Talk:Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill

Orphan few
Article has few links to it, please introduce links to this page from [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch&advanced=1&fulltext= related articles] ; try the [//edwardbetts.com/find_link?q= Find link tool] for suggestions.. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Article is now adequately linked. There are 4 inbound links. "Ticket item" is closed out. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV diligence
the joint declaration is not mostly about uniatism. The lead should not fall into polemic disinformation. Both leaders have demonstrated their good faith in addressing common world problems by signing this document.

reduced the lead to polemic pessimism:

I suggest you read the actual document and a few published commentaries before deciding what to remove. For example, this document is historic even though it is a few days old (see ). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors don't decide what is historic. The article doesn't present the criticism the way it prizes. Russia fights two wars, what does the orthodox church to stop them?Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * most of what I read states this is historic, it is not a personal opinion. Yes, there is Russian aggression but the document did not mentioned it explicitly. That is something to put into a criticism section or a point by point commentary of the document. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a fan-page.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * BoBoMisiu, I do not intend to edit war here, but I respectfully disagree with all the points you have made above. The document is thoroughly meaningless in both theological and ecclesiastical aspects: it simply fails to say anything meaningful, let alone binding (even if one attempts to take the words therein seriously) — a plain fact that has been highlighted by a few expert (not journalistic) commentaries that have already turned out, such as O co naprawdę chodzi w spotkaniu Franciszka z Cyrylem? Андрей Кураев: "Встретившись с папой, патриарх Кирилл выполнил "партийное поручение". The only significance it does have is political and that is primarily in respect of Ukraine. And, quite notably, this is exactly the place from where this document has received a harsh criticism from the Pope′s flock. Also see my comments here: Talk:East–West Schism. Axxxion (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the old chappy had not even read the paper until it was too late. Otherwise, one would have to think he is totally out of the loop.Axxxion (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the Polish opinion piece makes clear the meeting was an important but not religious event (imo, a finesse about the senses of the term religious) without promises of changed relations. It also states the obvious: Kirill is only the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. In the Russian interview, Andrey Kuraev gave his first impressions including comments on protocol, e.g. Kirill sitting at the wrong time out of excitement (imo, this was certainly one of the highlights of Kirill's life), and did not think the it was a "millennial meeting" ("встреча тысячелетия") because Kirill is only the head of the largest Orthodox church and not the patriarch of Constantinople. Kuraev said that while Kirill is Putin's messanger, some in the Russian Orthodox Church believe that meeting is a betrayal to Orthodoxy ("определенная часть которой считает эту встречу чуть ли не изменой православию") and the last paragraph is quite telling: in Kuraev's opinion, the content of the joint declaration does not matter because, in Kuraev's opinion, the objective was to have any document. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Kuraev′s central point is that Kirill met the Pope exclusively because he was ordered by the Kremlin to do so. That the document is void of any real meaning and significance for both churches is obvious from the document itself: neither side has undertaken to do anything.Axxxion (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maciej Gajek is Polish but his opinion is Gajek's opinion, not a Polish opinion. Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * yes of course, I agree, I never intended to imply that "Gajek's opinion, not a Polish opinion". I wrote Polish only to say that it was written in the Polish language. His opinion represents a practical view, in my opinion, based on decades of past Russian intrigue and aggression. The joint declaration, nevertheless, is not only about politics. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Interwiki
This article is called Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill, though some articles to which it is linked via interwiki (Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian, and may be some others) are dedicated not to the declaration (document) but to the meeting (event). These two groups of articles should be devided. --Jonah (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the document and the meeting are closely-coupled related content. They should remain together. The other languages will eventually address the document. There is only so much that can be written about the meeting. Lets provide a good example for editors on foreign wikis to use the content as their resource. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Alfeyev in Kommersant
the Russian question posed to Alfeyev is:
 * Сегодняшняя встреча патриарха и папы означает, что все противоречия между РПЦ и Ватиканом преодолены?
 * Today's meeting of the patriarch and the pope means that all the contradictions between the ROC and the Vatican overcome?

Alfeyev's reply is:
 * Нет. Во-первых, не преодолены вероучительные разногласия. Однако целью встречи и не является обсуждение вероучительных вопросов. Во-вторых, не преодолены те разногласия практического характера, которые омрачают жизнь наших церквей. Я имею в виду прежде всего проблему украинской унии. Разгром униатами трех епархий Московского патриархата в Западной Украине на рубеже 1980–90-х годов, перенос центра Украинской греко-католической церкви из Львова в Киев, настойчивое желание этой церкви присвоить себе статус патриархата, распространение миссии УГКЦ на традиционно православные земли Восточной и Южной Украины, поддержка униатами раскольников — все эти факторы лишь усугубили проблему. Положение еще ухудшилось в результате событий последнего времени на Украине, в которых представители УГКЦ принимали самое непосредственное участие, выступая с антироссийскими и русофобскими лозунгами. Тем не менее положение гонимых христиан таково, что откладывать контакты на высшем уровне более не представляется возможным. Необходимо отложить в сторону внутренние несогласия и объединить усилия для спасения христианства в тех регионах, где оно подвергается жесточайшим гонениям.
 * No. Firstly, it does not overcome doctrinal differences. However, the purpose of the meeting is not to discuss doctrinal issues. Secondly, those differences have not been overcome practical nature that plague the lives of our churches. I mean first of all the problem of Ukrainian union. The defeat of the Uniates three dioceses of the Moscow Patriarchate in Western Ukraine at the turn of 1980-90-ies, the transfer of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church from Lviv to Kiev, the insistence of the Church arrogate to itself the status of the Patriarchate, the spread of the mission of the UGCC in traditionally Orthodox lands of Eastern and Southern Ukraine support Uniates dissenters - all these factors have only exacerbated the problem. The situation has worsened as a result of recent developments in Ukraine, in which representatives of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church took a direct part, speaking with the anti-Russian slogans and Russophobic. Nevertheless, the situation of persecuted Christians is such that the delay contact is no longer possible at the highest level. It is necessary to put aside internal disagreements and unite efforts to rescue Christianity in those regions where it is subjected to the most severe persecution.

There is nothing to support that "The document did not concern any of the persisting doctrinal and ecclesiastical differences between the two churches" –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should modify the wording but the point about the declaration not being about doctrinal matters is obvious from the declaration itself as well as from Hilarion′s ″it does not overcome doctrinal differences. However, the purpose of the meeting is not to discuss doctrinal issues.″ See also his very new: .Axxxion (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Alfeyev was framing the then-up-coming meeting as not overcoming doctrinal differences – which is obvious – but Alfeyev failed to point out in his reply that the joint declaration was about what doctrines are shared in common: e.g. abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, family, etc. It is just doublespeak. The unpublished agenda of the meeting was prearranged and if discussion of doctrinal issues was not part of the prearranged agenda then, obviously, "the purpose of the meeting is not to discuss doctrinal issues" – but the document contains points of shared doctrine. Again, it is just doublespeak.
 * The newsru.com article is reporting on Alfeyev's 17 February interfax-religion.ru interview. Alfeyev may be watering the seeds of a planted controversy by calling on ROC members not to think that the meeting of Francis with Kirill will lead to unification of the two separated churches, but at the same time, he explains that the joint declaration is about what doctrines are shared in common ("Этот первый шаг был сделан, [...] и теперь я надеюсь на то, что по этой длинной дороге верующие двух традиций будут идти вместе, не идя при этом на какие-то компромиссы со своей совестью, не идя на вероучительные компромиссы, но защищая то, что у нас является общим".)
 * Alfeyev goes on to say that people should read the joint declaration – he points out the fact, included in the joint declaration, that God-commanded unity and disunity is against Christ's command that "That all maybe one." ("Декларация начинается с того, что утрата Богозаповеданного единства является нарушением заповеди Христа, прозвучавшей в Его последней первосвященнической молитве: "Да будут все едины".) Alfeyev explains that we must learn to "live and act not as rivals in the world, as well as brothers, to work together to protect the values that are common for us to jointly preach the Gospel, open to people of God truth." ("чтобы научиться жить и действовать [...] как братья, чтобы вместе защищать те ценности, которые являются для нас общими, чтобы совместно проповедовать Евангелие, открывать людям Божию правду.")
 * I would suggest using interfax-religion.ru and not newsru.com if you add this. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Issues such as abortion are not deemed doctrinal in Eastern Church. Besides, we talk of the doctrinal differences that had split West and East.Axxxion (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Interfax as a website is not very reliable, technically. Does not matter if we archive.Axxxion (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * really? Abortion is acceptable for the Orthodox church? Not according to Orthodox Church in America or according to OrthodoxWiki. It has been doctrine since the apostolic age and included in works such as the Didache (c. 96). You are misinformed about this.
 * So if interfax-religion.ru is not reliable, how can what you added from newsru.com which excerpts the actual interview on interfax-religion.ru be reliable? I do not understand you. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a disconnect between what you are saying: "The document did not seek to resolve any of the persisting doctrinal and ecclesiastical differences between the two churches,"

