Your Holiness,

Reverend Archpastors and Pastors,

Distinguished Participants in the Conference:

His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia – having read the statement of the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church made on January 24 and the letter from His Holiness Patriarch of Bulgaria sent on January 30 – considered with brotherly compassion the difficulties faced by Bulgarian Orthodox again due to the Strasbourg court’s decision of January 22, 2009. During his talks with the Bulgarian Orthodox delegation to his enthronement as well as Bulgarian President Georgi Parvnov, he expressed support for the Bulgarian Church and Bulgarian State in their defence of canonical Orthodoxy and their search for ways of overcoming the schism. The participation of a Russian Orthodox delegation in this conference is an expression of our desire to help the sister Church in overcoming new problems.

His Holiness Patriarch Kirill continues the policy of support for the canonical Orthodoxy in Bulgaria, which the Russian Church has pursued since the beginning of the schism in the 1990s under the late Patriarch Alexy. Being well aware from its own experience of the pain inflicted by the wounds of schism and church disorders, the Moscow Patriarchate has invariably stood for the preservation of unity in the Bulgarian Church. Earlier, guided by the same principles, the Russian Church took part in the 1998 All-Orthodox Conference. Regrettably, the wound inflicted by the schism was not healed to the full and continued to bleed, hurting both the Church body and Bulgarian society. It was only the law adopted in 2002 to fix the status of the canonical Bulgarian Orthodox Church that not only helped stabilize the situation in the country’s religious and social life but was also welcomed throughout Orthodox world.

In the globalizing world, especially in Europe where intensive integration processes are underway, the European Court of Human Rights’ disposition of the Bulgarian schismatics’ case has acquired a totally different implication. The point is not only and not so much a specific court ruling on relationships between a particular state and a particular religious body. Rather, this decision formulates a norm to become a basis for other similar issues concerning church-state relations. It means that this norm can be applied to any traditional religious community in Europe. It creates a ground for concern to be felt not only by every Orthodox Church but also by any other traditional religious organization. We should think that in reflecting at this meeting on how we can help our sister Church, we must seriously consider the substance of the norm of religious-public relations this decision presents.

This decision of the ECHR has also vividly shown that the relations between a religious organization and a national state have seen the appearance of another substantial subject which used to have a less tangible influence in the past. I mean the factor of international organizations to which national states have delegated some of their own powers. As practice has shown, states themselves have proved dependent on outside decisions and little able to influence them. This is a serious challenge to the previous system of national and international law since the process of its development has been increasingly in the hands of international bureaucratic structures immune to the direct influence of nations. In this situation, it is especially important that an assessment should be given to the conceptual positions on which international organizations act and to their agreement with the outlook of citizens.

This criticism however is not intended to call to a struggle with international organizations. Their increased role, especially in Europe, implies the need to develop dialogue between them and religious organizations. It is very relevant for Orthodox Churches as the traditions they cherish are still little known and inadequately represented in international institutions. Any increased cooperation between Churches and international organizations is impossible without greater coordination of work between Orthodox Churches and nations. Despite the worrisome reason for this conference, I would like to thank the holy Bulgarian Church for having convened representatives of Local Orthodox Churches in Sofia so that the Orthodox world may unite efforts in defending their interests. As a result of our joint actions we could present to the world clearly and precisely the characteristics of the model of religious-public relations that has shaped in the countries of Orthodox tradition and that is capable, despite all its specifics, of ensuring the rights and freedoms of all citizens in the religious sphere.

In my remarks I would like to dwell on two principal aspects of approach to church-state relations, which were presented in the Strasbourg court’s decision and which should be subjected to thorough consideration. A more detailed analysis of the ECHR’s decision will be given by other members of our delegation.

The decision of the Strasbourg court is noticeable first of all for its desire to assert a certain universal model of religious-public relations prevailing in European states. In Paragraphs 81, 146, 157 the court criticizes the 2002 Bulgarian law and recognizes it as inconsistent with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) since it grants a special status to the Orthodox Church and accepts the position of canonical Orthodoxy.

