Interview of the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church with Dnevnik newspaper from Skopje, Macedonia.  14 January 2006.

Q: Your Holiness, Christmas is one of Christianity's greatest holidays, a holiday of goodwill and peace between people. What do you think was the state of Orthodox Christendom this Christmas?

A: Undoubtedly, Christmas is one of the greatest holy days of Orthodoxy, and it is not a coincidence that it is preceded by a period of fasting. Fast is a time for penitence. It helps Christians to concentrate on their inner life and prayer, to purge their conscience, and to make peace with their neighbours. When your conscience is clear, the Lord gives you the merciful comfort and joy of the Holy Spirit. If a Christian has spent the fast properly, he or she meets Christmas in good spirits and in peace with everyone around.

Q: What global goals of the Orthodox Church do you consider to be the most important?

A: The most important goal of the Russian Orthodox Church is preaching the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This goal follows logically from the very nature of the Church, and it is her all-time priority. Another very important goal is strengthening the brotherly ties between Local Orthodox Churches. Preaching the Gospel is impossible without love. "By this will all people know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35). These words of the Saviour, are the indisputable foundation of inter-Orthodox relations, as well as a Christian's relations with people around him or her. We must also develop our co-operation with other Christian Churches, so that together, we can struggle for the strengthening of Christian values in the modern world which moves farther and farther away from the spiritual sources of Christian European civilisation.

Q: What is the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the countries in which it serves? What does the secular nature of the state imply?

A: The Apostles taught Christians to obey the decisions of the authorities irrespective of their attitude to the Church. Happily, at the present time, the Russian Orthodox Church's relationship with the CIS and Baltic states, which constitute her canonical territory, is usually based on mutual respect and non-interference, with all the post-Soviet countries retaining their secular nature. But we consider the secular nature of the state to be something different from ousting religion from all spheres of the nation's life, preventing the Church from taking socially important decisions, or withdrawing her right to voice her opinion in the activity of government. All this principle means, as we see it, is that the Church and the state have different spheres of competence and that they should not interfere in one another's affairs. The Church can be separated from the state, but not from the nation with which she shares her history.

Q: Very often, the opinion is voiced that the successful mission of Orthodoxy is hindered by the disunion between the Orthodox Churches and the disagreements between the nations that confess Orthodoxy. What measures are necessary for achieving Orthodox unity?

A: The Church is one, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). That is why we cannot say there is no such thing as Orthodox unity. Our task is to show forth the unity which is inherent in the Church, based on communication in prayer and the Eucharist between the different Churches. The most important prerequisite of church communication is love: "By this will all men know you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35). Mistrust and enmity between nations, as between people, are overcome through returning to the Gospel commandment of love. Such love brings down walls and forms the foundation for restoring the comprehensive, full-scale communication between the separated nations and people.

Q: We think that the lack of unity is also shown in connection with the issue of recognising the independent status of certain Churches. Why do such problems appear? It seems that there are several points of view on independence in Orthodoxy.

A: Indeed, there has been no all-Orthodox agreement reached as yet on the procedure of this or of a Church gaining independence. In the canonical tradition, this procedure is not described, so there are different approaches and interpretations for this process. Reaching a final agreement on this issue is one of the aims of the future Council of the Orthodox Church, whose necessity has been recognised by all Local Churches.

Q: Some Churches believe that the autocephalous status can be given by the "Mother Church". Others think that this power belongs to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Do you think it is likely that a common approach will be agreed upon?

A: The issue that you mention has been discussed by the Inter-Orthodox Council preparation committee, which met as part of the preparation for the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Although the different approaches to the procedure have been recognised, the key moments of the procedure were in fact agreed upon. The important part played by the Church on whom the applicant Church is canonically dependent, has been recognised. The Mother Church must evaluate the existing ecclesiastic, canonical, pastoral reasons for granting the autocephalous status, and inform the other Local Churches about it. The necessity of a consensus among the Local Orthodox Churches was also recognised.

Q: Do you not think that in practice, the issue of a church's independence often has political implications?

A: The history of the Church can give many examples of how various factors influenced various Churches gaining independence, even political ones. But in the long run, the recognition of the newly independent Church by the Entirety of world Orthodoxy, by the other Local Churches, was based on canonical reasons. In the words of Apostle Paul, among Christians all things must be done "decently and in order" (1 Cor 14:40), especially such important issues as ecclesiastic independence.

Q: The previous question is connected to the problem of the official status of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. This problem has been in existence for forty years, and it is still impossible to solve due to the position of the Serbian Orthodox Church. What is your opinion in this problem?