and what is written in the joint declaration:
 * "We share the same spiritual Tradition of the first millennium of Christianity."(n.4)
 * Catholic and Orthodox are not in full communion for nearly a millennium. They are "divided by wounds caused by old and recent conflicts, by differences inherited from our ancestors, in the understanding and expression of our faith in God, one in three Persons."(n.5)
 * "Mindful of the permanence of many obstacles," the meeting is a "sign of hope" for those who desire "tangible gestures" and "may contribute to the re–establishment of this unity willed by God."(n.6)
 * "In our determination to undertake all that is necessary to overcome the historical divergences we have inherited, we wish to combine our efforts to give witness to the Gospel of Christ and to the shared heritage of the Church of the first millennium, responding together to the challenges of the contemporary world. Orthodox and Catholics must learn to give unanimously witness in those spheres in which this is possible and necessary. Human civilization has entered into a period of epochal change. Our Christian conscience and our pastoral responsibility compel us not to remain passive in the face of challenges requiring a shared response."(n.7)

So, according to their words in the the joint declaration, they are declaring their intention to "to undertake all that is necessary to overcome the historical divergences we have inherited" – which, I read, as declaring to "seek to resolve the persisting  differences between the two churches".

with  until we can resolve this. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My impression is that you attempt to read into the documents something that is not there, quite obviously. Of course, the Roman church and the Eastern church do share the fundamentals of the same faith. There are doctrinal differences nonetheless. Are they being addressed in the Declaration? The ROC senior official says NO. I fail to see anything of the sort either. What precisely are YOU saying?Axxxion (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * please read what I have said throughout this discussion and see for yourself. Read what Alfeyev said in the interviews too: :::e.g. "[...] встречу исторической, эпохальной. И я не думаю, что эти эпитеты являются преувеличением"
 * It is commonplace to call the meeting historic or a landmark. I do not think that these epithets are an exaggeration.
 * e.g. read Alfeyev's reply at the begining of this discussion and the question he was responding to.
 * e.g. read the actual document, as Alfeyev suggsts, Francis and Kirill are declaring their intention to "to undertake all that is necessary to overcome the historical divergences we have inherited"(n.7)
 * It is not my opinion but the statement of Francis and Kirill in the document itself. Do you read English? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Am not discussing "historic". (Was World War II not historic? The WP article on it does not call it that. This is an encyclopedia that is to contain facts, not hot air verbiage.) Am talking about your questioning the absence of tackling the doctrinal rifts. You quote a lot and write a lot. But what is your point? All I see for now on this page is that you are trying to impose your own vision in conravention to WP:NPOV. If you have other sources that positively claim that the document does address the doctrinal differences, show them.Axxxion (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You do not read carefully: i said the site of Interfax is technically unreliable: they tend to change web addresses, etc. If you really believe that the attitude to abortion is a doctrinal matter for the Eastern Church, then end of discussion. The only doctrinal document of absolute authority in Orthodoxy is the Creed, which of course never mentions any abortions or any aother ethical/moral issues for that matterAxxxion (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * there is a major difference between the term historic and the term historical. The first of anything is historic, not all historical events or things are historic. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * yes you are right, I see now, I did misunderstand you about interfax-religion.ru and not newsru.com. I thought that you were discussing the differences in the two sources like I was. The NEWSru news article about Alfeyev's interview by interfax-religion.ru modified the paragraph structure to divide Alfeyev's two paragraph reply into four paragraphs. The qoute from Alfeyev's reply from newsru.com in the citation excludes that Alfeyev said "the first step has been made" (Этот первый шаг был сделан) based on that which is in common (что у нас является общим) (see n.4 in declaration: "We share the same spiritual Tradition of the first millennium of Christianity.") and Alfeyev hopes the convergence will defend and not compromise conscience nor doctrine. That was his reply to the question:
 * Некоторые православные опасаются сближения с католиками, усматривая в этом опасность чуть ли не полного слияния Православной и Католической церквей. Что Вы могли бы сказать этим людям?"
 * Some Orthodox fear convergence with Catholics, they see a danger of not only slight merger of the Orthodox and Catholic churches. What would you say to them? (The question unfortunately uses a colloquial чуть ли не полного which I translate "is it not a little" or "not only slight")
 * That is the difference between the interview on interfax-religion.ru and the edited story on newsru.com that I was writing about. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So what? "First step" in what? The full paragraph about the step reads: Но речь сейчас идет не о преодолении этого разделения, а о том, чтобы научиться жить и действовать в этом мире не как соперники, а как братья, чтобы вместе защищать те ценности, которые являются для нас общими, чтобы совместно проповедовать Евангелие, открывать людям Божию правду. И это то, что мы можем делать сегодня вместе. Мне понравились слова Рауля Кастро на встрече с патриархом Кириллом, когда патриарх рассказывал ему о предстоявшей еще встрече с папой Римским. Президент Рауль напомнил пословицу, что всякая, даже самая длинная, дорога начинается с первого шага. Этот первый шаг был сделан, и теперь я надеюсь на то, что по этой длинной дороге верующие двух традиций будут идти вместе, не идя при этом на какие-то компромиссы со своей совестью, не идя на вероучительные компромиссы, но защищая то, что у нас является общим. He speak of what is essentially ideological cooperation between the Churches. This has nothing to do with doctrinal rapprochement indeed, just as he has said multiple times. Essentially, this is the Kremlin′s agenda of promoting right−wing forces world−wide, especially in Europe — as a wedge with which to undermine the political (and geopolitical) status quo. The ultimate goal of this policy is very simple and has nothing to do with either theology or actual church′s interests: to politically destroy the EU and NATO.Axxxion (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * BoBoMisiu. AS I said, I fail to see anything relevant for the article in what you keep saying. You just keep discussing your vision of the event. There are very basic facts about the event. One of these is absence of addressing any doctrinal rifts in the document. Quite clear from the document itself as well as from multiple statements by the senior ROC cleric who was in charge of drafting the document. As for "historic", I appreciate the difference (often ignored by English-language native speakers) between historic and historical, and this is exactly my point: WP:NPOV prohibits any speculative assessments unless they are presented as opinions. Besides, my reference to WWII implied that the convention in WP is to refrain from assessments in the lede completely, as this looks like bias even in cases where it is virtually indisputable. NEWSru is just a news aggregator. They tend to present the gist of any lengthy interviews. That said, I accept your version of the lede.Axxxion (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for accepting my version of the lede. I am on topic. I agree with you about "the Kremlin's agenda of promoting right−wing forces world−wide, especially in Europe" – this cold war includes an invasion of Ukraine and is an existential threat to Europe – nevertheless, the text of the document itself conveys its own meaning also. It cannot be WP:CRYSTALBALLed. Since both have 1000 years of common doctrines (n.4) and a 1000 years of separate doctrine (n.5), the doctrinal rapprochement begins with what are common doctrines (nn.6–7). Religious leaders are responsible "to educate their faithful in a spirit which is respectful of the convictions of those belonging to other religious traditions" (n.13).