In modern Europe there is a great diversity of models of religious-public relations. Many of them take into account an interreligious balance as it established itself in a country and seek to support it by giving special opportunities to traditional religious bodies to be used in public sphere while respecting the religious freedom of other citizens. In addition, there are countries in which a predominant religious body enjoys a special status. This practice stems from a concrete situation that has established itself and seeks to respect the freedom and already-made choice of its people. It is my conviction that law cannot contradict reality and be based on exclusively theoretical notions. Its task is to interpret universal values in specific historical situations.

The court also refers to the duty of a state to be neutral – which is an arbitrary interpretation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been developed recently and applied by the court selectively. The states signatories to the Convention have not undertaken to be neutral in their relations with religious organizations since it contradicts the existing model of church-state relations in various countries. It is already an attempt to introduce a new binding norm of international law without the consent of states.

True, religious organization should be neutral in political struggle in the modern society, for instance, during elections. It will be recalled that a church schism began in Bulgaria after the fall of communist regimes. At that time the schismatics gained the support of the political forces which played national card and played upon anticommunist heartstrings. Whenever these forces took over, as they did twice in the past time in Bulgaria, a new round of schism would begin. It reinforces the principle that an Orthodox Church should not participate in political struggle for power and should remain a force uniting a people in troubled times. This is also what the historical experience of the Russian Orthodox Church shows. For this very reason all the agreements reached by the All-Orthodox Council in 1998 ceased to be observed by Bulgarian state structures as soon as two months later when a schismatic Church People’s Council took place with the support of the Government formed by the Union of Democratic Forces. The situation began to normalize only after the 2002 Law was adopted

The authorities however cannot remain neutral towards the religious sphere for other reasons and in other cases. First, power structures are called to maintain public peace, while a schism presupposes a division of a society into at least two opposing groups. Secondly, it is necessary to take good care of the spiritual and cultural tradition of a people themselves. Orthodoxy in Bulgaria is the faith and tradition which has made an enormous influence on the formation of its public and social institutions. The schism is destroying this ages-old foundation. In building a system of interaction with religious organizations, a state should take into account all these factors, which means that it cannot be completely neutral.

The most bewildering thing however is the court’s opinion qualifying the status of the parties and their actions as religious organizations representing Orthodox tradition. The court does not doubt the legitimacy of His Holiness Patriarch Maxim nor does it undertake to establish the legitimacy of Metropolitans Pimen and Innokentiy. It should be mentioned that the fact that the court accepted a complaint of the so-called ‘synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’ constitutes indirect support for its right to speak for the entire canonical Bulgarian Orthodox Church. This shows that in an internal church dispute the court supports one of the sides. A possible action for the ECHR to take as impartial judge in this situation could be the processing of the complaint as coming from individuals rather than an organization.

Unfortunately, the realities of our time are such that internal problems of an Orthodox Church are often judged by outsiders. We know that all the arising issues, according to St. Paul, should be settled within the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 6:1-7). The very fact that a schismatic group appealed to a secular court instead of accepting the results of the 1998 All-Orthodox Council is a testimony to the fact that it lost its church nature and therefore the right to represent Orthodox tradition.

Indeed, Orthodox Churches have had to face situations in which a certain group of people insists that it represents Orthodox tradition and appeals to a secular court to acknowledge its claims. In these situations, Orthodox Churches should competently and intelligibly present their canonical position to the outside world. In liberal outlook, Orthodox tradition can be presented by any person who claims his or her right to do it. In fact, this approach has been inherited by a certain legal tradition from the Protestant teaching on the freedom of the individual to define the norm of faith and found a church organization. But should a secular court build on precisely this interpretation of religious freedom?

Just imagine that tomorrow each individual will want to use his right and claim leadership in an Orthodox Church and his own understanding of Orthodoxy. Then the Orthodox world will be plunged into an abyss of disorders and we will see the appearance of numerous self-proclaimed churches, resembling the picture we see in the Protestant world.

