended his work there.
What Metropolitan Hilarion did was a veiled attempt to distinguish himself from the general direction of Patriarch Kirill, showing a kind of tolerance in dialogue, a desire to return to communion with the rest of the churches, and a timid displeasure with the Russian war.
Despite these timid positions, the Synod of the Russian Church could not bear the existence even of a desire to oppose it, and could not bear the existence of a free opinion expressed timidly by its holder, so it dismissed him from his post and removed him from permanent membership in the Holy Synod, and this raises many legitimate questions:
1. Does the dismissal of Metropolitan Hilarion mean that the Church is entering a new phase, a direction that abolishes conciliar work in favor of a patriarchal episcopacy?
2. Has the Church turned from a servant of divine ends and of man’s salvation into a preacher and warrior for political ideologies?
3. Do we not see that a direction aligned with a particular policy “Russian, here”, is the sacrifice of man, for whom Christ was crucified, who is the most precious thing in existence, for the sake of particular policies and ideologies?
4. Do we not see that the ecclesiastical institution in Russia, and those who share its opinion, have failed in their duty and their pledge that their allegiance be to Jesus?
5. Does the Church’s commitment to a particular ideology or a particular policy not burden it with the sin of the failure of this ideology, and this has become clear, its first sign being the declaration of the independence of the Church of Ukraine from the Patriarchate of Moscow?
6. Do we not yet realize that political power exploits the Church to achieve its ends and goals and to justify its actions?
7. The Archbishop of Cyprus said “I realized that the Russian Church — that in the past they were under communism and could not speak”. Here he raises [the question]: what is the difference today between the Church being under a communism that fights Christianity and its being under an Orthodox state where likewise one cannot speak?
Answering these questions has become a necessity and no longer merely something posed; there has become a duty to reactivate the role of the ecclesiastical institution as a servant of man’s salvation, to rescue it from its intimate entanglement with political power, and for it to return to its role. Metropolitan Georges Khodr says “Christian renewal in the world will not take place except when the last state counted as Christian collapses; the resurrection of Christ from the dust of history in a new dawn depends on this collapse” (4).
References
1. Declaration of the concept of the Russian land (Russkiy Mir), a group of theologians, polymerwsvolos.org
2. Georges Khodr / S. Troitsky, Church and State, “Know Your Church” series, part 3, An-Nour Publications, 1982, p. 23
3. orthodoxtime.com website
4. Georges Khodr, Sunday Talk, Religion and Religions, part two, An-Nour Publications, p. 32
.jpg)