Why don't you use his name, Alfeyev, instead of "the senior ROC cleric who was in charge of drafting the document". Alfeyev is not one of the two signatories, Francis and Kirill, who can explain their intention or their understanding about the joint statement they signed.

There is no speculation about historicity – by definition both the meeting is the historic first meeting and the joint statement is the historic first joint statement – these are just unbiased WP:BLUE facts. It is redundant to use both the terms historic and first together. I think first implies more than one but historic does not.

The first interview you cite, on kommersant.ru, was published before the meeting and the signing took place, i.e. Alfeyev's opinion about a future event.

The second interview you indirectly cite, the [ 17 February newsru.com article] is reporting on Alfeyev's 17 February interfax-religion.ru interview, the "gist" inadvertently divided Alfeyev's two paragraph reply into a four paragraph reply that changed its meaning.

The third is discussed in.

Alfeyev has in the past spread created stories about controversial topics in the same way, e.g..

A perceived "absence of addressing any doctrinal rifts in the document" is not what the discussion I was addressing. You are may be misunderstanding or confusing or conflating the term dogma with the term doctrine with the term  T radition (with a capital " T "); e.g. abortion is a matter of doctrine according to The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, "The church holds that life begins at conception" and "Abortion has been consistently rejected by Orthodox tradition, and is frequently referred to as murder for which canon law prescribes a period of excommunication as penance" ("Sexual Ethics" p. 571). "It is this complementary vision of God and human persons that explains the apostle Paul's striking affirmation in 1 Corinthians 6: [...] With regard to bioethics, this means that our entire life, from conception to death and beyond, literally belongs to God, who alone has the authority to determine the beginning and end of our earthly existence. This is what explains Orthodoxy's firm opposition to abortion and suicide" (Science and the Eastern Orthodox Church, p.130). Quinisext Council (692) canon 91 states "Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive poisons to kill the fetus, are subjected to the penalty of murder." The Quinisext Council is doctrine for Eastern Orthodox Churches. You can search for other sources if this is not enough.


 * Tradition' is a central term for Orthodox theological life. The church understands the 'Holy Tradition' (by no means signifying every ecclesiastical custom) to be the essence of the evangelical experience as it lives it out fully, and mediates it through each generation to the world" ("Tradition" in The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, p. 599). "as were also the other principles of tradition-discernment it had elevated across the centuries as a closely meshed interwoven web: namely the scriptural (canonic) principle, the apostolic principle, the episcopal, the synodical, the conciliar, the pneumatic, and the canonical principle (legislative decrees). All these things together, harmoniously commenting upon one another, their balance discerned by spiritual Diakrisis, manifested authentic tradition in each age of the church. The Orthodox Christian doctrine of tradition is thus an ancient and richly complex idea, [...]" (p. 602)

Francis and Kirill use the term  T radition and state that "Orthodox and Catholics are united not only by the shared Tradition of the Church of the first millennium" (nn.4, 24). This is where a close reading shows why about  which said that the "declaration did not concern any doctrinal or ecclesiastical issues". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources
I may add some of this in later, but popping it here for now. More on the Great Council of the Orthodox Church is here (could be added to the existing footnote on this).

From the same site, there are two opinion pieces: Called to Unity and The Havana Declaration. These are definitely from certain 'sides' of the debate. But a lot of the English-language sources will fail to give the views put forth in Russian-language sources. Hopefully it will be possible to bring that in as well (or find English-language sources that cover the response in Russia).

Any other ideas on what would be good sources to use as more considered (less 'newsy') responses are published? Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * a how-to-read-it by Myroslav Marynovych of the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv and a founder of Amnesty International Ukraine
 * a what-is-missing-in-it by Peter Galadza of the Sheptytsky Institute at Saint Paul University
 * a commentary by Adam DeVille of the University of Saint Francis –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Slower and better editing
slow down and look at what you are doing. , it is senseless to change parameters in an existing tagged with a  and have the new url you add mismatch with the old archive-url. Change both or none, or blank that parameter. I use the history page to view more than one change at a time – I see you make many tiny changes. That makes it difficult to collaborate. You can improve your edits by combining them. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Alfeyev in ria.ru
the qoute Alfeyev's reply, in ria.ru (2016-02-17), in the citation is:
 * A:"Между Русской православной и Римско-католической церквами сейчас происходит сближение, не имеющее догматического, богословского или литургического измерения"
 * The convergence between the Russian Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church happening now, does not have a dogmatic, theological, or liturgical dimension.

Alfeyev is describing the current state of affairs only days after the joint declaration. He is not directly discussing the document or the meeting. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The interview has a headline: интервью РИА Новости о подготовке встречи патриарха и папы римского, о совместной декларации папы и патриарха. The words are his answer to the question: Мы видим резко негативную реакцию на декларацию со стороны лидера Украинской греко-католической церкви архиепископа Святослава (Шевчука), который заявил своей пресс-службе, что декларацию составила "слабая команда", что в ней "половинчатость правды", что из-за ее публикации многие на Украине "чувствуют себя преданными Ватиканом" и так далее. Как вы это прокомментируете? Quite obvious, he speaks about the consequences of this meeting. Ok, I would not mind if you remove this particular reference.Axxxion (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the question was not about the meeting or the document but about the current state of affairs days after the joint declaration. I see why you do not discuss the actual question Alfeyev was asked to comment on, i.e. to comment on the choice of language used by Shevchuk in an interview given by Shevchuk. The headline describes the interview but not the opinion Alfeyev was asked to share about a different interview of another person. No, I think Alfeyev explaining that a convergence between the Russian Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church happening now is important – that is overarching message of the joint declaration. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You keep discussing your subjective interpretation of the interview and the event. OUR article says, the Declaration does not attempt to address the doctrinal differences between the churches. You disagree with this? Axxxion (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

BoBoMisiu′s unexplained edits
BoBoMisiu, please explain clearly what you mean by keeping inserting the verification tags. From what you have said above, this is not clear: just irrelevant discussion on "historic", unreliability of Interfax, etc. What is your point.?Axxxion (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * everything I do is explained and annotated in the edits above. I am an experienced editor who reads the sources – I do not add irrelevant discussions. I will explain briefly to you again in this thread but read what I wrote above and reply there. The reason for discussing the term historic is (apparently even the sources you add disagree with your assessment), interfax-religion.ru has the interview while newsru.com is setting up the spin (read a few articles about the manipulation of a Russian news cycle on stopfake.org), please discuss the individual thread in the threads to prevent fragmentation. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * here is some third party analysis of what I have been saying for days describing the methods used in the Alfeyev news cycle.
 * Specifically about the February 17 interview of Alfeyev on interfax-religion.ru: "It is very indicative of Moscow's bifurcation of messaging that the whole interview is not provided in English translation. It is therefore important to note which portions are translated into English, and which portions are highlighted in Russian only." This is about our disagreement between the "gist" in newsru.com vs interfax-religion.ru interview with Alfeyev – the guy whose name you repeatedly anonymize out in the lede with "the ROC senior official".