It is not for the first time in history that the Church of Christ has found herself in a situation where she has to determine who represents the true Church and who is a schismatic or heretic. In doing so, she has elaborated clear criteria, namely, faithfulness to the teaching of the seven Ecumenical Councils and patristic tradition and recognition of the canonical succession of the hierarchy. It will be recalled that this is what St. Photius, in his well-known letter, so thoroughly instructed the newly-baptized Bulgarian Prince Boris to uphold.

According to Orthodox tradition, the participation of secular authorities in religious affairs is not excluded. In the same letter the holy Patriarch of Constantinople writes that ‘it befits a prince to be zealous not only for his own salvation but to take equal care of his people and guide and call them to the same perfection of the knowledge of God’. Incidentally, the ECHR in its resolution acknowledges the competence of state power to interfere in the process of overcoming the schism in the Bulgarian Church. However it admitted that the interference of the state in the internal church dispute had been disproportionate, though the state did have a reason for legitimate concern (Par. 159). The court maintains that ‘the extra-judicial expulsion of hundreds of the faithful and clergy from the facilities occupied by them is disproportionate’, but fails to notice that the aim of these measures was to restore justice. At the same time the decision does not refer to any criteria of proportionality. I should think this is the question that our conference should explain and try to outline the admissible participation of the state in the affairs of the Church.

From the Orthodox perspective, the task of the secular authorities was to give the Church an opportunity for making a free decision concerning her own life and to make this decision a starting point for their own actions with regard to the Church. As is well-known, it is this principle that was violated when the state identified with the schismatics in the 1990s, while the court sought to assess the developments in the internal life of the Bulgarian Church from the perspective of its own criteria. Thus, for all the results of the 1998 All-Orthodox Council, the court repeatedly described the schism in the Bulgarian Church as profound and maintained that each leadership put forward canonical arguments for their case (Decision Par. 136). Besides, the court fails to mention whether the action of the schismatics conformed to the then active Statute of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and to consider the legitimacy of schismatics’ actions to adopt their own documents. I would like to add that the court failed to consider many facts that transpired in the history of the canonical Bulgarian Orthodox Church in the period before the schism. Among them is the absence of any protest from the future schismatics against Patriarch Maxim in the period from 1971 to 1989.

It was positive that the court recognized the right of the state to interfere in a conflict situation if its development presented a threat to public order. In the same passage the court criticizes the 2002 Law, neglecting the fact that it was adopted to rectify the consequences of state interference under another political leadership in the early 1990s. In his telegram to Bulgarian Prime Minister Philip Dimitrov, His Holiness Patriarch Alexy gave assessment to the actions of the then Bulgarian leaders, saying, ‘Reports have come that the Bulgarian Constitutional Court has identified with the separatists despite the fact that it was their position that stood in glaring contradiction to the canonical norms of the Orthodox Church’. The ECHR’s decision failed to give an appropriate assessment to the role of the schismatics in organizing disturbances and seizing churches by violence in which a large number of people were injured. It also failed to analyze the current situation which reflects the extent to which the schismatics really governed the Church. The instances of many people’s voluntary return to the fold of the canonical Mother Church were disregarded. These facts need to be fixed and presented to the court.

Moreover, there are other problem points in the ECHR’s decision. Though to resolve them a secular court has to have an informed opinion of church life, it still lies within its terms of reference. Particularly, the schismatics used none of the legitimate opportunities provided by the then active Statute of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to change the church leaders they disliked. Nor did they try to found a separate religious organization and thus illegally owned the property that belonged to the canonical Church by right. The ECHR disregarded the procedures whereby the canonical Church and the schismatic organization were registered. The court failed to establish whether the church leadership led by Patriarch Maxim was registered before 1989. It reconfirmed that the schismatic organization was not duly registered as legitimate leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Par. 135), but failed to state it in its decision. In a word, there are numerous realities and facts that were not considered by the court and many of them were given biased interpretation. I believe we could fill in these gaps together.