A: The painful division arose in 1967 as a result of the unilateral proclamation of their independence from the Serbian Orthodox Church by the Orthodox Church in the Republic of Macedonia. We believe that such an important issue can and must only be resolved through brotherly talks, following all the canons. We must stay loyal to the Tradition of the Church, her age-old laws. At the same time, we must show brotherly love, we must try to understand one another better, to understand both nations' circumstances, and to search for a way to ensure benefit to everyone.

Q: Where do you think the solution lies? What principles must it be based upon? You have recently said that you were ready to act as a mediator in this argument. Have you already received an answer from the parties? What would you proceed from?

A: The Russian Orthodox Church is ready to act as a mediator. At the same time, we are not going, for the time being, to interfere into other Churches' affairs if they are not completely ready for dialogue yet. In this case, what we need is patience and prayer. For example, our dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia had been stagnant for decades, which caused us great concern. But recently, God be praised, we have established good brotherly relations, and are increasing our mutual understanding. I think we should proceed from a readiness to listen to each other, from remembering that we are brothers, that we share a common cultural heritage, and that each nation, be it large or small, is equally precious in the eyes of the Lord.

Q: The Macedonian Orthodox Church is insisting on her autocephalous status, but the Serbian Orthodox Church is only ready to consider the status of an autonomous church. Can we look for a way out in the concept of an "independent Church"?

A: The issue of the status of the Macedonian Church must be resolved taking into account the opinion of the Serbian Orthodox Church, from which the Macedonian dioceses separated, and of the whole Orthodox Entirety. The use of the terms "independent" or "self-governing" might help to lead the talks out of the present deadlock.

Q: About the whole situation around Vladyka John, who joined the Serbian Orthodox Church, what is your opinion on this? Did the Serbian Orthodox Church have the right to create an ecclesiastic structure like the Ohrid Orthodox Archbishopric? In Macedonia, this decision is perceived as an attempt to create a para-ecclesiastical organisation.

A: We know that the views on this situation differ in Belgrade and Skopje. The Russian Orthodox Church has no right to act as a judge here. She can only give advice, and this is what we do in our dialogue with both the Serbian and the Macedonian sides. We think that, in spite of the present difficulties, made even worse by the incarceration of one of the hierarchs of the Serbian Orthodox Church, there is still a possibility of talks, and this process must be restored.

Q: Apart from her autocephalous status, the Macedonian Church also has problems with the name. The influential Hellenic Orthodox Church is against her using this name. What do you think about this? Can a Church argue against the choice of name made by another Church?

A: This is a very delicate matter, it touches upon national feelings. We have suggestions as to how this situation could be resolved, but it is too early to discuss them in the press.

Q: Do the Orthodox Churches interact when they must take a position on a certain issue? For example, is there a coalition between the Orthodox Churches of Serbia and Greece on the issue of the Macedonian Church, in spite of the positive opinion of other Churches? Does the Russian Orthodox Church also take part in such interaction?

A: Each Local Church is independent in solving her internal problems, but in the issues that have bearing on the whole Orthodox world, no autocephalous Church can make unilateral decisions, without considering the opinion of the other Churches. It is clear that the Moscow Patriarchate does discuss issues of such calibre with other Churches.

Q: What are the relationships between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Is there a rivalry here?

A: Any rivalry between Churches is ruinous for their integrity, and is at variance with the very nature of the Orthodox Church. When some of the Disciples tried to compete against one another, the Saviour said to them: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their leaders make their authority felt. It shall not be so among you. No. Whoever wants to be great among you, must be your servant. Whoever wants to be chief among you, must be your slave" (Matthew 20:25-27). There are certain tensions in the relations between the Russian and the Constantinople Churches, but there are arguments even in the most friendly of families, and we always try to remember Christ's commandment of unity (John 17:21), and this helps us to find solutions for problems.

Q: Nationalism is one of the problems existing in Orthodoxy. Do you think that it is possible in the near future that the Orthodox Churches could shed their national descriptions from their names and return to their original appellations, which were originally given after the town where the Primate's chair was located?

A: I would not think that the mentioning of nationalities in the names of the Churches is a manifestation of nationalism. These names reflect the historical connection between certain Churches and certain nations. At the same time, some of the names of the Churches (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), reflect their connection to the town where the chair of the Primate was or is. Church tradition allows for both practices in naming. In this connection, I would like to point out that, according to the Statutes of our Church, it can be called both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Moscow Patriarchate, thus acting within the framework of both traditions.

source (ed): http://eng.sedmitza.ru/index.html?did=1830