 * –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * BoBoMisiu, All above is marginal. My question is: What is the basis for your repeated questioning the references to Hilarion′s statements that clearly assert total absence of any discussion of doctrinal (dogmatic) differences? Axxxion (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is what Hilarion stated post-event: "Там не было никакой попытки вероучительного сближения или вообще даже обсуждения каких-либо догматических или богословских вопросов. И сейчас такое обсуждение совершенно не стоит на повестке дня." How more lucid can one state this? You continue scholastic nitpicking exercise to find the differences between the terms "dogma", "doctrine", etc. Google translate is sufficient to see that he covers all the ground by using three words (quite excessively, in my view): "вероучительный", "догматический", "богословский".Axxxion (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * PS. Your translation way above "they see a danger of not only slight merger of the Orthodox and Catholic churches" is substantially incorrect. "Chut′ li ne" is a bit hard to render adequately in this instance, but roughly it translates: "they fear even such things as (all the way down to) full merger of churches". Not that this is important here. Off the record, if i may, (that is if what you expound here is really serious and you mean it), your fundamental error in the analysis of the event is that you seem to apply turgid scholastic logic overamplifying the significance of Hilarion′s pronouncements as well as of the declaration itself. This belies the brain cultivated in the Western (Latinist) tradition. The Vatican (and I do mean the Vatican as established by Mussolini in 1929: the papal state was very earthly in fighting for its money, land and secular power) can afford to put much significance in its words because it exists and operates in the decades-old cocoon, protected thoroughly (by the Italian police, popular reverence and ultimately by NATO), just as the whole of Europe — they live in cloud cuckoo land, exemplified by Merkel′s idiocy. As smb who lived in Russia for decades and knew some ROC hierarchs intimately, I can assure you that THEY live in a very real world of cut-throat struggle for survival (politically and also physically). For them the important documents are bank statements; and even more important for them (for sheer survival) are the instructions they receive from their political masters (always by word of mouth, often by way of a nod is as good as a wink). They do not give a solitary hoot which words they have undersigned; for they know this is mere paper and ink of no consequence whatsoever. They will merge with any one and anything at any level and in any modality right when they are ordered to do so. Why did you think, Patriarch Athenagoras did what he did? Because he then needed to do that to survive in a hostile country, just as no ecumenical patriarch would never have dared to do anything similar in the Ottoman times because it would have been treated as high treason by the sultan. As we all know Patriarch Gregory V signed proclamations damning his Greek faithful when they wanted freedom from the muslim potentate. My point here: get real!14:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Axxxion (talk)
 * but a reasonable sense-for-sense translation. My basis for questioning is in the threads above especially the . Let us stay on topic. While Alfeyev's spin, in each interview, is not what the text of joint statement contains, my disagreement is about how the sources are used. Please reply in those threads to prevent fragmentation – so others can see what the disagreement – start discussing my objections. You "knew some ROC hierarchs intimately", is that a WP:POTENTIALCOI? Did you know Alfeyev? Is that why you anonymize Alfeyev as "the ROC senior official" instead of using his name? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry i find this discussion increasingly counterproductive, as you refuse to answer the pertinent question: Do you disagree with the current text of the lede (now that i have removed the ref), and if you do, What exactly do you suggest (abortion is completely irrelevant, for however you classify it this does not constitute a "doctrinal difference between the churches"). Please, just abide by the WP rules. If you think that what Alfeev says is just spin, that can well be said about pretty much everything else in humans′ fictional reality (pace Yuval Harari). And this article is all about spin. Now you teach me what "чуть ли не о полном слиянии" means, not being obviously a Russian speaker at all. This is the kind of phrase that can be understood and used correctly by native speakers only, similar to British phrase "not half bad": Does it actually mean a bit bad, ot a bit good? Neither, it actually means, contextually, "quite good".Axxxion (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I never knew him well, but you can put his name explicitly, not terribly important. I just feel that his name is unnecessary in the lede, but it could be there, come to think of it. What i wrote above after "Off the record", i did mean "off the record": it has no valid relevance to the discussion. But i feel that since our discussion here is virtually a dialogue, it would be helpful if we have some idea of each others′ background. Usually you can find some on an editor′s page, there is nothing on mine, but this is not because i am particularly secretive. If you care to know my opinion of Alfeev, i actually believe he is virtually the only bishop in the ROC who has a solid theological education and actually thinks about theological matters. That said, he is one of those russian hierarchs i have described above, who serves the Russian state first and foremost: otherwise he would not be where he is. If i were in a position to advise the Pope on how to deal with them (that is if he at all pursues any goals in Russia), my recommendation would be very simple: just ignore them, and have your Cardinal Secretary of State talk to the RF foreign ministry: much more gain, i am absolutely certain, even in sheer cold hard cash terms (i suspect the ilk of Abramovich would now consider shifting their billions from the City to the Vatican bank). The Moscow Patriarch in reality represents solely himself and his private interests; even in formal terms, he is not empowered to talk of anything substantial to the Pope without express authority of the ROC Synod at the very minimum.Axxxion (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I abide by the rules. Here is my translation again: "Some Orthodox fear convergence with Catholics, they see a danger of not only slight merger of the Orthodox and Catholic churches. What would you say to them?" Alfeyev's interfax-religion.ru reply is about Russian fear; it is an example of a "bifurcation of messaging", as this article which before, describes. My example is the. If Alfeyev says that the joint statement is not about shared doctrine then that is spin. that "interfax-religion.ru has the interview while newsru.com is setting up the spin (read a few articles about the manipulation of a Russian news cycle on stopfake.org),"

Lets focus on the content. My opinion and your opinion do not matter, but parts of your opinion are in agreement with an open letter on nationalreview.com. The open letter includes both facts and speculation.

My challenge is not about Russian political motivation but about describing the text of the joint declaration.

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for the link to George Weigel′s piece. He makes some reasonable points, although it does not make for a convincing read to those on the other side of the fence, to coin a phrase, as his vision is immersed in this haughty American doctrinaire bluster and political preaching (especially hilarious is his point about Russia′s kleptocracy that raises a rhetorical question whether America′s institutionalised and entrenched kleptocracy in 2nd and 3rd generations is morally superior to Russia′s 1st generation kleptocracy) that never fail to raise hackles of anyone outside the US. This propaganda style claptrap is precisely why no one takes America seriously these days; it just sounds like moronic latter-days Soviet propaganda, and when you hear them say they should combat RT propaganda, this is just Cold War roles reversed completely. As for our article, you wrote "challenge of describing the text of the joint declaration". In my view, what we have now is a thorough and balanced synopsis thereof (WP articles are supposed to present the summary). You obviously want to put more emphasis on the hope–of–reconciliation thing. But there is no cogent basis for this. At the end of the day, the declaration says what it says, it is perfectly perspicuous. Take note of the fact, that the only concerned reactions to this document pertain exclusively to the part where it dwells on the Ukraine issue. This is quite indicative, as this is the only part that actually matters and hence provokes controversy. The rest is a series of platitudes that break no new ground and fail to draw anyone′s interest.Axxxion (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weigel's open letter will be germane in a few months when the world will see how Kirill will act
 * A search for "challenge of describing" shows I never wrote that.  I apologize. I  in paraphrase.
 * Yes, "the declaration says what it says" in 30 points and reducing the 30 points to those that elicit "concerned reactions" or controversy is using appeal to popularity and appeal to consequences logical fallacies.
 * No, I do not "want to put more emphasis on the hope–of–reconciliation"; that is not my argument; that is your new straw man that you refute with "there is no cogent basis for this". I will no longer reply to your distracting red herrings. You are not addressing what I am discussing in the other threads on this page or in this thread. I will be placing the tags back into the article. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC); modified 12:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Present tense
The text describing the document should be in the present tense. It does, after all, still exist. Elizium23 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, meeting should be past tense and document should be in the present tense. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not see consistency on this in other articles on similar topics. In a few months past tense in this article will look quite natural. This is not even a treaty of any kind with any abiding validity.Axxxion (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am right and the other articles are probably violating the MOS guideline MOS:TENSE. Elizium23 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The document is current. The other articles are in error. The joint statement is until a retraction or cancellation changes it status – only then can the past tense be used. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Gudziak
an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church would greatly reduce the power of the Russian Orthodox Church - the original text says more An autocephalous and united Ukrainian Orthodox Church would probably be the most populous Church in world Orthodoxy, and that is something both Putin and Kirill are determined to prevent at all costs.Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Gudziak explains that "vocally, Ukrainian Orthodox believers are expressing their desire for real ecclesial independence from Moscow, from which war is being waged against them." He postulates that "there may well be more practicing Orthodox in Ukraine than in Russia." I wrote elsewhere that:
 * A Kremlin goal is to force the creation of a "Russian World" from other nations' territories by exploiting mythical narratives as components in their military hybrid warfare doctrines. The Kremlin claims that they decide which population groups belong in their mythical "Russian World" – i.e. which defines places the Kremlin can then "protect", e.g. annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and other post-Soviet states are considered within that mythical "Russian World" by the Kremlin. The Russian Orthodox Church considers post-Soviet states as their territory. The Russian state interest and the Russian church interest coincide. That is why a unified independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church "is something both Putin and Kirill are determined to prevent at all costs." Russian fear is more about demographics than power – as Alfeyev said: "to prevent the extinction of our population". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A Kremlin goal is to force the creation of a "Russian World" from other nations' territories by exploiting mythical narratives as components in their military hybrid warfare doctrines. The Kremlin claims that they decide which population groups belong in their mythical "Russian World" – i.e. which defines places the Kremlin can then "protect", e.g. annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and other post-Soviet states are considered within that mythical "Russian World" by the Kremlin. The Russian Orthodox Church considers post-Soviet states as their territory. The Russian state interest and the Russian church interest coincide. That is why a unified independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church "is something both Putin and Kirill are determined to prevent at all costs." Russian fear is more about demographics than power – as Alfeyev said: "to prevent the extinction of our population". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Decades long process
which part of did you think was ?