In conclusion I would like to express hope that this conference will make it possible to clarify the ECHR’s decision on the case of the so-called ‘synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’. I hope that the final documents of our conference will help both to normalize the situation in the Bulgarian Orthodoxy and promote the development of a model for harmonizing the principle of religious freedom and religious traditions in national and international law. This would be a good model for action by other Local Churches in a similar situation. I am sure it will be a real creative contribution of Orthodox nations to building a multicultural society in the European continent.

The conference is chaired by His Holiness Patriarch Maxim of Bulgaria and has been organized by the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.

Delegations of twelve Local Orthodox Churches, governmental officials, deputies of the Bulgarian National Assembly as well as specialists in canon and international law have come for the conference.

Welcoming the participants, His Holiness Patriarch Maxim cited a Statement of the Holy Synod describing the ECHR’s decision as ‘a glaring interference in the life of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’ and called upon the schismatics once again to return to the fold of the canonical Church. He expressed hope that the conference would give a conciliar assessment to the ECHR’s decision.

Mr. Emil Velinov, acting director the Bulgarian Government’s department for religion, conveyed to the conference a message of greetings from the Bulgarian Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev, who stated in particular that ‘for the Bulgarian government the protection of the unity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and her rights and the protection of the identity of the Bulgarian people’.

Ms. Maria Koeseva, legal advisor to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church Holy Synod, explained the history of the schism, dwelling on its legal and canonical aspects and expressed hope that the conference would help articulate specific recommendations for drafting an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Speaking next were representatives of Local Orthodox Churches, among them Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria, Russian Orthodox Church representative to European international organizations, who led the delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate

DECR Communication Service

Later in February, another letter was received from Patriarch Maxim of Bulgaria, notifying of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church Synod decision to convene a working conference of representatives of Local Orthodox Churches and legal experts on March 11-12 to consider the problem.

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights of January 22 was also discussed during the talk Patriarch Kirill had with Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov on 6 February 2009 and earlier when His Holiness Kirill received a delegation of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church on February 3.

Considering the above, Patriarch Kirill sent to Patriarch Maxim a letter thanking him for the detailed information on the difficult situation the sister Bulgarian Orthodox Church faced due to the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights. He expressed deep concern for the fact that the Strasbourg court agreed in part with the demands of the schismatics while disregarding the fundamental norms of the Orthodox canon law.

Patriarch Kirill noted that the Russian Orthodox Church consistently supported the Bulgarian Patriarchate in opposing the efforts of the schismatics to destroy the unity of both the Church and Bulgarian society. ‘It is only the Holy Synod led by Your Holiness that represents the only legitimate body of the canonical church authority and governance of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and this fact has been repeatedly attested to by the world Orthodox community’, he stated in this letter.

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church stressed that interference in an internal church conflict made without consideration for Orthodox tradition and in the name of one-sidedly understood values of liberal pluralism and an interpretation of human rights which is not fully shared by the Orthodox world threatens to lead to serious consequences both for the preservation of harmony in Bulgarian society and the well-being of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church as well as for other Churches and religious communities because this practice can be seen as a precedent.

His Holiness Kirill also informed Patriarch Maxim of his talk with Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov on the situation during which he reiterated the readiness of the Moscow Patriarchate to support the efforts of the supreme authorities of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to defend her legitimate rights.

In his letter to the Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov, Patriarch Kirill stated in particular, ‘Through your efforts the defense of canonical Orthodoxy has recently become one of the priorities of the Bulgarian State, which has met with a positive response of the Orthodox faithful throughout the world’. At the same time, His Holiness expressed regret over the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in which the legitimate measures of the Bulgarian Government did not find understanding. The letter reiterates the readiness of the Russian Orthodox Church to take part in an open discussion on the problem.

His Holiness Kirill also sent a letter to Bulgarian Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev, noting that the identity of Orthodox states was increasing threatened today, and the European Court of Human Rights’ decision was one of the examples of this threat, which will have ‘ambiguous consequences for every traditional religious community in Europe’.

His Holiness Patriarch Kirill has sent a delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church to the meeting of representatives of Local Orthodox Churches organized by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in Sofia. It is led by Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria and includes Archpriest Nikolay Balashov, Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations secretary for inter-Orthodox relations, Rev. George Ryabykh, DECR acting secretary for church-society relations, and V. Kipshidze, DECR staff member.

DECR Communication Service

&nbsp

By the will of the Holy Spirit and members of the Local Council of our Church, I, the unworthy, was elevated by my brothers to the Throne of the Patriarchs of Moscow and All Russia and received from them the insignia of patriarchal dignity. Your prayers and your kind faces exhorted me today, before I begin my patriarchal ministry which cannot be either easy, or unimpeded. The Lord and the Church have placed a heavy cross on me, the burden of which demands complete dedication and commitment to the ministry to which I am called, having been seated on the Patriarchal throne three times. It is not fortuitous that the great paraman is placed on the Patriarch’s shoulders as a symbol of renunciation of everything but the patriarchal ministry, a symbol of readiness to be faithful to God to the end through obedience to His will, after the likeness of the One Who ‘humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross’ (Philippians 2:8).

There is no room for anything personal or private in the life of the Patriarch: he and his whole being belong absolutely to God and the Church, his heart bleeds for the people of God, and in particular for those who have fallen away from the unity of the Church and for those who have not yet found faith. The patriarchal ministry is a special spiritual feat. It is impossible to perform this feat alone or with support of a limited circle of like-minded persons. All the bishops and the whole Church with the variety of gifts of her members are involved in the accomplishment of this feat through communion in prayer and conciliar labours.

Therefore, being aware of my unworthiness and with inner trepidation, I ascend to the patriarchal throne and humbly entrust myself to the intercession of my holy predecessors, the metropolitans of Kiev and Moscow, before the altar of God. I see with my mind’s eye the holy primates of our Church, in particular those who performed their ministry in modern times, beginning from St. Tikhon the confessor and ending with His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of blessed memory.

The Patriarch is the custodian of the inner unity of the Church, and he preserves the purity of faith together with his brother bishops. The Patriarchal enthronement is taking place on the commemoration day of St. Mark of Ephesus, an audacious defender and champion of the Orthodox faith, and I take this as a special sign from God. The task of the Patriarch is not to allow factions, which, according to the Apostle, ‘must be’ (1 Cor 11:19), to turn into schisms, disorders, and false teachings. The Patriarch should care for each person with all his unique features to be able to find his place in the church body and, at the same time, care for the factions not to transgress the spirit of love or weaken our common efforts for building up the house of God. The words of St Vincent of Lerins, ‘unity in that which is important, freedom in that which is secondary, yet love in all things,’ should be the guiding principle of the life of the Church.

The Patriarch is the defender of the canonical borders of the Church. This ministry becomes particularly significant in the situation that emerged after the independent states had been formed in the territory of ‘historic Russia.’ While respecting their sovereignty and caring for their well-being, the Patriarch is called, at the same time, to be concerned with the maintaining and strengthening of spiritual ties between people living in these countries for the sake of preserving the system of values which the one Orthodox civilization of Holy Russia reveals to the world.

The Church’s preaching of spiritual and moral ideals as applied to the realities of the life at present should be among the particular concerns of the Patriarch. The witness to the truth and beauty of Orthodoxy can be perceived only when people understand clearly the significance of this witness for their private, family and public life and learn to combine the eternal words of God with the realities of their everyday life with its cares, joys and sorrows.

To combine Orthodox faith and the moral of the Gospel with the everyday thoughts and hopes of people means to help them answer the most difficult philosophical and ethical questions of our time. Faith will be understandable and in real demand, irrespective of the variety and discrepancy of views and convictions in society, only when people realize and feel deeply the unquestionable rightness and power of the message which God Himself is sending to people in His revelation. Human thoughts and human words cannot be stronger than the Word of God. If this obvious truth is not evident to many people, this means that the beauty and persuasiveness of the Divine Word is obscured by that what we today call the ‘human factor.’