You do realize that using shows others the  and the  that I used.

What you removed was that there was "decades-long process" – something acknowledged on the Russian Orthodox Church website by the fact that Alfeyev said in 2009:
 * Q:"And when the 'summit' of the heads of the two Churches will take place?"
 * A (Alfeyev):"We do not exclude the possibility of such a meeting and hope very much that it will take place."

This is another straw man that you dispatch – read and see that there are no "fantasies" and it is not my scarecrow. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not in the BBC link that we have there. The phrase is too simplistic. If we talk of ROC-Vatican relations, the past several decades have been a roller-coaster, with the past 25 years being mostly Col War. We should not conflate, as this is done by much of the news media, realtions the Vatican has with Phener that has indeed been quite friendly since the 1960s, with those it has with the ROC, which is a very different story.Axxxion (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * are you saying that "decades-long process" is too simplistic?
 * The link to 13 February BBC article was on 14 February.
 * "a Pope and a ROC Patriarch met. In the news media the meeting was hailed as a symbolic event on the path to closer relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church"
 * The term decades-long process 15 February by me.
 * "the leaders of the two churches had met, a symbolic moment continuing the decades-long process leading to closer relations between Catholic and Orthodox churches"
 * The quote from BBC is "1997 - Planned meeting between Pope John Paul II and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II cancelled".
 * The term decades-long process is representative of a process that dates to at least 1997 – about 2 decades (2016−1997=19) just from the BBC article. Do you want me to find an source about the history that the term decades-long process describes? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You do not address my objections on merit.Axxxion (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not understand. You wrote "is not in the BBC link" and I pointed out where in the link it is found. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever the journalist says the aricle must be correct as per the facts and be comprehensible. Read what I wrote above on this thread.Axxxion (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * according to ROC document on relations, it began bilateral dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church in 1967 and began theological dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church in 1979. Also . The English language version of this document on mospat.ru is an abridged version without much of the official Russian language content – looks like another example of bifurcation of messaging (see ). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC); modified 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly is "bilateral dialogue"? The ROC was governed officially by the tsar for more than 2 centuries. The tsar had fully-fledged diplomatic relations with the Holy See. Does that not count for "dialogue"? The official delegation of the ROC led by priest Vitaly Borovoy attended the Second Vatican Council in October 1962; shortly thereafter metroplitan Nikodim Rotov visited Rome and was received by the Pope. There have been theological discussions for a few past decades, but the ROC is a junior sidekick in those to the Ecumenical See. Moreover, it had been mostly trying to play a spoiler -- to little avail, as her position was isolated by every one else (other local orthodox churches): SEE Ravenna Document e.g. . All these things have their separate articles; this narrow and marginal topic has no relevance to those.Axxxion (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the ROC defines the start of dialog in those years, I defer to that. You removed "decades-long process" – the Francis–Kirill meeting and their declaration happened in the context of a decades-long process. That is all I am arguing for in this thread. That fact belongs in the lede with an, I suggest, like:
 * "According to the ROC, it began bilateral dialogue with the Catholic Church in 1967 and began theological dialogue with the Catholic Church in 1979." –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. But you do not address my question. You can read a lot of nonsensical things on the ROC websites that are very easy to refute with documentary evidence. The major relevant point for this article is that the Roman church conducts its dialogue with the community of the eastern orthodox churches. The latter is both formally and effectively led by the Ecumenical See.Axxxion (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

 dialogue means a between two groups. The "relevant point for this article" is that the ROC states dialogue between the two churches began in 1967 and theological dialogue between the two churches began in 1979 – part of a decades-long process. These are facts specific to the ROC decades-long process and not about any other Orthodox churches. Is there is reason to doubt that bilateral dialogue with the ROC began decades ago? Can you refute the years to show there was no decades-long process? I showed you; now, you show me. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC) I to the Background section. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Kirill in interfax-religion.ru
I wrote before ( and ) that "interfax-religion.ru has the interview while newsru.com is setting up the spin". It reads to like reflexive control through the repetitive communication of statements phrased in the negative.

The content in the WP article that I disagree with elsewhere on this talk page is:

This is attributed in the sources to interviews given by Alfeyev on 11 and 17 February, but it was repeatedly anonymized by replacing Alfeyev with "the ROC senior official".

The content in the WP article that creates contradiction with the above is:

This is attributed in the sources to an interview given by Kirill on 21 February. He is in fact the ROC senior official. I am not challenging the text that was added.

As I argued previously, the contradiction is that the lede shows Alfeyev is "the ROC senior official" and not Kirill.

I do see problems with the sourcing method. The two sources used are interfax-religion.ru combined with newsru.com also. Neither article contains the actual interview. The story grew from 408 words in interfax-religion.ru to 681 words in newsru.com by appending a description of a TASS article (but not linked to) about a different press conference by another church spokesman explaining what Kirill meant in the interview that was not published. Those statements were phrased in the negative.

According to the interfax-religion.ru article, Kirill was discussing the secrecy surrounding the meeting. Apparently, Kirill explained that the process leading to the event was secret because of unspecified circumstances involving both Orthodox fear and unnamed powerful enemies.

According to that article, Kirill spoke about the meeting but not about the joint statement; Kirill said that theological issues were not discussed during the meeting ("что на встрече не обсуждалось ни одного богословского вопроса") and Kirill reassured the faithful that doctrine, liturgy, and pastoral ways will remain the same. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

the public statements by Alfeyev and Kirill are about the meeting without mention of the joint statement.

My three points about the 24 February interfax-religion.ru article are:
 * Is mentioning unspecified enemies relevant to the article?
 * Is mentioning unspecified fears relevant to the article?
 * The point is that Kirill only reassured the faithful that doctrine, liturgy, and pastoral ways will remain the same.
 * The vague adversaries acting against Kirill have no identity, i.e. all he does is place unspecified enemies and unspecified fears on the Russian cognitive map. This is partiinost' style conspiracy mongering through the mechanism of projection against cognitive dissonance about an event and a joint statement with a pope. It is transfer of the traditional ingroup and outgroup chauvinism to anything external.