The witness of the Church to the world presupposes not only the sermon in church, but also an open, friendly and interested dialogue, in which both sides are both speaking and listening. The truths of faith become at least understandable through this dialogue, as they come into creative and living contact with the thoughts and convictions of people. The Church enriches herself through this dialogue with the knowledge of what contemporary people are with their way of thinking and their questions to the Church.

This kind of dialogue facilitates a greater understanding among people of different views and convictions, including their religious beliefs, and promotes the consolidation of peace and accord in our societies and states. The relations between the Church and the State should develop in the framework of a friendly dialogue and cooperation on the basis of the Constitution to serve the good of the Church and the state and the good of people.

The Primates of all Local Churches are called to care for the unity of Universal Orthodoxy together with their brothers from other Churches. I thank the first hierarchs and representatives of the Holy Orthodox Churches present here for our common prayers, and I state that I shall always be open to dialogue with the sister Churches and to common efforts which would help us strengthen and improve all-Orthodox cooperation and to attain more coordination of our pastoral and missionary efforts.

We shall particularly care for the youth that is in dire need of spiritual guidance today. In an epoch of moral relativism, when the propagation of violence and depravity steals the souls of young people, we cannot wait patiently when the youth turns to Christ. We must go to meet young people, no matter how difficult it is to us, middle-aged people and of older generation, to help them find the faith in God and the meaning of life as well as the comprehension of what true happiness is. The way of life and thought that result from sincere and profound faith would bring about strong personality, a consolidated family with many children, and a society of solidarity.

Our Christian duty is to care for the suffering, the orphans, the poor, the disabled, the elderly, the prisoners, and the homeless – for all those whom we can help to find hope. The voice of the Church should be also the voice of the weak and the disenfranchised who seek justice.

We have to do much difficult work. I recall now the sacred behests of the first and the fifteenth patriarchs. The Holy Patriarch Job wrote, ‘It is a good deed to decorate and build churches, but if at the same time we defile ourselves by passions, God will spare neither us, nor our churches.’ ‘A new Russia will raise from ashes and the sinful abyss, as it used to be; a Russia which has given many zealots of faith and piety to the world; a Russia which builds churches in towns and villages and in human hearts; a Russia which shines truth and love to the world – Holy Russia.’ May God grant these inspiring words of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II to become prophetic ones.

I wholeheartedly thank you all who have gathered to pray here. I hope that your prayerful support and the intercession of the whole Church before God will never cease. I address the holy words of St. Paul to all archpastors, pastors and children of our Church, ‘Brethren, be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with you’ (2 Cor 13:11). Amen.

The message of the Local Council to the beloved in the Lord pastors, honourable monks and nuns, and all faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church was read out after the communion verse.

After the Liturgy, Patriarch Exarch of All Belarus Metropolitan Philaret of Minsk and Slutsk and Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna placed the mantle on the Patriarch.

Metropolitan Vladimir of St. Petersburg and Ladoga handed the patriarchal cowl to the Russian Orthodox Church and said, ‘Your Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia! Today, by the will of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church you are given this ‘helmet – the hope of salvation’ (1 Thess 5:8). May the angels on it stand before the Throne of the Almighty with the prayer for your successful ministry. May the Cross of Christ that crown the cowl remind you of the sacrificial exploit of the Patriarchal office in the name of love of God. Place this cowl on your head in the firm hope for our Chief Shepherd Who died and was risen for us. May God’s almighty hand strengthen you in you ministry.’ The cowl was placed on the head of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill.