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are several statements by Alfeev, wherein he stresses that neither the Declaration nor the meeting generally addressed any doctrinal and theological issues. Kirill speaks of the meeting and it is clear he talks of all sorts of agreements, written ot otherwise, that may or may not have been achieved there. If you keep finding fault with what the lede says, pls write here what you suggest. We do not mention unspecified enemies; we simply quote Kirill.Axxxion (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is mentioning Kirill's unspecified enemies relevant to the article?
 * Is mentioning Kirill's unspecified fears relevant to the article?
 * According to WP:RUMOUR, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." These are Kirill's rumors. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We quote a statement of the ROC Primate as reported by most official agencies of the RF. What you have said above strikes me as utter nonsense.Axxxion (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * no, read it again: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Kirill's unspecified enemies and unspecified fears are WP:RUMOUR. Kirill must specify who the enemies are and what the fears are. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the Patriarch is spreading rumours? If so, this in itself is very notable fact.Axxxion (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Kirill's unspecified enemies and unspecified fears are speculative in quality, it is a WP:FART. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, if this IS speculation, this is how the Patriarch explained the secrecy -- we just quote him. Whatever his rationale, this is relevant, notable, reliably sourced, and represents no more than a referenced quote. What you say is an obvious attempt to bowdlerise the article.Axxxion (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, if this IS speculation, this is how the Patriarch explained the secrecy -- we just quote him. Whatever his rationale, this is relevant, notable, reliably sourced, and represents no more than a referenced quote. What you say is an obvious attempt to bowdlerise the article.Axxxion (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

no, not to (I had to look this up) but to point out in this thread that Kirill explained that the process leading to the event was secret because of unspecified circumstances involving unnamed enemies. In my opinion, this is speculative in quality, it is a WP:FART. Kirill did not name any enemies or circumstances or fears – what he said requires a reader to speculate and imagine. E.g. who are these enemies? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Maximenkov in kommersant.ru
About content and improved in.

The 22 February article on kommersant.ru is the opinion of Maximenkov commenting about how and what was reported by Cuban media about the meeting.
 * I do not find any claim that the reporter Maximenkov is a "Latin America expert".
 * I do not find any claim that the reporter Maximenkov is a translator.
 * Two sub events took place which Maximenkov conflated:
 * The meeting was private and was not televised.
 * The signing ceremony was public and was televised.


 * Maximenko was commenting and conflating about the quality of multiple translations: by Cuban television, by Granma newspaper, by Juventud Rebelde newspaper, and official translators of Francis and Kirill; he was not commenting about the joint declaration.

Should this even be included? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We present what he says as his commnets, not facts. The translations at Russia–organised events are indeed usually quite bad. On church topics it is consistently catastrophic. The ROC Foreign relations dpt traditionally has had decent translators for Greek; other languages are neglected, as guys like Alfeev are happy to communicate in English directly. Maximenkov is a fairly known historian who now lives in Canada ; and he is an old Latin America hand: I understand he was Pravda correspondent in Cuba in Mexico. He definitely knows whereof he writes, unlike most other journalists.Axxxion (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Its WP:UNDUE and possibly fringe. From what I read, he is the only person who questioned the quality of translation. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not critical from my perspective. But I urge you not to insert your own emotional (in my view) judgments and assessments that clearly violate WP:NPOV such as those removed by me a few minutes ago.Axxxion (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maximenkov's opinion is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE – can you reference others that do not use him as a source? It is one individual's opinion that, as far as I see, even radical fundamentalist blogs ignore. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I . –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Accusations against Kirill reported on newsru.com
Content about patriarchal authority was added and expanded from the same source. This is a current decades long internal conflict.

The 21st century shift of authority from many local synods to one patriarchal synod is a separate issue that dates to the 2000 revision of ROC statutes. Adam DeVille wrote that the 2000 revision was "not nearly as centralized as the 1945 statutes and returned to some limited practice of synodality." DeVille noted that other authors, including Vitali Petrenko in The development of authority within the Russian Orthodox Church, "do not share that view, and instead see the revised statutes as backwards steps that have 'suppressed the principle of sobornost'." (Petrenko 2011, p.248, quoted in DeVille 2016.)

start of out of chronological order insert –

In the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2013 rev. ed., on patriarchia.ru:
 * The ROC has a hierarchical administrative structure (ch. 1 art. 6 ).
 * Higher authority and government are present in the Local Synod, the Bishops' Synod, the Holy Synod headed by the patriarch (ch. 1 art. 7).
 * The patriarch has the primacy of honor within the ROC and is accountable to the Local Synod and the Bishops' Synod (ch. 4 art. 2  ).
 * The Bishops' Synod defines the character of relations with non-Orthodox confessions (ch. 3 art. 1 ).
 * The duties of the Holy Synod include: evaluation of events in the field of interfaith, inter-confessional and inter-religious relations (ch. 5 art. 25 § з ), maintenance of interconfessional and interreligious relations (ch. 5 art. 25 § и ), coordination of actions of the fullness of the ROC in its efforts to achieve peace and justice (ch. 5 art. 25 § к ).
 * The Holy Synod can create commissions to delegate decisions about significant theological problems, having to do with internal and external activities (ch. 5 art. 28 § а ).
 * According to common Orthodox tradition, the relationship between the patriarch and the Holy Synod is determined by Apostolic canon 34 and regional Council of Antioch canon 9 (ch. 4 art. 5).
 * The patriarch exercises canonical executive and administrative authority to manage the patriarchate (ch. 4 art. 7 § и ).
 * The Department for External Church Relations is established by the Holy Synod and accountable to it (ch. 8 art. 4; ch. 8 art. 6 § б ). It is an executive body of the patriarch and the Holy Synod (ch. 8 art.3). It is in charge of general church matters within its competence (ch. 8 art. 2). It possesses the exclusive right to represent the patriarch and the Holy Synod within the scope of its activities and within its competence (ch. 8 art. 3).


 * According to the 2008 Core principles for relations of the Russian Orthodox Church to non-Orthodox, on patriarchia.ru:
 * The most important goal of the Orthodox Church in relations with non-Orthodox confessions is the restoration of the God-commanded Christian unity (n. 2.1. ).
 * Indifference to this task or its rejection is a sin against God's commandment of unity (n. 2.2.).
 * The ROC is theological dialogue with non-Orthodox for more than two centuries (n. 4.1.).
 * The ROC was dialogue with the ecumenical movement for almost a century.
 * The ROC began bilateral dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church in 1967.
 * The ROC began theological dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church in 1979.
 * The major theme of dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church in 2008 was about Eastern Catholic Churches and proselytism.

These need an English language secondary source, like a commentary, to explain the nuance about how these relate.