His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and All Ukraine handed His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia the patriarchal staff that belonged to St. Peter, Metropolitan of Moscow. This ancient staff was brought to the Cathedral Church of Christ the Saviour from the Armory where it is kept. His Beatitude Vladimir said, ‘Your Holiness! On behalf of the Local Council, which elected you, I solemnly hand you the staff of the Primates of Moscow on this joyous day when our Church got the sixteenth Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

‘This staff belonged to Metropolitan Peter of Kiev and Moscow, the miracle-worker, who transferred the primatial see to Moscow. We hope that you will continue the ministry of the holy Primates of Moscow who worked tirelessly to build and order the Church of Christ, who consolidated the unity of Holy Russia, which by God’s Providence has begun its life in the holy baptismal font of Kiev. We promise to help Your Holiness in this sacred cause.

‘The staff is a sign of a journey. It helps those who come to fulfill their mission. The Primate if the Church is called to imitate Christ, Whom ‘God sent into the world so that we might live through him’ (1 Jn 4:9). The handing of this staff to you is an expression of the willingness of the whole Church to follow you, to work under you so that the glory of God spreads all over the entire earth.

“The plenitude of our Church thus witnesses the great honour of being the Primate and also of a particular confidence, as millions of people are looking at you with joy and hope. May this staff be the one of God’s inheritance (cf. Jer 10:16) and the ‘staff of favour’ (Zech 11:7) for our Church.’

His Holiness addressed the worshippers gathered at the Cathedral with his primatial homily and noted in particular that ‘there is no room for anything personal and private in the life of the Patriarch. He and his whole life belong to God and the Church, and his heart bleeds for the people of God, in particular for those who have fallen away from the church unity and for those who have not yet found faith. The patriarchal ministry is a special spiritual feat. It is impossible to perform it alone or with support of a limited circle of like-minded persons. All bishops and the whole Church with the variety of gifts of its members are involved in the accomplishment of this feat through communion in prayer. Therefore, being aware of my unworthiness, I ascend to the Patriarch throne with trepidation and humbly entrust myself to the intercession of my holy predecessors, metropolitans and patriarchs of Kiev and Moscow, before God’s altar.’

The head of the Russian state Dmitry Medvedev addressed His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, the Primates and representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches, participants in the Local Council of the Russian Church and all those present in the Cathedral.

‘Esteemed Primes of the Local Orthodox Churches, Your Eminences, Your Graces, participants in the Local Council, ladies and gentlemen! First of all allow me to sincerely congratulate Your Holiness on your enthronement as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. This is a great event in the life of our country and of all Orthodox nations. This event opens a new epoch in the development of Orthodoxy in our country and, we hope, provided new conditions for the dialogue of full value between the Russian Orthodox Church and the state.

‘The Patriarchal ministry is indeed a difficult one. The feat of the Patriarchal office in Russia has testified to the attentive and special attitude to the people and to their protection under difficult and sometimes tragic circumstances. Today, when Russia is developing, and the world remains as controversial and full of problems as many centuries ago, common work of the state and the Russian Orthodox Church will be in demand. Russia is a complex state, living in which are people of different background and different beliefs, and because of this the mission of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia becomes special. Your Holiness, may I once again sincerely greet you and wish you success in your Primatial ministry, good health and strength.’

His Beatitude Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria greeted the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, noting, ‘We arrived here to share the joy of your enthronement as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. Your holy predecessors Peter, Alexy, Philip, Jonah, Hermogen and Tikhon have glorified the Patriarchal Throne. May the Lord grant you through their prayers many years, good spiritual and bodily health, and mighty strength to perform your Patriarchal ministry and to bring abundant fruits for the good of the Holy Russian Church and the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which we all serve as best as we can.’

Many Years were proclaimed to His Holiness; the clergymen and worshippers joined the choir.

The bells started ringing fifteen minutes before the Divine service; as the nominated Patriarch arrived, festal peeling began. At the entrance to the cathedral, the elected Primate of the Russian Church was met with bread and salt.

The archpastors, pastors, monastics and thousands of laymen gathered at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. His Beatitude Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria Theodore, His Beatitude Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana and All Albania, His Beatitude Metropolitan Sawa of Warsaw and All Poland, His Beatitude Metropolitan Christopher of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, and delegations of all Local Orthodox Churches attended the enthronement.

Present at the Cathedral were Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Chairman of the Russian Government Vladimir Putin, heads and representatives of authorities of other countries in the territory of the canonical responsibility of the Russian Church, and representatives of non-Orthodox communities.

The nominated Patriarch Kirill was vested as bishop plus the great paraman, a piece of cloth with the embroidered cross that is placed on the Patriarch by custom.

At the Little Entrance, the clergymen sang the troparion and kontakion for Pentecost instead the troparia of the day.

The clergymen in the sanctuary and worshippers at the church lighted candles as the Trisagion was being sung.

The two eldest metropolitans who are permanent members of the Holy Synod, namely, His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and All Ukraine and Metropolitan Vladimir of St. Petersburg and Ladoga, stood at the nominated Patriarch’s side.

Having turned eastward, they bowed three times together with the Patriarch, and, taking his arms, brought him to the Patriarchal throne. Then they turned westward, and His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir said, ‘The Divine grace, which healeth that which is infirm, and completeth that which is wanting, and always careth for its holy Orthodox Churches, seats our father, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of the great city of Moscow and All Russia on the throne of the holy Primates of Russia, Peter, Alexy, Jonah, Makary, Philip, Hermogen and Tikhon…’ Saying ‘In the name of the Father. Amen. And of the Son. Amen. And of the Holy Spirit. Amen’, the eldest metropolitan seated the nominated Patriarch Kirill on the Patriarchal Throne three times.

His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev and All Ukraine proclaimed Axios (Greek ‘worthy’) that was echoed many time by the clergymen in the sanctuary, the choirs of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, of the Laura of the Holy Trinity and St. Sergius, the Moscow Sretensky Monastery, of St. Nicholas Church at the Tretiakov Gallery, and by all the worshippers.

After that Patriarch Kirill was vested in the patriarchal liturgical garments. Two panagias and a mitre were placed upon him.

Metropolitan Philaret of Minsk and Slutsk, Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus said the Great Litany; Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna – a prayer to God the Almighty. When the protodeacon was saying the Great Praise, in which all Primates of the Local Orthodox Church are mentioned, the Primates present at the church came out from the sanctuary to bless the worshippers.

The Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour continues after the office of the enthronement.

In the evening of January 27, the council members by secret vote elected Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad to the widowed Moscow Patriarchal Throne. He gained 508 out of 702 votes.

During its second day, the Council considered amendments and additions to the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church. The new Statute was adopted by the Jubilee Bishops’ Council in 2000. In June 2008, the Bishops’ Council amended it in view of the reunification with the Russian Church Outside Russia.

In its Resolution on the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Council approved the Statute as amended by the Jubilee Bishops’ Council on 6 August 2000 with the amendments and additions made by the Bishops Council on 27 June 2008.

The Council also adopted a Resolution on the Life and Work of the Russian Orthodox Church and a Message of the Local Council to the Beloved-in-the-Lord Pastors, Honorable Monks and Nuns and All the Faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The council members signed the Charter of the Election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

In a break between two plenary sessions, the elected Patriarch blessed a new icon setting for the miracle-working Fedorovskaya Icon of Our Lady, whose historical icon setting was lost in the years of theomachy.

In conclusion of the Local Council, Metropolitan Kirill, now elected and named Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, addressed himself to the Council members.

The presidential press service reports that in a phone talk the Russian President expressed his hope for the development of dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the state, for the strengthening of spiritual and moral values, and for the consolidation of accord among confessions in Russian society.

The Chairman of the Counting Committee, Metropolitan Isidor of Yekaterinodar and Kuban, announced that 702 delegates had voted by secret ballot. The number of ballot papers after voting was 700, including 677 valid and 23 invalid ballots.

The Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad got 508 votes; Metropolitan Clement of Kaluga and Borovsk, Chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate – 169 votes.

The participants in the Council applauded the news of the election of Metropolitan Kirill the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church.