These do not explain what that current character is. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC); modified 17:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

– end of out of chronological order insert

I think adding a paragraph about Kirill's authority, to meet and to sign joint statements, as defined in the 2013 statutes would be good background. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC); modified 01:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I pointed already, I find your recent comments, incl the one above on this thread, void of any relevance and meaning. Please stop your reverting activity, which i find disruptive.Axxxion (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ROC Patriarch′s powers should be in the article about this institution: Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus'. THis one is a marginal article about the event that would not be notable for WP, had it not received the news media hype, largely totally ignorant and missplaced.Axxxion (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the addition does not fit. First why is original research being presented into the article in an attempt to interpret Father Alexei Morozov's criticism? Why not just state Alexei's criticism, and not put interpretations. I do not see the connection with sobornost idea at all. The quote in the source by Father Alexei says the Patriarch is slowly replacing the Synod (my interpretation: with yes-men, similar to the way the Ecumenical Patriarchate's local synod is), and is further not even consulting the synod with this action. Then calls this pure papism. (reducing the influence of the bishops outside of the primate on the church). It is simply a synodical issue, sobernost has nothing to do with it that is not even an ecclesiastical term. Alexei didn't mention it in his reaction and it is not in the source, so I ask: why is it there? New source injected after Sobornost sentence is not even a source for anything. It is just a random source for the latest synod irrelevant to the text it is attached to. 100% original research.75.73.150.255 (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * no, I am not disruptive – you removed the tag that points to this thread. Developing the article to include something "Kirill's authority, to meet and to sign joint statements, as defined in the 2000 statutes would be good background".
 * There are accusations by individuals of purportedly prohibited ecclesiastical acts against a WP:LIVE in a WP:RELIABLE(?) source. But they look like unsubstantiated WP:BLPGOSSIP to me. It should maintain presumption of innocence since there is no judgment against Kirill by a council of bishops. This would be content directly relevant to this article and not about the institution.
 * This is not "a marginal article about the event" but is the specific article about both the meeting of Francis with Kirill and their joint statement.
 * I am not sure which addition you are saying doesn't fit? The article on newsru.com is not reporting just on Morozov – Emelyanov, Chapnin, Bulekov, and Volkov are also quoted and discussed in it.
 * Which part do think is original research?
 * I agree with you about the term synod vs sobernost. That is one of the reasons I started this thread. Axxxion . I think the connection with synod is: "уничтожение соборности в РПЦ. Сперва потихоньку заменили Поместный собор Архиерейским. А теперь, как оказалось, даже с собратьями архиереями в таком серьезнейшем вопросе не посчитали нужным" My about synod.
 * I agree with you about the patriarchia.ru reference shows that there was a synod in February but irrelevant. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * BoBoMisiu, I suspect you may be confused about the terminology, which is forgiveable, as it is indeed confusing. Very long story short, since the 19th cetury in Russia they have been using this term Соборность, which in the Russian language was derived from the church-slavonic translation of the term "κᾰθολικός" in the Creed (See: Кафоличность церкви -- the english WP article on that is apparently sorely missing, but we have this Four Marks of the Church). Semantically, these two terms (i mean "Соборность" and "соборный", which is "catholic") do not really correlate. So, the way the term is used in the relevant sources here is pretty much a common Russian orthodox cant that however refers to the principle that is enshrined in Canon Law of the Eastern Church, most specifically, as you have pointed above, Canon n. 34 of the Apostolic Canons: "...Но и первый епископ ничего да не совершает без рассуждения всех епископов. Ибо так будет единомыслие, и прославится Бог о Господе во Святом Духе, Отец, Сын и Святой Дух." In respect of the powers of the Patriarch, the current ROC Statute reads: Патриарх Московский и всея Руси имеет первенство чести среди епископата Русской Православной Церкви и подотчетен Поместному и Архиерейскому Соборам (section two Глава IV. Патриарх Московский и всея Руси), which also invokes the aforementioned canon: "5. Отношения между Патриархом Московским и всея Руси и Священным Синодом, в соответствии с общеправославной традицией, определяются 34-м правилом святых Апостолов и 9-м правилом Антиохийского Собора"). Here we have a reference to what the Statute of the ROC calls "The Holy Synod". The latter term, in the ROC parlance, refers strictly to a narrow body of the select few senior bishops, which has the powers to adopt decisions such as appointing and consecration of bishops, etc. But it never refers to larger convocations of bishops, which would be called "Собор". But as the latter in Greek is "synod", hence in English we often have "synodality" as a handy rendering for Соборность. Hope it has been helpful.Axxxion (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, i do not think the internal link to Sobornost is at all appropriate in this article, as the Sobornost article treats the term in the light of the Russian philosophical thought of the 19th century, quite different from what we talk about here. I do not agree that the point here is accusations against the Patriarch (which have always been common in the ROC) per se; the point here is the fact that certain groups are on the verge of splitting off or have even done so like in Moldova. Axxxion (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

we are talking about the same thing. Were you write "section two Глава IV. Патриарх Московский и всея Руси" I wrote a typo "ch. 7 art. 2" – it should have been "ch. 4 art. 2"; the link was correct but chapter number was wrong.

Yes, we agree, the Holy Synod (Священный Синод described in ch. 5) is different body than the Bishops' Synod (Архиерейский Собор described in ch. 3). There is delegation of authority from the Bishops' Synod to the Holy Synod.

While the patriarch and the Holy Synod may convene the Bishops' Council to appeal or resolve cases where the patriarch disagrees with a Holy Synod decision (ch. 3 art. 3; ch. 5 art. 20), the meeting and joint statement is not an act of the Holy Synod but an act of the patriarch – these, i.e. ch. 3 art. 3 and ch. 5 art. 20, do not apply. The 2008 principles are, in my opinion, clearly synodal in nature and are found on the website under "Материалы Соборов". The 2008 principles state that restoration of unity is the most important goal in relations with non-Orthodox. I understand about the universality of catholicity but from doing on page searches, sobornost is not used in the statutes of the ROC. I think sobornost is about a 19th century anti-Western political ideology and not about Orthodoxy, see what on Khomyakov. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Academically speaking, this is right: ″sobornost is about a 19th century anti-Western political ideology and not about Orthodoxy″; but as I remarked above, the modern orthodox cant (slang, if you will) employs the term to denote all these things related to the issue of no figure in Orthodoxy having single-handed authority for the entire church on any matters.Axxxion (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the ROC has statutes that define how the ROC acts and the term sobornost is not found in the statutes. I found ROC sources, do have sources that this political ideology, sobornost, exceeds a patriarchs "canonical executive and administrative authority to manage the patriarchate (ch. 4 art. 7 § и )" by implementing the 2008 principles (nn. 2.1–2.2.)? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Reaction in ROC Section
Noticed in reaction section, labels and accusations.

First, "radical" "fundamentalist" "emotional". This is put forward as a fact by the article in the voice of Wikipedia, when it is rather the opinion of the journalist/writer Sergei Chapnin (who happens to have been removed from his post recently, likely for certain criticisms of his of the ROC). So either more neutral description should be settled on, or it should be stated that Sergei Chapnin states this or that. (but then 2/3 of the reaction section will be a reaction to a reaction)

Noticed edit removing labels was put in, and then reverted. Well now two disagree (if including me) with the revert so obviously some communication is needed. Personally I feel the entire section needs a rewrite. 1/3 of the section is not reaction to the Joint Declaration, but rather a reaction to a reaction. It is also clear it is not taking a neutral point of view.

WHICH "fundamentalist radical Orthodox groups"

WHICH "New World Order conspiratorial groups"

WHICH "ROC priests"

WHICH "others"

It is full of weasel words. Perhaps instead one may state the criticism itself and the name of the critic, in the manner of the second paragraph. The source listed states actual criticism, so there is no reason to say "groups" or throw labels. quote the critics.

'''Point by point: '''

"Both fundamentalist radical Orthodox groups who condemn any rapprochement and New World Order conspiratorial groups reacted emotionally against the meeting and the joint statement. Some ROC priests criticize Kirill and call his act heretical. Others believed that Kirill violated the principle of sobornost by not discussing the meeting and joint statement with other bishops during a February synod."

" Both fundamentalist "

"Fundamentalist" is a contentious label which is stated in the source as a word by Sergei Chapnin, thus should only be stated if in a quotation of Sergei

" radical

"Radical" is a contentious label which is stated in the source as a word by Sergei Chapnin, thus should only be stated if in a quotation of Sergei

" who condemn any rapprochement "

This is not sourced

" New World Order conspiratorial groups "

This is not sourced and fringe. The source states that the website they used to find a quotation on Archpriest Vladislav Emelyanov was called "Movement (to) 'Resist the New World Order'", NOT that criticism is from New World Order conspirators. (They did not say, for example, "Archpriest Vladislav, a member of a New World Order conspiratorial group, stated"). Regarding the quotation, it should be noted it was an open letter and one could find its contents in many more sites than the one listed. You cannot say that this person is X or is a member of X-ism because X-ists reposted what they said, so do not use that as an excuse to get around the source not stating what the article says (original research).

" reacted emotionally

Again, the word of Sergei Chapnin unfit to be used in an article in this way, unless it is explicitly stated it is from his mouth.

" Some ROC priests criticize Kirill and call his act heretical.

"Some" is a weasel word. Which ROC priests? (They are mentioned in the source, why not mentioned here? if they are not notable then why mention their reaction?) They call his act heretical in which way? The source does not state that they [ROC priests] call his act heretical, it states quotations, thus a quotation should be supplied, not an interpretation of the quotation by a wikipedia contributor.

" Others

"Others" is a weasel word. Who are the others? Are all reactions besides those mentioned previous and later these "others"?

" believed that Kirill violated the principle of sobornost by not discussing the meeting and joint statement with other bishops during a February synod.

Sobornost is not mentioned in the source, and is not even an accurate interpretation (original research) of the criticism by the Archpriest. Why not simply quote the criticism? To state my own "original research", the criticism at this angle is that the Patriarch has been filling the ROC with young bishops who are essentially "yes-men" to the Patriarch, and to make matters worse, does not even consult the Synod regarding this declaration. He then claims this is essentially papism in nature. It has nothing to do with the idea of sobornost, it is about synodality. But neither this nor the quote above should be in the article, because IT IS NOT STATED IN THE NAMED SOURCE AND FURTHER IT IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The Archpriest's own words should be quoted, not just interpreted by unnamed (in the article) original research sources.

Those are the problems just with that paragraph.

It is debatable if it is even worth mentioning some of these reactions.

A few relevant guides:

WP:FRINGE

WP:UNDUE

WP:LABEL (regarding "fundamentalist" "radical" and "emotional" labels)

WP:WEASEL (regarding unnamed groups, "others")

Frankly the entire paragraph should be removed until someone can write it properly. (Do not know Russian, so cannot write the quotes in 100% grammatical accuracy).

If you want to keep the same structure, have it say something like, Archpriest Vladislav Emelyanov stated, "blahblahblah". Priest Alexei Morozov stated, "blahblahblah". Then you can, if you really wanted to have a reaction of a reaction, keep in Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev and his statements, or even add in Sergei's statements. But do not see point in adding Sergei's statement in at the same time as the other. There is no reason to inject editors opinions into the article, or to inject interpretations outside of the sources. I am sure the reader has a brain.

Put the style of paragraph 2 of the section into paragraph 1.75.73.150.255 (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * yes, I completely agree that the section needs to be rewritten. I edited the way I did in this section to cause less headaches for myself. I was looking for other sources to support/refute the content. The "reaction to a reaction" content is in other sections too. This section started as:
 * I was searching for fundamentalist radical groups like Union of Orthodox Christian Gonfalon Bearers, whose motto is "Orthodoxy or death" that may have disagreed with Kirill's actions.
 * Emelyanov's group is Движение 'Сопротивление Новому Мировому Порядку (Movement "Resist the New World Order").
 * I about "adding a paragraph about Kirill's authority, to meet and to sign joint statements, as defined in the 2000 statutes would be good background".
 * About the terms radical and fundamentalist, yes they are WP:LABELs, I selected those because the term ultraconservative was not in the article. I do not think a "more neutral description" is fitting, the Google translation shows what Chapnin wrote.
 * This is not new, themoscowtimes.com described in 1994 that:
 * "the Orthodox Church is in the midst of a heated struggle between a number of factions. The basic ideas of these factions, though, boil down to a struggle between openness and reform on one hand and isolation and ultra-conservatism on the other."
 * "Supporters of the latter view, naturally, have come to join forces with the country's political conservatives, paradoxically supporting both the extreme wing of Russian fascism and resurgent communism. The three movements share a common ideology -- the ideology of power -- and a common platform -- Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. They never use the word 'Christianity', only 'Orthodoxy' and in general they see Moslems as closer to themselves than Western Catholics and Protestants."
 * About the "who condemn any rapprochement" is Chapnin's words "осуждают всякое сближение", I thought this was going to be contentious and so I added the Russian language quote into.
 * Another article on dsnmp.ru about another reaction was from 3rm.info about a cleric who refuses to commemorate Kirill and calls him a heretic the article does not include his bishop's reply.
 * Another article on dsnmp.ru about another reaction was from 3rm.info about a cleric who refuses to commemorate Kirill and calls him a heretic the article does not include his bishop's reply.


 * About the term emotional, I selected it because it is described as a feeling of betrayal in the source. I will change it to "felt betrayed"
 * The, of the , shows internal links to pages about barcoding, chipping, globalization, mixing of peoples, total control, vaccination, zombies, etc. and a crossed out image of world currencies in its header – the site has fringe content. Yes, I did not correctly attribute the comment to the author but to the website.
 * The flashsiberia.com article which was a source for the newsru.com article also stated that Emelyanov's diocese called Emelyanov's statements "harmful and unreasonable" (вредными и неразумными).


 * I think Alfeyev's statement in paragraph 2 is important because he addresses the criticism, i.e. acknowledges that there is criticism and Alfeyev publicly describes it as faulty reasoning. Quoting Morozov's and Chapnin's statement would also add balance.
 * I will rewrite the paragraph today or tomorrow but restore the now. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC); modified 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally, I align with the arguments by User talk:75.73.150.255. Rule of thumb: no labels and judgmental epithets unless in referenced quotes. Axxxion (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a decades long factional "struggle between openness and reform on one hand and isolation and ultra-conservatism on the other," according to Mikhail Gorelik in 1994. The religious ultraconservatives "share a common ideology" of Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality with fascist and communist political ultraconservatives. According to Gorelik, they "see Moslems as closer to themselves than Western Catholics."


 * Paul Goble wrote in 2015 that according to Yevgeny Ikhlov, Kirill expresses "a kind of Orthodox Fundamentalism that not only resembles the more familiar Islamist variant but like it will encourage those who want to attack modernity in the name of traditional rural values to engage in violence." "But what is 'most important' in the current context, Ikhlov argues, is this: Russia has been the arena for a struggle between those who celebrate the village and the past and those who believe that the future can and must be defined by urban civilization rather than by the patriarchal village."


 * "Putin lays claim to a divine authority."  The ROC supports Putin and "is instrumental in the Kremlin's ideological machinery. Included among the most notorious Kremlin propagandists are Orthodox activists. One example is, a vehement supporter of" Kirill "and a Christian fundamentalist, who claims that 'all authority comes from God,' in an attempt to justify Putin's unchallenged rule in Russia."
 * "Thanks to the Kremlin's propaganda machinery, Russian society increasingly lives in two parallel worlds – a real one and a virtual one. 'Soviet people got used to living in two parallel realities. They were poor in objective reality, but, in a virtual reality, they felt powerful.' The official propaganda machine continues to attempt to create a parallel reality for Russian citizens. Its main goal is to portray the West as the enemy of the interests of the Russian people."
 * Orthodox fundamentalism is not only found in the Russian Federation. The communist regime of the Socialist Republic of Romania "was tolerant, and to some extent even supportive of the" Romanian Orthodox Church, "but the fundamentalist Orthodox tradition was censored due both to its doctrine of the prevalence of spiritual over material life, and its association with the Iron Guard. After 1989 intellectuals rediscovered Orthodox fundamentalism."
 * "There are no reliable estimates on the number of Orthodox fundamentalists," according to Chapnin.
 * Chapnin points to the the website 3rm.info as an example of the "information campaigns in parishes and online" that some groups associated with staretses use to "give the impression of widespread protests."
 * I think there should be a new article about Eastern Orthodox fundamentalism like there is for Fundamentalist Christianity (which is mostly about Protestants), Hindu fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism Jewish fundamentalism, and Mormon fundamentalism.


 * –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)